[MOSAIC] teacher expertise was off topic math conversation
Mary and Pete Montoya
monfolkski at cox.net
Sat May 3 18:25:59 EDT 2008
I teach a program (PAL) similar to REACH. Even though we are a title
school, we can still use this model for first graders...
Interestingly enough, I just came back from a training in the Voyager
Program. We are using it for our district SEI/ELL Summer School. Talk about
a scripted program! I have mixed feelings about it. I think for summer
school it will be o.k., but I'm not sure as a Reading Specialist,
that I would be able to use this type of program during the school year.
Has anyone had experience using Voyager? What are your thoughts?
:) Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: <CNJPALMER at aol.com>
To: <mosaic at literacyworkshop.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 10:39 AM
Subject: [MOSAIC] teacher expertise was off topic math conversation
>
> Bonita
> You are the best...truly!
>
> What a fascinating and thoughtful question! I will reply and ask you to
> consider cross-posting a version of it on the To Understand list where
there are
> some other souls who might be interested in discussing the topic. (I am
> hoping that those of you on both lists will understand why that might be
a good
> thing to do.)
>
> Your post is of personal interest to me right now. We have had, up to
this
> point, a fantastic reading intervention in our district called Reach.
Reach was
> a reading recovery clone which pulled many, many first and second
graders to
> a proficient or better level. We never had the money as a district to
become
> truly reading recovery...we used highly trained instructional
assistants to
> implement the program under the direction of reading specialists. There
was
> continual staff development including "behind the glass" sessions where
we
> helped build their knowledge of how to teach reading and how reading
developed.
> These assistants read Marie Clay...gave running records, leveled their
books
> and just did a fantastic job all around. For years it was universally
> acknowledged that this intervention was successful...not for every
student, but
> about 75% of all our kids in the program would meet and continue to
meet grade
> level standards.
>
> Well, under NCLB and the resulting current state guidelines, Reach is
not a
> 'researched based' program. Can you tell where this is going??? Rumor
has it
> that the title one schools in our area will no longer be using
Reach...they
> will be going instead to a scripted heavily phonics based program. Now
I will
> tell you that I absolutely do NOT condemn this choice...the schools
really
> have no choice. If they don't use a research based program, there is no
chance
> to appeal when schools fail to meet adequate yearly progress. I know
these
> scripted programs do work to build decoding skills for some kids...and I
know
> that the reading specialists in our district understand the need for
balance
> and will ensure that these kids get comprehension instruction as well.
>
> What saddens me is that we are handing these instructional assistants
> scripts and not putting our resources into helping them understand the
nature of
> how reading develops and how to make good choices in instruction. It
won't
> matter for a few years...these ladies (mostly they are women who are
willing to
> work for little pay) already know a lot from the time we have invested
in
> building their expertise...but as they retire or move to greener
pastures, we
> will have moved the focus from teaching assistants to technicians.
>
> I am lucky...I am not in a title one school and I can keep going with
> Reach...albeit without the district level training and support. But...I
am feeling
> the pressure to at least explore the researched based programs and train
> folks in one so that I can ensure that the positive affects of using a
scripted
> program outweigh the great number of negatives. Using a researched based
> program in addition or as a supplement to Reach may be required to keep
us out of
> AYP jail within a very few years.
>
> Bonita, a colleague of mine always says that a good, quality curriculum
is a
> floor...not the ceiling. We need that...but we also need even more,
teachers
> who understand how kids learn to read, how to respond to the different
needs
> of the children in front of them. Lesson study, to me, would fill the
second
> requirement, but not the first. Lesson study is about the process of
> teaching, to me, not a way to find out what to teach.
> As a beginning teacher, I would have been lost without my anthology
teachers
> guide. It is a floor...but by now, I don't even crack open the
covers...and
> there is no way I feel that I know enough to say I have the ceiling in
sight!
>
> Hmmm... I don't think I am even beginning to answer all your
questions...I
> guess my first thoughts here are that we need a quality curriculum to
start
> with...and then highly trained teachers who know how to build from that
to meet
> the needs of their kids.
> Jennifer
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 5/3/2008 12:36:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> bonitadee61 at ca.rr.com writes:
>
> Sorry Jennifer,
>
> I always forget that the Mosiac list tries to keep true to reading
> comprehension. When a topic is raised where I have thoughts or passion,
I tend to jump
> in. That said, I will now make the connection between all this math
talk and
> reading comprehension.
>
> Do teachers require materials that dictate day to day instruction in
order
> to teach reading comprehension (in any subject) and teach it well? Is
> comprehension something in which we are so versed we do "not need" the
support of a
> specific text? Is comprehension so fundamentally different from other
> subjects (like math or science) that we should be left to fish around
and do it our
> own way without articulation through the grades? I ask this honestly,
> because I do not know or even have an idea of the answer. The
difference, to me,
> it seems, is that reading comprehension does not develop in any sort of
> linear fashion. That we are all teaching "all of comprehension" at all
grade
> levels. Am I correct in this thinking?
>
> I am playing devil's advocate here. I know, Jennifer, that you are
involved
> in lesson study on comprehension, a very in-depth process of
professional
> development that is teacher-driven (not district "assigned"). Would
such
> teacher development be enough to assure quality comprehension
instruction at all
> grade levels? Could it inform us where, developmentally, certain
comprehension
> should and should not be taught?
>
> :)Bonita--trying to get back on track ;)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mosaic mailing list
> Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org
> To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to
> http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.
>
> Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on
family
> favorites at AOL Food.
> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
> _______________________________________________
> Mosaic mailing list
> Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org
> To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to
> http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.
>
> Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.5/1399 - Release Date:
4/26/2008 2:17 PM
>
More information about the Mosaic
mailing list