Education Reform: Reading Program Ineffective for Students

 Education Reform, Reading Program Ineffective for Students  Comments Off on Education Reform: Reading Program Ineffective for Students
Jul 262012

Education Reform: Reading Program Ineffective for Students

Education Reform: Reading Program Ineffective for Students With Learning Disabilities

Education Reform: By Nirvi Shah on July 26, 2012

A new report from the What Works Clearinghouse questions the effectiveness of a longstanding, widely used reading program, developed by McGraw-Hill, for students with learning disabilities.

In a report this month, the WWC found that there is evidence that Reading Mastery has “no discernible effects on reading comprehension and potentially negative effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, and writing for students with learning disabilities.”

Looking at the 17 studies about about Reading Mastery Classic and Reading Mastery Signature, specifically for students with learning disabilities, the WWC found two of them met its research standards.

education reform

education reform

Tom McDonald’s Comments:

I can’t speak to this report specifically, beyond it’s face value:

“Reading Program Ineffective for Students With Learning Disabilities”.

..the title says it all

One of the very real problems we have in education, with individual learning, is that we blindly follow whatever is thrown in front of us, without comparing its foundation to brain based, research proven, classroom proven, advanced learning methodologies.

We offer a reading program to struggling students for 40 years to eventually find out it’s ineffective?

Where along the way was any kind of measurement of effectiveness, to validate that it’s use be continued?

Accountable? Student Centric? Effective? Efficient? Appropriate? Wise? Productive? Beneficial?

I think not.

This is happening too often in education to be a coincidence.

With all of the advanced learning information readily available we can’t do better than this?

How we can be approaching this so incorrectly baffles me, considering the huge investments in learning and technology  that have done little or nothing to advance individual learning outcomes. This has to change.

Are you okay with this? I’m certainly not.

(I) Do we want proven, documented, best practices, learning outcomes like these:+

•             More Stimulation per Minute of Study

•             300% Improvement in Retained Learning per Hour of Study

•             11% less study time, 22% less test time, and 95% higher test scores


Turnkey eLearning application for California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)

Advanced English Learners pass rates up to 78%

Advanced Special Education learners pass rates up to 50%

Advanced Traditional education learners pass rates up to 100%

Customized, annualized, CAHSEE, Return on Investment (ROI), economic validations, have ranged between 800% and 4,000%+

(II) Or traditional advanced learning outcomes like these:

Reading Program Ineffective for Students With Learning Disabilities+

“Maybe the most frustrating aspect is we can’t definitively say whether this program did or did not improve student outcomes, which is obviously the primary goal of any education reform.”+

…”Cram says he hasn’t seen any dramatic improvements in learning since incorporating the iPad, but he anticipates that there will be soon”… (after a year’s implementation)+

Unfortunately, we seem to opting for option II

For those interested  in a free resource (900+unique and varied posts) specific to the new learning model please access:+



To Discuss how these Solutions will add value for you, your organization and/or your clients, Affinity/Resale Opportunities, and/or Collaborative Efforts, Please Contact:

Tom McDonald,; 608-788-5144; Skype: tsmw5752

education reform, McDonald Sales and Marketing, LLC