When No Child Left Behind was implemented back in 2002, one of its prime goals was to close the achievement gap. Then-Secretary of Education Rod Paige made it the cornerstone of his stump speech, focusing much of the law’s early days on how to help low-income and minority students in struggling schools. Supplemental funds were geared, in large part, to addressing the achievement gap issue. Reading First funding was gift-wrapped for schools struggling with the problem. Even Highly Qualified Teacher provisions were developed to ensure that urban (read minority) schools were getting qualified, effective teachers.
The multi-billion-dollar question out there is did it work? Has NCLB made a difference in closing the achievement gap. Critics of the law have made NCLB all about inflexibility and high-stakes tests and unreachable expectations. And they’ve been successful, in large part, because many believe the law hasn’t worked (basing their beliefs on the opinion pages and coffee clatchs, instead of real, hard data).
This week, the Center on Education Policy released its comprehensive study, “Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?”
The findings are just fascinating. USA Today draws out the highlights (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-06-24-no-child_N.htm).
What does all this tell us? First and foremost, the tenets of NCLB seem to be working. Several states — including Texas and Arkansas — showed moderate to large gains in both reading and math. Others — including Tennessee — showed similar gains in reading. And others more — such as New Jersey and Ohio — showed those gains in math. Scores are rising. The achievement gap between white and black students is shrinking. And states are far more serious about data collection and accountability today than they were six years ago.
We’re a far, far ways away from declaring “mission accomplished” with NCLB. But we are starting to see its impact (and it is a positive one to boot). Once we move beyond the rhetoric and vitriol of NCLB, and start looking at the resources it provides, the supports it offers, and the roadmap it lays forward, we can still see the positive impact the law can have if implemented correctly.
Sure, NCLB is the furthest thing from the collective mind of Congress. And yes, it is far easier to kill the law rather than improve it. But if our goal is to improve student achievement, particularly among low-income and minority students, it is hard to ignore this CEP data or the continuous roll call of teachers, parents, and students who speak on the positive impact the law has had on them.
And just imagine the success it could have if it went from being the education community’s Stretch Armstrong doll and once again enjoyed the bi-partisan support and encouragement it received in 2002?
NCLB
SES Not Supplementing Learning?
There’s no doubt there are leaders and laggards when it comes to our public schools. But how do we help those kids in struggling schools without condemning the teacher, the building, or even the school district? For the folks responsible for No Child Left Behind, the answer was SES, or supplemental educational services. The idea was brilliant in its simplicity — for students in struggling schools, make extra help and tutoring available to get them up to par. SES was intended to provide all students with a common base of instruction and support.
Of course, those of us in education reform know that the promise and the reality are often far, far away from each other. Exhibit 1, today’s Washington Post piece on how SES programs in Virginia and Maryland have done little to improve student achievement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203681.html
For years, Eduflack has heard about the problems with SES tutoring. For much of the NCLB era, SES funding sat dormant, with many schools not sure how to spend the money. Originally, people said the tutoring funds would be spent to send poor kids to for-profit providers like Sylvan or Huntington or Kumon. Makes sense, right? If a family with means has a kid struggling to make the grade, they pick up the phone and book their kid in a tutoring program. Why shouldn’t a family without the financial ability be able to take the same advantages with SES?
The hitch, of course, is that many of the for-profit tutors have business models that set them up near those families of means. We see tutoring centers in the suburbs. We certainly don’t see them in our urban centers, where many of the struggling schools are located. So who provides the tutoring?
Unfortunately, in far too many of these struggling neighborhoods, the schools turned to classroom teachers to provide after-school tutoring (with extra pay funded through SES, of course.) Imagine the logic. Students are not getting the skills they need during school hours from their teachers, so we pay the SAME teachers extra money to teach the SAME kids after school? And then we wonder why SES funding isn’t demonstrating measurable improvements on student assessments? Only in America.
And the circle of life continues. We look to education reforms to change practice and fix that which is broken. SES is a well-intentioned reform with strong potential. But like so many other NCLB-era policies, it fails in the execution. With so much supplemental money available to boost struggling students, it’s a shame so many don’t get much more than a retread of the instruction that just doesn’t work in the first place.
Where does all of this take us? Under NCLB, we also give those struggling students the option of transferring to better schools that provide the academic means get students on track. We’ve all seen the numbers, and few families ever take advantage of the school choice provisions, fearing transportation costs and believing their neighborhood schools are doing the best they can.
Maybe this latest data will have more families take a second look at the options available to give their kids the educational helping hand they deserve.
Some Ed Reccs for Senator Obama
Now that he is all but the official Democratic presidential nominee, it is time for Senator Barack Obama to start putting out some real ideas — real policies — that complement his vision for the future. For most Democrats, that means a clear education policy, one that goes from pre-natal to geriatric.
Unfortunately, Obama’s message of hope and opportunity doesn’t quite jive with the education (particularly K-12) mantras of hopelessness and obstacles. How do we restore hope for education reform in an industry that has been paralyzed by the fear of change?
More than a year ago, Eduflack offered some recommendations to the Democratic candidates running for president on how they can focus on education. Since then, we’ve seen Ed in 08 and others try to do the same. What’s funny is how wrong I was in March of 2007. I thought it was a gimme that the Democrats would focus on education, seeing it as a great equalizer and a bridge to a stronger economy and better jobs. How wrong I was! Even the talking snowman has gotten more media play than the party’s education ideas.
But let’s take a second to look back on Eduflack’s specific recommendations, knowing full well they are just as strong and pertinent today as they were a year ago:
1. We all must commit to improve our schools. We cannot and should not simply protect the status quo. That means having hard conversations with the teachers unions and pushing them and school administrators to make hard decisions. Sacrifices today can yield improvements tomorrow.
2. Additional funding does not directly result in improved achievement. For every carrot, there is a stick. If we are to increase NCLB spending (and we should, particularly to get effective teachers in the classroom), we need to ensure that such funding increases are focused on proven programs, improved assessments, and effective interventions. As a nation, we will pay more if we see the results.
3. National standards level the playing field. Regardless of who controls Congress or the White House, no one should be afraid of national education standards. Such standards offer a promise of equity in all of our schools. For those traditional blue states, and the urban centers located in them, national standards ensure that all students, regardless of their hometown, race, or socioeconomic status, are taught and measured compared to every other student in the country. That equal field only helps when it comes to college, to jobs, and to life.
4. The time has come for Democrats to push the unions. Can anyone honestly say that our schools wouldn’t benefit from teacher improvement. HQT provisions in NCLB are fine, but the NCLB Commission got it right — we need to focus on effective teachers, not just qualified ones. Teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there, but intellectually and emotionally. We need to do everything possible to support those teachers on the front lines. But we also need to recognize that not everyone is cut out for the challenge. Our schools need an assessment/improvement/mentoring model for all teachers. Good teachers will thrive. Those not destined to teach can move on with their professional lives.
5. Education reform is a shared responsibility. Meaningful change is not just left to the teachers or the national education organizations. Just as Hillary Clinton wrote about it taking a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to educate one. Improving our schools requires teamwork. Teachers and parents, business and community leaders, local, state, and federal officials all play a role in identifying, implementing, and assessing meaningful, results-based reform. Shared responsibility results in shared success.
I maintain that all of these are still cogent, winning issues for Obama. Case in point, Obama’s previous endorsement of teacher merit pay. It is a strong idea, and one that can have an immediate impact on teacher and instructional quality in the schools. It is an idea that resonates with most parents, and means something to local decisionmakers. And it is a concept that the unions — particularly the NEA — greatly oppose. We all recognize that Obama and the teachers unions are allies. But performance pay can be one of those flag-in-the-sand moments that demonstrates Obama’s independence and the priority of kids in his education policy.
But it all seems to loop back around to national standards. The National Governors Association and CCSSO have long been champions of a the concept. This week, the National Association of Secondary School Principals threw its collective weight behind the issue as well. And Obama endorser Roy Romer has been carrying the banner for it over at Ed in 08.
Imagine the rhetorical impact national standards could have coming out of Obama’s mouth. The opportunity that all U.S. students, regardless of their home state, are learning and achieving together. The belief that the nation is stronger academically, and can measure it, because of national standards. The elimination of have and have not states, knowing that a kid in Alabama is getting the same education as a kid in Connecticut. Imagine.
Senator Obama, it is quite easy for you to write off education policy as part of your stump speech this all. You’ll have the endorsement of the unions. Education has never been a strong policy concern of Senator McCain’s. And the anti-NCLB crowds will crow a vote for a Dem is a vote against NCLB.
But as you have all year, you have the opportunity to tell us what you stand for, and not just what you speak against. If your recent anti-NCLB remarks are coming from the heart, tell us what you will do to fix the law. If you are concerned about high-stakes testing, let Romer and company develop a national standard that lessens the stress on our student test takers. But please, please, please, do and stand for something.
We’ve spend far too much time in recent years talking about what’s wrong and what we’re opposed to. We need more people — particularly our leaders — telling us what they stand for in education reform.
Caffeinating NCLB
If we’re to believe the chattering class, the greatest problem in public education today is No Child Left Behind. It’s destroyed our schools, bankrupted our districts, frustrated our teachers, and destroyed the morale of our students. Those standards and high stakes testing, in particular, have been the death of us.
You hear it so much that you almost believe it. Then you get that slap upside the head, much like an overcaffeinated espresso, that reminds of you the truth. This week, that slap has come from Seattle, hardly the home of the George W. fan club. It seems the Seattle Times has thrown its editorial muscle behind NCLB (kudos to Ed Trust’s Equity Express for highlighting it.)
In a strongly worded editorial this week, the Seattle Times praises NCLB for “injecting rigor and accountability into a system that previously had little of both.” The editors also note that recent improvements to the law — including demonstrations of flexibility on AYP — will take years for us to see, and we need to be patient. The full article is here — http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004444420_nclbed29.html.
It’s unusual to see such pieces these days, when NCLB has been left as a punchline to a national education joke. But as the Seattle Times and many others have noted, there is value to the law. Forget, for a moment, that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act isn’t going away. There are real positives in this law, and states, municipalities, and schools are seeing that.
The Times is absolutely correct. We are a better nation because of NCLB. A national commitment to academic rigor is a good thing. A national commitment to student achievement is a good thing. A national commitment to doing what works in getting kids to learn is a good thing. And a national belief that EVERY kid can succeed, given the right opportunities and circumstances, is indeed a good thing.
These were the sorts of messages we needed to hear three years ago, when we actually had the chance to reauthorize NCLB. As Spellings and ED now play out the clock, there are few sane policywonks that believe reauthorization will happen this year. Most don’t even believe it will happen in 2009.
That could be a very different story is editorials like those appearing in Seattle had been printed years ago, and with in greater numbers. ANd the responsibility, or the failed responsibility, for that falls squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. Department of Education. The want us to drink the kool-aid, but they failed to market it to us as the end-all, be-all thirst quencher for our educational woes. They failed to build demand for NCLB, and instead tried to force it upon us, no questions asked. Thus, we are in the situation we’re in today.
The age-old story of opportunities lost and chances squandered. Hopefully, we will always have the intent of NCLB propelling our ed reform sails … even if it goes by a different name and has different champions. Rigor, accountability, achievement, success should have no party affiliation and should always remain in vogue.
Mr. Weaver, Tear Down the NEA Wall
After putting their money on Hillary Clinton early on in the process, it seems the national teachers unions are quickly regrouping, endorsing Barack Obama for the presidency. The NEA (which never officially married Clinton, but clearly had bought a ring, announced that Reg Weaver is recommending the Assembly endorse Obama at next month’s convention. (Thanks to Flypaper for pointing out Mike Antonucci’s post on this).
Of course, the AFT had previously endorsed Clinton, has announced it “will engage in a process to prepare to make an endorsement for this fall’s general election.” Anyone who has been around the political block knows that the AFT endorsement of Obama isn’t that far behind. Hopefully, they’ll take the time to talk to McCain’s education team first, though.
Back in the winter, Eduflack asked what, specifically, AFT was supporting when it endorsed Hillary. And the question is even more valid regarding today’s endorsement (or proposed endorsement) of Obama. Is Reg Weaver endorsing Obama’s support for merit pay for teachers? His support for Teach For America style programs? Backing of charter schools? Or is he endorsing the recent rhetoric attacking high-stakes testing and NCLB? (I’ll put my money on the latter.)
I join with Obama in supporting merit pay for teachers and supporting charter schools, particularly in our inner cities. And I was impressed when he went into the NEA and supported incentive pay, particularly when the union has been so strongly against it. So does an endorsement of Obama mean the NEA is changing course on performance pay for teachers?
Unfortunately, we may never know. If yesterday’s post-primary statement from Weaver is any indication, this isn’t about Obama. It’s about the NEA supporting the Democrats. And that’s a cryin’ shame. Now is the perfect time for NEA to get both candidates to put their education platform together, and let the brothers and sisters of the NEA weigh and measure both.
If we’ve learned anything from the Democratic primary, it is that hope trumps fear. The positive far outweighs the negative. And the high ground is far more adventageous than the mud pits. Unfortunately, Weaver seems to have missed that point. In calling on his nearly 3 million members to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee, Weaver says:
“You can go down any list of what public school employees believe they need to truly help every child be successful, and you’ll see that Senator Obama supports that list and that Senator McCain not only opposes it, but has probably already voted against it.”
It’s unfortunate that the NEA can’t support Obama without attacking John McCain. The NEA has effectively sat itself on the bench for the past eight years on federal education policy, deciding it was easier to shout into the wind than to look for some middle ground with the current Administraton. If the Bush Administration wasn’t going to use the NEA’s ball, then the NEA just wasn’t going to play. And it looks like they are drawing the same line again this year.
I’m all for effective rhetoric, and during campaign times, I’ve been accused of being a little vitriolic. (For the record, I worked, successfully, on behalf for Democratic candidates, and have a keener than keen appreciation for the value of an NEA or AFT endorsement.) But when the NEA says that McCain has already voted against everything a child needs to be successful, they do the union, its members, and the students they teach a great disservice.
The NEA endorsement will go to the Democrat. We all know that. But let’s make it about the hopes, policies, and positions he stands for. It is an endorsement, and shouldn’t be an endorsement by rejection of the other guy.
No one has ever accused John McCain of being an opponent of education. If anything, now is the time for McCain to start formulating a real plan on federal education policy and demonstrate his commitment to reform and school improvement. He may not get the union endorsement, but that doesn’t mean he can’t get the votes of teachers.
Mr. Weaver, how about letting McCain speak to the collected membership and make an educated choice?
Is This the Ed of Our RF Study Quest?
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.
Is 100% Proficiency Possible? You Betcha
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.
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.
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.
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?
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 