Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our entire lives are made up of social context. "Let's not open up Pandora's box," one coworker says to another. "Yes, that would lead to a Titanic Disaster." says another. "Et Tu, Freddie?" says another. Social studies and history bring context to conversations. Without it, much of basic reading comprehension goes out the window.

Trust me, I used to supervise folks who were taught "basic" reading and writing and very little social studies or history. Their comprehension was abysmal.

Your sentences are coherent, so maybe you're not the word salad poster, but I still can't tell what you mean.

What she's saying is that is it counterproductive to cut social studies, history and science in order to make room for more reading instruction strategies and test prep. Teaching content IS teaching reading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc

Yes, that is what I was saying -- NOT the word salad poster, but I do like a good chicken Caesar now and then

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our entire lives are made up of social context. "Let's not open up Pandora's box," one coworker says to another. "Yes, that would lead to a Titanic Disaster." says another. "Et Tu, Freddie?" says another. Social studies and history bring context to conversations. Without it, much of basic reading comprehension goes out the window.

Trust me, I used to supervise folks who were taught "basic" reading and writing and very little social studies or history. Their comprehension was abysmal.

Your sentences are coherent, so maybe you're not the word salad poster, but I still can't tell what you mean.

You really don't understand what is being said? This was very clearly written, and the point was well-made.

It's as though 7:58 wasn't taught some basic social studies/history/literature.

Salad poster I can't resist, you meant "here" and not "hear." I like your quit wit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our entire lives are made up of social context. "Let's not open up Pandora's box," one coworker says to another. "Yes, that would lead to a Titanic Disaster." says another. "Et Tu, Freddie?" says another. Social studies and history bring context to conversations. Without it, much of basic reading comprehension goes out the window.

Trust me, I used to supervise folks who were taught "basic" reading and writing and very little social studies or history. Their comprehension was abysmal.

Your sentences are coherent, so maybe you're not the word salad poster, but I still can't tell what you mean.

You really don't understand what is being said? This was very clearly written, and the point was well-made.

Salad Poster hear, 7:58, you can kiss my croutons!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our entire lives are made up of social context. "Let's not open up Pandora's box," one coworker says to another. "Yes, that would lead to a Titanic Disaster." says another. "Et Tu, Freddie?" says another. Social studies and history bring context to conversations. Without it, much of basic reading comprehension goes out the window.

Trust me, I used to supervise folks who were taught "basic" reading and writing and very little social studies or history. Their comprehension was abysmal.

Your sentences are coherent, so maybe you're not the word salad poster, but I still can't tell what you mean.

What she's saying is that is it counterproductive to cut social studies, history and science in order to make room for more reading instruction strategies and test prep. Teaching content IS teaching reading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc

Anonymous wrote:Our entire lives are made up of social context. "Let's not open up Pandora's box," one coworker says to another. "Yes, that would lead to a Titanic Disaster." says another. "Et Tu, Freddie?" says another. Social studies and history bring context to conversations. Without it, much of basic reading comprehension goes out the window.

Trust me, I used to supervise folks who were taught "basic" reading and writing and very little social studies or history. Their comprehension was abysmal.

Your sentences are coherent, so maybe you're not the word salad poster, but I still can't tell what you mean.

22:45, your point is?

Our entire lives are made up of social context. "Let's not open up Pandora's box," one coworker says to another. "Yes, that would lead to a Titanic Disaster." says another. "Et Tu, Freddie?" says another. Social studies and history bring context to conversations. Without it, much of basic reading comprehension goes out the window.

Trust me, I used to supervise folks who were taught "basic" reading and writing and very little social studies or history. Their comprehension was abysmal.

12:25, ain't that the truth. Right on the money with that statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you an educator?

When DCUM becomes "DC educators win arguments with DC Urban Moms and Dads by saying that they're educators," I'll let you know.

Well, until then, perhaps you shouldn't be giving advise on how students at low-performing schools learn best.

The funny thing is, this assumes that "professional educators" know best. Which frankly is laughable. It's like trying to win an economics argument by saying "I'm an economist". There are plenty of economists who are complete know-nothings, and every economist seems to disagree with every other. So really, the only authority "professional educators" have comes from results achieved. And given that the US has one of the worst education systems in the developed world, I wouldn't go around touting your credentials as proof that you're correct.

Thank you for that brief summary of the mentality that is ruining American public education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you an educator?

When DCUM becomes "DC educators win arguments with DC Urban Moms and Dads by saying that they're educators," I'll let you know.

Well, until then, perhaps you shouldn't be giving advise on how students at low-performing schools learn best.

The funny thing is, this assumes that "professional educators" know best. Which frankly is laughable. It's like trying to win an economics argument by saying "I'm an economist". There are plenty of economists who are complete know-nothings, and every economist seems to disagree with every other. So really, the only authority "professional educators" have comes from results achieved. And given that the US has one of the worst education systems in the developed world, I wouldn't go around touting your credentials as proof that you're correct.

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick thought we hired and fired a principal because of known google revelation involving cheating. Did we not have our own cheating scandals with DCPS principals? Therefore, are they too being hired and then fired after being google-ized? I doubt it, but I reserve my opinion on why.

No , if they apply for another job,I think they get googled and discarded before getting to the hiring phase -- unless they have a friend in the new system -- like Regina Youngblood, who was head of HR in the Dallas schools before taking the same position in DCPS in 2010.

Just a quick thought we hired and fired a principal because of known google revelation involving cheating. Did we not have our own cheating scandals with DCPS principals? Therefore, are they too being hired and then fired after being google-ized? I doubt it, but I reserve my opinion on why.

Anonymous wrote:OK, we get the basic idea that reading and writing and arithmetic needs to be ABOUT something to make sense. I just think it should be pretty tightly focused on the basics in order to build that skill set up.

We don't need the circumlocutions of logic about enrichment and non-core skillsets like, well, learning music makes you want to learn about other things, or dance makes you gain discipline, or finger-painting makes you spatially gifted and able to understand higher math.

And what do you do with your life if you read and write at a third grade level and can't balance your checkbook? Would they even let you clerk at the quik-e-mart?

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. Yes, I agree with you, kids need a strong background in basic math and phonics skills. But where do we go from there? How do we get kids from being able to decode words (something relatively quick and easy to teach) to being able to understand a variety of different texts well enough to demonstrate reading proficiency on a standardized test? If you think the answer is more time in English class, guess again. If we want kids to gain the world knowledge and word knowledge they need to understand a variety of texts, they need less time writing personal essays about their feelings and more time on reports about the American Revolution; less time on young adult fiction and more time on ancient myths; less time on reading comic books or "Wimpy Kid" just-for-fun books and more time reading about the speed of light.