[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Then Doug Mann wrote:> Seems to me if a parent can't or doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to tutor their own
> child in their own home, one on one, to assure they have some sort of
> rudimentary reading skills prior to them entering kindergarten or first
> grade, it's a little unrealistic to expect a teacher could possibly
> accomplish it, no matter what the class size.
It is true that many parents could do a better job of parenting. However,I would just like to point out that there are some kids who are simply "not ready" to read before kindergarten -- and it can be counterproductive to force them. Secondly, there are some kids who will probably never learn to read if they don't get a phonetic approach.
the schools would make our job of parenting a lot easier if the school system
did a better job of educating our kids. That's what the school board and its
employees are getting paid for, is it not?
My son is one of those kids. He was read to incessantly and encouraged to read. But until I got him into tutoring at SPA, where they use the Orton-Gillingham phonetic approach, he didn't stand a chance. Not long after that, a couple of the Special Ed teachers at Seward got training in the Orton method and that helped at school too. I have been told that up to 15% of kids are not going to learn to read unless they learn phonetically. That is not what most of the schools teach. And it is certainly not something parents know how to do. Teachers are paid to teach, and I don't think we should be blaming parents if the kids don't learn. On the other hand, I don't think we should condemn all teachers either.
This is a system we are looking at. There is a lot of poverty, families moving, kids with illiterate or semi-literate parents, families with crises, illness, alcohol and drug addiction. When you have a population with problems, the number of kids in a class makes a huge difference. If you have even 20 kids in a class, that allows you to have a whooping 3 minutes per hour of one-on-one time with each kid -- assuming you did nothing else. I know that if my son is having a problem and not getting some concept, he needs someone to talk to him directly, without distraction, so he can ask his questions and get answers. I don't think that is just because of his learning problems. I think no real change will come in Mpls unless we continue to reduce class size and develop programs for tutoring kids after school hours, in the schools. And a summer school program that, again, does not have such large classes. But that costs money, and there is a contingent of greedy neanderthals who simply don't want to hear it. They talk about running things like a business, but I've never heard of a business with one copy machine for 700 students, like we have at Seward, and where paper is rationed. The comparison stinks.
The schools are here to educate the public. That means everyone. They are supposed to support democracy. Democracy in a society like ours doesn't work well when people can't read. And while all of society's problems are not the result of poor schooling, there are a lot of kids who could be kept off drugs and out of gangs if they could succeed in school. While the schools can't be the cure for society's ills, they can surely provide a hub from which to help kids and their families. But that can only happen if we care enough and if we are willing to put more money into it. And now Jesse says that all the departments have to cut by 10%. I would say that the best thing any of us could do is create a stink about them taking any more money from our schools, when what we should be doing is putting in more.
Diane Wiley
Powderhorn
