Comments on: The bogus reform bowl http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/01/21/the-bogus-reform-bowl/ Evidence-based teaching methods for helping students who are at risk for school failure or who have disabilities. Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:57:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: KrisD http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/01/21/the-bogus-reform-bowl/#comment-63585 KrisD Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:52:55 +0000 http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/01/21/the-bogus-reform-bowl/#comment-63585 Nuts I missed the vote for this one. Hands down has to be the Block Scheduling garbage. This is one of the few "initiatives" that still gets pitched and adopted from time to time that actually has stacks of objective research panning it and nothing but anecdotal evidence to support it. Nuts I missed the vote for this one. Hands down has to be the Block Scheduling garbage. This is one of the few “initiatives” that still gets pitched and adopted from time to time that actually has stacks of objective research panning it and nothing but anecdotal evidence to support it.

]]> By: JohnL http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/01/21/the-bogus-reform-bowl/#comment-63291 JohnL Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:23:53 +0000 http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/01/21/the-bogus-reform-bowl/#comment-63291 Courtney, this is good: <blockquote>I mean, what other organ have we targeted in the past?</blockquote> You have it there. However, the promoters of brain-based education haven't quite caught up with you. They promote something new, and one of their principle rebuttals is that those of us who consider learning, memory, and related areas of psychology pretty important are basically burying our heads in the sand. Someone sent me a note the other day talking about pancreas-based learning. Meanwhile, we have Eric & Diane Jensen's recommendations that have enough currency to make it into <i>Phi Delta Kappan</i>! Now, I can understand why a professional organization would foster conversation about contemporary ideas (and please see the commentaries on the Jensen PDK article). I endorse the idea of free and open debate. However, when an unarmed debater is cheered on, I have to wonder... sigh... where did our education system fail the cheerers? I think this issue makes the case for teaching reasoning during the primary and elementary grades Courtney, this is good:

I mean, what other organ have we targeted in the past?

You have it there. However, the promoters of brain-based education haven’t quite caught up with you. They promote something new, and one of their principle rebuttals is that those of us who consider learning, memory, and related areas of psychology pretty important are basically burying our heads in the sand.

Someone sent me a note the other day talking about pancreas-based learning. Meanwhile, we have Eric & Diane Jensen’s recommendations that have enough currency to make it into Phi Delta Kappan!

Now, I can understand why a professional organization would foster conversation about contemporary ideas (and please see the commentaries on the Jensen PDK article). I endorse the idea of free and open debate. However, when an unarmed debater is cheered on, I have to wonder… sigh… where did our education system fail the cheerers?

I think this issue makes the case for teaching reasoning during the primary and elementary grades

]]> By: Kathleen McLane http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/01/21/the-bogus-reform-bowl/#comment-62289 Kathleen McLane Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:06:19 +0000 http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/01/21/the-bogus-reform-bowl/#comment-62289 "Witless advocacy" - a wonderful phrase and I wish I'd thought of it. All 4 of these "reforms" deserve to win. I'm very tempted to vote for differentiated instruction ("special ed lite") or brain-based instruction (so much better than the pancreas-based kind), but I think I have to go with block scheduling, just because it affects so many more kids. “Witless advocacy” - a wonderful phrase and I wish I’d thought of it. All 4 of these “reforms” deserve to win. I’m very tempted to vote for differentiated instruction (”special ed lite”) or brain-based instruction (so much better than the pancreas-based kind), but I think I have to go with block scheduling, just because it affects so many more kids.

]]> By: Miss Profe http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/01/21/the-bogus-reform-bowl/#comment-62121 Miss Profe Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:01:27 +0000 http://TeachEffectively.com/2008/01/21/the-bogus-reform-bowl/#comment-62121 I voted for block scheduling. As a foreign language teacher, it doesn't work well, especially at the beginning and intermediate levels. I believe that at these levels, students need to have daily contact with the course material. The same is true of math, at least this is what I have heard from fellow math teachers. I voted for block scheduling. As a foreign language teacher, it doesn’t work well, especially at the beginning and intermediate levels. I believe that at these levels, students need to have daily contact with the course material. The same is true of math, at least this is what I have heard from fellow math teachers.

]]>