Posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Ken De Rosa in debate on whole language at Edspresso
Ken De Rosa who is familiar to readers of KTM II and his own D-Ed Reckoning can be read in action now here as he takes on Nancy Creech, a whole language teacher from Oxford Michigan. For those looking for a fight on the order of Rocky Balboa vs Apollo Creed, this would not be the place in my opinion. Ken's arguments and command of facts makes it look more like Bill Clinton vs Lyndon Larouche. I'll let you figure out who's who.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Haven't read it yet, but I would NOT go up against Ken.
Period.
yikes
Actually, I wouldn't want to flat-out debate anyone around here!
I'm not sure that Ms. Creech understands that many of us lay readers can't appreciate the steel-like technical precision that professional phrases such as these bear...
... to read for a lot of authentic purposes and in a variety of genres.
By not understanding what she means I have failed at the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic interaction among my existing knowledge, the information suggested by the text, and the context of the reading situation.
I'm going to need either an ed. course or a 12 step program to get through this.
"Authentic purpose" is, you know, "real world", meaning, you know, stuff that really happens rather than the hypothetical stuff that the traditionalists waste their, you know, time on.
I had the interesting meta-observation that the DI advocate makes his case using precise, measured, and detailed points aimed directly at the topic at hand, whereas the WL advocate seems to meander about the debate, only occasionally making a substantive point.
Myrtle,
Lol! I was thinking the same thing, only less funny.
Ken is doing a great service here for any fence sitters. The debate is quite an eye-opener.
Here's a funny comment:
...it looks like the "WL" side brought a knife to a gunfight.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
susans,
Yes, she could use about a year of experience in pointless arguing in use-net before attempting a debate like this. Her tone seems to be that of a teacher addressing one of the skeptical parents of her students. It's painful to watch and I'm just glad it's not me.
Shame on edspresso for not getting someone with more experience. I'd like to see Ken vs. Susan Ohanion.
First, let me say that Creech is fighting out of her weight class. In a HS debate competition, she would not make it past the first round. Argument entirely by anecdote might convince some, but it doesn't convince me and shouldn't convince you.
Second, anyone who would use the phrase, "we have been inserviced on", in a discussion of the teaching of language must be considered presumptively untrustworthy. There is a more-widely understood synonym of "inserviced on" that one might expect a teacher to know and use: "taught".
Willfully and egregiously bureaucratic phrasing of this sort raises a rebuttable presumption of a willfully and egregiously bureaucratic mind. I contend that presumption has not been rebutted in this case.
First, let me say that Creech is fighting out of her weight class.
Doug is right.
The thing is, though, it's seemed pretty clear to me that during the entirety of the reading/math wars that the whole language/connected math side has always been in the wrong weight class.
The revolt against NCTM was led in large part by actual mathematicians, scientists, and engineers who actually knew what they were talking about... There seems to be an emerging consensus among neuroscientists, cognitive psychologists, and linguists that the WL theories are demonstrably false.
And yet... here we still are.
The only difference I can see between this and the creationism debate is that creationists are usually self-aware enough to admit that they are driven primarily by religious belief.
Independent George -
It's true; ed schools are constantly defeating actual subject matter specialists!
For one hundred years, they've been winning!
That was Ed's duel at the School Board meeting.
He opposed "interdisciplinary" classes, which are the heart and soul of the ed school project.
That was the moment when one of our smartest administrators said to him that he ought to ask himself whether being a historian is the problem.
"...he ought to ask himself whether being a historian is the problem."
When you can't tell the difference between the problem and the solution, finding the solution to your problem is going to be difficult.
Boy, I'm glad that's over. Nothing like cranking out 7000 words practically in real time.
Ken,
You did a fantastic job. I think a lot of parents will have their eyes opened when they read the two sides.
Post a Comment