On 1/12/07 4:21 PM, "Joy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will send to this list tomorrow (I have to find it at work) a set of > criteria that originates from IRA/NCTE sources/educators and which is > probably more constructivist in its assumptions though ( or in fact a > constructivist approach would expect different perspectives, right?) it sets > out a FULL range of possibilities. What I do like about the second source > is that it includes MANY aspects, issues of literacy to examine....and has > users analyze how they would rank those aspects in terms of importance etc. > So it actually gives a full range instead of the very narrow range provided > by the criteria created by U of Oregon folk and cited by the Florida > "research" center. It expects users to make/ analyze their own beliefs and > priorities and to make assumptions from a full range. So one could use this > list and come up with same outcomes recommended by the Oregon criteria > document. But at least one would have to then be explicit about the > underlying assumptions. Instead the Oregon document assumes neutrality > (assumes that it is the right answer) which it doesn't exemmplify. > Okay all, Finally found it. It was like a mystery wending my way through the National Council Teachers of English website - which by the way has tons of great stuff. And by the way, I've always found NCTE is much stronger around issues of writing than IRA. ncte.org/elem/topics/reading Once get to reading go to reading programs, then to NCTE resolutions/positions related to Professional decision making... Then keep scrolling till you get to Features of Literacy Programs Decision Making Matrix. If for any reason you can't use this URL I went to main page for NCTE, clicked on the box in the right corner (says elementary) go to elementary section, then click on hot topics, then click on reading programs. Think this does it....you have it from there above. Let me know if you have problems. And remember even this matrix in my view doesn't get at the issue that most reading programs (especially now) for whatever reason seem to think they must integrate all aspects of writing so they include spelling and grammar and punctuation along with actual writing. And they all do lousy jobs of helping teachers teach writing effectively. Send them off into lots of worksheets and skills stuff. And act as if pretty much you can just teach individual assignments - even if the prompts aren't always bad. I guess they are trying to "integrate" to make life easier for teachers but it doesn't work. Many many teachers and district leaders that I talk to recognize this - even some whose approaches to literacy aren't as progressive as mine are. Let me know how this works for you! Because I am teaching both sets - the Oregon criteria (basis of Reading First most everywhere) and this one to My graduate students in reading. Sally PS If you want to see the other guide go to University of Oregon, Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement (under College of Education) Find "A Consumer's Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program: Grades K-3: A Critical Elements Analysis. Author Simmons by the way was the person (I believe) who was hired in California to write our state standards. Our historical process of having a representative group work to analyze and summarize research and create standards from that work was trashed/thrown out. So looking at this guide, you can see the assumptions behind our state standards. Pretty sad. _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
