|
Post by epeanymous on Sept 29, 2023 22:12:13 GMT
I teach two areas of statutory law, and knowing how to diagram sentences is something pretty fundamental for what I teach -- my students actually do generally seem to know how to do so, however. I haven't written in cursive since I left high school 30+ years ago, and I write a lot. Do you write in print then? Isn't that much slower? I left school 30+ years ago too, and I still write in cursive. I only write in print for little children, and it takes me some concentration. I suppose it's what you get used to. I mostly type on a computer. I do occasionally have situations where I need to take notes by hand or hand-write a message, and yes, I print.
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Sept 29, 2023 22:15:32 GMT
Cursive is often in the same sentence with God. As in "bring back prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and cursive to our schools!" lol. These three things are going to "fix our schools". Or something. I love jumping into those arguments, lol.
The thing about cursive is that if you ever find yourself in a position to need it you can easily teach yourself. Or parents can teach their kids. My kids learned it in school, but then after elementary school ds never used it. He arrived at adulthood unable to read it or write it. Then he became a history major in college, and then he needed to read old historical documents. Guess what? He taught himself cursive in a day or two. -- So I'm one that thinks let's not pile one more thing on teachers whose days are already jam packed with mandatory things to teach.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 29, 2023 22:15:50 GMT
If kids are not taught cursive, how do they/will they sign their names on legal documents? This is less and less even a thing. Many mortgages and car loans are executed via electronic signature now.
|
|
Gennifer
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,004
Jun 26, 2014 8:22:26 GMT
|
Post by Gennifer on Sept 29, 2023 23:42:22 GMT
The more I think about it, the more I think that kids should be required to be in school longer, either more days in a year or more years in total, simply because there is so much more that they need to know now and there just aren’t enough hours in a day or days in a year to teach it. I don’t think more time in school, or longer years, is the answer. I think that we need to allow our kids to start their targeted learning earlier, like they do in many European countries. If a student is interested in studying fine art, maybe they don’t need to take chemistry or trigonometry. If they’re doing math, maybe they don’t need psychology. Understanding how credit and tax brackets work are going to be far more useful to the average person in their life than diagramming a sentence or writing cursive.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 30, 2023 0:00:47 GMT
IMO things that can be learned fairly quickly, without ongoing instruction, should be taught at home or learned independently. Cursive, tax brackets, credit scores, etc. can all fall into that category. School is for teaching things that need cumulative knowledge, and for teaching students how to think and problem solve. If you can do those last two you can easily figure out your taxes.
Specific, task-based information like that is unlikely to be remembered after school in any case. You’ll just have to look it up again later on.
Schools can only do so much. Parents - and later, individuals who have finished school - need to take responsibility for some of their own learning.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,978
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Sept 30, 2023 0:51:57 GMT
I think I agree with these points in theory but when I reflect on it some more, I was taught those things in school as were my peers. Thirty years down the road, so many of them still struggle with basic grammar and spelling. Forget about any useable civics knowledge. I agree that I can still recite some of the things we were required to memorize (je suis, tu es, il est...) but gosh I also recognize that there were some huge, society damaging gaping holes in the outcomes of the education system of the 70s and 80s.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Sept 30, 2023 1:06:41 GMT
DD needed her passport renewed, but had to go in person since her first one was when she was a minor, and she’s 19 now. The post office employee handed back her printed signature and said it had to be in cursive. I thought he was joking, but he was serious. She only took a week or two of cursive in third grade, and hadn’t used it since. I had to write her name out on a scrap piece of paper, and then she tried her best to copy it on the document. Seemed silly to me since she never signs her name that way, but she needed her passport. wow - my signature on my passport isn't in cursive - never had an issue with that or anything else. I'm sorry your DD ran into that
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 30, 2023 1:07:13 GMT
I think I agree with these points in theory but when I reflect on it some more, I was taught those things in school as were my peers. Thirty years down the road, so many of them still struggle with basic grammar and spelling. Forget about any useable civics knowledge. I agree that I can still recite some of the things we were required to memorize (je suis, tu es, il est...) but gosh I also recognize that there were some huge, society damaging gaping holes in the outcomes of the education system of the 70s and 80s. We can teach in K-12 until we're blue in the face. Adults have to want to continue learning and to do things that cause them to retain or relearn what they need to know to be functioning members of society. I remember very little, for example, from my high school government class. What I know now, I know because I've taken an interest in the information and continue to look up things where I have knowledge gaps. I have a master's degree in voice performance and have forgotten more than I ever knew about music theory. I was most definitely taught to identify a German 6th chord and how to approach and resolve it harmonically, but I have no idea about any of that now because I teach little kids and don't need to know. On the other hand, I can now read tab and play several stringed instruments, which are things I did not learn in music school. My point is: use it and grow it, or lose it. K-12 is blamed for "not teaching" so many things, when instead we need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we kept growing and using that knowledge.
|
|
bethany102399
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,531
Oct 11, 2014 3:17:29 GMT
|
Post by bethany102399 on Sept 30, 2023 2:17:56 GMT
I firmly believe rote memorization is good for kids. As one of those kids whose brain doesn't work that way I paid the price over and over again when I couldn't grasp route memorization. I will fight tooth and nail on this one. I think there shouldn't be a one-size fits all approach to education. Students are individuals with different abilities and different styles of learning. AMEN. I Still struggle with insecurity stemming from being told I was "stupid" over and over again because I couldn't do time tests in math. I silently hold up my middle finger to every teacher who told me that too when I pull out my calculator to do a basic equation. What did I learn? That I can't trust my own brain to add up basic figures, but oh hey look here's a handy calculator. What did I do when my kids struggled in math? We looked up Kahn Academy and went over the functions step by step following the video, phone open to my calculator in my lap. I'm sorry, this is a hot button for me. Everyone learns differently. As a parent it's MY job to understand what my kid needs to know, and make sure I"m backing up what the teacher is presenting by making sure my kid has the tools they need to succeed. If that means we go over it in a different way then that's ok, it's also on me to do, not them.
|
|
bethany102399
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,531
Oct 11, 2014 3:17:29 GMT
|
Post by bethany102399 on Sept 30, 2023 2:18:28 GMT
We can teach in K-12 until we're blue in the face. Adults have to want to continue learning and to do things that cause them to retain or relearn what they need to know to be functioning members of society. Also true!
|
|
|
Post by chaosisapony on Sept 30, 2023 2:30:47 GMT
I think some memorization can be very good to do. The multiplication tables, bill of rights, things like that. My 8th grade English teacher made us memorize 1 poem each week. On Friday each student had to stand in front of the class and recite the poem. You got marked down if you got a word wrong. I didn't hate the assignments but looking back on it at age 39 I can say that perhaps me still being able to recite clearly, "The northern lights have seen queer sights but the queerest they ever did see, was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge I cremated Sam Mcgee..." was not the best use of educational time. My favorite class and the best teacher I ever had specifically did not want us to memorize dates and names. He wanted us to spend our time understanding the material on a deeper level than that. Not a single one of his tests or assignments ever had a question where the answer was a date.
Cursive should be an elective for middle schoolers. I have never diagrammed a sentence and I don't actually know what that means.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Sept 30, 2023 2:55:38 GMT
My 8th grade English teacher made us memorize 1 poem each week. On Friday each student had to stand in front of the class and recite the poem. You got marked down if you got a word wrong As a former speech therapy kid (who was still in speech therapy well into high school) and mum to 2 kids with speech issues - forced speaking in front of a class can be torture. I will forever be grateful to my 10th grade English teacher who allowed a classmate to read my work aloud for me.
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Sept 30, 2023 3:59:20 GMT
My 8th grade English teacher made us memorize 1 poem each week. On Friday each student had to stand in front of the class and recite the poem. You got marked down if you got a word wrong As a former speech therapy kid (who was still in speech therapy well into high school) and mum to 2 kids with speech issues - forced speaking in front of a class can be torture. I will forever be grateful to my 10th grade English teacher who allowed a classmate to read my work aloud for me. Ah, I just remembered that we had to memorize and SING in front of the class, The Star Spangled Banner. But, the teacher graded us not only on how loud we sang, but if we also sang in tune!! One of the hardest songs to sing, and we got graded on how well we sang it. I can't sing. I did not get a good grade on that assignment. Awful!
|
|
|
Post by gryroagain on Sept 30, 2023 4:05:45 GMT
I dont know if diagramming is particularly helpful but I do know grammar is to learn languages. It’s impossible without knowing the parts of speech, really. Immersion learning only works if you under 5, otherwise you need grammar.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 30, 2023 4:53:55 GMT
The more I think about it, the more I think that kids should be required to be in school longer, either more days in a year or more years in total, simply because there is so much more that they need to know now and there just aren’t enough hours in a day or days in a year to teach it. I don’t think more time in school, or longer years, is the answer. I think that we need to allow our kids to start their targeted learning earlier, like they do in many European countries. If a student is interested in studying fine art, maybe they don’t need to take chemistry or trigonometry. If they’re doing math, maybe they don’t need psychology. Understanding how credit and tax brackets work are going to be far more useful to the average person in their life than diagramming a sentence or writing cursive. The thing is, schools these days are pushing younger and younger kids harder academically when what they really need to learn at that age are social skills, how to get along with others, how to follow basic instructions, how to take turns and share, all the stuff we used to learn in kindergarten way back in the day. My kid was doing academic stuff in kindergarten that I probably didn’t even start to cover until well into 1st grade. So maybe a better approach would be to let the little kids be little kids and give them more time when they’re older to learn all of the important basic stuff they actually might need to be productive citizens before they go off to higher education or the work force. It would be interesting to see how other countries stack up in terms of required classroom hours compared to the US.
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Sept 30, 2023 13:57:17 GMT
I don’t think more time in school, or longer years, is the answer. I think that we need to allow our kids to start their targeted learning earlier, like they do in many European countries. If a student is interested in studying fine art, maybe they don’t need to take chemistry or trigonometry. If they’re doing math, maybe they don’t need psychology. Understanding how credit and tax brackets work are going to be far more useful to the average person in their life than diagramming a sentence or writing cursive. The thing is, schools these days are pushing younger and younger kids harder academically when what they really need to learn at that age are social skills, how to get along with others, how to follow basic instructions, how to take turns and share, all the stuff we used to learn in kindergarten way back in the day. My kid was doing academic stuff in kindergarten that I probably didn’t even start to cover until well into 1st grade. So maybe a better approach would be to let the little kids be little kids and give them more time when they’re older to learn all of the important basic stuff they actually might need to be productive citizens before they go off to higher education or the work force. It would be interesting to see how other countries stack up in terms of required classroom hours compared to the US. I don't pretend to be an early education expert but, eg, Finland, which has very well-regarded public education, doesn't even start kids until 7. Of course, they also provide accessible affordable childcare, nine months of paid parental leave, and general supportive family policies, and their schools are well-resourced, so maybe that approach is one that is only appropriate when your country *actually* likes children.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Sept 30, 2023 15:13:15 GMT
I think I agree with these points in theory but when I reflect on it some more, I was taught those things in school as were my peers. Thirty years down the road, so many of them still struggle with basic grammar and spelling. Forget about any useable civics knowledge. I agree that I can still recite some of the things we were required to memorize (je suis, tu es, il est...) but gosh I also recognize that there were some huge, society damaging gaping holes in the outcomes of the education system of the 70s and 80s. We can teach in K-12 until we're blue in the face. Adults have to want to continue learning and to do things that cause them to retain or relearn what they need to know to be functioning members of society. I remember very little, for example, from my high school government class. What I know now, I know because I've taken an interest in the information and continue to look up things where I have knowledge gaps. I have a master's degree in voice performance and have forgotten more than I ever knew about music theory. I was most definitely taught to identify a German 6th chord and how to approach and resolve it harmonically, but I have no idea about any of that now because I teach little kids and don't need to know. On the other hand, I can now read tab and play several stringed instruments, which are things I did not learn in music school. My point is: use it and grow it, or lose it. K-12 is blamed for "not teaching" so many things, when instead we need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we kept growing and using that knowledge. Aaaaaaaaamen. Learning should be a lifelong endeavor. And I disagree with the notion that kids should "specialize" earlier than after graduation. I think primary education should have a broad base in the upper grades. Learning teaches many skills about how to think critically. This is something society needs desperately.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 30, 2023 15:22:45 GMT
We can teach in K-12 until we're blue in the face. Adults have to want to continue learning and to do things that cause them to retain or relearn what they need to know to be functioning members of society. I remember very little, for example, from my high school government class. What I know now, I know because I've taken an interest in the information and continue to look up things where I have knowledge gaps. I have a master's degree in voice performance and have forgotten more than I ever knew about music theory. I was most definitely taught to identify a German 6th chord and how to approach and resolve it harmonically, but I have no idea about any of that now because I teach little kids and don't need to know. On the other hand, I can now read tab and play several stringed instruments, which are things I did not learn in music school. My point is: use it and grow it, or lose it. K-12 is blamed for "not teaching" so many things, when instead we need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we kept growing and using that knowledge. Aaaaaaaaamen. Learning should be a lifelong endeavor. And I disagree with the notion that kids should "specialize" earlier than after graduation. I think primary education should have a broad base in the upper grades. Learning teaches many skills about how to think critically. This is something society needs desperately. YES, THIS. 100% this. I think even the first year or two of college should be dedicated to career exploration and honing critical thinking skills.
|
|
|
Post by busy on Sept 30, 2023 15:35:02 GMT
Aaaaaaaaamen. Learning should be a lifelong endeavor. And I disagree with the notion that kids should "specialize" earlier than after graduation. I think primary education should have a broad base in the upper grades. Learning teaches many skills about how to think critically. This is something society needs desperately. YES, THIS. 100% this. I think even the first year or two of college should be dedicated to career exploration and honing critical thinking skills. You wouldn’t believe the looks we get when DH & I, educated and successful professionals, say that we’re not pushing DS to figure out his exact area of specialization before college and then pursuing the best school for that with single-minded focus (which seems to be the model of “good parenting” in our socioeconomic group). Instead, he knows he’s interested in a range of fields that are broadly science-related , so we’re supporting him in selecting larger research-type institutions that have lots of strong science programs. He can explore while there and select the right path for him when he’s better equipped to do so because he has deeper exposure to more fields. I swear to god, some people think it’s just this side of child abuse and we’re setting him up for a life of failure. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Sept 30, 2023 15:55:58 GMT
I'm not at all surprised busy. I read a static that said 82% of college students believe that the point of an education is to make money. In the 60s that number was like 40%. It's clearly coming from the parents' attitudes. Sad that it's coming on so hard from people who are educated themselves. It's also clear to me watching the loan forgiveness debate that those who didn't go to college also overwhelmingly believe the only value is money.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 30, 2023 16:02:59 GMT
YES, THIS. 100% this. I think even the first year or two of college should be dedicated to career exploration and honing critical thinking skills. You wouldn’t believe the looks we get when DH & I, educated and successful professionals, say that we’re not pushing DS to figure out his exact area of specialization before college and then pursuing the best school for that with single-minded focus (which seems to be the model of “good parenting” in our socioeconomic group). Instead, he knows he’s interested in a range of fields that are broadly science-related , so we’re supporting him in selecting larger research-type institutions that have lots of strong science programs. He can explore while there and select the right path for him when he’s better equipped to do so because he has deeper exposure to more fields. I swear to god, some people think it’s just this side of child abuse and we’re setting him up for a life of failure. 🙄 Some kids need to wait and figure it out, but some know what they want to do early on and should be allowed to pursue it. I am grateful that my state in the 80s only required two credits each of math and science in high school, which left me space junior and senior year for the extra choir and theater credits I wanted. Others used the extra time to take technology or career classes, or business, or a variety of other things. And of course many went ahead and took physics and chemistry in junior and senior year, and calculus and calc II, because their interests lay that way. I’m also grateful that my youngest got to attend excellent fine arts magnet schools and begin her specialization early. She knew in childhood, as I did, that music was what she wanted to do - and having the time and opportunity to not only play in the orchestra, but also to take chamber music, music theory, and other classes gave her a strong advantage over kids in comprehensive high schools who only had space for one orchestra credit. Our district also has high schools for kids who know or think they might want to specialize in science, aviation, criminal justice, international relations, and other areas. When a kid knows what they want to do, I don’t see any benefit in making them wait to start doing it. But to your point, there is also no benefit to forcing a kid who doesn’t have that surety to pick a career path too soon.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 30, 2023 16:05:17 GMT
YES, THIS. 100% this. I think even the first year or two of college should be dedicated to career exploration and honing critical thinking skills. You wouldn’t believe the looks we get when DH & I, educated and successful professionals, say that we’re not pushing DS to figure out his exact area of specialization before college and then pursuing the best school for that with single-minded focus (which seems to be the model of “good parenting” in our socioeconomic group). Instead, he knows he’s interested in a range of fields that are broadly science-related , so we’re supporting him in selecting larger research-type institutions that have lots of strong science programs. He can explore while there and select the right path for him when he’s better equipped to do so because he has deeper exposure to more fields. I swear to god, some people think it’s just this side of child abuse and we’re setting him up for a life of failure. 🙄 My DH and I are sort of of the same mind with our kid. DH got a degree in business management and is now in the skilled trades. I made it halfway through art college when the school suddenly dropped my major and no other local schools offered it so now I’m an office manager. Neither of us really does what we went to school to do so we have no intention of pushing her to even go to college until she knows where her interests lie. FWIW, she is a straight A student taking high school classes in 8th grade. She is equally talented in music, art and academics so who knows what she will want to do? We have already been advising her if she has the opportunity to take any college classes on the high school’s dime it would help her a lot financially long term to take advantage of that.
|
|
|
Post by busy on Sept 30, 2023 16:21:17 GMT
You wouldn’t believe the looks we get when DH & I, educated and successful professionals, say that we’re not pushing DS to figure out his exact area of specialization before college and then pursuing the best school for that with single-minded focus (which seems to be the model of “good parenting” in our socioeconomic group). Instead, he knows he’s interested in a range of fields that are broadly science-related , so we’re supporting him in selecting larger research-type institutions that have lots of strong science programs. He can explore while there and select the right path for him when he’s better equipped to do so because he has deeper exposure to more fields. I swear to god, some people think it’s just this side of child abuse and we’re setting him up for a life of failure. 🙄 Some kids need to wait and figure it out, but some know what they want to do early on and should be allowed to pursue it. I am grateful that my state in the 80s only required two credits each of math and science in high school, which left me space junior and senior year for the extra choir and theater credits I wanted. Others used the extra time to take technology or career classes, or business, or a variety of other things. And of course many went ahead and took physics and chemistry in junior and senior year, and calculus and calc II, because their interests lay that way. I’m also grateful that my youngest got to attend excellent fine arts magnet schools and begin her specialization early. She knew in childhood, as I did, that music was what she wanted to do - and having the time and opportunity to not only play in the orchestra, but also to take chamber music, music theory, and other classes gave her a strong advantage over kids in comprehensive high schools who only had space for one orchestra credit. Our district also has high schools for kids who know or think they might want to specialize in science, aviation, criminal justice, international relations, and other areas. When a kid knows what they want to do, I don’t see any benefit in making them wait to start doing it. But to your point, there is also no benefit to forcing a kid who doesn’t have that surety to pick a career path too soon. If a kid *actually* knows what they want to specialize in, I’m fully supportive of them being allowed to. But IME, that’s the exception not the rule. In most cases, kids don’t know and are being pushed by parents to pick something. I don’t know the stats but I’d wager it’s not a lot of people who get a degree in what they start in and then end up working in that field. It’s purely anecdotal, but I just see soooo much pressure on 15, 16, 17 year olds to pick what they’re going to do for the rest of their lives when they don’t really have any idea.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 30, 2023 16:30:25 GMT
Some kids need to wait and figure it out, but some know what they want to do early on and should be allowed to pursue it. I am grateful that my state in the 80s only required two credits each of math and science in high school, which left me space junior and senior year for the extra choir and theater credits I wanted. Others used the extra time to take technology or career classes, or business, or a variety of other things. And of course many went ahead and took physics and chemistry in junior and senior year, and calculus and calc II, because their interests lay that way. I’m also grateful that my youngest got to attend excellent fine arts magnet schools and begin her specialization early. She knew in childhood, as I did, that music was what she wanted to do - and having the time and opportunity to not only play in the orchestra, but also to take chamber music, music theory, and other classes gave her a strong advantage over kids in comprehensive high schools who only had space for one orchestra credit. Our district also has high schools for kids who know or think they might want to specialize in science, aviation, criminal justice, international relations, and other areas. When a kid knows what they want to do, I don’t see any benefit in making them wait to start doing it. But to your point, there is also no benefit to forcing a kid who doesn’t have that surety to pick a career path too soon. If a kid *actually* knows what they want to specialize in, I’m fully supportive of them being allowed to. But IME, that’s the exception not the rule. In most cases, kids don’t know and are being pushed by parents to pick something. I don’t know the stats but I’d wager it’s not a lot of people who get a degree in what they start in and then end up working in that field. It’s purely anecdotal, but I just see soooo much pressure on 15, 16, 17 year olds to pick what they’re going to do for the rest of their lives when they don’t really have any idea. I agree, in my experience I don’t know too many people who actually do for a living what they majored in in college. Now on the flip side, the people I know who went to a trade school overwhelmingly have gone on to do exactly what they went to school for.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,378
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Sept 30, 2023 17:00:07 GMT
There has been a HUGE shift in the way we teach reading over the last several years. It’s actually a shift BACK to the way it was done when I was a kid. I’m sure you’ve heard of it…it’s called the “Science of Reading”. It’s the “whole language” vs. “phonics” debate. But this time, it’s backed by tons of brain research. For years (all of my teaching career) we taught reading using the “3-cueing” system (based mostly on the work of Fountas and Pinnell). We taught children how to look at the shape of words, look at pictures for clues, think about what would make sense and sound right with very little attention given to phonics. But research has shown that is a TERRIBLE strategy (if you’re interested, listen to the podcast “Sold a Story.” ) Anyway, now we are teaching explicit, systematic phonics. Very detailed. We teach syllable types (closed, open, silent-e, r-controlled, etc) and rules (no English word ends in a v, if a word ends with a /k/ sound, it’s a ck if it immediately follows a short vowel, etc.) I truly believe we will see dramatic increases in reading scores over the next decade. And spelling! Once you start learning it, it all makes sense! And comprehension is still VERY important. But while kids are learning to read in decodable texts, they practice comprehension skills through listening to read-alouds. In fifth grade, we are learning extensive morphology—Latin and Greek roots, prefixes, suffixes, etc. So if kids come across a multi-syllabic word when reading, they can decode it using phonics rules, and know the meaning using morphemes (and context, too). Learning cursive also has many benefits for the BRAIN…working memory, long-term memory, connection between the left and right hemispheres, etc. Cursive is actually much easier for some people. So it definitely needs to be taught. And then, kids will develop their own style (probably a hybrid of both) like we all have. Rote memorization is actually kind of useless. You will forget it once you have stopped practicing. Kids need to develop AUTOMATICITY. Which is different then rote memorization. They need to have STRATEGIES to fall back on when they forget something they have memorized….like a rule for decoding a sight word, or a strategy for figuring out a multiplication fact. There are way too many facts to “memorize.” It’s much more efficient to learn a handful of strategies rather than memorize hundreds of facts. If kids have good NUMBER SENSE, learning to add, subtract, multiply and divide is easy. We are not diagramming sentences, but we are definitely learning grammar rules. And there is no need to “memorize” history. Learn history, analyze, debate, learn how to go to primary sources…. Learn how to think critically. Memorizing history is just memorizing one person’s point of view. And look where that’s gotten us.
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Sept 30, 2023 17:09:33 GMT
There has been a HUGE shift in the way we teach reading over the last several years. It’s actually a shift BACK to the way it was done when I was a kid. I’m sure you’ve heard of it…it’s called the “Science of Reading”. It’s the “whole language” vs. “phonics” debate. But this time, it’s backed by tons of brain research. For years (all of my teaching career) we taught reading using the “3-cueing” system (based mostly on the work of Fountas and Pinnell). We taught children how to look at the shape of words, look at pictures for clues, think about what would make sense and sound right with very little attention given to phonics. But research has shown that is a TERRIBLE strategy (if you’re interested, listen to the podcast “Sold a Story.” ) Anyway, now we are teaching explicit, systematic phonics. Very detailed. We teach syllable types (closed, open, silent-e, r-controlled, etc) and rules (no English word ends in a v, if a word ends with a /k/ sound, it’s a ck if it immediately follows a short vowel, etc.) I truly believe we will see dramatic increases in reading scores over the next decade. And spelling! Once you start learning it, it all makes sense! And comprehension is still VERY important. But while kids are learning to read in decodable texts, they practice comprehension skills through listening to read-alouds. In fifth grade, we are learning extensive morphology—Latin and Greek roots, prefixes, suffixes, etc. So if kids come across a multi-syllabic word when reading, they can decode it using phonics rules, and know the meaning using morphemes (and context, too). Learning cursive also has many benefits for the BRAIN…working memory, long-term memory, connection between the left and right hemispheres, etc. Cursive is actually much easier for some people. So it definitely needs to be taught. And then, kids will develop their own style (probably a hybrid of both) like we all have. Rote memorization is actually kind of useless. You will forget it once you have stopped practicing. Kids need to develop AUTOMATICITY. Which is different then rote memorization. They need to have STRATEGIES to fall back on when they forget something they have memorized….like a rule for decoding a sight word, or a strategy for figuring out a multiplication fact. There are way too many facts to “memorize.” It’s much more efficient to learn a handful of strategies rather than memorize hundreds of facts. If kids have good NUMBER SENSE, learning to add, subtract, multiply and divide is easy. We are not diagramming sentences, but we are definitely learning grammar rules. And there is no need to “memorize” history. Learn history, analyze, debate, learn how to go to primary sources…. Learn how to think critically. Memorizing history is just memorizing one person’s point of view. And look where that’s gotten us. I have learned a LOT just from subbing in elementary school and teaching that new (new to us) phonics program that you mentioned. I think this is our 3rd year with it...? Certainly not more than that, unless it was new the year of the pandemic before schools shut down. We have already seen fabulous results from this program (wish I could remember the name of it)... Our current 2nd and 3rd graders are way ahead of previous years and everyone is sure it's the phonics program. -- And "Sold a Story" is sad. And should make everyone angry when they think of all the kids who were failed by our old ways of teaching reading.
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Sept 30, 2023 17:20:25 GMT
If a kid *actually* knows what they want to specialize in, I’m fully supportive of them being allowed to. But IME, that’s the exception not the rule. In most cases, kids don’t know and are being pushed by parents to pick something. I don’t know the stats but I’d wager it’s not a lot of people who get a degree in what they start in and then end up working in that field. It’s purely anecdotal, but I just see soooo much pressure on 15, 16, 17 year olds to pick what they’re going to do for the rest of their lives when they don’t really have any idea. I agree, in my experience I don’t know too many people who actually do for a living what they majored in in college. Now on the flip side, the people I know who went to a trade school overwhelmingly have gone on to do exactly what they went to school for. Yes, I changed my major a couple of times in college. When I was in high school, we took one of those tests that help determine what your interest are and what majors would best be suited for you. Mine came up as a Forest Management! LOL! That was definitely what I did NOT major in. Also, when you are in the college-prep grouping in high school, there is not much room in your schedule to take "electives". Every semester I had a math, english, science, history, and language class. And then I took PE because I did sports. I had no room for art, shop, etc. It also seems like kids who want to major in art seem to know that by the time they get to high school. But even they change their minds in college, either due to competition or someone telling them they can't make money in it. But, I feel like even art majors need to have a well-rounded education, especially when it comes to knowing the business-end of things. I have taken art history classes, and I feel like I have learned and retained more about history in general from these classes than taking just a general history class. You learned what was going on at the time a certain art piece was made. You connect the art with what was happening in the world. Maybe they should make general history classes more interesting like this. But, I am also a visual learner, so pictures do help me. ETA: I don't remember ever diagramming sentences in school.
|
|
|
Post by don on Sept 30, 2023 17:20:55 GMT
It's a different world. I believe the most important skill needed today is reading. For everything else there's Google and the girl in the computer. Geography is taught by war. Who knew where Ukraine was 3 years ago? I remember seeing a 6' John Wayne poster that said "Life is tough, it's tougher if you're stupid".
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Sept 30, 2023 18:08:39 GMT
Yes, I changed my major a couple of times in college. When I was in high school, we took one of those tests that help determine what your interest are and what majors would best be suited for you. Mine came up as a Forest Management! LOL! That was definitely what I did NOT major in. Also, when you are in the college-prep grouping in high school, there is not much room in your schedule to take "electives". Every semester I had a math, english, science, history, and language class. And then I took PE because I did sports. I had no room for art, shop, etc. It also seems like kids who want to major in art seem to know that by the time they get to high school. But even they change their minds in college, either due to competition or someone telling them they can't make money in it. But, I feel like even art majors need to have a well-rounded education, especially when it comes to knowing the business-end of things. I have taken art history classes, and I feel like I have learned and retained more about history in general from these classes than taking just a general history class. You learned what was going on at the time a certain art piece was made. You connect the art with what was happening in the world. Maybe they should make general history classes more interesting like this. But, I am also a visual learner, so pictures do help me. ETA: I don't remember ever diagramming sentences in school. Ha ha, yes, I took those tests too and it told me I should be a mortician or a florist, go figure! I took all the college track courses but couldn’t afford to actually go to college until I was married (and even then couldn’t really afford it but muddled through). FTR, I never took a single art class in high school beyond the one worthless trimester of general art that was required in 9th grade. I ended up at an art college as an industrial design major in my 20’s. I loved art history and rocked that class, both semesters. The art school I attended was pretty weak on general ed classes but that was part of the appeal. I was over taking math and science classes I knew I’d never use and didn’t take the required years of foreign languages in high school that were a prerequisite for most regular colleges at the time. If I would have had access to the kinds of art/design classes my 8th grader is currently taking, I would have been really into them.
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Sept 30, 2023 18:18:33 GMT
FTR, I never took a single art class in high school beyond the one worthless trimester of general art that was required in 9th grade. I did not take any art classes in junior or high school. It was not required. I wish it would have been, at least one class. I wish there would have been access to classes like your 8th grader!
|
|