I love it!Amen
It`s easier for educrats to say it is poverty and circumstance versus instruction and teacher effectiveness!

It is easy to create reform that is powerful and effective if you worry about the children and results-accountability is a must!

I think that it is great that Florida has improved, and the data proves that there has been substantial growth.

There are a couple of things that I think we need to clarify. I’m not an educrat, and I don’t intentionally speak “edubabble” (I couldn’t find a definition for that word in my scrabble dictionary, so you wouldn’t get any points for it!)

The test that Florida students would have taken has no category that would judge them as “functionally illiterate”. In all likelihood, the “nearly half” of the Florida fourth graders would have been judged, “below proficient”.

Here’s the description for proficient that I found:

“Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate an understanding of the overall meaning of what they read. When reading texts appropriate for fourth-graders, they should be able to make relatively obvious connections between the text and their own experiences and extend the ideas in the text by making simple inferences.

For example, when reading literary text, they should be able to tell what the story is generally about — providing details to support their understanding — and be able to connect aspects of the stories to their own experiences.

When reading informational text, Basic-level fourth-graders should be able to tell what the selection is generally about or identify the purpose for reading it; provide details to support their understanding; and connect ideas from the text to their background knowledge and experiences.”

I know from getting to know you through your reactions to this type of wording, that many of you would now be rolling your eyes. This, in fact, is the same type of outcome/expectation at which Michael Zwaagstra poked fun when I heard him speak in Toronto recently. That is an example of the “basic” expectation for Grade 4.

In 1998, 46% of students scored below that…whatever that means.

Now, only 27% of Florida students score below that level of basic proficiency. And that’s wonderful, but I’m not really sure what it means in terms of what they know and are able to do.

The other phrase that I don’t know what to do with is “functionally illiterate”. It’s impressive and daunting at the same time. But what does it mean?

When I began teaching, I was responsible for a grade 8 geography program. When we looked at literacy around the world, the term “literacy” was defined as being able to read at a grade 4 level. Literacy ratings, under this scale, were applied to adults, not children.

But, the term functional illiteracy is a little more elusive. By United Nations standards, functional illiteracy as:

“one who cannot engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning of his group and community and also for enabling him to continue to use reading, writing and calculation for his own and the community’s development.”

Again, this is a little ambiguous, and certainly not relevant to many children that I know.

My point? I’m not denying the successes in Florida. It is clear that there has been a great deal of progress there.

I am suggesting that, when we compare results year over year, we need to be very clear on our criteria and how we define success. Otherwise, there is a great deal of confusion, and the opportunity to mislead.

The jump from functionally illiterate to “being able to read” seems huge. In fact, it may have only been a move from below basic proficiency to basic profiency. Still good, but not as dramatic.

That’s all…

You would find it hard to sleep at night if you knew how erroneous and flawed your thinking is.
The nuances you describe are of course the reading war.
The Literacy Secretariat is ensconced in this thinking;however when we can get away from their framework and guidance we can see how much can be done for children.
A half billion dollar study from the NICHD-a 30 year study-
Harvard,Yale,University of Central Florida(so influential in the state`s improvements,Jo Torgesen and his team)Haskins Labs,read Children of the Code-our very own Dr.Keith Stanovich,know how the brain optimally learns to read.
The powers in charge in Canada completely disregard and adopt the above thinking.
I am not blaming you,the problem is entrenched and causing tremendous harm,daily.
Dr.Linda Siegel at U.B.C. has referred to it as rampant educational malpractice.
As I have stated here before it is considered heresy in this country to teach a child to read bottom up.However,as adults,when they still can`t read and struggle with the harmful emotional , academic and economic repercussions of their illiteracy,or struggle with reading so we don`t get into the nuances,we teach them bottom up-as Dr.Reid Lyon and Jo Torgesen both stated at a conference I attended,the process is non negotiable.

I’m not talking about reading methodology here. I’ve read about the approach that you support, and I’m very familiar with Keith’s work. My own comments were not disputing the fact that all children, no matter what who they are or what they bring to school need to given the chance to learn the basics. We’re on the same page there. And if we know that one method works for some children better than others, then that should become part of our practice—everywhere.

If that means scripted, teacher-directed lessons for the first three years of school (or even beyond), that’s what we should all be doing. (I spend a great deal of time in primary classes these days, and I can tell you that the lessons I’m seeing are pretty well-designed and constantly assessed.

I think that there is much more work to do here.

My comments really related to the use of language to describe progress on a large scale. I think that sometimes this language can prevent us from seeing what is really going on.

stephen

Using the right tests and knowing what we are looking at matters significantly-

I like to use the Schonell on older kids-Grade 6 to adult-
The score is a reading age-
Here is what we see,time and time and time again.
The reading of multisyllabic words is impossible-multiply is read as multiplication-commentary is read as computer-listless is read as listen-forgotten is read as forgetful.
Why?

Because they can only guess after the first syllable-this problem is dealt with ny the system with vocabulary instruction and comprehension instruction-however -orally the students know the word-they just can`t read properly so they do not know the meaning of the word because of that.
I spoke to a Superintendent last week who said-the teachers do not know how to help this problem.
This is correct,the University does not train them.

I agree with you that many teachers are not getting this type of training. I did when I was at the faculty of education. We had to learn to diagnose individual reading levels, we learned to administer a variety of miscue analyses and spent a significant amount of time on strategies to help struggling readers.

When I taught at OISE, I didn’t deal with the Language Arts aspect of the program but, in the past few weeks, I have sent out a few requests for information to find out exactly what is being addressed, and what is being taught in depth.

My own feeling is that when we move faculty programs to school sites where teacher candidates have constant access to children in order to really make methodology come alive, then we’re going to be able to tackle some of this stuff in a more effective way.

Right now, students can learn something at the university and when they get out to their practicum placements, there is no guarantee that they will have the opportunity to apply it. The host teacher may use totally different approaches, and what has been learned will be lost by the candidate.

But, if there were a better connection between field and university, some of the frustrations that are expressed in many of your posts might be mitigated, if not eliminated.

Stephen

Joanne, I just finished spent the last three weeks listening to the Toronto presentations from the National Strategy for Early Literacy. It was helpful to hear your voice. I’m beginning to understand your perspective and where you’re coming from.

Interesting presentation!

stephen

Sorry…I just spent the last three weeks…chicken pox in the house…I’m a little scattered!