Good morning. I’ll jump in on this as I just finished reading the original letter as printed in the G & M.

For me, there is a central question here that is important. Has the meaning of “being literate” changed over the past century? Folks involved in the multi-literacies movement obviously say yes, and they look mainly to changes in the ability to use technology to communicate to argue for more robust definitions of literacy.

Others will argue that, no, the foundations of literacy are still very important, and there is no real need to introduce other elements into the literacy work that we do in schools.

(I’ve simplified the argument, not for your sake, but for mine.)

The multi-literacies conversation is current (today’s events in the Middle East will be used to promote the importance of being able to use social networking and collaborative tools to promote social goals), and its very sexy!

But is it valid, or does it merely distract from the real work of school-based literacy work?

I know from hanging around here for a bit that you would want me to declare a position on this!! As an educator (and one that is wary of many of the current trends in literacy education), I have come to understand that, while citizens will have access to many different ways of engaging in literate activity in the future, there is a need to re-establish a strong sense of what is at the heart of all communication. It is still the need to read and write traditional text!

I will agree with Heather, however, in that I know that standardized tests alone cannot possibly give educators and parents all of the information that they need about how to help struggling students. I agree with her that standardized tests that are keyed to “student age” support an outdated understanding of language development. The stories told by people here like Nancy suggest that a different view of this aspect of early years education is in order.

(BTW, I’m not exactly sure how to translate the sentence “We educate children for the future they will inherit.”)

Just a few hopening thoughts as I head off!

Stephen

Let`s start a petition and gather money with a viral campaign-you tube or a social media way-

This&*%$^ has to stop-the infuriation is they`re sending young children to mental health therapists in droves-when a kid can`t read and do his work-his self esteem plummets and his anxiety rises.

The research is out Stephen and Heather-the debate is over-phonics and phonemes teach 90% of kids to read and when they CAN read they comprehend!
The average kid today starts school with a massive oral word vocabulary due to TV and computers.Unless you are from an environment that is poor and has little in the way of stimulation-this is the case.
Get over it Heather-we are not letting you win this one.
I am sadly busy like crazy today but I can help Monday-
If you need money,let`s raise some!

And another thing Stephen and Heather-defer to research-don`t walk around giving opinion.

Learning to reasd and spell is process-not curriculum content-if you are teaching the war of 1812,we won`t bother you.

“The average kid today starts school with a massive oral word vocabulary due to TV and computers.Unless you are from an environment that is poor and has little in the way of stimulation-this is the case.”

Hmmm…that kind of turns the tables on what we know about kids coming from poor environments. Not sure I agree with this part of your comment.

read UNLESS

Not sure how it became Stephen and Heather.

Point well taken,I just reread you statement.

According to Kieth Stanovich, television does not provide much in the way of vocabulary development. Even adult, content-area programs are very weak in vocabulary—television is a very visual medium. 

The best sources for vocabulary development in young children, besides parental interaction, are children’s books and (surprise) comic books, which have a much richer vocabulary even than the everyday conversation of highly-educated people.

Andrew Biemiller, Steven Stahl and of course Hart and Risley have written extensively about the language gap that affects many young children entering school. In my previous school, entering K children were found to be below the 20th percentile in language development in their native language (never mind English).  This affects cognitive and conceptual development as well.

This developmental gap can be addressed but not without acknowledging it. The “From 3 to 3” program some schools have put in place is a positive step. Haven’t got the references handy but it has empirical evidence of effectiveness in developing oral language comprehension, a necessary component of later reading proficiency..

the argument is about the Globe and Mail and the justification of illiteracy-

The debate on oral reading comprehension is not the main idea-

?We educate children for the future they will inherit. Standardized tests of language and literacy test the literacies of a half century ago, when grammatical knowledge and mastery of spelling and punctuation marked the educated person.

And oral language development-and reading comprehension-and vocabulary growth…

Steve Stahl is a contrarian to the half a billion dollar conclusive study from the NICHD-

The work you refer to is not a gold standard study but research here with people “trying it”.
I have had explosive results in First Nations communities by teaching teachers the 5 prongs of reading instruction-there`s nothing like reading to improve vocabulary and knowledge and phonemes are speech sounds which when blended even improve articulation and pronunciation-

The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research
Edited by Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., M.P.H., & Vinita Chhabra, M.Ed.

An imperative read-for those who want to honour research based instruction.

Steven Stahl seems to focus a great deal on fluency in his research and that is a huge barrier to reading comprehension-if you don`t read fast enough you don`t understand well because you`re too busy decoding.

Sight word instruction is certainly not the way to improving fluency-that has been determined-

Sorry,I am mixing up Stahl with Krashen-both Steves.He supports the results of the National Reading Panel and is a strong supporter of phonemic awareness and systematic phonics-He is heavily aligned with Linnea Ehri`s research.

Well this professor needs a reality check, that effective communication cannot take place without a firm foundation in reading, verbal and written. If only I could in a wink of a eye, transport her to the reality of people who are not effective communicators because of poor instruction in our public schools. Or should I say, the lack of the basics needed to become effective communicators.

’ There is more to communication than just talk and gesture. Listening, understanding and interpreting are as much integral to communication as words ? verbal, written or gestured. Yes, even gestures in communication play a crucial role in conveying and interpreting the message! Similarly, how we communicate or express ourselves goes a great way towards determining how our expressions are interpreted….... Faulty or incomplete communication can completely mar the purpose of communicating and may result in damaging consequences. “
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/importance-of-communication.html

I bet she never wonder why, the PR departments of multi-nationals always present a rosy picture on their products or services. Or a government department declaring it is the first complaint of this nature?  Or a school board staff member declaring we have received few letters voicing objections?

“Contemporary literacies profoundly invalidate such tests. Literacy now requires mastery over digital tools for collaborative, dynamic, multimodal communication. Continuing to test children?s formal spelling using handwriting is a speck on the team-oriented strategizing and programming abilities they will need to succeed.”

Poppycock and it is another crime that can added to the long list in the public education system - teaching poor communication skills.

Of course the new buzz word - multi-literacies - more edubabble to understand, within the context of the letter to the editor.  ” . Multi-literacies, according to the authors, overcomes the limitations of traditional approaches by emphasizing how negotiating the multiple linguistic and cultural differences in our society is central to the pragmatics of the working, civic, and private lives of students. The authors maintain that the use of multi-literacies approaches to pedagogy will enable students to achieve the authors’ twin goals for literacy learning: creating access to the evolving language of work, power, and community, and fostering the critical engagement necessary for them to design their social futures and achieve success through fulfilling employment. “
http://wwwstatic.kern.org/filer/blogWrite44ManilaWebsite/paul/articles/A_Pedagogy_of_Multiliteracies_Designing_Social_Futures.htm

Effective communicators get results in their lives when grammatical knowledge,  mastery of spelling and punctuation are in place.  And not this silly multi-literacy mumbo jumbo that claims spelling and grammar are no longer necessary in the 21st century. Funny thing though, it is apparently necessary in the real world, if one wants to lead a life that has been empowered with a firm foundation in reading, writing, and verbal communication, along with a firm foundation of the mechanics of language. Life becomes very difficult without a firm foundation, when one is pass over and over for a promotion, because they have poor verbal and written skills.

Stephen, ” I have come to understand that, while citizens will have access to many different ways of engaging in literate activity in the future, there is a need to re-establish a strong sense of what is at the heart of all communication. It is still the need to read and write traditional text! “

Whether it is a book, a newspaper, or a computer one still needs a firm foundation in reading in order for understanding to occur. Often by not understanding the printed word, it leads to miscommunication and bad decision making. Skills that must be taught, and not dressed up in the Multi-literacy mumbo-jumbo. By the way, standardized testing was and will be in the future an important measure to evaluate writing and the mechanics. However you stated that, “. I agree with her that standardized tests that are keyed to ?student age? support an outdated understanding of language development.”  I disagree altogether, because the current mumbo-jumbo in literacy in our public education systems, leads to dumbing down the curriculum, according to their ability to express oneself. I fought many battles where the tendency was to give my child easy work that represented no challenge to her, and resisted remediation in reading and writing. Without standardized testing, it leads to lower expectations of the students and students will pick it up, and will lower their own expectations.

The aging politicians as the professor puts it should really do her a favour and show her what good communication is all about. One profession that has excelled in the art of communication in any form.

Nancy—‘Without standardized testing, it leads to lower expectations of the students and students will pick it up, and will lower their own expectations.”

This could be true, but I’m arguing against the idea that all 5 year-olds need to be meeting “these” development milestones if they are to be considered “on track”. So, standards? By all means! I will even agree that a developmental trajectory or continuum is helpful. But, strict, age-based standards? Hmmm. I’m not so sure.

Lotherington Refers to an Ongoing Debate in Globe and Mail

I refer you to this column by Gary Mason which sets the scene.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/bc-not-its-teachers-union-should-run-education/article1884019/comments/

What’s happened now—with the entry of Lotherington to the debate about standardized testing—is that we can now add the element of the role that universities play in the matter of education, testing generally, and literacy in particular. 

I am writing an essay on “The Making of the Servile Mind” to illustrate the role of the university. 

Meanwhile, please catch up by reading G&M as linked above, over 130 comments.

I think we should dig in here and recognize this for the critical issue it is.

My conclusion will be, that with people such as Lotherington pushing for her style of education, let her send her children there.  I will not want my grandkids there.  Time for VOUCHERS.

I don’t want to be sucked into her arguments.  Why should there be a winner in this?  Hers is a diversionary ploy to monopolize the narrative.  I want out.  I don’t want to argue or even discuss. Let there be schools with their mission written in her language, and let there be other schools with other missions understandable to their constituency.

You will find my last post on the G&M article near the top if you read from newest to oldest posts.  You will see how I come to this conclusion.  The only conclusion possible if we see these university people and the teacher unions conspiring to push their progressive schools, and succeeding!

Time for PREFERENCES to be honored via VOUCHERS.

Come on-easy for you to say this- vouchers non existent in Canada and millions of children threatened-

Hers is a dangerous posting.If it is ridiculed it won`t have the ability to harm kids-

Vouchers-we`ll have 3 generations effected the time we get them unless you plan a revolution.

Grover Whitehurst in the U.S. -Brookings Institute,“95% of students are in the public system.”

Yes,charters are wonderful,but right now you have to save the children in the system from this insanity.

This is the greatest leap forward in educational progress since the FEUT graduate who labelled kinaesthesia as a learning disability, and was duly published in the Alumni magazine.

Grammar will still be tacitly observed in primitive oral “stone-age” cultures when it has been outlawed in schools as eurocentric and racist, another relic of rule by dead white men.

Time to fill in all of the open spaces at York U. with the concrete that was omitted the first time around.

Further to Tunya’s post about Gary Mason’s column (which, for those who didn’t read it, looked at the BC Government’s capitulation to the BC teachers’ union over provincial testing, and reasonably asked who was in charge of the province), here is a letter to the editor that appears in today’s “Globe and Mail”.

“Gary Mason brought forth a number of good points, but I believe he missed an important one. The BC Teachers’ Federation is made up of professionals who have dedicated their lives to the education of our children.

“These people were not elected for a four-year term or parachuted in to fix a problem. They are on the front lines, every day, with our kids, so who better to know the weaknesses in the system?”

Does anyone know anything about Herb Wood, the author of this letter? He hails from New Westminster, BC.

Hiving-Off from the Queen Bee

Further to my points about the need for choices, I now add the need for EXITS, ESCAPES, SANITY STATIONS, whatever ? !!!

That is what home education provides, at least.  A good education for the students and sanity for the parents.

If I was faced with any course of studies from Heather Lotherington, I would not just walk, I would RUN!

Here are just two clips from the verbiage on her courses:

?Our seminar is a scholarly collective dedicated to research development in a climate of collaborative critical inquiry; creativity; and tolerant, constructive peer review.?

?There is a curious contradiction inherent in discussions of learning: many of our most profound experiences of learning did not require direct instruction, a teacher, a curriculum or indeed any sort of plan.  We learned to walk, make friends, laugh, survive disappointment, and fall in love without much direct guidance. And, all on our own we learned to talk. Our entry into language may have happened a little sooner or later, with great anticipation or quite suddenly; with coaching by concerned adults or through benign neglect to find our own way into speech.  Indeed, while using language to describe our wants and needs, our thoughts and worries, may be the most essential ?skill? in education, as it turns out, our acquisition of this capacity did not require a school (though we may have learned other languages there).  If we can learn something as infinitely complex as language without an ?education,? how then might we describe, in general terms, the work of learning??

NOTICE how cutely she expresses her absolute sneering and opposition of direct instruction.  Not even to acknowledge that there might be times, occasions, individuals, who might need it ? absolutely.  We?ve never said 100% of students should have direct instruction!  But, she seems to say ? 100% of students should be denied direct instruction—always!

Go figure!

I would not want her babysitting my kids, let alone being near kids who have had a speech delay. I shook my head when I reviewed her site, but take a look at one school she is involved with and her crazy theories.

On one page, “Emergent Multiliteracies in theory and practice includes” is very informative.
http://www.multiliteracies4kidz.ca/about.html

The link for the school is on this page, and it really tells a different story when one looks at the school profile, and than the EQAO results.

http://eqaoweb.eqao.com/eqaoweborgprofile/profile.aspx?_Mident=3079&Lang=E

Now tell me, how a lower percentage of children are at or above the provincial standard in reading, and in writing the percentage jumps by 19 % can go against all the research or for that matter where reading is generally higher than writing in the early grades. Than moving on to the grade 6 results, all data has been removed. Something tells me the results for grade 6 have been removed for a reason, and it is not for the best interests of children and parents. I highly suspect, the writing results, dropped like a leaded balloon and Lotherington is doing damage control, to save her crazy theories.

Quackery experiments on children.

Thanks Nancy.

It`s curious to me how the Ministry of Ed wouldn`t insist that research be honoured, shouldn`t they play a role in protecting children that are funded by families tax dollars and where their salaries are funded by the same?

Oh,I forgot,they`re just politics.

Now tell me, how a lower percentage of children are at or above the provincial standard in reading, and in writing the percentage jumps by 19 % can go against all the research or for that matter where reading is generally higher than writing in the early grades.

Actually this is a very common pattern in EQAO results. Writing scores are generally higher than reading scores at the Grade 3 level, often substantially so. This has been true for years. 

Absolutely no surprise here.

Than moving on to the grade 6 results, all data has been removed. Something tells me the results for grade 6 have been removed for a reason, and it is not for the best interests of children and parents. I highly suspect, the writing results, dropped like a leaded balloon and Lotherington is doing damage control, to save her crazy theories.

Horsefeathers, no data has been “removed”—there was no data TO remove (that’s what “no data” means). The school in question had no Grade 6 students. Even if they had, a professor at OISE would have no way of “removing” embarassing scores from the EQAO website.

This particular school has a strong staff, an excellent program and a very talented and innovative leader, quite apart from any project they are doing with the “researcher” in question.

We seem to have touched a nerve TDSBNW-
Your posts are busy protecting the status quo?

Why visit this site then?

Horsefeathers again,  I’ve been working to fix the “status quo”  probably since you were a toddler.
Or maybe before you were born.

However, if you want to challenge an entrenched power system, you need to be wiser than a serpent and very well prepared. Your earlier remarks about Steven Stahl (which fortunately you subsequently corrected) are the sort of error that gives “reformers” a bad name. We must be like Caesar’s wife—above reproach, and highly accurate.

Those who want to effect change cannot afford to be careless with their facts, quick on the draw without thinking first, poorly informed about the workings of “the adversary” nor ill-informed on the details of effective alternatives.

Let him that thinketh that he standeth take heed lest he fall. (quote from a “higher level thinker”)

One statement of yours on another thread that I’ll second is your observation that public schools are where 95% of the children are, and that our efforts to fix things (by stealth if necessary) must be directed there.

Also, I believe Doug was banned from this site for being insulting to other posters. Are you asking for the same? You have personally insulted me and my motives (as perceived by you) on several occasions.

To correct factual errors (as I have done above) is not to impugn people’s integrity or commitment, but to accuse them of various unworthy motives and intentions (as you have done to me on three occasions at least) certainly is.

Enough already.

On the Toronto board site

“Joyce Public School (Gr JK - 6) “

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/schools/index.asp?schno=3182

I naturally thought that the information would be correct on the Toronto board site, and I now see on the actual school site, that it is a K to 5 school. That said, these students should be track since the school is operating differently from other schools. It would be of interest to see how students coming from that school did in the grade 6 EQAO in another school.

If what you said is true, how does the data of 32 % of the students having special education needs fit in since a good portion of them would be experiencing problems in oral language and reading?  From what I have read, anyone experiencing problems in oral language and reading will experience problems in the written language. So the 19 % increase in written achievement scores must have come from this group as well as a portion that did not meet the provincial standard in reading. If that is the case, explain how writing achievement can be higher than the reading achievement scores?  From the Children of the Code to cognitive science oral language comes first, than reading and than writing. If any aspect of oral, reading and writing are weak, it will impact each other, but the strongest impact will be writing, that is very dependent on the oral and reading abilities.

What really floors me, is to come to the defense of Lotherington and her theories. Letters to the editor certainly did not defend her theories.

“None of her extensive, career-making publications would have appeared in print unless she had learned conventional writing skills. Surely she is not suggesting a return to a situation in which a small and very privileged literate class, comprising people like herself, holds the key to expressive mysteries denied to the bulk of the population?

Keith Wilson, University of Ottawa “

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/jan-29-letters-to-the-editor/article1887197/page2/

And who is Keith Wilson?
http://www.english.uottawa.ca/faculty/kwilson.html

Thank God for professors who do not teach at Teachers’ Colleges. They seem to be the only ones that will make mince meat out of the current theories emerging from teachers’ colleges, and to remind Lortherington and others of her ilk of the bad outcomes resulting from their theories. One of the outcomes is, becoming poor communicators in the written word.

“Also, I believe Doug was banned from this site for being insulting to other posters. Are you asking for the same? You have personally insulted me and my motives (as perceived by you) on several occasions.

To correct factual errors (as I have done above) is not to impugn people?s integrity or commitment, but to accuse them of various unworthy motives and intentions (as you have done to me on three occasions at least) certainly is.

Enough already. “

I agree with you TDSBSW and value your experience and sharing of it. We can trot out all of the so-called “experts” in the world and we will ultimately get well….what we’ve ended up with now.

In reading through the posts I do find Jo-anne’s post rather harsh and uncalled for.  Each and every poster has his/her own value in submission.

This is exactly why parents get turned off of education and are continuing to do so in droves. Yes, even reforming education and organizations fight amongst themselves.

Dear TDSBNW,

My sincere apologies for what appears to have been derogatory remarks responding to your posts.

I appreciate and notice you have strong knowledge in my favorite subject matter:)and even though we disagree about a few instructional components,there is no need for me to have made you feel insulted,demeaned or hurt.

Sincerely,Jo-Anne

I was intrigued by your last quote in this article:  “Please suggest to the aging politicians who support standardized tests to collaborate electronically with the children of today, who might be able to give them a few pointers on how people communicate in this century. Mind you, they might not all pass.”

‘...they might not all pass’ - was she referring to the politicians, or the children, do you think?   From my perspective, it’s a 50-50 chance either way.  Rather neat obfuscation - I’ll have to remember that trick. (no wonder she’s a doctor of linguistics)

Everyone, two follow up letters in the Saturday Globe and Mail, pretty astute I thought at first glance.

(Jo-Anne, a touch of class! )

My son is an engineer who works in the “new” workplace.  He would agree with the last G&M letter writer in that,
“In a medium such as the Web that demands clarity and economy of expression, ruthlessly efficient organization of content and the leanest possible systems platforms, the development of excellent communication and analytical skills has never been more important.

  “These skills are the new basics. Insisting that all students master them and testing them regularly to ensure they do is critical to ensuring they have the skills to fulfill their potential. Traditional skills of thinking and expression are the lifeblood of new media success.”

He would not be in the job he has without those well-honed basic skills.  He would probably laugh at the edu-babble spewed by such research espoused by the esteemed York U. Phd.