Note: Visit my education blog, The Green Cup.
The concept of a spiral curriculum has changed the way I teach. I suspect that the concept will change the way most teachers teach before too much longer. And special needs students will benefit from that.
A couple of years I was introduced to a concept in teaching that, for me (and most of the other teachers in my building), was almost entirely new. The concept, the idea, is at least as old as I am. It is called a spiral curriculum.
Let me compare a spiral curriculum to the more tradition approach to teaching that people are used to. The basic idea behind the tradition approach is that the time has come for something: fractions, gerunds, state capitals, the Third Law of Thermodynamics - whatever. Because the time has come, we're going to learn it. Maybe that means we're going to memorize it (like with state capitals). Maybe that means we're going to develop a skill with it (like the addition of fractions with like denominators). Maybe that means we're going to grasp how it affects us. But whatever it means, the time is now - for EVERYONE. We're going to work on it for a while. The kids are going to learn it NOW. And then we're going to move on to the next thing that the time has come for...
In contrast, a spiral curriculum begins with the assumption that children are not always ready to learn something. Readiness to learn is at the core of a spiral curriculum. And instead of focusing for relatively long periods of time on some narrow topic whose time has come, a spiral curriculum tries to expose students to a wide varies of ideas over and over ago. For a select few, the time for gerunds and infinitives has already arrived by the second grade. And for a few, algebra and geometry make perfect sense by grade three. A spiral curriculum, by moving in a circular pattern from topic to topic within field like, say, math, seeks to catch kids when they first become ready to learn something and pick up the other kids, the ones not ready to learn yet, later - the next time we spiral around to that topic.
Why isn't a spiral curriculum a circular curriculum? Because it doesn't stay at the same difficult level as time goes by....
And it is with math that I became involved in a spiral curriculum. My school district began this year implementing a curriculum developed at the University of Chicago called Everyday Math. From the very early grades students are introduced to ideas from algebra, geometry, statistics, measurement, patterns, and so on. The challenge for the teacher? Simple: stay on track. The first time you try and explain what a variable is, NO ONE gets it. You spend the day that the book says to on it and you MOVE ON.
And THAT is HARD for someone from a traditional background. Looking at a group of kids and saying, "No one understood. Some of them will get it next time..." is hard for someone from a traditional teaching background. But there will be a next time. And a next time after that. So if Billy or Suzie isn't ready for converting improper fractions to mixed numbers this week, NOW, that's okay.
And for special needs children, that's good news...
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Special Education Vocabulary: Accommodation
The law says that a school has to "accommodate" a student's disabilities. Do you know what that MEANS? Technical jargon can get in the way of understanding your child's rights.
What is an accommodation? The long list of technical terms in special education can be daunting to some parents. And since accommodation is one of the most basic terms, I thought I'd take a little time here to make sure you could find a clear, concise definition...
Schwab Learning has one of the best explanations of the term accommodation that I've come across on the Internet:
Accommodations provide different ways for kids to take in information or communicate their knowledge back to you. The changes basically don't alter or lower the standards or expectations for a subject or test. Through the child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 Plan, classroom accommodations are developed formally.
Their page goes on in other places to explain (correctly, I might add) that an accommodation is a change in the student's classroom learning environment so that the student has better access to the educational process.
Accommodations can be simple. If a child's disability has to do with their hearing or vision, one of the simplest accommodations is usually called preferential seating. Johnny can't see very far or hear very well so we move him to the front of the room - closer to the blackboard and to the talking teacher. And in some cases, accommodating a child's disability with a change in their classroom learning environment as simple as that one makes a huge difference in how well they do.
Some other common accommodations include:
Parents should distinguish between these two ideas. Accommodations do not change what is expected of a student in school; they only change the way the student gains access to learning. Modifications actually change the curriculum and expectations placed on a disabled student. But we'll leave that piece of vocabulary, modifications, for another day...
What is an accommodation? The long list of technical terms in special education can be daunting to some parents. And since accommodation is one of the most basic terms, I thought I'd take a little time here to make sure you could find a clear, concise definition...
Schwab Learning has one of the best explanations of the term accommodation that I've come across on the Internet:
Accommodations provide different ways for kids to take in information or communicate their knowledge back to you. The changes basically don't alter or lower the standards or expectations for a subject or test. Through the child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 Plan, classroom accommodations are developed formally.
Their page goes on in other places to explain (correctly, I might add) that an accommodation is a change in the student's classroom learning environment so that the student has better access to the educational process.
Accommodations can be simple. If a child's disability has to do with their hearing or vision, one of the simplest accommodations is usually called preferential seating. Johnny can't see very far or hear very well so we move him to the front of the room - closer to the blackboard and to the talking teacher. And in some cases, accommodating a child's disability with a change in their classroom learning environment as simple as that one makes a huge difference in how well they do.
Some other common accommodations include:
- Extended time - a child with a disability may be given extra time to take a test or complete an assignment.
- Oral testing - if we want to know whether a child with a learning disability knows who the first president was, we can ask him and let him tell us instead of writing down our question and having him write down his answer. After all, if he knows who the first president was he should get credit for that. And if his disability interferes with his ability to write, that's a fair accommodation to make.
- Assistive technology - a child with a vision problem can listen to a story on tape instead of reading it from a book and a student with dysgraphia may benefit greatly from using a word processor instead of a pencil.
- Peer tutoring - simply assigning a classmate to help a disabled student "get it" can be powerful.
Parents should distinguish between these two ideas. Accommodations do not change what is expected of a student in school; they only change the way the student gains access to learning. Modifications actually change the curriculum and expectations placed on a disabled student. But we'll leave that piece of vocabulary, modifications, for another day...
Thursday, September 20, 2007
What is a 504 Plan?
Note: Visit my education blog, The Green Cup.
What is a 504 Plan? Do you need one? How is it different from an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)? These are important question if your child has a disability.
In the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law No. 93-112), Section 504 states that: "no otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall solely by reason of his/her disability be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination to any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance..." (emphasis added).
At the moment, every public school system in America receives some degree of federal funding. Because of this, they are all subject to this law. What that means for you is this: if your child has a disability, the school system must accommodate that disability in some way - under Section 504 if no other way is available. Probably that will mean the development of a formal plan for defining and providing those accommodations.
A 504 Plan is civil rights document. It protects your child's rights regarding access to education. Often the disability is a medical problem like asthma, childhood diabetes, or allergies.
Sometimes the problem is more complicated and the school system and parents must decide whether the child needs a 504 Plan under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or an IEP under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The difference between the two, in theory, is simple. Technically, a 504 Plan provides accommodations for the disability. Accommodations are environmental in nature. Changes are made to the learning environment:
The curriculum itself does not change. An IEP, on the other hand, is for students whose disabilities require specially designed instruction. The curriculum itself must be modified in order for the student to receive an appropriate education.
Do you need a 504 Plan? A 504 Plan formalizes a set of accommodations that the school may be quite willing to make informally. For example, if your child has asthma and you bring the school some kind of a medical statement to document the fact, the school may be quiet willing to:
There are some basic steps involved in obtaining a 504 Plan. The first is referral. A teacher, support staff, a parent, or a medical professional may refer the student for consideration, usually by calling the school and speaking to the principal or the chair of a school team that considers such matters.
The next step is a meeting to discuss the referral; perhaps a 504 Plan will emerge from that meeting, or perhaps more than one meeting will be required as the team involved gathers information. The last step is to review the effectiveness of the 504 Plan at some later date.
A 504 Plan can be an effective tool for safeguarding your child's right to an appropriate education.
What is a 504 Plan? Do you need one? How is it different from an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)? These are important question if your child has a disability.
In the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law No. 93-112), Section 504 states that: "no otherwise qualified individual with a disability...shall solely by reason of his/her disability be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination to any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance..." (emphasis added).
At the moment, every public school system in America receives some degree of federal funding. Because of this, they are all subject to this law. What that means for you is this: if your child has a disability, the school system must accommodate that disability in some way - under Section 504 if no other way is available. Probably that will mean the development of a formal plan for defining and providing those accommodations.
A 504 Plan is civil rights document. It protects your child's rights regarding access to education. Often the disability is a medical problem like asthma, childhood diabetes, or allergies.
Sometimes the problem is more complicated and the school system and parents must decide whether the child needs a 504 Plan under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or an IEP under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The difference between the two, in theory, is simple. Technically, a 504 Plan provides accommodations for the disability. Accommodations are environmental in nature. Changes are made to the learning environment:
- a handicapped bathroom is installed.
- an elevator is made available.
- assistive technology (possibly something as simple as a cassette tape player) is provided.
- perhaps the student is given extra time on some assignments or tests.
The curriculum itself does not change. An IEP, on the other hand, is for students whose disabilities require specially designed instruction. The curriculum itself must be modified in order for the student to receive an appropriate education.
Do you need a 504 Plan? A 504 Plan formalizes a set of accommodations that the school may be quite willing to make informally. For example, if your child has asthma and you bring the school some kind of a medical statement to document the fact, the school may be quiet willing to:
- alter the child's schedule of physical activity.
- hold medication in the office for the child and administer it when appropriate.
- commit to take a particular set of steps in the event of an emergency.
There are some basic steps involved in obtaining a 504 Plan. The first is referral. A teacher, support staff, a parent, or a medical professional may refer the student for consideration, usually by calling the school and speaking to the principal or the chair of a school team that considers such matters.
The next step is a meeting to discuss the referral; perhaps a 504 Plan will emerge from that meeting, or perhaps more than one meeting will be required as the team involved gathers information. The last step is to review the effectiveness of the 504 Plan at some later date.
A 504 Plan can be an effective tool for safeguarding your child's right to an appropriate education.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Weather, Pollen and the Start of School
I have not died. But it has been almost two weeks since I managed to publish a blog post. The start of school, combined with a few days away from my keyboard for Labor Day weekend and a sense of mild depression over the Tennessee Volunteers not winning their first football game of the season, has simply made it difficult for me to blog...
I suspect that heat has also played a role in my inactivity. There have now been at least 17 days this summer where the temperature at the airport in nearby Bluefield hit at least 90. Laugh if you must, but 90F degrees is hot here. And 17 days of such weather was the all time record. We have had two days of 90-plus temperatures in September. This is the first time in 50 years the mercury has reached 90 in September. Most of our schools have no air-conditioning at all and relatively poor ventilation. Since I first went back to my school on August 24, parts of the many building have felt like working inside an oven. I come home damp from sweating all day and dehydrated and tired. And then I nap instead of blogging.
Goldenrod is also in full bloom. It has taken over the hillside behind our house and most of the valley's I drive through to work. It creates a pretty color to the countryside. But it also turns my eyes red and makes the itch. Oh well; it happens every year. A nice rain would wash the pollen out of the air for a few days. But we are near drought conditions and no one remembers the last nice rain.
Well, time to make breakfast. Perhaps I'll blog more about the new school year soon...
I suspect that heat has also played a role in my inactivity. There have now been at least 17 days this summer where the temperature at the airport in nearby Bluefield hit at least 90. Laugh if you must, but 90F degrees is hot here. And 17 days of such weather was the all time record. We have had two days of 90-plus temperatures in September. This is the first time in 50 years the mercury has reached 90 in September. Most of our schools have no air-conditioning at all and relatively poor ventilation. Since I first went back to my school on August 24, parts of the many building have felt like working inside an oven. I come home damp from sweating all day and dehydrated and tired. And then I nap instead of blogging.Goldenrod is also in full bloom. It has taken over the hillside behind our house and most of the valley's I drive through to work. It creates a pretty color to the countryside. But it also turns my eyes red and makes the itch. Oh well; it happens every year. A nice rain would wash the pollen out of the air for a few days. But we are near drought conditions and no one remembers the last nice rain.
Well, time to make breakfast. Perhaps I'll blog more about the new school year soon...
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Special Education Vocab: Least Restrictive Environment
The law says that your school system is obligated to educate a student with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE) possible. Do you know what that MEANS?
What is LRE? The long list of technical terms in special education can be daunting to some parents. And since LRE is one of the most basic terms, I thought I'd take a little time here to make sure you could find a clear, concise definition...
The Least Restrictive Environment Coalition has one of the best explanations of the term least restrictive environment that I've come across on the Internet:
The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is defined as the educational setting where a child with disabilities can receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) designed to meet his or her education needs while being educated with peers without disabilities in the regular educational environment to the maximum extent appropriate.
Their page goes on to look at a number of related questions about LRE and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), LRE and Section 504, etc.
Least Restrictive Environment is really a pretty simple concept. Any child (disabled or not) should be given an appropriate education. A child with a disability should be educated with its non-disabled peers. Sometimes a child's disability means that what's appropriate for the disabled child is different from what's appropriate for the non-disabled child. And, sometimes, the differences between what's appropriate for the disabled child and what's appropriate for his or her non-disabled peers means that the child with a disability has to be taken out of the general education setting in order to receive an appropriate education. Among the easiest examples to understand, a child with orthopedic impairments who is bound to a wheel chair may receive physical therapy during some of the time each week that his non-disabled peers spend in the gym for physical education.
The point is this, if a child with a disability is going to be removed from the regular education environment where his non-disabled peers are being educated, there needs to be some rationale, some justification as to why it needs to happen. And that justification needs to be articulated individually for each segment of time where the child is being removed: a justification for removing the child from reading and/or language arts, a justification for removing the child from math, a justification for removing the child from physical education, etc.
In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education that separate educations could not be equal education. The ruling's initial affect was to end racial segregation. But eventually the courts applied the ruling to disability rights. Thus Least Restrictive Environment is a civil rights issue for people with disabilities. In a nutshell, schools cannot segregate students with disabilities from the non-disabled peers except when the separation is essential for an appropriate education...
What is LRE? The long list of technical terms in special education can be daunting to some parents. And since LRE is one of the most basic terms, I thought I'd take a little time here to make sure you could find a clear, concise definition...
The Least Restrictive Environment Coalition has one of the best explanations of the term least restrictive environment that I've come across on the Internet:
The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is defined as the educational setting where a child with disabilities can receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) designed to meet his or her education needs while being educated with peers without disabilities in the regular educational environment to the maximum extent appropriate.
Their page goes on to look at a number of related questions about LRE and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), LRE and Section 504, etc.
Least Restrictive Environment is really a pretty simple concept. Any child (disabled or not) should be given an appropriate education. A child with a disability should be educated with its non-disabled peers. Sometimes a child's disability means that what's appropriate for the disabled child is different from what's appropriate for the non-disabled child. And, sometimes, the differences between what's appropriate for the disabled child and what's appropriate for his or her non-disabled peers means that the child with a disability has to be taken out of the general education setting in order to receive an appropriate education. Among the easiest examples to understand, a child with orthopedic impairments who is bound to a wheel chair may receive physical therapy during some of the time each week that his non-disabled peers spend in the gym for physical education.
The point is this, if a child with a disability is going to be removed from the regular education environment where his non-disabled peers are being educated, there needs to be some rationale, some justification as to why it needs to happen. And that justification needs to be articulated individually for each segment of time where the child is being removed: a justification for removing the child from reading and/or language arts, a justification for removing the child from math, a justification for removing the child from physical education, etc.
In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education that separate educations could not be equal education. The ruling's initial affect was to end racial segregation. But eventually the courts applied the ruling to disability rights. Thus Least Restrictive Environment is a civil rights issue for people with disabilities. In a nutshell, schools cannot segregate students with disabilities from the non-disabled peers except when the separation is essential for an appropriate education...
Monday, August 20, 2007
School Starts Again
After 10 weeks away from school, the normal work day starts again on Wednesday for me. Along with every other teacher in my county, I report to Mount View School on Wednesday to hear a message from the superintendent. My afternoon will be spent in a special education meeting there. Most other teachers will spend the afternoon at their own schools. On Thursday Cheryl and I go together for a follow up on training in the Orton-Gillingham method of reading instruction. During the afternoon I go to a workshop on DIBELS - a testing system, the letters stand for Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills.
Friday I get to see my old school for the first time. We'll have a faculty senate meeting and probably a curriculum team meeting. Then teacher schedule for the start of the year will get finalized. Monday the kids arrive...
After three summers of full time graduate work I managed to escape that grind this year. That's not to say I did nothing. I read our new 180-page state policy on special education. I attended a week long training academy the last week of July that trained elementary school teachers to use our new reading curriculum. I went to a two day workshop on co-teaching. I traveled to Georgia twice to take certification tests there. And I read Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger, Steinbeck's East of Eden, and For Whom the Bells Toll by Hemingway.
The first few days will be a challenge. After 10 weeks without much of a schedule I have misplaced my body clock. Going to bed and getting up seem irrelevant at the moment - it's what you get done while you're awake that matters. My responsibilities will change somewhat; at the moment it looks as though I will not be involved in math instruction this year, but I'll be more involved in reading. And I look set to have some added responsibility in the area of technology for students. Ask me about the details after I go to the school on Friday.
Hopefully it will be a good year...
Friday I get to see my old school for the first time. We'll have a faculty senate meeting and probably a curriculum team meeting. Then teacher schedule for the start of the year will get finalized. Monday the kids arrive...
After three summers of full time graduate work I managed to escape that grind this year. That's not to say I did nothing. I read our new 180-page state policy on special education. I attended a week long training academy the last week of July that trained elementary school teachers to use our new reading curriculum. I went to a two day workshop on co-teaching. I traveled to Georgia twice to take certification tests there. And I read Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger, Steinbeck's East of Eden, and For Whom the Bells Toll by Hemingway.
The first few days will be a challenge. After 10 weeks without much of a schedule I have misplaced my body clock. Going to bed and getting up seem irrelevant at the moment - it's what you get done while you're awake that matters. My responsibilities will change somewhat; at the moment it looks as though I will not be involved in math instruction this year, but I'll be more involved in reading. And I look set to have some added responsibility in the area of technology for students. Ask me about the details after I go to the school on Friday.
Hopefully it will be a good year...
Friday, August 17, 2007
Why Special Education Labels Matter
Does it matter how your child is classified as a special education student? I mean, after all, Special Ed is SPECIAL ED: right?
I subscribe to a number of email lists on various topics related to education and twice now in the last few months the question of labels and why they matter has come up on one of these email lists.
The most recent occasion was a posting on a mailing list dedicated to special education law. A parent emailed the list to say that now, at the age of 12 and after over seven years as a special education student, her child had been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, a communication disorder that falls under the umbrella of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The child had previously been diagnosed with some disorders that led to a special education label of emotionally disturbed. And the parent wanted to know why it mattered and whether she should push to have the classification changed.
One of the people who replied to her email was Carol Moore, a school psychologist in Oregon. I liked her answers (they were more thorough and systematic than my own) and, with her permission, I've quoted them here for my readers:
Moore concluded with a remark I had to smile at: "If you're now confused by all this, take heart: so are all the teams I've worked with. The primary thing to bear in mind is to accurately portray the student's difficulties."
The discussion took place on the Reed Martin Special Ed Law mailing list.
Special education labels DO matter for other reasons, too. A label/placement can determine what teacher a child sees. Different special education teachers may have different certifications.
In the not too distant past I was involved in a discussion on an email list on Down Syndrome. Let me say at the start that it is a great mailing list. If you are interested in issues related to Down Syndrome, the Down Syndrome List is the place, and I highly recommend them.
That said, the discussion I'm referring to lasted a week or more and shifted between a couple of focus points, depending on who was contributing at the moment and what their exact interests were. The focuses included:
The role of IQ (and, probably more importantly, IQ testing) in determining the eligibility category of a special education student.
The importance of inclusion for mentally impaired students (something the people on the list placed a higher value on than most special education parents)
And a classification distinction my particular state makes between students who are mildly mentally impaired and those who are moderately mentally impaired.
The discussion was animated. With several people replying to several people as they checked their email, it was sometimes like being at a table where everyone was talking at once. And, to be honest, I'm not an average member of the list; I'm a teacher, while most members of the list are caregivers for a child or adult with Down Syndrome.
At times in this particular discussion I felt like I got slapped around a little. (But, like I said, it's a good list and, hey, that's okay.)
The question of the validity of IQ tests -- what they really measure and to what extent they accurately gauge intelligence -- I leave for some other day (like when I do my doctorate, or something). But, like it or not, IQ ("general intellectual functioning," in the words of the policy) is specifically used in my state's policy to determine whether a student is mentally impaired. To be classified as mentally impaired, the student has to have an IQ of less than about 70. My state goes on, following the American Medical Association's model, and classifies mentally impaired students into sub-classes for eligibility purposes:
But why does it matter whether a student is classified as moderately mentally impaired or mildly mentally impaired? Because teachers get certified to work with mildly mentally impaired students or they get certified to work with moderately mentally impaired students, etc. That means that if a student is classified as moderately mentally impaired (as Down Syndrome students often are) they become the educational responsibility of someone certified in working with moderately mentally impaired students -- and in my county we don't have someone with that certification at every school.
It's possible to be certified in more than one area of mentally impaired; but I don't know anyone who is (and the academic work involved would be considerable). And if an eligibility committee decides that Johnny is moderately mentally impaired instead of mildly mentally impaired, that may ultimately affect which school Johnny attends, what his program of study looks like, whether he is required to take the same high stakes test that most of the school's students take, etc. At the very least it would mean that the student would have to attend school somewhere in the county where a teacher certified to work with moderately mentally impaired students was available - and there's no teacher like that at my school!
Why doesn't my county place a teacher certified in teaching the moderately mentally impaired at every school? They don't exist. We don't have that many teachers certified in teaching the moderately mentally impaired. There's a shortage. Just like there's a shortage in my area of math and science teachers for the middle and high school grades.
At one point some of the participants in the discussion drew the conclusion that we segregated moderately mentally impaired students in my county. Of course, that's not the case (it would be a gross violation of the student's civil rights). And while a moderately mentally impaired student that lived near my school might have to take the bus to a different elementary school so that someone properly certified would be around to be responsible for their educational experience, that school would be a perfectly normal elementary school. But I don't think some of the people in the discussion ever bought that. And, as I said above, Down Syndrome parents seem to place a higher value than most special education parents on seeing their children taught in an environment where they are with their non-disabled peers...
But as you can see, whether a child is classified as moderately mentally impaired or mildly mentally impaired could possible make a big difference in their educational experience. Labels do matter.
I subscribe to a number of email lists on various topics related to education and twice now in the last few months the question of labels and why they matter has come up on one of these email lists.
The most recent occasion was a posting on a mailing list dedicated to special education law. A parent emailed the list to say that now, at the age of 12 and after over seven years as a special education student, her child had been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, a communication disorder that falls under the umbrella of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The child had previously been diagnosed with some disorders that led to a special education label of emotionally disturbed. And the parent wanted to know why it mattered and whether she should push to have the classification changed.
One of the people who replied to her email was Carol Moore, a school psychologist in Oregon. I liked her answers (they were more thorough and systematic than my own) and, with her permission, I've quoted them here for my readers:
- The "right" classification is the accurate one. One person mentioned that the child had a chromosomal disorder that causes low cognition, motor difficulties, speech language, etc. In that case, the most appropriate classification would be Mental Retardation, since language difficulties are subsumed under that label, as would be behavioral difficulties, etc. The motor issues would still be addressed in the IEP, but that is not the primary factor affecting the student's educational performance. Other examples: a kiddo has a head injury and subsequent learning and behavior difficulty. The appropriate classification is TBI, not Mental Retardation, Emotional Disturbance, or Learning Disability; another child has a variety of medical diagnoses...let's say, ADHD, Bipolar, Tourettes, etc. The appropriate classification is Other Health Impaired.
- Too often parents and other team members would prefer to use a more palatable category, say Developmentally Delayed, when the child is clearly Mentally Retarded, to give a common example. This hurts the family by raising the expectation that the child may develop out of her difficulties, reducing community services and supports that may be available, and perhaps leading to school based services that are less appropriate.
- Categorical eligibility has an educational benefit...staff must learn about the conditions that give rise to an OHI or Autism eligibility, for example, whereas an Emotionally Disturbed or Learning Disabled student may be considered "someone else's problem," specifically, the SPED staff's vs. the regular education teacher's.
- Dollars flow through special education eligibilities via formulas that are established by the state. In my state, for example, the category of Traumatic Brain Injury is finally being added to the low incidence regional disability services, opening up the possibility of additional resources being available to students in that category. This is what happened with Autism spectrum disorder...parents advocated and the disorder became recognized and resources flowed.
- Finally, it is possible to have multiple eligibilities, if they all make sense. Some disorders "trump" or subsume others. For example, an Autistic student should not have an ED label UNLESS the emotional (and not typical behavioral manifestations of autism) component is significantly interfering and not automatically a part of the autism...perhaps depression. A child with an OHI eligibility due to ADHD should not also be labeled ED for the same reason...behavioral difficulties are part of the ADHD. Again, if something rather different were presented, say, substantial depression or anxiety, then addition of ED may be warranted.
Moore concluded with a remark I had to smile at: "If you're now confused by all this, take heart: so are all the teams I've worked with. The primary thing to bear in mind is to accurately portray the student's difficulties."
The discussion took place on the Reed Martin Special Ed Law mailing list.
Special education labels DO matter for other reasons, too. A label/placement can determine what teacher a child sees. Different special education teachers may have different certifications.
In the not too distant past I was involved in a discussion on an email list on Down Syndrome. Let me say at the start that it is a great mailing list. If you are interested in issues related to Down Syndrome, the Down Syndrome List is the place, and I highly recommend them.
That said, the discussion I'm referring to lasted a week or more and shifted between a couple of focus points, depending on who was contributing at the moment and what their exact interests were. The focuses included:
The role of IQ (and, probably more importantly, IQ testing) in determining the eligibility category of a special education student.
The importance of inclusion for mentally impaired students (something the people on the list placed a higher value on than most special education parents)
And a classification distinction my particular state makes between students who are mildly mentally impaired and those who are moderately mentally impaired.
The discussion was animated. With several people replying to several people as they checked their email, it was sometimes like being at a table where everyone was talking at once. And, to be honest, I'm not an average member of the list; I'm a teacher, while most members of the list are caregivers for a child or adult with Down Syndrome.
At times in this particular discussion I felt like I got slapped around a little. (But, like I said, it's a good list and, hey, that's okay.)
The question of the validity of IQ tests -- what they really measure and to what extent they accurately gauge intelligence -- I leave for some other day (like when I do my doctorate, or something). But, like it or not, IQ ("general intellectual functioning," in the words of the policy) is specifically used in my state's policy to determine whether a student is mentally impaired. To be classified as mentally impaired, the student has to have an IQ of less than about 70. My state goes on, following the American Medical Association's model, and classifies mentally impaired students into sub-classes for eligibility purposes:
- Mildly Mentally Impaired if their IQ falls between about 55 and about 70
- Moderately Mentally Impaired if their IQ falls between about 40 and about 55
- Severely Mentally Impaired if their IQ falls between about 25 and about 40
- Profoundly Mentally Impaired if their IQ is less than about 25
But why does it matter whether a student is classified as moderately mentally impaired or mildly mentally impaired? Because teachers get certified to work with mildly mentally impaired students or they get certified to work with moderately mentally impaired students, etc. That means that if a student is classified as moderately mentally impaired (as Down Syndrome students often are) they become the educational responsibility of someone certified in working with moderately mentally impaired students -- and in my county we don't have someone with that certification at every school.
It's possible to be certified in more than one area of mentally impaired; but I don't know anyone who is (and the academic work involved would be considerable). And if an eligibility committee decides that Johnny is moderately mentally impaired instead of mildly mentally impaired, that may ultimately affect which school Johnny attends, what his program of study looks like, whether he is required to take the same high stakes test that most of the school's students take, etc. At the very least it would mean that the student would have to attend school somewhere in the county where a teacher certified to work with moderately mentally impaired students was available - and there's no teacher like that at my school!
Why doesn't my county place a teacher certified in teaching the moderately mentally impaired at every school? They don't exist. We don't have that many teachers certified in teaching the moderately mentally impaired. There's a shortage. Just like there's a shortage in my area of math and science teachers for the middle and high school grades.
At one point some of the participants in the discussion drew the conclusion that we segregated moderately mentally impaired students in my county. Of course, that's not the case (it would be a gross violation of the student's civil rights). And while a moderately mentally impaired student that lived near my school might have to take the bus to a different elementary school so that someone properly certified would be around to be responsible for their educational experience, that school would be a perfectly normal elementary school. But I don't think some of the people in the discussion ever bought that. And, as I said above, Down Syndrome parents seem to place a higher value than most special education parents on seeing their children taught in an environment where they are with their non-disabled peers...
But as you can see, whether a child is classified as moderately mentally impaired or mildly mentally impaired could possible make a big difference in their educational experience. Labels do matter.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Special Education Vocab: FAPE
The law says that your school system is obligated to provide a student with disabilities with a FAPE – a free appropriate public education. Do you know what that MEANS?
Technical jargon can get in the way of understanding your child's rights.
What is a FAPE? The long list of technical terms in special education can be daunting to some parents. And since FAPE is one of the most basic terms, I thought I'd take a little time here to make sure you could find a clear, concise definition...
The Special Education Lawyers website has one of the best explanations of the term FAPE that I've come across on the Internet. Their page looks at each word individually and talks briefly about what it means for an education to be free, what it means for it to be appropriate, etc.
The concept of a FAPE comes from a court ruling in 1971. In the case Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a federal judge ruled that retarded children had a right to a free public education under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The case affected students in Pennsylvania. But the next year a case in the District of Columbia, Mills v. the Board of Education, made the concept of FAPE binding on all schools in the U.S.
To catch up with the courts, Congress passed a number of laws over the next few years. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, along with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975 were the most important. EAHCA was reauthorized in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The concepts involved in FAPE are fairly straightforward. Education should be free - from transportation back and forth to school to the cost of textbooks, if it is essential to education it should not cost the student (or the student's guardians) anything. Education should be appropriate; this idea is harder to define and is usually the point of contention when disagreement occurs between a child's family and a school system. And education should be offered by a public agency (a government run school system).
What is (and is not) appropriate is a changing concept because education is a growing academic field and because values change with time.
Technical jargon can get in the way of understanding your child's rights.
What is a FAPE? The long list of technical terms in special education can be daunting to some parents. And since FAPE is one of the most basic terms, I thought I'd take a little time here to make sure you could find a clear, concise definition...
The Special Education Lawyers website has one of the best explanations of the term FAPE that I've come across on the Internet. Their page looks at each word individually and talks briefly about what it means for an education to be free, what it means for it to be appropriate, etc.The concept of a FAPE comes from a court ruling in 1971. In the case Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a federal judge ruled that retarded children had a right to a free public education under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The case affected students in Pennsylvania. But the next year a case in the District of Columbia, Mills v. the Board of Education, made the concept of FAPE binding on all schools in the U.S.
To catch up with the courts, Congress passed a number of laws over the next few years. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, along with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975 were the most important. EAHCA was reauthorized in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The concepts involved in FAPE are fairly straightforward. Education should be free - from transportation back and forth to school to the cost of textbooks, if it is essential to education it should not cost the student (or the student's guardians) anything. Education should be appropriate; this idea is harder to define and is usually the point of contention when disagreement occurs between a child's family and a school system. And education should be offered by a public agency (a government run school system).
What is (and is not) appropriate is a changing concept because education is a growing academic field and because values change with time.
- Fifty years ago, for example, sex education would probably not have been considered appropriate for many students; but our values have changed.
- Twenty-five years ago it might have been consider appropriate to "guide" students with disabilities into academic paths or tracks that focused on trade skills like auto mechanics; but changes in our values and in the economy have broadened the academic and career choices for many disabled students.
- And advances in our understanding of how children learn regularly require that we re-evaluate the methods we use to teach all children.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Could You Vote for Hillary?
Eight years ago (give or take a few months) people started asking me if I could vote for Al Gore. It usually wasn't really a question - it was more of an accusation. They'd tell me that Gore was arrogant and over-educated (I always wondered what was wrong with being over-educated). They'd tell me Gore was stupid, that he thought he'd invented the Internet (which, obviously, he hadn't), and that Al made fun of Oliver North at a 1987 Senate hearing where North told Congress that one day Osama Bin Laden was going to be a problem (You remember that email? The truth is that Gore wasn't on the committee and never questioned North). Then they'd tell me something like that Bush had better judgment and would make a good president - and they'd finish with something about how a Bush presidency would be good for public education in America....
Four years ago those same people started asking me if I could vote for John Kerry. And, again, it usually sounded more like an accusation than a question. They'd tell me that Kerry was a hypocrite because he only threw cheap ribbons that can be replaced anyway instead of real medals at whatever that protest event was. They'd tell me Kerry didn't really earn those three purple hearts, anyway, and that they knew he didn't because Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said he didn't (and we all knew they were a disinterested party speaking on behalf of God and justice). And they'd tell that Kerry was really just a pansy who owed most of what he'd accomplished in life to money he got from his wife with the funny accent. Then they'd tell me that it was unpatriotic to vote against Bush in the middle of a war (even if he started it)....
Now those same people have started asking me if I could vote for Hillary. And it sounds like an accusation again.
I voted for Kerry. I think I voted for Gore, but that was a long time ago and I'm not absolutely positive.
When the Democratic Primary comes around in my state, I'll probably vote for John Edwards. For reasons I can't really quantify, reasons that have as much to do with personality as with politics, I don't really like Hillary all that much. But on November 4th, 2008, if the choice comes down to Hillary Clinton or Fred Thompson, or maybe Hillary vs. Newt Gingrich, I will not stay home and curl up in bed and pull the covers over my head.
The Republicans have spent eight years trying to privatize public education and take America backwards in time to before it was a Great Society. They started an expensive war to satisfy personal agendas. And when it's all said and done I'll go out on November 4th next year and vote for whomever I think is most likely to clean up the mess that George W. Bush and the GOP have made of America. And I'll do it at least in part because it's my patriotic duty.
The answer, then, is "yes." I'll almost certainly vote for someone else when Virginia holds its Democratic Presidential Primary on February 12th. But if it comes to that, I could vote for Hillary on November 4th next year. Quickly, and without much reservation...
Four years ago those same people started asking me if I could vote for John Kerry. And, again, it usually sounded more like an accusation than a question. They'd tell me that Kerry was a hypocrite because he only threw cheap ribbons that can be replaced anyway instead of real medals at whatever that protest event was. They'd tell me Kerry didn't really earn those three purple hearts, anyway, and that they knew he didn't because Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said he didn't (and we all knew they were a disinterested party speaking on behalf of God and justice). And they'd tell that Kerry was really just a pansy who owed most of what he'd accomplished in life to money he got from his wife with the funny accent. Then they'd tell me that it was unpatriotic to vote against Bush in the middle of a war (even if he started it)....
Now those same people have started asking me if I could vote for Hillary. And it sounds like an accusation again.
I voted for Kerry. I think I voted for Gore, but that was a long time ago and I'm not absolutely positive.
When the Democratic Primary comes around in my state, I'll probably vote for John Edwards. For reasons I can't really quantify, reasons that have as much to do with personality as with politics, I don't really like Hillary all that much. But on November 4th, 2008, if the choice comes down to Hillary Clinton or Fred Thompson, or maybe Hillary vs. Newt Gingrich, I will not stay home and curl up in bed and pull the covers over my head.
The Republicans have spent eight years trying to privatize public education and take America backwards in time to before it was a Great Society. They started an expensive war to satisfy personal agendas. And when it's all said and done I'll go out on November 4th next year and vote for whomever I think is most likely to clean up the mess that George W. Bush and the GOP have made of America. And I'll do it at least in part because it's my patriotic duty.
The answer, then, is "yes." I'll almost certainly vote for someone else when Virginia holds its Democratic Presidential Primary on February 12th. But if it comes to that, I could vote for Hillary on November 4th next year. Quickly, and without much reservation...
Saturday, July 21, 2007
A Philosophy of Education IV (The Roles of Students and Teachers in the Classroom)
What is the place of students? What is the role of teachers? The questions are reciprocal in the sense that you must have students in order to be a teacher.
Students should be active participants in the learning process. I believe in cooperative learning, in a process where students learn together. And I believe in participatory learning. Education, especially in the early grades, is not about knowledge - facts and figures, dates and names. It is about skills. Students learn the three R's mostly through exercising, practicing particular skills. You don't tell someone how to read. You introduce them to the process and allow them to practice it in ways that build strength in it.
Teachers should be expert guides, not bosses or masters. The rigidity of the relationship and the formality of the two roles, student and teacher, will vary from subject area to subject area and from grade to grade. The idea that we can make generalizations about kindergarten classroom relationships that will still hold true in the tenth grade is probably a naive desire to oversimplify theory and philosophy.
If I must generalize about teaching situations in a subjunctive mode, I'd prefer a student-centered classroom where the teacher aids in the discovery process (not in construction of "reality," since reality is already here and is pretty real without the help of my students) and where the teacher acts as a coach in the development of skills. I'd prefer a classroom where the students felt as few restrictions as possible within the requirements of the learning process. And I'd prefer a classroom where learning, not teaching, was the central focus.
The higher the student-teacher ratio, the less like this a classroom becomes. And in my mind the single biggest factor in the quality of education and the success of the educational process is the most expensive factor - personnel. We can tinker with curriculum. We can alter pedagogy. We can think of new ways to measure success (and accountability). We can require that the one teacher we have (in a room where two are needed) be better trained. But the solution that is most likely to work is the solution that no one wants to pay for: more teachers per school.
Students should be active participants in the learning process. I believe in cooperative learning, in a process where students learn together. And I believe in participatory learning. Education, especially in the early grades, is not about knowledge - facts and figures, dates and names. It is about skills. Students learn the three R's mostly through exercising, practicing particular skills. You don't tell someone how to read. You introduce them to the process and allow them to practice it in ways that build strength in it.
Teachers should be expert guides, not bosses or masters. The rigidity of the relationship and the formality of the two roles, student and teacher, will vary from subject area to subject area and from grade to grade. The idea that we can make generalizations about kindergarten classroom relationships that will still hold true in the tenth grade is probably a naive desire to oversimplify theory and philosophy.If I must generalize about teaching situations in a subjunctive mode, I'd prefer a student-centered classroom where the teacher aids in the discovery process (not in construction of "reality," since reality is already here and is pretty real without the help of my students) and where the teacher acts as a coach in the development of skills. I'd prefer a classroom where the students felt as few restrictions as possible within the requirements of the learning process. And I'd prefer a classroom where learning, not teaching, was the central focus.
The higher the student-teacher ratio, the less like this a classroom becomes. And in my mind the single biggest factor in the quality of education and the success of the educational process is the most expensive factor - personnel. We can tinker with curriculum. We can alter pedagogy. We can think of new ways to measure success (and accountability). We can require that the one teacher we have (in a room where two are needed) be better trained. But the solution that is most likely to work is the solution that no one wants to pay for: more teachers per school.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
A Philosophy of Education III (What and How Should We Teach?)
Three basic educational approaches competed in the second half of the 20th century to shape our views on WHAT we should teach and HOW we should teach it...
Those approaches were:
Adjectives serve as better answers than do nouns in describing what the curriculum of education should be like. The content of the curriculum should be flexible, responsive to the changes of society. The content of the curriculum should be sympathetic to the values and limitations of the students and their families. My own experience leads me to believe that every life is richer if the individual has read Kafka and Steinbeck, Aeschylus and Blake, Camus and Hemmingway. But I view the Great Books approach to education today as more of a misguided effort to preserve a cultural timeframe than anything else - to halt (or at least slow) cultural change.
I believe that reading (and literacy) is essential; it is the medium of later instruction. To the extent that an emphasis on basic skills has become exclusive, to the extent that a concern with math and language skills has crowded out music and the arts, the emphasis on basic skills and standards based curriculums has become a destructive force. But kids who show up at school should learn to read. As much as I hate to agree with George W. Bush about anything, they should learn to read early. They should learn to do math and be exposed to all its various and joyful forms. They should be introduced to the various formal genres of language - to poetry and letter writing, the short story and the novel. When Piaget allows, they should be introduced to epistemology and taught to ask "but how do I know that." Of course, they should be given an understanding in social studies classes of how our society works (civics) and why (history). And there is science. But none of these core classes should be allowed to displace completely the arts. And an understanding of the importance of the role of creativity in fields like math and grammar needs to be maintained...
Those approaches were:
- Perennialism - a teacher-centered philosophy that focuses on "great books" with the hope of impart the culture's enduring themes to students through literature. The goal is to develop the ability for rational thought in students.
- Essentialism - a teacher-centered, back-to-basics approach to education that stresses the three R's and emphasizes the remembering of facts.
- Progressivism - a student-centered philosophy that attempts to interact with the real-world concerns and experiences of students. Classrooms are more democratic and learning is more participatory and experimental than in either Essentialism or Perennialism.
Adjectives serve as better answers than do nouns in describing what the curriculum of education should be like. The content of the curriculum should be flexible, responsive to the changes of society. The content of the curriculum should be sympathetic to the values and limitations of the students and their families. My own experience leads me to believe that every life is richer if the individual has read Kafka and Steinbeck, Aeschylus and Blake, Camus and Hemmingway. But I view the Great Books approach to education today as more of a misguided effort to preserve a cultural timeframe than anything else - to halt (or at least slow) cultural change.I believe that reading (and literacy) is essential; it is the medium of later instruction. To the extent that an emphasis on basic skills has become exclusive, to the extent that a concern with math and language skills has crowded out music and the arts, the emphasis on basic skills and standards based curriculums has become a destructive force. But kids who show up at school should learn to read. As much as I hate to agree with George W. Bush about anything, they should learn to read early. They should learn to do math and be exposed to all its various and joyful forms. They should be introduced to the various formal genres of language - to poetry and letter writing, the short story and the novel. When Piaget allows, they should be introduced to epistemology and taught to ask "but how do I know that." Of course, they should be given an understanding in social studies classes of how our society works (civics) and why (history). And there is science. But none of these core classes should be allowed to displace completely the arts. And an understanding of the importance of the role of creativity in fields like math and grammar needs to be maintained...
Saturday, July 7, 2007
A Philosophy of Education II (Things Schools Do Besides Teach. Safeguards for Society...)
Before a child is taught anything in school, the school system provides a service that is indispensable: it ensures that the child has been inoculated against diphtheria.
And tetanus. And whooping cough, measles, rubella, polio, and a few other things. Through the various carrots and sticks available to society from universal schooling, public health in America has been greatly advanced in the last century; I can't think of a more reasonable agency to carry out this service. The decline of child mortality in America that has resulted from every parent knowing that eventually they'll have to produce that shot record at the door of a school house may by itself be make the cost of schooling in America worthwhile.
Without establishing a timeline for what services (or mandates) entered the public school system at what point in time, I tend to just push the blame for all of them off on Lyndon Johnson. He started the modern trend, at least, of providing services that were not directly educational in nature. Among my favorite is free and reduced lunch. It serves society (and students) with a safeguard against poverty. Children are disproportionately impacted by poverty. The free and reduced lunch program has served to keep large parts of America turning into scenes from a Charles Dickens novel. And the school system has been the tool society used to achieve that.
Another example has to do with the treatment of people with disabilities in our society. Forty year ago America may have been far above much of the world in the treatment of disabled individuals; but families were still largely on their own in dealing with and supporting their disabled members. Today, disability laws in America require that children with disabilities be sought out early during the preschool years, and that services be provided under many circumstances to families with disabled children. This is part of the reason the life expectancy of a person with Down's Syndrome has more than doubled in the last few decades. And it is the public school system that at least seeks out identifies the children with disabilities and, often, provides the actual services. The quality of life for the retarded, the hearing impaired, the visually impaired, and those with other disabilities has been greatly improved as a result. That safeguard against neglect of the disabled is part of what makes us a civilized society.
Some socialization also takes place, and I would argue that much of the weight of socialization in American society falls upon the public school system. It is where kids learn to stand in line in the cafeteria the way they will have to sand in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles of the Post Office later in life. It is where they learn that you can't hit people just for what they say (even if your father says you can). It is where they learn not to steal, not to bite, how to act in groups, and how to relate to authority.
Of course, some of the safeguards provided by the school system are in fact educational, or academic, in nature. The school system should infuse a minimal level of literacy and math skills into all the children who come through its doors. And there are economic safeguards - the hope that schooling will provide employability skills at some minimal level to the majority of students. Society currently disagrees about what that minimal level of literacy is; perhaps there has never been a consensus - just an idea. And the employability skills need to survive in society are rapidly changing. It becomes easy to lose sight of the many other things the school system does when success with the educational goals becomes difficult to measure.
These things are as they should be in a society with our resources (in my philosophical view of education, or at least of schooling). Society should have an institution that ensures that public health measures are being instituted in small children. Society should have an institution that aids parents in socializing their children. Our society should have a mechanism for identifying individuals with disabilities early in life and ensuring that they receive services. The purposes of education should be multiple and complex in a society as complicated as ours. And individuals and their families should be able to avail themselves of the system for their own purposes while society still achieves its own in some measure. Educational institutions must resign themselves to the fact that those who come through their doors have their own motives and values. And in America that's allowed.
In my philosophy of education, the purpose of schooling is to serve multiple ends for both the learners and the providers. There is no singularly important or outstanding particular purpose for education in America that stands alone. And education, or more properly schooling, has become an institution that is central to the core of our society and legitimately serves a variety purposes.
And tetanus. And whooping cough, measles, rubella, polio, and a few other things. Through the various carrots and sticks available to society from universal schooling, public health in America has been greatly advanced in the last century; I can't think of a more reasonable agency to carry out this service. The decline of child mortality in America that has resulted from every parent knowing that eventually they'll have to produce that shot record at the door of a school house may by itself be make the cost of schooling in America worthwhile.
Without establishing a timeline for what services (or mandates) entered the public school system at what point in time, I tend to just push the blame for all of them off on Lyndon Johnson. He started the modern trend, at least, of providing services that were not directly educational in nature. Among my favorite is free and reduced lunch. It serves society (and students) with a safeguard against poverty. Children are disproportionately impacted by poverty. The free and reduced lunch program has served to keep large parts of America turning into scenes from a Charles Dickens novel. And the school system has been the tool society used to achieve that.
Another example has to do with the treatment of people with disabilities in our society. Forty year ago America may have been far above much of the world in the treatment of disabled individuals; but families were still largely on their own in dealing with and supporting their disabled members. Today, disability laws in America require that children with disabilities be sought out early during the preschool years, and that services be provided under many circumstances to families with disabled children. This is part of the reason the life expectancy of a person with Down's Syndrome has more than doubled in the last few decades. And it is the public school system that at least seeks out identifies the children with disabilities and, often, provides the actual services. The quality of life for the retarded, the hearing impaired, the visually impaired, and those with other disabilities has been greatly improved as a result. That safeguard against neglect of the disabled is part of what makes us a civilized society.Some socialization also takes place, and I would argue that much of the weight of socialization in American society falls upon the public school system. It is where kids learn to stand in line in the cafeteria the way they will have to sand in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles of the Post Office later in life. It is where they learn that you can't hit people just for what they say (even if your father says you can). It is where they learn not to steal, not to bite, how to act in groups, and how to relate to authority.
Of course, some of the safeguards provided by the school system are in fact educational, or academic, in nature. The school system should infuse a minimal level of literacy and math skills into all the children who come through its doors. And there are economic safeguards - the hope that schooling will provide employability skills at some minimal level to the majority of students. Society currently disagrees about what that minimal level of literacy is; perhaps there has never been a consensus - just an idea. And the employability skills need to survive in society are rapidly changing. It becomes easy to lose sight of the many other things the school system does when success with the educational goals becomes difficult to measure.
These things are as they should be in a society with our resources (in my philosophical view of education, or at least of schooling). Society should have an institution that ensures that public health measures are being instituted in small children. Society should have an institution that aids parents in socializing their children. Our society should have a mechanism for identifying individuals with disabilities early in life and ensuring that they receive services. The purposes of education should be multiple and complex in a society as complicated as ours. And individuals and their families should be able to avail themselves of the system for their own purposes while society still achieves its own in some measure. Educational institutions must resign themselves to the fact that those who come through their doors have their own motives and values. And in America that's allowed.
In my philosophy of education, the purpose of schooling is to serve multiple ends for both the learners and the providers. There is no singularly important or outstanding particular purpose for education in America that stands alone. And education, or more properly schooling, has become an institution that is central to the core of our society and legitimately serves a variety purposes.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Taking Georgia's "Technology Test"
To be certified in Georgia (something I'm trying to accomplish), you have to prove computer skill proficiency. One way of doing that is to take the technology test at a RESA office.
Georgia has a 25-page list of technology skills they think a teacher should be able to show. I took their test on July 2.
The technology test took me about 40 minutes. It was actually 6 different test (in Riverdeep, believe it or not) and I had an hour total to take them all. Lowest possible score was 100. A passing score was 176. Highest possible score was 300.
I got my lowest score on WORD, which I suppose means that WORD does a lot I don't know about (since I use it 8 or 10 times a day). If I'd gotten one more wrong answer on WORD I'd have to take the test again. I got my highest score on EXCEL, which I learned to use mostly for this test. Whatever...
My scores:
Georgia has a 25-page list of technology skills they think a teacher should be able to show. I took their test on July 2.
The technology test took me about 40 minutes. It was actually 6 different test (in Riverdeep, believe it or not) and I had an hour total to take them all. Lowest possible score was 100. A passing score was 176. Highest possible score was 300.
I got my lowest score on WORD, which I suppose means that WORD does a lot I don't know about (since I use it 8 or 10 times a day). If I'd gotten one more wrong answer on WORD I'd have to take the test again. I got my highest score on EXCEL, which I learned to use mostly for this test. Whatever...
My scores:
- Internet - 288
- Access (Database) - 280
- PowerPoint (Presentation Tools) - 280
- Spreadsheets (EXCEL) - 300
- MS WORD (Word Processing) - 176
- Windows Operating Systems - 248
Saturday, June 30, 2007
A Philosophy of Education (Why do we have schools, anyway...?)
Summer is a good time to think about WHY we do what we do. Whether you're a teacher of a parent, time off gives us all time to reflect...
A philosophy of education should include discussion of several basic components. Central issues should include the purpose of education, the nature of the curriculum, the place of students, and the role of teachers.
Education in America has no purpose - at least no one, singular, canonical purpose. The purposes of education are multiple and interwoven. Those purposes change with age, environment, and the peculiarities of individual students so that even within a specific classroom the primary purpose of schooling for this child may be one thing and the primary purpose for that child may be yet another. In the case of any given child, the parents' purposes for sending the child to school may differ significantly from the purposes of the educational agency requiring the child's presence. And in as much as the provision of educational services is a joint venture that usually involves at least three different government agencies (a local city or county, a state, and the federal government) the purposes of the various agencies taking part in this partnership may vary significantly, or even be at odds.
For all parties involved, the purposes of education change significantly with time. Kindergarten has a unique set of priorities for everyone engaged in the educational process. The nature of those priorities change significantly by middle school, are additionally altered in high school, and are further renovated in the college setting.
I am not avoiding the question. I am simply acknowledging its complexity - and the ambiguity of the semantics involved. "What is the purpose of education?" The answer depends on who you are, and on whether you're providing it or receiving it. And that is what the answer should depend upon. Because somewhere high on the list of the many and various purposes education serves in our society, the preservation of pluralism, the equipping of those who are somehow different in our society to maintain their membership in it nonetheless, holds a now prominent (and hopefully permanent) spot.
My view of the purpose of education (now, at the age of 47, with three degrees and 100 some odd graduate hours already under my belt) is mercenary: I continue to participate in education as a student for economic reasons. I'm paying through the nose for out-of-state tuition because doing so keeps me my job. That's not very philosophical; nor is it a complete picture. I have three degrees and 100+ graduate hours because I like going to school. And if I came into some large and unexpected inheritance this week (or won the lottery), my new financial security would probably only result in a change of major, not in a change in my status as a student. In the meantime, I am compelled to pursue professional development goals; I would prefer to have the time and resources to use education as tool in the hunt for self-actualization.
If the question were put, though, to me with the idea of determining why I want my children (ages both now adults) to continue as students in some educational setting my answer would be somewhat different. I see college (preferably at a liberal arts-oriented institution) as the logical place in our society for them to obtain skills (some cognitive, some technical) that will improve significantly their vocational prospects and the general quality of their lives (by which I mean their ability to understand the news and appreciate Steinbeck).
In both of these cases my answer to the question differs significantly from my answer when the question is rephrased more abstractly, more globally. If the question is phrased in such a way as to ask why I think that educational services (schooling) should be provided universally in my society at my expense (through tax dollars), I'd say that I am not particularly concerned with my next door neighbor's self-actualization. And while I think in terms of maximizing benefits from education for my own children, I understand that not everyone shares my values in this regard. Instead, I would say that school should be a universally available service in our society and that participation in it should be mandatory because it provides a huge number of safeguards (for lack of a better term) within our society.
A philosophy of education should include discussion of several basic components. Central issues should include the purpose of education, the nature of the curriculum, the place of students, and the role of teachers.
Education in America has no purpose - at least no one, singular, canonical purpose. The purposes of education are multiple and interwoven. Those purposes change with age, environment, and the peculiarities of individual students so that even within a specific classroom the primary purpose of schooling for this child may be one thing and the primary purpose for that child may be yet another. In the case of any given child, the parents' purposes for sending the child to school may differ significantly from the purposes of the educational agency requiring the child's presence. And in as much as the provision of educational services is a joint venture that usually involves at least three different government agencies (a local city or county, a state, and the federal government) the purposes of the various agencies taking part in this partnership may vary significantly, or even be at odds.For all parties involved, the purposes of education change significantly with time. Kindergarten has a unique set of priorities for everyone engaged in the educational process. The nature of those priorities change significantly by middle school, are additionally altered in high school, and are further renovated in the college setting.
I am not avoiding the question. I am simply acknowledging its complexity - and the ambiguity of the semantics involved. "What is the purpose of education?" The answer depends on who you are, and on whether you're providing it or receiving it. And that is what the answer should depend upon. Because somewhere high on the list of the many and various purposes education serves in our society, the preservation of pluralism, the equipping of those who are somehow different in our society to maintain their membership in it nonetheless, holds a now prominent (and hopefully permanent) spot.
My view of the purpose of education (now, at the age of 47, with three degrees and 100 some odd graduate hours already under my belt) is mercenary: I continue to participate in education as a student for economic reasons. I'm paying through the nose for out-of-state tuition because doing so keeps me my job. That's not very philosophical; nor is it a complete picture. I have three degrees and 100+ graduate hours because I like going to school. And if I came into some large and unexpected inheritance this week (or won the lottery), my new financial security would probably only result in a change of major, not in a change in my status as a student. In the meantime, I am compelled to pursue professional development goals; I would prefer to have the time and resources to use education as tool in the hunt for self-actualization.
If the question were put, though, to me with the idea of determining why I want my children (ages both now adults) to continue as students in some educational setting my answer would be somewhat different. I see college (preferably at a liberal arts-oriented institution) as the logical place in our society for them to obtain skills (some cognitive, some technical) that will improve significantly their vocational prospects and the general quality of their lives (by which I mean their ability to understand the news and appreciate Steinbeck).
In both of these cases my answer to the question differs significantly from my answer when the question is rephrased more abstractly, more globally. If the question is phrased in such a way as to ask why I think that educational services (schooling) should be provided universally in my society at my expense (through tax dollars), I'd say that I am not particularly concerned with my next door neighbor's self-actualization. And while I think in terms of maximizing benefits from education for my own children, I understand that not everyone shares my values in this regard. Instead, I would say that school should be a universally available service in our society and that participation in it should be mandatory because it provides a huge number of safeguards (for lack of a better term) within our society.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Student Writing: How Do You Make A Sandwich?
How do you make a sandwich? It seems like a simple question - unless you have to write about it and you have a learning disability. Writing can become a daunting task if you have a disability.
I like writing. (I know you'd never have guessed that.) And I don't think of writing as hard. But for many of my students -- this year and in the past, special education or college juniors -- writing is a monster task. Why? "I can't THINK of anything, Mr. Cruey!"
Thinking: it seems to intimidate half the world. No one wants to do it.
I'm not talking about the profound and philosophical. I'm talking about the "why do you like your dog" or the "describe your favorite food" sorts of thinking. Writer's block sweeps the room like cholera....
My kids think I'm, well, different. Sometimes I lose my sense of decorum in the teaching process. Sometimes I stand on a chair when I read. Or yell "YES!" at the top of my voice when someone gets an answer right. The other teachers have reading blocks. My room is the "Church of Reading" and we have services. I think it was the Irish poet W.B. Yeats that said, "Education is not the filling of a pail, it is the lighting of a fire." But, I digress.
We've talked a lot about a writing prompt in the past few weeks and I've given it once. But I will probably give it to my students again in the near future and see if we can't come up with better ideas. The prompt is simple and concrete. It asks students to write an essay on the question, "HOW DO YOU MAKE A SANDWICH?"
When I gave it the first time everyone stared at me. One of the brave ones said something like, "You know, Mr. Cruey, You (like) MAKE IT." I explained how I wanted more than that....
We discussed the importance of bread. I introduced my students to vocabulary some of them had never heard before. Words like, "Sourdough" and "Pumpernickel." We talked about the difficult choices that had to be made in regards to cheese on a good sandwich - Swiss, cheddar, provolone or sliced munster. (Several said they liked the cheese "with the holes in it.") We examined the pros and cons of vegetable matter (tomatoes, lettuce, onion, etc.) and the value of various condiments (spicy brown mustard, wasabi mayonnaise). We came up with a list of the 42 or so most likely meats to put on a sandwich (bologna, ham, turkey, chicken, salami, left over meatloaf, corn beef, etc.) And we discussed preparation - whether to grill or to toast or to serve cold.
We discussed it with enthusiasm. And, like I said, my kids think I'm, well, different.
The West Virginia Fourth Grade Writing Rubric is fairly demanding. But IDEAS are three-fourths of the challenge. And my kids have ideas (although sometimes they don't know it). The task is getting them to find those ideas and articulate them...
Saturday, June 16, 2007
I Love Phonemes...
It’s the place where linguistics most clearly intersects with education: the phoneme. Yet most people aren’t even aware of it, can’t tell you what it is. That’s understandable; professionals argue over the precise definition…
More than anything else, a phoneme is an idea. It is a psychological unit inside your head. If you speak English you probably have about 50 of them. Maybe 48, maybe 53 or 54. It depends on where you grew up, on whether you speak the English of Billy Graham (the rural, lowland dialect of the southeast United States), or the New England English of Ted Kennedy, or the English of Paul Hogan (“Crocodile Dundee”).
A phoneme is an idea that people have in their head about how to organize different sounds together into meaningful groups of sounds that we can give a name to. Probably when I say “sounds” you think of names for groups of sounds you already have in your head and you ask yourself something like, “you mean like M and N, or like L and R?” The answer is no, that’s not what I mean.
What I mean is that a phoneme is an idea about how to group all the sounds together that you call “L” – different sounds that together make up “L” in your mind. Most people look at you when you say that and their response is something like, “What do you mean? L is L.” And I have to say, “Not really.”
Think about it for a moment. When you say “like” you take the tip of your tongue and press it fairly hard against the back of your two top front teeth and you spread your tongue out like it was a hammock inside your mouth. When you say “full” your tongue may not touch your front teeth at all; instead of spreading it out, you bunch it up in a ball in the back of your mouth and maybe the tip of it rests gently on the bony ridge you have behind your top teeth. You make a different sound at the beginning of “like” than at the end of “pull,” but you call both of them “L” if you speak English, because English speakers group them together as one phoneme.
Doesn’t everybody do that? No. In Russian those two sounds each get their own letters. You can put the “L” in “pull” at the beginning of Russian words and the “L” in “like” at the end of Russian words.
The phoneme is why when you say “wanna” other people hear “want to” and why when you say “fry-n chicken” other people hear “frying chicken.”
And if your kindergarten teacher doesn’t manage to make you aware of the phonemes in your head, you’re mostly just confused when you look at letters. And reading becomes a difficult task indeed!
I’m sure we’ll talk more about the phoneme…
More than anything else, a phoneme is an idea. It is a psychological unit inside your head. If you speak English you probably have about 50 of them. Maybe 48, maybe 53 or 54. It depends on where you grew up, on whether you speak the English of Billy Graham (the rural, lowland dialect of the southeast United States), or the New England English of Ted Kennedy, or the English of Paul Hogan (“Crocodile Dundee”).
A phoneme is an idea that people have in their head about how to organize different sounds together into meaningful groups of sounds that we can give a name to. Probably when I say “sounds” you think of names for groups of sounds you already have in your head and you ask yourself something like, “you mean like M and N, or like L and R?” The answer is no, that’s not what I mean.
What I mean is that a phoneme is an idea about how to group all the sounds together that you call “L” – different sounds that together make up “L” in your mind. Most people look at you when you say that and their response is something like, “What do you mean? L is L.” And I have to say, “Not really.”
Think about it for a moment. When you say “like” you take the tip of your tongue and press it fairly hard against the back of your two top front teeth and you spread your tongue out like it was a hammock inside your mouth. When you say “full” your tongue may not touch your front teeth at all; instead of spreading it out, you bunch it up in a ball in the back of your mouth and maybe the tip of it rests gently on the bony ridge you have behind your top teeth. You make a different sound at the beginning of “like” than at the end of “pull,” but you call both of them “L” if you speak English, because English speakers group them together as one phoneme.
Doesn’t everybody do that? No. In Russian those two sounds each get their own letters. You can put the “L” in “pull” at the beginning of Russian words and the “L” in “like” at the end of Russian words.
The phoneme is why when you say “wanna” other people hear “want to” and why when you say “fry-n chicken” other people hear “frying chicken.”
And if your kindergarten teacher doesn’t manage to make you aware of the phonemes in your head, you’re mostly just confused when you look at letters. And reading becomes a difficult task indeed!
I’m sure we’ll talk more about the phoneme…
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Last Day of School
On Monday I went back to my school for the last time before summer. I suppose the day could be described with a variety of adjectives...
Hectic: I spent the week of June 4-8 in a workshop away from school. There was a fair amount of stuff I had to do before I could check out for the year. In addition to accomplishing these tasks, I spent about two hours involved in or preparing for a meeting we had scheduled to determine whether a student at the school was eligible for special education services.
Melancholy: That's probably a good word and I suspect that most teachers feel something like that while they're packing up their rooms for the summer. You think back on the good points and the bad points of the year. I suppose it's like looking back at the end of any prolonged task. Maybe it's different if you don't actually enjoy you job. But there was a touch of melancholy to the day.
Relieved: Teaching school is a marathon. At the end of the year teachers are tired. It feels good to know that it's over for a while, at least. It's not like there nothing to do. I have a huge pack of new material from the Orton-Gillingham workshop to become more familiar with. I have a new policy document for special education in West Virginia that I need to read and digest. I have two different tests to prepare for that I hope will extend and improve my certification(s). I have a five day workshop starting July 30 to attend. And I suspect there will be a couple of other professional development events to attend. But knowing that the routine is over for a time, getting up on a weekday and going to Big Daddy's for breakfast with my wife at 10am, not having to worry about the alarm clock and whether the coffee is made and the lunches packed - relief is a good word.
It's nice to be out, for now...
Hectic: I spent the week of June 4-8 in a workshop away from school. There was a fair amount of stuff I had to do before I could check out for the year. In addition to accomplishing these tasks, I spent about two hours involved in or preparing for a meeting we had scheduled to determine whether a student at the school was eligible for special education services.
Melancholy: That's probably a good word and I suspect that most teachers feel something like that while they're packing up their rooms for the summer. You think back on the good points and the bad points of the year. I suppose it's like looking back at the end of any prolonged task. Maybe it's different if you don't actually enjoy you job. But there was a touch of melancholy to the day.
Relieved: Teaching school is a marathon. At the end of the year teachers are tired. It feels good to know that it's over for a while, at least. It's not like there nothing to do. I have a huge pack of new material from the Orton-Gillingham workshop to become more familiar with. I have a new policy document for special education in West Virginia that I need to read and digest. I have two different tests to prepare for that I hope will extend and improve my certification(s). I have a five day workshop starting July 30 to attend. And I suspect there will be a couple of other professional development events to attend. But knowing that the routine is over for a time, getting up on a weekday and going to Big Daddy's for breakfast with my wife at 10am, not having to worry about the alarm clock and whether the coffee is made and the lunches packed - relief is a good word.
It's nice to be out, for now...
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Swans, and Student Writing Journals
FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act - 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) and selected other laws on confidentiality make me leery of sharing details about my students. But this story is one I think I can share without giving away any private information...
Note: FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act - 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) can be accessed online.
I went to a workshop a while back at the West Virginia Reading Association's annual conference. The workshop focused on a book called Amelia's Notebook, and on a strategy of journal writing in class. I tried it and my kids thought it was great. "Mr. Cruey, can we have homework in our journals?" I kid you not...
This week in reading we started on a story set in the early 1900's. The story was about how women in America got the right to vote. When social studies came around we talked about the concept of rights and I gave my students some time to write in their journals. They were supposed to write about what rights they felt they had (or should have).
Journal writing is a private experience and it usually takes five minutes to convince a group of 10 and 11 year olds that they really can't use it as social time. Class calmed down and got to work. I have various pieces of elevator music I play to cover distracting noises - everything from Yo-Yo Ma doing Haydn to Van Morrison sax instrumentals.
Ten minutes into the assignment (remember - the assignment about what rights you feel you have) a child raised their hand. I usually motion questions over to my desk where we can discussion whatever it is in hushed, library voices.
"Mr. Cruey," the child asked, "are all swans girl swans."
The child was expressionless. I was confused. How on Earth could this possibly be relevant? But the question seemed sincere...
In the analytical persona that follows me wherever I go, I answered with a Socratic question: "Well, if they were, how would they make baby swans."
The child looked puzzled and I could see wheels turning. It dawned upon me what tenuous ground I might soon be on and I pictured myself ending the discussion with some practical demonstration of how a prophylactic could fit over a cucumber - or something like that - (not that I knew right off where I might acquire either a prophylactic or a cucumber before class ended).
"No," I said hurriedly. "There are boy swans and there are girl swans..."
The child acted enlightened and said nothing, returning to its seat to take up the pen again and write further about the rights (hopefully) he perceived himself as having. And I felt relieved.
Socrates could wait.
I haven't worked up the nerve yet to actually read the journal entry...
Monday, June 4, 2007
Orton-Gillingham Training
Today Cheryl and I started a week of Orton-Gillingham (O-G) training. Our school system is paying for the training, which is being presented by The Institute for Multi-Sensory Education.
The training is based on an approach to reading developed by Dr. Samuel Torrey Orton. Orton was a medical doctor who did pioneering work in the study of learning disabilities, particularly dyslexia. The five day training provides classroom resources and instruction in how to use them for one of the more popular applications of Orton's approach in the classroom today.
There are a number of Orton-Gillingham based approaches to the teaching of reading. All share a couple of common characteristics. They tend to be more highly structured than non-O-G based reading instruction. They place more emphasis on the sequential and cumulative nature of reading instruction. And they emphasize a multisensory approach that involves sight, hearing, and touching in the process of learning to read.
Our county is sending kindergarten teachers, reading specialists (like Cheryl), and elementary grade special education teachers (like me) to the training. The material is not difficult, but it does require that you implement it more or less systematically in a classroom.
The training is pleasant because it provides Cheryl and me an opportunity to spend time together at work - including the ride over there and back. Okay, she drove today and I slept about half of the way home. But we were still at least in the same car.
This is our last full week of school. We both go back to our schools on June 11 to pack up and check out. Then, summer...
The training is based on an approach to reading developed by Dr. Samuel Torrey Orton. Orton was a medical doctor who did pioneering work in the study of learning disabilities, particularly dyslexia. The five day training provides classroom resources and instruction in how to use them for one of the more popular applications of Orton's approach in the classroom today.
There are a number of Orton-Gillingham based approaches to the teaching of reading. All share a couple of common characteristics. They tend to be more highly structured than non-O-G based reading instruction. They place more emphasis on the sequential and cumulative nature of reading instruction. And they emphasize a multisensory approach that involves sight, hearing, and touching in the process of learning to read.
Our county is sending kindergarten teachers, reading specialists (like Cheryl), and elementary grade special education teachers (like me) to the training. The material is not difficult, but it does require that you implement it more or less systematically in a classroom.
The training is pleasant because it provides Cheryl and me an opportunity to spend time together at work - including the ride over there and back. Okay, she drove today and I slept about half of the way home. But we were still at least in the same car.
This is our last full week of school. We both go back to our schools on June 11 to pack up and check out. Then, summer...
Monday, May 28, 2007
The Future of Cursive
(Note: I am a member of the International Reading Association - the IRA. Throughout this blog you will find the ideas of professionals from the IRA's listserv interspersed in maroon in the text. Please also take a moment to take my poll on this topic.)
I am a sick man. Well, maybe not as sick as the Underground Man in Dostoevsky's book. But my handwriting is pretty sick. Bad things happen when I write in cursive...
There are reasons for it, I suppose.
My problem with "demanding cursive"
from children is precisely that it
is a demand. We put enough hurdles along the
course already. Several are unnecessary, although
rather high. - Hugo Kerr, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
I like to give out the excuse that all of my fingers have been broken, many of them twice (which is true). But I was 14 or so when I broke them all the first time at a roller rink (my hands got run over by someone much bigger than me), and I think my penmanship was pretty awful already then. Probably it's my mother's fault; she should have beaten me for bringing home "D's" in penmanship in elementary school and, probably, I would have done better...
To be honest
I think cursive doesn't really
serve a purpose except for signing
things.... Everything we read that is
published is in regular print
so why do we demand students
write in cursive? - Kate Rose, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
Cursive has an interesting history in English. The Brits, I believe, call it "joined up writing." The word "cursive" is used for a flowing script style in a number of languages - not all of which use Roman letters.
When William Bradford penned the Mayflower Compact in 1620, most of his letters were disconnected. But they did look much like our current lettering.
Some one hundred and fifty years later, Thomas Jefferson's hand written rough draft of the Declaration of Independence showed most words as connected in a single flowing line. The signature of John Hancock still had a few breaks between letters within it.
President Lincoln's handwriting looked little different than cursive script does today.
In the 1960's a handful of academic publishers (like Zaner-Bloser and D'Nealian) made efforts to codify and simplify cursive. The effect was probably the opposite of what was intended; competing handwriting curriculums resulted in greater variation in handwriting in America.
That, so far, is a summary of Wikipedia's page on cursive. And if this were an academic article (instead of my personal blog) I'd feel compelled to cite them as a source.
It is much easier for me to
write in cursive. I work with dyslexic children. Some
do much better with cursive; others need
to print. Thankfully, my tool
is now a computer and find that with this
population computers work best. - Diann LaRosa, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
The thing I found most interesting was the changing nature of cursive, the very fact that our style and manner of writing has progressed and changed over time. The question, of course, is one of whether the time has come for more profound change.
If handwriting were intended as an art form that our culture really valued for its aesthetics, I'd be more supportive of it. Writing is an art form; but the art is literary, not visual. The art resides in the smithing of phrases and the choice of verbs and adjectives from a metaphorical palate that includes a rage of colors allowing for phrases ranging from pastel understatements like "his physical appearance lacked a certain degree of appeal" to full color hyperboles like "Bob owned hound dogs that were more handsome than he was." Certainly the lines must be legible to be meaningful; but as long as they are legible, it matters little whether they are written laboriously in fountain penned calligraphy or typed in MS Word in Edwardian Script ITC font. Both can be perfumed if inked on the right paper...
How much do we use cursive in the real
world. I for one combine printing and cursive
with a pattern long established but one I'm not
sure others could pick up on. - Cathy P. Miller, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
In March of 2004 the American Federal of Teachers published an article entitled Is teaching cursive writing a waste of time?. Two teachers face off on the issue. The first argues that cursive no longer serves a purpose and should go the way of eight track tapes. The second says we will always need handwriting (but fails to explain why we can't just print) and that children need to learn to write cursive because they need to be able to read cursive. Her argument deteriorates into the aesthetic value of cursive (I don't think society places that much value on the aesthetics of actual writing anymore, though it places great value on layout and graphic design). And her concluding punch is that kids who can write well in cursive make her job easier because she can read their papers. I thought, "have the type or print them..."
I haven't used cursive since
high school, and I have been out for over 20
years now. I went back to print writing in
my junior year of high
school... Cursive should become like calligraphy,
a nice extra. - Karyn Zmuda, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
CBS News has a rather dour story archived online from 2003. Penmanship: A Dying Art? almost bemoans the demise of penmanship and at times seems to belittle communication by email. That's as good a sign as any I'd say that penmanship really is a dying art.
I would agree that we, as adults, rarely
use cursive anymore. Most of us tend
to print. It does need to be taught however. There
are many things that are
written in cursive, past and present. With
the many fonts to choose from on the computer
as well, it is important for everyone to be able to
read and write in
cursive. - Heidi Strander, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
I suppose the thing that bothers me the most in all of this is that the discussion seems to be confined to the way we write - that is to say, to the way we move our hands when we put pen to paper. I don't think that is the real issue. While I agree that a handwritten note is more sentimental, I think that computers have made it easier to preserve our thought (and the words that go with them). In the information age, the percentage of our writing that has some personal sentiment attached to it (the kind that requires lavender colored stationary with little flowers on the edge) has declined considerably.
I guess I'm in a minority. I learned
to write both ways, but prefer to
write in cursive. I can write faster that way, and it
seems like I make fewer mistakes. Logically, it seems
like cursive would be faster since the
letters flow together. - Priscilla Boersma, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
The keyboard has changed the way I think. It has made my ideas more malleable. It has made writing a greater part of the process of developing my thoughts. With a pen in my hand and paper before me I write the beginning first, the middle second, and the end last. I begin with an outline of my thoughts and resist the urge to rearrange my ideas because that means starting over, with a fresh leaf of paper. But after years of working on a keyboard I often write the middle first and the beginning last, rearranging my thoughts repeatedly as I go. Paragraph four may actually end up as paragraph two; and when I'm done I can change then beginning or the end without starting over.
I'm old enough to remember
THE DAYS BEFORE COMPUTERS. We had to write
our papers in script, because that was the
professional, adult thing to do. A few
of us took typing lessons, but it wasn't required
in high school. That changed in college,
of course. So: maybe the schools need to keep up
with the times. Computers are
here to stay! - Beth Forrester, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
If the truth becomes clearer as I dwell on it, I can change what I'm saying before I publish it. That may not be impossible with a Bic, but it can be taxing. The keyboard has taken me from being a deductive writer (who starts with an unwavering conclusion to express) to being an inductive writer who uses the process of writing to manipulate his ideas and find his conclusions.
Does the keyboard change the way my students think? Definitely. Incredibly. Is that good? I suppose that depends on the user. Students have to decide whether the keyboard helps them do more or helps them be lazy. Teachers have to identify cognitive skills that handwriting promoted (like thinking ahead) and find ways to promote those skills without the need to have a pencil in the student's hand.
Whether it's good or bad, the keyboard is here and it is not going away...
I am a sick man. Well, maybe not as sick as the Underground Man in Dostoevsky's book. But my handwriting is pretty sick. Bad things happen when I write in cursive...
There are reasons for it, I suppose.
from children is precisely that it
is a demand. We put enough hurdles along the
course already. Several are unnecessary, although
rather high. - Hugo Kerr, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
I like to give out the excuse that all of my fingers have been broken, many of them twice (which is true). But I was 14 or so when I broke them all the first time at a roller rink (my hands got run over by someone much bigger than me), and I think my penmanship was pretty awful already then. Probably it's my mother's fault; she should have beaten me for bringing home "D's" in penmanship in elementary school and, probably, I would have done better...
I think cursive doesn't really
serve a purpose except for signing
things.... Everything we read that is
published is in regular print
so why do we demand students
write in cursive? - Kate Rose, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
Cursive has an interesting history in English. The Brits, I believe, call it "joined up writing." The word "cursive" is used for a flowing script style in a number of languages - not all of which use Roman letters.
When William Bradford penned the Mayflower Compact in 1620, most of his letters were disconnected. But they did look much like our current lettering.
Some one hundred and fifty years later, Thomas Jefferson's hand written rough draft of the Declaration of Independence showed most words as connected in a single flowing line. The signature of John Hancock still had a few breaks between letters within it.
President Lincoln's handwriting looked little different than cursive script does today.In the 1960's a handful of academic publishers (like Zaner-Bloser and D'Nealian) made efforts to codify and simplify cursive. The effect was probably the opposite of what was intended; competing handwriting curriculums resulted in greater variation in handwriting in America.
That, so far, is a summary of Wikipedia's page on cursive. And if this were an academic article (instead of my personal blog) I'd feel compelled to cite them as a source.
write in cursive. I work with dyslexic children. Some
do much better with cursive; others need
to print. Thankfully, my tool
is now a computer and find that with this
population computers work best. - Diann LaRosa, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
The thing I found most interesting was the changing nature of cursive, the very fact that our style and manner of writing has progressed and changed over time. The question, of course, is one of whether the time has come for more profound change.
If handwriting were intended as an art form that our culture really valued for its aesthetics, I'd be more supportive of it. Writing is an art form; but the art is literary, not visual. The art resides in the smithing of phrases and the choice of verbs and adjectives from a metaphorical palate that includes a rage of colors allowing for phrases ranging from pastel understatements like "his physical appearance lacked a certain degree of appeal" to full color hyperboles like "Bob owned hound dogs that were more handsome than he was." Certainly the lines must be legible to be meaningful; but as long as they are legible, it matters little whether they are written laboriously in fountain penned calligraphy or typed in MS Word in Edwardian Script ITC font. Both can be perfumed if inked on the right paper...
world. I for one combine printing and cursive
with a pattern long established but one I'm not
sure others could pick up on. - Cathy P. Miller, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
In March of 2004 the American Federal of Teachers published an article entitled Is teaching cursive writing a waste of time?. Two teachers face off on the issue. The first argues that cursive no longer serves a purpose and should go the way of eight track tapes. The second says we will always need handwriting (but fails to explain why we can't just print) and that children need to learn to write cursive because they need to be able to read cursive. Her argument deteriorates into the aesthetic value of cursive (I don't think society places that much value on the aesthetics of actual writing anymore, though it places great value on layout and graphic design). And her concluding punch is that kids who can write well in cursive make her job easier because she can read their papers. I thought, "have the type or print them..."
high school, and I have been out for over 20
years now. I went back to print writing in
my junior year of high
school... Cursive should become like calligraphy,
a nice extra. - Karyn Zmuda, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
CBS News has a rather dour story archived online from 2003. Penmanship: A Dying Art? almost bemoans the demise of penmanship and at times seems to belittle communication by email. That's as good a sign as any I'd say that penmanship really is a dying art.
use cursive anymore. Most of us tend
to print. It does need to be taught however. There
are many things that are
written in cursive, past and present. With
the many fonts to choose from on the computer
as well, it is important for everyone to be able to
read and write in
cursive. - Heidi Strander, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
I suppose the thing that bothers me the most in all of this is that the discussion seems to be confined to the way we write - that is to say, to the way we move our hands when we put pen to paper. I don't think that is the real issue. While I agree that a handwritten note is more sentimental, I think that computers have made it easier to preserve our thought (and the words that go with them). In the information age, the percentage of our writing that has some personal sentiment attached to it (the kind that requires lavender colored stationary with little flowers on the edge) has declined considerably.
to write both ways, but prefer to
write in cursive. I can write faster that way, and it
seems like I make fewer mistakes. Logically, it seems
like cursive would be faster since the
letters flow together. - Priscilla Boersma, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
The keyboard has changed the way I think. It has made my ideas more malleable. It has made writing a greater part of the process of developing my thoughts. With a pen in my hand and paper before me I write the beginning first, the middle second, and the end last. I begin with an outline of my thoughts and resist the urge to rearrange my ideas because that means starting over, with a fresh leaf of paper. But after years of working on a keyboard I often write the middle first and the beginning last, rearranging my thoughts repeatedly as I go. Paragraph four may actually end up as paragraph two; and when I'm done I can change then beginning or the end without starting over.
THE DAYS BEFORE COMPUTERS. We had to write
our papers in script, because that was the
professional, adult thing to do. A few
of us took typing lessons, but it wasn't required
in high school. That changed in college,
of course. So: maybe the schools need to keep up
with the times. Computers are
here to stay! - Beth Forrester, From
the International Reading Association's Listserv
If the truth becomes clearer as I dwell on it, I can change what I'm saying before I publish it. That may not be impossible with a Bic, but it can be taxing. The keyboard has taken me from being a deductive writer (who starts with an unwavering conclusion to express) to being an inductive writer who uses the process of writing to manipulate his ideas and find his conclusions. Does the keyboard change the way my students think? Definitely. Incredibly. Is that good? I suppose that depends on the user. Students have to decide whether the keyboard helps them do more or helps them be lazy. Teachers have to identify cognitive skills that handwriting promoted (like thinking ahead) and find ways to promote those skills without the need to have a pencil in the student's hand.
Whether it's good or bad, the keyboard is here and it is not going away...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
