The current presidential debate has sparked much controversy, overloaded facebook walls, and caused a bit of unrest in several parts of the country. The article found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2012/10/25/will-teachers-help-decide-presidential-election/?wprss=rss_education describes one man's view of how influential teachers will be on deciding the presidential election.
I thought it was interesting to note that teachers most often back Democrats, but now in the second election Obama is in, may not back any candidate because of the extreme stress Obama's policies put on teachers (Strauss). I am not sure if I agree with this statement because Obama's policies are more research-based than NCLB from Bush's adminstration. Politics can get tricky, but after watching the debates, hearing the criticism, I am still left puzzled as to what each candidate says they are going to do to improve the quality of our schools, and if they care, what value do they see in schooling. The article explained how teachers and administrators were upset that Obama's policies "silence[d] their voices" and created a sense of distrust of the president (Strauss). I too feel overwhelmed with all of the testing necessary, and the push for data for everything. Yes, research and data are vital pieces of being an effective teacher, but when it starts to consume every lesson and become the focus, I think something needs to change. Once a former teacher is elected to make decisions on schooling, it is my thought that kids will finally be getting what they need.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Blog 3-Phonological Awareness
Tonight's class on phonological awareness sparked a great deal of interest in me. This is my first year teaching first grade, and I love the way Houghtin Mifflin readers are so easy to follow, but thinking critically about it, the program does not work for my students. With regards to diversity, the leveled readers are not representative of the diversity of cultures we see each day, and with looking on the Houghtin Mifflin website at http://www.hmhco.com/, what they say is very different from what their product delivers.
In class we discussed the continuum in Carolyn's article on page 688 that shows the developmentally appropriate way to teach phonological awareness to emergent readers (Pufpaff). At my school our entire reading program is based around 3-4 consonants, and a vowel sound each week. The simplicity helps me to plan, and the lessons in the curriculum guide are convenient as a back up, but my students are not inspired to read more because of it. Their sight word fluency, and word-solving strategies have improved, but I credit that to the new morning message plus I am using the incorporate sight words, and the word solving strategy animals I use to teach them what to do if they do not know a word. As a critical, reflective educator who recognizes something is wrong with the reading curriculum, I believe that the Developmental Sequence on page 688 (Pufpaff). In looking at the mission statement of Houghtin Mifflin it clearly states the following:
Curiosity: We value enabling and promoting the curiosity of others, resulting in remarkable discoveries and new ideas.
Effectiveness and Reliability: Our content and our solutions must be more than just innovative, they must be effective and reliable.
Learning: We are passionate learners. We are driven by the promise of understanding new ideas. We are committed to improving teaching and learning around the world.
Performance: We are driven to overcome obstacles and succeed. We recognize our role in ensuring the success of others and we are committed to achieving our goals.
In terms of culturally-responsive practice to help struggling readers with phonological awareness, in a manner that is developmentally appropriate, their mission statement does not match their product. Basal readers do not foster curiosity, passion, or improve learning around the world in the manner that more engaging books could. My question to other educators is, what can we do if our school has adopted such a curriculum? How can we incorporate more meaningful text not just into whole group discussions, but into guided reading, so that the students remember reading as enjoyable, inspiring, and interesting?
In class we discussed the continuum in Carolyn's article on page 688 that shows the developmentally appropriate way to teach phonological awareness to emergent readers (Pufpaff). At my school our entire reading program is based around 3-4 consonants, and a vowel sound each week. The simplicity helps me to plan, and the lessons in the curriculum guide are convenient as a back up, but my students are not inspired to read more because of it. Their sight word fluency, and word-solving strategies have improved, but I credit that to the new morning message plus I am using the incorporate sight words, and the word solving strategy animals I use to teach them what to do if they do not know a word. As a critical, reflective educator who recognizes something is wrong with the reading curriculum, I believe that the Developmental Sequence on page 688 (Pufpaff). In looking at the mission statement of Houghtin Mifflin it clearly states the following:
In terms of culturally-responsive practice to help struggling readers with phonological awareness, in a manner that is developmentally appropriate, their mission statement does not match their product. Basal readers do not foster curiosity, passion, or improve learning around the world in the manner that more engaging books could. My question to other educators is, what can we do if our school has adopted such a curriculum? How can we incorporate more meaningful text not just into whole group discussions, but into guided reading, so that the students remember reading as enjoyable, inspiring, and interesting?
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Blog 2-Morning Message
After reading the article entitled, "Morning Message Time: An Exploratory Study in Head Start," I began to take a more critical look at how I run morning message, and the evidence behind my methods. It is my first year teaching at the elementary level, and with all the new curriculum and students, I try to incorporate all the necessary elements to make my students successful, but I don't always have time to think critically about all of its components before setting in into action. In the article it talked a lot about how teachers should write the message in front of students, and should reinforce key vocabulary. This was disheartening to me because I was writing the entire schedule of the day in each subject on the message, and having students find certain consonants, words, or analyze interesting words. My school uses Houghtin Mifflin, and I found myself always having to scramble and use the activities in the teacher's guide, but when my reading specialist came in to do a model lesson of "Message Time Plus" I really listening closely to her methods.
From the interest sparked by the article, and the model lesson done by the reading specialist, I know feel more confident because I am doing my morning message as the article and my reading specialist suggest. After reading the article I kept questioning how writing the message in front of the students was managed, and message time plus was a perfect way to keep kids engaged, and incorporate authentic literacy experiences. Now I introduce two sight words, both past and present, and two interesting tier 2 words. Students analyze some part of the tier 2 words whether it is the amount of syllables, blends, or unique meaning. Then, we read a quality piece of children's literature that incorporates the 4 words, and then the teacher guides students to read the message as the teacher writes it. Then, kids come up and point to words they know. An emphasis not only on phonics is present here, which is what Houghtin Mifflin stressed the most in morning message, but reading comprehension flourishes because of the breadth of discussions we have about the book we are reading, and it gives all students a chance to increase their vocabulary to include higher-level words. I am loving my new routine, and the kids are so much more engaged, thanks to the article and the perfect timing of my reading specialist.
From the interest sparked by the article, and the model lesson done by the reading specialist, I know feel more confident because I am doing my morning message as the article and my reading specialist suggest. After reading the article I kept questioning how writing the message in front of the students was managed, and message time plus was a perfect way to keep kids engaged, and incorporate authentic literacy experiences. Now I introduce two sight words, both past and present, and two interesting tier 2 words. Students analyze some part of the tier 2 words whether it is the amount of syllables, blends, or unique meaning. Then, we read a quality piece of children's literature that incorporates the 4 words, and then the teacher guides students to read the message as the teacher writes it. Then, kids come up and point to words they know. An emphasis not only on phonics is present here, which is what Houghtin Mifflin stressed the most in morning message, but reading comprehension flourishes because of the breadth of discussions we have about the book we are reading, and it gives all students a chance to increase their vocabulary to include higher-level words. I am loving my new routine, and the kids are so much more engaged, thanks to the article and the perfect timing of my reading specialist.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Blog 1-Montessori
I live in Baltimore City, right down the street from a Montessori school, and knew nearly nothing about it. I knew it involved the senses, and some say it is better to send a child their, than send a child to regular pre-school. From the research presentations in class, I learned many new things about Ms. Marie, this revolutionary lady of her time. Her goal was to make education acccessible to all students, and she focused on students learning what they were interested in. From what I grasped from the presenters, a Montessori classroom had to be uniquely crafted for the needs of the children. That meant the furniture had to be child-size, small centers where one-four students could work at a task at a time, and while the activities are going on in the classroom, the teacher is simply a facilitator, helping students to be independent.
As the presenters were sharing their new knowledge, I was able to make several connections with Montessori. The first is to my theorist, Friedrich Froeblel, who used "gifts" to make learning child-centered. Montessori also used manipulatives (or gifts Froebel would say) to spur learning. Also, in my undergrad special education class, we watched a video on the "wild boy" who was thought to be almost another species of human. It was amazing how, in the case of the "wild boy," ignorance and a closed mind could severely hinder the survival chances of some people. It is noteworthy that Montessori's view of children was drastically different than those around her, and her patience with each child's specific needs, makes her connection to the "wild boy" characteristic.
As the presenters were sharing their new knowledge, I was able to make several connections with Montessori. The first is to my theorist, Friedrich Froeblel, who used "gifts" to make learning child-centered. Montessori also used manipulatives (or gifts Froebel would say) to spur learning. Also, in my undergrad special education class, we watched a video on the "wild boy" who was thought to be almost another species of human. It was amazing how, in the case of the "wild boy," ignorance and a closed mind could severely hinder the survival chances of some people. It is noteworthy that Montessori's view of children was drastically different than those around her, and her patience with each child's specific needs, makes her connection to the "wild boy" characteristic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)