The Catcher in the Rye
discussion
The Most Overrated Books
Sebastian wrote: "I honestly think literature should just be taught from the original books themselves. I think it is far better to even just read 3-4 novels throughout a year than a bunch of random extracts from 100 different texts. In theory, this sounds ideal....but from a standardized testing standpoint, which is the educational climate that we have created, I'm not sure if that approach is in the best interest of the students.
Petergiaquinta wrote; "Of course, no problem with teaching a poem here, an essay there, etc. but to take a great novel and reduce it to a single passage accompanied by objective questions about main ideas and authors' purpose is not education; it's the opposite."Yet this is what we are doing. In 7th grade English class anyways.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Sebastian wrote: "I honestly think literature should just be taught from the original books themselves. I think it is far better to even just read 3-4 novels throughout a year than a bunch of rando...In theory, this sounds ideal....but from a standardized testing standpoint, which is the educational climate that we have created, I'm not sure if that approach is in the best interest of the students."
But those standardized tests aren't for the students' benefit, they're for *earning* federal funding.
Renee wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Sebastian wrote: "I honestly think literature should just be taught from the original books themselves. I think it is far better to even just read 3-4 novels throughout a year..."The sick thing is, most of us know that the standardized tests are not for the students' benefit.
You're right Kallie. Scary how easily accustomed we get to the notion that they're for students, even though we KNOW it's purest BS. The Combine's got an alarmingly effective Ministry of Truth. ;-)
The SAT/ACTs are, as far as I know, still the standard college application fodder, not the tests now administered during the school year to crunch numbers and see if the school is meeting federal funding guidelines.
So...this fragmented, watered-down, main-idea-hunting approach to literature prepares kids for taking standardized tests to get them into college...but doesn't actually prepare them for college itself or for life after college or for being thoughtful, introspective, open-minded human beings for the rest of their lives, which is what the actual study of literature could do for them?
Petergiaquinta wrote: "So...this fragmented, watered-down, main-idea-hunting approach to literature prepares kids for taking standardized tests to get them into college...but doesn't actually prepare them for college its..."Words are inadequate.
Renee wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "So...this fragmented, watered-down, main-idea-hunting approach to literature"Aw shucks...now I'm blushing!
Where do you get these graphics???
Petergiaquinta wrote: "So...this fragmented, watered-down, main-idea-hunting approach to literature prepares kids for taking standardized tests to get them into college...but doesn't actually prepare them for college its..."But contrary to what some say many of the home-schooled are faring worse, in fact they cannot read at all:
http://tinyurl.com/kcl57nz
Petergiaquinta wrote: "Where do you get these graphics???"I have a private stash, collected over the years, lol.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "So...this fragmented, watered-down, main-idea-hunting approach to literature prepares kids for taking standardized tests to get them into college...but doesn't actually prepare them for college its..."Yep- and the good ELA teacher tries to do more, as you know. The teacher can make all the difference- it seems so cliche to say that, but it's true.
Edward wrote: "Renee wrote: "Mochaspresso wrote: "Sebastian wrote: "I honestly think literature should just be taught from the original books themselves. I think it is far better to even just read 3-4 novels thr..."Those students are judged on those scores. In some communities, students cannot advance to the next grade if they don't pass.
It's also not just the students who are judged. The teachers are evaluated (in part) based on those scores. The school that they attend is evaluated based on those scores. The school district is evaluated based on those scores and even the property value to your home is in part determined by the overall performance of the school district that you live in. It's idealistic to think that the scores don't matter....but a lot actually does ride on them.
Remember what Twain said: I never let my schooling get in the way of my education.
Edward wrote: "Sounds like time for derailment."Ask and ye shall receive
Renee wrote: "You're right Kallie. Scary how easily accustomed we get to the notion that they're for students, even though we KNOW it's purest BS. The Combine's got an alarmingly effective Ministry of Truth. ;-)"
Apparently it's time to throw a wrench in that machine, or sugar in the gas tank, or . . .
. . . or a monkey wench in the works?
Paula wrote: "OMG- I forgot 50 shades! Dude- I'm all for erotic stories, Not since the early 60s when 30 year old Lady Chatterly's Lover finally got the nod from congress has it been so socially acceptable to..."
lol
Sorry to derail the thread. Lol. I just think that some teachers are misguided in the idealistic notion that they are "teaching to the test". They aren't. They are teaching to the standards in education that have been established. These are the tests that were given where I live. http://www.nysedregents.org/
I don't think that they are particularly hard, but I do also think that a close reading of only 3 or 4 texts per year might work for a small selection of kids who are already reading well above grade level....but it won't cut it for the rest.
....and fwiw, one of the standards tested is listening. The teacher reads a selection out loud while students jot notes. Then, they use their notes to answer questions. That actually is a skill that will be needed to be successful in college.
I agree with what you are saying in spirit....but I also think it's highly idealistic and doesn't truly benefit the student in the long run.
It's also idealistic to think in a real world setting where employers put pressure on employees to achieve numbers to pad their resumes to move up within the system that real learning doesn't suffer when standardized testing guides instruction.When practicing for standardized tests and teaching specifically to the content of those tests becomes the overarching concern, no one is learning anything that really matters in the long run, and they certainly aren't being prepared for what they will encounter in college or the working world.
They aren't even learning to think and read. They are just learning to hunt and peck. "Educational standards" when mouthed by administrators and educators are just a game they're playing with the public. And in the big picture, tremendous blocks of time in the school year are wasted chasing this data.
Petergiaquinta wrote: "It's also idealistic to think in a real world setting where employers put pressure on employees to achieve numbers to pad their resumes to move up within the system that real learning doesn't suffe..."What about when the student goes out into the working world and their employer gives them a pre-employment assessment? Something MANY employers are now doing for even entry level positions. These great thinkers possibly may not make it through the initial screening process. That's probably fine for the Steve Jobs and the Bill Gates of the world, but for the average joe? Like it or not, this is the world that we've created for ourselves.
This is one such company that many employers contract with.
http://www.criteriacorp.com/?gclid=CK...
Here is what they suggest to employers for pre-employment testing for potential cashier applicants....
http://www.criteriacorp.com/solution/...
Petergiaquinta wrote;"They aren't even learning to think and read. They are just learning to hunt and peck. "Educational standards" when mouthed by administrators and educators are just a game they're playing with the public. And in the big picture, tremendous blocks of time in the school year are wasted chasing this data."
Exactly! Hunting and pecking is exactly what students are doing. They're not reading thoroughly either; they are concerned with finding the answers to questions provided them without caring to learn and analyze. Discouraging.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "It's also idealistic to think in a real world setting where employers put pressure on employees to achieve numbers to pad their resumes to move up within the system that real..."Do you really think that those of us who went to school and had the benefit of only PSAT/SATs could not pass these tests? Learning to read and comprehend entire short stories, plays or novels by writers such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Hardy, Hemingway prepared a person for the verbal demands a cashier's or even (wow) a sales clerk job would have required. And even though the old timey cash registers then did not tell you the amount of change to count back. I somehow learned how to do that during my summer work at a Hawaiian clothing boutique -- an experience that in itself provided a great deal of poetry and short story fodder. All the testing in the world would not have prepared me to work with that experience as well as reading entire novels did. If young people today can only look forward to the sort of jobs they'll get through doing well on the tests you linked to, oy. I think that's a crying shame.
Kallie wrote: "Do you really think that those of us who went to school and had the benefit of only PSAT/SATs could not pass these tests? Learning to read and comprehend entire short stories, plays or novels by writers such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Hardy, Hemingway prepared a person for the verbal demands a cashier's or even (wow) a sales clerk job would have required. And even though the old timey cash registers then did not tell you the amount of change to count back. I somehow learned how to do that during my summer work at a Hawaiian clothing boutique -- an experience that in itself provided a great deal of poetry and short story fodder. All the testing in the world would not have prepared me to work with that experience as well as reading entire novels did. If young people today can only look forward to the sort of jobs they'll get through doing well on the tests you linked to, oy. I think that's a crying shame. "
I wasn't suggesting that some of you would not be able to pass these tests. Not at all. I am suggesting that some teachers may be a tad out of touch with what it takes to get most of today's jobs TODAY. It may be a crying shame, but this is our society. The concept of testing just doesn't magically disappear once you leave school anymore. Something that even many older job-seekers are now realizing. The SAT that I took is not even the same SAT that students today are taking. Times change and I think educators should try to be a little more open to changing with them.
Mochaspresso wrote: "Kallie wrote: "Do you really think that those of us who went to school and had the benefit of only PSAT/SATs could not pass these tests? Learning to read and comprehend entire short stories, plays ..."You miss my point, which is that I doubt breaking knowledge down into test-bites is going to help students learn to think, analyze, and solve the infinite number of problems that may arise in real life, or even score higher on the tests you link to.
Kallie wrote: "You miss my point, which is that I doubt breaking knowledge down into test-bites is going to help students learn to think, analyze, and solve the infinite number of problems that may arise in real life, or even score higher on the tests you link to. "
I totally agree with you on that in theory. However, I still acknowledge the fact that if you don't think in terms of the "test bites" at all, some students will be at a disadvantage and may never get past an employer's "test bites" initial screening process and will never get the chance to demonstrate that they can do these things. These students need experience in both ideals because they will certainly encounter both in the real world.
I guess we'll never know, since the corporate powers that be have mandated that there be little time in school for actual thinking. I still don't agree with what you say about students educated in substance rather than in testing not being able to pass tests later. That makes no sense to me. If you know how to think and have plenty of experience reading you know how to read a question, and when to use 'became' rather than 'becomes' or calculate how many hours it will take to get somewhere based on miles per hour of travel.
Kallie wrote: "I guess we'll never know, since the corporate powers that be have mandated that there be little time in school for actual thinking. ..."The corporate world doesn't want thinking. It wants following the corporate mandates and orders from the hierarchy. It needs very few *thinkers* and then only the ones who have a propensity to think within circumscribed parameters. They certainly don't want to find themselves with, oh, say, another Thomas Paine (or Abbie Hoffman) in their midst.
Why do you think most of the music industry has been pushing inane, simplistic music? Or the publishing industry's choices, for that matter? It's not all just what the market spontaneously wants, they do a passable job of cajoling the market and even creating it. Why do you think marketing starts targeting us so young?
Thankfully, there are some artists who can't be denied, but they're getting less and less public notice. Music seems to have more of an ability to break through; it hits us at a very visceral level, and usually we find it when we're at that all-critical passage in life — high school and college age. Next time you see a teen rebelling, smile (even if it seems stupid, you know we do things that seem stupid to them — that's not to say don't do a little judicious steering away from danger, we need to keep these kids alive and kicking), and try to find the dormant seeds of that in yourself. That may be all that stands between us and assimilation.
Well... the corporate world has a magic number: 15. As in, 15%. "Creative thinking" is good until the corporation approaches 15% profits. Then it's bad. Anything after 15% starts to cut into next quarter's profits (the corporate logic goes) and that's going to hurt us all in the long run.Of course, one has to recognize that in the corporate world the vocabulary means something very different from that of the common usage. So, in the above paragraph, you have to replace the usual definitions of those terms with:
Creative thinking = any variation from standard practices, including tax evasion, insider trading, market manipulation, espionage, etc. The further one is from 15% the more "creative" one must be....
Profit = upper management profit sharing contractual obligations. ("Profit sharing" is itself an Orwellian term, but that's a whole different set of vocabulary.)
us all = the corporate executive board.
long run = this fiscal year.
What Kallie is saying makes sense, and those of us who are older are proof of it. We grew up reading; we were educated with an old-fashioned "liberal arts" approach, if you want to call it that, taught to think, told to write (not even taught how to write, so much as emulate what we were reading), held accountable for what we were supposed to be learning in school, and wowza, most of us did fine on the ACT, PSAT, SAT, without any practice or preparation at all. We woke up one Saturday morning and took the test. My school never even talked about these national tests. And no one that I knew ever took them more than once.And somehow, our society survived...
Now those same tests are easier than they were when we were kids, and students are prepped out the wazoo for them (in some schools) to the exclusion of learning to read and think and reflect and write, and yet across the board our test scores are down, our society is in crisis, and some high school graduates apparently can't be hired as cashiers making $18,000 a year because they can't pass some basic skills aptitude test.
That's a scary thing, but Mocha is right: that's the society we live in now. Parents and families are more to blame for our present situation than the public schools; however, schools should not be helping facilitate our downward spiral. And that's what it looks like from my vantage point. I don't fault schools for creating this mess but for capitulating to it and helping to institutionalize it.
Geoffrey wrote: "Karen wrote: "Linda wrote: "Catcher in the Rye, Catcher in the Rye, Catcher in the Rye.I'm a tutor (English) and I've had 2 students in the past year read this for class. I didn't like it when I..."
Edward wrote: "Karen wrote: "Renee wrote: ". . . . and . . . . there will be a message from the cosmos in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .
LOL"
Hurt believer, now a joking cynic."
The problem is that teachers must follow the Common Core Curriculum which dictates 90% of what is aloud to be taught in the classroom. I agree that enthusiasm for a book is vital to the students willingness to learn. The teacher should be engaged in any material that they are teaching. A Highly Effective teacher should be able to find a way to make to any book exciting to their students. It is all about the approach and the teachers willingness to find connections for the students. As for Catcher in the Rye I found the book exciting, and moving, as well as historic in content and the role it played in popular culture. I understand how some people may have a difficult time with it, due to fact that the shock of the book is lost on our modern generation that is overloaded with hyper-motivated media. It is difficult for a younger generation to grasp the rebelliousness of Hayden. This book should be taught with a modern spin on the story, the teacher needs to have the students conceptualize who Hayden is, in their current world. If the students can incorporate their world into Hayden's into will help them to relate better. Simply put the teacher needs to add to the text for inflation. Instead of explaining how much a 100 dollars was worth in 1950 compared to today, the teacher needs to explain what the social expectations were then compared to now.
It's not so much "educate them in testing". I was really referring to making sure that the "substance" that you speak of reflects today's standards and includes things that they will need to know to do well....across a broad variety of scenarios, including the testing one. Given today's world, I really do think "substance" has to include that as well.
Follow the links in this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...Oh, yes, there's a vested interest in how we're *educated* . . .
And please, will someone tell me how all commerce, industry and government under the control of a handful of superconglomerateindustrialmegaliths constitutes a "Free Market?"
Renee wrote: "...how all commerce, industry and government under the control of a handful of superconglomerateindustrialmegaliths constitutes a "Free Market?""It doesn't. There is no such thing as "free market capitalism" (or democracy, for that matter) Wall Street and the banks that run it and the global economy are a casino.
In a "free market" consumers are "free" to choose whatever products they wish. The corporations cater to these demands and laugh all the way to the bank. Anyone can buy shares in these publicly traded companies and join in on the big joke. Eventually, someone builds a better mouse trap and the old products (along with the workers/investers) get washed away as new technology creates new business models---creative destruction. It ain't perfect, but it's the best we got.
Edward wrote: "So, the time immemorial question; "What to do?" Our advance degreed populace offers nothing better than our "ignorant" forefathers. It may be worse.A long time ago there was a popular phrase; "Small is beautiful." It didn't last long."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
I saw Charles Eisenstein speak here a couple of years ago. He is a very passionate "small life" advocate.
I read through all of the 8th Grade test and the Educational standards for the New York test and I found it difficult to believe that the majority of 8th Graders couldn't get near perfect scores. The reading level of the selections and the concrete nature of most of the questions seemed more like 4rd or 5th grade work, so I measured it on the Lexile website which I frequently use.A selection of the text gave a Lexile # of 810. The grade correspondence is Grade 5 (730L to 850L) in the Common Core Standards. The CCS level for 8th grade is 900L to 1010L and for College/Career recommended level is 1010L to 1185L.
Anyone interested can go to:
https://www.lexile.com/
I'm not sure how the state of New York uses the tests, but I surmise that this is the minimum requirement for students. It does bring up an inherent problem with tests. They can be manipulated in many ways and the average citizen does not know exactly what is being measured. For years I was an Educational Evaluator for the Juvenile Dept. of Corrections and we used a variety of tests to give us the information we needed because one achievement test just didn't fit every student.
The New York tests listed corresponding performance objective for each test question and schools have been using such standards for years. They are a necessary part of reading. I just question the reading level, or the complexity, of the material in so many schools. I agree with Kallie that teaching "students to learn to think, analyze and solve the infinite number of problems that may arise in real life..." can't be done in test-bites. I would also like to add that they can't be evaluated with T/F or multiple choice tests. Short answers and essay questions are necessary to see if students are really learning, but it's difficult for teachers with too many students and too much administrative work.
When I was in 8th grade, we read Silas Marner for our full length book and a lot of well-known shorter stories and poems for the rest of the year. I still remember "The Ransom of Red Chief", "The Gift of the Magi," "The Celebrated Jumping Frogs of Calavaras County." and my favorite, "The Cremation of Sam Magee!" This selection gave us the complexity of a well-known novel and exposed us to some of the best writers of the age.
Anne Hawn wrote: "I read through all of the 8th Grade test and the Educational standards for the New York test and I found it difficult to believe that the majority of 8th Graders couldn't get near perfect scores. ..."You are basing this on a student that is already performing on or above grade level, though. The majority of those kids do pass. Unfortunately, those are not the only kids out there. The primary problem with NY is three-fold, imo. First, there is a very large immigrant population and there is also very large number of underperforming high poverty urban schools. The test themselves are not hard, but because so many children are english language learners and/or are stuck in under-performing schools...and add to that any external issues that come from living in poverty, a lot of kids fall behind. You also have to factor in that special education students have to take the same tests that the general education students take. They get accommodations, but they take the same test as all the other kids. Only students with severe disabilities qualify for alternate assessments.
I'll also say that from my experience, many middle school and HS teachers know how to teach literature but not all know how to actually teach "reading". The things that you are talking about are an ideal for an ideal classroom with ideal students. I don't think only reading 3 or 4 books per year is going to be enough to improve a student's reading level if they are behind and I don't think they will be exposed to a wide enough variety of literature to do well.
Mochaspresso wrote;"You are basing this on a student that is already performing on or above grade level, though. The majority of those kids do pass. Unfortunately, those are not the only kids out there. The primary problem with NY is three-fold, imo. First, there is a very large immigrant population and there is also very large number of underperforming high poverty urban schools. The test themselves are not hard, but because so many children are english language learners and/or are stuck in under-performing schools...and add to that any external issues that come from living in poverty, a lot of kids fall behind. You also have to factor in that special education students have to take the same tests that the general education students take. They get accommodations, but they take the same test as all the other kids. Only students with severe disabilities qualify for alternate assessments."
You are correct in that statement, (I am a special ed assistant) but I am pretty sure Anne said the majority of 8th grade students couldn't get perfect scores.
Mocha, when I read your post with the link, I thought that these tests were like the F-CAT we have in Florida. All the students take them every year and their progress is measured and the schools are evaluated on the basis of the results. If that isn't right, I apologize. If the NY tests are for special groups then my information doesn't apply. I was assuming that they were testing minimum standards since the reading level was 5th grade and the students were in 8th grade. If the test is to measure the level of all the children, then I think there is a problem, which is what we have all been talking about. Also the point about reading 4 books a year isn't what I suggested. The classic "Adventures in Literature" series was set up with one full length book and selections of prose and poetry set up chronologically. This series has been published since the 50's and schools are still using it. I suspect many in this group studied from it. Some school give the kids a paperback copy of one of the classics to go along with the text book if they want a different full length novel. In the upper grades we read a lot more books in paperback copies. I remember The Deerslayer, Great Expectations Silas Marner, and Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Macbeth included in the books according to the grade. I think that some schools are doing the same things even if they aren't using that series.
I was talking with my granddaughter, the one who is in public school, 7th grade, and she said that there were advanced classes in all the core subjects. That is apparently how they are able to group the kids by ability instead of the horrific mess of trying to teach 30 kids whose reading level goes from zero to 12th grade all in the same classroom. I think that goes a long way towards a better education (and raising the scores) since the brighter children will be challenged and the slower students can get the extra instruction they need on the grade level they actually can learn at.
Anne Hawn wrote: "Mocha, when I read your post with the link, I thought that these tests were like the F-CAT we have in Florida. All the students take them every year and their progress is measured and the schools ..."It sounds like the NY tests are used in the same manner as Florida's F-CAT's. All of the students take them, their progress is measured and the school is evaluated based on the results. The tests are not designed for or are only administered to special groups, but data from the results is used to gather stats and track the progress of special groups. You are right that the test is measuring minimum standards, and by extension, should be relatively easy for the average 8th grader, BUT this is assuming that the students in question are "average" and are reading on their appropriate grade level to begin with. When you are dealing with large numbers of students in your class who are not "average" and who are not already reading on grade level, I don't think a blanket approach of a whole class only reading the same 3 or 4 books will work for ALL of those students.
I don't have direct experience with Adventures in Literature specifically, but it sounds like it is an anthology text. I had literature anthology textbooks in school too and they were just fine for me and many other students.....but we were "average" and already reading on or above grade level. They were not so great for those students who were not.
I agree with you about the homogeneous vs heterogeneous grouping, but as far as I've seen, it's only done in NYC in extremes....ie gifted programs, AP programs, newcomers ESL programs and special education programs. In a lot of schools, everybody else that doesn't fall under one of those categories (...or who does but has yet to be identified as such) is lumped in classes together.
I agree with you about 3-4 books a year not working for many students and that is, I think, the way we got to this abysmal state in education. If politicians insist that all schools teach heterogeneously grouped students for all subjects then the school has to select a series that the majority of students can read. Obviously, that lowers the standards, although it is not PC to point that out. That is why I mentioned my granddaughter's school separating out advanced classes even in middle school, which was not the case when my kids were in school. Politicians fiddle with our school systems and then expect teachers to work miracles. On the other hand, if you ability group then you end up with Mr. Kotter's "sweathogs." I, personally, don't think that is such a bad thing. Politicians are trying to protect them from the knowledge that they are slow learners, but I guarantee, they already know it.
The advantage is that a lot of schools hire "Mr. Kotters" who like working with kids like that and use a style of teaching that works with them...which is exactly why I enjoyed teaching delinquents in the Dept. of Corrections. Mixed in regular classes they are really frustrating, but by themselves I found them challenging, but lots of fun to teach.
Perhaps elitism in education is being lost for the sake of political correctness. Albert Einstein probably summed it all in one emblematic quote:
" Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid" "
*ponders upon the insight*
We do apply the principles of elitism to sports and music, why can't we do the same with education? Why is it deemed unethical to say that some students have a greater potential than others?
Just to clarify I deem elitism among humans deplorable. Even if I were to be a genius I would never consider myself better than somebody else. I believe that we will have to accept the diversity that we carry and make the best out of it.
" Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid" "
*ponders upon the insight*
We do apply the principles of elitism to sports and music, why can't we do the same with education? Why is it deemed unethical to say that some students have a greater potential than others?
Just to clarify I deem elitism among humans deplorable. Even if I were to be a genius I would never consider myself better than somebody else. I believe that we will have to accept the diversity that we carry and make the best out of it.
Sebastian wrote: "Perhaps elitism in education is being lost for the sake of political correctness. Albert Einstein probably summed it all in one emblematic quote: " Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish ..."
Yes, why not offer different kinds of schools for learning different kinds skills, as suited to students' diverse abilities and desires? We seem stuck in the belief that an academic education is desirable for everyone, mainly because of adherence to snobbish ideals that say a person who works using their intellect (or cunning) is superior to the one who works with his/her hands, etc.
That said, everyone who can should learn how to read well enough to stay informed and avoid (if possible) being 'legally' cheated. Mochaespresso mentions that middle school and high school teachers good at teaching literature are not good at teaching reading. Well, no. Ought they to be?
Anne Hawn wrote; "On the other hand, if you ability group then you end up with Mr. Kotter's "sweathogs." I, personally, don't think that is such a bad thing. Politicians are trying to protect them from the knowledge that they are slow learners, but I guarantee, they already know it."They do know it. In our middle school, we group kids with different abilities- that's where I come in. I am in the classroom helping those kids (and of course others who ask for it).
"The advantage is that a lot of schools hire "Mr. Kotters" who like working with kids like that and use a style of teaching that works with them...which is exactly why I enjoyed teaching delinquents in the Dept. of Corrections. Mixed in regular classes they are really frustrating, but by themselves I found them challenging, but lots of fun to teach"
You are awesome! It takes a certain type of person to work with those kids. I can see how it would be fun!
Kallie wrote: "...That said, everyone who can should learn how to read well enough to stay informed and avoid (if possible) being 'legally' cheated. Mochaespresso mentions that middle school and high school teachers good at teaching literature are not good at teaching reading. Well, no. Ought they to be? "You bring up an excellent point there, Kallie.
By the time we're in middle school we should be — barring dyslexia or other hurdles — proficient readers. By the fifth or sixth grade the emphasis should be shifted from teaching basic reading skills to honing and expanding comprehension and vocabulary.
And writing competently.
In North Florida there are "more than 50 magnet schools offer over 30 programs ranging from culinary arts and Montessori to computer science and the medical professions. Students can often follow the same magnet theme from elementary to middle and high school. Transportation is provided within established guidelines"Students can also choose to go to a "choice school" which is not their designated school but has a program they like and also "charter schools" which include programs for kids who are having difficulty academically or behaviorally.
This system has been in place for years and it is really working well. Yet even with all these choices, a lot of students still drop out. Edward, I agree with you. There are some students that have no parental support and they and their peers have no inclination to attend school. Politicians have to realize that some children are not going to succeed because they simply don't want to and no one at home can make them.
The Catcher in the Rye, can some one tell me to burn it, thanks.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
War and Peace (other topics)High Fidelity (other topics)
Less Than Zero (other topics)
Adam Bede (other topics)
The Scarlet Letter (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Leo Tolstoy (other topics)George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Allan Bloom (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
Richard Dawkins (other topics)
More...
Of course, no problem with teaching a poem here, an essay there, etc. but to take a great novel and reduce it to a single passage accompanied by objective questions about main ideas and authors' purpose is not education; it's the opposite.