What Doesn't Work: Literacy Practices We Should Abandon

[elleng]

The number one concern that I hear from educators is lack of time, particularly lack of instructional time with students. It's not surprising that we feel a press for time. Our expectations for students have increased dramatically, but our actual class time with students has not. Although we can't entirely solve the time problem, we can mitigate it by carefully analyzing our use of class time, looking for what Beth Brinkerhoff and Alysia Roehrig (2014) call "time wasters."

Consider the example of calendar time. In many U.S. early elementary classrooms, this practice eats up 15-20 minutes daily, often in a coveted early-morning slot when students are fresh and attentive. Some calendar time activities may be worthwhile. For example, teachers might use this time for important teaching around grouping and place value. But other activities are questionable at best. For example, is the following routine still effective if it's already February and your students still don't know:

Yesterday was _______.
Today is _______.
Tomorrow will be _______,

Does dressing a teddy bear for the weather each day make optimal use of instructional time? Some teachers respond, "But we love our teddy bear, and it only takes a few minutes!" But three minutes a day for 180 days adds up to nine hours. Children would also love engineering design projects, deep discussions of texts they've read, or math games.

5 Less-Than-Optimal Practices'>>>

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/literacy-practices-we-should-abandon-nell-k-duke?

[metroins]

1. What's not working is parental teaching

The common element in schools:

Well structured homes with good parenting = attentive and well behaved children

Poorly structured homes with no home learning = children doomed for failure

Schools can only educate children who want to learn and the children who want to learn are taught by their parents to pay attention.

These so called time wasters are not what we as a society should be focusing on.

[elleng]

3. All children want to learn,

and schools/teachers should adapt to helping children and parents who do not have 'well structured homes with good parenting.' 'Doomed for failure' should NOT be part of the program.

[metroins]

4. I disagree.

I'm a professional educator of adults, my wife is in the child welfare system.

An educator with 15 or more children in a classroom cannot adapt to every child. It is the duty of the parents to send the children to school with the tools needed to learn and free from distractions.

When I teach an adult, if they're worried about their child all day, the adult won't learn what I'm teaching them. If a child comes to school with drama from home, the child won't learn.

Educators are educators, not psychologists, therapists or insert word here. They're role is to educate on subjects, not cater to the individual needs of a student.

In most cases, the parents are the problem, not the child or so called time wasters.

[elleng]

5. I appreciate your post.

Obviously this is not easy, and I agree, the children are not the problem, which is why I began with 'All children want to learn.'
Thanks.

[Warpy]

2. If you're teaching pre K/Head Start, dressing that teddy bear can be very important

Some of the kids have no dolls to dress and undress. That teddy bear teaches them how clothing works and that's a real life lesson they'll use for the rest of their lives.

DU broke the page so I can't access it right now, but I'll bet some of the other practices the author criticizes can also be age appropriate.

That's really the key here, knowing context.