In the above mentioned USA today article it was stated"Robert Slavin of the Success for All Foundation a non-profit research group that has developed its own reading materials, requested the investigation in May, saying Reading First officials have discouraged schools from using his materials despite evidence they are effective. He says Reading First relies on the work of 'consultants with major conflicts of interest.''' Then a day or two after, this letter from Susan Harman, principal, Growing Children charter school, Oakland ,appeared in the same paper.
Conflicts of interest in reading program
Slavin is right that federal consultants run the committees that review states' plans for buying the very expensive "reading" programs favored by Bush. He left out that some of the same "researchers" also sat on or were contributors to the National Reading Panel that defined "scientific" as those same programs. Conflicts of interest? Yes, sir.
The article says that "Congress is expected to distribute about $6 billion to schools by 2007." Actually, this money doesn't wind up at schools. It quickly passes through them to the few approved publishers, the most prominent of which is McGraw-Hill, run by old Bush family friend Harold McGraw III.
Slavin's complaint comes on the heels of an Aug. 4 request from the highly respected Reading Recovery Council of North America for a formal investigation of the U.S. Department of Education's actions in its implementation of Reading First...
Now I'm not a betting man but if I was I would be willing to bet nothing comes of this. And I'm pretty sure the mainstream media will not pick it up. Too many people with the right connections mare making too much money from this. As I have said before here, NCLB and Reading First with it are not about the kids as much as they are about making money for those people.
7 comments:
The reason Reading Recovery is NOT approved by NCLB is because it does not systematically teach phonics to the early reader. I am a 2nd grade teacher. I have seen children struggle, fail and then dropped from the Reading Recovery program. Direct Instruction, systematic phonics DOES WORK. I do not care about politics, I care that my students can read! I am glad Reading Recovery has gotten the shaft from NCLB.
The reason Reading Recovery is NOT approved by NCLB is because it does not systematically teach phonics to the early reader. I am a 2nd grade teacher. I have seen children struggle, fail and then dropped from the Reading Recovery program. Direct Instruction, systematic phonics DOES WORK. I do not care about politics, I care that my students can read! I am glad Reading Recovery has gotten the shaft from NCLB.
If RR is as good as its proponents claim, why does it rely almost exclusively for tax dollars and grants to stay afloat.
Isn't funny, this article is about Reading First but these right wing fruitcakes choose to comment on Reading Recovery, even weeks after the initial post. I wonder what they are so afraid of?
Name calling, the typical response from a vacant mind backing an indefensible ideology.
You've been sucking from the federal teat for a quarter century and have wasted it on failed constructivist pish-posh. Hope you had enough to drink cuz the teats drying up for you.
Madison, WI, long known for being a stronghold for "right wing fruitcakes", recently commissioned an independent review of its RR program.
http://www.thedailypage.com/features/docfeed/docs/document.php?intdocid=101
Perhaps RR is being defunded because it costs $8000.00 per successful student and only works half the time. Duh ya think?
I have not a clue as to what "federal teat" you think I have been sucking from but your response strikes me as awful close to name calling. hmm...vacant minds..hmm...
What you say about reading recovery is niether here nor ther as far as I am concerned. That is not the topic of my post!
I am learning that if I want to get nasty comments on my blog reading recovery are two good word to use.I frankly am beginng to wonder how long this August 15th post will continue to get comments.
Post a Comment