chatboard - Teachers.Net

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

Multiage

MEMBERS

3 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

Multiage Classroom Chatboard

scott foresman reading street critique

by Samantha Wienke

Sep 2, 2008

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!

Comment

(2)

report post

Scott Anthony Seeley 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 > weakne...See MoreOn 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.

Oct 17, 2008

report post

Teri 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 ...See MoreYour 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.

May 8, 2009

report post