Christine d’Amico est une amie enseignante, spécialiste de la lecture. Depuis
plusieurs années, elle l’enseigne avec
succès dans une école primaire de New York et ce par le biais d’une méthode efficace,
à départ phono-alphabétique (Sing Spell Read and Write). Elle possède une excellente connaissance des
méthodes utilisées dans les classes et surtout des résultats qu’elles donnent.
Dans cet article, elle dresse un portrait réaliste – mais néanmoins
catastrophique – du niveau en lecture des élèves américains, elle suggère une
explication et apporte quelques pistes pour qu’enfin tous les enfants
maîtrisent la lecture en sortant de l’école élémentaire.
Au titre des
éventuelles explications, on évoque couramment les enseignants non qualifiés,
démotivés, paresseux, les évaluations (trop nombreuses ou pas assez), le rôle
des chefs de districts (responsables des politiques pédagogiques au niveau
local), la formation, les parents d’élèves, le manque de discipline, les
problèmes de concentration des élèves. Mais qui est vraiment responsable, qui
doit rendre des comptes de cet échec massif ? Doit-on privilégier les
charters schools (écoles privées sous contrat), la scolarisation à la maison
(homeschooling), les écoles privées ?
Avant de
répondre à ces questions, Christine d’Amico nous éclaire sur le système
scolaire américain qui est différent du nôtre. Ainsi, la liberté pédagogique
qui nous est si chère, n’y existe pas. Les choix pédagogiques sont faits au niveau
des écoles par le principal ou le chef du district (en charge de plusieurs
écoles dans une zone géographique). Les enseignants ne sont que des exécutants,
ils sont tenus d’appliquer les curriculums imposés. Tout réside donc dans le
choix de ce curriculum. Ce terme désigne une méthode au sens le plus complet du
terme : il s’agit du matériel (manuels, matériel collectif…) pouvant
s’accompagner de la formation spécifique, dictant tout dans les moindres
détails, jusqu’à la façon d’installer les élèves dans la classe, de choisir le
type de tableau, de le positionner dans la classe. Ces curriculums, pour la
plupart, sont faits par des universitaires appartenant au courant pédagogique
dominant constructiviste et ne sont absolument pas dans une logique d’efficacité
ni de rapport aux résultats. Ils représentent un marché énorme pour les
éditeurs.
Il existe
deux grands courants : l’un, dominant, de nature constructiviste
(Whole language) et l’autre, minoritaire d’enseignement explicite et structuré,
en rapport direct avec l’efficacité. Christine d’Amico déplore que les choix
curriculaires se fassent sur des critères marchands, sur des relations de
copinage et non sur le rapport aux résultats des méthodes. Mais malgré les
piètres résultats, les décideurs ne remettent jamais en question leurs choix,
préférant blâmer les enseignants et les accusant de ne pas savoir faire leur
métier correctement.
Christine
d’Amico fait ensuite une présentation critique de quelques-unes de ces
méthodes, au nombre desquelles Teacher’s college ou Every Day Math
Program par exemple.
Les
solutions, selon elle, reposent donc sur un choix raisonné des curriculums.
Elle pense qu’ils devraient être faits par des comités regroupant des
enseignants et des parents d’élèves. Elle accorde cette aptitude aux parents
d’élèves pour une raison spécifique à la situation américaine. Beaucoup de
parents, soucieux de l’instruction de leurs enfants, choisissent le home
schooling et utilisent généralement les méthodes explicites ayant fait leurs
preuves en termes de résultats. Cela leur donnerait le droit d’intervenir dans
les choix curriculaires. Sur cette question particulière, je ne partage pas cet
avis. C’est une chose que de faire la classe à la maison à ses propres enfants,
et c’en est une autre que d’être enseignant s’adressant à des classes entières.
Être enseignant est un véritable métier, et seul l’enseignant peut être capable
de choisir une méthode pédagogique. Car c’est un professionnel, il aura un
choix éclairé par la connaissance générale des méthodes, des données
probantes, de leur rapport à l’efficacité et par son expérience de classe.
Toutes choses qui manquent à un parent d’élève, aussi dévoué soit-il à
l’instruction de son enfant. Chez nous, le home schooling n’est pas aussi
développé qu’aux États-Unis et les parents d’élèves ne sont pas en mesure de
donner un avis pédagogique sur une méthode. Il est notoire également que dans
l’opinion générale, les méthodes les plus populaires sont rarement les méthodes
les plus efficaces.
On lira aussi avec profit les commentaires relatifs aux méthodes efficaces
telles que Saxon Math, Singapore Math, Sing Spell Read and
Write (Sue Dickson), Orton Gillingham (lecture), Seeing Stars
(LindaMood Bell), Musical Maths Facts (Sue Dickson), Basic Writing
Skills (Judith Hochman), Excellence in Writing (Andrew Pudewa). Tout cela nous montre que des
méthodes efficaces existent bel et bien. Elles sont publiées et prêtes à être
utilisées. Et malgré tout, elles n’ont toujours pas la notoriété qu’elles
méritent.
Chez nous,
en France, l’enseignant peut choisir sa méthode, son manuel. Si les méthodes
explicites commencent à être connues des professionnels, elles auront vraiment
une existence dès lors que les éditeurs leur consacreront des manuels et des
méthodes sous une forme autre que celle d’une réédition des manuels
traditionnels de l’école d’antan. Il y a encore beaucoup de chemin à faire pour
que les données probantes entrent véritablement dans le domaine éducatif
autrement que par des paroles ou des études savantes. Ce pas sera franchi quand
les manuels explicites se feront concurrence dans les vitrines des éditeurs.
Can We Fix Our Failing Schools
Christine d'Amico, MA Elementary Ed
Today I was teaching in a
general education fifth-grade class in the New York City public school system.
I went around and listened to each student read individually. At least 45% of
the students in this class suffer from a lack of ability to decode (sound out
the words); in addition, about 85% of these students lack a wide breadth of
vocabulary knowledge. Research proves that the inability to read fluently,
along with vocabulary deficits, result in low comprehension, therefore a
significant portion of this class is at risk. I then did a math lesson on
equivalent fractions, which was riddled with questions that were beyond these
kid’s understanding. I had to tell these frustrated students the answers
because they simply could not do their work independently. About 85% of these
students don’t know the multiplication and division tables. None of them can
write correctly in cursive. Their ability to write essays, even to put together
a coherent paragraph, is below grade level. Yet, all these students passed the
4th grade state tests last year, indicating that these tests are obviously
dumbed down, and test grading is curved.
Sadly, this evening, I
thought, “These kids will probably never catch up to their peers in the
suburbs, who are themselves behind the rest of the world!” “Even
worse, though” I questioned, "Where the hell are these kids headed?”
Dropout, crime or drugs, maybe early pregnancy and poverty, but more
importantly cultural and academic illiteracy which makes their decision making
and thinking ability substandard. Such is the repetitive cycle in this
neighborhood, and this disastrous scenario repeats itself all over the country.
And if you think this problem is just in our poorer neighborhoods, you’re
wrong.
Who is really responsible
for the demise of our schools? Is it the rampant supply of unqualified,
unmotivated teachers as the current media depicts? Is teacher tenure the
problem? Are teachers simply too lazy and too secure (thanks to pensions)
to care? What about state requirements and testing - is there not enough
or too much? Is corruption and the lack of integrity in school district
leaders the problem? What about the low requirements in teacher
formation? Are colleges who are graduating teachers setting requirements for
education degrees too low? Are negligent parents to blame? Is lack of
discipline the problem? Are children, for the most part, not able to focus
anymore? Are disruptive students the problem? Why are so many children failing
and falling through the cracks? Who is really responsible for the demise
of our educational system and, more importantly, is it redeemable?
If our educational system
is restorable, then what can we do to give American students the best education
possible? Should we close down all our schools and open charter schools
instead? Should we home school our kids? What about private school, is that the
answer? What can parents do to turn around their schools, and improve the
education of their children? And finally, should we really be ranking our
teachers solely on test results?
The Problem:
The most recent results
of international comparative statistics show that the U.S. ranks 12th of 24
countries in 4th-grade math, 15th of 44 countries in 8th grade math (2003), and
9th of 35 countries in 4th-grade reading (2001). Out of 35 participating
countries, U.S. student attitudes toward reading ranked third from the
bottom--suggesting our children are showing little interest in this fundamental
subject. (TIMSS
Trends in International Math and Science Study and PIRLSS Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study)
Concern is mounting that
our students are falling seriously behind other countries. Our talent pool is
shrinking because fewer students are majoring in math and science at our
universities. Colleges are reporting that more and more students are arriving
unprepared, requiring freshmen to retake courses which they should have already
mastered in high school, and the areas in need of greatest remediation are
reading, writing, and math.
For African-Americans and
Latinos the statistics are worse yet, as their test scores lag dramatically
behind their white and Asian peers. Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips,
editors of the 1998 book The Black-White Test Score Gap, point out in
their introduction that African-Americans score lower than whites on
vocabulary, reading and math tests, as well as on standardized tests such as
the SAT. This gap appears before kindergarten and persists into adulthood, with
the average black student scoring 70 to 80 percent below white students of the
same age. Similar issues arise when Mexican-American and Latino students, as
well as Native American students, are compared to white students, although this
phenomenon has not been studied as widely, say Jencks and Phillips. The gap
between the haves and have-nots increases over the years as what is known in
pedagogy as the Matthew Effect takes place, whereby the “rich (academically)
get richer and the poor (again, academically) get poorer”.
State tests are being
dumbed down; recently we learned in New York State that the state tests have
been made easier for years while the Bloomberg administration has been touting
high test score gains. Now, the state claims, it has raised the
standards, but who can believe a system that has been lying for years regarding
test results? Every state and city designs tests for region specificity, and
have little value because there is no standard of comparison. Conversely,
norm-referenced standardized testing is more valid because test results would
be compared across the nation.
Another aspect of the
problem is lax school discipline; teachers and supervisors are not allowed to
discipline students for fear of repercussions from parents. Many teachers
are not well-trained in classroom management. Often one or two students create
major discipline problems in a class, thereby taking up most of the teacher’s
prime teaching time – they are told to “just deal with it,” often while the
administration is a mute by-stander.
Our special education
classrooms are continuing to fill up, and again African-American students are
being placed more than white students. According to the U.S. Department of
Education, African-Americans accounted for 16% of the student population;
however, African-Americans represented 32%, or double the current representation,
of students with mental disabilities in special education. For
African-Americans to represent a larger percentage of special education than
the general education population, it further substantiates the role of
overrepresentation within special education. This disproportionate amount of
African-Americans is alarming, and according to one researcher, Dunn, has
remained an unresolved issue for the last 30 years. (Zhang &
Katsiyannis, 2002)
Teachers complain that
parents are not supporting their children’s work at home. Indeed, especially
students in low-income, urban neighborhoods, are lacking sorely in parental
involvement. In New York City, in general, about 5-10% of the student
population is represented by parent involvement in the schools. Even the most
active parents, however, don’t have their finger on the causes and solutions of
dysfunctional schools. They are mainly focused on helping their children
survive in a system that is not working.
Teacher preparation courses
are devoid of academic rigor in research-based reading pedagogy. While
reading is the single most important factor for judging a student’s success in
school (children are referred to special education classes because they can’t
read), teachers rarely get any opportunity to study effective reading
instructional methods. [The] limited phonemic awareness of
teachers, their gaps in basic linguistic knowledge, and the difficulty with
which the requisite information about language is gained have become apparent.
Neither undergraduate nor graduate training of teachers typically requires the
command of language structure necessary to teach reading and spelling well.
(Moats, 1995 AFT Magazine)
Teachers, without in-depth
knowledge of how to teach reading and spelling, are placed in early childhood
classrooms where the instruction will either make or break a child’s entire
academic career. Just as importantly, there are some teachers (such as
non-native speakers) placed in these classrooms who have intrinsic
linguistic limitations to the speech sound awareness and understanding of
orthography (Moats, 1995 AFT Magazine) required to teach these
most important skills.
All these problems,
however, although essential pieces of the public school puzzle, are small in
comparison to the one major cause of our school’s demise: curriculum.
A school district’s choice of curriculum dictates everything teachers say and
do. It can even dictate the seating arrangement in the classrooms (whether the
students are facing each other or the front of the room); the number of
bulletin boards, how they are displayed, and the comments on them; and the use
of chalkboards or wipe boards. Everything from what the teachers say, to
how it is said, is dictated solely by the choice of curriculum. Teachers must
follow the script or be disciplined.
Many curriculums are
developed by university professors who have little to no classroom experience
and just as little research to back up their work. These professors market
and sell their work to publishers or, if they are associated with big
institutions such as Columbia Teachers College or Harvard University, they are
usually believed to work without question because the names carry so much
weight in academia. Often times, as in the case with the failed whole language
curriculum from New Zealand, they are created in other countries. Other times,
the big publishers (Pearson, Harcourt Brace, Houghton Mifflin, Silver Burdett
and Ginn to name a few) use a team of people on staff to develop a curriculum
and then pay university professors to sign off on their programs. These
publisher-designed curriculums are built along current trends or instructional
strategies that are in fashion, as opposed to empirical, research-based/designed
curriculums.
Most curriculums are
written from an existing paradigm, and can basically be categorized into two
camps. One is direct, systematic, explicit instruction (such as phonics), while
the other is implicit instruction (such as whole language). Direct, systematic,
explicit methods are logical, straightforward, and provide much guidance,
whereas…Implicit methods do not provide specific guidance on what is to be
learned from the task (Learning Lab, Pittsburgh Science of Learning
Center). The latter is the basic paradigm underlying the failed whole language
method. The designers of this method believe students implicitly learn to read
with little attention paid to phonics (Frank Smith, one of its founders, even
went so far as to say that “the alphabet has nothing to do with reading”). Both
methods are applied not only to reading, but also writing and math curricula.
There are usually just a
handful of alleged experts (sometimes just one person) in charge of buying into
the philosophy behind a school district’s curriculum. More often than not,
these “experts” have minimal to no classroom experience. Choosing the
curriculum for schools can often have little to do with what works, and far
more to do with whether or not the curriculum is written by a friend and/or the
current trend in academia. These contracts with districts are huge and
publishers are in the business of making money. They often cut deals with big
school districts, giving away free books in exchange for those contracts.
Publishers are in the business of selling, and like to come up with new
programs (whether they work or not) so they can continue making more money;
they also like to sell their most expensive programs, again, to maximize their
profit margin. The amount of money that flows from districts to
publishers is huge, and a big secret.
Once a school district buys
into a curriculum, no matter how inappropriate or ineffective, teachers must
use it without question; those who question the district’s choices are
silenced. If he or she chooses to continue questioning, even though
reprimanded, he or she will be eventually be disciplined and made an example of
by the district. Teachers are not allowed to tell parents that the curriculum
chosen is not research-based. They are also not allowed to use any other
materials other than the mandated curriculum chosen by the district. When test
scores plummet due to poor teaching methods, however, teachers get blamed. With
their hands tied and their mouths muted, teachers become the scapegoats, stripped
of all power, and therefore unable to make a difference in our children’s
lives. The real culprit in all these low test scores, though, can be pinned
down to the decision makers at the top who are forcing teachers to be quiet and
use poorly written curriculums in their classroom.
However, these individuals
are never held accountable before the Board of Education or public for the poor
choices they make for our students. When test scores go down, these
Curriculum Directors sit back in their offices without any consequences
whatsoever to the choices they’ve made, the taxpayers money they’ve spent, and
the results they’ve promised but haven’t delivered. Teachers, who are on
the front lines, wind up taking the blame for this mismanagement of power and
knowledge. Clearly, there is a disconnect between the decision makers and the
consequences of those decisions in our schools.
A good example of this is
the Bloomberg administration’s implementation of Teacher’s College Reading
and Writing Workshop Model from Columbia University for reading, writing
and spelling instruction in all New York City Schools. Teacher’s College
is clearly a repackaging of whole language, and was written by Lucy Calkins,
who is a huge advocate of the failed whole language method. Lucy happened to be
a close friend of Diana Lam, who was the deputy chancellor of New York
City public schools when Bloomberg took office.
Another poor choice was the
Everyday Math Program (known as Fuzzy Math because it’s so
difficult to understand, even for teachers) implemented by this administration.
Both programs are neither direct, systematic, nor explicit, and it didn’t take
a rocket scientist to see that these methods would not work with our student
population, yet the powers-that-be missed this fact. These programs are
in line with the current trends of academia, with Everyday Math or Chicago
Math sourced from Arne Duncan’s (U.S. Secretary of Education) city and, of
course, Columbia College, which is supposed to be putting out the best teaching
practices in the world.
When these curriculums came
into our schools, every other good, solid instructional method was thrown out;
literally, dumpsters were filled with good programs teachers were forbidden to
use. The vast majority of our public schools were purged of any other method
and, although there was a huge outcry from teachers (mostly senior tenured
teachers who knew this new method was going to fail), they were quickly
silenced. These teachers were forced to use this “new method” with the threat
that disciplinary action would take place in the form of insubordination if
they refused to follow the script.
Teacher’s College, or TC as some refer to it,
and Everyday Math, have many poor pedagogical techniques. For the
first 4-6 years of using TC in New York City, teachers were forbidden
to use any phonics instruction, even though all reading research clearly shows
that phonemic awareness is the single most important predictor of whether a
child will learn to read or not, with this ability clearly connected to their
chances of overall success. (Note: eventually New York City did add Month
By Month Phonics, a program highly criticized for its lack of systematic
instruction on how to break down words, i.e., decoding)
Ever since implementation
of the TC model, teachers have had to make “leveled libraries” in
classrooms for their kids; all bulletin boards and chalkboards are now covered;
children have to sit on the rug and be taught in groups; and classroom desks
must face each other so students can “collaborate.” (What lecture have you ever
gone to where the people are facing each other?) This seating arrangement
is a classroom management nightmare. Obviously there’s a lot of form in Teacher’s
College curricula but little function in terms of results.
Everyday Math changes topics daily, rotating new
concepts in and out of curriculum, which is a very confusing format for
students. The lesson initially cited in this article, where I did fractions
with fifth graders, had equivalent fractions, comparing sizes of fractions, and
mixed numbers one day, while the next day the kids were adding fractions, then
the next day decimals, and the next day prime factorization. This is too much
for kids to handle and not enough practice for them to learn and master the
basics.
The Department of Education
(DOE) in New York City requires that special education classrooms use this same
curriculum that failed them in general education, and absolutely no one is
allowed to deviate. Common sense tells us that if a curriculum was not working
for students in general education it probably won’t work in special education.
At the least, teachers ought to be allowed to try a different curriculum with
these students to yield better results but, alas, they are not allowed.
Private special education schools, which are popping up all over Manhattan, use
good solid explicit curriculum with their students. If parents can prove that
the implicit curriculum is not working for their children, then the DOE has to
foot the bill to send those children to these private special education
schools, sometimes to the tune of $80,000 a year per student. And we wonder
where our money is going!
If you think this is just
New York City, you’re wrong; Columbia’s Teacher’s College Model
(by Lucy Calkins) has long tentacles reaching into every school district in our
country. The Teacher’s College method (which is really whole
language) infiltrates the publishing companies who create and model their
curriculums after this program because it sells. Everyday Math, or
some other Fuzzy Math such as TERC Investigations, are often
the choices of many school districts, even the wealthier ones. Why? Because
it’s trendy, gets a lot of press, and whatever the status quo is using is often
interpreted as what works – especially if it comes from the renowned Teacher’s
College. Yet students are suffering under these poorly-designed programs, which
may tickle someone’s fancy at the university level or in the district office,
but simply don’t work in the classroom.
Indeed, curriculums come
and go in school districts like the flavor of the day in an ice cream
parlor. Teachers, have NO control as to what instructional method must be
implemented in their classrooms, yet somehow they are held accountable for test
scores. Can you imagine dictating to a lawyer his method of
argumentation? Or a doctor his method of treatment? Yet, this is exactly what
goes on in our classrooms each day, all over this country. This is the main
reason why our system is so broken.
The Solution:
Start by abolishing the curriculum
director position(s) altogether (there, I just saved your district anywhere
from $150,000 to $300,000 in salaries per year!) A team of parents and
senior teachers should be involved in the curriculum choices for your schools,
because professionals, both real and alleged, should not be the only
individuals involved in choosing curriculum. Curriculum directors have
basically the same training as any teacher except that most of them haven’t
spent enough time in the classroom to know what works. School districts can
learn from home schoolers who are picking great curriculum for their kids and,
I might add, outscoring their public school peers (consider that Everyday
Math and Teacher’s College are rarely, if ever, the chosen
curriculums for homeschooling by parents with any degree of rational or logical
discernment).
If a teacher is going to be
accountable for his or her test scores then it only follows that he or she
should be allowed to pick the method of teaching to his or her students,
keeping in mind that content is dictated by common core standards. These
standards are set out by each state and in general are the same for each state.
A good curriculum will meet and exceed all standards set forth, and the
parent-teacher teams would have to make sure their curriculum choices meet
these standards (that is, by covering the material required for each
grade). There is also a wonderful set of standards which are specific and
clearly laid out by E.D. Hirsch, Jr. in his Core Knowledge Standards, which are
rigorous and precise because they are empirically based. It is my opinion
that every school district should use it, thus raising the bar of required
academic literacy in our schools.
The best curriculum is
always direct, systematic and explicit. Let’s leave fuzzy implicit instruction
to college years after our students have good solid foundations in the
fundamentals, and are therefore equipped to draw informed conclusions. A good
curriculum can make up for a fair amount of the deficits in teacher preparation
because these programs are well-built and actually train the teachers in proper
instruction. There are curriculums that work beyond our expectations in all
classrooms with all populations. I am a huge advocate and champion of Sing,
Spell, Read & Write by Sue Dickson. This is a complete
beginning-literacy curriculum for grades K-1 that has helped to produce tens of
thousands of fluent, independent readers. It reflects a unique 36—step system
of carefully sequenced instruction that combines music and multimodal teaching
strategies that were developed and classroom tested for more than 25 years. The
program features the scientifically-based principles of balanced reading
instruction that include phonemic awareness; systematic, explicit, intensive
phonics reinforced with connected decodable text; multiple readings to provide
practice and build fluency; and comprehension strategies that help develop
higher-order thinking skills. The key to this program is the use of rhyming
songs set to age-appropriate music to teach over 40 phonemes (the most basic
sounds of a given language). The songs in this program transform the monotonous
work of memorization into a quick and easy process. I would
challenge any other program against a SSR&W classroom to produce
the same high-quality results; in fact, I did just this when Mayor Bloomberg
came into office but he did not take me up on my challenge. Another
good reading program is Orton-Gillingham; although a bit drier than Sing,
Spell, Read & Write (in terms of maintaining student attention and
participation), this program can still get the job done. You might also want to
look into LindaMood Bell’s Seeing Stars, again a better choice for
schools than implicit-based learning methods.
Two great math curriculums
which are direct, systematic and explicit are Saxon Math and Singapore
Math (yes, from Singapore). These choices make teaching math direct,
systematic and academically rigorous, and when high standards are met our
students learn. There is plenty of practice in each one of these
programs to allow for students to learn and grow. Another great program
for teaching math basics is Musical Math Facts by Sue Dickson. I use
this with my students to teach them basic math facts, which must become
automatic. Again, rhyming songs set to fun music is both scientifically sound
and a wonderful teaching tool.
For writing, school
districts should again choose direct, systematic and explicit instruction.
While Sing, Spell, Read & Write primarily teaches students to read
and spell, Basic Writing Skills by Dr. Judith Hochman is a curriculum
used to teach the mechanics of writing fundamentals such as sentence, syntax,
paragraph, and essay structure. Andrew Pudewa’s Excellence in Writing
is also quite good, incorporating the memorization of poetry to increase
linguistic development. This is a great technique, and of course has been
practiced for years in classrooms of old, where memorization of key poems,
scriptures and documents were required. For grammar, I like Kathy
Troxel’s Grammar Songs, again a direct, systematic program providing
tremendous support for the understanding and memorization of key concepts.
Structured, accurate grammar is absolutely essential, and ought to be a part of
every school system’s curricula.
Once solid curriculums are
chosen, then teachers must be trained and retrained in the programs.
Don’t rely on big publishers for training; often they don’t thoroughly
understand their own programs and therefore cannot provide in-depth training.
Get specialists who know the programs you’ve chosen and who will train your
teachers to get results. Supervisors (i.e., school administrators) also need to
be knowledgeable in order to oversee the implementation and success of the
programs. Pre-testing in September and post-testing in June ought to be
done with norm-referenced standardized tests (the Gates MacGinitie is a great
test) so that we can see how our students are doing compared to the rest of the
country, not just the state. Progress must be made by all students - if not, take
a good look at the curriculum and get rid of it if it’s not working, and then
get something that does work. Please don’t sit for years with
curricula that doesn’t work, because children will continue to suffer long
after they “graduate.”
Good curriculums work with
general education or special education. If we use multi-sensory programs, we
can reach all our students, not just those who come to us prepared to
learn. Test prep and test scores are not a problem if we use good curriculum in
our classrooms with well-trained teachers. We don’t have to be obsessed with
test prep because we can relax and know that all of our students will meet and
exceed any tests given. Having your district armed with good curriculum
helps ensure maximum learning and leaves no child behind. After all, isn’t that
what we want from our schools? Parents must understand that teachers can only
make a big difference in their children’s lives if they are using the absolute
best curriculum in their classrooms. Teachers and parents working
together can and must step up to the plate and tell the curriculum directors of
their districts to move over. This is a new game and we’re playing it to win!
Resources:
If you are looking something that is not here, please feel free to contact me,
Christine D’Amico (800) 541-3245 or info@abcwritestartread.com
Math Instruction:
Reading Resources:
American Federation Of Teachers Summer 1995 American Educator Magazine: Learning
To Read -Schooling’s First Mission
Writing:
Grammar/American History/World History (add these to your grammar and
history curriculum to facilitate memory of important facts)
Science:
Core Knowledge:
Google:
Sing, Spell, Read & Write 1998 version (better than 2004)
About Teachers College: (Diana Lam and Lucy Calkins)
About the author
Christine D’Amico holds a
BA in French with an Elementary Education minor, and an MA in Elementary Ed and
Children’s Literature. She has been an Educator in New York City Public Schools
since 1990, while prior to this she was a Systems Analyst for Sanford C.
Bernstein. Christine studied French pedagogy at the Ecole Normale Du
Calvados in Caen, France and continues to work with her French colleagues formapex.com to bring direct, systematic,
instructional methods into French classrooms. She has taught first through
fifth grade and held positions in elementary schools as a Reading Remediation
Teacher, Reading Specialist, French Teacher, Drama Teacher, and is a New York
City Teacher of the Year. In addition to working for the New York City DOE in
summer school, after-school, and Saturday Academy, Christine operates her own
private tutoring companies, Excel Tutoring and ABC-Write Start Read! Inc.,
along with a curriculum consulting firm, Expert Curriculum and Instruction,
Inc. You can visit her website at abcwritestartread.com or see her on YouTube at youtube.com/user/abcwritestartread?feature=mhum.
