di: well-designed reading

[Shepard Barbash]

Yes it *does* explain why they reject a Dalmation:

The full circle of the daisy chain occurs when a state takes these
"research based" recommendations and uses them as adoption criteria for
programs that are supposed to be effective, but rejects a true Dalmatian
because it does not meet the "standards" the state has set. For instance, a
"standard" might indicate that the program had to have the full range of
phonemic-awareness exercises (including activities that are ill-suited for
beginning at-risk students, like phoneme deletion). If effective program X
does not have* all of them*, it fails to meet a "research based" standard,
even though it is highly effective and there is no evidence that the
adopted programs are effective.



On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 6:58 PM Maureen Graves <maureenrgraves at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Based on my memory and quick skim, it seems to me that this great article
> explains why districts adopt junk (spots but no Dalmation) but not why they
> reject a Dalmation when it comes along.  What reasons are Arkansas and Utah
> giving for rejecting Reading Mastery?  What did they say are the "red
> flags"?  What would it take to get approved?  What Works Clearinghouse is
> pretty easily satisfied as long as an article has an academic author and is
> new.  Do pictures need updating for DEI?  I don't remember them well.
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 11:34 AM Shepard Barbash <shepbarbash at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Zig explained why Reading Mastery and other DI programs don't meet the
>> 'criteria'--a timeless column:
>>
>> https://zigsite.com/DalmatianPro.htm
>>
>> https://zigsite.com/Dalmatian.htm
>>
>> Shep Barbash
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 1:43 PM Laura Hughes <laura.hughes at rattlers.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Arkansas also has an approved list, Reading Mastery did not pass the
>>> criteria.
>>> We had to give it up after years of effective teaching, confidence
>>> building, and good test scores.
>>> I can tell you that the curriculum we chose was very expensive and will
>>> never match what we were able to accomplish with Reading Mastery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:31 AM Carolyn Sharette <csharette at apamail.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Crazy happenings in Utah.
>>>> Senate Bill 127 passed requiring state-approved “science-based reading”
>>>> programs in every school within 2 years.
>>>> We cheered!  Finally others would join us in using effective reading
>>>> curriculum!  (We opened 20 years ago and Reading Mastery is our Core
>>>> reading program)
>>>> Every district has to report what program it will use and gain approval
>>>> to qualify under the law.
>>>> We sent in our plan to use Reading Mastery.
>>>> It was FLATLY DENIED.  Too many “red flags”.  Not science-based.
>>>>
>>>> ????????????
>>>>
>>>> State reading results came out.  4 out of top 6 schools use some type
>>>> of Reading Mastery (for Core or Corrective).
>>>>
>>>> Still they refuse to “approve” it!!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Carolyn Sharette*
>>>> *Executive Director*
>>>> *Cell: 801-808-3933*
>>>> *csharette at apamail.org <csharette at apamail.org>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: 20 year anniversay logo - Email Signature .5x.5.png]
>>>>
>>>> Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail is for
>>>> the intended recipient(s) alone. It may contain privileged and confidential
>>>> information that is legally protected.  If you are not an intended
>>>> recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on
>>>> it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
>>>> immediately by reply to this email and delete the material from your
>>>> computer.
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 6, 2023, at 11:55 AM, Kozloff, Martin <kozloffm at uncw.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In places where whole language has finally been dropped without
>>>> comment from districts (which has happened around here), it is because of
>>>> several events.
>>>>
>>>> >> The crisis. Jillions of articles at all levels report the crisis of
>>>> moronitude in public schools. "Jeez, Louise, these kids can't read. What
>>>> the heck!"
>>>>
>>>> >> The challenge. Enough national-level articles (research and
>>>> commentary) are published whose message is that "we finally know what
>>>> effective instruction requires"---even if this has been known for decades.
>>>>
>>>> >> Unmasking the enemy. "Bombshell" reports go after those responsible,
>>>> for their dopey ideas and their fortunes--- stupidity combined with
>>>> avarice. "And the kids paid for this!"
>>>>
>>>> For ex, the Funky Goodmans (an editor of theirs said they were always
>>>> surrounded by a noxious bouquet of stench---they hadn't heard of Whole
>>>> Deodorant.) and Lucy C.
>>>>
>>>> >> The Fear. Administrators start to think that they'd better change
>>>> things or the public may come for them with hot pitch, feathers, and wooden
>>>> rails.
>>>>
>>>> >> Publishers advertise that "We are not those guys. Our materials are
>>>> consistent with what we know works."
>>>>
>>>> >>  The Answer. Administators (having no idea what well-designed
>>>> instruction looks like) buy the materials that are best advertised. Some
>>>> such materials seem to work well enough.
>>>>
>>>> What happens when they pick the wrong materials, as they thrash around
>>>> for a solution? That's when a higher power (state legislature, parents
>>>> suing under the 14 amendment equal protection clause) has to respond
>>>> swifty, before ineffective programs become "Our way."   "No, you need to
>>>> try again, or you'll get sued in federal court."
>>>>
>>>> Just my thoughts. As always, correct, and delivered with humility and a
>>>> side order of schmaltz.
>>>>
>>>> Kozloff out
>>>>
>>>> Check the manuscript if you feel like it. Book 2 of a series of six.
>>>> Integrates DI, ABA, TAGTeach, and  Precision Teaching, in a wholesome
>>>> package of logically okay (I'm not Zig of blessed memory!) formats. Comes
>>>> with a pink tote bag.
>>>> <bk 2 learning readiness.docx>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> di mailing list
>>>> di at lists.uoregon.edu
>>>> https://lists.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail is for
>>>> the intended recipient(s) alone. It may contain privileged and confidential
>>>> information that is legally protected.  If you are not an intended
>>>> recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on
>>>> it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
>>>> immediately by reply to this email and delete the material from your
>>>> computer. _______________________________________________
>>>> di mailing list
>>>> di at lists.uoregon.edu
>>>> https://lists.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>      Laura Hughes
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> di mailing list
>>> di at lists.uoregon.edu
>>> https://lists.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> di mailing list
>> di at lists.uoregon.edu
>> https://lists.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20231014/32c191ce/attachment-0001.html>