I am very glad the conversation has turned to the program issue. I was reluctant to bring it up because it seemed off topic. ( And I was depressed because no one else seemed to be worried about? the overuse of fluency and phonics programs.)
I appreciate the support of my feelings about programs and just throwing kids into them. I agree with nearly everything that has been said, esp. the part about Allington - he is my hero. The forms of data that are driving instruction are?the problem in my school. And I don't really see a way out of that, due to RtI rules for scientifically based research. ( An off-topic aside - Is anyone else doing RtI yet? It doesn't really go into effect until next year, but we are practicing. ) Anyway, back on topic... Beverlee said this: Those such as Susan O'Hanian would wonder if it's not politically deliberate.? Whatever: it's heartbreaking and terrifying for our education in a democracy. I will reply with "Don't get me started!" and leave it at that. My blood pressure will go up if I start thinking about the politics and money-making involved in education right now. However, I think the use of the programs is the key. For example, I know a teacher who is working with the Daily Five format. There are plenty of programs that could fit into some of the components, scientifically-research based or not, and putting those into place would be appropriate, depending on the needs of the students.?And the program components need to fit in with the rest of the instruction, esp. that which focuses?primarily on making meaning.?We can't spend too much time on the surface structures; they are a means to an end. So, I am rethinking some?of the "essentials" conversation and revisiting the cognitive strategies section of?To Understand, and thinking about the big essential - meaning.? The?"programs" to support surface structure and easy to develop and (suppposedly) research - that is why they are so prevalent and are being cranked out and marketed so ambitiously. Programs for deep structures are tougher - and probably impossible - to?create, because we have to let the kids take the lead. Hard to follow a script when as soon as you ask a child what he knows about a tornadoes, he tells you he used to live in Kansas and was in an?F-5 one time, etc..(This happened to me!) The teaching of the deep structures requires real?knowledge on the part of the teacher, and this may be the heart?of the issue.?We have to work at helping teachers value their own knowledge enough to not rely on the teacher's guide.? (See Peter's and Bev's comments below.) ( I am not sure I am making sense. First day back after spring break and a bit brain dead.) Cathy K-5 DE -----Original Message----- From: Beverlee Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:33 am Subject: Re: [Understand] Chapter 2 PETER:My problem with programs is that it is sapping the thinking out of teaching. Too many new folks are utilizing programs as their first shot of instruction when they are in their first year of teaching and not having to 'savor the struggle" of teaching reading. It is so frustrating. BEV: I would agree. Those such as Susan O'Hanian would wonder if it's not politically deliberate. Whatever: it's heartbreaking and terrifying for our education in a democracy. PETER:Good is the enemy of great. Great is the enemy of possible. Possible is what we would always be shooting for. BEV: WOW!! _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Mobile_Zune_V3 _______________________________________________ Understand mailing list [email protected] http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org _______________________________________________ Understand mailing list [email protected] http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/listinfo/understand_literacyworkshop.org
