Reader Response & Discussion

Session 1

REFERENCE

Ford, “What to Do about Jabbering Parrots”, LA 79:1

SUMMARY

Political debates regarding reading can be effectively addressed by preparing for three typical arguments:

1- there is a Major Crisis in Reading – usually based on exaggerated claims, beware of aggregated research

2-the problem is whole language – usually based on narrow definition of research or misrepresentation of whole language methodology – emphasize local program and what is working

3-one right way to fix the problem – beware especially when personal financial gain is involved, note self-selection of experts, note varying accountability, note that one size does not fit all.

CONNECTION

I have encountered all three of these arguments with frustration. The problem is that much of the dialog with “opponents” is emotionally based rather than fact based. At the international school I taught at, the principal was quite frustrated with primarily American parents who were insistent that the reading curriculum emphasize phonics. The principal (a New Zealander) had been trying to explain to these parents the benefits of whole language and how it worked in her country. An argument the parents just wouldn’t hear. I advised the principal change her tactics and say that the school used an “Eclectic” approach to reading that included phonics because all children are different. I also suggested she NEVER use the phrase “Whole Language” because most people mean something completely different from her understanding.

DISCUSSION

This approach helps deflect controversy, but a sense of distrust can continue, especially when kindergarteners and first graders start bringing home papers with “invented spelling”. Eventually, the parents see that their kids are learning so the pressure dies down. But until that happens there sure can be a lot of emotional energy to deal with…and coming up with reasoned arguments based on research are usually dismissed because of a basic distrust of the whole education establishment. I’d like to hear from the rest of you about ways you’ve found to successfully work together with parents and/or adversaries in the reading debate.

CROSS TALK

Current Forum: Session 1: Journal Articles Discussion

Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 10:47 pm

Author: Higginbotham, Celia <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Jabbering Parrots

Pamela,
I figured I'd reply to your comments on my review of this same article in your group. Maybe that will make it easier for you to keep up with responses. I am with you 100% about critical thinking skills. My speculation about why statistics are not taught pre-college is because the level of math involved to understand them is higher than many people get to in high school. Without solid trigonometry skills, you're toast in stats. Deductive and inductive reasoning courses, however, might bridge the gap. Pamela, do you think it is possible to include lessons in reasoning skills while studying literature? Certainly it can be done in science and math, but can it be tweaked to fit into a book study?
So since my focus on stats was a different angle, it made me interested to read your review. Your choice to focus on the whole language debate is vital, and my own experience validates the truth of your position. Your suggestions are right on target, and I’m not sure I ever thought to be careful of what labels I use with people outside the professional education community. Thanks for the tip. I know I’m not in your learning group, but here are two of the ways I’ve tried to deal with adversaries in the reading debate. People tune out when presented with stats, UNLESS its stats about local programs. I think that’s one tactic we often leave out is to shift the discussion away from the big picture and to the small screen. I don’t have many years of teaching experience, but I also find that bringing a parent in to observe (even if they come in more than once, and they have to work for you to really get into it all) is the best cure. Teaching in action is the evidence parents look for to calm their fears. At least that’s been my experience.
Thanks for your input! I’ve enjoyed talking with you!
Celia

Current Forum: Session 1: Journal Articles Discussion
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 4:05 pm
Author: Gentry, Pamela <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jabbering Parrots


Hi Celia- thanks for taking the time to comment. I think you did exactly right. In my understanding of the process, we are to go hunt out the other people who read the same article and interact with them, too. I'm certainly learning a lot from talking to you and others. Makes me think. I DO think that reasoning skills can and ought to be taught in the context of literature study. Frequently they are being taught without knowing it by the simple act of asking good questions. But even good questioning doesn't usually come by accident. It is possible to be very deliberate. I've ordered some of the books that are listed at criticalthinking.com for my school that help teachers turn EVERY lesson into a more dynamic, reasoning skill building lesson. Sorry I don't have the names of the books right now, I'm here in Texas, and my school is on the other side of the globe ... but I'll be there in a couple of weeks and check, if you like.

Date: Fri Sep 3, 2004 9:05 am

Author: Gentry, Pamela <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Ford article: What to do about Jabbering Parrots

Dee Anne

Dee Ann - I can appreciate your hesitation to delve into subjects outside your expertise. It IS kinda scary to think about having to teach enough statistics for kids to "get it" when reading. But then, it seems like you don't really need to know all the math - just the principles of interpretation and application...

This intersection of what are usually considered two separate subjects: math and LA shows the need for inter-discipine communcation, I guess. Opportunties for cross-curricular teaching are not as often taken advantage of at the secondary level, I think. There is just so much that one must cover in their own subject, and secondary teachers are not generally trained as cross-curricular teachers, but as specialists.

Any ideas about how this might be different?