Loading...

“A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity - Hallo friend SMART KIDS, In the article you read this time with the title “A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity, we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article baby, Article care, Article education, Article recipes, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : “A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity
link : “A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity

“A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity

“A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity

“A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong

In her The Answer Sheet, Valerie Strauss offers yet another post about the current Reading War/Crisis: A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution.

Strauss explains before offering the long post:

This is an unusual post about the “reading wars,” that seemingly never-ending battle about how to best teach reading to students — systematic phonics or whole language. This argues that both sides have it wrong, and the authors, two brothers who are literacy experts, suggest a new way.

While this is a provocative, often nuanced, and compelling, it makes a fatal flaw common in the seemingly never-ending false war between phonics and whole language by misdefining whole language and then failing to take care when citing research that seems to show neither systematic phonics nor whole language are more effective than the other.

First, let me offer an example of this type of failure in a slightly different context, the powerful and complicated work of Lisa Delpit.

Delpit has made for many years a strong case about the inequity of educational opportunities that cheat black students (as well as many other vulnerable populations). At times, Delpit’s work has been co-opted by traditional advocates for education—notably those calling for intensive phonics and isolated grammar instruction.

Here, Delpit make a very direct refuting of that sort of co-opting:

I do not advocate a simplistic ‘basic skills’ approach for children outside of the culture of power. It would be (and has been) tragic to operate as if these children were incapable of critical and higher-order thinking and reasoning. Rather, I suggest that schools must provide these children the CONTINUE READING: “A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity

thus Article “A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity

that is all articles “A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article “A case for why both sides in the ‘reading wars’ debate are wrong — and a proposed solution” Is 50% Wrong | radical eyes for equity with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-case-for-why-both-sides-in-reading.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: