Your post seems to refer primarily to Everyday Math and I
agree. What more can you say about Reading Street? Can you
provide some examples and/or research? I just taught using the
RS program and there are a "few" things that I like about it;
however, there are many things that I don't like.

On 10/17/08, Scott Anthony Seeley wrote:
> On 9/02/08, Samantha Wienke wrote:
>> I am a recent graduate who has subbed for several years. I
>> have experience with Success for All, but the school I am
>> interviewing with uses Scott Foresman Reading Street. I
>> was hoping to get some veteran teacher's insight on this
>> reading curriculium. What are it's strengths and
>> weaknesses? How does it tie into the atrategies kids use
>> to learn to read (phonemic awareness, phonics,
>> comprehension, vocabualary, fluency) and in what ways do
>> you supplement the curriculium? The district also uses
>> Step up to Writing. If you have any information on that
>> I'd really appreciate it as well. I'd love to get this job
>> and I appreciate any insight you have!
>
> Find another job! The Foresman Reading Street and Everyday
> Math programs are antithetical to learning. They are
> remedial programs that have been mainstreamed for the
> general population. They are the inside JOKE of educational
> administrators and the laughingstock of the political
> elements who have profited dearly from the gross stupidity
> of the scholastic community. As a teacher, to use such an
> inept curriculum is to endorse the BILLIONS of dollars that
> have been stolen from the taxpayers. The so-
> called "scientific" proof that these programs facilitate
> learning has come under scrutiny and failed. It is neither
> scientific nor proof. One reason is that the samples were
> skewed. In the very state that was cited in NCLB, Everyday
> Math has been eliminated! Those who perpetrated this fraud
> have been taken to task, publicly, yet numb skulls who
> lobbied for it refuse to admit that they had the wool pulled
> over their eyes. Just look at the test scores from the
> districts that use the programs; they are proof, in
> themselves. The schools buy into these silly (and very
> expensive) programs, but them lose funding and jobs because
> they can't meet the standards set forth by the same
> administrators and legislators who tucked the kickbacks in
> their breast pockets. It's a Ponzi game! A scam. Any
> educator who takes a moment to actually think about the
> curriculum has refused to use it, even if in secret. It's
> every teacher's responsibility to his profession to refuse
> to use this garbage. It's nother less than Haliburton in
> the school system, only Haliburton probably accomplished
> something.

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one