Jon Schoening’s Educational Blog

I think I have a strong community of learners because we do a great deal of partnership and small group learning which in turn implies and forces the students to take a great deal of responsibility for their learning. I love the idea of the circle time to discuss issues in the class and allowing the students to talk things out; I have done this on a small scale with little squabbles between a few students but never a whole class. I embrace the idea of students taking on the responsibility of behavior, but there is the catch. This seems strangely similar to the phonics vs. whole language debates: behaviorist vs. constructivist behavior management. I think you must employ a little of both.

I think their should be some level of respect for authority in the classroom- a teacher does not have to act like the only moral authority in the class, but at least give the impression as having good morals, judgement, and makes good and fair decisions. Children have to know that someone in the class is in control. They have to know that when something is going on in the classroom that is inappropriate that someone there has the authority to put a stop to it quickly and effectively. There is a level of trust that your teacher has everything under control. You can’t wait for a circle time for every squabble, interruption, outburst, or insult. Pre-teachers should be given both points of view and practice both philosophies.

Whole language vs. Phonics (ding-ding), that was a mess. I remember as an undergraduate having a professor strongly pushing whole-language instruction. I also remember receiving whole-language instruction in school. It was a just as big a struggle to understand in the second grade why we did reading the way we did as it was as a Junior in college. There is so much data out there that promotes a blending of the two philosophies; the whole argument kind of reminds me of the Budweiser’s commercial- taste great, less filling! Where is the problem? Do both.

I think the reading instruction has improved since I was in school; I truly see kids reading more, having more opportunities to read, and having more reading materials to read. I recall in elementary school if you had a book late you got a late fee of a dime a week or something like that; and if you could not pay the money, you could not check out a book. Needless to say, I didn’t spend much time in our school library checking out books.

The standards, communities, and society may change, but our philosophies, if grounded in truly rigorous and substantiated research, should not.

At first, I thought Ken Goodman might have been one of those conspiracy theorist/ anti-government whack jobs; but upon further reflection, some of those dots he is attempting to connect do fit together. It is clear that publishers have a lot of voice in Washington; they have a larger voice than do teachers. If a genuinely good program of reading instruction is invented, the federal government could create a statistical standardized test that shows the program is not cutting the mustard. They can use their data to show that the reading programs of big publishing companies will fill in the gaps and create standards that are favorable to the publishing companies’ philosophies on reading. Why? The experts, teachers and professors, lack a loud enough voice and/or money to line to pockets of policy makers. It is how the game is played. Publishing companies know how to play the game, and ultimately the students lose, the teachers lose credibility and respect. 

Continue to follow the dots and a pattern emerges illustrating a disturbing future in education. It is the policymakers of our country that will tie one arm behind teachers backs and place tape over their mouth to muffle their calls for common sense. And ultimately when their policies fail, we will get all the blame; the buck will stop with us. And the policymaker will be absolved and pass legislation to increase accountability for teachers and lessen the accountability for policymakers because they will control the standards, the purse strings, and have the strongest voice and influence. Oh, wait. That already happened. (Expletive)

To change this course, we as teachers must find our voice and stand together in our pedagogical and philosophical stances firmly and not waver.