Who comes up with this cr*p, you ask? Publishers who make money on
their curriculum and sell it well. Text book publishing is a very
lucrative business. What I don't get is why schools buy into this
stuff. Is it because the boards of education aren't really
educators-they are elected politicians?d

On 10/25/09, just me wrote:
> I totally agree with you. Whole Language, I think, was
> detrimental to children. My young colleagues were taught that
> way and tend to teach that way. We still have theWright books
> that teachers use to teach reading. I had one teacher tell me
> that she was concerned about one of her students because he
> tried to sound out the words. What?
>
> Being a much older teacher, I shut my during this time and
> continued to teach phonics to my special ed children and then
> my 2nd and 3rd graders.
>
> And yes, I'm tired of all this testing as well. We test special
> ed kids, kids who can't speak/read English. How dumb is that?
>
> Who in the world comes up with all this cr*p!!
>
>
>
>
> On 10/25/09, I Couldn't Agree More wrote:
>> On 10/25/09, Not a Whole Language Fan as Such wrote:
>>> "My view,"
>>> You are so right. Good teachers know how to pull the
>>> best of many approaches. However, the newbies that are
>>> trained by the district with one approach, are the
>>> losers. That's what happened to many who had this
>>> "CLEVER" New Zealand woman train them in
>>> Whole Nonsense. Anything was acceptable as long as it
>>> agreed with their style. Yes, the kids had a great time
>>> but they simply could not read independently. It was
>>> all memorization of cutsy books and no substance. Three
>>> year olds can memorize but it doesn't mean they are
>>> actually reading. During that absurd time, we were told
>>> no children should ever be given unfamiliar material to
>>> read. Just when were they supposed pick up a book and
>>> read it?? Thank goodness those people are out of our
>>> district for good!! Perhaps other districts had a more
>>> sensible way of presenting Whole Language than mine
>>> did.
>>>
>>> I do not agree with the testing and regimentation of
>>> today. There needs a blending of both approaches with
>>> some common sense thrown in as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think this shows that not there is not one magic
>>>> bullet that is right every student. Of course, some
>>>> students learn best by whole language and it
>>>> certainly is more authentic and exciting. But some
>>>> students need a phonics approach. (Let's don't forget
>>>> we must now answer to the testing police. Testing is
>>>> absolutely NOT friendly toward whole language) We get
>>>> into trouble when we buy a curriculum and believe it
>>>> is the answer to all our woes. What a huge waste of
>>>> money for districts to purchase an adoption, buy into
>>>> it hook, line and sinker and insist that this is what
>>>> teachers must use, especially if it is a scripted
>>>> program like Open Court. A good teacher uses a mix of
>>>> theories and methods to address the needs of our
>>>> students.
>>>>
>>>> On 10/25/09, Not a Whole Language Fan wrote:
>>>>> H, "Whole language" as such has its
>>>>> place. However, in many districts and mine
>>>>> included, the cart was taken before the horse. Most
>>>>> children respond to a systematic approach to
>>>>> learning to read. Phonics would come first as a
>>>>> springboard to get the kids started. After that is
>>>>> solidly in place, then they should be weaned from
>>>>> phonics and concentrate on contextual clues which
>>>>> increase speed and understanding. Contextual clues
>>>>> also are very valuable for vocabulary development.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way it was taught in my district was to accept
>>>>> any free flowing ramblings in the writing. They
>>>>> were to be in "print rich" classrooms and
>>>>> exposed to wonderful literature. They also would
>>>>> paint pictures and the teachers would throw up
>>>>> captions about what their story was. If they were
>>>>> "enriched" in print, they would learn to
>>>>> read by osmosis. Yeah, right. If that's true, then
>>>>> I should be able to learn to play the piano by
>>>>> listening to the fine music. This was the New
>>>>> Zealand approach complete with the Wright Group
>>>>> (Wrong Group) materials.
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, M, please explain the way whole
>>>>> language should be presented. You seem to be in the
>>>>> know and that's great. You just didn't mention
>>>>> specifically how it should be done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Renee- simple! It wouldn't get done! Now I do
>>>>>> work extra because I want to teach well, but if
>>>>>> EVERY teacher committed to doing this (not
>>>>>> working extra) to make a point I would
>>>>>> participate. I think it would send a strong
>>>>>> message. I know if I did this this weekend I
>>>>>> wouldn't have any lesson plans for next week!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And a side note about Whole Language- no, Renee
>>>>>> didn't post this, but I saw it on another
>>>>>> comment. Whole Language is good. Many people have
>>>>>> no clue what real Whole Language practice is.
>>>>>> Actually, most do not. Principals, districts,
>>>>>> etc. took it and created their own version- as
>>>>>> what almost always happens. Readers and Writers
>>>>>> Workshop is alive and well in many classrooms,
>>>>>> and children are thriving on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/09, Renee G wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/09, yep wrote:
>>>>>>>> Boy did you hit the nail on the head. Of
>>>>>>>> course, the state is going to say that
>>>>>>>> "funding on a shoestring" is
>>>>>>>> working-only because TEACHERS ALWAYS make
>>>>>>>> things work. We're working our behinds
>>>>>>>> off-but no one sees or admits that.
>>>>>>>> Conditions are abysmal, class sizes are too
>>>>>>>> big, and we don't have enough or any prep
>>>>>>>> time-yet we make it work. It's imperative
>>>>>>>> that this time we don't make it work, that we
>>>>>>>> "complain" loudly and clearly, and
>>>>>>>> make sure parents and students feel the
>>>>>>>> difference. Otherwise, we're stuck-even when
>>>>>>>> money comes back to California
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What would happen if......
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .... teachers worked ONLY their assigned hours
>>>>>>> (and not at home)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ..... teachers did not spend their own money...
>>>>>>> not a dime.... on their classrooms?
>>>>>>>

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one