LSG

@Aintropy @karenvaites @MissyPurcell Precisely.

@karenvaites @MissyPurcell This medical intervention is ineffective, therefore we will only use it on the sickest patients.

People have *feelings* about the news that LAUSD is discontinuing use of iReady for most students, yet requiring it for struggling readers-only. "A digital band-aid pretending to be an intervention." – former teacher and dyslexia advocate @MissyPurcell I have seen dozens of comments like these.

@karenvaites @CurriculumIP When it comes to instruction, we have an administrator knowledge issue.

"When it comes to iReady, we have a district administrator knowledge issue. It is as simple as that." Multiple teachers are collaborating on an iReady post this weekend for @curriculumIP, the lastest in our series. This comment about the role of admins speaks for all of them.

Consistency does not mean robotic teaching. It means students do not have to win the teacher lottery. A schoolwide literacy commitment should be visible from classroom to classroom. The goal is not sameness for adults; the goal is reliability for students

This! Using evidence based instructional practices and learning principles should be the starting point. They ought to be non-negotiable.

@oliviajune82 @amypento @tetheredtoed1 @tylerkingkade @CurriculumIP Tragic

@tetheredtoed1 @tylerkingkade @CurriculumIP "iReady is ineffective so from now on we will be using it only with students who need the most support."

UPDATE: LAUSD is changing how it uses i-Ready -- the district confirmed to me that from now on, *only* students who are below grade level will have to use i-Ready's weekly personalized lessons Previously, most LA schools required *all* kids to use it, often for up to 90 min/wk

A student-centered piece of advice about inquiry-based learning: the knowledge you spent a few days building in students by having them read an article or chapter before sending them off on a two-week role-play inquiry project, you know the one where they pretend to be a biologist, historian, or geographer, is nowhere near enough. We are constantly trivializing expert-level knowledge by assuming students can meaningfully engage in inquiry after only brief exposure to content and believing they will simply pick up the rest along the way. Experts can do that. Novices cannot. A few days spent reading an article or chapter does not provide enough background knowledge for students to authentically think and work like a economist or chemist. Here’s what you should do instead: spend those two weeks building far more knowledge. Give students repeated exposure to the concepts, vocabulary, examples, explanations, and models within the discipline. Two weeks spent building accessible knowledge in long-term memory through explicit instruction will help students think and inquire more like a mathematician, poet, or engineer than two weeks spent pretending to be one ever will.

@SoLInTheWild Logical and well supported by evidence.

@MrZachG 🤦‍♀️

The Science of Reading is not safe

Necessary read for school leaders. tguskey.com/beware-of-cons…

“Bad ideologies thrive on fake consensus.”

@MrJFinch Great job!!!

Initial scores are coming back in for the CAASP Science test. Last year 1 student was proficient. This year 46% of my students were proficient. So proud of these kids.

@rrbelloff Very good question.

@LearnLead_ I wonder. Does anyone agree on what public schools are supposed to achieve with their students?

Curriculum purchases won’t fix schools. There. I said it.

@Momof2medics Depends on the consultant but word vomit definitely not allowed. 🤓

@LearnLead_ Neither will purchasing consultants to come in to word vomit what teachers should do during PD.

@GhostRunnerOn2 Many do.

@LearnLead_ Not only do they not help, they HURT!

@bledwine Not all. 🤓

@michael_merrick Interesting. Would love to hear more.

As I've said for a very long time now, the costliest fad ever to have hit education. In working hours, much more than triple marking. And with similar levels of measurable impact.

Look what just dropped. Can’t wait to listen. @MrZachG @AJPettway1 S5E28: AJ Pettway on “Student-Centered Learning,” Instructional Coaching, and School Leadership – Education Rickshaw educationrickshaw.com/2026/05/16/s5e…

@nsachdeva2019 @JimHewittOISE Thank you for this!

*New post on Substack* with an evidence tracker tool. Check it out! @JimHewittOISE scienceoflearning.substack.com/p/teachers-des…

@smorrisey @ThomBriggs Our coaches do the benchmarking so our interventionists can see students right away.

Unpopular opinion: We would get better reading outcomes by skipping fall benchmark assessments for first graders and up. Here me out. Most school districts get benchmark testing all wrong. The assessment team and the reading interventionists are one and the same. So students don't receive intervention until all the fall benchmark testing gets completed. Then the testing/intervention team spend days pouring over the data and setting up groups. In many schools intervention begins way too late (5 weeks or more after the school year starts). Why not just start on day #2 of the school year, seriously. Spring to Fall data doesn't generally change much. Please don't come after me about regression. Yes, some students may regress more than others, but I wonder how many schools and districts actually analyze spring to fall data by rank ordering students based on need. I've done this and generally nothing changes. There is so much opportunity cost to delaying intervention. Just look at spring data. If you want to look at yearly growth look at spring to spring data. This is as good or even better measure than fall to spring data.