FYI, new episodes of “Sold a Story” have dropped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people on dcum are super, super into the “reading wars.”

It’s not really a war, it’s just research on reading instruction and curriculum and politics around how schools choose programs.

I think there is a fair argument that promising research on phonics instruction got downplayed because it fell out of fashion in elite academic circles. But that was never true across the country, and it’s not as simplistic as some posters make it sound on here.

Like yes, follow the research and be skeptical of politics. That’s mostly what people have done and that’s why trends have swung back to phonics. But it’s not like there were monsters and angels at work here. Education research is kind of hard and mushy.

Having been in high poverty schools using SFA and other reading curricula, I like SFA but like anything else, it’s all about implementation. And it really can be a bummer for teachers. You can learn to adjust to that and I think it can be really good, but as I said it’s about implementation.

People who are militaristic and full of moral outrage about curricula, like the OP, are almost always from outside of schools in my experience.

Um, op here. Not sure why you are calling me militaristic and full of moral outrage for literally just sharing that there are new episodes of a podcast that is often mentioned on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t Steubenville, OH where that poor girl was gang raped by the football team or something like that?

It is interesting because Success for All is criticized for being overly prescriptive and getting kids ready for an authoritarian. Meaning kids learn to follow all directions and not think for themselves. Makes me wonder about the link between fascism, authoritarianism and assault.

Baltimore city used to use success for all. They didn’t see a rise in test scores.

It is sad that the only measure of success this podcast is using is reading scores, not the making of good citizens.

Wow. Maybe the program helped with reading and not other activities. Maybe it's a stretch to insinuate a reading program had an effect on things completely unrelated to reading

School culture affects things. I find it sad that the podcast went down this path because this curriculum is known for being too directive. It also didn’t work in Baltimore, where the JHU professor who created it lived/worked.

I also think using a too directive curriculum in this day and age with fascism breathing down our necks is dangerous.
I know this podcast is revered on this board and so I am raising this point now.

You can clearly deal and process this information however you want to. And do not have to make the “stretch” between school culture, the way we raise kids, politics and misogyny.

Yes, good readers are usually good citizens and we want all citizens to read and understand, but we also need citizens who are able to listen to others and take others viewpoints.

These are choices you can make and think about, but not if the curriculum is touted only as curing dyslexia and being amazing. There are downsides everyone should be aware of as well.

This is how we ended up with Lucy Caulkins- everyone jumping on a curriculum bandwagon as an end all be all instead of thinking about the pros and cons of the curriculum. Why repeat that? Think first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people on dcum are super, super into the “reading wars.”

It’s not really a war, it’s just research on reading instruction and curriculum and politics around how schools choose programs.

I think there is a fair argument that promising research on phonics instruction got downplayed because it fell out of fashion in elite academic circles. But that was never true across the country, and it’s not as simplistic as some posters make it sound on here.

Like yes, follow the research and be skeptical of politics. That’s mostly what people have done and that’s why trends have swung back to phonics. But it’s not like there were monsters and angels at work here. Education research is kind of hard and mushy.

Having been in high poverty schools using SFA and other reading curricula, I like SFA but like anything else, it’s all about implementation. And it really can be a bummer for teachers. You can learn to adjust to that and I think it can be really good, but as I said it’s about implementation.

People who are militaristic and full of moral outrage about curricula, like the OP, are almost always from outside of schools in my experience.

Thank you for this. I am an early elementary teacher so this hits very close to home. The podcast felt like it glossed over the fact that SFA is not just a reading curriculum, it seems like an entirely different way of running a school. As someone who worked close to it, would you agree? And if so, what other parts of the system do you think had the most significant impact on student outcomes?
* Trying to learn, do better and change what I can where I can.

[Anonymous]

Seriously - success for All - No way is that a good program. Great that its working in that school, but cmon it was in ACPS years ago and definitely did not work.