Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eBCA8P906897; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:08:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 05:08:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000801c06423$683af0a0$6aa3fd3f@worldpass.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Jeffrey B. Reiter" <jefcar@herald.infi.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:318] Re: Questions about Purpose X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 6057 Lines: 141 Dear Mary Ann, Your question, "Are schools somehow not providing the same supportive environment for all children when they are learning to read?" hits the nail on the head. In response, I would like to share my "letter to the editor" that I sent in a few days ago to the Miami Herald. It represents a point of view that has been molded during my extensive experience teaching and tutoring at-risk readers (who I define as pupils who, for whatever reason, have needs that are not met by the school): "In his letter to the editor of December 9, Thomas James, Senior Education Policy Analyst for the Southeastern Regional Vision for Education, is certainly correct in saying that, "all children can learn, given the proper environment and support." His statement that, "the more involved a parent is, the higher the level of achievement," is also right on. My experience has shown me that all children can indeed learn, and at-risk readers can learn to read most quickly through the systematic development of a gap-less basic reading vocabulary. Since 1964 my work in education has included teaching children with learning disabilities, being an educational consultant, tutor, and tutor trainer. I have found substantial evidence to indicate that finding and filling gaps in sightwords, phonics, and word meanings are the most important aspects of reading instruction for such pupils, until they achieve a firm foundation of words and the ability to sound out new ones. Even at-risk readers can usually comprehend simple, straight forward passages composed of only known words. Therefore, it is most efficient at first, to provide them with motivational activities that elevate their word knowledge, along with material they can read independently based on that. Such initial success is extremely important to pave the way for more advanced learning. Since each child has different gaps, the process of filling them is highly individual, and best done tutorally. Even though teachers have so much of their time and effort taken up with FCAT preparation and other aspects of the curriculum, for at-risk readers who are so far behind that they learn little from ordinary instruction, there are numerous ways of promoting gap-filling. Such supplementary coaching can, for example, be provided through the systematic efforts of motivated individuals, including parents, volunteers, and even kids helping kids." Jeff Reiter ----- Original Message ----- From: Mary Ann Corley <macorley1@earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:17 AM Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:317] Questions about Purpose > Eileen, Kate, and others: > > Thanks for the thought-provoking messages and questions! You each raise > important issues that we all struggle with. I'd like to make a few > observations/ask a few questions and invite others to jump in on this > discussion. > > Do you think that the purpose of literacy programs is defined differently by > various entities: funders (including the government), literacy providers, > adult literacy learners, and the general public? Intriguing thought, no? > It seems that we literacy providers are often caught up in the tension > between what our funders expect and what our learners want. What do other > readers think about the purpose of literacy programs, from these various > perspectives? > > Kate talks about the "power" issue. How does this play out for many of our > adult learners who are extremely capable but who view themselves as failures > because of their histories of educational low achievement and of "not > fitting in"? Whether the learners' internalized poor self-concepts are the > result of learning disabilities, poverty, or racism, it seems that the > effect is the same: the learners are different; they didn't fit the mold of > traditional schooling. And traditional schooling too often fails to see or > value the strengths and talents of learners who are "different." > > But can we state this with confidence, even if we feel in our guts that this > is true? There are some research questions implicit here: Do K-12 teachers > unknowingly have lowered expectations for their students who live in poverty > (or who have learning disabilities, or who do not represent the mainstream > culture) and do teachers somehow, unintentionally, treat these learners > differently than they treat other learners? And are the learners then > living out a self-fulfilling prophesy that teacher expectations equal > student achievement? > > There is research that indicates that K-12 teachers show less attention to > female students than they do to male students: they call on them less > frequently, give them less feedback, etc. Might this also be true for > children who live in poverty (or who have learning disabilities or who are > culturally different)? Are schools somehow not providing the same > supportive environment for all children when they are learning to read? And, > if so, what are the residual effects when some of these children grow up and > come to adult literacy classes? More importantly, what can literacy > providers do to ensure that we don't unwittingly perpetuate some of these > same conditions in our programs? > > We hope that this discussion list will help us find ways to effectively > serve and retain more of our learners. I'd like to think that, if we > consider the above issues, discuss them among ourselves and with our > learners, and try some new approaches, then we can make our programs more > responsive to the needs of all learners. These are just some late night > ramblings--let's hear from others of you on these issues! > > (Re. Kate's question about rules: Shouldn't we both teach the "rules" to > our students AND teach them to think for themselves so that they will have > the tools to make informed decisions?) > > ********************************* > Mary Ann Corley > Director, National Center for > Literacy and Social Justice > macorley1@earthlink.net > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:31 EST