After having read chapter one, I found the three models of schooling/literacy development very interesting. The school that I am student teaching at follows the industrial model. They are using uniform and standardized model called Reading Street. The teachers are given scripts and lesson plans that they must follow and have little room to deviate from those plans. The industrial model is not what I imagine when I think about teaching reading and writing. The model that attracts me the most is a mix between the inquiry and critical model. Student can learn and be motivated more easily when they are learning about real life things, and with the critical model students are learning on a global context. I want my students to be able to question and challenge themselves. These models allow students a chance to connect to literacy in a meaningful way.
The text also talks about the No Child Left Behind act. Since the act was put into law in 2001, I still find myself wondering if I do or do not agree with this act and the way it is being implemented. What is the point in helping your student's learn if you can not even make important decisions on how to effectively teach your students. Reading from a script is not the way to effectively teach reading. Every child learns differently, therefore teachers should be able to come up with meaningful lessons that incorporate different learning styles/strategies.
finding nemo bathroom
1 year ago
My problem with the no child left behind act is that it the only model that it would really be allowed to work in is the industrial model, which as you stated - is not the best model. As teachers it is our job to inspire our students and with the scripted lesson plans that you have to use at your school, it's almost impossible to do that! I can't believe that some school districts actually have lesson plans already written out for their teachers to follow - why are we taking the courses that we are taking now on how to make fun and integrated lesson plans that are effective, if we are going to end up at a school like yours now where we are told what the teach and how to teach it?
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that a hybrid of the inquiry and critical models of literacy development is ideally the way that we would all like to teach and have learned to teach in our university classes. Unfortunately, I agree that the reality in most districts in our state is quite the contrary. While I often become discouraged by the state of the trade which we will all officially be entering in a year's time, I have to remind myself that it is our challenge to take on the system and provide our students a genuine education rather than a perscription program from the state. Of course, when your district has handed you a script to read on a daily basis, accomplishing this goal may seem an impossible feat.
ReplyDeleteWhile No Child Left Behind was probably devised with the noblest of intentions, we must realize that it was probably also drawn up by people whose students would be successful in reading no matter what just because the literary background that they have been provided prior to school was more congruent with the academic expectations of public schooling at large. With regard to deciding whether you do or do not agree, I think that you have to break the legislation into two parts: Do you agree with devising a way to make all of our students more proficient in the core subject areas so that they are more competitive on a global scale? Do you agree that the way to help these students achieve proficiency is through scripted literacy and mathematics programs that do not take into account the context in which these students exist?