Kenneth Goodman used to say, "A sentence is easier to read than a word. A paragraph is easier to read then a sentence. A story is easier to read than a paragraph. "
Reading the context of a mastery based classroom, we should look at the school as institution, and then public schools of poverty, and then eventual caste-based employment as the whole story. The people being schooled to work as interchangeable cogs are not meant to read the whole context. Excellent piece! Thank you!
Bravo Luke! Reading this hurt my heart, and also resonated. It's so much of what I see, too. Equity is about making sure all the kids get access to the good stuff--and that ain't test prep, skillified workbooks.
I question whether mastery is important at the elementary level, too. Obviously, when young students are learning to read, phonics is key, but that shouldn't preclude access to building rich background knowledge in our students. I don't want students who can only decode words, but have no basic knowledge in science and history. I can't help students read to learn (e.g.: new information, rich vocabulary) if they only know have practice decoding short, poorly written texts. Students need to continue practicing reading skills AND access to the rich complexity of literature.
I gasped when they told you to tear it in half. No, I will not tear good teaching in half! Its like he told you to destroy a part of yourself.
I don't understand how he could say it was about equity and in the same breath tell you that they will never access the same opportunities as the privileged? The last 20 years has left educational wreakage everywhere.
The only way to try to help them is build bridges using the texts they are supposed to. Without background knowledge you can't even start to work on the skill. They go together. I've been saying that for years.
Not to mention the gospel of Mastery gets kids to be stuck doing things that just discourage them instead of trying something else and revisiting the skill later. Not everyone has a linear path to understanding. Some look more like loops or peeks and valleys. We really have to stop the whole every box had to be checked off for them to have "mastered" the content. Kids bring more to the table than just wear the standards demand.
1) Should we teach more or less? Do you teach an excess of material, knowing that the students won't get some of it, but trusting that they'll pick up the basics, which recur across texts, through repetition? Or do you teach less, staying well within their competence, expecting them to aim for perfect or near-perfect scores on simple questions? Of course, the answer is that you have to do a bit of both. Not giving any stretch materials is deadening, but lots of students are still very weak on the basics, and you have to periodically go back and spend some time on fundamentals.
2) Repetition as teaching aid. One of the biggest problems lots of students have is that they are not good at listening to instructions. If your instructions vary from lesson to lesson (e.g. you discuss different questions, depending on the material), then they will fail, simply because they're not keeping up with the questions. They don't know what to do. Repeating similar exercises over and over helps them to understand how to do their learning. But it also enables them to continue not listening, and to start rote guessing and gaming the multiple choice questions. So, again, there's a balance to be struck.
I move step-by-step through the writing process, on the same topic, from a variety of angles, for several weeks. They of course say that they're tired of the same subject, but in the real world, that's the only way to learn deeply about -- anything.
I met a younger woman who claimed that one had to change the subject and activity every ten minutes or so. Left me scratching my head -- not just from a planning and evaluation angle, but certainly from a depth angle.
Kenneth Goodman used to say, "A sentence is easier to read than a word. A paragraph is easier to read then a sentence. A story is easier to read than a paragraph. "
Reading the context of a mastery based classroom, we should look at the school as institution, and then public schools of poverty, and then eventual caste-based employment as the whole story. The people being schooled to work as interchangeable cogs are not meant to read the whole context. Excellent piece! Thank you!
👏
Well done Luke! Keep going! You are spot on and will help change middle level education.
Thanks so much for the kind words! 😊
I enjoyed that article and your perspective.
Bravo Luke! Reading this hurt my heart, and also resonated. It's so much of what I see, too. Equity is about making sure all the kids get access to the good stuff--and that ain't test prep, skillified workbooks.
Well-said, and I wish it didn’t take me so long to learn that very lesson. Alas!
I question whether mastery is important at the elementary level, too. Obviously, when young students are learning to read, phonics is key, but that shouldn't preclude access to building rich background knowledge in our students. I don't want students who can only decode words, but have no basic knowledge in science and history. I can't help students read to learn (e.g.: new information, rich vocabulary) if they only know have practice decoding short, poorly written texts. Students need to continue practicing reading skills AND access to the rich complexity of literature.
Yes to science and history in elementary school!
I gasped when they told you to tear it in half. No, I will not tear good teaching in half! Its like he told you to destroy a part of yourself.
I don't understand how he could say it was about equity and in the same breath tell you that they will never access the same opportunities as the privileged? The last 20 years has left educational wreakage everywhere.
The only way to try to help them is build bridges using the texts they are supposed to. Without background knowledge you can't even start to work on the skill. They go together. I've been saying that for years.
Not to mention the gospel of Mastery gets kids to be stuck doing things that just discourage them instead of trying something else and revisiting the skill later. Not everyone has a linear path to understanding. Some look more like loops or peeks and valleys. We really have to stop the whole every box had to be checked off for them to have "mastered" the content. Kids bring more to the table than just wear the standards demand.
Yep. There are two issues in here:
1) Should we teach more or less? Do you teach an excess of material, knowing that the students won't get some of it, but trusting that they'll pick up the basics, which recur across texts, through repetition? Or do you teach less, staying well within their competence, expecting them to aim for perfect or near-perfect scores on simple questions? Of course, the answer is that you have to do a bit of both. Not giving any stretch materials is deadening, but lots of students are still very weak on the basics, and you have to periodically go back and spend some time on fundamentals.
2) Repetition as teaching aid. One of the biggest problems lots of students have is that they are not good at listening to instructions. If your instructions vary from lesson to lesson (e.g. you discuss different questions, depending on the material), then they will fail, simply because they're not keeping up with the questions. They don't know what to do. Repeating similar exercises over and over helps them to understand how to do their learning. But it also enables them to continue not listening, and to start rote guessing and gaming the multiple choice questions. So, again, there's a balance to be struck.
Interesting...
I move step-by-step through the writing process, on the same topic, from a variety of angles, for several weeks. They of course say that they're tired of the same subject, but in the real world, that's the only way to learn deeply about -- anything.
I met a younger woman who claimed that one had to change the subject and activity every ten minutes or so. Left me scratching my head -- not just from a planning and evaluation angle, but certainly from a depth angle.