Thanks to Dr. Cookie for passing this along from Joanne Jacobs's site... November 9 entry. Follow the links for the whole story of how this game is played at kids' expense.
Reading Recovery is, again, shown to be as effective as doing nothing, but this outcome costs about 4 grand per kid. [Such a deal!]
For 4 grand, buy each kid a computer and 100 great books and Funnix, from funnix.com. Funnix will teach them to read. Then the kids can read the books and get a good bit of education from the web.
Of course, administrators insist they will still USE Reading Recovery because, after all, the probablility that kids improve is at the level of chance. [This is their idea of effectiveness.]
If this were a business they'd all be in jail.
However, citizens are becoming grumpy about this and some schools may begin to use DI. In which case, no kids will qualify for Reading Recovery because they'll be reading, not guessing.
In response, expect signficant propaganda from the RR crowd, who stand to lose control, prestige, and CASH. Shouts of "Academic freedom!!!" [That's like a drug company saying, "You can decide NOT to use our products just 'cause they don't work! 'Pharmaceutical freedom!'"]
Speaking of which, here is a poster made by students at an ed school. Notice that it recommends that students use THREE kinds of "cues" to read words--not comprehend words; just know what they say.
1. Syntax. As in "What KIND of word goes here?"
2. Context. As in "What word seems to fit the meaning so far?"
3. "Graphophonics." That is, the sounds make by the letters, or letter-sound correspondence. This is the ONLY "cue" that should be used. The others are NOT READING. Strictly whole language and Reading Recovery misteaching--which ensures that some kids will need remedial reading. Whole language makes kids illiterate and then kids are passed down the hall to the Reading Recovery teacher. How do YOU spell S C A M?
See the goofy grammar?
"...using prior knowledge of the context of the text..." The context of the TEXT is a PAGE. They mean, the meaning of the text...
"...applying knowledge about how our language goes together..." Language "goes together"? Goes together with what? "Our language goes well with a cheeseburger and a side of fries."
This in NOT merely sloppy writing, Dear Readers. This reveals THINKING, or the absence thereof. These students do not GET the concept that as you read you build a sense of what it is about, and that THIS is a context for comprending the next chunks of text.
They also don't have any idea of the components of our language and how these are organized: phones, phonemes, morphemes, syllables, words, grammar, syntax, sentence, argument, etc.
Why? Because their "literacy perfessers" don't know!
Note, too, that the poster is proudly displayed amidst a bunch of loathesome decorations! Yup! That's ed school. All flash and no bullet. The word on the right is "Multicultural education." Which means, intense study of tacos or yams, depending on the culture whose "practices" are being "celebrated" at the moment.
Students don't celebrate wife-beating and female genital mutilation, though. They aren't told about it.
I discussed these very practices with some ed students--who were so proud they'd just learned about cultural relativiity in their "social studies methods" courses. I had the audacity to call these practices immoral, depraved, disgusting, and evil. But these well-indoctrinated young persons said I was being "ethnocentric" and that I shouldn't judge other cultures. And that values and practices are relative--whatever that means.
I said, "Well if members of a culture consider their practices to be moral and taken for granted as the way to do things, then how CAN they judge what they do? They can't. Therefore, the ONLY kind of judge would BE from another culture."
"Yes, but then you would be imposing YOUR values on them."
"So? Why is that bad?"
"Because good and bad are relative?"
"No, what people CALL good and bad may be relative. But what IS good and bad is NOT relative. Think of what would happen if we did not make the distinction between how we NAME things and what things ARE.... I call it 'soft thing' and hit you on the head with it--a brick. How about if men get together in this culture and decide that mutilating women is a GOOD idea--and YOU are first? Do you think that any practice that produces pain and life long suffering for a hundred million women is a GOOD thing?"
"Uh..."
"Okay, here's how to figure it out. Here's how to cut through all that bunk about relativity that Perfesser de Mented taught you. Just imagine that whatever you decide to do on a small scale will become a UNIVERSAL rule and practice. [Kant's moral imperative.] ALL women are going to be mutilated. Not just in one culture, but all! Got that?"
"Okay."
"Bad, right?"
"I guess so. Why should THAT happen to all women?"
"Right. It shouldn't. Now listen carefully... If it's BAD on a universal scale, how come it's OKAY in just ONE culture? Surely good and bad has to do with the ACT itself and not the NUMBER of times the act is performed. If it's bad to mutilate 2 billion, it's bad to mutilate ONE!
Problem is, multi-culty perfessers don't have the brain power to get that. We're taking .22 blanks. Their vision of a world all singing Cumbaya and swaying back and forth while holding candles, makes their hormones drip to a considerable extent, and for them fantasy trumps reality every time.
If words were merely logical devices no one would fear them. But when they impinge upon a moron they set off his hormones, and so they are justifiably feared. [H.L. Mencken. Baltimore Evening Sun, November 18, 1929.]
Martin, Great Blog. Only one "suggestion for improvement": too many words; too many words. It reminds me of Brainsarefun: too many words. But a great job.
I have been out of the Loop for a while now, but will be dropping back in shortly. I have a new project about which I shall be soliciting your advice and council.
Onward and, as always, love, roryd
Posted by: roryd | Monday, November 29, 2004 at 11:06 AM