Re: FW: RF Article

[aburke5054@aol.com]

I just looked at the results of a 2006-2007 survey of over 1100 
teachers in Reading First schools in one state.  76% of the teachers 
said that reading instruction in their school improved noticeably over 
the year.  A majority said they strongly support the instructional 
changes that occurred under RF;  only 24% said they have significant 
philosophical or pedagogical objections to RF.  95% of principals said 
that reading instruction had improved noticeably over the year.  There 
were things teachers and principals liked about RF and things they 
didn't like, but the comments below are straight out of fantasy land.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: thomas <sally.thomas4@verizon.net>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 5:03 pm
Subject: Re: [arn-l] FW: RF Article

It sounds like the research was done with educators who headed up
ReadingFirst programs in the various states.  I would think that they
had to "buy in" to their programs in order to live with themselves 
and/or
they were inclined theoretically in this direction in the first place.  
I do
think it will be a problem undoing all the harm that RF has done 
because so
many people have invested so much time and energy not to speak of the 
$$$
over these last few years.


On 7/30/08 3:46 PM, "MONICALUCIDO@comcast.net" 
<MONICALUCIDO@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Nothing is questionable about the scandal involved in this "program". 
It
>
creates non-thinking children and binds the hands of great teachers 
who want
> to expose children to real text. It's perfect for those who want to 
see people
> under militant control--they become the easiest to manipulate. Read 
below:
> Reading First: An NCLB Failure to Help Kids in Reading Mastery
> There are four pieces of evidence that prove that RF was not based on
> scientifically based research:
>
> 1. The National Reading Panel report was the most comprehensive 
assembly of
> studies on reading. The data from the report showed that a focus on 
systematic
> phonics instruction helped kids repeat sounds in isolation. However, 
the
> report showed that a focus on phonics did not help students to 
comprehend
> real, connected text at any grade level.
>
> 2. Another huge federal panel confirmed the data of the NRP report 
also
> applied to English Language Learners. The National Panel on Minority 
Children
> and youth reported in its executive summary that a focus on phonics 
for ELL's
> produced kids who could sound out words. By fourth grade, however, the
> students in this broad study showed a disastrous decline in 
comprehension.
> Like the kids in the NRP report, they could sound out words but did 
not
> understand what they read.
>
> 3. The federal government did a huge study of Reading First schools 
after 7
> years of RF implementation. The results showed confirmed the resul
ts 
of the
> previous two studies--- the  commercial reading programs imposed by 
RF (all
> heavily focused on phonics) showed that the kids in RF schools could 
sound out
> words but could not comprehend what they read. Furthermore, the 
longer a
> school was in RF, the lower the comprehension of the kids.
>
> 4. The Office of the Inspector General conducted a huge investigation 
of
> Reading First and found extensive corruption and conflicts of 
interest. It
> found the "objective" "scientific" researchers on Reading First 
panels used
> their positions to mandate their own programs to their own profit 
even though
> the evidence of every study showed that the methods and programs 
failed.
> For example, the scientific research on Open Court Reading showed that
> students dropped in EVERY area of reading from first to second grade.
> Comprehension was actually NEGATIVE at a level of statistical 
significance.
> The same held true for spelling.
>
> All of this is based on the federal government's own studies. In 
spite of the
> findings, RF has been forced on schools although the evidence told us 
ahead of
> time, during as well as during the implementation of RF that it would 
produce
> low level word callers, unable to comprehend the meaning of text.
>
> Sources: National Panel on Minority Children and Youth; National 
Reading
> Panel;
> Office of the Inspector General (Federal Dept. 
of Education's report 
on the
> corruption of Reading first )
>
> Joseph Lucido
> Educators and Parents Against Test Abuse/CalCARE
> Fresno, CA
>
>  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: thomas <sally.thomas4@verizon.net>
> > http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/18844849.html
> >
> > ------ End of Forwarded Message
> >
> > I was forwarded this article.  Has anyone else seen it.  comments?
> > Sally
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > Report list problems to listmom@interversity.net
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> ARN-L archives:
> http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives.html





**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com