Reading First

Answerin’ to Mr. Miller

Eduflack Arne Duncan, national standards, NCLB, Reading First, stimulus

Sometimes, what you don’t say can be as important as what you do say.  Case in point, EdSec Arne Duncan’s testimony yesterday before the House Education and Labor Committee.  Emphasizing current efforts to effectively use American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars, Duncan focused on a number of issues in the free-form part of the discussion, including topics such as restraint and student loans.

The full rundown can be found over at the Committee’s website, complete with video links to testimony and key questions.  Some of the highlights from Duncan’s testimony:
“Many of you have heard me say that I believe education is the civil rights issue of our time. I truly believe every child is entitled to a high-quality education. I will work closely with the Office of Civil Rights to make sure that we properly review compliance in all programs and policymaking.”
“If we are going to be successful in rebuilding our economy, our early childhood programs need to prepare our youngest children for kindergarten so they’re ready to start reading and learning, our K-12 schools need to make sure our students have all of the academic knowledge and skills that they need to enter college or the workforce, and our higher education system needs to offer whatever advanced learning students need to be successful in a career, whether they will become a plumber, a teacher, or a business executive. As federal policymakers, we need to improve preparation for college and expand college access and completion by increasing financial aid so that students of all income levels can pay for college without taking on a mountain of debt.”
“States must build data systems that can track student performance from one year to the next, from one school to another, so that those students and their parents know when they are making progress and when they need extra attention. This information must also be put in the hands of educators so they can use it to improve instruction. Right now, according to the Data Quality Campaign (DQC), Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah are the only states that are reporting to have comprehensive data systems meeting the basic elements of a good system.”

“I don’t want to invest in the status quo. I want states and districts to take bold actions that will lead directly to the improvement in student learning. I want local leaders to find change agents who can fix these schools. I want them to provide incentives for their best teachers to take on the challenge of

teaching in these schools. And where appropriate, I want them to create partnerships with charter school operators with a track record of success. I want superintendents to be aggressive in taking the difficult step of shutting down a failing school and replacing it with one they know will work.”

“Our agenda from early childhood through 12th grade is focused on helping states do the right thing. And that’s appropriate because States are responsible for establishing systems of education through the 12th grade. It’s our role to make it a national priority to reform schools and help states and districts do that.”

Eduflack bookended the two quotes in particular because I find them the most intriguing of what was said.  The first is Duncan’s continued commitment to the notion that a high-quality public education is an American civil right.  Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has disagreed, determining that education is a topic best left to the states and the localities (at least according to the U.S. Constitution).  We’ve seen school equity fights in states like California and New York recently, but with limited results.  SCOTUS hasn’t really heard the issue since the Rodriguez decision in 1973.  Perhaps the EdSec is daring a forward-looking advocacy or policy organization to bring the issue before the Supreme Court yet again.  The time may be ripe.
Duncan also focused on the issue of “helping states do the right thing.”  Eduflack couldn’t agree more, but can’t help but notice Duncan’s team seems to be a little light in the state understanding department, as highlighted in our post yesterday. 
What was noticeably absent from Duncan’s testimony, though, was any mention of No Child Left Behind reauthorization.  Certainly, it is an issue that both he and Chairman Miller are all too aware of.  Maybe they’ve already had deep and intimate conversations on the topic, and thus didn’t need to talk for the sake of the public record.  Maybe Duncan believes his four pillars of the Duncan Education Department suffices as the blueprint for where we are headed.  Maybe we believe that ARRA and the President’s budget are all that we need to know when it comes to the plan for Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization this fall or next spring.
Also missing from the general love-fest over at Chairman Miller’s committee was discussion of two specific policy matters.  There was no talk of the Reading First successor bill circulating around town (which Eduflack has dubbed, Yes I Can Read), though plans to expand the Striving Readers program ten-fold did warrant a mention.  And there was no talk at all about the national education standards drafts that Achieve is rumored to be delivering to the EdSec in the coming weeks for review, discussion, and debate.
All in all, Duncan’s performance was just a regularly scheduled check-up with the Committee, a chance to show that ARRA plans are moving forward, key concerns are being addressed, and no additional attention or worry needs to be paid to the U.S. Department of Education.  The trains are running fine.  There is nothing to see here.
Me, I’m waiting for the questions that have yet to be asked.  What’s in store for our federal accountability measures?  What improvements will be made to NCLB?  What’s next for federal reading investment?  Are we really heading to national standards?  What are our expectations from these new data systems?  Are we really going to turn back the regs on four-year high school graduation rates?  And how do we ensure that every low-performing and hard-to-staff school has effective teachers leading the classroom when the feds are only contributing eight cents of every educational dollar spent?  Lots of questions.  Hopefully, the answers aren’t too far in the offing.
On a related note, I have to give kudos to Chairman Miller’s staff and the way that they make information accessible to the average parent and the average blogger.  Almost immediately, the Committee has transcripts of the prepared testimony, along with video segments of the hearing, up on the Web.  For us former Hill rats, it may not be a big deal to watch a congressional hearing, but the Committee’s use of technology really throws the sunshine on the process and improves understanding and access.  Congressman McKeon and his staff were always terrific about getting information out to interested parties, and it is good to see Chairman Miller has taken it several steps further.

A New Era for PreK?

Eduflack Achievement gap, early childhood education, Reading First

A few short years ago, universal preK was all the rage.  States large and small were jumping on the bandwagon, candidates for state office were running a platform that called for early childhood education, and we honestly believed that preK was moving from glorified babysitting to true, honest-to-goodness instruction for our youngest learners.  The federal investment in Early Reading First helped the cause, but in general we saw that one couldn’t truly improve elementary school academic proficiency without establishing some core building blocks in those years before kindergarten.

Then along came the economy.  Before the bottom fell out last fall, states had already been feeling the pinch on their budgets and their good intentions for universal preK.  Some plans were scaled back, some scrapped altogether.  We all knew it was an issue that warranted our education attention, it just wasn’t necessarily one that would get our top billing.  And in the current economic environment, only the top billing got our dollars and focus.
The good folks over at PreK Now (now part of the Pew Center on the States) have released a new study looking at the governors’ preK proposals for the coming fiscal year.  Leadership Matters: Governors’ PreK Proposals Fiscal Year 2010 provides some interesting information on the future of early childhood education.  Among PreK Now’s highlights, looking at gov proposals:
* 14 governors are proposing to increase investment in early education
* 13 govs are proposing to level fund early education programs, preserving current investment levels
* The governors of Alaska, North Dakota, and Rhode Island are proposing preK efforts where there are currently none
* Total proposed investment in FY2010 ECE is 4 percent greater than last year’s actual spending
On the negative, we have to hope that state legislatures will fully fund these efforts.  And on the truly negative, the governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina are all proposing cuts to their current preK investments.  Penny wise and pound foolish, particularly in this day and age.
So there is room for hope, but room for concern. At our highest levels of state leadership, we are seeing the value of ECE.  And in many states, we are converting that realization into real policies and real dollars.  Unfortunately, in some states — including those like Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina that are known, fairly or no, for a high-quality education — cuts are coming.  And we all know that once cuts come, it gets harder and harder to restore them.  There, we have to hope that the legislatures will intervene and at least continue existing funding.
For those states that are looking to create new ECE programs, increase current funding levels, or even stay the course, there becomes one very important question: How do we deliver return on investment on early childhood education?  How do we make sure we have moved beyond glorified babysitting and are really focusing on instruction and academic and social preparation?  How do we ensure that quality preK is measured and assessed for having true quality?
Last week, Sara Mead and the folks over at New America Foundation worked to answer that question, providing some guidance, some data, and some color commentary on the issue of quality preK.  At a forum held last Thursday, New America took a closer look at the lessons that can be learned from data-driven early interventions for our youngest learners.  The forum can be watched on the Web, courtesy of New America, here.  
The playback on the forum is worth checking out, and not just because it features the AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation (a group Eduflack current advises) and its work with the DC Partnership for Early Literacy.  As our governors look at continuing their bets on early childhood education, it is valuable to see how evidence-based, early childhood literacy instruction can be effective, particularly with low-income three- and four-year olds.  The DC Partnership for Literacy is working with some of our most at-risk students.  If it can demonstrate true ROI when it comes to preK, it is offering something that every governor — particularly those in Alaska, North Dakota, and Rhode Island who are starting up early childhood efforts — may be able to really learn from.  When it comes to the future of preK, we all need to focus on quality, ROI, and its contributions to closing the achievement gap.  We need these investments to count for something.

Reading First 2.0

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, NAEP, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

What is the future of the federal investment in reading instruction?  It is a question that many folks are still waiting to answer.  By now, we all realize that Reading First is dead as a doornail.  After billions of dollars of dollars spent, a significant number of research studies demonstrating its effectiveness at the state level, and even a US Department of Education (OPEPD) study highlighting that the program has worked, the fat lady has indeed sung.  The implementation problems, the IG investigation, the Bush-era RF tag, and a recent, yet flawed, IES study have all assured that.

But the federal government has been investing in reading instruction for decades.  RF was just the latest iteration of the effort (and probably the most significant).  But the end of RF doesn’t mean the end of federal reading, does it?  If one looks at the President’s budget, released last week, the answer is a clear “no.”  Buried in the thick volume is approximately $300 million for reading investment, comparable to the last year of RF (though the term Reading First is no where to be found, don’t mistake me).
So I’ll ask again, what is the future of the federal investment in reading instruction?  Eduflack opined on this back in January.  The current buzz around town, four months later, is pretty simple.  Critics of RF believe to this day that it was all about phonics.  It was a drill-and-kill bill designed to prop up programs like Direct Instruction or Open Court, teaching reading in an automaton sort of way.  We forget that the legislation — and the instruction to come from it — was supposed to focus on five key, research-based principles.  It was all about phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, with each component building on the one that came before it.
RF wasn’t a phonics bill, it was a scientifically based reading research bill.  That’s why we saw the “scientifically based” terminology i the NCLB legislation more than 100 times.  Its writers recognized that we have spent billions of dollars in this country trying to get our youngest learners reading.  And despite all of the money and the best of intentions, nearly 40 percent of fourth-graders were still falling below the proficiency mark.  RF was intended to refocus our dollars on what was proven effective.  it was about spending on what works.  It sought to abandon the notion that our classrooms are laboratories to test out the latest and greatest silver bullets, and instead should be centers of excellence where we apply instruction and teacher training that is proven most effective in getting kids to read.
Until I am provided a better name, Eduflack will refer to RF 2.0 as Yes, I Can Read.  So what does Yes, I Can Read look like in 2009?  We know from the buzz that Yes is going to place a stronger emphasis on both vocabulary and reading comprehension, two key components of SBRR.  For well more than a decade now, we have heard about the vocabulary gaps between high-income and low-income students.  Low-income students often enter school having heard thousands fewer words than their counterparts.  One can’t be truly proficient in reading if you don’t know the words.  So yes, vocabulary should be a key component of Yes.
As should comprehension.  All of the work at the beginning of the learning process — that focus on phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency — is meaningless if a student ultimately doesn’t understand what he or she is reading.  We use the fourth grade measure because that is when students need to start using their reading skills to learn other subjects, like science and social studies.  At the end of the day, comprehension is king.  Without it, all of the previous work was for naught.  So you get Eduflack’s ringing endorsement on that as well.
Third, we have the teacher component.  Although RF provided for up to 25 percent of the dollars to be spent on professional development, it is often a provision that is overlooked.  And that’s a cryin’ shame.  We cannot expect our kids to learn to read if we are not properly supporting and training our teachers to lead the instruction.  It is hard, hard work to teach a child to read.  It’s not just a matter of finding the right button to push or handing out the right workbook.  Teachers need to understand the five core building blocks of reading instruction.  They need to be able to identify where a student’s roadblock may be, using whatever is necessary to increase the application of that principle.  They need to use RtI when appropriate to get students over the hump.  They need to stick the research, but do so in an engaging way with literature that is both relevant and interesting to a student.  They need to become reading wizards, doing the impossible with more than a third of our students — engaging, educating, and inspiring.  They need to do it all.
So obviously, we need to invest more heavily in both the pre-service and in-service teacher training and support for reading instruction. And this isn’t just for ELA teachers, this is for all teachers.  Every educator has a vested interest in a child reading at grade level.  Every teacher pays the price if the child is not.  It is only natural, then, after more so many dollars have been spent in the past six years to get SBRR materials in the classroom, that Yes focuses on equipping teachers with the skills and knowledge to maximize the learning tools they currently have.
The final piece to this equation is recognizing that reading instruction is not simply a K-4 game.  As the Christian Science Monitor reported yesterday, a new NCES study found that 14 percent of Americans over the age of 16 struggle with basic reading and writing.  That’s 30 million adults and young adults!  What does that say?  For Yes, it means that our reading efforts can’t be limited to the elementary grades.  We need to focus on middle and high school reading instruction as well, particularly for our most struggling readers.  We need to take what we know works with younger students, mix in the limited research about middle and secondary school reading, and build an instructional program and the teacher supports that work with these students.  The Alliance for Excellent Education’s Reading Next report gives us a start.  We now need to move those recommendations into practice.
NAEP’s recently released long-term data showed us a couple of things (and no, I’m not going to harp on the achievement gap … this time).  First, it demonstrated that we are on the right track with SBRR.  Reading scores for our elementary grades are on the rise. They are on the rise for white, African-American, and Hispanic students.  And they are on the rise for both rich and poor students.  What this means is the investment in SBRR, and the development of SBRR materials, is working.  All kids are improving reading proficiency, whether they are in a RF school or not.  This is not an indictment of RF, rather it is a vindication of SBRR.  Textbook publishers are not selling one set of texts to RF schools, and another to non-RF schools.  All texts are now aligned with SBRR. Teacher training programs are not offering one set of reading pedagogy to those teachers about to enter RF schools and another to those going into non-RF schools.  All teachers are getting the same basics in the tenets of SBRR (if they are getting any reading at all).  The NAEP data shows it is working, and shows we need to keep at it and redouble it, not change course and try something new … again.
The NAEP data also demonstrates the impact of greater accountability measures.  The implementation of SBRR has come at the same time we were holding our sch
ools to a greater level of accountability through AYP.  Such accountability measures have ensured that all students were served, and we were making no exceptions for such standards.  Yes, it was seen as harsh by some, particularly those who wanted to use their own lenses or sought greater proportionality in how AYP was measured.  Accountability is harsh because it needs to be.  At the end of the day, the rise in NAEP scores over the last decade better aligns with the accountability movement than it does with NCLB.  As some states started to put firm accountability measures into place in late 1990s, we started to see the uptick.  As NCLB nationalized it, the results on NAEP speak for themselves.  When we hold our schools and state accountable, truly accountable, they can rise to the occasion.
Why is this important?  It gets back to the learning needs of our older students.  We don’t have such accountability measures in place for secondary schools, and we really don’t have them in place for our middle schools.  If Yes, I Can Read is going to have real teeth and leave a lasting impact, we need to hold our schools, particularly our secondary schools, accountable for its effective implementation. We need to collect all the data, measure all the students, grades K-12, and report who is doing the job and who isn’t.  Those who are should serve as beacons and exemplars for the nation.  Those who aren’t should be put on notice and should have to take the corrective action to get those students reading.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that there is a correlation between drop-out rates and literacy levels.  Nor does it take a brain surgeon to know that the root of the achievement gap is our reading proficiency gap.
So as we build Yes, I Can Read, we need to make sure we are investing in all five of the core components of SBRR, particularly vocabulary and comprehension.  We need to invest in our teachers, ensuring they have the data, knowledge, and skills to be effective literacy instructors to all students, regardless of age or current reading level.  And we need to hold our K-12 schools accountable for reading proficiency.  
Reading is not mastered at the fourth grade.  Those who are proficient at that stage still have a lot of work to do.  Those who are not need extra work, extra attention, and extra intervention.  SBRR has a lifetime of application.  It has been proven effective.  And as far as I know, no one has offered up a better roadmap to getting virtually all children reading.  Hopefully, just maybe, it will remain the core of Yes, I Can Read.    
   

A Farewell to Niffle?

Eduflack IES, NCLB, Obama, Reading First, SBRR, Workforce

This morning, the Obama Administration released its plans for the FY2010 budget.  Most in the education community have been taken by some of the big items found on the education side of the ledger.  Cuts to Title I.  Significant investments in early childhood education.  Reductions in education technology.  But it was a $6 million line item that caught the eye of Eduflack.

When we’re talking about billions of education dollars, it is hard to get worked up over a couple of million bucks.  In the grand scheme of things, few are going to truly weep over the potential elimination of the National Institute for Literacy.  Other than a small, but loyal, following in the adult literacy community, there are few that even keep track of what NIFL is up to these days.  But the zeroing out of the NIFL budget in the president’s plans speak loudly and clearly.
For years now, NIFL was struggling to figure out what it wanted to be when it grew up.  Originally, NIFL was developed to focus on adult literacy issues.  According to its own materials:
The National Institute for Literacy was established in 1991 by the National Literacy Act (NLA) and reauthorized by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998. In creating the Institute, the U.S. Congress recognized that building a competitive workforce required a concerted effort to improve adults’ basic skills. Congress tasked the Institute with initiating a coordinated, interagency effort to strengthen and expand adult literacy services. Both laws positioned the Institute as a national leader on adult literacy, a central source of knowledge about research, practice, and policy, and a catalyst for innovation.
A bold mission statement, yes, but some can and do question whether NIFL has actually acted as this rhetoric describes.  After 17 years of operation, how many seriously view it as a central source of knowledge about research or as a catalyst for innovation?  I’m not seeing many hands raised.
In 2002, NIFL took a turn from its core mission to focus on scientifically based reading research and the reading priorities found in No Child Left Behind and Reading First.  The organization focused on research projects, reports, technical assistance, professional development, and even advocacy for K-12 reading instruction.  Eduflack was fortunate enough to lead a communications effort for NIFL’s Partnership for Reading, a collaborative across multiple government agencies to emphasize the importance of scientifically based reading to policymakers, teachers, and families.
At the time, many of NIFL’s early fans and friends thought the NCLB work took away from the Institute’s core mission and unique value proposition.  They thought it distracted NIFL from the business of dealing with literacy issues for those who have left school, including new immigrants and those who were incarcerated.  They thought it was the U.S. Department of Education hijacking a needed lever for helping those adults and non-students who had fallen through the literacy cracks.
Others, Eduflack included, saw reading instruction in the early grades as a necessary, non-negotiable mission for NIFL.  While it may not have been a focus in the early years, one could not dispute that focusing on reading skills with our youngest learners has real and strong impact on our adolescent and adult learners.  The Reading Excellence Act (during the Clinton Administration) opened the door to this focus on the elementary grades.  NCLB merely brightened the spotlight and raised the stakes.
Personally, I like NIFL.  I have respect for the people who have worked there, those who have advised it, and those who have and still do sit on its board.  But the future of NIFL has long been a struggle.  Many felt that adult literacy issues are better served by ED’s Office of Vocational and Adult Education.  And when it came to K-12, there was far more power and effort being exerted by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and even the Reading First office. 
How much impact can $6 million have, particularly when $3 million of it was being spent on the operational costs of the Institute itself?  We’ve heard for years that NIFL was launching a National Reading Panel, Part 2, but it has never come to fruition.  We’ve had multi-year NIFL research panels undertake work, only to have their final reports blocked by the Institute of Education Studies from final publication.  We had listserves taken down because they were far too critical.  And we had non-governmental groups like the National Center for Family Literacy do a more effective job in actually promoting change and improvement in the literacy community.
Am I sad to see the “Going Out of Business” sign potentially hung on NIFL’s doors?  No, not particularly.  The same issues can be better handled by others.  What I am sad about is the great potential NIFL has had, particularly over the last decade, and its inability to capitalize on that potential.  The organization was almost afraid to take a leadership position in a field where it had every right and responsibility to lead.  It favored inaction over action. It feared rocking the boat or drawing attention.  It wanted to go about its business, without truly integrating and interacting with those government offices and individuals who could help take the $6 million investment in NIFL and exponentially increase the impact of the investment.  No wonder the Obama Administration failed to see the value.
Years ago, Congress debated whether to reauthorize NIFL or not, questioning whether the Institute was a necessary cog in our education improvement efforts.  It was written into NCLB to prove its necessity.  Now, seven years later, we see that NIFL is expendable.  Our focus should not be on saving the Institute, that exercise was undertaken years ago.  Instead, we must now look to how the valuable activities and programs managed by NIFL are continued by others.  What do OVAE and OESE take over?  What moves over to IES?  What goes to NCFL and other non-profits?  
We still have much work to do if we are to improve literacy rates and reading proficiency in this country, from our youngest learners to our most experienced workers.  If not NIFL, someone must step in and lead on this issue.  The stakes are too high not to.
 

Continued Work Under the NAEP Hood

Eduflack Achievement gap, NAEP, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Last week, Eduflack opined on the recently released NAEP long-term data.  From my cheap seats, the headlines were relatively simple.  Our Nation’s Report Card demonstrated a couple of key points.  First, Reading First during the NCLB era worked.  Second, our attempts over the past two decades to close the achievement gap have not.  

As is typical with these sort of issues, Eduflack has been accused of giving short shrift to the good and the positive in these data sets.  I looked at the half-empty glass, instead of focusing on the gains we have made in the last decade in reading and math for white, African-American, and Hispanic students.  On this point, I will concede  When it comes to reading and math scores of nine-year-olds, we posted impressive gains across the board.  African-American and Hispanic students made gains similar to their white counterparts.  For a closer look at this side of the debate, take a look at the give-and-take between Dallas Morning News columnist Bill McKenzie and former Bush education advisor Sandy Kress here.  
Whether one wants to accept it or not, the data does seem to indicate that the policies introduced under No Child Left Behind and based on scientifically based research — particularly Reading First — were effective and were effective across all disaggregated groups.  While some critics would say there were similar gains in the decade prior to NCLB, we must note that we not only maintained those previous advances, but we really added to them, at least when it comes to nine-year-olds.
Yes, the NAEP data shows us that, when implemented with fidelity, NCLB instructional policies worked.  The law focuses on the elementary grades, and the elementary grades showed real gains in both reading and math.  And they showed such gains across all demographic groups, not just with white students.  That is an achievement, and is one worth noting.  We have made real gains for elementary school students, and we should be in agreement as to the causes for those gains.
But I am still that glass-is-half-empty sort of guy, and I can’t shake two important takeaways I have with regard to the NAEP data.  The first involves high schools and the achievement gap.  I made this point last week, but it is worth emphasizing again and again and again.  The reading achievement gap between African-American and white 17-year-olds remains 53 points.  Did we expect to make major gains at closing the gap?  No.  We haven’t put in any measurable interventions to focus on the literacy crisis in our middle and high school grades.  But we have to look at this data in the larger picture.  We know that students, particularly those at our nation’s drop-out factories, are leaving high school in the ninth or 10th grades.  We know that in many cities, up to half of African-American students are dropping out of high school, and are usually doing it as early as possible.  The majority of minority students are not in high school long enough to even take the 17-year-old NAEP test.  So when we talk about a 53 point achievement gap, that is AFTER all of these drop-outs have checked out.  The reading performance of our most at-risk students isn’t even factored in here.  This huge gap is just among those minority students who have remained in school and plan to stick around for their diplomas.  Can we even fathom what the number would look like if all of those drop-outs were tested and analyzed too?  We think we have a crisis now.  Then, it would be a downright epidemic.
Second, the data shows that we continue to neglect both our middle and secondary school grades.  Our gains are posted in the elementary years, the same academic time that NCLB focuses on and that garners the vast majority of our accountability and assessment focus.  We don’t have clear expectations of the knowledge and skills are middle schoolers need before entering high school.  And we certainly don’t have such expectations with regard to high school graduates.  As a result, we’ve made no real gains when it comes to our middle and high schoolers.
That shouldn’t be a major surprise.  For the past seven years, we have gone all in, placing all of our chips on elementary school students.  Recognizing you have to start somewhere, we started with those entering the education continuum, seeking to give all new students a full chance and knowing we would have to go back and address those who have already fallen through the cracks later.  From the NAEP scores, some would say the bet has paid off.  The question is what we now do with our winnings.  We can get up from the table, declare mission accomplished, and be satisfied with the progress we have made to date and the notion that such scientifically based instructional methods will continue for years to come.  Or we can double down and use what has worked to focus on the later grades, figuring out ways to help those who have fallen through the cracks.  How do we address the instructional problems in the middle and high school grades?  How do we ensure our nine-year-olds build on their current gains, and don’t merely take an academic step back once they hit middle school?  How do we use the building blocks we have to construct a stronger academic product for all?  What do we do about the millions of kids who have fallen through those cracks and lack the basic proficiencies in middle and high school to maximize their learning experience?
  
In our elementary grades, we now have clear standards and clear assessments to measure against those standards.  We have put in place high-quality instruction and the professional development and teacher supports necessary to deliver that instruction well and with fidelity.  We’ve shown how to do it, now we just need to do it at scale.  We need to apply such standards, assessments, and expectations across K-12.
At the same time, we cannot and must not lost sight of the achievement gap, even among our elementary school learners.  Yes, educators are to be commended for their across-the-board gains in reading and math for nine-year-olds.  We’ve shown that African-American and Hispanic students are just as capable as white students in the classroom, and can demonstrate similar success.  But at this stage of the game, we have to expect far, far more.  In basketball, we know that if you are down by 20 heading into the halftime, you can’t win the game simply by matching your opponent basket for basket.  You need to throw up the three pointers, gaining three points for every two sunk by the opposition.  That (and just downright shutting down your opponent) is the only way to put yourself in a position to win.  Right now, minority and low-income students not only have little chance to win, they are still barely able to keep the game competitive.
We need to find ways to get historically disadvantaged groups back in the game here, giving them real opportunities to close the learning and achievement gaps.  Holding their own is not good enough.  We need to provide the resources, the opportunities,and the results to start cutting into that lead.  Specific efforts to closing the achievement gap in elementary school can reap exponential results in middle and high school.  If we’ve found methods that work in equipping young African-American and Hispanic students with the math and reading skills necessary for success (and the latest NAEP data indicates we have) we need to figure out ways to double or triple the impact of that instruction on such students.  And we need to figure out a way to extend such instruction after those students blow out the candles on their 10th birthday cake.
Is there good to be found in th
e latest NAEP data?  Absolutely.  Should we be satisfied with such gains?  Absolutely not.  The across-the-board elementary school gains demonstrate that we don’t have to accept mediocrity  Every child can succeed with effective instruction, resources, and teachers to deliver it.  But too few of the students who need it the most are getting such instruction, resources, and educators.  Now is not the time to bask in what has been done.  Now is the time to focus on the great amount that  still needs to be done. 

The Good, Bad, and NAEP

Eduflack Achievement gap, AYP, Math, NAEP, national standards, Reading First, SBRR

Whether we like it or not, the name of the game in public education in the United States is student achievement.  It is the one mean by which we measure or successes, determine our progress, and decide whether we are doing an effective job in our public schools or not.  Usually, that manifests itself in performance on state assessments or how schools stack up when it comes to AYP.  But on those few special days each year, we also have National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, scores.  The Nation’s Report Card provides us the best national snapshot on student academic achievement we can find … until we finally get our act together and adopt and enforce national academic standards.

The NAEP Long-Term Trend Results are out, and this year’s numbers are both good and bad.  The Associated Press has a good piece on the topic here.
As Eduflack is the poster child for pessimism, let’s start out with that which should cause educational improvers and agitators the most heartburn and the largest reason for concern.  And special thanks to the folks over at Education Trust for breaking down the numbers and adding to those things that keep Eduflack up at night.  Chief among out NAEP concerns,  are two simple words — achievement gap.  The data breakdown from our EdTrust friends:
* In reading, African-American nine-year-olds scored 44 points lower than their white peers.  At 13, the gap was 39 points.  At 17, the gap was 53 points.
* In math, Hispanic nine-year-olds scored 23 points lower than their white peers.  At 12, the gap was 35 points.  At 17, the gap was 33 points.
* The reading gap between African-American and white 13 year-olds was 21 points in 1990.  It is 21 points in 2008.
* The reading gap between Hispanic and white 13-year-olds was 24 points in 1990.  Today, it is 26 points.
* The math gap between African-American and white 13-year-olds was 27 points in 1990.  It is 28 points today.
* The math gap between Hispanic and white 13-year-olds was 22 points in 1990.  Today, it is 23 points.
It is not all doom and gloom, however.  According to the latest NAEP numbers, we are making real progress in reading instruction.  Since 2004, student reading achievement has increased in all three age brackets.  This is particularly true in the elementary grades, where performance among all groups of students (African-American, Hispanic, and low-income included) increased significantly.  
Why the difference in elementary school reading, the sort of difference that could put a smile on even the most curmudgeonly of education reformers?  We might not want to say it out loud, but some may actually want to consider that Reading First and our emphasis on scientifically based reading instruction has actually worked.  For those nine-year-olds tested under NAEP, SBRR is the only form of reading instruction they have ever known.  Their instruction and their teachers’ professional development has been evidence based and rooted in our strongest scientific principles.  We have applied what works in their classrooms, and used scientific measures to determine instruction, PD, and resource acquisition.  We’ve let the research chart the path, and now we’re arriving at the destination.  Reading scores are up, and they are up in a way far more significant than we have seen in past years.  The only significant change to the process or variable in the formula between 2004 and now is the successful implementation of SBRR.
The only logical conclusion from this is that SBRR, and Reading First, actually work.  We focused our dollars and our efforts on teaching children in the elementary grades to read with scientifically based reading instruction.  We’ve hemmed and hawed and questioned and doubted for years now about the effects.  But if one looks at the Long-Term NAEP trends, the only logical conclusion one can make, at least looking at the recent gains on elementary reading scores, is that SBRR works.  And the drop-offs in reading achievement gains in the later grades only speak to a greater need to expand the reach of SBRR and fund and implement scientifically based reading programs in our middle and secondary grades as well.
But these positive outcomes for elementary school reading (and don’t let anyone fool you, they are indeed positive outcomes) still can’t mask the far greater concerns raised by these NAEP scores.  The achievement gap is still staggering, and we seem to have made no effort in closing such gaps over the last two decades.  If we look at our middle schoolers, white students are scoring nearly 25 percent higher on math and reading tests than their African-American and Hispanic friends.  For African-American and Hispanic students, the achievement gap seems to grow over the years, and is at its worst in high school.
What is particularly frightening about the achievement gap among 17-year-olds is what it doesn’t include.  For instance, among 17-year-old African American students, the reading achievement gap is 53 points.  That’s among those students who are still in high school at age 17.  What about those who have dropped out between ninth and 11th grades?  Are we to honestly believe that those students who choose dropping out as an option do so as reading and math proficient learners?  In our urban centers, where drop-out rates reach near 50 percent, what does it tell us that the learning gap is 50 points JUST FOR THOSE REMAINING IN SCHOOL?  We can’t possibly believe that the achievement gap is getting better.  This should be a huge warning sign that, despite the best of intentions, our achievement gap is only getting worse.
The headlines touting American students are making gains in reading math are reason to smile, particularly when we look at those elementary school reading performance numbers.  But the stark, disturbing data regarding the achievement gap makes crystal clear that the achievement gap is not a temporary problem nor is it an issue that simply mandates a band-aid solution or will heal itself.  We’ve been talking about the gap for more than a quarter century, but we’ve made little progress in identifying a real solution.
When it comes to public education in the United States, the achievement gap is public enemy number one.  It denies a real chance to far too many students.  It strengthens a culture of educational have and have nots.  It puts huge cracks and gaps in our pipelines to both postsecondary education and economic success.  And it demonstrates that true equality in education and opportunity remains little more than an urban legend for far, far too many children across the United States.
We need to do better, and we must do better.  We are still competing in a great race to mediocracy, not to the top.  Hopefully, we can use these numbers to make specific improvements to how we teach and how we learn.  Hopefully, we can use these numbers to see that SBRR works, and we need to extend it into the middle and secondary grades to improve reading achievement scores, particularly with African-American and Hispanic students.  And hopefully we will realize the status quo simply cannot stand, and we must take real, strong, and measurable actions to improve the quality and impact of instruction, particularly with historically disadvantaged student populations.
Yes, we are making progress.  But we still have a long way to go before we can truly celebrate student achievement on the NAEP.  Accepting the achievement gap as a way of life is accepting that a quarter of our young people don’t have access to the pathways of success.  That’s a future that none of us should be willing to
accept.  These numbers should be a clarion call to our states and districts about the need to ensure every dime of available education dollars is going to reach those students most in need.  We need to stop talking about delivering the minimum, as required under the law, and focus on providing the best, particularly for the minority and low-income students who are the victims of the achievement gap.  We need to break the cycle, and remove skin color and wallet size as factors in learning and student success.   

The Data Is Always Bigger in Texas

Eduflack Achievement gap, IES, Reading First, SBRR

At the start of the year, Eduflack made a couple of promises.  I would seek to throw the spotlight on positive stories that were not getting the attention they deserved.  I would look to education policy stories outside of Washington, DC.  And I would continue to my Don Quixote-like obsession with continuing to push the notion that evidence-based reading instruction works, and that it can be proven in state after state.

A few weeks ago, we talked about the exemplary results out in California, where student reading scores have significantly risen after the adoption of scientifically based reading instruction under Reading First.  This follows similar data from states from Idaho to Ohio, where we’ve seen tangible, significant impact of SBRR on student achievement.  Now we set our sights on the Lone Star State, where reading score on the state’s TAKS exam again show that evidence-based reading works if our goal is to boost student reading proficiency and achievement.
The data is clear.  Looking at 2003 data (pre-RF) and 2008 data (the supposed end of RF), third graders in RF schools who passed the TAKS reading section rose 14 percent, from 77 percent to 91 percent.  That compares to 4 percent gains for both all students and for those in non-RF classrooms.
For Hispanic students, the overall state gain was 6 percent, but Hispanic students in RF schools posted a whopping 15 percent gain.  African-American third graders did even better under RF, posting a 4 percent gain overall, but a 16 percent gain in RF classes.  Among economically disadvantaged students, those in RF classrooms saw 15 percent reading passage gains.  And limited English proficient students in RF schools saw an incredible 19 percent gain in their reading proficiency, according to TAKS.
All of this is from data available from the Texas Education Agency.  All of this flies in the face of the urban legend that Reading First had little, if any, impact on student reading proficiency.  All of it shows that evidence-based reading instruction just plain works.  Yet none of this has made its way into the policy debate.
If you talk to education reformers today, they’ll tell you the most significant challenge educators face today is closing the achievement gap.  The differences in performance between white and African-American students, between white and Hispanic students, and between rich and poor students should be a national embarrassment.  We are selling all students on the notion that they need a high school diploma and some form of postsecondary education in order to succeed in life.  But at the same time, we want to ignore that so many students are struggling to be reading proficient by the end of the third grade and will never have the literacy skills to succeed in college.
Those in the classroom will tell you that struggling fourth grade readers have a near impossible task of catching up over the remainder of their academic career.  Where they need more time and more intensity in their reading practice and instruction, they get less as they start to study other academic subjects.  Then they fall behind in social studies and science and even math because they lack the literacy skills needed to perform at grade level in other subjects.
That is why SBRR is so important, and that is why Eduflack continues to tilt at windmills here.  Forget what the IES Impact Study may have said.  It looked at a very small group of schools using a research model that can’t be replicated (as we don’t know the handful of schools that were studied).  Let’s turn our attention to what matters — student achievement.
Like it or not, the best measure we now have for student achievement is the state assessment.  In state after state, that state assessment is showing that student reading achievement is on the rise, markedly so since the introduction of RF in 2003.  Texas is just the latest collection of data points.  We’re seeing it in state after state.
What makes Texas’ data that much more interesting is the clear picture it paints with regard to SBRR and its ability to close the achievement gap.  Doing what is proven effective in literacy instruction, teachers in the Lone Star State dramatically improved student reading achievement for African-American, Hispanic, and poor students.  Students are learning, students are reading, and the major variable between 2003 and 2008 was the introduction (and requirement) of evidence-based instruction, materials, interventions, and professional development.
It all begs the question — how much more state-level data is necessary before the naysayers and the doomsdayers admit that evidence-based reading instruction works, that we can show it works, and that we can replicate its successes in schools and classrooms where too many children are still left behind?  We can get every child reading.  We just need to stay the course, and get real, proven approaches and materials into more classrooms, empower more teachers with the PD and support they need to use it, and effectively measure ongoing student progress (while offering specific interventions when needed).
If SBRR is working and proven effective deep in the heart of Texas (along with California, Ohio, and elsewhere), how can we think of putting on the brakes and denying these kids who are demonstrating real improvement?  

Recovering and Reinvesting in RF

Eduflack Achievement gap, Reading First, SBRR, stimulus

By now, educators must have be living under rocks to have not heard about the enormous sums of money soon coming to school districts.  In the next month and a half, the first installment of nearly 80 billion dollars intended to prevent pending cuts to local K-12 education and allow for real school improvement is expected to flow.  How Title I and IDEA expenditures will be spent is pretty clear cut, following existing distribution formulae and providing a booster shot to those schools already receiving such funds.  The big ticket item — the State Stabilization Fund — is still working through the details.  

For those looking for regular updates on the policy and the language behind it, one of the best sources is EdWeek’s Michele McNeil and Alyson Klein’s Politics K-12 blog — blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/.  
But we know the intent of the Stabilization Fund.  Many, if not most, school districts have been planning budget cuts in these difficult financial times.  Teachers are on the chopping block.  PD is being sacrificed.  Textbook adoptions on hold.  Instructional material purchases put off for a later day.  The Stabilization Fund is intended to stop such drastic action, providing immediate funds so that NO school district faces budget cuts.  School districts are to look at their spending for FY2008 and FY2009 (the previous and current academic year), determine spending levels from those years, and then use the Stabilization Fund to prevent any reduction in spending.  Those programs that have been in the school for the past few years are to be protected, providing educators the opportunity to continue efforts that are working and having a real impact on student achievement, economics be damned.  The Fund is meant to alleviate worry and ensure investment in our classroom continues and that effective programs do not face irrational cuts.
At the same time, the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday moved the current fiscal year’s budget forward, a spending bill that was to be passed last September, but never quite broke through.  Many educators have long feared that Reading First would be zeroed out in that budget bill, denying school districts around the country needed funding to invest in the research-proven instructional materials, professional development, and technical assistance needed to get our kids reading at grade level.  That fear was realized, as the $300 million or so that was spent on RF last year was missing from the House version of the budget.
Eduflack has come to grips with the fact that Reading First is dead.  The program itself was long plagued with significant implementation problems and a poor public perception.  But its core tenets remain both true and essential.  We can get virtually every child reading at grade level by using proven-effective instruction.  The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) released data late last year demonstrating the effectiveness of our investment in research-proven reading, showing real impact on RF and non-RF schools alike.  And Eduflack has reported on a wide range of data demonstrating the programs effectiveness in states across the country, the most recent being the terrific results shown in California (http://blog.eduflack.com/2009/02/10/golden-reading-results-in-the-golden-state.aspx).  
School districts are rightfully worried about the future of their reading instruction efforts.  RF funds have been a boon to struggling schools, providing then direct funding do what is necessary to improve student reading achievement.  It has resulted in sea change when it comes to the instructional materials and PD available to our schools, whether they are RFs or not.  And it has refocused technical assistance on research-based approaches aligned with classroom instruction and embedded in real practice.  And have we ever mentioned that it just plain works?
The elimination of the Reading First program was an inevitability, but that does not mean our school districts should stop their effective use of proven-effective reading instruction.  They should still invest in the instructional materials and PD that are most effective in getting students to read at grade level.  They should still invest in classroom-based strategies for equipping students with the instruction and skills they need to achieve.  And they should still invest in teacher empowerment, ensuring educators receive the reading PD and data understanding necessary to impact student achievement.
So a simple question?  Why isn’t every state and every RF school across the country looking to use newly available State Stabilization Fund and Title I dollars to continue their literacy efforts?  The Stabilization Fund is designed to ensure that no schools are forced to cut their budgets.  Such reading investments have been part of recent budgets.  They are now facing the ax.  It just seems natural that the Fund is used to continue a school district’s investment in proven-effective reading instruction and professional development.  After all, the law is intended to prevent cuts and continue those efforts that are boosting student achievement.  In those states and districts where RF has been proven effective, it seems continuing the investment (in materials, assessment, and PD) should move forward, even if the original funding stream is gone.  The Fund was meant to replace disappearing funds.  And it becomes a slam dunk when we see that such investments are already proven effective in improving student reading skills and academic achievement?
And why can’t new Title I funds be used to expand the investment, getting it into more classrooms and more students?  If a school district has identified and successfully implemented an approach to get students reading at grade level, that approach should continue, particularly with struggling students in Title I schools.  New Title I funds available under ARRA is intended to expand good work.  Seems there are a great number of Title I schools that could benefit from increased investment in effective reading instruction, particularly if we are looking to boost student achievement and offer every student a pathway to success, as intended by the President.
Heck, there will even be chances to invest in RF concepts through IDEA funds and highly popular Response to Intervention (RtI) approaches.  And we won’t even start talking about the vast opportunities available through the soon-to-be-detailed Innovation Fund.
RF is dead, absolutely.  But that doesn’t mean we give up on teaching our kids to read or offering the research-proven approaches and interventions that are necessary to raising student literacy levels and getting all students reading at grade level.  Our states and districts know what is now working when it comes to reading instruction.  We have administrators, technical assistance providers, coaches, and teachers in place to deliver effective instruction.  After some unfortunate stops and starts, we now know the materials and curriculum that are most effective in reaching our goals.  And we have clear understanding of the professional development and ongoing support our teachers need to turn every child into a reader.  Now is the time to double down on reading, not walk away from the table.
Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Education is now providing school districts the chips to place that needed bet on student reading ability.  Reading programs in school districts across the nation are facing significant cuts.  The feds are now providing upwards of $80 billion to ensure our K-12 schools don’t face any budget cuts and, in fact, can increase instructional spending (particularly on those items that will improve student achievement).  It seems that the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act was custom written to ensure that our federal reading investment (currently through Reading First, previously through the Reading Excellence Act) continues and that no school cut its reading programs or its reading investment, particularly those struggling schools previously identified as RF schools.
I have no doubt that ED will be developing a new federal reading initiative, one based on the most positive attributes of Reading First and enhanced through a broader interpretation of the research and a greater commitment to professional development and teacher supports.  It is a program that is needed by our schools and it is a commitment our federal government must make if we want to make good on our intent of strengthening public education and giving every child a chance at success.  Until such a program is in place, though, every RF school should be working with their district and their state to ensure that these new funds are being use to protect the instructional investments in the classroom.  And few investments are as worthy as the reading instruction programs that are boosting reading achievement for millions of kids across the nation.
Yes, school districts should be using this stimulus money to ensure that teachers stay on the job and no instructional positions are eliminated.  We can’t teach our kids without educators in front of reasonably sized classrooms.  But we must also provide those teachers with the resources, materials, TA, and PD they need to get the job done.  That investment starts with reading, particularly proven-effective reading instruction.  That is the full intent of the stimulus package.
The RF grant program may be long gone, but that doesn’t mean we stop investing in reading instruction that we know works.  The economic stimulus law gives us both the funds and the direction to keep instructional efforts moving forward.  Reading can, should, and must be at the top of that list.

How Do We Disperse Ed Stimulus Dollars?

Eduflack Arne Duncan, NCLB, NGA, Reading First, stimulus

By now, we’ve all hear the numbers.  Under the state stabilization fund, $53.4 billion for our governors.  For Title I, $10 billion.  Special education gets $12.2 billion.  The School Improvement Fund, $3 billion.  Head Start comes in a cool billion dollars.  With $250 million for state data systems and $200 million more for the Teacher Incentive Fund.  And then there are the subcategories.

There is no getting around it.  This is a massive injection of new cash into our nation’s public education system.  With a sweep of the pen this week, President Obama has more than doubled federal investment in K-12 education, providing our nation’s governors and their chief state school officers with enormous power as to how these new piggy banks will be broken into and what new local buckets will receive the shiny gold coins.
But it begs an enormously important question.  How will the funds be dispersed?  The buzz around the education community is that money will be distributed quickly, with initial chunks going out to the states before the end of the summer.  At the same time, we know that the U.S. Department of Education has yet to staff up, at least in terms of an undersecretary, deputy secretary, and virtually all of its assistant secretaries.
Some of this money will simply be spent using existing funding formulae.  The federal government and the states already have clear systems for dispersing and allocating Title I and special education (IDEA) funds.  Those systems will hold when it comes to getting the $12.2 billion in sped money and $10 billion in additional Title I funds out to the districts it is meant to stimulate.
But what of the state stabilization fund?  Does it require a new structure and a new relationship between the federal government and the states?  Does it require specific rubrics for tracking how funds are spent, ensuring they are not supplanting existing federal dollars and are delivering return on investment when it comes to both stabilizing the financial situation of our schools and boosting student achievement?  Do we even have a mechanism for the feds to cut these stabilization fund checks to the states in quick order?
One assumes that each governor will need to appoint an individual (or an office) in the state to serve as the point person for negotiation with the U.S. Department of Education on the stabilization fund.  Most think this point person will be the chief state school officer.  But in some states, we know that is likely not going to be the case.  Such a point person could reside in the governor’s office, the state board of education, or even the economic development office.  It could even be an outside consultant or group.  There is no one-size-fits-all implementation model here, at least not one evident in the new federal funding structure.  So how does it happen, and how does it happen so quickly?
In recent years, the closest model we have to implementing such an effort was the establishment of the Reading First funding program, as the previous Administration looked to quickly disperse $1 billion a year in new reading dollars.  Moving at lightening speed, it still took nearly a year to establish those state relationships, gain documents from the states on how the funds would be spent, and then write the checks and get them out there.  That was a billion dollars, and the funding was staggered as states tried to get their plans in order (some took well more than a year to get approved work plans in there, some moved more quickly).
And we saw how successful the implementation of that program was.  Moving too quickly, we opened the system up to abuse and the perception of mis-spending and mis-directed priorities.  Originally, ED promised swat teams prepared to go into those school districts receiving RF money, ready to evaluate if the money was being spent as intended and prepared to pull the funding if it was not.  Maybe we’ll follow through on the promise with state stabilization funding squads.
Now we are talking about a scope more than 50 times in size, on an implementation far faster than RF ever envisioned.  Maybe the RF model — and its means for dispersing funds to the states — is they system on which to build this new effort.  What is clear is there is a lot of work ahead for both ED and the states to make sure this economic stimulus money.  Everyone is waiting see the guidelines for new federal spending and how the money flow will be managed and monitored.  We need to move quickly, yes.  But we also need to move smartly.  
The stimulus package makes a major statement with regard to future investment in K-12 education and public school improvement.  It restructures the role of localities, the states, and the federal government in the process.  And it sets clear priorities for the pathways we must take if we are to make lasting improvement and invest this money as intended.  
Eduflack is a results guy, no question about it.  Process always takes a backseat for me, particularly when we have outcomes in the driver’s seat.  But this stimulus package — and the state stabilization fund — cry out for a clear, comprehensive, closely monitored process that ensures swift action, efficient spending, and documentable return on investment.  How do we make sure money is getting to the schools and students who need it the most?  How do we make sure we are using money to supplement existing programs, and not merely replacing existing state funding commitments?  How do we make sure we are having a true impact, beyond the dollar tally?
As more and more details on federal stimulus funding become available, we need to ensure we are getting such details on the process.  Now is not the time to follow a “trust us” philosophy.  We’ve all seen where that has gotten us before.

Golden Reading Results in the Golden State

Eduflack Arne Duncan, PD, Reading First, SBRR

For the past few weeks, Eduflack has been heartened to hear that the Obama Administration and EdSec Duncan are behind a continued federal commitment to reading instruction.  Yes, we all know that there were severe implementation problems with Reading First, and that such problems have led many a RF critic to demand the defunding of the program and the dismantling of our promise to do what works when it comes to reading, empowering every child with the gift of literacy.

Anyone who has read this blog for more than a week or two knows about my commitment to scientifically based reading.  A few weeks ago, I laid out a basic plan for how the Obama Administration can use the best of Reading First, while learning from its failures, to build a better federal reading effort.  You can see the full thought here — blog.eduflack.com/2009/01/27/whats-next-for-federal-reading.aspx  
I’ve spent much of the past three years or so talking about the need to save RF.  Many times, I’m asked why.  Look at the IG investigation, I’m told.  Look at the IES study.  Look at the fights scientifically based reading research has caused.  Why would we want to save this?  For one simple reason.  It works.  And our kids are too important not to invest in what is proven effective and not to ensure that our teachers are using the very best instructional methods and have access to the most effective PD (rather than the hot flavor of the month or what a salesman is selling on that particular day).
Last fall, the U.S. Department of Education released a study that showed the effectiveness of Reading First.  Contrary to the IES study, this Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) study demonstrated real results of evidence-based reading in RF and non-RF classrooms alike.  We’ve talked about the data in Idaho and Ohio and other states that have benefited from an influx of federal reading money and a commitment to proven-effective instruction and professional development.  Now we have even more to talk about.
For those doubting Thomases out there, take a look at the latest research out of the great state of California.  Released more than a month ago, the California Reading First Year 6 Evaluation Report hasn’t gotten much attention (particularly here in our nation’s capital).  But it is worthy of the spotlight.
This is not just a water droplet in the great pool that is education improvement.  This study looks at data involving 157,951 students; 16,442 teachers, coaches, and administrators, 850 schools, and 110 school districts across California.  What did the good researchers out on the West Coast find?  Among the conclusions:  
1) Reading First has had a significant impact on student achievement in California.
2) The Reading First effect is meaningful.
3) Reading growth remains significant.
4) The Reading First effect generalizes across student performance levels.
5) Reading First significantly impacts grades 4 and 5 performance.
6) The Reading First effect generalizes to English learners.
7) Implementation of Reading First principles remains adequate but could be higher.
8) Principal participation and teacher program evaluations are strong predictors of achievement.
9) The Reading First program has led to the development of a sustainable, well-integrated structure and process of providing reading/language arts instruction in California.
10) Most special education teachers use their district’s adopted reading/language arts curriculum.
11) Schools have not yet begun to implement Response-to-Intervention (RtI)
The full report can be found here: www.eddata.com/resources/publications/RF_Evaluation_2007-2008.pdf       

</div><div><br></div><div>So”>

So why is this important, other than the obvious that with so much RF money spent in California that it is good to see it has been put to good use and has provided?  It provides us with some valuable lessons as we consider how to build the next generation of federal reading instruction efforts.
First, evidence-based instruction works.  It has had an impact across California on virtually all student demographics, including special education and ELLs.  And despite the findings of IES, it is effective with the later elementary grades (as evidenced by its impact on California fourth and fifth graders).
Second, we have clear room for implementation improvement.  California achieved these results while acknowledging that fidelity to the principles could be better.  One can only imagine the true, measured impact if every one of those 850 schools had adopted RF completely and with absolute fidelity.
Third, educators are the key to effectiveness.  Principal and teacher involvement is a predictor of achievement.  There was a reason that up to 25 percent of RF money was intended for professional development.  It was to ensure those involved teachers put the full power of the research to use in their classrooms.  When they do, the results follow.
Fourth, RtI — seen by many an education profiteer as the next great profit center — still has not taken hold in California.  And if it hasn’t taken hold in Cali, it will be slow to truly go to scale across the nation.
Finally, we need federally supported reading instruction based on the core principles of proven research and effective, content-based professional development.  OPEPD showed us that the heart of RF was having a lasting, positive impact on our schools, whether they receive RF money or not.  Data from states like Ohio and now California show the power that evidence-based reading can have on student achievement.  Now is the time to build on those successes, documenting best practice, continuing to train teachers, and getting our classrooms the instructional materials and resources they need to teach reading effectively.
Yes, Reading First is dead (and deservedly so because of its implementation problems, perceptions of programmatic favoritism, and the opportunity for profiteers to sell snake oil under the guise of research).  But now is the time to open up that last will and testament, see what the law has left for policymakers (federal and state), teachers, and students, and use that inheritance to build a better, stronger, more effective program for our nation’s classrooms.  Our work is not done until every child is reading at grade level.  And we still have a long way to go before we get there.  Thankfully, California and others are leaving us the trail markers to help us get to our ultimate destination.