I agree somewhat. >From my perspective, I see kids who come to school after their first four or five years sitting in front of a TV or PlayStation. There is very little to build on when they arrive at school because their best learning years are already behind them.
We begin by teaching them what they already should have known before they ever came to school. Kindergarten, first and second grade texts have lots of pictures, there¹s coloring to do etc. These kids are already behind when they started. Under normal circumstances at the end of second grade, one can begin the transition for third grade. However, these kids are barely second grade material. Then, POW! third grade. Texts have lots more words than pictures. It¹s a different level of interaction with assignments, more reading, more writing, higher-order thinking skills and the like. They fall further behind. They cannot make the transition there let alone the transition to Middle School style work of High School. It really starts at home because their best learning years are before the age of five. One has to have something to build on. They have to know something before they can be taught something else. On 4/3/08 8:43 PM, "Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Newberg comments on the fourth grade slump: > > "Others have shown that early school achievement is a strong predictor of high > school completion (Stroup and Robims 1972). We were also interested in > reaching students before the "fourth grade slump," the sudden drop-off between > third and fourth grade in the reading scores of low-income students (Chall et > al. 1990). Recognizing the need to intervene earlier in the lives of the > children chosen to participate in the SYTE program, subsequent classes of SYTE > have been identified as early as kindergarten. The new model recognizes that > establishing a connection with children early allows the program the best > opportunity to capitalize on their strengths and requires less remediation of > neglected problems (Bogaines 1993)." > > Newberg, Norman A 2006. The Gift of Education. How a Tuition Gaurantee > Program Changed the Lives of Inner City Youth. The State University of New > York Press, Albany: 192 > > > > In this week¹s UC Review, University High School to Close in 2010 for Two Year > Renovation, consider this vague mention (the only printed mention to date): > > "Penn and Drexel have said they would work with the feeder middle schools to > better prepare those children for the more advanced academic opportunities in > their neighborhood school." > > > > Neighbors, if the Penn/Drexel school were being designed by real Penn experts > from the school of education, they absolutely would know that they must, first > and foremost, provide details about preparing the local kids! The effects of > poverty are measurable much earlier than middle school regardless of funded or > under-funded schools!!! > > How do years of underfunded schools and barriers to quality extra curricular > activities compound the problems that start early? Wilma pointed out that > lots of us don't understand the range of issues or problems teachers do their > best (and often a heroic job) to deal with daily. Properly funded schools > (and fewer students with other problems associated with poverty) have more > supporting factors. The big problems like large class size are sometimes > recognized. Teacher turnover, low pay, low support of staff, and the resulting > poor morale can all be addressed with proper funding. > > If Penn/Drexel start real quality interventions now, it would take years > before the gaps caused by decades of neglect would prepare neighborhood kids, > in any significant way, for any of the magnet high schools. > > But, the new UC high school is obviously following the history of mapping and > planning our neighborhood for Penn¹s real estate goals. The people of Phila. > simply pay. > > The most important details, the oblique plan for assisting the "feeder > schools," doesn¹t even make sense on the surface. The need for much earlier > intervention is so obvious and established that the only possible conclusion > is that the neighborhood is being deceived. > > Penn and Drexel have no intention of making a real effort to reach the kids > and families they are attempting to deceive. If I am wrong and "the experts" > are sincere, they are so out of touch with the literature that they are > incompetent. They would have made a bold and prominent presentation of the > "assistance" long before selling the magnet school as a replacement. They are > deceiving us and attempting to transfer resources (the building and funds) > from our already under-funded public system for the purpose of attracting > replacement residents and condo buyers! > > Sincerely, > > Glenn > > > > >
