Reading Is Boring.

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-merrow/an-act-of-war_b_922251.html a little bit of my two cents... Ok, a lot, and I will meander about, but here goes.

Students like to read in first grade and do well. It's a novelty, a new talent that they gladly embrace. By 4th grade they detest reading as the author points out, and scores plummet. Why?

Many schools do not allow reading outside the textbook or mandated curriculum. Or they do, but there's no time for it. I dare you to find a Language Arts textbook and read some stories. As Diane Ravitch has pointed out in The Language Police, we basically whitewash literature. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0190.html lists some of the things Ravitch found to be banned from books, so that stories cannot include the following (plus many many more)some being just silly, others making stories dull, and others that just....well you'l see: bookworm ,busybody, the elderly (must use "older people), fanantic, Founding Fathers, insane, majority group, Middle east, polo, senior citizen, sect, tomboy, yacht.

And topics/ideas banned...here's where I find it the most interesting.....imagine stories without....Women portrayed as teachers, mothers, nurses, and/or secretaries, Women as more nurturing than men, Men playing sports, working with tools, Men and boys larger and heavier than women and girls, Girls as peaceful, emotional, warm (but too aggressive is banned too), Boys as strong, rough, competitive, African-Americans in crowded tenements on chaotic streets; in big, bright cars; in abandoned buildings with broken windows and wash hanging out; or living in innocuous, dull white-picket-fence neighborhoods (so where do they live? Leaving just skyscrapers or mansions I suspect.), Native Americans performing a rain dance, Native Americans living in rural settings on reservations, Native Americans portrayed as people who live in harmony with nature, (so let's deny their culture....), Hispanics who are warm, expressive, and emotional, Older people in nursing homes or with canes, walkers, wheelchairs, orthopedic shoes, or eyeglasses, Older people who are retired, are at the end of their careers, have lived the most fruitful years of their lives, or are engaged in a life of leisure activities, Older people who are fishing, baking, knitting, whittling, reminiscing, rocking in chairs, or watching television.

Ok that alone, and my links alone are but a partial list. Yet they paint an unrealistic portrait of the world outside the classroom. I'm not promoting racist or sexist literature but also not unrealistic literature. The Old Man and The Sea would be dwindled down to about a paragraph since old...I mean elderly....I mean...those of advanced years are not allowed to fish. The Lewis and Clark story would probably also be a paragraph long.

Add in the idea of sight words and a set vocabulary and wow....not only is the old man and the sea restricted to "a grandfatherly figure sets out to complete a goal, performing sports activities on a body of water" . Upon completion of the goal, the grandfatherly figure (does not rest) consumes a non offensive beverage and (does not dream)." But now you must insert the sight words...so, using actual California sight words antique

equivalent

qualify

quantity

quite

request

its

night

break

equal

Let's rewrite the story.

A grandfatherly figure, equal in stature, looks, and age to everyone else, sets out on a sporting adventure on a body of water. The grandfatherly figure struggles but not because of his age. He goes out at night for sport, and the line he uses breaks. He is seeking his amphibious goal and lets go of its grasp. He finally succeeds and brings home a creature equivalent to a shark but not quite since the grandfatherly figure was not fishing. The townspeople do not think it qualifies as great as the grandfatherly figure would wish. The grandfatherly figure retires to his nice home and decided to be slightly less active. A townsperson whom honors him brings , without the grandfatherly figure's request but for mere kindness, a non offensive beverage in appropriate quantity and an item to read. The end.

Admittedly, I found the classic version of the story kind of dull, I humbly admit. But I read it and appreciated it. And if Hemingway's story must be made into the paragraph I wrote above, it is doing an injustice to our culture, history, humanities, intellectual pursuits and so much more.

Imagine a story (which I find more interesting) such as Antigone, Lord of the Flies, The GRapes of Wrath, re-written to fit textbook specifications. Just imagine. There would be little to no story, nothing would really make sense or reflect reality. The story would be pointless.

And we wonder why children find reading boring.

Educational Leaders Unmasked: Dewey Part II

Dewey once wrote, "The individualistic man is a victim of an unnamed form of insanity and only the collectivist man is sane."

And how might this notion affect education? I think back to my favorite influences (sarcasm here) of Prussian education and social efficiency; social efficiency educators [were] made up of an acceptance of a collective

society and a belief that an individual should be devoted to a specialized task

in society.” (see my Social Efficiency part III post) This notion is very Dewey-esque and is arguably still a practice in education.

Wikipedia states, “Dewey goes on to acknowledge that education and schooling are instrumental in creating social change and reform. He notes that “education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction” (1897) )”

I take this to mean that teachers are regulators, who must “adjust” students to fit their societal mold, as the key part in “social consciousness” (that sounds so hunky-dory and reminds me of my liberal arts education in college…social consciousness was nearly de rigueur in conversation and coursework). Does this sound like the role of a teacher to you? Perhaps it does but it is not my idea of a great teacher or desirable education. I think of teachers as “facilitators” who help mold students, yes, but not to their cog and wheel place in society but rather as a mentor, encouraging the student’s passions and interests, not societies pre-set passions assigned to them.

Learning by doing- Here’s where I favor Dewey. He was against a rigidly structured curriculum and felt that children learn best by doing, that is by experimenting, theorizing, playing with their learning. Too often we see classes heavy on lecture and/or scripted curriculum which study after study shows is not the most effective method. Think back to a lesson a teacher taught you, way back in elementary. Was it scripted curriculum, or learning by doing? I recall my favorite lesson was in 6^th grade World History. After studying ancient civilizations, we worked in groups to create our own civilization, our own artifacts and Rosetta Stone which we sprinkled in dirt outside the school grounds. The next week each group went and did an “archeological dig” and pieced together the other group’s civilization. I think Dewey would support such a lesson.

The school must be made into a social center capable of participating in the daily life of the community . . . and make up in part to the child for the decay of dogmatic and fixed methods of social discipline and for the loss of reverence and the influence of authority.”

"that to put the child in possession of his fullest talents,

education should be active rather than passive

; that to prepare the child for a democratic

society, the school should be social rather than individualist'

“Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper

social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher is always the

prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven.”

(just a creepy quote there...)

"the plea for the predominance of learning to read in early

school life because of the great importance attaching to literature seems to be a perversion." This echoes the Prussian idea of having education to educate the public just so much that they feel satiated. The people become more educated than they would be without completion of their compulsory schooling, and they are likely more desirable as a work force. However, they learn just enough but not enough to start to question the status quo. Reading well enough to function in life was what the Prussians encouraged; they feared a learned man that was a proficient reader because they were a threat to the “system”. Let the top 2-10% elitists, from their private education, rule and make decisions because they’re the experts and the common man is not and should be happy with his status. If this idea exists today in our schools (the supposed dumbing down of our schools would support such a theory) then it is time to put a stop to it. Man deserves to “be all that he can be” and deserves an elite education. Knowledge is power and frees us from the shackles of dependency, feudalism, and oppression. Reading is a great vehicle for change; many studies show that ones “level” of vocabulary is a great determinant in their success in life, and reading is a great exposure to, as I call them in the classroom, 50 cent words. If we don’t teach the importance of great literature to our children, our future generations, if we only teach them certain sight words that are in a blanched condenses and altered version of literary classics, then we are supporting “the man keeping us down”. Social stratification will continue to rear its ugly head.

founded the Progressive Education Association which promoted the seven principles to improve elementary education (of which I can only find five); 1) Child centered; education should be active rather than passive. (I must agree).2) Children should learn the contents of the activities of the children formed their own direct experience. (I somewhat agree…such an idea can go to far as is outlined in Diane Ravitch’s Language Police.) 3) "the process of teaching the course is to develop habits of mind". (Yes, we need critical thinking but do we as teachers encourage habits of the mind, or decide what those habits should be?) 4) . Dilute the authority of the conscious view of teacher. (I do like teachers as facilitators especially in the later years i.e. high school when students have a foundational knowledge. However, it seems teachers have lost authority but it has not gone to the students but rather the bureaucrats. 5) The concept of school spirit. Progressive educators believe that students should be encouraged to cooperate with the school. (I believe students should have pride in their school; however, should they blindly cooperate and idolize the school?)

Socialism- many argue that Dewey promoted socialism; you decide in his quote here; "I do not see how any honest educational reformer in western countries can deny that the greatest practical obstacle in the way of introducing into schools that connection with social life which he regards as desirable is the great part played by personal competition and desire for private profit in our economic life. This fact almost makes it necessary that in important respects school activities should be protected from social contacts and connections, instead of being organized to create them. The Russian educational situation is enough to convert one to the idea that only in a society based upon the cooperative principle can the ideals of educational reformers be adequately carried into operation."

From http://www.asis.com/stag//starchiv/transcriptions/NWO/NWO2_Education.html (and it is a valid source; I’ve seen it backed up by research but the author says it more succinctly than I);
“Under the pretext of improving teaching methods, they changed what was taught to the American children. What did Dewey believe? In his writing and teaching, Dewey rejected fixed moral laws and eternal truths and principles. He adopted pragmatic, relativistic concepts as his guiding philosophy. Denying God, he held to the Marxist concept, that man is without a soul or free will. Man is a biological organism completely molded by his environment. Dewey believed that because man’s environment is constantly changing, man also changes constantly. Therefore, Dewey concluded, teaching children any of the absolutes of morals, government or ethics was a waste of time. On this moral philosophy, amoral philosophy, he developed his teaching formula, commonly labeled Progressive Education. Dewey published a thing called My Pedagogic Creed in 1897, and in it he saw the destruction – listen to this – the destruction of the child’s individualistic traits as the primary goal of education.” The idea of ethics verses morals, and that morals are fixed but outdated or wrong, is replaced with ethics which can change by the situation at hand. This in my opinion deteriorates one’s own moral fortitude. If morals must be taught in school (I argue against it; this is the role of the family) then shouldn’t we teach moral fortitude and not arbitrary, situational ethics? Of course Dewey stated morals and ethics should both not be taught in schools and I do agree; however some ethics and morals must be part of schools or else you’d have chaos- for example, we as teachers must reiterate what we hope is taught at home; i.e. share with others, get along with others, respect your elders, respect yourself and others…

Phrenology- Dewey believed in phrenology (as did Horace Mann) which was a pseudo-science of psychology that measured the skull. More precisely, the dimensions of one’s head and the bumps on the skull were measured and often used to promote racial superiority.

A good source that summed things up much better than I did and is well worth a visit if you want to read something that reflects my perspective: http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Younkins/Deweys_Pragmatism_and_the_Decline_of_Education.shtml

Houghton Mifflin, prescribed automaton education and then some

By now you may notice Houghton Mifflin and I are foes; mention of H.M. leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's not that other textbooks are necessarily better, just that my experiences with HM have been anything but positive.

Do excuse me for any repetition of previous post content. I have probably 100 post ideas in my mind, a few dozen half-composed on my laptop, and a few dozen already posted and it is hard to keep it all straight. When my mind gets going, it doesn't stop.

RESEARCH BASED- If HM Reading First programs are research based, I live on the moon. (Actually I live in a neighborhood called Valley of the Moon so perhaps my analogy should change.)John Hopkins University did a study of the validity of research (statistical validity of the effectiveness/effectiveness claims) and guess what? HM did not appear in their list. Perhaps their research is invalid (i.e. "a study of three students proves... or, our own independent research done by our own people proves....) HM claims their program is scientifically-based. The progressives, many educational pioneers, and eugenic-supporters wanted to manage the population through science-based methods. Leave it to the experts, who use science (often racially and class biased via test scores and junk science) to tell you what to do. And based can mean, well, based....have you ever watched a movie "based on the true story" where only about 10% is actually based on the true story? So is HM "based on science...well....kind of...."? Well I do know this "science" is based on Prussian reading methods of "whole language" which I will explore momentarily. If only I could recall what I just did with my notes from my HM Reading First training, which stated learning modalities are a bunch of hooey, among other "gems". If I find my notes, there will be a post!

"WHERE DID YOU LEARN TO TEACH?" Yes, I was once asked this. During my first year of full-time teaching, my administrator actually asked me this. I am not self-righteous or vain but really? I was asked this because I would not follow the HM scripted curriculum to a "t". I would occasionally deviate as I saw fit because, well, I did go to school to obtain a credential and I did learn about learning styles, pedagogy, Piaget, etc. In fact, in my program we had to create an entire unit of 10 lessons without using/referencing a textbook. So suddenly here I am in HM hell and have to throw out everything I learned and "trust" what the textbook tells me? I spent $15,000 on a credential, only so I could have a piece of paper that tells me, follow the textbook? Why even teach? I could just have one of my more proficient readers come and teach the class. Heck I could outsource the book to India, have then orally transcribe it, and play the tape in class while I read the newspaper, paint my nails, go out for coffee.... Where did I learn to teach? Somewhere where they TAUGHT ME TO TEACH. Not to become some automaton slave to the textbook company.

PRUSSIAN SYSTEM OF READING: ORWELLIAN NEWSPEAK

The volkshulen(see my Prussia post) initiated a reading program, one that arguably taught not to read, or at least not very well. If you’re an educator, you have certainly heard about the “whole language” verses “phonics” debate to teaching reading, and have probably concluded that neither is effective but a combination of both, with a little more focus on phonics, is best… or so the research says. The whole language method originated in Prussia and was brought to America by none other than Horace Mann. Since Mann began “teaching schools” (such as those at the University of Chicago or Columbia) for teacher training, he ensured “whole language” was the only method used to teach how to teach reading. In addition, the reading programs in both Prussia and America encouraged age/developmental level appropriate sight words and prescribed vocabulary and sentence length. Such practices continue today in America, as can be seen in the Houghton Mifflin reading series and likely other textbooks as well. One can argue (myself included) that this could be part of “dumbing down” education. I might be going out on a limb here, but controlling language is like “newspeak” in Orwell’s 1984, which would be and was exactly the purpose in Prussia doing so.

UNABLE TO READ ON THEIR OWN I recall as a child having "SSR" or "DEAR" (Silent Sustained Reading/ Drop Everything and Read). An avid reader, this was the only part of school I really liked, and was probably the only part of school where I had choice and control over what I was to learn. unable to read on own. So of course Reading First/HM, or at least the school I was at, rid of that completely. I even asked why we went to the school library, if students did not have SSR. I also inquired why they not only were denied SSR, but why every story/textbook chapter etc was to be "read" to them on a CD instead of my reading to them, or, imagine this, they read it. I was told "the program dictates they be read to, and in Language Arts they can only do HM lessons, no supplementals such as books for pleasure. Besides, they can't read on their own, they don't know how". So we were not allowed to teach them to read independently, or even encourage it. Sounds like Prussian control to me. And they wondered why their test scores were pathetic? Conspiracy theory nut job (me) says: if they read on their own, they might learn, and learn beyond the bounds set forth for them, and they could be a threat to the system.

MY ACTUAL EXPERIENCES: I do recall mentioning these in a previous post but here I go again....word for word from my own prior post, "In the 2004-2005 school year, I taught fifth grade in Montclair, CA at a Title-1, Program Improvement, Reading First school. The student population was low SES (100% free lunch), with over 75% ELL students (in my class of thirty-some, I had one native speaker and two FEP). As many schools have experienced, we were under pressure from NCLB to raise test scores and implement recommended programs in a regimented manner to assure success. I gained many valuable perspectives from this job, as I sometimes felt powerless to teach when I had to be on the same page at the same time as the next door teacher, and had to teach word-for-word from the textbook. Certainly, low SES students whom are more likely kinesthetic learners (not to mention the language barrier interfering in linguistic activities) will benefit from a spelling lesson where they discover the patterns, similarities, and differences and then categorize them accordingly- in place of the rote-learning lesson where I as the teacher dictate the spelling terms and write them on the board in the proper categories! Oh my…I was much too innovative and wanted to change the system to help the students as that’s why I became a teacher! Besides, my brain was chock-full of ideas from my credentialing classes which taught me great differentiation skills and motivational activities "
I recall the spelling-lesson moment. Here I was to write the week's spelling words on the board in columns under the pattern(i.e. ed or ing endings), tell the kids the pattern, hand out a worksheet. I was to point to the A i sfor apple B is for ball posters to help them recognize the beginning sound of the word (I never used those posters but they made a decorative wall border). I recall rather dramatically the hum of the not-so-cool air conditioning, the buzz of a fly, the sleepy mid morning sun seeping through the tiny slit windows, and this sweltering stillness. My class was behaving (and being one often told to better control my classroom, this was a golden moment)...they all stared blankly at the board and no one peeped or shuffled. I knew better- this was not a golden moment where I'd finally managed behavior. This was a crux of scripted (Prussian) curriculum- control. They were like drones, almost hypnotized, they were so disengaged. I HAD to save them. With precious seconds ticking away, I dashed to the printer, printed out a few copies of the words, and like a magical fairy complete with a wand, I pranced around passing out scissors, words, and tape and shuffled my students into groups. They were to, get this, find the pattern. On their own. I felt like a rebel, disregarding the silently screaming words of the teacher's guide and forging my own path of resistance. I felt liberated. The students actually talked about the lesson and worked cooperatively. My goofiest boy (of whom the school had lost hope in) decided to tape the words to his shirt and laugh while shouting out the pattern. It was the most fun I'd had in a most boring curriculum. And I was hardly the rebel I felt I was since I was still using the curriculum, the newspeak vocabulary/spelling words. I got in trouble for this. I was never sent to the Principal's office as a child but I sure made up for it.

I also recall a HM math lesson on averages, mode, etc. My class just wasn't getting it, so I spent an extra day reviewing division concepts. My neighboring 5th grade teacher confronted me and ratted me out for being a page behind her class. I was then reprimanded by the principal for "teaching division, a 4th grade standard, to 5th graders". She was not so keen to my comment that if they didn't know the 4th grade standard, they surely couldn't master the 5th.

Our classrooms were to be prescribed clones....like the song, "little boxes made of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same". One wall for spelling words which remained up all year and had to be a certain size and placement. Another for vocab and pre-assigned pictures to represent them. Another for those ABC posters of which spelling and vocabulary also go under. I spent hours a week "decorating". (A book by Thomas Alexander called The Prussian Elementary School echoed my "all look just the same" classroom. See my Little Boxes post) I even got written up for having a word which was velcro-ed to the wall cut a little crooked- instead of a 90 degree corner it was say 100. I am not kidding about being written up for a crookedly cut word. In my "improvement plan" (HR lingo for "you're fired") it said "sloppy classroom."

Also, I had noticed in our little clone classrooms that they were devoid of student work, which depersonalizes the classroom, as well as making it...not praiseworthy. I always remember the pride I felt when my work was displayed on the wall. It is such trivial nonsense, but I liked it. I was told that there was no room for student work (true) and that it might look sloppy or contain errors, and students without their work up would feel bad. I cheated the system the system yet again, or at least circumvented it by having my students work on making posters for the story themes, or writing the spelling-pattern headings for my stupid (did I say that out loud) spelling wall. And surprise surprise I got written up for that because one student wrote "co-operation" instead of "cooperation". Any word-nerd may know, Co-operation is acceptable especially in British English, but that is besides the point.

And quick mention of Elwood Cubberly who was editor of many HM textbooks of his time, and he directly influenced many educational policies and methods still in operation today.

Although anyone who knows me will say, wait, you work with Data Director (part of HM) and student data and assessments and yet you're claiming all these things are evil? Yes. Keep your friends close and your enemy closer, know your enemy, and take it down from within.

But yes I am my own worst enemy...using HM DD. dialectrobly opposed to ability testing but oh well. know your enemy, keep your enemy closer.

To Prussia With Love **or** The Prussians are Coming!

I was going to post this post but... I want to publish my own book and think this is my intro. But to entice you....

The right to vote means you can choose to vote or not. The right to bear arms means you can choose to bear arms or not. The right to practice religion doesn’t mean you have to practice religion, and you can choose the religion you wish to practice. The right to free education means you…are forced by law to attend school to at least 16 years of age. Where did the right to choose (schooling) go?

Compulsory Education and Prussia “took” that right....

(and another excerpt...)

Prussian education was a liberal reform movement set up to prepare students for their industrialized careers, and to instill loyalty to the national government, through schools called volkschulen .

The main tenets of Prussian education (volkschulen) were:

1) mandatory attendance

2) specific training for teachers

3) tax-funded education

4) national testing for all students

5) national curriculum

6) mandatory kindergarten

7) Prescribed reading instruction

more to come when I write my book!