Examining the Evidence
I am amazed that Rona Flippo needed 10 years to generate her list of areas of agreement among reading experts (“Redefining the Reading Wars,” Oct. 1999). The list's vague generalities make it nearly useless, but also explain why agreement was possible.
Flippo's interpretation of the First Grade Studies by Bond and Dykstra is incorrect. She suggests that their main finding was “that what mattered most was the teacher, not the method that she or he used.” In fact, they found as much or more variation within projects than between projects. Teacher effect is only one explanation. Flippo fails to cite the finding that code-emphasis programs were generally more effective than meaning-emphasis programs.
Decisions about reading instruction should be based on scientific evidence. Unfortunately, many so-called reading experts are either unable or unwilling to examine that evidence objectively.
—John C. Towner, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington
Correction to Math Article
Please note two corrections for “What Is a Standards-Based Mathematics Curriculum?” (Nov. 1999). The vignette on pages 42 and 43 is from Developing Mathematical Ideas Casebook: Number and Operations: Building a System of Tens by D. Schifter, V. Bastable, and S. Russell (White Plains, NY: Cuisenaire-Dale Seymour, 1999, pp. 96–102). The “Addition Top-It” game on page 43 is from Everyday Mathematics: Second-Grade Teacher's Manual and Lesson Guide, Vol. A (Chicago: Everyday Learning Corporation, 1998). It is reprinted with permission.
The 13 curriculums listed on page 44 were developed with funds from the National Science Foundation and are supported by the K–12 Mathematics Curriculum Center at Education Development Center. They are not the only ones that fit our description of Standards-based material.
—Lynn Goldsmith and June Mark, Education Development Center, Inc., Newton, Massachusetts
