As this is Eduflack’s de facto Reading First week (I know, how is this week any different than the others), I thought I would share a very interesting and powerful document that has just passed our desk. Any reader knows that Eduflack has refused to accept the premature demise of Reading First. Here at the National Reading First Conference, there are thousands upon thousands of educators who share that view.
Now we have an open letter to Congress from Steve Underwood, who has been running RF point out in Idaho. For those in the dark, Idaho is one of the great RF success stories.
I’ll let the letter speak for itself.
July 27, 2008
Honorable Members of Congress:
Early reading skills are very closely matched to the lifelong ability to read. This is why Reading First targeted Kindergarten through 3rd Grade. Reading First has been tremendously successful throughout the nation over the course of the past few years and is worthy to receive continued funding and support.
Reading First is a school improvement model that works at many different levels to improve the practices among schools that have traditionally had significant struggles in teaching children from disadvantaged backgrounds how to read at an early age. Two very large obstacles must be overcome in this process of school improvement: 1) the professional knowledge of teachers, principals, and other district leadership, and 2) the emotional challenge involved with the significance of what is known as “second-order change” (e.g., not simply minor adjustments in practice and systems of organizations, but large-scale change).To have the knowledge without the second-order change, or vice versa, does not result in a changed school nor in the improvement Thus, these processes of change are at the root of Reading First, making it a very worthy, but difficult task.
Despite these two very large obstacles, the Reading First model has succeeded in causing monumental changes in student performance throughout the United States over the course of the past five years. Traditionally, large scale improvement in reading achievement is not seen in overall populations or in subpopulations. This is the very reason for Reading First. Therefore, it is significant when we see Reading First populations, which are made up of thousands of students, improving by even as much as 5%. However, when improvements of 10-20+% are seen, it is unheard of. This is exactly what is happening in Reading First schools and states.
In Idaho, for example, we have seen tremendous gains in student achievement over the past five years. Here are a few of the highlights.
Idaho 2002-2007: Fluency Gain in Percentage of Proficient Students | ||
Kindergarten | All Students | +21% |
Grade 1 | All Students | +12% |
Grade 2 | All Students | +7% |
Grade 3 | All Students | +7% |
Kindergarten | Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES) | +22% |
Grade 1 | Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES) | +25% |
Grade 2 | Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES) | +20% |
Grade 3 | Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES) | +17% |
The significance of the growth happening can been seen especially when comparing Reading First schools to the rest of the state. In Idaho, all students in Kindergarten through Grade 3 take the same fluency test, regardless of participation in Reading First. Here is a chart that demonstrates the difference in growth in just one year (SY 2007-2008) when comparing Reading First (RF) schools’ fluency gains to the state of Idaho (State) as a whole. Please note that all RF grades are greater in gains than the State, with the exception of Grade 2 which is equal. Particularly noteworthy are the very large gains in achievement in Kindergarten and Grade 1 which are nearly double that of the State.
(Editor’s Note: The original letter contains a power graph, that tracks the following in Idaho
GRADE Non-RF Gain RF Gain
Kindergarten +16 +30
First Grade +17 +28
Second Grade +7 +7
Third Grade +10 +13
Similar improvements are seen in comprehension assessments, especially when looking at economically disadvantaged students who are at the very core of the Reading First model. The following diagram illustrates the vast improvements among this subpopulation of Idaho’s students.
Idaho 2002-2007: Comprehension Gain in Percentage of Proficient Students | ||
Grade 1 | Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES) | +20% |
Grade 2 | Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES) | +24% |
Grade 3 | Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES) | +22% |
Between the requirement to report data for comprehension and fluency which is disaggregated by many subpopulations, there are 18 data points per state per year per cohort. States often have 3 cohorts. That creates about 54 data points per state per year. It is true that not all 54 points are improving in every state every year. If they were, this would be nothing less than miraculous. However, many data points are moving in very significant ways. This shows the success of the Reading First model. The chart below gives a synopsis of many such improvements occurring in the Western region of the United States based on both the US Department of Education Annual Performance Data for Reading First and data collected and shared in a report given by the Western Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center in April, 2008. It is by no means a comprehensive summary of the improvements; it simply highlights some of the significant growth occurring in this school improvement model.
State | Grade | Students[i] | Improvement | Reported Measure[ii] | Timeframe |
Alaska | 1st | All | +9% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Alaska | 2nd | All | +14% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Alaska | 3rd | All | +10% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
American Samoa | 1st | All | +2% | Fluency | 2004-2006 |
American Samoa | 2nd | All | +5% | Fluency | 2004-2006 |
American Samoa | 3rd | All | +12% | Fluency | 2004-2006 |
Arizona | 3rd | All | +13% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Arizona | 3rd | All | +25% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Bureau of Indian Education | 1st | All | +4% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Bureau of Indian Education | 2nd | All | +6% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Bureau of Indian Education | 3rd | All | +6% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Bureau of Indian Education | K | All | +11% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Bureau of Indian Education | 1st | All | +18% | Fluency | 2004-2006 |
Bureau of Indian Education | 2nd | All | +11% | Fluency | 2004-2006 |
Bureau of Indian Education | 3rd | All | +21% | Fluency | 2004-2006 |
California | “Since 2002, Grades 2, 3, and 4 teachers and students in high implementation Reading First schools have outperformed all non-Reading First schools in the increase of the percent of proficient scores” on the California Standards Test (E. Jankowski, WRRFTAC Western States Directors Meeting, April, 2008). | ||||
California | 2nd | All | +22% | Comprehension | 2002-2007 |
California | 3rd | All | +12% | Comprehension | 2002-2007 |
California | 4th | All | +20% | Comprehension | 2002-2007 |
Colorado | 3rd | All | +11% | Comprehension | 2005-2007 |
Colorado | 1st | All | +20% | Fluency | Winter 2006-Winter 2008 |
Colorado | 2nd | All | +13% | Fluency | Winter 2006-Winter 2008 |
Colorado | 3rd | All | +12% | Fluency | Winter 2006-Winter 2008 |
Colorado | K | All | +16% | Fluency | Winter 2006-Winter 2008 |
Hawaii | 3rd | All | +26% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Idaho | 1st | Low-SES | +20% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Idaho | 2nd | Low-SES | +24% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Idaho | 3rd | Low-SES | +22% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Idaho | 1st | Low-SES | +17% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Idaho | 2nd | Low-SES | +18% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Idaho | 3rd | Low-SES | +14% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Minnesota | 1st | All | +4% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Minnesota | 2nd | All | +5% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Minnesota | 3rd | All | +13% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Minnesota | 1st | All | +6% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Minnesota | 2nd | All | +6% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Minnesota | 3rd | All | +4% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Montana | 4th | All | +8% | Comprehension | 2003-2007 |
Montana | 1st | All | +16% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Montana | 2nd | All | +16% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Montana | 3rd | All | +16% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Montana | K | All | +18% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Nebraska | 2nd | All | +27% | Comprehension | 2005-2007 |
Nebraska | 3rd | All | +16% | Comprehension | 2005-2007 |
Nebraska | 1st | All | +20% | Fluency | 2005-2007 |
Nebraska | 2nd | All | +18% | Fluency | 2005-2007 |
Nebraska | 3rd | All | +24% | Fluency | 2005-2007 |
Nevada | 3rd | All | +1% | Comprehension (ITBS) | 2005-2007 |
Nevada | 3rd | ELL | +14% | Comprehension (ITBS) | 2005-2007 |
Nevada | 3rd | All | +15% | Comprehension (NV Crit. Rf. Test) | 2005-2007 |
Nevada | 3rd | ELL | +18% | Comprehension (NV Crit. Rf. Test) | 2005-2007 |
Nevada | 1st | All | +18% | Comprehension(ITBS) | 2005-2007 |
Nevada | 1st | ELL | +17% | Comprehension(ITBS) | 2005-2007 |
Nevada | 2nd | All | +11% | Comprehension(ITBS) | 2005-2007 |
Nevada | 2nd | ELL | +23% | Comprehension(ITBS) | 2005-2007 |
New Mexico | 1st | All | +21% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
New Mexico | 2nd | All | +20% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
New Mexico | 3rd | All | +19% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
New Mexico | K | All | +24% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
North Dakota | 1st | All | +13% | Comprehension | 2005-2007 |
North Dakota | 2nd | All | +5% | Comprehension | 2005-2007 |
North Dakota | 3rd | All | +3% | Comprehension | 2005-2007 |
North Dakota | 1st | All | +28% | Fluency | 2004-2006 |
North Dakota | 2nd | All | +15% | Fluency | 2004-2006 |
North Dakota | 3rd | All | +51% | Fluency | 2004-2006 |
Oregon | K | All | +23% | Alphabetic Principle | 2004-2006 |
Oregon | 1st | All | +14% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Oregon | 1st | All | +15% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Oregon | 2nd | All | +10% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Oregon | 3rd | All | +4% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Oregon | 2nd | All | +22% | Fluency | 2003-2006 |
Oregon | 3rd | All | +18% | Fluency | 2003-2006 |
South Dakota | 1st | All | +8% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
South Dakota | 2nd | All | +13% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
South Dakota | 3rd | All | +6% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Utah | 1st | All | +18% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Utah | 1st | ELL | +12% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Utah | 2nd | All | +4% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Utah | 2nd | ELL | +6% | Comprehension | 2004-2007 |
Utah | 3rd | All | +8% | Comprehension | 2004-2006 |
Utah | 1st | All | +19% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Washington | 4th | All | +23% (*The entire state only gained 13% in same timeframe.) | Comprehension (WASL) | 2003-2007 |
Washington | 4th | Native American | +25% | Comprehension (WASL) | 2003-2007 |
Washington | 4th | Black | +20% | Comprehension (WASL) | 2003-2007 |
Washington | 4th | Asian | +31% | Comprehension (WASL) | 2003-2007 |
Washington | 4th | Hispanic | +28% | Comprehension (WASL) | 2003-2007 |
Washington | 4th | White | +15% | Comprehension (WASL) | 2003-2007 |
Wyoming | 3rd | All | +17% | Comprehension | 2006-2007 |
Wyoming | 1st | All | +26% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Wyoming | 2nd | All | +26% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Wyoming | 3rd | All | +25% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
Wyoming | K | All | +52% | Fluency | 2004-2007 |
As is readily seen in this small sample of data from Idaho and other Western states, the Reading First model is making great strides in school improvement as in pertains to early literacy for our nation’s most needy children. There are aspects at the school, district, state, and federal level that can be improved, but overall the program has been highly successful. It is essential that the United States continue to provide this opportunity to our nation’s children by continuing what has worked well and improving upon the model for the future.
Sincerely,
Steve Underwood
Idaho Reading First Consultant
