Bev First of all...I post from two web addresses...CNJPalmer and Jennifer Palmer. Posts from me come from my school account and my home account. I am NOT offended...not in the least. If you look at the chart Ellin put in chapter two about what happens in our lives when we understand...she writes that we "engage in rigorous discourse about ideas...we consider the perspectives of others and challenge them until we understand our own and others' opinions and principles...."
We need to listen to each other, disagree respectfully, ask questions so that we ALL deepen our understanding. So, Bev, disagree away! We need to do this as professionals. I think I made clear that I am not a program person...I believe in teachers as professionals should be deciding on what is best for their kids, but it is our responsibility to know our kids well enough to make the best decisions. What bothers me is when all kids at-risk are put into the same intervention program whether or not it is a good match for them. Then, Bev, I agree that the kids and teachers time is squandered. If a kid is below grade level due to comprehension, then more phonics or fluency interventions are just wrong for that kid. I don't think we can ever say that a program is all bad...all kids learn differently and as reading specialist I have seen kids take some rather unusual, convoluted paths to literacy. Programs like Peter refers to work very well for some kids for some skills and we need to give kids what they need. I believe we need to keep in mind that as we discuss what is essential in literacy instruction, we perhaps need to add some consideration for learning styles and an openess to different approaches for teaching. I like to say that I am a constructivist---at least heading down that path. The creativity of teaching---the intellectual challenge of meeting the needs of a variety of students---is what attracted me to the profession and why I would personally be devastated if I had to use a scripted program. But I have to keep in my head the idea that perhaps not all kids will benefit the most from my approach to teaching. I have to consider that kids learn differently and that some might really get some of what they need from a program if it is a good match to their needs and learning styles. Jennifer Palmer Reading Specialist, National Board Certified Teacher FLES- Lead the discovery, Live the learning, Love the adventure. Reading furnishes the mind only with the materials of knowledge. It is thinking that makes what we read ours. -John Locke From: Beverlee Paul Sent: Sun 3/30/2008 10:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Understand] Chapter 2 from Jennifer: I totally agree with your recommendation re: Dick Allington's book...his guiding principles--the struggling kids need expert instruction, high volume of time in text that they can actually read, attention to comprehension and higher level thinking etc...have been our bible at my school where most of the intervention happens directly in the classroom setting rather that from a pull out, scripted program. my intellect tells me that it isn't 'programs' that are the problem, it is how they are implemented. I know of some programs in my own district that I hear about that are very successful---particularly in building surface structures. What we need to do as teachers of reading, however, is to advocate for balance. Are our students receiving scripted phonics or fluency programs ALSO getting exposure to thoughtful comprehension instruction? continued from Bev: Yes, I agree whole-heartedly with your first paragraph. I do, however, somewhat disagree with the last two paragraphs above. I know that they're true, and I do agree, but . . . I somehow think that it's partly us trying to rationalize having to do heavy phonics and fluency programs. Reading Rereading Fluency gave me the concrete information I needed to continue to disagree. I know it's tempting to say that if we add comprehension instruction to the phonics and fluency, that will make up for their weaknesses, but I really don't think it's that simple. If they were neutrals, it would be. If they were basically fine (and did nothing worse than squander teacher and student time) and we could add something to them to balance our program, and we added comprehension instruction, that would be one matter. However, I don't believe that to be true. I don't think that those programs are neutral. And that's why I say we all need to read Rereading Fluency if we are to continue the dialogue as a profession. I think the evidence is just starting to trickle in that these programs are not just unbalanced; they may be harmful in more ways than we can currently describe. Having said all that (and hoping I'm not offending anyone, especially Jennifer), I know that's it's perfectly easy for me as one who doesn't have to currently use those programs (never say never) to condemn them as negatives, rather than simply something which is incomplete, but it isn't easy to even consider that possibility if you're "stuck" with them. _______________________________________________ Understand mailing list [email protected] http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
