SBRR

2 + 2 = controversy

Eduflack Bloomberg, Chancellor Klein, Math, PR, SBRR

Sometimes, it just isn’t as simple as two plus two.  Case in point, the current brouhaha down in Texas, where the State Board of Education is rejecting the third grade Everyday Mathematics program.  The program currently has 20 percent marketshare in Texas, and its been credited with turning around the math scores in New York City’s public schools.  Despite that, Texas is expelling the program, citing its failure to prepare kids for college.

The full story is in the New York Sun — http://www.nysun.com/article/66711 — courtesy of <a href="http://www.educationnews.org.

Texas”>www.educationnews.org.

Texas educators should be allowed to do what they think is right for Texas students.  Just because it works in New York or anywhere else doesn’t mean it will work in the Lone Star State.  Sometimes, what happens in New York needs to stay in New York.

Be clear, we do know it is working in New York City.  Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein will clearly tell you that, as will the folks who decided the Broad Prize this year.  And NYC’s math scores have improved since the curriculum was implemented almost five years.  Both opinion and the data seem to point to the effectiveness of the program, at least in the Big Apple.

What makes this interesting, particularly from a communications perspective, is WHY folks are standing up in opposition to Everyday Mathematics.  It comes down to two issues — rigor and readiness.

Rigor, of course, is the new buzz word.  Here at the end of 2007, it is now being used in place of scientifically or evidence based.  Called progressive or fuzzy, Everyday Math is getting caught in the crosshairs of the math wars (a far more dastardly battle than any reading war skirmish).  Funny that, since it comes from McGraw Hill, the publisher usually beaten up for its overemphasis on research and methodology for its Open Court reading programs.

Regardless, the U.S. Department of Education, according to the Sun, judged “Everyday Math more effective than some more traditional programs but calling its impact still just “potentially” positive.”  So it must have some rigor to pass IES’ WWC filters.

So we move on to readiness.  The public criticism is that Everyday Math is not preparing kids for college.  Some Texas officials rejected it because the book doesn’t include multiplication tables.  And an NYU computer science professor has attacked the curriculum for not preparing kids for the types of college courses he teaches.

Eduflack is the first to recognize that college readiness is all the rage these days.  But how many of our third graders are planning on matriculating to postsecondary institutions this coming fall?  Are third-grade math courses designed to prepare us for the rigors of college, or the rigors of middle school?

Yes, states and school districts should be given the flexibility to do what is best for their students.  Even in NYC, Klein has provided waivers to those schools looking to use an alternative elementary school math curriculum.  But when we attack third grade textbooks on the college readiness issue, aren’t we starting to play Chicken Little?

College readiness is an important, even a critical, issue for our nation’s public schools.  But if we use it as a rhetorical strawman to turn back each and every program, curriculum, and initiative we oppose, we remove the soul and value of the issue.  Sure, everything from preK on in some way gets our kids ready for college.  They are building blocks of learning.  Does this now mean that if don’t provide our kindergartners with phonics and phonemic awareness, we are not effectively preparing them for college?  Technically, yes, but rhetorically, of course not.

Students become math-ready for college by taking Algebra, Algebra II, geometry, and trig in their middle and high schools.  Third grade prepares some of the building blocks to get there, but even the most successful, beyond this world third-grade curriculum will not make today’s average nine-year-old college ready.  It doesn’t take a math Ph.D. to see that.

The Texas State Board of Education should be making sure that its elementary school mathbooks are providing the foundations every kid needs to succeed.  If not, stand up and say so and propose a better solution.  If Everyday Math isn’t cutting it for Texas kids, just say it isn’t the best choice for Texas classrooms.  That’s the Board’s prerogative and their responsibility.  But do it for the right reasons.  Otherwise, we aren’t too far from hearing that this Play-Doh may not be a college-ready supplemental learning tool.
 

It Takes More Than a Village …

Eduflack DCPS, Fenty, NCLB, PR, SBRR

I’m the first to admit it.  Eduflack is results-focused.  When it comes to communications, does it really matter what you say or how you say it if it doesn’t contribute to meeting your overall strategic goals?  And when it comes to education reform, do the best of ideas matter if they don’t improve student achievement?  Good intentions only get you so far.  We measure results, effectiveness, and success.

But sometimes, we do need to take a step back.  And Rick Hess reminded us of that earlier this week in his commentary piece in The Washington Post.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091101927.html.  For those who missed it, Hess looked at the early days of the Michelle Rhee administration at DC Public Schools, giving her strong marks for both intent and results.

Hess really grabs the issue of education reform by the throat with his opening paragraph:

One bit of the conventional wisdom hampering school reformers is the belief that if superintendents taking over troubled districts just concentrate on curriculum, instruction and “best practices,” everything else will sort itself out. This myth has been promoted by education professors and others who think large-scale reform entails simply figuring out what a good classroom looks like and then replicating it as necessary.  

I’m a suscriber to such conventional wisdom, at least as it relates to students.  Give a teacher a research-proven curriculum and an understanding and appreciation of best practices, and you can get students to achieve.  Apply what we know works — what we know is effective in classrooms like ours — and virtually every student in the class has the opportunity to succeed.

Of course, there are classrooms and then there are central offices.  Hess reminds us of that.  Before a superintendent can even think about how to get the evidence-based curriculum, the effective teachers, and the best practices into the classroom, he or she must deal with those management components we often forget about.  Personnel and textbook distribution and bureaucracy and broken systems and a faculty that has lost faith in any missive or idea coming from the central office.

School districts like DCPS — those districts that are in real need of reform and improvement — are not just one step away from the promised land.  One can’t just drop in a new SBRR curriculum or an effective teacher provision and assume that AYP will be met by all from that point forward.  These schools are in trouble, and are in need of wholesale improvement and comprehensive reform.  That’s why the keys are being turned over to a reformer in the first place.

At the end of the day, Hess is saying that the achievement we seek can’t be truly gained until we undergo a culture change.  And nothing could be more true.  Some may chide Rhee or Mayor Fenty for what are seen as PR stunts.  And, yes, some of them are.  But what Rhee and her team seem to realize is that they need to change the way DCPS thinks and acts if they are to deliver the student achievement gains we all seek and expect.

Yes, Rhee’s success is going to be based on how well DC’s students achieve.  Yes, we expect test scores to increase in short order.  But we also can’t expect all of DC’s teachers and parents to follow Rhee into battle if they don’t have textbooks, don’t get paychecks on time, and have lost confidence in the administration.  Effective reform requires more than just the village.  Both Rhee and Hess recognize that.

 

Reading Between the NCLB Lines

Eduflack AP, Marketing, NCLB, NGA, PR, SBRR

As most in the education reform world know by now, yesterday House Education Committee Chairman George Miller spoke on his thoughts about NCLB.  The highlights — NCLB will be reauthorized, NCLB will be revised and improved, and Miller has heard the “teaching to the test” critics.  The Washington Post has the full story — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001711.html?hpid=sec-education

All told, there was nothing earth-shattering in Miller’s remarks or the reaction to date.  The most reaction seems to come from Miller’s language on assessment, and rightfully so.  Folks should be wary when we start talking about softening assessment measures, particularly after seeing reports on how different states have defined reading “proficiency” so differently under the law.  If anything, assessments should be strengthened to guarantee that — regardless of school district, city, or state — we know how well our students are doing compared to their fellow students.

The most interesting element coming from Miller was not what he said, but the reform posed between the lines of his words.  While Miller was careful to be mindful of many of those protecting the status quo and fighting NCLB and its achievement measures, he made a very interesting statement.  He said, in addition to NCLB’s reading, math, and science testing requirements, schools should be allowed to use measures such as graduation rates and AP test passage rates.

Why is this so interesting to Eduflack?  Simply put, Miller is advocating for expanding the reach of NCLB to the high schools.  Currently, the accountability measures in NCLB focus on fourth through eighth grade.  We’re starting to see those math and reading tests now, and science is on its way.  For the most part, educators believe that NCLB has left high schools alone, focusing instead on elementary reading and middle school assessments. 

But in Miller’s NCLB 2.0, it seems NCLB will have a broader reach.  Adding measures such as graduation rates (assuming that states and districts will be measured based on the National Governors Association’s Graduation Counts Compact formula and not left to their own formulaic devices) and AP exams means that accountability is shifting to the high schools.  How successful are our 10th, 11th, and 12th graders on their AP tests?  How many 9th graders are graduating high school four years later?  These are some of the measures Miller is endorsing as part of the “serious changes” needed for NCLB.

Whether it was intentional or not, Miller should be commended for the sentiments behind his words.  As we see states across the nation strengthening their high school graduation requirements, it is important that we recognize K-12’s responsibility for preparing students for the opportunities and challenges that come after high school graduation.  That means assessing students and ensuring they measure up, in any effective way possible.

Hopefully, Eduflack isn’t reading too much into Miller’s statements.  Regardless, it provides an opportunity to refocus the debate and ensure that the law focuses on the realities in the classroom.  With so many financial, human, and intellectual resources being poured into high school improvement, NCLB can play a part in effective reform … if we let it. 

Getting Lost in the NCLB Wilderness

Eduflack NCLB, PR, President Bush, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

Is it possible to say all of the right things, but still fail in effectively communicating?  It may sound hard, but it is quite easy.  Don’t believe Eduflack?  Just check out President Bush’s remarks to the 2007 Presidential Scholars yesterday.

The President picked a good venue for his remarks — a room full of high-achieving high school students.  He brought with him ED Secretary Spellings, along with Republican members of Congress key to NCLB reauthorization.  And he had a clear messaging platform — NCLB’s goals, what NCLB has achieved to date, and vision for NCLB 2.0.

And that messaging was strong. 
* NCLB is bipartisan. 
* “The federal government should expect results  in return for the money it spends.”
* “The only way to determine whether a child is reading at grade level is to have accountability in our school systems.”
* “We’re making good progress.”
* “Our ability to compete in the 21st century depends upon educating children”
* “If a child needs extra help, there’s going to be money available to help that child.”
* “Strengthen math and science”
* “Extra funding for under-performing schools.”
* “We believe in local control of schools, you reform them, you fix them.”

Bush addressed his remarks to the students, their parents, and their teachers.  He spoke of believing in students, supporting teachers, and improving our schools.  The President was passionate about an issue he cared about (particularly when talking about the impact of SBRR on reading scores).  And that’s where he should have stopped. 

A broad audience.  A relatively light and easy event.  The President should have called it a day, and walked off the mound leaving the crowd with the broad rhetorical strokes that define the benefits of NCLB.  Had he done so, it would have been a win.  A strong “A” from the teachers in the crowd.

Instead, he kept speaking.  Using his bully pulpit, he decided to further define NCLB in terms of school choice and vouchers.  Important issues, yes.  Volatile components of NCLB, for sure.  But completely inappropriate for the audience, the venue, or the ultimate end game.  Yes, it is important for the President to appease a key audience (his conservative base), particularly as Republicans are quickly jumping off the NCLB ship.  But you need to address such concerns directly with the audience that holds them.  By spending a third of his time focused on issues that appeal to a small, but vocal, segment of the education universe, he muddled his message and chipped away at his clear framing of the value of NCLB.

And the result of the tip of the hat to his conservative base?  Nil.  The criticisms of big government and the federalization of education still rang out in The Washington Post’s coverage of it.  A golden opportunity to focus on the positive impact and long-term gains as a result of NCLB, yet the President still only scores the gentleman’s “C” for execution.

Speaking Locally, Thinking Nationally

Eduflack NCLB, PR, President Bush, Reading First, SBRR

To put it mildly, it’s no secret that state legislatures and local governments have been resistant to NCLB, particularly its accountability provisions.  The reason is fairly simple.  K-12 education has long been perceived as a local issue.  Local school boards make curricular decisions, state legislatures set funding priorities, and all are focused on the educational needs at the very local of levels.

It’s only been in recent years that the federal role in K-12 has gained a spotlight.  NCLB moved the feds from the role of funder to the role of active participant.  Sure, the feds provide less than 10% of the money spent on education in this country.  But it carries a big stick.  NCLB provides a lot of new money if you’re willing to play ball, and poses the threat of pulling funding if you don’t play by the rules.

So yesterday’s vote at the National Conference of State Legislatures’ annual conference should come as no surprise.  NCSL members rejected national education standards, even voluntary ones.  Education Week has the story, as disappointing as it is.  http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/06/45ncsl_web.h26.html

We all know the great Tip O’Neill adage that all politics is local.  That was surely the case for NCSL.  In carefully chosen language, they embraced the notion of “rigorous state standards” and “individual state refinement of standards.”  This should be no surprise.  When you are a member of a state legislature, you want to keep the power in your hands.  You want to be the one to write the standards, fund the standards, and evaluate the standards.  It’s your best chance to control the outcomes, particularly if you are to be held accountable by your constituency.

No, Eduflack isn’t going to fault NCSL for defending its turf and speaking strongly on a key issue.  For that they should be applauded.  But I will take issue with, yet again, the attack on NCLB as a justification for the such a policy stance.  So I issue a rhetorical challenge to all, stand up for what you believe in, without needing to tear down or tear into NCLB.  It’s a great communications bogeyman, sure, but NCLB is not responsible for all that ills our schools, despite the urban legend.

Yes, we all know there is room for improvement in NCLB.  We all know that many states have felt the financial sting of meeting the accountability standards in the law, with some seeing it as an unfunded mandate.  But you also can’t ignore that Reading First has given the states more than $5 billion in additional funding to date to implement SBRR.  And a quarter of that — more than $1 billion — was intended for stronger, more relevant teacher professional development.

Like it or not, local control is quickly intersecting with national expectations.  Blame the “world is flat” economy, blame NAFTA, blame the little that has been done since we discovered we were a “Nation at Risk.”  If we expect our kids to thrive once they leave the schoolhouse doors for the last time, living up to the expectations and standards of the local community is no longer enough.

Today’s students are being asked to compete with students across the state, across the nation, and around the world.  Employers are looking for core competencies in all of their corporate locations.  They expect employees in Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, Hartford, and even Bangalore to bring the same skills and the same abilities.  Our institutions of higher education are usually screening applicants with one master rubric.  National standards (even the voluntary ones) are coming.

My K-12 years were spent in public schools in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and West Virginia.  Did I notice the differences?  You bet.  Did I feel one state’s education was stronger than another’s?  Of course.

More and more, we are becoming a transient society.  Unlike generations past (even mine), it is now a rarity for a student to finish high school with the same cohort of students he or she started kindergarten with.  A little sad, sure, but it is the reality.  Whether NCLB is on the books or not, national education standards are an important tool in our changing education system and our evolving economy.  They are the great equalizer, ensuring that a public education is worth the same in Alabama as it is in Oregon, the same in Nevada as it is in New York.

If we want a public education to mean something again, we need to restore its value and we need to quantify its impact.  The era where one could say, “well it is good enough for <insert state here>” is over.  This should be the new frontier, where we demonstrate that students in our state are outperforming those in our neighboring states.  The only way that works is when we measure with the same ruler.  Groups like NCSL should be a key part of the dialogue to choose the right national ruler; they shouldn’t be hiding it from those who really need a good measure.
  

Putting the Math Cart Before the Counting Horse

Eduflack AYP, Math, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

If we are to improve our schools, we need research-based instruction.  Student achievement increases when we use instruction and interventions that are proven effective.  Do what works, and see the results.  It is an easy concept to spout, but a far harder one to put into practice.

Since the release of the National Reading Panel report in April of 2000, many have called for the adoption of scientifically based practice in reading and English-Language Arts classrooms throughout the nation.  We all know every student should be reading at grade level, particularly by the time they hit fourth grade.  Most of us know what it takes to get a child to read proficiently.  And some are unrelenting in ensuring that scientifically based reading is the one and only standard when it comes to our classrooms.

But what about math?  With the passage of NCLB, we all know that reading and math are the lighthouses for student achievement (with science shortly coming online).  Where are the similar demands for scientifically based math instruction in the classroom?  Isn’t it just as important to do what we know works, to do what is proven effective in teaching children math skills?  After all, we consistently use math as that great barometer to determining if our students have the chops to compete with students across the globe.

For those who missed it, last week Congress declared its intention to fund nearly $100 million in math instruction grants under Math Now, part of the America COMPETES Act.  If you didn’t see it, Sean Cavanagh and Education Week have the story — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/09/26/05mathnow.h27.html.

Sure, it’s easy to compare Math Now with Reading First, at least from Eduflack’s perch.  For RF, $1 billion a year to start.  For Math Now, $95 million (though supporters sought $250 million).  Both designed to support the adoption of instructionally sound practice.  Both desperately needed, particularly in our struggling schools.

There is one major difference, though.  Reading First was designed to put National Reading Panel and National Academies of Sciences’ research on how best to teach children to read into practice.  We identify what works and put our money behind it.  On the whole, the effort has been successful.  Like just about everything, the program needs improvement (the sort of improvements most government programs can learn from).  Reading First should be strengthened, tightened, and faced with greater oversight, ensuring that only truly research-based programs are receiving funding.  Our taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going to fund promises or pledges or hopes or silver bullets.  We expect results.  We pay for what works.  That was the promise that Reading First made, a promise many are still waiting to be fulfilled.

Which takes us back to math.  Last year, the U.S. Department of Education announced the formation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.  The Math Panel’s findings are expected early next year, and the charge is to do for math research much of what the NRP did for reading research.  The panel is to tell us what works in teaching math, identifying the most effective and replicable instruction for empowering our students with math ability.

Makes you ask, then, what Math Now is based on, if the Math Panel’s findings aren’t due for another six months or so?  Unfortunately, this may be yet another example of rhetoric not quite aligning with practice.  Math Now is throwing its support behind initiative that are “research-based and have a demonstrated record of effectiveness.”  Shouldn’t we be waiting for the Math Panel to issue its report, detailing what the research base is and what the data tells us about effective math instruction?

Yes, it is important that we signal we are moving beyond the status quo.  We need to communicate a unifying commitment to boost student achievement.  And we need to pledge our support for research-based instruction and interventions that are proven to work.  Anything short of that, we are throwing good money after bad, with no hope of truly fixing the problem.

The America COMPETES Act is well-meaning legislation.  And Math Now is a good idea with real potential.  We just need to make sure it has the research support, the strong oversight, the cadre of advocates, and the effective communication to succeed.  Education reform cannot afford another “half-way” attempt at improving instruction of a core subject matter.  If we don’t take all of the necessary steps — research, policy, and communications — we will never solve the equation.

Where Have All the Readers Gone?

Eduflack early childhood education, Reading First, SBRR

The National Endowment for the Arts is out with a new research analysis that looks at the nation’s reading habits.  And the results are not pretty.  According to the NEA, less than a third of 13-year-olds are daily readers.  Americans ages 15-24 are spending two hours a day watching TV and seven minutes a day reading.  And reading scores for 12th graders fell sharply from 1992 to 2005.  The full report can be found at: http://www.nea.gov/news/news07/TRNR.html.

For years, we’ve been hearing of the Harry Potter effect, the belief that the boy wizard has dramatically increased the number of teens and pre-teens who have read for pleasure these past five years.  NEA is now saying Hogwarts is not a draw, and My Super Sweet 16 is a better attention-grabber than Harry versus Voldemort.

What’s interesting is that NEA compares TV time to pleasure reading.  Eduflack was surprised to see that 15-24 year olds are only watching TV for two hours a day.  So where’s the rest of the time going?  Video games?  Internet?  Volunteerism?  (Just kidding on the last one.)  If it is the web, how does that factor into reading?  Several unanswered questions.

Regardless, it is easy to draw the line between pleasure reading and reading ability.  When it comes to pleasure activities, just about all of us do the things we enjoy and that we can do.  If reading comes easily, we do it for pleasure.  If it is a struggle, it is a chore.  Some would rather do long division on a Saturday afternoon then be forced to read a book.  It’s sad but true.

So which comes first?  Do we become good readers by reading for pleasure, or do we read for pleasure because we are good readers?  Can one gain vocabulary and fluency and comprehension skills by spending more time with books and practicing their reading?  If adults are not reading, do we honestly think their children are going to choose to?

Reading should be a skill that permeates into just about everything else we do.  In school, reading skills will eventually impact a child’s ability to succeed in science, social studies, and even math.  In life, those reading skills are going to open pathways in high school, postsecondary education and careers. 

NEA does a good job at detailing some of the negative impacts that come from not reading.  But if we’ve learned anything from recent education communications efforts, it’s that scare tactics don’t work.  Students needs to hear what is possible from reading.  They need to hear of the doors it opens.  The jobs it offers.  The successes it results in.  Let today’s middle schooler pick a career.  I dare you to find a 21st century job that doesn’t require reading and critical thinking skills.  That comes from reading, both early and often. 

We can have the best instructional strategies and interventions in the first grade.  We can throw in the best, most effective teachers.  We can assess it and package it into a law.  It all gets lost if we aren’t supplementing it at home.  Kids mimic and copy and model their behavior after parents and family members.  Children will read if their parents make it a priority.  In our house, our 19-month-old eduson now demands two books before he will go to sleep at night.  He knows how to hold a book.  He knows one reads left to right.  He’s starting to identify the pictures.  We can now hope that he will read for pleasure (particularly since eduwife is a voracious reader).  We do it now, in part, so he is ready to read when he hits kindergarten.  And we do it now so he has it with him for a lifetime.

Virtually everyone can agree that students would benefit from additional reading instruction time during the school day.  Now we just have to remember that the learning day is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  If we want classroom reading instruction to stick, we need to reinforce it early and often at home and just about anywhere else outside the schoolhouse doors.  

A Big Win for Us RF Zealots

Eduflack Marketing, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Eduflack has pulled no punches when it comes to Reading First.  I can’t say it any clearer — RF works.  The science is clear.  We know it works.  We know what it takes to get virtually every child reading at grade level.  We know what tools teachers need to engender reading success in the classroom.  The goal of RF was to take decades of proven-effective research, and put it to use in our classrooms.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  We apply the research completely and with full fidelity, and kids will read.

For much of the last year, though, RF critics have been piling on, sensing a soft-spot in the law.  We’ve dubbed the research and the program a failure because of poor execution on the implementation.  Yes, implementation has been poor.  But skepticism about moving research to practice has led many to pull the rug out from under the entire program.  Congress is looking to dramatically slash federal RF funding, and virtually everyone is parroting the phrase “RF doesn’t work.”

Over the years, we’ve expected groups like the Center for Education Policy to add to the funeral pyre of NCLB and RF.  So imagine Eduflack’s surprise when, this week, CEP comes out with a study detailing that RF is having a real, positive effect on student achievement.

Imagine that.  Despite all the implementation problems.  Despite the army of whole language researchers bashing the law from day one.  Despite the congressional inquiries and the growing chorus of doubting Thomases.  Despite all that, Reading First works.

What did CEP find?  In what was Reading First’s roughest PR year, the percentage of states deeming RF very successful rose from 33 percent last year to 40 percent this year.  Those who found it moderately effective rose from 27 to 38 percent effective.  This year, only 2 percent found the law minimally effective, and non found it not effective at all.

I challenge anyone to show me an education law that has posted such strong positive impressions across the board.  Nearly 80 percent believe the law to be very or moderately effective.  Nearly eight in 10.  That’s a presidential landslide we’ve never seen before.  That’s two and a half Hall of Fame hitters.  That’s a grade good enough to kill any classroom curve.

As an education community, we like to believe in urban legends and things that go bump in the night.  And perhaps that’s why we’ve heard mourning bells for RF for many months now. 

But there is also no shaking that we live in an ROI environment.  We all way to see return, particularly when it comes from our education dollars.  And if we are to get that sort of ROI, we need to be investing in the strategies and interventions that are proven effective.  We invest in the unproven, and our money is likely heading down a black hole.  If we pay for what works, we get results.  It really is a no-brainer.

We need to open our ears and listen to those who know best.  No, we don’t have to believe those in the U.S. Department of Education who ask for more RF moneys.  So let’s listen to CEP, and the more than 300 schools they surveyed who clearly stated RF works, and by extension needs proper funding.  Let’s listen to the International Reading Association — never a BFF of the Administration — who is similarly calling for increased funding for RF.  And let’s listen to the countless classroom educators who have raised their right hands and sworn that student achievement has increased because of scientifically based reading in the classroom.

Thanks, Jack Jennings and CEP for showing us, once again, that RF works.  Hopefully, this recent study gets us one step close to ending the debate on to use or not to use Reading First, and instead change the discussion to one of how to effectively implement RF.  We know it works.  Let’s put it to work for us.

In the NAEP Scrum

Eduflack Math, NAEP, NCLB, SBRR

It’s been almost a week now, and the dust following the release of the latest NAEP scores is just finally starting to settle.  The story varies widely, depending on who you listen to and who you respect on such issues.  This year’s reading and math NAEP scores demonstrate we have greatly improved instruction over the past few years.  Or they show that we have actually taken a step backward.  Progress or regress, it seems.

What is clear is that both math and reading scores have ticked upward, with math performance rising more than reading.  What is even clearer, though, is that we still have much work to do.  The education community is quibbling over the “meaning” of the small rise in reading scores and its implications for the future.  It’s like listening to a faculty senate meeting, focusing on the personal periphery rather than the ultimate outcomes and impact.

But there is a lesson to be found in the stacks of disaggregated data and he said/she said debates.  Set aside all of the rhetoric.  Put away all of the interpretation.  Forget all of the hidden meanings.  What’s left?  A national commitment to boosting student achievement.

For some, the scores were badges of success.  For others, they were indicators of inadequacy.  But for all, the NAEP scores were the tool for determining whether we have demonstrably improved student achievement.  For once, the education industry was focused on outcomes, and not just on the inputs.  We were talking results (or lack there of) and how to further improve those results.

Without question, there is MUCH work that still needs to be done to improve student proficiency in reading and math.  The experts will spend the next few weeks determining the significance of these gains, comparing them to previous gains.  But these scores do send a message to all willing to listen.  Improvement is possible, but it requires significantly more work, attention, and resources.  And that’s a far harder lesson to learn.             

“Reading” the Research

Eduflack NCLB, PR, Reading First, SBRR

The early ballots on beginning reading programs are in, and the results are quite interesting.  For those who missed it, the What Works Clearinghouse released its review of the research behind a significant number of beginning reading programs.  EdWeek’s Kathleen Manzo has a good piece on the topic — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/15/01whatworks_web.h27.html.

Following months of criticism regarding Reading First and how programs were chosen or how programs were discouraged from implementation, the WWC’s information is bound to further confuse the issue.  WWC has looked positively on the research behind Reading Recovery, a program that bore the perception of being on the RF black list.  Programs that have benefited under the RF program, like Voyager, posted mixed results.

So what does it all mean?  As Eduflack opined back in March, there is a big difference between WWC and RF.  http://blog.eduflack.com/2007/03/21/can-reading-recover.aspx  And these reviews only strengthen that view.  Knowing all this, how exactly does an ed reformer talk about doing what works in reading instruction, when it seems we have no idea what actually works?

First, it is clear that the WWC (and by extension, IES) is doing its job.  WWC was not designed to hand out gold stars to off-the-shelf basals.  It’s goal was to review and evaluate the research behind what was put in the classroom.  It’s done just that.  Slowly but surely, WWC is helping to change the educational culture, placing a far greater emphasis on the research base.  And they mean real research, not what many pass off for “research” these days.

Second, it demonstrates there is no magic bullet when it comes to reading instruction.  If a school is looking for a quick fix, and believes that one publisher is going to meet all of its reading instruction needs, it is setting itself to be severely disappointed.  Some are strong in alphabetics. Others in comprehension.  And some on general reading achievement.  If you want to get kids reading, you need to understand the specific needs of your classroom or district, and apply the appropriate evidence-based interventions.

Third, this demonstrates there is a notable difference between scientifically based reading research and pre-packaged programs.  Sure, many publishers simply attach the National Reading Panel research to their products, slapping a “research based” sticker on it.  But what NRP actually did is identify those specific research-based components necessary to reading success.  Strong skills in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.  All are necessary.  All come with research-based principles for effective teaching.  WWC is measuring whether those research-based principles are found in the products we use, and whether we can provide that they are effectively conveyed and student achievement is demonstrably measured.

Where does that leave us?  It’s clear we still need a better understand of research, how it is gathered, and how it is evaluated.  And it needs to be good research.  We need to learn the questions to ask about products, understanding whether there is a real research base or whether there is simply some snazzy wrappings to distract us from the lack of evidence.  And we need to continue to push forward on this evolution to a research-based classroom.

At the end of the day, this should not be a debate about Open Court or Trophies or Voyager or Reading Recovery.  The name shouldn’t matter.  We need to really look under the hood, taking a close look at what the program is built on and what results the program is getting.  Our end game is getting all kids reading and boosting student achievement.  That doesn’t come from a logo, a catchy slogan, or a collection of smiling child photos.  It comes from an evidence base.  Like it or not, WWC is getting us a little closer to it.