TIP 5,6,7

In glancing through other blogs, I see a popular theory to remark upon has been Maturation theory. It struck me as odd as well, probably because it contradicts everything I’ve thought about the development of reading (as well as the theories of the social-interactionists, if I understand it correctly). I see, however, that this theory was especially prevalent in the 1930’s-1950’s. I find myself questioning what the historical implications were on this theory- if because of the Depression, many people couldn’t work and had to do whatever to get by, and as a result, the general populace was uneducated and seen as a possible hindrance to their children’s literacy development. Am I reading too much into it?

I am much more aligned with Emergent Literacy Theory and Family Literacy Theory. While I have fond memories of reading with my mother, which no doubt enabled me to become a grade-level, sufficient reader in early grade school, I don’t recall reading being a culture in my household. My parents were busy with their lives, and when it was time to relax, we would gather ‘round the tv. Now, after a busy day, my fiancé and I do the same. Rarely do either of us pick up a book to amuse ourselves.

In the research conducted by Shirley Brice Heath sited in chapter 6, I recognize many of students as primarily a mix of Maintown and Roadville students, with a few Trackton thrown in from the local housing projects. By 5th and 6th grade, I see a huge disparity in not the basic word recognition/lower level comprehension, but in the ability to think on higher levels. Sometimes I feel like I am straddling these two drastic levels of ability, trying to “differentiate instruction” while my middle-of-the road students continue to drift in the current of the status quo. I know, I know- preachin’ to the choir. It’s funny that we’re the ones learning this stuff- that there isn’t some program that can be passed along with food stamps to the at-risk communities to tell them- “Hey- read with your kids and they’ll do much better in school!” Then again, who can read to their kids when working three jobs to make ends meet?

Anyway, all of these socio-learning theories in chapter 6 are a big “Nooooo- really?” (insert scarcasm here). That said, I find the socio-cultural theories particularly interesting. Moll’s application of this theory to marginalized students in rural communities made me wonder about my students from the projects who are either so sheltered that they have little to no experience of the outside world (less severe than Emily Dickison, but you know what I mean) or my latch-key kids- the one who have seen and probably know Hudson county gang members. While kids in the rural communities are raised with a background knowledge to assist the family, kids in at–risk urban communities are raised with a background knowledge of “It’s dangerous out there! It’s safer to stay in and play video games!” If I’m coming off too dramatic, please excuse me.

Blogs are dangerous soap boxes