More on Open Court
I feel compelled to continue the brief discussion we had on the Open Court reading curriculum for elementary schools. For those interested in teaching the primary grades, familiarization with Open Court will put you one step ahead of the game. I've never actually taught using Open Court, so I'm putting that caveat out here right now. However, I have experienced the stress of learning the system vicariously through my wife over the last four years. After our discussion last Thursday, I asked her some more questions.
Dr. McNenny mentioned that some scholars and critics accuse Open Court of creating "non-professional teachers." This is probably due to the step-by-step, scripted format of the lesson books. I asked my better half about this, and she agreed (along with Garrity) that there is a whole script, in quotes, of what the teacher should say. However, she also challenged any teacher to actually try and use this script--it is patently ridiculous.
The thing is, if it isn't Open Court, it's going to be another, similar broad-based curriculum. For a district like LA Unified, there has to be some sort of standard between schools. If a first grader learns to read using Open Court, and then transfers to a different school in second grade that uses another reading system, he or she will instantly fall behind. In that way, a standard curriculum in the state-wide public school system has advantages. And whether or not you agree with the methods of evaluation and standardized testing, it is a political reality. Wouldn't it be more effective to evaluate a student population using the same curriculum?
I would challenge any critic of Open Court to actually go into a classroom for a month and watch it being taught. I would put all of my money down that their opinion would change. Much of the criticism has actually come from the teachers' unions, where older teachers were annoyed that they were being forced to adopt a new system.
Open Court has many faults, but any teacher worth their salt is able to separate the good from the bad and personalize the curriculum to best suit their style of teaching as well as their specific group of students. Those teachers who can't shouldn't be teaching at all; thank God there is a scripted curriculum out there, otherwise their students would be left out to dry.
I'm probably sounding very Marxist here, and I'll admit I was totally against this type of forced, broad-based curriculum five years ago. But after experiencing first hand (well, actually second hand) the trauma of inner-city teaching, I think I end up coming down in favor of Open Court, for all its faults.
Dr. McNenny mentioned that some scholars and critics accuse Open Court of creating "non-professional teachers." This is probably due to the step-by-step, scripted format of the lesson books. I asked my better half about this, and she agreed (along with Garrity) that there is a whole script, in quotes, of what the teacher should say. However, she also challenged any teacher to actually try and use this script--it is patently ridiculous.
The thing is, if it isn't Open Court, it's going to be another, similar broad-based curriculum. For a district like LA Unified, there has to be some sort of standard between schools. If a first grader learns to read using Open Court, and then transfers to a different school in second grade that uses another reading system, he or she will instantly fall behind. In that way, a standard curriculum in the state-wide public school system has advantages. And whether or not you agree with the methods of evaluation and standardized testing, it is a political reality. Wouldn't it be more effective to evaluate a student population using the same curriculum?
I would challenge any critic of Open Court to actually go into a classroom for a month and watch it being taught. I would put all of my money down that their opinion would change. Much of the criticism has actually come from the teachers' unions, where older teachers were annoyed that they were being forced to adopt a new system.
Open Court has many faults, but any teacher worth their salt is able to separate the good from the bad and personalize the curriculum to best suit their style of teaching as well as their specific group of students. Those teachers who can't shouldn't be teaching at all; thank God there is a scripted curriculum out there, otherwise their students would be left out to dry.
I'm probably sounding very Marxist here, and I'll admit I was totally against this type of forced, broad-based curriculum five years ago. But after experiencing first hand (well, actually second hand) the trauma of inner-city teaching, I think I end up coming down in favor of Open Court, for all its faults.
posted by Anonymous at
1:50 PM
2 Comments:
I'm glad that we're talking about Open Court. Scripted programs for teachers are valid areas for discussion, and we're fortunate in having people in the class who know about them, have seen them in action, and have even used them! My point is that there is a body of research that looks critically at scripted curriculum and that weighs the advantages and disadvantages. I encourage anyone interested in it to look it up. It's a great area for research!
By
Gerri McNenny, at 9:30 AM
I stand chastened. One excellent reesearch project would involve looking at how well Open Court works in encouraging writing and literacy in general. It sounds like there's a lot to be said for it, so I welcome anyone's research into that area.
By
Gerri McNenny, at 7:30 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home