Since its gaining its moniker, No Child Left Behind has faced growing scrutiny about its goal — ensuring that every student is achieving at grade level. On the reading side of the coin, when NCLB was passed into law, only 60 percent of fourth graders were proficient or better at reading. Two of every five students was struggling at reading. The goal was to get all five of them reading, offering scientifically based interventions to fill the gaps.
Such promises became a punchline for folks. It seemed like some would have felt better if we had said “Only 10 Percent Left Behind” or “Just a Few Left Behind.”
Today’s Washington Post, though, shows that 100 percent proficiency is not just a campaign slogan, it can be a way of life for some schools. Over at the Core Knowledge Blog, they’ve done a good job discussing this very topic, and the fact that a school in Ocean City has already completely fulfilled its AYP obligations. Check it out at http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2008/05/28/no-child-no-problem/.
Such gains are not just left to our beachside communities. We are starting to see more and more examples of schools that have cracked the code and have figured out how to get every child reading and get every child performing. Case in point, Pennsylvania’s Souderton Collaborative Charter School.
Full disclosure, I recently came across Souderton as part of my day job. Based in Montgomery County, PA, this K-8 school has clear academic goals. For language arts, that goal is to “read with comprehension, to write with skill, and to communicate effectively and responsibly in a variety of ways/settings.”
To achieve this goal, the school leadership adopted a scientifically based approach to independent reading. The school provides books on topics of interest to the student, at reading levels and content appropriate to the students’ age. In return, the students develop an interest and a passion for reading, developing the skills they need to succeed in ELA and other classroom results.
The result? Success. Don’t believe Eduflack? Take a look at Souderton’s results on the PSSA for 2005-06 — Pennsylvania’s state assessment. Third grade PSSA reading scores — 100% proficient or better. Fourth grade PSSA reading scores — 100% proficient or better. Even seventh grade reading scores — 100% proficient or better. That’s every child reading at grade level.
Souderton achieved this, in part, because they are using approaches that are proven effective. Their reading instruction models the best practices called for by the National Reading Panel and Reading First. They are empowering both students and teachers, inspiring both to achieve. And the results show.
Ocean City and Souderton can’t be the only schools with these sorts of results. While schools don’t have to be 100 percent proficient until 2014, I have a feeling that these two schools are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unsung heroes that are achieving despite the white noise of failure and impossibility. We should be modeling behaviors after schools like OC and Souderton. And we, including Eduflack, should be doing a better job uncovering those schools that are doing it right. Finding those schools that are achieving. Throwing the spotlight on those communities where SBRR works, and where student reading proficiency is the norm, not the exception.
Year: 2008
RF Works, Just Ask Idaho
If we believe the initial buzz from this month (along with the interim study from IES), the Reading First program just doesn’t seem to do the job it was intended to take on. By now, those who care have heard all about the IES study, as well as the growing criticism about its shortcomings, most notably its methodology.
Throughout this debate, we’ve heard little from the practitioners who have put RF to work in their states or communities. From those who have seen the positive effects of scientifically based reading research. From those who have determined what works for their schools and their kids. Until now.
Over at www.ednews.org, we’re seeing continued comment on this RF debate. Of particular note is a comment recently posted by Steven Underwood, the Reading First School Improvement Coordinator for Boise State University’s Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies. The headline — Reading First is working in Idaho. Not just working, but really working. Almost as if RF was designed to help struggling schools boost student reading proficiency.
Rather than summarize Underwood’s contribution to the debate, let’s here directly from the horse’s mouth, with a thanks to Underwood for letting Eduflack use the words originally posted at www.ednews.org.
“I applaud the efforts to help the nation’s most at-risk children by consulting a large body of research and theory, sifting out opinion from facts, and making policies and practices that benefit children. It is unfortunate, but many of the critics of Reading First both here and elsewhere seem to speak foremost of theory and secondarily of students. I am saddened by the number of critics who neither have worked in Reading First schools nor fully understand their practices. To continue the analogy of the car from previous posts, many critics, who undoubtedly mean well in their criticisms, seem to misunderstand the repair work that is being done and seem to be completely unaware of the data that demonstrate that Reading First is having a positive impact on student outcomes. In the criticisms, it seems like people are criticizing the mechanic who is working on the complex engine (of literacy among disadvantaged students) without themselves having ever been truly successful at fixing engines which demonstrate the same types of problems. Literacy among our nation’s needy children has been a nationwide concern for years, and Reading First is the first systemic approach to find success in addressing that concern. Had the [IES] study been conducted more in line with the mandate given to IES, we would be able to better understand the impact of Reading First at the national level. However, since the study was not well designed and did not meet its mandate, being people of reason, we are obliged to evaluate all of the other data that has been provided through systems such as the annual performance reports over the course of the years. As one studies these data, Reading First is arguably the most powerful federal education program to date. As part of No Child Left Behind, Reading First has demonstrated powerful results among those children in our nation who have traditionally been “left behind” in literacy skills.
In support of this, allow me to briefly summarize results from the state of Idaho. To qualify to become a Reading First school in Idaho, a district has to have the highest level of needs (e.g. the largest percentages of free and reduced lunch in the state) and the lowest available financial resources to meet those needs. The reason for this qualification is that student performance has so often been correlated with socio-economic status. Even though Idaho Reading First schools have such high needs, they have not only grown in their data more quickly on state reading measures, but have closed or nearly closed the gap in all grade levels. Idaho has a universal K-3 reading screener, the IRI, which measures fluency and basic comprehension. From 2003 to 2007, Reading First schools in Idaho improved on this measure at a rate that exceeded the state’s growth during the same timeframe and currently have an overall average that is within 4 percentage points of the state average.
More importantly, Idaho’s economically disadvantaged students grew at a rate in Reading First schools that far surpassed their economically disadvantaged peers in state averages. Among this subpopulation, which is a focus in the NCLB legislation, Reading First schools performed at a rate of improvement between 2003 and 2007 that was 12% better than the state average in Grade 1, 10% better in Grade 2, and 7% better in Grade 3. These results are also mirrored in the comprehensive outcome measure for Idaho Reading First schools. Idaho Reading First schools have consistently performed more than 10 percentile points above the national cut-score on the Normal Curve Equivalence for ITBS Reading Comprehension. This average far surpasses the last year in Idaho in which the ITBS was given to all students (2001), which again demonstrates that Reading First is closing the gap among the neediest children in our state. Furthermore, among economically disadvantaged students, Reading First schools have improved ITBS scores at rates between 20% and 24% in Grades 1-3 from 2004 to 2007, which again demonstrates alignment of reading comprehension results with one of the primary missions of Reading First. Lastly, and very importantly, Idaho Reading First schools are demonstrating greater overall gains and closing the achievement gap on the Grade 3 AYP measure for reading, the ISAT.
Whereas in 2003, the participating schools were significantly behind the state average, Idaho Reading First Schools are now within 2 percentage points of the state average. While the IES interim report may show no statistical significance in its study sample, the reality of Reading First in Idaho shows a vastly different picture. As mentioned before, it is unfortunate that some well-meaning educators criticize Reading First based upon political preference, theory alone, opinion, or incomplete and misleading information. The interim study published by IES did not do an adequate job in meeting its mandate, nor was it representative of the nationwide set of Reading First schools, nor did it triangulate multiple sets of reading data, nor did it identify all of the pertinent variables, nor did it operate on the basis of a true pre-Reading First baseline. With these and other criticisms of the impact study in mind, I respectfully ask our critical colleagues who believe Reading First to be ineffective to review the broader set of data that exist. Reading First has set a high standard for our nation’s public elementary schools who serve its neediest children. According to multiple sets of data in multiple states, this high standard is paying off for thousands upon thousands of children.”
There you go. Reading First is working in Idaho. In a state where the motto is “Let it be perpetual,” they are making reading instruction improvements that will empower a generation of new readers. And I’m betting there are a lot more states like it that are showing similar gains and similar benefits from RF and the implementation of SBRR in the classroom. We should be out there cultivating these positive stories, spotlighting those schools, LEAs, and SEAs that are making a difference and boosting student achievement. I know that is harder than promoting our failures and explaining why AYP can never be achieved, but we can learn a lot more examining what works rather than volleying around excuses for what doesn’t.
Lookin’ for Edu-R&D Sugardaddies
For years now, we have heard IES Director Russ Whitehurst lament the dirth of funding for education research and development. Compare the U.S. Department of Education’s research budget with that of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it is embarrassing (even if you do it as a percentage of the total agency budget).
The good folks over at Knowledge Alliance (formerly NEKIA) have waved a similar banner. If we expect a scientifically based educational experience, we need to invest in scientifically based research. If we are going to do what works, we need to investigate it. And if we are going to drive the squishy research from the K-12 kingdom, we need to make meaningful investments in the strong, scientific, longitudinal research we are seeking.
Yet education R&D still seems to be feeding from the scraps of practice. We have few industry leaders that are funding R&D the way we see it in the health industry. And that view becomes even more acute today, when the Howard Hughes Medical Institute announces a $600 million grant to fund the research of 56 top medical researchers. The Washington Post has the full story here — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052701014.html?hpid=topnews.
It has all got Eduflack thinking of the impact such an investment could have on education. Just imagine if a philanthropy offered up $200 or $100 or even $50 million to education’s top researchers to develop major findings in how to improve public education. Science and math instruction. ELL. Teacher training. Effects of technology. Charters. The list of possible topics is limitless. In reading alone, you can take a look at the list of potential research subjects offered by the National Reading Panel in 2000. Today, most of those still haven’t been pursued.
But we all recognize that such sugardaddies are few and far between in education reform. We put our money on educational practice. We fund practitioners. R&D is an add-on, often used just to test the ROI for funders, be they philanthropic or corporate.
Yes, we have significant education investment from groups like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They have made a significant contribution to funding education reforms, particularly in our urban areas. But the focus is not on R&D, it is on classroom practice. Valuable indeed, but it doesn’t mean we don’t need a similar investment on the research side. In fact, such R&D investment can ensure Gates’ money is being wisely spent.
Without question, the money available in the education industry is at levels never imagined in generations past. Somewhere among those growing pots, there must be a potential sugardaddy (or a collection of sugarbabies) who can do for education what the Hughes Institute is doing for medicine.
As we struggle with the definitions of SBRR and the findings of the WWC, just imagine the impact we can have with a nine-figure investment in education R&D, particularly if it is led through a public-private partnership.
Today, education reform is kinda like filling a lake with teaspoon. We’re adding some drops here or there, but we can’t necessarily see the impact. With stronger R&D, we have the option of at least adding water by the barrel full, if not more. And that’s the only way to raise the opportunity boats of the kids who need it most.
The Saga of RF Profiteers Continues
Last week, Eduflack opined on where all of the Reading First profiteers have gone. (http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/21/calling-all-rf-profiteers.aspx) As the program is under siege and the funding has dried up, those who personally profited the most are nowhere to be found. A word of thanks to the Core Knowledge blog for throwing some additional spotlight on the important issue.
Over the weekend, we received an interesting comment from Richard Allington, the former president of the International Reading Association. Sure, Allington has long been tagged as a RF opponent, but no one can question that he understands the concept of scientifically based reading research.
His posting no doubt got me thinking. But more importantly, it got Reid Lyon thinking. As a godfather of RF, Reid definitely knows what he is talking about, and the volume of his RF conversation has increased dramatically in recent weeks. And it is important that we listen.
So without further ado, Reid Lyon’s response to Allington’s thoughts on RF profiteers …
“I believe that these interchanges among individuals with different perspectives on Reading First are helpful, as improvements are impossible with productive debate. In my mind, the debates are more productive when sufficient details are presented to support a particular point of view. Riccards brings up the detail that publishers and vendors were selling to districts and schools before the Technical Assistance Centers were ever established. He is correct,. Many did not need a “list” to garner a substantial amount of reading First funding. Bob Sweet and I predicted that when the legislative language for Reading First was softened to its use of the “based on” criterion, that a feeding frenzy would ensue with everybody and their brother hawking a program based on SBRR.
Like Allington, we felt in drafting the initial language requiring program-specific language that publishers and vendors would be highly motivated to test their products. That still has not happened. I need more details on which programs were “banned.” I know that Chris Doherty was compelled by the law to not fund programs with no basis in SBRR and he followed that law. The Wright program was not funded because it was not comprehensive and did meet additional criteria in the law. The Wright program, to its credit, attended to the reviews of its product and made substantial changes so that it now meets all criteria.
Allington may be talking about Reading Recovery as a “banned” program but Reading Recovery was funded by some states using Reading First funds. The allegations made by Success for All are baseless as indicated by no findings by the OIG of that product being placed at a disadvantage in either its first major auditing report or its audit of New York State. There has been absolutely no evidence of any state or district being pressured by the Reading First office to either drop SFA or not implement SFA. In fact, emails between different state’s Reading First officials, SFA, and a Technical Assistance Center reveal substantial positive interactions in trying to ensure that SFA could participate fully in Reading First.
In addition, a review by Elbaum et al. (2000), it was found that gains for the poorest readers were often minimal, which Elbaum et al. suggested may be related to the need for more explicit instruction in decoding. A recent meta-analysis also found that RR was effective for many grade 1 students (D’Agostino & Murphy, 2004). This study disaggregated RR outcomes by whether the outcomes involved standardized achievement tests or the Observation Survey, which parallels the RR curriculum. It also separated results for students who successfully completed RR (i.e., met program criteria and were discontinued) versus those who were unsuccessful or left the program before receiving 20 lessons (i.e., were not discontinued) and according to the methodological rigor of the studies. When the comparison group was low-achieving students, average effect sizes on standardized achievement tests for all discontinued and not discontinued students were in the small range (.32), and higher for discontinued (.48) than not discontinued (-.34) students. This finding was consistent with Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, and Moody (2000), who reported that RR was less effective for students with more severe reading problems. D’Agostino and Murphy (2004) found that analyses based on just the more rigorous studies included in their meta-analysis in which evaluation groups were more comparable on pretests showed smaller, but significant effect sizes on standardized measures. Disaggregation according to whether the student was discontinued or not was not possible. Effect sizes were much larger for the Observation Survey measures, but these assessments are tailored to the curriculum and also have severely skewed distributions at the beginning and end of grade 1 that suggest the Observation Survey should not be analyzed as a continuous variable in program evaluation studies (Denton, Ciancio, & Fletcher, 2006).
By assessing in greater detail the degree to which well defined groups of students respond positively to well defined interventions, we increase the likelihood that particular programs will be implemented in a more thoughtful manner rather than as a magic bullet – and this is the case for all programs.
Allington also concluded that the IES Interim Report on the Reading First Impact Study should be the final word on the effectiveness of the program. Details are critical in drawing this conclusion and they are missing in both Allington’s statement and in the media coverage on the report. Two details are noteworthy – the sample is not representative of the universe of all Reading First schools nationally, and the ability to draw meaningful conclusions about the null results is very limited due to the contamination between Reading First and Non-Reading First schools with respect to shared professional development and common instructional programs.Allington has jumped to faulty conclusions in the past before. Recently he asked the field to read two invited papers in an issue of the Elementary School Journal that he edited that ostensibly overturned the results obtained by the Phonics Subgroup of the NRP. However, a formal replication of both these two studies published in a top ranked peer reviewed archival journal (Journal of Educational Psychology) did not support the conclusions of either paper regarding the impact of systematic phonics instruction on reading outcomes. This is science at its best when replication adjudicates claims arising from publication of data particularly when the process is characterized by mature scientific dialogue.
I predict that the jury is not yet out on the effectiveness of Reading First. Who knows, if the evaluation carried out By IES actually aligned with the evaluation required in the law, more detail would have helped us interpret the results with greater confidence. But I bet that even if these flawed comparisons showed Reading First Schools to be superior to non-Reading First schools, many would have argued that Reading had not been in place long enough to make these claims.”
The saga continues. Dr. Allington, I’ll offer you a chance to respond, if you are so inclined.
“Fortune and Glory …”
Over the years, we have heard of the effects of pop culture on higher education pursuits. In the 1980s, the data shows a spike in law school enrollments, credited to the “L.A. Law” effect. Young legal minds seeking to be the next Arnie Becker or Victor Sifuentez. In the 1990s, it was the ‘ER” effect, with increases in law school admissions as young doctors-to-be sought to gain a residency slot at County General. And in recent years, it has been the “CSI” effect, as aspiring criminologists sought to collect prints in Vegas or Miami
This weekend, Eduflack had one of those rare instances where he was able to slip out to a movie. (Having a two-year-old in the house means this was the first newly released moving in six months I and Eduwife have been able to see.) Without giving it a second thought, we jumped in the Edumobile and headed out to an early morning show of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.”
Two hours later, I was certain I needed to quit all of this ed reform stuff, go back to school, and become an archaeologist. If it weren’t for my inability to gain competency in any foreign languages (Indy seems to speak dozens, including the dead-for-a-thousand-year-ones), I’d be fitting myself for a fedora, mastering the bullwhip, and heading out to the jungles, deserts, and mountains when antiquities, fortune, and glory can be found. I wouldn’t even mind teaching those quaint little undergraduate classes on the civilizations and legends of the past.
Of course, I know this isn’t what archeology is really like. But it is enough to get the juices and the mind flowing, while inspiring us to pursue new ideas. We also knew that going to law school didn’t mean a high-powered barrister life in the City of Angels, nor did the forensic sciences afford us a life of glamour, power, and intrigue. But these pop culture moments inspire others to pursue education. They see something on TV or at the movies, and have an “a ha” moment. A career possibility to be explored. An academic pursuit recently discovered. Doors of knowledge opening for the first time.
Areas like archeology and ancient history are in need of such “a ha” moments. College majors where many don’t see true fortune and glory are passed over for business or pre-law or economics. But much value can be found in these subjects and others like them. Sure, none of us are going to become the next Indiana Jones, but that doesn’t mean we use these moments to educate and to inspire. To teach and learn. It is a similar philosophy that has us putting a lense of relevance, interest, and passion around the STEM subjects.
But sometimes we have cold water thrown on our dreams of leather jackets, arks, and temples. Just check out the piece in today’s Washington Post from Neil Asher Silberman. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302453.html He paints the job much differently, of excavating by centimeters and analyzing plant remains. With the stroke of a pen, he took all of the excitement and passion out of a career path that needs passionate and committed scholars. Unintentionally, Silberman took away a great teaching moment to inspire students to study history, science, and the humanities all rolled into one.
Oh well, I guess that archaeologist-adventurer job will have to be left to my dreams. Back to ed reform.
What Would Darwin Think of These Teachers?
In many education circles, we like to use the teaching of creationism in science classes as a punchline. We thought all of this was solved at the Scopes Monkey Trial. We’ve seen Inherit the Wind, and thought Clarence Darrow had William Jennings Bryan dead to rights. Darwin won. And fish with feet now adorn many a good liberal’s Saab or Volvo.
But then we see reports like that released by ABC News. Researchers from Penn State surveyed 2,000 high school science teachers last year. Nearly 1,000 teachers responded. And they found 12.5 percent of them taught creationism as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species.” Sixteen percent believe that human beings were created by God within the past 10,000 years. And teachers who “subscribed” to creationism spent 35 percent fewer hours teaching evolution than their non-creationist colleagues. Check out the article here — http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4895114&page=1.
We’d all like to believe that teachers leave their personal opinions and points of view at the classroom door, particularly when it comes to supposedly fact-based courses such as science. In fact, when we hear about the problems of teacher points of view, we usually think of social studies classes and teaching about wars and social policy issues. We think of courses on cultural issues and current events and such subjective ones, not biology and the earth sciences. We’d think wrong.
In an era where students are on the lookout for biased textbooks and teachers with an agenda, it is fascinating that 12.5 percent of teachers are so open with their beliefs and their teaching of creationism. It is even more interesting that we don’t hear the complaints. Creationism stories seem to be anecdotal at best. If we are truly getting creationism lectured in one out of every eight high school science classes, where is the ACLU? Where are the separation of church and staters? Where is the liberal conspiracy?
Eduflack was raised in a strong Catholic household. I spent eight years in CCD. I learned how God created the heavens and the earth in six days. But I never heard it in my K-12 experience. Not in biology, not in chemistry, not in physics (and not even in those social studies classes). Maybe I was attending one of those seven in eight classes. Maybe my teachers realized that the science behind evolution was uncontroverted. Maybe they just followed the texts, and the texts were all Darwin, all the time. Or maybe, just maybe, we are looking for conspiracies, personal agendas, and things that go bump in the night in places where they just don’t exist.
Do we really believe their is a national spike in creationism instruction? Or is this yet another example of individuals telling pollsters what they want to hear (or what they believe and refuse to act on)? Anyone have data on teachers and creationism from 20 years ago? Or even 10? Anyone?
Calling All RF Profiteers
Following yesterday’s post (http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/20/sbrr-fights-back.aspx) on Sol Stern’s terrific Reading First article in City Journal, I received an interesting remark from a good friend. As we look at the validity and impact of RF and SBRR, where are all of the companies that took advantage of the new law and its new funding?
It is a provocative question. There is little doubt that a lot of people got rich off of RF. When a law pledges to put $1 billion a year for five years into our schools, there is a lot of money to go around. And this was all new money. It wasn’t about taking from bucket A to fill bucket B. These were new dollars, available to anyone who could demonstrate that their reading programs were based on proven, scientific research.
In RF’s early days, I remember being horrified by what was qualifying as SBRR to many. A company using focus group data that showed their product made people feel better about themselves. Others stapling a short cover letter to the National Reading Panel report, stating the NRP was their research base. Others still simply dropped the names of “SBRR friendly” researchers, hoping for endorsement by association.
The law’s expectation of SBRR was clear. Yet many cut corners or didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand. The result? A number of new companies, re-treads, and such made major dollars promising a scientifically based approach. Some delivered. Some sold vapor. But all got their cut of the overstuffed RF pie. And just think of it, even a 1% share of RF dollars meant $10 million or so each year. That’s not pocket change.
So where are all of these companies now? Where are the vendors who got their 1% or 3% share? Where are those who swore their products were the silver bullet to cure our schools’ reading woes, and those who claimed their programs were built on the strongest of research to secure the largest of checks?
In the fight to defend RF and the use of SBRR in the classroom, these small, but previously profitable companies, are now quiet as church mice. We hear virtually none of them rising to defend the program that made them who they are today. They are quiet on the issue of SBRR. And they are silent on the discussion of the impact RF has had in schools and classrooms across the nation.
That is both maddening and infuriating. Eduflack hates to think these RF companies simply took the money and ran, but that seems to be the case. Congress slashes funding for RF, and these vapor-and-promise companies simply pick up and sell to the next trend and the next bucket of dollars, be it high schools, pre-K, or whatever else is coming over the horizon.
During World War II, a number of companies and individuals earned the tag of “profiteer,” taking advantage of national priorities, concerns, and funding to squeeze maximum profit from the government and its people. Under the guise of patriotism, their singular goal was maximizing profit, and getting rich off the situation.
When all is said and done, the NCLB era may very well be known as the boom time for educational profiteering. And at the end of the day, those five-to-10-year-old companies whose revenue skyrocketed during the RF days will have a lot of explaining to do. At some point, we need to see ROI. And if they aren’t willing to defend the program they’ve been suckling from these many years, do we really expect to see results?
SBRR Fights Back
It’s no secret that Reading First has been education’s biggest punching back these past few years. Earlier this month, IES released its interim study on the report, causing great glee with the whole languagers and the defenders of the status quo. Some used the study to write RF’s obituary. A few voices, including Eduflack, used the opportunity to highlight the flaws in the study. (http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/02/rf-read-all-about-it.aspx)
For years now, Eduflack has been unabashedly supportive of RF. I still believe, when all is said and done, it could have a greater POSITIVE impact on education policy than any other piece of federal legislation. For that to happen, the law needs to be properly funded AND it needs to be implemented with true and complete fidelity.
Having worked with the National Reading Panel, I am a true believer in the principles embedded in RF. We know students need a comprehensive, integrated reading instruction platform that focuses on phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. We know that scientifically based reading research should rule the roost, with schools implementing only that which has been proven effective and proven to work in schools. We know that teachers must know the science. We know that students must be regularly assessed, with targeted interventions used to get all students reading at grade level.
Yet, we still debate on the value of RF and SBRR. And its been far easier to scream into the wind questioning RF. Few have been out there defending the law, calling for the need for proven research and proven instruction in our classrooms … particularly those classes who need it the most.
In RF’s darkest hours, though, we are now starting to see SBRR’s strongest proponents rising to its defense. It would have been easy to just awkwardly swallow the IES study, accept Congress’ funding slash, and forget the RF era. But we will not go quietly into the night.
When the IES study came out, the Fordham Foundation released a study — penned by Sol Stern — looking at the real failures of RF. The piece was strong, citing the operational weaknesses we’ve all heard. But it maintained that the law itself was still strong, worthy of our support, and needed by our students.
This week, the latest issue of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal came out, and Stern was at it again. Under the headline “Reading First Still Works,” Stern presents a strong and cogent analysis of the IES study and the flaws in its methodology. We can only hope that IES will take his critique seriously, and will correct the flaws before its 2009 report is complete.
The Stern piece is well worth the read time — http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0520ss.html. Its helps even us amateur researchers see the difference between strong and weak methodology. More importantly, though, it reminds us that programs like RF are well worth fighting for.
Here’s hoping that Stern’s continued work can serve as a rallying cry for RF and SBRR supporters and advocates throughout the country. Teaching our children to read is of paramount importance. Using proven effective methods is the only way to go. We need to remember that. Results should trump politics, particularly on an issue like student reading achievement.
Is NCLB a Red Herring?
For years now, we have heard how No Child Left Behind was at the root of everything that was wrong with our schools. We’re spending too much time on high-stakes testing. We’re spending too much money on NCLB requirements. We’re asking too much of our teachers. We’re expecting too much from our students. If only NCLB were tucked back into the drawer, then our schools would improve, all students would be on their way to Nobel Prizes, and achievement gaps would be a thing of the past. Oh, if only we could go back to the good ole days.
Today’s Washington Times reports on the NCLB study released by the Center for Education Policy. It is an interesting read. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080520/NATION/766555380/1002 Under the header, “Many states leave behind education law,” Amy Fagan reports that more than 20 states have “procrastinated” in meeting NCLB requirements, meaning they likely will not hit the 2014 targets laid out in the law.
Imagine that. Nearly half of states are not implementing NCLB with the zealousness called for in the law. According to CEP, states like California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and others aren’t in a position to bring all students to proficiency in reading and math in six years. Even Washington, DC, which has to answer to the feds, falls into the laggard bucket.
Interestingly, many of the states that join DC on the laggard list are the states that have been most vocal about the high costs and powerful problems caused by NCLB. We’ve heard the cries from Oregon, for example. They’re on the list. We’ve heard from states like Wisconsin that NCLB’s Reading First doesn’t work. Yes, America’s Dairyland is on the list as well. Even states who are about to lose their chief state school officers — like Rhode Island and Indiana — are also on the hit list.
It makes Eduflack wonder, is NCLB really to blame? Are these states having such difficulty implementing the law with fidelity that they have fallen so far behind? Or have they been slowly addressing the law, hoping a reauthorization or a new president would again change the game? Are they diligent in doing it right, or are they simply waiting it out?
Like many, I still believe our national goal should be every child proficient in math and reading. That’s a baseline that should be required in every school, every state across the nation. How can it not be? Do we identify now which third-graders don’t have to be proficient? Do we brand those fourth graders who we figure will drop out, and won’t factor into our high school data? Of course not.
As long as half the states are failing to keep up with NCLB implementation, we can’t say the law is failing. NCLB doesn’t work if the states can’t implement it, or if we find the states can’t make it work. The majority of states have been able to implement the law, and will meet the 2014 requirements. So the first box is checked.
The second box is the unanswered question. We are seeing states that are making NCLB work. We are seeing others with the potential. We are seeing math scores on the rise. We have identified what works and what hasn’t with Reading First.
It seems, to this uneducated soul, that 2014 is our moment of truth. Then, we’ll see how successful the states have been in gaining math and reading proficiency for all. Until then, we need to stop the blame game and focus on implementing the law with full fidelity. Maybe, just maybe, NCLB has a few solutions to what ails us educationally.
How Does My High School Rate?
It’s that time of year again. The national high school rankings are out. The number one spot has changed. Most of the schools in the top 20 are the same as previous years. The formula has been adjusted, but it is still a measure of AP and IB courses offered. The DC area did particularly well (as those of us paying taxes in the suburbs expect). And The Washington Post has an article today saying that these schools are eliminating honors classes to pump in more of those AP and IB classes needed for the rankings.
It’s all got Eduflack thinking, though. We rank colleges and universities, in part, so consumers can make educated choices about their higher education futures. We compare national research universities. We compare liberal arts colleges. We compare private or public institutions. We use the data to make decisions, and to make us feel better about past decisions (and past tuition bills).
But do the same comparisons apply to high schools? As a product of public schools, Eduflack never had a choice in the high schools I attended. I spent 9th and 10th grades at Santa Fe High School in New Mexico. Eleventh and 12th grades were at Jefferson High School in Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia. Neither is a top high school. Jefferson High only offered three AP classes when I was there many moons go. And neither school was a choice. They were simply my assigned public secondary school. I don’t expect to see either on a top 100 list in my lifetime.
That said, what good do the high school rankings play? We can’t use them to make a choice as to what high school we send our children to. Are we expected to use the rankings to force changes in our own high schools? Do we use them as part of a school choice push? Do we use them to separate the haves from the have nots, or to demonstrate to the world that we have successful schools?
As with colleges, we can only effectively compare high schools if we are comparing apples to apples. The Newsweek rankings simply don’t do that. We have one list that ranks, theoretically, every high school in the United States. Urban, rural, and suburban. High per pupil expenditure and low per pupil expenditure. Schools in states with stringent grad standards and those with none at all. Everyone is in the same pool. Everyone is measured by the same yardstick.
I’ll ring the bell again. The first step to allowing us to use the same yardstick is to adopt national standards. If every high school is held to the same standard, they can be commonly measured. If high school graduation requirements are universal in all 50 states, they can be commonly measured. If we want to offer a national ranking for our high schools, we should have a national standard they are all held to.
I don’t mean to take away from those schools that scored highly. Congrats to all, including to my children’s future high school here in Falls Church, Virginia (George Mason High was ranked 58th, due in large part to its IB offerings). But I’d feel a whole lot better knowing, if we should have to move from our school district, that my son (and his sister, who will hopefully officially join the family by the end of summer) was weighed and measured against fellow students from all 50 states, and was not found wanting. National standards is the only way to provide that peace of mind to those families not sending their kids to the top 100.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 