teachers are dumb, part 1

This comment was written in response to Education Week's article on the return of Balanced Literacy to NYC.  

"It is a long story but phonics is not the end all of reading. Matter of fact it is what holds many kids back. Our language is not phonetic so the strong emphasis on phonics creates poor spellers and poor readers. It is an assumption some have made that fluency and good decoding when reading out loud is a skill needed for comprehension. For some students that is true but for the majority comprehension comes more from context and visual strategies. The majority of our students today are visual thinkers and the auditory.. and oral approaches like reading out loud do not help them. Phonics can be taught more successfully when children have a fully developed language system. More like age 8.. We have a deficit based system.. if someone is stronger visually and decoding is hard for them then we must focus on the weakness.. instead of instructing from the strength.
As for the common core.. standards aren't bad.. and common standards aren't bad. What is bad is the lack of understanding what is developmentally appropriate. I cannot believe what is expected of kinders.. who should be learning through lots of play and exploration. Not lots of sitting at a table with pencil and paper."

Here is a teacher who, in a rational world, would be fired post-haste.  She knows precisely nothing about the English language. 

English IS a phonetic language!  Why?  Take a close look at the symbols you are currently reading.  What do they represent?  Words?  No.  Phrases?  No.  Syllables? No.  The symbols, also known as letters, represent the sounds of the English language.  This is the definition of phonetic. In fact, English has 74 sounds, all of which are represented by the letters of the alphabet, either individually or in combination.  Knowing these 74 sounds will allow you to read and spell 98% of the 1,000,000+ words of the English language. Just how does this "[create] poor spellers and poor readers?"

While English is phonetic, it is not an easy language to learn.  The reason for this is tied up in the history of the language and the tiny island from which it comes.  England has been invaded many times in the last 3,000 years.  And each invader had brought their own language and, in order to establish dominance, tried to eradicate the native tongue.  A lot of these invader languages, especially back in the early days, were not written down and/or predated the Latin alphabet.  So when it came time to write down these words, scribes had to force-fit foreign sounds into the Latin alphabet. Or, if the invaders were literate, the scribes wanted to keep their masters' spellings and language. Every invasion and foreign language adoption adds another layer of complexity for us modern speakers. The history of English is an ungainly, but fascinating, mess. 

I have more to say about this inane comment, but have run out of writing time.  I will continue next week with her putting the cart before the horse.

At the intersection of Teacher Blvd. and Curriculum Way

This is another, "Everything you need to know about education can be learned from a musician" post.

Because I'm a curriculum junkie, I hang around (virtually) with a lot of homeschoolers.  They (and Robert Pondiscio) seem to the be only ones willing to talk openly about curriculum.  A lot of homeschoolers are public-school refugees, and so conversations comparing the two are frequent.

While reading, it hit me.  Curriculum is just like a musical instrument, and teachers are just like musicians.  Let me explain.  A great curriculum is like a Stradivarius, anyone who can play just a little can pick it up and sound fantastic.  A mediocre or bad teacher who is given a great curriculum and sticks with it, will do well.  Her students will have the opportunity to learn the subject.  (That's all teaching does, it gives students the opportunity to learn, what they chose to do with that opportunity is a another post.)  It won't be inspiring or life-changing, but it will get done.  If you hand that Stradivarius to Itzhak Perlman, his playing will transport you to places you've only dreamed of.  Same goes with curriculum, a great teacher with a great curriculum has the potential to change the lives of her students forever.  (And end up the subject of a Hollywood movie.)

Now for the other side of the coin.  If you hand Mr. Perlman my violin, which is a $40 no-label garage sale special, you will still hear some good music.  Mr. Perlman's expertise and artistry can make any instrument exceed its abilities.  If you give a great teacher a lousy curriculum, the teacher will overcome it, just like Mr. Perlman would.  She will supplement and reorganize like the dickens; giving her students the opportunity to learn.  It won't be as good, a lot of her time and energy will be put into the curriculum rather than the teaching, but she still does her job adequately.  However, when I play my $40 violin, I don't sound all that great.  Nobody wants to hear me play, because it sounds dreadful.  That's what happens when a bad/mediocre teacher is paired with a bad curriculum.  Any opportunity for learning is lost before the class even sits down at their desks.  A bad/mediocre teacher does not have skill or knowledge or artistry to overcome a flawed curriculum.  In fact, she may not have the ability to recognize the problem.  And just like my dreadful violin playing, the end result is dreadful teaching.

Guess which of the four options is most favored by American schools?