For more than a week now, Eduflack has been a bit of a one-trick pony. Through the ole reform goggles, I’ve been unable to turn away from the issue of Reading First and IES’ interim study of this important law. It may have been a bit much for some, but it was something that just had to be done. Today, nearly 40 percent of fourth graders are still unable to read at grade level or better. We spend billions each year on textbooks and classroom libraries and SES programs. We are expecting nearly half of today’s teachers to retire in the next decade. So if not now, when?
With all of these factors, it only stands to reason that we should do anything and everything we can to ensure our schools — and our kids — are getting reading instruction that works. They need effective learning. How can anyone say that a student with no or poor reading skills has a real chance to succeed in society? They can’t. Reading is the building block for success in K-12, higher ed, career, and life.
For that reason, Eduflack has put the IES interim study under the microscope. We’ve heard from experts such as Reid Lyon, Tim Shanahan, and Richard Allington. We’ve scrutinized the methodology. We’ve pined for what could have been. Now we eagerly await for the next study that Dr. Shanahan has promised is on the way.
We close this chapter of the debate with questions, not with statements of fact. If the last week has taught me anything, it is that we know far less than we should. If these questions are keeping me up at night, they must be keeping others up as well. So I offer these so that the media, policymakers, educators, and influencers can ask them as well, knowing that together we may get some real answers.
* The Reading First law set aside $150 million for research and assessment over the last six years. By most reports, IES spent approximately $30 million. Where is the remainder of this money? What is it going toward? Are we measuring the effectiveness of this reallocation?
* What is the real intent of the IES study? Personally, I think we should be studying ROI for Reading First spending. Six years and billions of dollars later, where is student reading achievement? This study seems to be more process over outcomes.
* How can we measure RF versus non-RF schools or classrooms? Are we suggesting that non-RF schools are not using scientifically based reading in their classes? Of course not. Both buckets are using the same textbooks and have access to the same professional development and the same supplemental materials. The only real difference between RF and non-RF is from whose account the check is being cut.
* Forget how IES has interpreted it, what does the federal law say should be part of this assessment? RF has gotten into some trouble when it comes to the law’s intent (and letter) and its implementation. The law seems pretty clear and comprehensive to me. (Just check out section 1205)
* Why has IES taken a different path? And is there time to get us on the right path?
We need to follow the money here. Had IES spent the full $150 million and gotten a study like this back, advocates and nay-sayers would be screaming from the mountaintops about mismanagement and poor decisions. Yes, we have a bad study. But the nation was given the money to do a great study. Some would even say a $150 million national assessment study would be a researcher’s dream. So why wasn’t that dream fulfilled, particularly after Congress wrote the check to make it a reality? We’ve created a problem that never should have arisen.
A big check. Clear congressional intent. Opportunity to make a lasting, meaningful impact on both education and education research. It all was there. Today, we’re left holding a flawed study, and we still have no clear idea that RF — or more importantly, SBRR — works.
Yes, there is a value to doing an impact study like IES’. Such studies are valuable for the internal agency and for the structure of its future funding opportunities. But we also have a clear need for a study that tells us whether the program is working or not.
We need to get our kids reading. We need them reading at grade level. And we need to identify what works and get it in every classroom across the nation. Whatever it takes. Until we have answers to these questions, though, we may never have a national study that gives us the data — and the guidance — we need to make every child a reader.
I yield the floor and will hold my tongue until more data (and opinion, of course) is presented.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 
Another question: What percentage, and of WHAT, is a passing score in READING? So 6 out of every 10 4th graders are successful, what are they actually able to do? Do those who “pass” know 50% of the alphabet letters? Can they decipher 30% of Dick & Jane or Harry Potter? Who cares how many “pass” until we know what is required. Show us the test!!!
It’s not a matter of a passing score in reading, it is an issue of being proficient in reading, based on the grade level. We know the reading skills students should have to be successful in second grade or fourth grade or eigth grade. If they can demonstrate those skills, they are proficient. If they can’t, they are not. We see the “test” on just about every state reading assessment across the nation — PSSA, SOL, MCAS, etc.And we aren’t talking about the alphabet. We’re ultimately talking about fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Kids do a cold read on a passage they’ve likely never seen, and they answer questions about what they’ve read to demonstrate understanding. We should be outraged that 40 percent of fourth graders are not proficient in reading, rather than questioning the test itself.
My company works with over 60 New York City Public Schools – Our primary aim is to help schools use data to improve the effectiveness of their instruction. We consolidate summative as well as formative information from hundreds of different programs and assessments.I have Reading First schools that are very successful and Reading First schools that are not. I have Teachers College Schools that work and others that do not.I can go on, but there are certain buzz words and slogans that drive me nuts:Scientific / Research Based: It is impossible to measure the impact of a specific program within a school. Children are not lab rats whose environments can be limited and studied with variables such as parents and teachers excluded.Professional Development: Is not measurable or quantifiable. Most professional development is conducted away from students and classrooms. Lack of professional development is the number one excuse for lack of student achievement. Why do we need so much PD that doesn’t work? Doesn’t almost every teacher have a masters degree?#1 Reason Why So Many Students cannot read at grade level:The were never taught to read by teachers who were willing to take the time to figure out what they knew and what they didn’t know. They were never taught what they needed to know, at a level, or in a way that they could be successful.Only when schools start collecting, analyzing and using data to determine what is needed, and provide the necessary instruction will this problem begin to fade away. A bad teachers cannot make a good program work, and a good teacher can make a bad program like it is working.