Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g29KHMu15391; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 15:17:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 15:17:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <16c.a04740a.29bbc6ea@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Nashansen@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3939] Re: assessment of LD&Q X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 124 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: O Content-Length: 9525 Lines: 171 Anne - You made a comment in this NIFL-LD e-mail responding to Art LaChance's previous message where he stuck his tongue deep in his cheek. He expressed his feelings about the child who had a great teacher and a perfect learning scenario yet didn't learn the material concluding "...because they didn't learn the material in this perfect situation they, the student, must be dysfunctional." You then followed it with a question: "Am I the only one here who sees this?" My response: I think Art was trying to *joke* about the ultimate of all "assumptions". That being: Some decision-makers /teachers /administrators -- who*ever* it is making the decisions about the child -- assume that his/her capabilities show s/he's dysfunctional rather than address the *real* reason a child is not succeeding to learn to read. You wrote more accurately the conclusion drawn should be: The student "... just processes information differently. With direct, intensive, systematic, multisensory instruction he or she can learn to read. Research has shown that children who read below grade level can be brought up to grade level with such instruction (Torgesen and others)." AND " ... IF young children receive the type of instruction they need as they begin to learn, instead of waiting until they are 2 years behind ..., we will come much closer to the goal of every child reading at grade level by grade 3." "I do not blame teachers. Teachers need the information they need to teach the 50% of the children who struggle with phonemic awareness and phonological processing. ..." My response: There's the Catch! I don't blame teachers either, Anne. I was *one* of those elementary school teachers "in a former lifetime". But *I* think, with the discoveries that have been made since my days in an elementary school classroom, there SHOULD have been a change in the college curricula being offered new teachers headed into the care and instruction of early readers. I do not believe that all college education courses include enough about using a different approach to teaching reading. You'll probably jump on me because you are on the Drake University college campus, but many colleges overlook the need for using an alternative approach to reading challenges. Instead that new wet-behind-the-ears teacher goes into the classroom, stands before a large class of trusting, needy kids, and does not have the tools to teach the child who has a different learning style, processing differentials or a need for auditory or visual tools instead of "see Spot run." printed materials. Yes, I realize that our print materials have improved since the days of Dick, Jane and Spot, but I sense that many of the children in today's classrooms have teachers who are ill-prepared to get a different pony out of the barn to ride to the child's goal to read. As always, I have a story to tell. I got a call from a man whose name was familiar to me as a staff member of the Children's Care Hospital and School. I must admit at first I was only half-listening because he introduced himself with that moniker. (The school is for kids with physical disabilities. The less-politically correct name "Crippled Children's Hospital and School" went out the window in the '80's.) Our program works with adults, right? Well, he was looking for a speaker. It was in the fall when I get a lot of requests for United Way presentations, so that's what I mislabeled it. I agreed to speak. It wasn't long before I realized that it must be parents of CCHS kids because it was an evening group -- and he wanted a literacy council *panel*. AND they were showing the video, "Stanley and Iris". I was doing catch-up! It was not the "usual speech" being requested. I agreed to "bring a panel". It would be myself as the Director, a Tutor (a CCHS Development employee yet!), and her early 40's learner. It got more bizarre, Anne. The three of us entered a packed gym halfway through the video. The caller offered that to me as an arrival time. The dim lighting forbid me to identify "the crowd" unTIL .... The lights went up. They evaluated what they saw in the movie. Their interpretations and observations were right on! BUT ... it was then I realized that Dan was not talking from under his CCHS "hat" but as the Special Education instructor from one of the local colleges. The #2) surprise was who I saw in the audience as we made our way to the front. I recognized many faces of Sioux Falls classroom *teachers* I taught with in that former lifetime that I spoke about earlier. It turns out they were taking a special education college course. Some mouths dropped open. (It was intimate seating. We could see our audience up close and personal.) Not only did they nod in recognition of Mrs. Hansen, but they KNEW the student when he introduced himself. He didn't make it through "junior high school" before he failed for the last time and then dropped out, he told them. A couple of his Jr. High teachers were in the room. They were visibly surprised! He now operates his own business. He's still shy, but considers himself to be much more successful than when he went to school -- and that was his message. The conversation that followed "after class" told me that they were totally in the dark (AND are obviously still IN the dark!) Here's the shocker: During the Q&A time a woman off to my left asked a specific question about teaching technique. As the Tutor and I explain the multisensory approach we use, she went further. It turns out she's a spec ed teacher and she was asking the question for her elementary school age CHILD because, as she said, "my child is not being helped". I shot a quick glance off to the right toward the course instructor and he had a distressed look on his face. THIS is what I'm talking about. Enough storytelling. You and I agree on this philosophical issue. You wrote: " ... IF young children receive the type of instruction they need as they begin to learn, instead of waiting until they are 2 years behind and then remediation begins, we will come much closer to the goal ... of reading." A child who succeeds rather than fails as s/he begins school is much more likely to have their self-esteem intact in a couple years also. Heck! One semester of "being behind" his/her classmates can take its toll, *I* believe!! Two **years**?? That is totally unacceptable. So YES! It's critical that the young child receive the RIGHT type of instruction at the get-go ... not two years later. If we were speaking on a personal level and that little human being was *my*/your child, it would **not** happen without parental intervention! But the reality out there is: The struggling child may very possibly have a parent who can*not* intervene because the parent(s) don't have the reading skills (to say *nothing* of the Courage!!) to speak out about their kid's education if they also are slow to read or can't read at all! I believe that the elementary school teacher is The Authority Not To Be Questioned to the parent who didn't learn to read by the time they depart "the system", in a great many circumstances. Agree or disagree? I have a strong feeling that our colleges need to be more aware of today's child's need. Not *all* colleges, mind you, but some of them are sending elementary teachers out "into the real world" with limited skills to deal with a child with needs for a "direct, intensive, systematic, multisensory instruction" as you wrote. Every college needs to be more aware that their elementary ed students should be required to get course instruction on how to correctly teach kids to read using alternative and multisensory methods. "Phonemic awareness and phonological processing" is like a new Greek language in some elementary ed depts of some colleges, I believe. The second *piece* of this issue, Anne, is: It's then the responsibility of the public **schools** to assure that their teachers don't have an overwhelmingly high head-count in the early education classroom. Give a teacher a manageable number of students so that one-to-one attention can be a reality and THAT will make a difference as well. As far as the following statement is concerned: "Children also need a stimulating language and print-rich environment." Here's where the adult literacy practitioners need to be painfully aware: I'd like to ask those here on the NIFL listserv who have direct service time with adult learners who are parents of little kids, preschool to third grade age: 1) Do you feel your parent is offering their needy child this very important environment? 2) Do they have the resources to even know which "print-rich" materials to purchase? 3) The last question will be do they have the financial resources to "make the purchase(s)" if they at least have an advocate* who does know? This is where the Family Literacy focus has to be strengthened so that our needy *parents* also have the right tools because if they *don't*, the cycle of illiteracy will continue, in my view. If both teachers and parents do not have the right materials/approach to make a difference in our children's worlds, you and I will still be administering programs when we are 90 going on 120, Anne. Nancy Hansen Sioux Falls Area Literacy Council Sioux Falls, SD sfliteracy@mcleodusa.net and Nashansen@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:15 EST