[NLA] NIFL Board

[AndresMuro@aol.com]

The assumtption is correct and comes from the evidence that Bush wants 
standardized testing to measure achievement of skills in every grade. The 
problem is that skills cannot be aquired outside of context or meaning. 
therefore, in order for people to acquire skills, they must engage meaning. 
However, this requires preparation of the teachers, and freedom to develop 
meaningful content for the learners, based on their backgrounds, levels and 
experiences. unfortunately, a lot of teachers do not have the knowledge, or 
the motivation  to do this in highly bureaucratic and rigid educational 
environments; and they have the presure to produce results with limited time. 
Not adequately prepared, they resort to teach the students so that they can 
pass the standardized test. 

Public school students may pass all the standardized tests in the world. 
However, if they cannot surf the web, chat, do research, and find things in 
the internet, they will have no chance to succeed in society. However, many 
kids don't have access to computers at home. At school, all may see is 
teachers passing dittos and preparing them to take a standardized test. 

The problem with GW is that while his intentions may be good, neither he nor 
his mom have any background in pedagogy. There is a belief in our society 
that anyone can decide what is the best way to teach. So GW professes to know 
what is the best solution to educational issues. It is kind of like me making 
claims as to what is the best way to cure cancer, perform surgery, or build 
an airplane. There is a level of knowledge and expertise required in these 
fileds. Why does everyone think that anyone can opine about education. 

Andres


Andres



Andres

In a message dated 1/28/2002 7:42:08 PM Mountain Standard Time, 
AWilder106 at aol.com writes:


> For years there have been two strands to literacy instruction, the Great 
> Debate, the Literacy Wars, etc.  One is associated with skills based 
> instruction, the other, meaning based instruction.  The first says that 
> reading = acquisition of skills, the second that reading = the abstraction 
> of 
> meaning from text.
> 
> Of course the dividing line between the two is not absolute, these are just 
> 
> two positions that I am stating fairly baldly.   
> 
> There is the assumption on the list that Bush supports the first meaning of 
> 
> reading instruction.   
> 
> Andrea                                                                      
>   
>                                                                            


andresmuro at aol.com
Visit my art webpage at: http://www.geocities.com/andresmuro/artwork.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020128/f6496f60/attachment.htm