Just rec'd this from a Prof/writer:
I just heard that one of the primary researchers from Reading Recovery (a program for first grade reading instruction for seriously at-risk kiddoes, a program with a success rate of about 85%, but an instructional effort which does not adhere to the program line of the National Reading Panel, the primary "brain" behind No Child Left Behind) wrote a letter urging that an independent contractor investigate the National Reading Panel for conflict of interest with publishers of instructional materials and tests. All federal offices in control of funding sources in reading instruction and testing have been informed by the White House that they are to avoid any contact with Reading Recovery personnel and in addition are barred from funding any proposal that associates with Reading Recovery.
Wrap...
4 comments:
The Reading Recovery Program is not as successful as you claim. Many recent studies are proving that it does not adequately teach children to read. Besides being extremely expensive, it is not effective. Also, Reading Recovery will not take the lowest children in the classroom. I have had many encounters with this program in my district and have very little good to say about it. Please "google" Reading Recovery failure. It is a non-phonetic, whole language approach to reading instruction and therefore does not qualify for NCLB funding.
1. No study (read "science"), recent or otherwise, in any field, "proves" anything, plus or minus. The responding commentator clearly thinks of science (read "studies") in the nonscience sense of contemporary political rhetoric. The comment about "proof," alone, discredits the writer's commentary.
2. But the writer's commentary suffers another discrediting reference that, by itself, puts the boogger away. The reference to Reading Recovery not being "phonetic" reveals the blogger's appalling lack of background in the field. Undergraduates know better than to use such a word when the point in reading instruction is sound-letter correspondence, not the description of the sounds of speech.
3. But mercy me, the writer, after two revelations that expose glaring ignorance of the field of reading instruction, throws in another, just to make sure no one mistakes the first two. "Whole Language" is a red herring criticism. No one who references it as a criticism knows the evidence that, in fact, shows students educated in a literature-based reading classroom to score better than phonics-first students on phonics subtests. Mercy!
Reading Recovery is certainly not a silver bullet in reading instruction. Would the writer care to inform readers of the comparative effectiveness of NCLB "approaches," that rest on NICHD recommendations, based themselves, on NICHD research? And while the writer is at it, would (s)he care to help us all understand NICHD's research approach on which it made the recommendations on which NCLB rest?
Careful now, writer. You are working with someone who knows.
Leif Fearn
Clay, Pinnell and Fountas are three of the most prolific WL theoraticians and writers in the world. To suggest that RR is not WL based, is, well, wrong.
Please check this web site
http://www.educationnews.org/ReadingRecoveryisnotsuccessful.htm
Also check:
http://www.air.org/news/default.aspx#csr
Post a Comment