“At a recent talk for special education teachers at the Los Angeles Unified School District, child development professor Maryanne Wolf urged educators to say the word dyslexia out loud.
“Don’t ever succumb to the idea that it’s going to develop out of something, or that it’s a disease,” she recalled telling teachers. “Dyslexia is a different brain organization that needs different teaching methods. It is never the fault of the child, but rather the responsibility of us who teach to find methods that work for that child.”
Wolf, who has a dyslexic son, is on a mission to spread the idea of “cerebrodiversity,” the idea that our brains are not uniform and we each learn differently. Yet when it comes to school, students with different brains can often have lives filled with frustration and anguish as they, and everyone around them, struggle to figure out what is wrong with them.”
Read the entire piece here.
flickr photo by basheem http://flickr.com/photos/bastian/2270463815 shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-ND) license
Professor Timothy Shanahan writes an excellent blog on literacy. His latest post, “How Much Text Complexity Can Teachers Scaffold?” is a great and thoughtful read.
“How much of a “gap” can be compensated through differentiation? If my readers are at a 400 Lexile level, is there an effective way to use a 820 level chapter book?
This is a great question. (Have you ever noticed that usually means the responder thinks he has an answer).
For years, teachers were told that students had to be taught with books that matched their ability, or learning would be reduced. As a teacher I bought into those notions. I tested every one of my students with informal reading inventories, one-on-one, and then tried to orchestrate multiple groups with multiple book levels. This was prior to the availability of lots of short paperback books that had been computer scored for F & P levels or Lexiles, so I worked with various basal readers to make this work.
However, a careful look at the research shows me that almost no studies have found any benefits from such matching. In fact, if one sets aside those studies that focused on children who were reading no higher than a Grade 1 level, then the only results supporting specific student-text matches are those arguing for placing students at what we would have traditionally called their frustration level.”
Read the entire piece here.
Columbia University’s Teachers College has an exceptional resource in their Reading and Writing Project’s updated site. (We often refer to their program by the acronym TCRWP (Teachers College Reading Writing Project.) You can browse from their home page here or go directly to their resources page here.
Photo Credit: cuellar via Compfight cc
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) serve as the backbone for our language arts and mathematics curriculum at AAS-Sofia. You can explore them here.