If you want to read a success story, and who doesn’t as the winter doldrums approach, take a look at Jennifer Dubin’s article entitled “Reading Richmond” from the fall 2008 issue of American Edcuator. Ms. Dubin recounts the story of how the Richmond (VA, US) schools improved the quality of reading instruction—using a combination of new curricula, assessments, and professional development—and helped many young children to become successful readers. Link to Ms. Dubin’s article in American Edcuator.
Sphere: Related ContentArchive for the 'Assessment' Category
In “Pre-K Can Work: Needy kids could benefit, but only if we use proven pedagogy and hold programs accountable,” Shepard Barbash of the City Journal describes the conditions he sees as required if pre-kindergarten programs are to benefit the US. Actually, he devotes several paragraphs to describing what’s wrong with pre-k education. Noting that many children from relatively less-advantaged home environments come to pre-k with substantially lower verbal repertoires than their more-advantaged peers, Mr. Barbash indicts the perspective of many early childhood educators about these deficits:
Central to the typical early-childhood educator’s worldview are three ideas: that it’s better for young children to learn through play than through work; that children learn best and are happiest when they can help direct the pace and content of their own learning; and that a child’s mental abilities develop at a natural pace that adults cannot do much to accelerate. If a child fails to learn something, it’s not because the teaching is faulty, in this view; it’s because the child is either “learning disabled” or not yet “developmentally ready” to learn it—a notion derived from the theories of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, who believed that mental abilities developed in age-determined phases.
From these premises flow a host of others. Pre-K teachers learn that it’s not “developmentally appropriate practice” to seat children at desks; to give them worksheets; to make them work to master the alphabet, letter sounds, and math; to assess their academic skills (medical, dental, and nutrition assessments are okay); and to group them by skill level for instruction (because all children should receive equal treatment and because children learn as much from one another as they do from adults). Many things that parents would call common sense are, for the preschool professional, high-risk activities.
The alternative, Mr. Barbash proposes, is to provide Direct Instruction. He illustrates with anecdotes from his own observations of pre-k lessons. And he goes further, arguing in favor of consistent, systematic assessment of children’s competence during the pre-k years.
Read Mr. Barbash’s article at the City Journal.
Sphere: Related ContentMy colleague Dan Willingham produced a brief video explaining why basing instruction on learning styles is bologna. Here it is:
Here’s the YouTube link for Dan Willingham on Learning Styles and here’s a link to Dan’s Web site where one can learn plenty of useful things. Also, see the extended discussion on D-Ed Reckoning.
Sphere: Related Content
Two organizations interested in improving the quality of education in the US have joined together to solicit support for their efforts. The organizations—Great Schools, and ED in 08—created a quiz that challenges parents to take a quiz about their knowledge of math or science (or both) and compare their results to those of students in the US and other countries. They’re using it to promote their agenda that they dub “Strong American Schools.” The image at the right opens a pop-up window from Ed in 08 for you to take the quiz.
Links for the sponsors: Great Schools (”the parent’s guide to K-12 Education”; interesting that they used the singular possesive) and Ed in 08.
Sphere: Related Content
Wrapping up ‘08 RF conference
As reported previously, I had the pleasure of attending the Fifth Annual Reading First National Conference. I found it a very impressive event. Although I really am flattered to be among the folks shown in the accompanying photo (l-f: Donna Scanlon, Joe Conaty, Frank Vellutino, and Katherine Mitchell), I think my favorite part of the event was hearing what the teachers, coaches, and administrators had to say.
When I hear most other folks talk about reading, they use a very different language; they talk about book tubs, word walls, high-interest books, round-robin reading, and such. When I talk with a select few colleagues about reading instruction, I am accustomed to talking about students’ performance on specific measures of component skills, altering teaching demonstrations (e.g., pacing), features of instructional presentations, scaffolding instruction systematically, and etc. For the first time in my life, I was in a place where literally 1000s of people were talking the way I am accustomed to being able to talk with only a few colleagues.
The teachers, coaches, principals, and others whom I met in Nashville know their stuff! Not only that, they know that they can help each other by collaborating using their shared language. There are powerful teams capable of excellent reading instruction scattered around the US now. They know they can teach kids to read. They have done it.
As Joe Conaty pointed out in his closing remarks, no one can take away from those teams what they now know how to do. Remembering this really makes my emotional cup full to overflowing.
Previous posts about the conference: Laura Bush’s comments (29 July 2008); pin map (28 July 2008); overview (28 July 2008).
Sphere: Related ContentFirst Lady Laura Bush spoke to the Reading First conference attendees 29 July in Nashville (TN, US). Following introductory comments by Raymond Simon, US Deputy Secretary of Education, who called for “More Reading First, not less,” Mrs. Bush addressed about 5500 people for about 10 minutes.
After restating the importance of reading in contemporary society, the rationale for evidence-based reading instruction, and the importance of data-based education, Mrs. Bush cited examples of successes in Reading First schools (interrupted by cheers and applause from the representatives of those schools and educators affiliated with them who were in the audience). She ended her comments with a call for restoration of funding of the Reading First program:
Continue reading ‘Laura Bush’s comments on RF’
The Institute for Literacy and Learning is offering an outstanding series of presentations over the next few months. Randy Sprick, Sharon Vaughn, Jan Hasbrouck, Rollanda O’Connor, Deb Glaser, Patricia Mathes, and Lucy Hart-Paulson will present free, on-line chats about discipline, reading, assessment in response-to-instruction models, matching interventions to students’ needs, professional development, early language and literacy, and more.
Continue reading ‘Up-coming ILL sessions’
Latest Comments
RSS