4 ms·

> The fight against poverty produces great programs but disappointing results... you meet incredible people doing wonderful things. Then you look at the result

by tjic 17y ago

> The fight against poverty produces great programs but disappointing results... you meet incredible people doing wonderful things. Then you look at the results...these inspiring places are only producing incremental gains. That's because a large percent of people (and a HUGE percent of folks who are drawn into the non-profit world) care more about how much they care, and how hard they work, than they do about what they accomplish. In that world, measuring and comparing two programs against each other are both unacceptable things to do. There's a reason that "New Math" and "Whole Language Reading" have persisted in the schools for decades, despite their demonstrable failure. There's a reason that the DARE program is still running decades later, despite the fact that it has no results. There's a reason that all politicians love Head Start, even though all effects dissipate a few years after the program graduates a child. There's no profit motive in this world, and there's no mindset of measurement and continuous improvement. Go read some of Phil Greenspun's posts on how frustrating it is to try to work with non-profits. They don't want results; they want to build empires, and feel like they are doing something.

Alex3917 17y ago
"There's a reason that "New Math" and "Whole Language Reading" have persisted in the schools for decades, despite their demonstrable failure." New Math, at least if you are talking about the version espoused by the 1989 NCTM, is currently considered the best practice. And Alfie Kohn debunks the idea that whole language is a failure in his book "The Schools Our Children Deserve."
- tjic 17y ago
  Amazon describes the books as "an attack on the back-to-basics movement..." Publishers Weekly calls him an advocate. The data showing that Whole Language and New Math are widespread and repeated. I'll take that over one partisan guy (who is a teacher, and dislikes anyone else telling him to use PROVEN methods that he doesn't enjoy as much) who argues in his screed based on anecdotes.
  - Alex3917 17y ago
    And I'll take a book I've read over a review of a book by some guy who hasn't read it.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  New Math, at least if you are talking about the version espoused by the 1989 NCTM The preferred term for that would be "reform math," and "new math" is best reserved for the kind of math instruction I had in school in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But, no, Alex, reform math is not universally regarded as best practice. I'm a member of NCTM (by virtue of winning the Mathematical Association of America's Edith May Sliffe award for middle school mathematics coaching) and I am appalled at the approach NCTM takes to curriculum reform. Much better math instruction can be found in Taiwan (I read Chinese, and I own the textbooks), the urban parts of China, Japan (I have seen translated textbooks), and Singapore (I USE the Singapore textbooks to teach my own children, and their approach to coach the children whose performance helped me win my coaching award). The United States could do better in math by setting aside "reform math," and it could definitely do better in reading by setting aside "whole language" reading instruction. I think the author you cite sincerely believes what he wrote, and I like what he writes about some other subjects, but I think he is sincerely wrong about the overall effect of "whole language" reading instruction and "reform math" math instruction.
  - Alex3917 17y ago
    Have you read that book? Because his definition of "whole language" reading is different than the one used by most critics.
    - tokenadult 17y ago
      If the take-away point of his book is that current practice in schools where "whole language" is the label for what is being done is bad practice, then he is helping along education reform, but if the take-away point of his book is that "whole language" (whatever the heck that means) is better than "phonics" (whatever the heck that means), he isn't helping improve reading instruction. A typical problem in education reform discussion is ambiguous terms for broad, ill-defined movements or programs.
      - Alex3917 17y ago
        He basically says that the goal of both whole language and phonics is to teach phonics, but whole language teaches phonics differently. That is, if students can figure out what the word is by looking at the picture then they then can learn the sounds of the phonemes that make up this word. Some phonemes still have to be taught by rote, but kids can learn most of them by actually reading. He compares this to phonics, where he says kids memorize sounds on flash cards and then read workbooks filled with sentences like "mat hit the cat." He says that if students start by reading real books then they retain much more of their intrinsic motivation to read, rather than learning to read the way we learn to type. Further, he says that whole language is not currently used in more than 1% of classrooms, so it's impossible that whole language has caused the decline in reading skills.
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
everyone is motivated by profit. in this case the people running the program are receiving profits in the form of feeling good about themselves. are the intended beneficiaries profiting? I'll take a "no". Be suspicious of people who claim to have altruistic intentions. Their claims should be examined with 10 times more rigor.

by tjic 17y ago

Alex3917 17y ago

"There's a reason that "New Math" and "Whole Language Reading" have persisted in the schools for decades, despite their demonstrable failure." New Math, at least if you are talking about the version espoused by the 1989 NCTM, is currently considered the best practice. And Alfie Kohn debunks the idea that whole language is a failure in his book "The Schools Our Children Deserve."

tjic 17y ago
Amazon describes the books as "an attack on the back-to-basics movement..." Publishers Weekly calls him an advocate. The data showing that Whole Language and New Math are widespread and repeated. I'll take that over one partisan guy (who is a teacher, and dislikes anyone else telling him to use PROVEN methods that he doesn't enjoy as much) who argues in his screed based on anecdotes.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  And I'll take a book I've read over a review of a book by some guy who hasn't read it.
tokenadult 17y ago
New Math, at least if you are talking about the version espoused by the 1989 NCTM The preferred term for that would be "reform math," and "new math" is best reserved for the kind of math instruction I had in school in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But, no, Alex, reform math is not universally regarded as best practice. I'm a member of NCTM (by virtue of winning the Mathematical Association of America's Edith May Sliffe award for middle school mathematics coaching) and I am appalled at the approach NCTM takes to curriculum reform. Much better math instruction can be found in Taiwan (I read Chinese, and I own the textbooks), the urban parts of China, Japan (I have seen translated textbooks), and Singapore (I USE the Singapore textbooks to teach my own children, and their approach to coach the children whose performance helped me win my coaching award). The United States could do better in math by setting aside "reform math," and it could definitely do better in reading by setting aside "whole language" reading instruction. I think the author you cite sincerely believes what he wrote, and I like what he writes about some other subjects, but I think he is sincerely wrong about the overall effect of "whole language" reading instruction and "reform math" math instruction.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  Have you read that book? Because his definition of "whole language" reading is different than the one used by most critics.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    If the take-away point of his book is that current practice in schools where "whole language" is the label for what is being done is bad practice, then he is helping along education reform, but if the take-away point of his book is that "whole language" (whatever the heck that means) is better than "phonics" (whatever the heck that means), he isn't helping improve reading instruction. A typical problem in education reform discussion is ambiguous terms for broad, ill-defined movements or programs.
    - Alex3917 17y ago
      He basically says that the goal of both whole language and phonics is to teach phonics, but whole language teaches phonics differently. That is, if students can figure out what the word is by looking at the picture then they then can learn the sounds of the phonemes that make up this word. Some phonemes still have to be taught by rote, but kids can learn most of them by actually reading. He compares this to phonics, where he says kids memorize sounds on flash cards and then read workbooks filled with sentences like "mat hit the cat." He says that if students start by reading real books then they retain much more of their intrinsic motivation to read, rather than learning to read the way we learn to type. Further, he says that whole language is not currently used in more than 1% of classrooms, so it's impossible that whole language has caused the decline in reading skills.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

everyone is motivated by profit. in this case the people running the program are receiving profits in the form of feeling good about themselves. are the intended beneficiaries profiting? I'll take a "no". Be suspicious of people who claim to have altruistic intentions. Their claims should be examined with 10 times more rigor.