Re: [UC] The fourth grade slumpWhat part of this explanation hasn't already
been said? Isn't this why we instituted Head Start over 30 or 40 years ago?
Not that we allowed it to remain effective.
Sande Knight
----- Original Message -----
From: Wilma de Soto<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Glenn<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; UnivCity
listserv<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: [UC] The fourth grade slump
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, there's 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. It's 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 week's 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 Penn's real estate goals. The people of
Phila. simply pay.
The most important details, the oblique plan for assisting the "feeder
schools," doesn't 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
