Doug Mann wrote: > I will respond to few issues addressed by Catherine Shreves. > > In a message dated 10/31/2001 8:15:32 PM Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Finally, Mr. Mann's web site contains serious inaccuracies about the MPS > > curriculum, particularly his statement that the look-say method is being > > used. The MPS uses the Houghton Mifflin reading curriculum, which uses a > > combination of phonics, grammar and award winning literature. > > The Houghton Mifflin sales reps did tell many parents what they wanted to > hear: that the new English language curriculum has a phonics component, and > that the curriculum product can be integrated with direct phonics > instruction. However, one year ago I learned that the "phonic piece" > consisted of a scrabble game. Where did I get my information? > > For "phonics instruction" at a Minneapolis Public School, my son attended a > program called "Soar to Success," where he claimed that he never received any > phonics instruction, and that picture books appropriate for children reading > at a first grade level were used by fourth graders. He insisted that one of > his teachers had been handing me a lot of BS about the phonics instruction. > I went to the school to find out what was going on. My son was right on all > counts. > > The school was willing to order a copy of "plaid phonics," which I understood > to be an excellent phonics textbook, and have someone work with my son > one-on-one. I believe that I got that far because I had documented my > concerns in such a way that could go after some teaching licenses if the > school continued to blow me off on this issue. However, at this point there > was no way that my wife and I could keep him in the public schools. > > For over 3 years we tried to change what was happening to my son in the > public school that he attended. Last year we transferred him to a catholic > school which has a more coherent curriculum and doesn't "ability-group." He > is now getting an education in a non-hostile environment that he was entitled > to receive in the public schools. Pulling him out of the public schools was, > as you said, a good choice (We have discussed this situation). But it's not > the kind of choice that any parent should be forced to make. This conflict between Mr. Mann and Ms. Shreves identifies the ground zero of the education wars. The issue in question is really very subtle and is hidden in the rhetoric, but can be clearly identified once you know how to spot it. It is the reason I am unlikely to place my children in the public schools and why I would advise others not to. Mr. Mann states that the MPS don't teach phonics and Ms. Shreves states that they use uses a combination of phonics, grammar, and literature. Not knowing the details I asked someone who I know is an expert in the MPS curriculum. The answer is phonics instruction is embedded in the grammar and literature lessons, there is no focused phonics instruction. This is the crux of the problem and it really breaks down to an invalid philosophical assumption. Educational progressives believe that practices they think are "unnatural," such as drill-and-practice (what they propagandize as "drill-and-kill"), injures students. Why they believe this harks back before the turn of the century and if you're interested you should read John Stone's article on "Developmentalism" ( http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n8.html ). The reason this assumption is so dangerous is that it guarantees failure for a large number of students across class boundaries. Here is why. Reading is a cognitive process that requires a high degree of automatically. Successful readers do not pause on each word, they recognize words automatically and focus quickly on their meaning to develop a representation of what is being read. When they do encounter a word they don't know, they need some way to determine what that word is. Without this ability sentences are filled with meaningless symbols and children cannot build the necessary representation. Without a method to "sound-out" words, passages of text become uninterpretable. Since kids know far more words that they can read, phonics is the bridge to meaning. The problem is that phonics itself must become both a fast and automatic process, and the only way I know of making a cognitive process fast and automatic is by focused and repeated practice. And, I challenge anyone to to claim differently. Although some children maybe able to develop compensatory methods on their own (I am phonologically dyslexic and yet I'm a good reader), vast numbers of kids will be doomed to failure. This banishment of drill-and-practice from the schools flies in the face of everything we know about expertise. To become a good musician you have to practice scales. To become a good baseball player you have to practice catching ground balls. One famous musician when asked why he still practiced when he in his eighties replied, "With a little more practice I think I can get it just right." (That's paraphrased, I can't find the direct quote). Anyway, the reason that practice is so important is because it has a neurological basis. It takes time to tune all those neurons just right and this doesn't happen by practicing a skill infrequently. And, it doesn't happen by nesting that practice within other tasks where the required skill is repeated only infrequently. The fact that the MPS have sold their souls to Progressive philosophy is, in my opinion, the primary reason that they are failing to educate our children. For an alternative method that has been proven to be instructionally effective see: http://www.uncwil.edu/people/kozloffm/aftdi.html Michael Atherton Prospect Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
