A little levity is a good thing every now and again, no? So, as regular readers probably have inferred, I read cartoons. Recently I came across Mark Anderson’s Andertoons, which includes a selection about teaching, teachers, schooling, education, and etc. So, I took advantage of a script available from Mr. Anderson’s site to pull an illustrative cartoon into this post.
Continue reading ‘Another ‘toon source’
Monthly Archive for September, 2008
According to a report by W. Steven Barnett, although preschool programs are highly variable in their quality, there is good reason to support policies that make preschool available to young children, especially preschool programs that employ effective practices. The report, “Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications,” was released today by the Education and the Public Interest Center (University of Colorado at Boulder) and the Education Policy Research Unit (Arizona State University).
Amid a contentious debate over the benefit of preschool programs, a new policy brief, Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications examines what researchers currently know about the potential of those programs to bring about positive change. It finds that preschool can strongly benefit children’s learning and development. But the brief also finds that the quality of programs varies dramatically and that increased public investment in preschool education should be focused on program designs that have been demonstrated to be highly effective.
Link to a pdf of Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications.
Sphere: Related ContentThe Reading First Advisory Committee’s response to the Reading First Interim Impact Study has been posted on the US Department of Education Web site. The report, which the committee endorsed 20 August 2008, explains the reasons that the committee considers the impact study incapable of guiding Reading First policy. It is available from the Reading First Web site; because it is possible that the location will change, I am making it available here, too.
Reminder: I am a member of the Reading First Advisory Committee. I am not, however, speaking for the committee, my fellow panelists, nor the US Department of Education here. Note, however, that the committee endorsed this document in a public meeting.
Sphere: Related ContentThe US What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has released a review of the research on another beginning reading program, the Houghton Mifflin Reading© series. As has become expected, no studies meet the pristine standards to which the WWC holds research.
No studies of Houghton Mifflin Reading© that fall within the scope of the Beginning Reading review meet WWC evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Houghton Mifflin Reading©.
Link to the page focusing on Houghton Mifflin’s beginning reading product.
Sphere: Related ContentAfter the recent posting of another Weapon of Math Destruction cartoon, I wondered how many I’d linked to from Teach Effectively, so I checked. There’ve been only seven posts. Here’s a set of links to those posts (in reverse chronological order; fifo):
- Math cartoons
- ‘Nother weapon
- WMD on calculators
- Bad math brain
- WMD on constructivist math
- WMD on FT
- Math murdered
Of course, one can go directly to the source, Weapons of Math Destruction (by Oak Norton and Bob Bonham), and see all of them.
Sphere: Related Content
Latest Comments
RSS