More on the Wisconsin DPI’s literacy schemes
Oh, BROTHER.
The Wisconsin Education Department ruled Reading Recovery is not banned under science of reading laws and gave De Pere a cookie for having to justify its use.
We are a Stone Age state.
@kymyona_burk @ehanford @karenvaites @KJWinEducation @MichaelPetrilli @rpondiscio——
Niffenegger’s complaint stated that the district was using unapproved curriculum and “three-cueing,” a teaching strategy that uses context, structure and letters to identify words. Novak said in the letter that Act 20 doesn’t require the use of approved curriculum, and that De Pere’s curriculum is cohesive and “exceeds the requirements” of state statute. The letter also said the district demonstrated it does not use three-cueing
The complaint also stated that the district “(lets) teachers do that they think is best.” The letter stated that teachers stick to explicit curriculum, but they support their teachers in using “their professional knowledge and judgement” to help students learn to read by third grade.
What did the DPI look at in making its decision?
De Pere submitted hundreds of pages of information on its literacy instruction, including how it adapted its curriculum to fit Act 20 when the law was passed, how it uses the Reading Recovery program and what interventions look like in the district.
——
As schools around the country are dropping Reading Recovery, the nonprofit that advocates for the tutoring program tapped into its cash reserves to push back against journalists and legislators.
