di: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] well-designed reading

[Carolyn Sharette]

The red flags have yet to all be vetted, however the paragraph from Shep below describes it pretty well.  Requiring “core programs” to have the “full-range” sounds familiar.  I believe it is largely a semantics issue with “core” being defined improperly to mean “complete for all learners” instead of "what MOST students need to learn to read fluently”.  

We interpret good curriculum as #2, and then we add other support programs for students as needed for the ones who need more/different due to unique learner characteristics.  All students receive Reading Mastery, Heggerty and Linda-Mood Bell LIPS.  Then we use Take Flight and Wilson for our students with dyslexia characteristics needing more support.

It’s unbelievable their logic would conclude that we have to dump Reading Mastery for something they believe “has it all”.  Surface features vs. depth of design seems to be at issue here.  We will continue to fight and I believe the results will prevail.



Carolyn Sharette
Executive Director
Cell: 801-808-3933
csharette at apamail.org <mailto:csharette at apamail.org>




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 14, 2023, at 7:44 PM, Shepard Barbash <shepbarbash at gmail.com> wrote:

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:csharette at apamail.org>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:di at lists.uoregon.edu>
>>>> https://lists.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>>      Laura Hughes   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> di mailing list
>>> di at lists.uoregon.edu <mailto:di at lists.uoregon.edu>
>>> https://lists.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/di
>> _______________________________________________
>> di mailing list
>> di at lists.uoregon.edu <mailto: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


-- 


-- 

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20231016/5f0e0c49/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20 year anniversay logo - Email Signature .5x.5.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20231016/5f0e0c49/attachment-0001.png>