Chapter
16 –
What
do you see that might be engaging to many different students?
A
balanced literacy program which includes the best aspects of competing
approaches (pg 343) would optimize the potential for literacy skills development
in a diverse population. One of the
problems with the problems with the pendulum swings that have characterized
literacy education in these last 50 years in the U.S. (pg339ff) is that each
extreme is specialized for the needs of different kinds of learners. Thus, when a phonics approach is emphasized,
students who need a top-down approach to learning are lost and conversely, when
whole language is singly emphasized, children who need more help with the smaller
pieces of language get left behind. When
this balanced approach is arrived at through a team approach throughout a
school, there is assurance of consistency in instruction from year to year, as
well as the provision of many different “eyes” to be watching for problems and
helping with differing expertise.
What
do you see that might meet more than one learning modality?
Avoiding
extremist positions (pg 341) should ensure that a broader range of learning
modalities are meet during instruction.
What
do you see that might support/hinder students
·
with special needs?
Students
with special needs are supported by a school-wide team approach to instruction
that encourages communication between all departments, grade levels, and
specialties. Students with special
needs can be hindered when instruction is mandated (pg 337) by higher levels
such as the state or even the school board because teachers lose the freedom to
adjust instruction to specific needs of the students.
·
English Language Learners?
When
mandated curriculum is not chosen with the needs of ELLs taken into consideration, the results could be quite
disastrous. ELLs are supported by the
same kinds of balanced programs that support a diversity of learners and special
needs students.
What
do you see that might be bias in the language used in the assignments discussed
in this chapter?
This
article is rife with bias. It is an
opinion essay that makes evaluative
statements such as “We must stop holding teachers accountable …” from the very
beginning (335). In addition to
continued use of such statements, the authors use evaluative descriptions such
as “too many”(336), “unfortunately, obvious, and serious” (339), “zealots”
(340) “demonstrably disingenuous”and , “woefully ignorant” (341), and
“wonderful” (349) to name just a few.
“Should” and “must” are also used frequently. Little attempt is made to offer support for a position other than
the one the authors are proposing. They
use phrases such as “our answer”(340), “we believe”(342), and “we have yet to
see”(345) which indicate a first person
point of view and ownership of opinion.
What
do you wonder about with respect to equity (in regard to what you’ve read in
the chapters)?
The
authors suggest that one reason for the politicization of discourse regarding
literacy is the passion opposing parties bring to their positions (340). They also suggest that though the majority
of teachers they know practice an eclectic, or balanced approach to literacy
but are just quietly going about their business. They say, that because they lack the same passion, their voice is
not heard. I’m not sure I agree about
the passion comment. But I do think it
would benefit everyone if this inequity in voice were acknowleged and allowed
for. I think it is because of this lack
of voice, that the “middle roader balanced people” get discouraged,
misunderstood, and sometimes edged out of their chosen profession.