I found this San Jose Mercury News editorial fascinating, in large part because of the alleged critics' worries:
...the state standardized test scores in many of the 23 schools in the Alum Rock Union Elementary School District have continued to rise over the past two years. Of the five schools citywide receiving this year's achievement award from Mayor Ron Gonzales for most-improved test results, four are in Alum Rock.Their progress is a tribute to teachers' perseverance and ability to stay focused on literacy and the state learning standards. It also helps that the district, despite changes at the top, has not changed its curriculum...
Several factors may have contributed to Alum Rock's improvement. The district has deployed at least one literacy coach in every school. It also uses the phonics-heavy Open Court reading textbook, which many districts don't like because it is scripted and gives teachers less control over lessons. The worry is that students will make strides, then stall at a plateau. But that hasn't turned out to be true at two of the mayor's award winners...
My thoughts, when I read something like this:
1. Why is giving teachers more control over lessons considered more important that using an effective reading lesson?
2. Why is making strides, then reaching a plateau, a worry for a school district that was barely even making strides before?
3. If students have a solid foundation in basic reading, why is there even a worry about a "plateau"? Technically, doesn't everyone "plateau" at some level of reading, beyond which they don't comprehend the material? Do critics of phonics really believe that students with a solid grasp of the alphabet and the method by which English words are constructed will suddenly just stop dead at three-letter words?