School Information System: Wisconsin Reading program plans questioned Concerns raised about DPI's approach to developing a model curriculum

August 23, 2011

Wisconsin Reading program plans questioned Concerns raised about DPI's approach to developing a model curriculum

So far, this has been the summer of education task forces in Wisconsin.

There's one addressing school accountability, another tackling how to help school districts implement new academic standards and a third devoted to improving third-grade reading proficiency. That doesn't even count other groups already in existence that are looking at reforming statewide tests or increasing teacher effectiveness.

"There's so many work groups and task forces operating right now, it's hard to keep track of them," said state Rep. Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake), chairman of the Assembly Education Committee and a member of some of those task forces.

Keeping all of the task forces on track may also prove difficult.

Earlier this month, a member of the group charged with helping school districts implement new reading standards sent an open letter to members of the governor's Read to Lead Task Force expressing concerns about the approach that the state Department of Public Instruction was taking in developing a model reading curriculum. That letter was followed by another that recommended specific approaches that the task force should take. Dan Gustafson, a Madison-based pediatric neuropsychologist, said he wrote the letters because he was concerned that the DPI was moving ahead with a model reading curriculum without input from differing viewpoints on reading instruction.

Posted by Jim Zellmer at August 23, 2011 9:59 PM
Subscribe to this site via RSS/Atom:

Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas

Comments

I am still waiting for the day when a journalist, or politician for that matter, when calling for education reform, actually gets specific. I really don't care which side you are on in this issue. But please, if you are against the current DPI advocacy in reading, then be specific about the kinds of textbooks/philosophies/authors/research people, etc., you are referring to. ie., what specifically are you against and what specifically to you think is better.

Posted by: RCS at August 25, 2011 6:40 AM

How about:

For -- The kind of research-based, multiple-assessment, early intervention approach advocated by John Humphries in his recent letter to the Governor's reading task force (linked in the above-cited article.

Against -- The same-old "our students are reading OK" approach of the kind advocated by CESA7, an approach DPI is seemingly rushing to support, with little evidence that the programs and techniques advocated by CESA7's "literacy" staff actually work.

Posted by: Phil McDade at August 25, 2011 10:35 AM

Phil: Better than I have seen in a long time.

Posted by: RCS at August 25, 2011 4:06 PM