di: [CAUTION EXTERNAL] well-designed reading

Wed Oct 18 07:37:04 PDT 2023

I have argued that states should get out of the standards-writing business:

https://www.city-journal.org/article/state-education-standards-do-more-harm-than-good

Shep

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:49 PM Carolyn Sharette <csharette at apamail.org>
wrote:

> 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 <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 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>
> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231018/fdb3fbca/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/20231018/fdb3fbca/attachment-0001.png>