Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True story:
Last week a teacher came to my register. The total was something and 79 cents. The change would have been 21 cents. He gave me a nickel because he wanted a quarter back. In his head there were 4 cents standing between himself and a quarter, so if he gave me 5 cents that would cancel out the 4 cents.
I just stared at him. This was a teacher. A teacher who can't add change. You worry about kids who can't read? I worry about teachers who can't count. This would explain WHY there are kids who can't read. The teachers can't do much better, themselves.
True story:
Last week a teacher came to my register. The total was something and 79 cents. The change would have been 21 cents. He gave me a nickel because he wanted a quarter back. In his head there were 4 cents standing between himself and a quarter, so if he gave me 5 cents that would cancel out the 4 cents.
I just stared at him. This was a teacher. A teacher who can't add change. You worry about kids who can't read? I worry about teachers who can't count. This would explain WHY there are kids who can't read. The teachers can't do much better, themselves.
I don't get it. If the item was 2.79 and he gave you 3.05, you should have given him .26 back - a quarter and a penny. Maybe he needed a quarter for a meter or something.
... overuse of parental volunteering in Reading Centers when all it takes is just one well prepared teacher, a disciplined class, and a book...???
Literacy Centers/Reading Centers are an integral part of an elementary classroom. As students rotate through these centers, the teacher is working with a small group of students on reading (or writing) utilzing readers, chapter books, non-fiction trade books, etc. at their reading level. Students do need whole group instruction as well, but they benefit from small group instruction also. In my fourth grade classroom, I have two students reading at a kinder level, two at first grade, three at second grade, eight at third grade, nine actually on grade level, and one at fifth grade. Some of these students attended our school in previous years while others transferred from within the district or from charter or private schools. Even in K, the classroom likely has students are various readiness levels, so small groups would still be beneficial.
I am a well-prepared teacher and my students are quite adept at following rules and procedures, but I know that using just one basal text will not bring all of them up to where they should be. (Also, a teacher must be much more well-prepared if utilizing centers than if not.) I have never had a parent volunteer during centers nor at any other time during the school day, but it sounds as if it would be a great help.
Literacy Centers/Reading Centers are an integral part of an elementary classroom.
Why aren't they so integral in other parts of the world where such a concept would be seen as belonging in the Twilight Zone and where schools DO produce avid readers, much more so than in the US? What I am tryng to say is that such individualized/small group methods are nowhere close to essential and they may actually do more harm than good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffy888
As students rotate through these centers, the teacher is working with a small group of students on reading (or writing) utilzing readers, chapter books, non-fiction trade books, etc. at their reading level. Students do need whole group instruction as well, but they benefit from small group instruction also. In my fourth grade classroom, I have two students reading at a kinder level, two at first grade, three at second grade, eight at third grade, nine actually on grade level, and one at fifth grade. Some of these students attended our school in previous years while others transferred from within the district or from charter or private schools. Even in K, the classroom likely has students are various readiness levels, so small groups would still be beneficial.
I am a well-prepared teacher and my students are quite adept at following rules and procedures, but I know that using just one basal text will not bring all of them up to where they should be. (Also, a teacher must be much more well-prepared if utilizing centers than if not.) I have never had a parent volunteer during centers nor at any other time during the school day, but it sounds as if it would be a great help.
I am willing to give it an inch and listen to the argument of "children can benefit from...". In reality, children can benefit from many things, including the scenario where they would each have a one-on-one tutor/teacher throughout the entire k-12. But this is not how public schools works.
The classic model for public schooling everywhere follows the pattern: the teacher teaches (show, demonstrates, explains) in front of the entire class and the students are expected to pay attention, follow, copy, learn and do their best. If they already know what the teachers teaches or if they find it to be very easy - the student should feel free to perform at an A+ level on that particular piece of knowledge.
I have a friend who is profoundly bothered by this model of reading center rotation as she realized her child will only get to spend a limited amount of time with the teacher (be it in a small group) while the rest of the time he ends up in a group with a parapro or hardly qualified parent doing not clear what. She feels that the children end up having way too much non-teacher time this way and that the scenario where they would all have practiced reading WITH the teacher, be it with the entire class at once, would have served the children better.
The trouble starts indeed with the fact that there are large differences between children's level of academics in K: from those who don't even know their letters (which should be fine for a 5 yo as far as I am concerned) to those whose competitive parents pumped the childhood out of them and their Harvard dreams into them since they were in utero, to the point where the kid reads at 5th grade level when he/she starts K (and sadly, this is not even the road to Harvard, but that would belong to a different thread).
But just because there are hyper-competitive parents out there, it does not mean that public schools should get out of their way to accommodate such neurotics. If the curriculum in K is starting from scratch by studying letters and sounds, learning how to link them to make simple words, counting balls and the like etc - then this is exactly what the entire class will study. If your child is reading Harry Potter in K all by herself and doing advanced math, then perhaps she should be in a different grade or home-schooled.
In my opinion, public school should stick to a methodically, systematically and chronologically taught curriculum - the same for everyone.
The individualization of the curriculum belongs at home, not in public school, and not even in private school. It is ridiculous to ask parents to volunteer to baby-sit your "other" students while you're busy teaching 4-5 kids to get from advanced level to super advanced level in K or to teach the alphabet to the few kids who don't know it all while the others do "creative projects" more or less on their own.
This sounds like a very disorganized and wasteful system to me that does not, in the end, yield better results than educational systems where children are expected to move along at the pace set by a collective curriculum.
I don't get it. If the item was 2.79 and he gave you 3.05, you should have given him .26 back - a quarter and a penny. Maybe he needed a quarter for a meter or something.
Or he just didn't want four annoyingly useless pennies bouncing around in his pocket.
I've done this MANY times. My grandmother, a lifelong elementary school teacher, taught me this.
It's hard to imagine a scenario where individualized instruction hinders learning. However, most systems aren't set up for truly individualized instruction. Having worked in ones that are, the progress made is amazing.
Why aren't they so integral in other parts of the world where such a concept would be seen as belonging in the Twilight Zone and where schools DO produce avid readers, much more so than in the US? What I am tryng to say is that such individualized/small group methods are nowhere close to essential and they may actually do more harm than good.
I am willing to give it an inch and listen to the argument of "children can benefit from...". In reality, children can benefit from many things, including the scenario where they would each have a one-on-one tutor/teacher throughout the entire k-12. But this is not how public schools works.
The classic model for public schooling everywhere follows the pattern: the teacher teaches (show, demonstrates, explains) in front of the entire class and the students are expected to pay attention, follow, copy, learn and do their best. If they already know what the teachers teaches or if they find it to be very easy - the student should feel free to perform at an A+ level on that particular piece of knowledge.
I have a friend who is profoundly bothered by this model of reading center rotation as she realized her child will only get to spend a limited amount of time with the teacher (be it in a small group) while the rest of the time he ends up in a group with a parapro or hardly qualified parent doing not clear what. She feels that the children end up having way too much non-teacher time this way and that the scenario where they would all have practiced reading WITH the teacher, be it with the entire class at once, would have served the children better.
The trouble starts indeed with the fact that there are large differences between children's level of academics in K: from those who don't even know their letters (which should be fine for a 5 yo as far as I am concerned) to those whose competitive parents pumped the childhood out of them and their Harvard dreams into them since they were in utero, to the point where the kid reads at 5th grade level when he/she starts K (and sadly, this is not even the road to Harvard, but that would belong to a different thread).
But just because there are hyper-competitive parents out there, it does not mean that public schools should get out of their way to accommodate such neurotics. If the curriculum in K is starting from scratch by studying letters and sounds, learning how to link them to make simple words, counting balls and the like etc - then this is exactly what the entire class will study. If your child is reading Harry Potter in K all by herself and doing advanced math, then perhaps she should be in a different grade or home-schooled.
In my opinion, public school should stick to a methodically, systematically and chronologically taught curriculum - the same for everyone.
The individualization of the curriculum belongs at home, not in public school, and not even in private school. It is ridiculous to ask parents to volunteer to baby-sit your "other" students while you're busy teaching 4-5 kids to get from advanced level to super advanced level in K or to teach the alphabet to the few kids who don't know it all while the others do "creative projects" more or less on their own.
This sounds like a very disorganized and wasteful system to me that does not, in the end, yield better results than educational systems where children are expected to move along at the pace set by a collective curriculum.
Our neighborhood's elementary school, in which 96+% of our kids who take the state standardized test are proficient or above in reading uses teacher-led reading groups. In second grade, the kids are generally competent readers and are transitioned from leveled books to a self-paced Accelerated Reading program that allows them to choose their reading material from virtually any published juvenile fiction or non-fiction work. Kids who lag behind grade level are provided one-on-one instruction with a state-certified reading specialist until they catch up.
I like the way our classrooms function. The kids are smart and self-motivated! They have a wide variety of interests and talents, and our teachers work very hard to facilitate their students' independent learning. The library and classrooms are packed with books, and the kids are given lots of latitude to explore their interests. I wish I had grown up with the resources my kids have at their fingertips. BTW, this type of reading program doesn't seem to have harmed my kids at all. My oldest reads constantly, to the tune of a half-dozen or more books a week, and my youngest while not quite as crazy for reading, is no slouch himself. (In a previous thread, I expressed concern about his reading comprehension, but after reviewing his MAP test history with his teacher, it appears that he is now comfortably above grade level.) Both of my kids would tell you the public library is one of their favorite places. It's not uncommon for our coffee table to be buried in 40+ titles from our weekly foray into the stacks. In addition to having two book-crazy parents, I think growing up in a school that encourages reading for pleasure and learning, and provides lots of opportunities for both, has been great for my kids.
Last edited by formercalifornian; 09-05-2011 at 05:00 PM..
It's hard to imagine a scenario where individualized instruction hinders learning. However, most systems aren't set up for truly individualized instruction. Having worked in ones that are, the progress made is amazing.
It's not hard at all. Students spend 30% of the reading time in more "individualized" instruction (still with 4-5 kids in the group) and 70% with unqualified staff or parents doing something else then methodical reading instruction (often just being baby-sat).
There is your scenario.
I think growing up in a school that encourages reading for pleasure and learning, and provides lots of opportunities for both, has been great for my kids.
Do you know of any school that DOESN'T encourage that, at least in theory?
The trouble is that our modern environments and lifestyle typically pose resistance to all the theoretical encouragement coming from schools (read for pleasure!). You really can't tell someone to do something for pleasure!
Pleasure in itself (if the child does experience it during the process of reading) is a good enough motivator without additional cheerleading.
The problem comes when reading (for pleasure) starts to compete with the pleasure coming from electronics, TV and computer games etc. The latter is almost invariably much more intense for most children.
I guess the whole "counting change back" stopped being taught even longer ago than I imagined. See - a guy gives me a coin, because he thinks he'll get *a quarter* back. Not a quarter plus a penny. And not four pennies, and not four pennies fewer than he would have gotten otherwise. But rather - a quarter. Exactly a quarter.
So he gives me a nickel - thinking the 5 cents will cancel out the 4 cents - and result in me giving him a quarter. Unfortunately, his math is off - he would have gotten a quarter plus a penny. Which - he didn't understand he would get. Because - he was expecting a quarter.
Wow. Just - wow. Amazing how that just flies right on past people here. I guess I won't be so surprised when it happens again with a teacher at the counter. Lack of reading comprehension, PLUS lack of counting skills. Very sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
