di: well-designed reading

[Laura Hughes]

In Arkansas, we must choose a program approved by EdReports.
https://aredreports.ade.arkansas.gov/Reviews/ela

I am not able to see why Reading Mastery was not approved.
I know that when our co-op members came to observe it being taught, they
said it did not explicitly teach some of the phonics/phonemic awareness
rules.
They also claimed that it taught skills out of order.

The series we adopted crams so many rules, so many sight words, and many
many other skills into each lesson.  They are taught, assessed, then moved
on, whether students have mastered them or not.
So of course it covers everything needed for the science of reading, but
does it in such a jumbled, impractical way, that struggling students don't
stand a chance.

I had several phone conversations with a McGraw Hill representative. She
told me that the Signature Series was submitted for review and was not
approved.
She also said the new series, Transformations, would not be submitted
because the publisher knew it wouldn't meet for approval.

In my experience, Reading Mastery taught just a few skills at a time and
gave much needed practice until they were mastered and students were fluent
when reading.  The new series teaches so many sound combinations, vcv, cvc,
open/closed syllables, etc, that only your quickest learners could memorize
them all.

I only know of 2 or 3 schools in Arkansas that have taught Reading
Mastery.  That may have something to do with why McGraw Hill is not pushing
back more.
??

It's still so frustrating to lose a program that works well.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 5:58 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
>>
>

-- 
     Laura Hughes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uoregon.edu/pipermail/di/attachments/20231016/7bc9c457/attachment-0001.html>