Collapse Subdiscussion
Dec 28, 2022Dec 28, 2022 at 10:17am
According to Jayaratne (2016), the information needed for a high-quality formal evaluation stems from asking three basic questions: What are the positive factors of the program? What are the negative factors of the program? And what changes are needed for the program to improve? The following scenario seeks to analyze these questions. The Hearne ISD Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program is in its second year of rebuilding from the COVID-19 pandemic. Pre-COVID, the program was lagging in the identifying and accommodation for gifted students; however, the COVID-19 shutdown and mismanagement drew the program almost non-existent. Now with a new program coordinator, the program is starting to make positive gains in identifying gifted students and providing a pullout program for them to experiment and engage in cross-curricular self-paced activities. However, a major issue still presents in the program is the lack of accommodations in the student's general education classes. The source of this issue is the lack of gifted and talented training teachers. Out of the 71 teachers employed from k-12, only 14, 19%, have completed the gifted and talented training course. Breaking this data further, out of the 14 teachers with their training, only two, 14%, are located on the elementary campus, which accounts for 35% of the total gifted population (A.Puryear, personal communication, December 26, 2022). The elementary campus is the most important grade level for providing gifted services and developing healthy habits in gifted students.
This issue presents a need for change because if gifted and talented students are not stimulated in the classroom, they can be plagued with social and emotional problems and develop feelings of boredom in the classroom and a decrease in student achievement. This can lead to some very negative behavior or behavior that is perceived as being negative by the teacher and the outcomes that follow with the consequences of that negative behavior (Hile et al., 2022). To give the gifted and talented students of Hearne I.S.D the best social and educational enrichment that we could possibly give them, changes in the program need to take place.
References
Hile, O. M., Sorensen, T. J., & McKim, A. J. (2022). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented students in agricultural education: An exploratory study.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 63(1), 13–28. .
Jayaratne, K. S. U. (2016). T Journal of Extension, 54(1),
28. Retrieved from https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1930&context=joe
Dec 29, 2022Dec 29, 2022 at 5:49pm
Change, at best, can be difficult. Fullan (2016) reminds us that there is no “silver bullet” for change, but instead, planning and implementation of assumptions made about how to make effective change. For example, the issue that has been widely discussed in my field of expertise that needs change is what some have called the “reading wars.” The reading wars are simply a dispute over how to teach reading. Some educators believe we should teach a systematic approach through phonics, while others believe in teaching whole language. The reading wars are an educational battle that is being fought in newspaper editorials, schools, state legislators, and congress. The reason this is such a hot topic is because of the decline we are seeing in reading test scores related to whole language instruction. Other scientific studies indicated that phonics-based instruction resulted in higher reading test scores. Whole language advocates want to blame socioeconomic levels and ethnographic studies for the decline in scores (Reyhner, 2020).
This issue directly affects my practice as an early childhood kindergarten teacher because I teach young children how to read, and many schools are adopting new or old methods to do just that. The current scenario at my school involves teaching students phonics for 30 to 45 minutes a day and then following that up by teaching whole language guided reading instruction for the next hour and a half. Some teachers believe that teaching students to read using a systematic phonics curriculum is more effective than relying on the three-queuing system of what looks right, sounds right, and makes sense in guided reading. Education Week surveyed 670 K-2 special education teachers and 530 education professors who teach reading courses to evaluate teacher and teacher-educator knowledge and practice in the United States. This study followed up the latest reading report card that showed 35% of 4th graders are reading at a proficient level, with the achievement gap growing. The research also showed that 75% of teachers teaching reading use the three-queuing system. More than 25% of these teachers tell students to “look at the picture” when they come to a tricky word rather than to try and sound out the word. The research also looked at teacher education. The research shows that 33% of teachers learned how to teach reading through professional development, 17% learned from experience in the classroom, 15% said other, 14% stated curriculum, and so on.
The issue needs to change because many teachers are not prepared to teach reading after college and learn through professional development or curriculum. Many districts and schools within districts are adopting different methods. Many teachers focus a small amount of the day on teaching phonics and then switch to using the three-queuing system. This approach is confusing to students and teachers. Educational reading reform is necessary to see the achievement gaps close in our country (Loewus, 2019).
References :
Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Loewus, L. (2019, December 4). Data: How Reading Is Really Being Taught. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/data-how-reading-is-really-being-taught/2019/12
Reyhner, J. (2020, January 3). Reading Wars: Phonics vs. Whole Language. Jan.ucc.nau.edu. https://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/Reading_Wars.html#:~:text=Reading%20Wars%2D%2DThe%20dispute
