Reading skills are non-negotiables when it comes to student achievement. If you can’t read at grade level by fourth grade, academic struggles start to expand exponentially. Kids start falling behind in math, social studies, science, and every subject in between. You can’t learn if you can’t read. And you certainly can’t succeed without reading.
Sure, we all know this. And Eduflack has written until he has been blue in the knuckles about the fact that Reading First works. Putting research-proven instruction in the classroom works. And successful implementation of SBRR boosts student achievement. No ifs, ands, or buts.
That’s why it is so disheartening to see members of Congress — our elected representatives — to continue to use Reading First as a PR punching bag. Need to make a rhetorical point? Attack RF. Need to gain PR attention? Attack RF. Want to secure some extra federal dollars for the folks back home? Attack RF.
In previous postings, I’ve commended Secretary Spellings for pointing out the error in Chairman Obey’s RF-slashing ways, reminding him of how much he would cost the good people of Wisconsin. Madame Secretary, it’s now time to step up and remind the good people of your home state of the same. The Texas Congressional delegation has come out swinging.
Late last week, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas got an amendment passed in the House that cuts nearly $50 million more from Reading First. Not huge money, no, but a symbolic stroke that sends the wrong message to her constituents in the greater Dallas Metroplex. In Dallas, reading must no longer be fundamental.
Johnson’s reasoning — she wanted level funding for the Safe Schools and Citizenship Education program. Read her press release (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/07192007a.html) and she is proud of the new funding she has secured, in an attempt to restore level funding for social skills training. But notice she never says what pot of money she is taking from? Don’t want to tell those kids or their parents in Dallas or DeSoto that you’ve just taken away money for that reading coach, huh?
I don’t doubt that it is important to teach kids that drugs are wrong. But isn’t it more important for kids to be able to read the brochures and websites promoting safe schools? Shouldn’t a child be able to read a label to know its drugs, and not candy? Of course.
As Congress looks to reauthorize NCLB, I’ve got a novel approach to NCLB PR and marketing. Let’s focus on the positive. Let’s talk about results. Let’s key in on replicable programs that can be implemented in schools and classrooms around the nation. It’s time to let Reading First stand on its achievement merits, and not on its administrative mis-steps.
It may very well be important to level fund safe schools. But what message do you send to schools, advocates, and the education community when you are doing it at the expense of a program that has already been slashed nearly 40 percent? And when you do it from a program that is proven effective?
There’s $63 billion currently in the proposed Education budget. How many of those dollars are earmarked for programs that are proven to work? How many of those dollars are going to programs that are essential building blocks for every child, in every school, in every community across the country? Reading First needs to stop being a rhetorical punching bag for the doubters and the critics. It is time for RF to hit back.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 
I don’t doubt that it is important to teach kids that drugs are wrong. Speaking as the parent of a middle school child who has now had 3 years of “Health” classes, I doubt it severely.
Hey. Are you for real? Did you even read the Congressional testimony of the people caught up in the Reading First boondoggle? Doesn’t seem like it because you don’t mention anything about it. They promoted their own reading materials, and then got selected to evaluate the success of their own program. Yeah, you could argue they were somewhat incompetent because, despite their sweetheart deals, they only made several hundred thousand dollars each. In the Bush Administration, that makes you a small player. Exactly how dense are you? Or, are you heavily invested in one of these Reading First companies? Either way you come off sounding like an idiot. (I won’t call you an idiot directly, but you are sure in the running in my book.) I’m all for reading. I’m all for quality education. In fact, I’ve given my life to it. What you don’t seem to understand is that Reading First is nothing more than a revenue stream for people well-connected to the Bush Administration. Have you ever tried to slog your way through one of the phonics child stories? If you had, you would understand why the Reading First scandal is as bad as it is. So, either you need more information or you are implicated in this government sponsored boondoggle. Which is it?
I would actually cast my vote for none of the above. You are raising issues with the implementation of Reading First, and I’ll be the first to admit that implementation was not handled well. And schools, teachers, and kids are paying the price for it.
But you won’t move me off the belief that Reading First works, and, if implemented with fidelity, RF will prove to be one of the most successful federal education programs in history. Look at the data, RF schools are improving student achievement. Kids are learning to read through research-proven approaches.Unfortunately, you’ve fallen into the rhetoric that RF equals phonics. RF is about scientifically-based reading instruction. That means providing students the phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills they need to be successful readers. Just look at the decades of research or the analyses coming from the National Academies of Science and many others. The science is clear. We know what works. And the research base called for under RF is what works.
As a nation, we need to do a better job of getting that research into the classroom and using it effectively. But Reading First works. If you don’t believe me, take a look at who came to its defense when Congress voted to slash it a few months ago. The International Reading Association and Success for All (the instigator of the RF investigations in the first place). If they joined with the U.S. Department of Education to protect RF funding, there are a lot of people who see the good it is doing.
Where is the evidence that Reading First works? Other than some data that show that principals and other administrators like it (principals like lots of things, some that work, some that don’t), what studies have been done to show it works? There are some studies forthcoming, but none that I know of so far have connected student achievement to Reading First.
Where do I begin? There are plenty of individual case studies, evidence of success such as Ginter Park Elementary School in Virginia. http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/07/12/yes-virginia-reading-first-is-a-success.aspx But individual schools do not a success make. At least not entirely.
For some initial comprehensive data, check out the initial findings from the U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/performance.html While this is the first round of data on RF, it clearly demonstrates that SBRR works.We also know it works because it is based on proven effective, replicable education research. Just take a look at the research bases behind the National Academies of Science Preventing Reading Difficulties report and the National Reading Panel’s Teaching Children to Read study. Or check out all of the data that has come out of NICHD’s reading research network or even from the Florida Center for Reading Research. These are but just a few of the places where you can find scientifically sound, replicable, impactful data on the success of scientifically based reading.And I recognize that some folks like to point to the type of qualitative data you cited, on principals and administrators. These are nice value-adds after the fact, but the measure of effective reading instruction is the clear demonstration of the acquisition of reading skills and improved student achievement.Remember, RF is merely the funding vehicle. The success comes from effective implementation of SBRR.
I’m all in favor of SBRR. But that’s different from assuming that RF “works.” There is no reliable research showing that RF schools outperform non-RF schools. The Dept. of Ed. admitted this in April in congressional hearings. Studies with control groups will be out later this year. Until then, saying RF “works” is just spin.