Workshop 2 Response

Literacy-Critical Literacy-Being Literate-WOW! To say that these topics are “hot” seems to be an understatement. I found it very easy to connect to the readings which opened my eyes as a parent, a teacher and a “community” member. If ever I doubted my “questioning” some of the directives and curriculum expectations that I am expected to abide by within my classroom, I surely don’t anymore. Questioning is good-challenging may be better. Best lesson learned (or confirmed) from this set of readings - the child as a whole person should be the basis of the planning, implementing and altering of the curriculum and daily lessons.
Even after 18 years of teaching within the same school, whenever I’ve had the opportunity to teach the same grade (or combination) in sequential years, I have found that it’s difficult to repeat the lessons as carbon copies of the previous year. The children that sit before us on a daily basis are changing at a dramatic rate with respect to cultural backgrounds, socio-economic status, needs, strengths and weaknesses. I realize now more than ever that what the articles state repeatedly is so true: teachers need to take responsibility for all of their students, not just the ones they can “relate” to or those they can teach “more easily”. Inconsistencies in various schools (even within the same neighbourhoods) present children with unfair and unjust advantages and disadvantages. Before we can implement changes for success, we have to accept our current failures along with their causes and effects.
More and more, I find that my “best lessons” are those where I talk the least, and the students SAY and DO the most. More work for me (maybe), but definitely greater long term success for them. Teaching strategies and tools that present the children with “connections” and opportunities to be “critical” readers/writers and more importantly “critical” thinkers are no longer an option, but a must in order to help pave the way to success as a student and later survival as an adult.
I can’t help but reflect and comment on the inclusion delivery model for special education. This year I have the opportunity of teaching special education for 50% to a group of grade 7 students. To me, the inclusion model and differentiated instruction pretty much go hand in hand with the topics of the readings. Keeping the identified students “connected” with their peers and the curriculum within the regular classroom setting has had a positive impact on their self-esteem and overall academic success. In the end, if we believe that all children are capable of learning, then differentiated instruction is not an option.
The phrase impacted me the most was that which says we need to teach them to read (and perhaps write, too) the world and not just the words. My son was reading at an extremely early age, before the age of two and a half. Could he read books filled with words? Sure he could. Did he comprehend it all? Definitely not. Could he relate to the pictures? I think so. Many of my students come to grade 4 reading well beyond grade level, yet cannot achieve grade level status on comprehension tests. We need to change the value of simply being able to decode (read words) and implement ways of teaching them strategies to read new words, but more importantly help them make meaning of the words (read the world).
I guess we can sum it all something like this: in order for them to be able to read the world, the world has to be within their reach. Someone has to bring it all within their reach, why not teachers, parents, and community members (maybe even the government). Once it is within their reach, it has to be of value to them or mean something to them (connection). Sounds so simple, yet the problem persists, and perhaps even deteriorates.