Trending
Dear Editor:
In reference to the article in The Review on Friday, Aug. 19, 2016, about Literacy Collaborative, I would like to add my two cents worth.
Why does the district continue to pay taxpayers dollars into programs that are ineffectual at best? Before this Collaborative Program was initiated, a few years back, we had Flip Flipping. Flip Flipping cost the district $2 million and failed. Now, we have Literacy Collaboration, costing $200,000 (That’s two hundred thousand dollars for those unable to read digitally.) and it seems to be literally sinking.
When Superintendent Taylor says he doesn’t even understand the program and what he did understand he wasn’t happy with, does this not mean it’s time to get back to the basics that worked without spending tons of taxpayers money for progressive, liberal programs?
I have a suggestion. Why not go back to what worked in the past, and worked rather well. We learned phonetically when we first learned to read. I understand they’ve moved on from this approach. I would dare, say anyone over the age of 40 reading this paper, learned how to read phonetically. Sometimes Flip Flipping and Literacy Collaborative for $2.2 million isn’t what this district needs. We need administrators, teachers and school board members that do not have rectal cranial insertions.
Can anyone on our school board explain why they feel it is necessary to hire consultants to come into our schools and teach our teachers how to read? Did you not hire competent teachers in the first place?
Let’s get back to teaching the kids in this district the simple basics of the three “R’s – “Reading, ‘Riting and ‘Rithmatic.” Throw in a lot of discipline and common sense along with consequences for actions and I feel we will definitely get more “bang for our buck.”
Daniel C. Cunningham
East Liverpool