Julie’s Blog

To begin, I found it ironically humorous that after I read the Goodman article in which he speaks so negatively regarding McGraw-Hill publications and those who endorse them, I picked up Teaching To Change the World and noticed that it was actually published by McGraw-Hill.  In the same way, I have found it ironically humorous throughout the readings in this program how frequent the authors have called into question traditional teaching norms that focus on skills and standards that reflect desired outcomes on a standardized test, and yet it is partially due to our performance on a standardized test that we are even a part of the program itself.  It’s like the old adage about the chicken and the egg.  What came first the standards or the test?

Now, I have never fully understood the whole language versus phonics debate.  Is not phonics an integral part of whole language instruction?  I was taught to read through a dominantly phonetic program.  I struggled with reading throughout public school, and still to this day to some extent.  So, I recognize the inadequacies of only teaching children to read by teaching them phonics and decoding skills.  However, I know that if a child is reading a text, especially a text that is somewhat challenging as it should be if we are teaching in that child’s zone of proximity, and comes to an unknown word he/she must know the sounds associated with letters to even attempt to read the word.  A good reading curriculum should be fully comprehensive. Why is this argument so defined?  Can’t we have the best of both reading worlds?   We should be utilizing every resource available ensure the literacy of our students.  This includes basals and trade books.  We can’t stop teaching skills and standards without disservicing our students.  We can, however, teach those skills and standards through integrated and authentically rich activities.  Furthermore, I disagree with Professor Pearson in that a child that recognizes the golden arches and thinks hamburgers or sees his parent reach for a book and thinks about story time is prepared for full adult literacy.  If this were the case there would be no argument for either kind of reading instruction.  What about the child that has only gone to McDonald’s twice before Kindergarten or the child that has never sat in his/her parent’s lap for a story?  The research and evidence that support such programs as Head Start and Pre-K makes clear that children are coming to school less and less prepared for even early literacy. 

As for mathematics, why do the authors of this book never seem to take into account different learning styles?  If someone gave me a long division problem and asked me to find my own why to solve it without using the steps I had been taught first I would panic, and then I would sit drawing tally marks into groups.  It would be my preference to complete the problem on paper using multiplication and subtraction, and yet I fully understand the concept of long division.  I think that this reflects my learning style not a result from the traditional instruction I received.  It’s the same as my preference for a quiet well lit setting when I read.  Some students derive meaning and understanding for those abstract concepts by following those traditional steps.  This does not mean that I believe we should neglect the learning styles of others.  Instruction across the curriculum should be reasonably differentiated to best suit individual students.  However, until college entrance exams begin accepting estimations as correct answers we must teach our students some computational skills or we are setting them up for failure.  I believe it is for these reasons that Mrs. Cheney said what she did regarding progressive math.  Not, as the authors would have us to believe, that she fears a disintegrating educational and social order.