Nearly eight years ago, the National Reading Panel released its findings before Congress, officially starting the push for scientifically based reading research — or SBRR — in the classroom. Then, just as now, we knew that all students needed reading skills in order to achieve. We knew that an inability to read at grade level by fourth grade would hamper learning ability throughout a student’s academic career. And, thanks to the NRP and the previous work done by the National Academies of Science, we know what our classrooms needed to do to transform every child into a reader. The research was clear, the NRP documented it, and the challenge became equipping every teacher with the knowledgebase and ability to use that research and get kids reading.
In many ways, the NRP report was a revolution. Strong supporters and equally strong opponents went through it recommendation by recommendation, idea by idea. Other researchers, such as Camilli, re-analyzed everything to determine if the findings were accurate (they were). And in the end, the research stands as strong today as it did in April of 2000. Some may attack the personalities involved in the NRP. Others may wish the NRP had studied more issues or made additional recommendations (particularly as they relate to literature or to qualitative research). And still others may wish the NRP findings had been more flexibly adopted as part of Reading First. But no one can question that the NRP started a revolution, giving us a new way to look at education, a new way to look at educational research, and higher standard for doing what works and seeking return on educational investment. (Full disclosure, Eduflack was senior advisor to the NRP, and damned proud of the Panel, its work, and its impact on education.)
It took years before we saw the full impact of the NRP findings. SBRR didn’t enter the discussion until two years later, after NCLB and RF were signed into law. (Yes, the NRP was a Clinton-era initiative). But look at it now.
It is significant to remember this as we look at this week’s report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. For those who missed it (and it was hard to, with the significant media coverage it received from the nation’s leading newspapers), the Math Panel offered significant recommendations on the math skills our students need to succeed and how our nation’s teachers can empower all students with such skills.
In doing so, the Math Panel has now planted a firm flag in the name of education reform and improved student achievement. By looking at ways to improve the PreK through eighth grade math curriculum, the Panel has clearly articulated what our kids should know as part of their mathematics education. And they have provided specific goals for math instruction, goals that can and should guide curriculum development, program acquisition, teaching, and learning in schools and classrooms across the nation.
The Panel’s members should be applauded for their hard work and their commitment. This report is an important milestone in the improvement of math education in the United States. Unfortunately, it is just the first step of many. From Eduflack’s experience, the hard work begins now. Now, we have to move those findings into practice.
Too often, we’ve seen important government studies that never live up to their potentials. Reports are published. Copies are distributed. Then they sit in closets or on bookshelves never to be seen again. Many believe simply distributing the report, and raising awareness of its existence and contents, is all that is needed. We know, however, that is far from the case.
For the Math Panel report to have the impact it should have on our schools, we need to look beyond mere information distribution and focus on changing math teaching and math learning. If we learned anything from the NRP, it is that an aggressive public engagement campaign is key to long-term impact. Yes, it is important that we learn of the Math Panel’s findings. But it is more important for teachers to understand how they need to change their practice and the impact it will have on students. We need administrators to know what they must look for in selecting curricular solutions. We need teacher educators to know what skills and abilities they must equip future generations of math teachers with. We must let all of our key stakeholders know what they have to do differently to meet the Math Panel’s goals — and we must arm them with the resources and support necessary to achieve it.
The time is now for the National Mathematics Advisory Panel and math educators, math advocates, parents, and policymakers who are committed to boosting math achievement among U.S. students. And it is a time to act. With a clear blueprint, we know where we need to go and what we need to do. Now, we must learn from the experiences of the NRP, avoid the political roadblocks and the straying from the research, and focus on doing. It’s the only way our kids can ensure that classroom experience times research-based practice equals long-term results.
Year: 2008
“America’s Worst Teachers”
The job of public school teacher is one of the hardest out there. Low pay. Abuse (mostly verbal, but at times physical) from students and parents. Lack of autonomy. Proscriptive instructional approaches. Regular turnover. And we know it is only going to get worse in the coming years, as more than half of the current teaching workforce gets ready to retire after committing their adult lives to education.
Yes, the job is hard. Yes, it takes a very special person who is able to go into the classroom, day in and day out, for decades and do whatever is necessary to inspire kids to learn. Not everyone can be a teacher, despite what many of us would like to think. It is still a calling for most, and on that just isn’t understood or appreciated, particularly in today’s environment.
That is why is was so disheartening to see the very worst of our “reality TV” culture hit the teaching profession this morning. If you’ve missed it, in several leading national newspapers (I saw it in this morning’s USA Today) the Center for Union Facts is running a national contest to “Vote for the Worst Unionized Teachers in America.” The anti-union group intends to pay 10 teachers $10,000 each to quit their teaching jobs.
The ad provides a strong image of a rotting apple, complete with worm. And the ad copy is short, but none to sweet. “Old union rules keep incompetent teachers in the classroom. It often costs over $100,000 in legal fees to replace a teacher. Help our kids get the education they need — let’s replace the bad apples.”
Of course, a good teacher would teach you that it should be “more than $100,000” since over signifies a spacial relationship. But I’m not an English teacher, and this isn’t a grammar lesson. This is a lesson on the impact of our communications activities.
The Center for Union Facts definitely knows how to grab attention. These ads will undoubtedly result in a number of news articles about the issue. (USA Today is running the ad, and has a story about it in the paper). And the Center is committing big bucks to this. Such full-page ads don’t come cheap, and there is the $100,000 bounty as well.
But this seems to be more of a “gotcha” experience than a real quest to improve the schools. The 10 worst teachers all have to agree to allow the Center to publicize their exit from the profession. How many teachers out there are willing to be publicly humiliated, even for $10,000? How many of any of us would be willing to admit or accept that we are one of the 10 worst in our chosen profession?
In this time of highly qualified and highly effective teachers, we all want to see successful educators in our classrooms. We all want to know our kids have good teachers. We want to know they are doing what works, and that our kids and our schools are better for it.
How, then, does the Center — or anyone for that matter — determine who they worst teachers are? If we base it on test scores alone, don’t we need to factor in the resources we made available to the teachers? Do kids and their parents vote, allowing them to go after the “hard” teachers or those who won’t cut them a break or let them slide? At what point do we have to look at the kids and appreciate what a teacher has to work with? Is there a test they take, sort of an NBCT-lite test? Are there computer rankings, like those we’ll see this week for the NCAA basketball tournament? How, exactly, do we measure “worst?”
Clearly, the Center is targeting the NEA and the AFT. If not, this wouldn’t be about “unionized” teachers. Clearly, a charter school teacher or a private school teacher should be able to qualify as on of the nation’s worst teachers, no? That’s only fair and equitable. We all should have the chance to be the very best … or the very worst at what we do.
Yes, there are likely some teachers in our public schools today who probably shouldn’t be there. And those teachers know it. They know they don’t feel the passion. They know they feel the frustration. They know they aren’t having an impact. But they tend to be the exceptions, not the rule.
If the Center for Union Facts has issue with the NEA and AFT, they should go after the unions and go after them hard. There are areas where unions can be called to task for failing to meet the needs or follow the intentions of their membership. But don’t go after the individual teachers. Their job is hard enough. These ads only make it harder.
Want to deal with the worst teachers? Spend that $250,000 or so on PD for struggling teachers. Think of it as supplemental ed support for those teachers. That will help kids get the education they need.
Wither NCLB?
It has been a rough couple of weeks for our federal elementary and secondary education act. During a recent road tour, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings speculated that it is unlikely that NCLB will be reauthorized this calendar year. We’re still waiting on Ted Kennedy’s new version of the law. Buck McKeon is just as skeptical as Spellings about the 2008 future of new legislation. The future ain’t too bright in our nation’s capital.
It’s been just as interesting in the states. Most of us know about the long-pending NCLB lawsuit waged by the National Education Association and many states. Now we have new action and new rhetoric in the Mid-Atlantic adding to NCLB’s poor grades.
In Virginia, the state’s legislature this weekend voted to mandate that the Virginia Board of Education explore opting out of NCLB. Citing concerns about ELL students and exceptions (or the lack thereof) made for Virginia students with regard to AYP. It’s a bold move. Pulling out of NCLB would cost the Old Dominion millions upon millions of dollars. And that comes at a time when Gov. Tim Kaine is pushing hard to add universal preK, expand high school pathways, and boost the state’s college-going rates. With such aspirations, it says a lot that Virginia officials are saying it is worth more to refuse the NCLB check from the feds than it is to pay for all of the mandates that come with the law.
Across the border, West Virginia educators told Spellings that NCLB’s mandates are crushing teacher morale. Standardized tests and the scripted curriculums that come with them are destroying the teaching profession. We’ve heard about teaching to the test for years now and its impact on students, but Mountaineer teachers gave Spellings an earful on its long-term impact for teachers.
So what does this all mean? For years now, Eduflack has been saying that reauthorization of NCLB (with improvements) only comes when Main Street USA buys into it. Credit to Spellings for trying to do just that, but it may be a day late and a dollar short. The time to promote the value and impact of NCLB was two or three years ago, when its impact was just coming to light. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education froze, fearful of IG investigations and such. For the past 18 months, NCLB opposition has been banging and banging and banging away on the law, throwing a bright light on every flaw, blemish, and problem. And that light hasn’t dimmed,
Whatever the name, whatever the logo, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act needs to be reauthorized. Isn’t it time we look at the good of NCLB and preserve those benefits, while identifying the shortcomings and building real, meaningful solutions that can make up those gaps and improve the law?
NCLB or its offspring should be seen as a benefit for states, not as an overwhelming obstacle that hinders states from boosting student achievement across all demographics. With its investment in PD, it should be seen as a boon for teachers, not a destroyer of morale. It should be about what the feds can do to improve state and local public education. And at the end of it all, isn’t it supposed to be about student learning?
The Hard Truth on Proven Reading
For the last year, many have been rushing to bury the federal Reading First program. Congress has dramatically slashed funding for the effort. Critics have been quick to discount the impact the program has had on student achievement scores. And the program has quickly been lumped in with No Child Left Behind as another example of what is wrong with federal involvement in education.
These eulogies make us forget of the deserved praise the program received when it was first written into law. The goals were admirable. Get every child reading at grade level by fourth grade. Significant, relevant professional development for teachers. A commitment to doing what works, ensuring schools are adopting programs and instructional approaches that are proven effective. It was about giving all students — regardless of reading skill, socioeconomic level, or geographic location — a sense of hope and opportunity.
Those goals were lost in recent years to urban legends of “approved lists” and conspiracy theories. A noble mission was lost to implementation mis-steps. A research-based approach fell victim to politics.
The whole story can be found in a report written by Sol Stern and released by the Fordham Foundation. “Too Good To Last: The True Story of Reading First” (http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/reading_first_030508.pdf) is a fantastic analysis of the roller-coaster ride that is Reading First. In exposing both the warts and the silver lining of the program, Stern has done what few have been able to do in recent years. He reminds us of the promise and intent of Reading First, clearly demonstrating what could have been and why it is not.
At the end of the day, we know that scientifically based reading works. We’ve seen the positive impact its had on districts, schools, and kids across the nation. It works with struggling readers, and it works with G&T readers. It works in urban, suburban, and rural schools. It just plain works.
Reading First sought to get SBRR into every classroom in the United States. If we are to learn from the past, we should definitely study up on Stern’s analysis. By learning why so much went wrong in implementing Reading First, we can all learn what is needed to get research-based reading into all those classes we promised it to. The federal program may be ramping down, but we still have a nation of students that need to be reading at grade level and need the hope and opportunity that reading ability instills.
Readin’ in the Sunshine
Tomorrow, Eduflack heads down to Tallahassee for the annual Florida Association of School Administrators conference. So imagine my pleasant surprise to see today’s Tallahassee Democrat article on the establishment of a first-grade reading academy in Leon County, Florida. (http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/NEWS01/803030316/1010)
For much of the past year, it seems that school districts have been frozen in place when it comes to strengthening reading instruction. Chalk it up to a host of reasons — the 2006 IG investigations into Reading First and subsequent proposed cuts to the federal reading program, uncertainty about expected NCLB requirements and funding, satisfaction with current reading efforts, or budget struggles that place priorities elsewhere. Whatever the cause, reading just hasn’t been on the educational frontburner these past 18 months.
So let’s hand it to Leon County for putting their money where the research is. This summer, first graders unable to read at grade level will gain extra reading help for six weeks, four days a week, for six hours per. The program is similar to one the school district had previously launched for third-graders.
Why is this so significant? It may just be that we are seeing the rhetorical pendulum swing back again. In Leon County, they are talking about the research-based components of reading — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. They are discussing the need to have all kids reading at grade level by fourth grade. They are taking about curriculum based on the findings of the respected Florida Center for Reading Research. After a two-year hiatus, we are again talking about scientifically-based reading research.
Sure, this could be the exception. But Leon County is embracing what many school districts rallied to just a few short years ago. We’re talking about kids and their reading skill levels. We’re talking about research-based interventions to get kids reading at grade level. We’re talking about doing what works. What could be more effective than doing what works, particularly when it comes to reading?
Hopefully, this is a sign of good things to come down at FASA. Florida’s long been a leader in reading instruction. These academies could be just the model we need to jumpstart reading instruction in 2008.
Dropping Out in the Windy City
Just how bad is the drop-out problem in the United States? For years, we have heard the Manhattan Institute talk about urban drop-out rates of 30 percent, 40 percent, and even 50 percent. At the same time, many superintendents would counter with rates a fraction of that, citing circumstances that Manhattan wasn’t accounting for. Last week, Eduflack heard a tale (still to be verified) that until very recently one state was calculating their graduation rate based on the number of 12th graders who managed to graduate that year. As to be expected, they had a pretty good grad rate.
Today, the CPS Graduation Pathways Strategy is to be released in Chicago. Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the report cites recent Chicago drop-out rates of nearly 50 percent. The most recent data shows a dropout rate of 44 percent. The full story is here in today’s Chicago Tribune — http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-dropout_25feb25,0,1248671.story. Thanks to www.educationnews.org for flagging it.
Why is this study so important? We all know our large, urban school districts have long had a drop-out problem. Heck, it was only a few months ago that many of their schools were dubbed drop-out factories. While such rates are indeed alarming, they have long been part of the drumbeat of the need for reform. We know kids aren’t graduating from high school, and we’ve known it for decades.
No, the important issue here is that Chicago is standing behind some very ugly numbers. They recognize that the first step to improvement is strong data collection and strong data analysis. Working with BMGF, they now know the true scope and size of the problem. They aren’t trying to hide the numbers. They aren’t trying to develop an alternative approach to convert that 44 percent to 32 percent or 26 percent. They are laying out the cold hard facts, using them as a launching pad for substantive, meaningful reforms.
It isn’t often that we see a large school district go naked like that by choice. Data is often a closely held secret, and one might need dual degrees in statistics and computer science to dig out meaningful information from a district website or state education database. This study, though, seems to lay out a frank and open discussion of seven years worth of graduation data for the Windy City. And it serves as a model for other urban districts who recognize the drop-out crisis is a major education and economic issue.
As communication goes, CPS deserves a gold star here. If the goal is school improvement, one needs to generate a genuine demand for change. You need to demonstrate that is a significant problem, we know what that problem is, and we have the people and resources to fix it. And that’s just what Chicago is doing this week (and hopefully well beyond). They’ve identified the problem, and a 44 percent drop-out rate is definitely a problem, and acknowledge the softer spots such as male drop-outs and a high school population that is older than the norm. They’ve assembled a team of educators, representing the central office and the high schools, to get to work. They’ve partnered with BMGF to both study the issue and implement solutions. Now they just need to convince parents, teachers, and the community at large to back their proposed course of action.
It seems straightforward and common sense. But we don’t always see that in education reform communications, do we? Yes, we have a while to go before we know if CPS’ approach is effective. From the cheap seats, it definitely seems like their thoughts, words, and actions are pointed in the right direction.
It’s All About the Outcome
Anyone who has read Eduflack knows that I am a big proponent of outcomes,and not inputs. I look for results over process. In education, this is often a difficult fight. So much effort and so many reputations are tied to the process that we can often lose sight of the end game.
Earlier this week, Eduflack was at an event and had the opportunity to hear Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine talk about his vision for education improvement in the Commonwealth. Building an aggressive agenda that includes everything from preK to high school improvement to new governor’s STEM academies, Kaine has laid out a true vision. Such vision can often be lost among the process weeds, though.
The Virginia governor also spoke to a philosophy that far too many so-called education governors need to subscribe to. This is not an issue of choosing programs, this is about securing results. To accomplish this, we need to be flexible. Flexible in our choices. Flexible in our approaches. Certain of our goals.
Don’t understand what he means? Take a look at elementary reading instruction. It’s very easy for educators or school boards to step forward and say we should adopt program X or intervention Y. We can choose such programs because they work, or we can select them because we recognize the name, we enjoyed the sales pitch, or we just had a feeling.
In selecting a program, our goal is reading achievement. We want all students reading at grade level. We want to encourage good readers to become better readers. We want to help struggling readers. And we want to measure the results. We don’t need Reading First to set those goals. It’s been the objective of elementary teachers since Dick and Jane first got together.
Unfortunately, in recent years we’ve gotten too caught up in the process. And battles like the Reading Wars have made flexibility a bad word. Kaine is right. We need to be flexible if we expect to get results. What works for one doesn’t necessarily work for another. We need the ability to adopt approaches that work in schools and classes and with kids just like ours. And teachers need the ability to adapt to the individual needs of students or classes.
Yes, Virginia, results matter. And flexibility helps us achieve those results. Governor Kaine may be on to something here.
What’s Wrong with Boston?
The writers of Boston Legal are at it again. A few months ago, the plot line went after NCLB. This week’s episode (thank you, DVR) centers its attack on the American high school. Now, we have a mother suing her late daughter’s high school, alleging that the rigors of high school were responsible for her daughter’s “driving while drowsy” death.
Like the NCLB episode, we have a Boston high school full of overachievers. This time, lawyers are attacking the high school experience because kids are working too hard. They are taking too many AP courses. They are involved in too many extracurriculars. They all want to be tops in their class, and they all want to attend Harvard.
While I still want to find this Boston high school that seems to be all white with a 100% graduation rate and every kid moving onto postsecondary education, I just have to let it go. But there was one line that was truly disturbing.
In attacking the rigor of the high school, the mother’s lawyer asks why do we need to offer AP courses at all? Those are college courses, she says, they should be offered in college and not in high school. Of course, the school’s principal agrees, and placed the blame on the students. If we didn’t offer all those AP classes, the principal says, kids would just go to a different high school that would meet their needs.
Eduflack doesn’t know which is more ridiculous, the cavalier notion of school choice or the disdain for AP courses. Let’s leave the former alone, knowing it is an absurd statement without any ground in reality. The latter is just as frustrating, seeking to place blame on a solution, rather than a problem.
Just last week, we saw that more students are taking AP classes than ever before. Whether they secure a four or five on the exam is irrelevant. These students are able to experience college-level instruction before they get to college. They get to learn if they are up to the rigors of a college-level exam. They get to explore new subjects. And they get the opportunity to earn college credits or exemptions from college requirements.
No one is saying a high school junior or senior should be taking five or seven AP courses each semester. But if they have the interest and the ability, they should be allowed to push themselves and see what they are capable of. They should be given the opportunity to succeed, rather than given the an excuse to fail.
Many can say we are where we are in public education because of low expectations. A decade or two ago, students were lucky if they could take two or three AP courses during high school. Today, schools can offer dozens of such courses. That’s a good thing, not a reason to attack well-meaning high schools.
Maybe the writers for Boston Legal should go in and take a real tour of real Boston’s public schools before they use them for another plot line or as a punchline to another joke. Those TV junkies will remember a great little Fox drama called Boston Public, set in a Beantown public high school. If memory serves, those writers seemed to get what public education was all about. Maybe they can offer a little primer to James Spader and company. Or we could just keep education on the news pagers, instead of the TV reviews.
Let’s Make Dropping Out Illegal!
By now, the numbers are ingrained on the souls of most education reformers. Nearly a third of all ninth graders will not earn a high school diploma. In our African-American and Hispanic communities, that number statistic rises to nearly 50 percent. Imagine, a 50/50 chance of earning a high school diploma of you are a student of color. The statistic is so staggering, there must be something we can do.
In today’s USA Today, we have the dueling editorials on a potential solutions — raising the drop-out age. The line of thinking here is that if we raise the age a student must be in order to drop out of high school to 18, we can turn this crisis around. Think of it. Require, by law, every kid to stay in school until they are 18, and the drop-out rates will dramatically shrink.
Of course, 17 states already have such compulsory school attendance laws, with one more going online next summer. Do we believe that those states — which include California, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas — are not struggling with dropouts? Are grad rates not an issue in LAUSD or New Orleans or Cleveland or Houston? Of course not. Those cities are facing the realities of drop-out factories, just like most major urban centers, even if drop-outs need to be 18 to officially leave school.
If we know anything about teenagers, it should be that mandates don’t change behavior. A 17-year requirement doesn’t keep the average 10th grader from seeing an R-rated movie. A 21-year age requirement doesn’t keep seniors from taking a sip of beer or a slug of Boone’s Farm. We have underage driving. We have illegal drug use. Kids will go after what they want, regardless of the prohibitions or the consequences. The challenge — and the opportunity — is to convince them to make a good decision. We don’t chain them to their high school desks, we need to demonstrate to them that they want to stay and they need to stay.
So how do we do that? Last month, I made reference to some focus groups I did with students on the value and need for high school. Robert Pondiscio and the folks over at the Core Knowledge Blog (http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/) hoped they would soon learn a little more about Eduflack’s experiences. So here goes.
Back in the fall, I spent weeks meeting with eight, ninth, and 10th graders from a state that is pretty representative of the United States. Strong and not-so-strong urban centers, along with booming suburbs, and struggling rural areas. A strong commitment to K-16 education, yet major industry leaving the cities and towns that have long depended on it. Educators and business leaders committed to improvement, yet students not sure what opportunity would be available to them.
My goal was to learn what low-income students thought of their high school offerings and their opportunities for the future. I didn’t spend my time in the suburbs or with the honors or college prep students. I met with poor urban students, and I met with poor rural students. Most came from families where college had never been an option. And all came from homes with a very real fear that this generation may not be as successful as the generation before it.
I planned for the worst. I expected students to justify, or even respect, dropping out. How good union jobs could be found without a high school diploma or how gangs and other outside influences made school a lesser priority. But what I heard during this experience gave me hope, and made it clear we can improve high school graduation rates simply by boosting relevance, interest, and access.
What did I hear? In general:
* Students understand and appreciate the link between high school and “good” careers.
* For virtually all students, dropping out is not a productive option. For many, they don’t even think you can get a fast food job today without that diploma.
* Students know relevant courses such as those found in STEM programs are key to obtaining meaningful employment after school.
* They are eager to pursue postsecondary opportunities while in high school. They may not know anyone who has taken an AP or dual enrollment course, but they know it has value.
* Students want more career and technical education offerings. They know these are relevant courses that link directly to future jobs.
And what more did Eduflack learn? The greatest obstacle we face is awareness. This isn’t about requiring kids to stay in school. This is about opening opportunities and helping them see the choices and the pathways available to them. Today’s high schools are not one-size-fits-all. And that’s OK. Today’s students want to know what’s available to them and what aligns with their aptitudes and their interests. They want a consumer-based educational experience.
Parents still play a key role in this little dance, as does the business community. Students expect their parents to push and guide them. They may not always listen, but students know they need their parents with them as they head down those pathways. With businesses, students just want to learn about the opportunities. What is needed to become a physician assistant or a manager at the local manufacturing plant or a graphic designer. Today’s students do have career aspirations, but most of them have never met someone who holds that job nor do they know what is needed to achieve such a position. Now is the time for businesses to educate their future workforce.
I’ve done similar focus groups across the nation over the last decade, and the findings have been remarkably similar. Students have a far better sense for their futures than we give them credit for. They know it will be hard. They know they’ll need help. But they know there are multiple pathways available to them. They just need their teachers and parents and priests and community leaders to see it to.
These kids aren’t dropping out of high school because it is too hard or because they are finally old enough that they can stop going to school and stay at home and watch TV all day. They leave because they don’t see the relevance. They don’t see how the classes they are taking crosswalk to their career or life goals. They don’t believe postsecondary education may be possible for them. They don’t believe they have the ability to gain access to those multiple pathways.
Raising the drop-out age won’t change that. If we want more students to stay in high school, earn their diplomas, and pursue postsecondary education, we need to inspire and motivate them. We need to give them hope. We need to demonstrate that high school is the first step toward a happy and successful life. It needs to be relevant. It needs to be interesting and engaging. And it needs to lift up all students, not talk down to them with mandates and lowered expectations.
“Reading is So Hot!”
A year ago, virtually everyone had left reading instruction improvement for dead. Massive cuts to Reading First seemed to trump whatever data the states or the U.S. Department of Education were putting out on reading scores. The appearance of flat NAEP reading scores only added to the sentiment. And even those optimists looking for NCLB 2.0 to be passed this year haven’t spent much time talking about the RF component of the law.
But over the weekend, The Washington Post put reading instruction clearly back on the reform frontburner. Saturday brought an op-ed from E.D. Hirsch, Jr., the chairman of the Core Knowledge Foundation. Hirsch’s premise is simple — if we expect schools to meet AYP on reading, we need to provide greater focus and gain greater understanding of comprehension skills. But more simply, we need a national commitment to building vocabulary and reading comprehension in all students.
Today’s Post has op-eds by Howard Gardner and Susan Jacoby, both discussing our national need to read. Gardner talks of the end of literacy. Jacoby of the dumbing of America. Both embracing a similar theme that reading skills lead to success.
All three, of course, are correct. Reading skills are the core to student achievement and successful lives. While critics of Reading First have dubbed the program a “phonics” program, the initiative was always based on an approach that included equal priority to phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. So what does this renewed attention on reading comprehension and ability tell us?
First, reading skill acquisition is not limited to the reading or English/Language Arts classroom. Reading skills are also acquired through content areas like science and social studies. That is why such a focus has been paid to reading at grade level by fourth grade. Students need those reading skills to achieve in their science, history, and even math classes.
Second, reading instruction is a team sport. Yes, teachers need to do whatever they can to build reading skills — particularly comprehension — in all students. Parents and families bear a similar responsibility. They need to model good reading behavior. They need to encourage their kids. And they need to be aware of their kids’ strengths and weaknesses, and do what they can to improve on the latter.
Finally, comprehension is king. Hirsch is correct. We can get kid to memorize vocabulary words, but if they don’t understand what they are reading, what good is it? As we get more sophisticated in our reading assessments, student reading skills are measured on their ability to independently read a text and demonstrate they understand what they read. Knowing letter sounds and vocabulary words are important components to reading. Successful reading, though, can only truly be measured through comprehension.
Where does it all leave us? Reading skills are just as important today as they have ever been. Such skills are successfully obtained when instruction is focused on all five of the key components to research-based reading. And we can’t let anyone forget either. Reading instruction should still rule the reform roost. Comprehension skills should be the measure of effective instruction.
Unlike Gardner and Jacoby, Eduflack isn’t ready to proclaim the end of literacy or the dumbing of America. There are too many good educators, too many good researchers, and too many good minds committed to improving reading instruction in the United States. But if Eduflack is to hold that optimism, we must redouble our efforts to get scientifically based research, proven-effective instruction, relevant professional development, and good ole good books into every classroom.
If we are to be a nation of readers, we need the skill, the passion, and the texts to prove Gardner and Jacoby wrong. And we have miles to go in that regard.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 