Readers, I got a rise out of Mr. Petrilli when I questioned his forward to the Sol Stern article. So I decided I should respond, even though I am in the midst of end of year student-led conferences.
John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 2008-06-04 13:55:38 >Subject: Re: FW: ? for Mr. Petrilli >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Hey Mike, > >I think I saw it already, if it's the same one I saw late last night. Yeah, >that author did a good job of quoting Reid Lyon. What exactly did Reid say >about "programs" and the confusion surrounding the research? That takes a lot >of nerve...but I remember that the Houghton Mifflin rep didn't think anybody >in power in the states had been following the Reading First fiasco. Lyon just >thinks nobody saw his emails about programs, I guess. > >And really how much more wrong could Doherty and Lyon have been...because the >WWC has identified Reading Recovery as the only beginning reading program with >"scientific evidence" to have potential for, or have postive effects, across >all four domains. And, to think Reading Recovery uses trade books from the >very publishers Reid and his buddies bragged about squashing. I don't think >you can point any fingers considering those gleeful bloggers! > >And, didn't Reid ride off to go work for one of the companies whose programs >were especially panned at the What Works Clearinghouse? To Reid's credit he >didn't try to discredit the WWC like Slavin did, he just changed insinuated >that despite the research Reading Recovery was too expensive. I guess he has't >read Richard Allington's WHAT REALLY MATTERS FOR STRUGGLING READERS, but those >are just numbers about what Reading Recvery costs versus a lifetime in RtI >HELL of special education. Anyway, what's $30 million for the WWC when Reading >First had Billions to blow! > >And, of course those state adminsitrators in the Ed Week article who are so >"gleeful" that teachers are now more "explicit" and kids get "high quality >practice" on those skills P. David Pearson recognized as too narrow to focus >upon, wearing their blinders to the other pillars the NRP didn't consider. >...What, second graders reading text for signifcantly less time isn't a bad >thing? (I guess if they are getting high quality practice with nonsense we >should all be gleeful.) > >When was Becoming a Nation of Readers published? Over 20 years later and the >best we can do is push a reading agenda that provides kids less time to read? > >And, and tell me why we should celebrate that the programs the Reading First >crew jammed down state's throats were found to have NO scientific evidence to >meet the rigor at the WWC, or in some cases had the rigor, but actually were >found to have potential for negative impact on comprehesion and general >reading achievement! Oh yeah, I remember, because in the previous collection >of "research" on Reading First, those scientific wonders simply asked the >people if the program was working, and they said, "Yes." There's some rigor. I >think we better rework the WWC to include that stuff! > >So when will you publish your next forward about Reading First? The timing of >that last one really sucked for you. I am surprised you even leave it up on >your "educational excellence" website. > >Yes, I am gleeful that possibly some kids will be saved from the insanity of >Reading First. We are now dropping these Reading First graduates, some of them >with 2, 3, 4 years of the garbage in the name of "reading instruction" into >middle schools, and soon high schools where drop-out rates are already >shameful. These kids have been "explicitly" taught the wrong messages about >reading, and many of them will have checked out as failures because they >couldn't read fast enough, or didn't "read" a list of nonsense words. You are >right. If it were not coming to an end this is nothing to be gleeful about. > >And to think it was two guys and Margaret Spellings who gave us Reading First. >We can't forget that reading expert, Reid Lyon's work either, of course. Let's >see we got a substitute teacher, and a guy who tried teaching for what was >it...a year? These are the people left to lead reading reform in the United >States. It is pathetic and shameful It just goes to show what money and power >can do to silence people who should know better. > >Sincerely, > >John E. Delich >M.S. Ed. with reading specialty >Upper Primary Teacher >Springfield Ball Charter School >Reading Recovery Trained Teacher > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>Hi John. It sounds to me that you're one of those people who are >>"gleeful" that the Reading First study's results weren't so promising. >>Well, hold your horses and check out this new Education Week story: >>http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/06/04/39read.h27.html?levelId=230 >>0&tmp=170833530&rale2=KQE5d7nM%2FXAYPsVRXwnFWYRqIIX2bhy1%2BKNA5buLAWFsbO >>CDHb4YcRic4fC3gUr3PqkdZ4XjDeEZ%0ANvTL1UlHwAk%2B%2BfL7PVZentSMc1KxTaE3yAk >>n15KfCC4oDs%2BE7Tv05KoYlDYUNUKEq1TTqUHXg. >> >>Mike >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: by way of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:18 AM >>To: Letters >>Subject: ? for Mr. Petrilli >> >>Dear Mr. Petrilli, >> >>I am wondering when the next Sol Stern article on Reading First will be >>available. I look forward to another enlightening forward! If only Mr. >>Stern had waited a couple months he could have included all the new data >>from the interim study on Reading First! I guess it took 40 years, but I >>think you all found the data needed. I am not sure what to expect you'll >>have to say about what this information does to the four decades of >>research you previously noted. I am sure if you get with Reid Lyon and >>Mr. Doherty you can come up with some good emails, though! Reid's >>already been whining. Second graders in reading first schools spent >>less time reading, but more time in high quality "practicing." I bet >>they can read some super nonsense words now! Nice. >> >>Have you been to the What Works Clearinghouse site lately? Really >>enlightening stuff about the scientific evidence for Reading Recovery >>there, and all the "direct instruction" programs without scientific >>evidence, too. OOPs. >> >>Sincerely, >> >>John Delich >>Springfield Ball Charter School >>Springfield, IL 62703 >> >>_______________________________________________________ >>Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com > >_______________________________________________________ >Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com _______________________________________________________ Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
