[TheMom]

What I comprehended from this article is, it is a chance for "specialist" to try more experimental teaching BS.

The study, which Fletcher said is about to be published, concluded that intervention, whether in groups or one-on-one, is needed to help students who are likely to fail. At-risk students need more than the enhanced classroom instruction they may typically get.?

Can you say "DUH!!!"

The problem is so many teachers cannot identify the "at-risk" students until they test them.

[Liberty Wins]

I had a revealing conversation once with a Ph.D. who helped develop the "whole language" method of teaching reading used in the majority of our public schools. It was a social event and by the third drink he began to loosen up and admitted to me that they knew this approach did not have enough phonics for the "bottom fourth" of the class and they expected the program to weed them out (FAIL?). Most of those kids would then be put into remedial programs or special ed classes, which the schools receive federal aid for.

It's about money, and there are interlocking layers of professionals involved. The university professors who design the reading programs get little perks from the publishers. The publishers make tons of money from whole language programs, and you would be shocked if you ever served on a textbook selection committee at the local level.
The readers, workbooks, teachers guides, and assorted other books needed to teach a sight reading program makes a stack about three feet high. A good phonics program takes one workbook and one teacher's guide, two inches of solid information. Which program is the publisher going to push?