[
Author Prev][
Author Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Author Index][
Thread Index]
Re: Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's Propaganda Problem
I sent this two days ago...just wondering why it just now came through?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tauna Rogers" <taunar@plateautel.net>
To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:27 AM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's Propaganda
Problem
"Individualized lesson planning is not incompatible with teaching at grade
level." True. But again, what is grade level? I thought I knew but we
aren't using norm-referenced tests much anymore. When we were, it was
impossible, using that definition of grade level, for all children to be
there.
I was being sarcastic to illustrate the absurdity of assuming, even
insisting, that all children be at the same place at the same time. And if
all children could be at the same place at the same time, teaching would
be a snap compared to the reality.
And it's annoying to hear our policymakers constantly making statements
about how all children SHOULD be on grade level when they don't even know
what that thing called grade level is.
As to my own children Art, I would want the teacher meeting them right
where they are and building from there.
One more thing - that word "should" bothers me. The idea there is a place
(grade level?) where all children should be. What message does this send
to the children who struggle more to learn? They conclude that there is
something wrong with them.
----- Original Message -----
From: <aburke5054@aol.com>
To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's Propaganda
Problem
"Individualized lesson planning" is not incompatible with teaching at
grade level.
If someone were teaching your child below grade level, you wouldn't have
much patience with an argument that says it's oh so hard to define what
grade level is and oh what a waste it is to teach at grade level because
some children aren't there. So why would you make that argument for
other people's children?
Art
-----Original Message-----
From: Tauna Rogers <taunar@plateautel.net>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 6:08 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's Propaganda
Problem
Kids should be at Grade Level. Where is Grade Level? Grade Level is
where
kids should be. Oh!
And since they should be there, they will be there, because that is where
they should be.
I'm so glad this has finally been cleared up. This will help
tremendously.
No more time-consuming, individualized lesson planning.
Tauna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Campbell" <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>
To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's Propaganda
Problem
So where should kids be? At "grade level." And what is "grade level"?
Where kids should be.
This is sophistry at its finest. Tautology writ large.
Still waiting for a reply on the other questions:
1) Would you please provide information about what you as a teacher
did
to teach children at "grade level"?
2) Would you then please go on to describe what you did when you
encountered a student who was not "at grade level"?
3) Finally, would you describe how NCLB aided you in this above
process,
i.e., made you a better teacher?
I know you're not going to answer these questions because you can't
answer them.
Peter Campbell
On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:45 PM, aburke5054@aol.com wrote:
Teaching at grade level means teaching at grade level. Like, where
the
kids should to be. Like, at least where you want your own child
to be,
Not a particularly difficult concept.
Art
------------------------------------------------
Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net
------------------------------------------------
Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net
Post a Message to arn-l:
