finally, somebody else says it, too...

[acroyear]

Reading Across the Board:

In order not to leave your child behind, we have to leave your child behind in social studies, science and foreign languages.

I'll [...] focus my attention on something more subtle and pervasively destructive about our education system: the idea that reading is a subject, rather than a skill. This misguided notion leads educators to pull students out of social studies and into a class called reading. Reading shouldn't be a class (at least not past third or fourth grade). It's what you do in your classes.

Good social studies teachers help kids understand what they're reading. That involves helping them find the main idea, identify the support points and understand the background context. These are all critical reading and thinking skills.

I would add to that the loss of science classes and skills being detrimental to mathematics, and by extension, to reading skills.

The "word problem" is the finest expression of reading comprehension, and science is the ultimate word problem, the word problem whose subject is reality itself.  Reading the words, understanding what they're saying to be able to translate them into a mathematical problem, then solving the problem.

Along the way, we could do better with teaching at a younger age other real-life skills that involve extensive reading, comprehension, translation into mathematics, and finally application: doing one's taxes.

Of course, I also firmly believe (and have written before) that we should do better to teach propaganda recognition and baloney detection sooner and more thoroughly.  Even I have been caught at giving the "strawman" before, often when writing more from emotion than analysis (thanks, Rob).

He goes on:

[...] we make our teachers get a degree in a subject called education. Which is funny because they don't end up teaching education to our children. They teach them literature, history, science, math. Our system creates a lot of teachers who are passionate about school but not about the subjects they teach. This isn't just a bias, it's mandated by most states.

Take me, for example. I am a professional writer, I have a master's degree in English and I taught writing at the college level for seven years. But no public school in my state would hire me as an English teacher, because I don't have a degree in education. Instead, they're hiring English teachers who spent a lot of time learning to break essays down into grids and identify topic sentences and then teach writing as if it happened that way.

No wonder so many students write so poorly.

Granted, there's more to education than simply knowing the subject.  Being able to write a test that is fair and comprehensive is important, as it being able to judge homework quantities, having the time and inclination to grade it all, being able to single out students doing poorly without embarrassing them (unless their poor work is intentional), maintaining classroom discipline (is self-defense a requirement now?), and of course, having a good lawyer around when you get hit by the bias or harrasment lawsuit in today's "I'm the victim, feed me" culture.

Ok, there was a little sarcasm in that last paragraph.  :)

Comments

[omarius.livejournal.com]

I was nodding along with the rest of the choir on that "Reading Across the Board" article until I read "Take me, for example. I am a professional writer, I have a master's degree in English and I taught writing at the college level for seven years." Shit, man, you just wasted a measureable percentage of your column space to brag on your education. What is this, Usenet? But wait, it gest better:

"Readers construct (or reconstruct) the main idea, they build the evidence that supports the point of view and they supply their own experiences and information to the text to make it come to life."

I am pretty sure that two sentences stuck together with a comma makes one run-on sentence. Way to go Jim Sollisch. You just lost all your credibility with me, pally. ;)

actually, its gramatically correct, if obnoxious

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Its a case of the "oxford comma" on a compound sentence scale.

"Readers construct, they build and they supply." three phrases making one compound sentence.

he simply left off the comma after the second of the three phrases, which is the oxford ommission (as in, its in the oxford guide to english as an acceptable way to do it, although its more used for simple lists than on this scale). *i* certainly wouldn't have done it that way, and yes its practically a run-on even if the commas and/or semicolons were correct.

on the other hand, i probably would have had 7, maybe more, commas in there, if my tech writing teacher was to be believed.

Re: actually, its gramatically correct, if obnoxious

[omarius.livejournal.com]

Well, I ain't got no fancy Oxford educashun, but whar ah come frum, thas' calld a 'comma splice.' :D