SBRR

The Mind as an Education Tool

Eduflack Math, SBRR, Science, STEM

Eduflack is a true disciple of the science of education.  Over the years, though, I’ve heard many people describe instruction as more art than anything else.  At a National School Boards Association national conference years ago, I actually got into an argument with an attendee who tried to explain to me that it was wrong to try and force kids to learn to read at any age.  His thought, they will eventually come along to the issue.  Instead, we should be encouraging them to play guitar or yodel or do whatever feels good, and once they were focusing on what they were enjoying, they may soon decide that reading could be a joyful activity as well.  Reading will come in time, through wishful thinking and pockets full of rainbows.

Perhaps that’s why we often hear that the reading wars are an issue of phonics versus whole language.  The only problem with that, though, is that phonics is an instructional approach (and but one piece of many instructional approaches needed for effective reading teaching), where whole language is a classroom philosophy.  Anyone who has attended a postsecondary institution knows there is a difference between science and philosophy.  But I digress.
During my work in scientifically based reading advocacy, I was most taken with a visit I made to Georgetown University and the time I spent with Professor Guinevere Eden.  Dr. Eden showed me how MRI machines can help diagnose reading skill struggles.  By studying the brain, we can literally see students struggling with phonics or fluency or vocabulary.  And with the right interventions, we can actually see the brain changing, with colors and activity evolving as students acquire the reading skills they need to become reading proficient and achieve in the classroom.
After all of these years, we know the brain science associated with reading instruction.  We also know that such approaches and such science applied to other instructional topics as well, particularly mathematics instruction.
Don’t believe me?  Then check out an upcoming summit here in Washington on October 21.  The MIND Research Institute will host a national summit on math education and brain research.  Consider it the perfect chaser to this week’s U.S. Department of Education’s implementation summit on the National Math Panel’s report.
We all know how important reaching multiple audiences is to promoting a good education idea.  The MIND Research Institute is not only promising the usual practitioners and policymakers, but they are bring neuroscientists to the fold, giving them the soapbox to talk about real, measurable, non-squishy research in instructional practice.  It is a little different for DC, yes, but different can be good, particularly as we struggle to identify the best ways to get proven instruction in our math classrooms.  Check out www.mindresearch.net for more information.
Doesn’t matter if it is reading, math, science, or even the arts.  Research-based practice is research-based practice.  Whatever we can do to better explain the research base, educate stakeholders on good versus bad research, and actually get scientifically based education research into practice is an action worth taking.  Hopefully, the MIND Research Summit will keep the discussion going, demonstrating that science tells us a great deal about instruction and doing what works shouldn’t be limited to reading instruction.

RF: Political Punching Bag

Eduflack Obama, Presidential campaign, Reading First, SBRR

By now, we’ve all come to accept that education issues just are not going to be major players in the presidential election.  We didn’t see it in the political primaries.  For the most part, we didn’t see it during the two national conventions.  And it is incredibly unlikely we will see it over the next six weeks.  As the nation struggles with economic issues, ongoing mortgage issues, and trillion-dollar financial market bailouts, education reform is just not a top-of-mind issue, particularly for those undecided voters that will determine the next President of the United States.

But sometimes — heck, most times — it is just too hard to not to hook a good red herring or not to throw a strong left hook at a political punching bag.  That is even true in education.  Don’t believe Eduflack?  Then you clearly missed Meet the Press this morning.
This AM, Tom Brokaw hosted a presidential debate autopsy with the senior strategists for Senators Obama and McCain. The discussion, as expected, was focused on economic policy, what the candidates thought of the expected financial bailout bill that will be unveiled by Congress tonight, and who is better suited to help the nation move forward from our current financial problems.  On Friday night, little time was spent discussing what programs would have to be cut if we were to pay for $700 billion in buyout and the added costs of new financial oversights, agencies, etc.  The issue came back around this morning on Meet the Press.
David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist and the primary architect of his incredible campaign, zeroed in on one program and one program in particular — Reading First.  While not citing it by name (and why not?, it would score him points in some sectors), Axelrod attacked the “boondoggle” of a reading program the Bush Administration has been funding, a program, he went on to say, “hasn’t helped a single kid.”
I understand the need for hyperbole and vitriol in a political campaign (in fact, I was once accused by a weekly rag of a newspaper for injecting the latter into a 1996 congressional campaign).  And in full disclosure, I have financially supported the Obama campaign, and have done so since before the first primary/caucus vote was cast in Iowa more than nine months ago.  But I must say, if that is the belief of the campaign, and if it reflects the plans for federal education moving forward, I am severely disappointed and quite a bit surprised.
Let’s set aside, for a moment, the fact that the $300 million or so currently being spent on Reading First will do little to fund the bailout or the billions of dollars in new programs and new initiatives being put forward.  The simple lack of understanding for Reading First and the impact it has had on our schools, as demonstrated by the talking point, shows that politics, and not results, can rule the day.
Eduflack would urge Axelrod — along with Obama education advisors Jon Schnur and Mike Johnston — to take a real look at RF and its impact on real schools and real kids.  Heck, let’s just take a look at the swing states that will determine the results on November 4.  Let’s look at RF’s impact in Pennsylvania.  In Ohio.  In West Virginia.  In Colorado.  In Florida.  Let’s even take a look at its impact in cities like Chicago and New York City, major hubs of Obama support.  Let’s place a careful eye on those schools, districts, and states where we’ve done what’s works and we’ve implemented scientifically based reading with fidelity, and we can see that Reading First has helped millions of kids.  And it could help millions more with better management, better oversight, better fidelity, and better support.
When presidential administrations change, we should look to build on the successes of the previous administration, fixing those programs and efforts that didn’t work, and ensuring our taxpayer dollars are wisely spent.  Spending federal education funding on programs that work is good public stewardship.  And scientifically based reading is such a program.  if we set aside the political packaging of RF, the core goals, the core intent, and the core outcomes of the program remain solid and should remain a national priority.
If Obama is serious about making sure every child has the math and science education needed to compete, he must first start by making sure every student is literate and can read at an appropriate grade level.  Scientifically based reading is the strongest, fastest, and only path to get us there.  It may not be a good campaign issue, but it is a damned good policy issue.

Read Early, Read Often

Eduflack early childhood education, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

As we have reported many times before, far too many people have written Reading First off for dead.  Eduflack doesn’t want to go through the litany of reasons why.  It is simply too depressing.  But I will say for the record, just one more time, that Reading First works.  The science behind the program, making sure we are implementing what works in the classrooms that need it.  Collecting data and putting it to use effectively.  Implementing research-based reading programs with fidelity.  All are no-brainer steps in boosting student reading ability and reading achievement in schools and classrooms across the country.

Yes, I am pleased by the notion that RF seems to be getting a one year reprieve before it heads out to the ed reform gallows.  Thankfully, Congress’ inability to move on most FY2009 federal spending bills means that the federal reading program will be continued for yet another year.  One more year of funding for SBRR.  One more year for reading data collection.  One more year for research-focused reading professional development.  One more year of doing what works and doing what is right (before we figure out what comes next).
Often forgotten in this whole debate of RF is the fate of its baby sister — Early Reading First.  To a casual observer, the two programs appear joined together, bearing a similar fate.  It only makes sense to some that Early RF should be punished for RF’s sins, even though the program is different, the funding is different, and the intended audience and impact are different.
So imagine my surprise when I saw a major uptick on Early RF news over the past week.  Last week, the U.S. Department of Education announced that 19 states would share more than $100 million in new Early Reading First grant moneys.  EdSec Margaret Spellings began talking about Early RF last week (likely because of the release of new funding).  And just yesterday, the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) released a new report — “The Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement.”  (Thanks, Kimberly, for the tip.)  Add to that the What Works Clearinghouse’s re-examination of early reading programs, and it seems beginning reading is the HOT topic in literacy once again.
This is a refreshing and positive development for those who have been fighting in the scientifically based reading trenches all these many years.  Yes, there have been some real problems with the implementation of Reading First.  But whether we are Republicans or Democrats, liberal or conservative, reformers or status quoers, we all have to agree that solid reading skills are essential to student success.  Those kids who are unable to read at grade level by the end of third grade or the start of fourth grade are, unfortunately, in an academic hole they may never be able to dig themselves out of.  
Reading ability is indeed a civil right.  To participate in school, participate in the workplace, and participate in this democracy, we need to be literate.  The era of working hard and signing your name with an X is no over.  Reading ability is the great equalizer.  A kid who can read (and one who can comprehend what she has read) is able to accomplish anything.  And proficiency only becomes a reality when one begins learning the skill as early as possible.
That is why the focus on Early RF is so important.  Reading at grade level by third grade requires work at the earliest of ages.  We know what skills students need before they reach kindergarten.  We know what parents should be doing at home with their toddlers to develop skills they need to become readers.  We know literacy instruction does not begin at the age of five.  And we know it is much harder to make up the lessons that can be learned early on than it is to teach them right at the right time.
In the long term, Reading First works when Early Reading First has done its job.  If we’re going to agitate for increased attention and increased support for RF, we need to make sure that Early RF remains a part of our educational fabric.  And we need to make sure we are conducting the proper students to measure its effectiveness.  Those committed to Early RF interventions know they work, now let’s show the world the data to prove it.  

Is Reading First Dead or Not?

Eduflack IES, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

Not much more than a month ago, it seemed the entire education community had written Reading First off for dead.  Congress has zero-funded the law.  The U.S. Department of Education was doing little, if anything, to do something about it.  IES had released an interim study questioning the program’s effectiveness.  All seemed relatively lost.

Yes, there was a small chorus of sane voices out there, trying to save this important program.  Sol Stern led a charge.  USA Today strongly weighed in.  Fordham Foundation provided intellectual heft.  Even little ol’ Eduflack got in more than its cent and a half.
Yet most have been planning for RF’s funeral.  Facts are facts, and the facts for RF were just not looking good.  Despite the need for scientifically based reading, despite the impact it has had on student achievement over the past five years, the simple fact was that RF was being zeroed out.  Those schools looking to implement SBRR would need to do so on their own, finding the necessary resources to fund programs that work (without the help from the feds).
The start of the school year may have shifted a little bit of thinking, though.  Tomorrow, EdSec Margaret Spellings will be in Des Moines, Iowa for a day o’ Reading First.  She’ll be touring RF classrooms at George Washington Carver Community School, and then will participate in a roundtable discussion with the superintendent and RF teachers.
More important, though, was the report issued late last month by the Reading First Federal Advisory Committee.  This advisory committee — led by Katherine Mitchell, the former Assistant State Superintendent in Alabama — issued its report as a direct response to the RF interim study released earlier this year by IES.  In their report, the Advisory Committee points to the interim study’s fundamental flaws (most of them methodological, which should be a surprise coming from IES).  More importantly, the committee states that the data found in the IES study is insufficient to make the claim that RF is ineffective.  The advisory committee’s ultimate conclusion — the Congress and ED should not make any long-term decisions on RF until better, more comprehensive data is collected.  They aren’t saying the IES study is wrong, they are just saying the data is insufficient to make any meaningful conclusions.
Of course, this study has gotten little (just about NO) attention from the media.  IES’s interim study was a dagger into RF’s heart, offering the media an entertaining Shakespearean education reform tragedy.  It made from great news, as IES (the office created, in many eyes, to build up SBRR and RF) was ultimately inflicting the wound.  It fell to alternate media, such as the blogosphere, to identify the flaws in the interim study.  It will likely fall to them once more.
So what comes next?  Despite the wishes of the chattering class, RF is likely to get level-funded for one more year.  As Congress fails to pass a new Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill before the end of the month, Congress will simply move into CR mode, meaning that the new budget will simply be a carbon copy of the old budget. So RF programs will collect another year of federal funding, some $350 million or so.  One more year of life.  One more year of opportunity.
Why is this important?  It gives RF (and more importantly, SBRR) supporters a final year to ensure that the legacy of RF is not abandoned when the federal implementation funding dries up.  In a year when the White House, ED, and a number of state departments of education will change hands, those who have benefited from RF’s beacon will need to figure some things out.  How do we keep what works in the classroom?  How do we ensure our schools continue to prioritize scientifically based reading research?  How do we distinguish between good and bad research?  How do we empower teachers with research-based instruction?  How do we get all kids reading?
A lot of questions, yes.  But a lot of questions with clear answers.  We may need a change of vocabulary, but the core principles on which RF was built remain more important than ever.

What Reading Program Works

Eduflack IES, LAUSD, Reading First, SBRR

Earlier this week, the What Works Clearinghouse released its analysis on the research base for the Open Court and Reading Mastery programs.  To the surprise of many (or at least many of those who are paying attention to the WWC these days), both programs were found to lack the research umph that WWC and the Institute of Education Sciences demands under the “scientifically based” definition.

EdWeek’s Kathleen Manzo has the full story here — http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/08/13/01whatworks.h28.html?tmp=1851512060.

The reports are particularly interesting because most believed Open Court and Reading Mastery were two of the leading programs for which Reading First and SBRR were intended.  Open Court is the program of choice in Los Angeles, for instance, and both programs have been credited with boosting student reading achievement in the classroom.

Critics of RF will use this as yet another “I told you so” moment, that such golden list programs lack the research merit to warrant inclusion.  And while it might make good AERA chatter, there is a much larger issue we should be discussing.

What is the true impact of the What Works Clearinghouse?  Based on these reports, does anyone expect LAUSD to drop its contract with Open Court?  Of course not.  LAUSD has long believed the program has helped students in LA, and they’ll point to their own student achievement numbers to prove it.  Same goes for most of the schools using both Open Court and Reading Mastery.  It is in those schools because administrators, teachers, or both have found it effective with their kids. 

As with much of the federal education reforms of the past decade, WWC is in a time of transition.  Now is the time for the Clearinghouse to figure out what it really wants to be, and what role it is to play in P-12 education.  Is it an evaluator of commercial programs?  Is it an arbiter of scientifically based research?  Is it a Consumer Reports for education?  Or is it a tool to help education decisionmakers make intelligent decisions about instructional practice?

We need to start shifting from an “all or nothing” thinking and start determining how WWC fits into the larger framework.  Otherwise, it could be another story of unfulfilled potential.

Lessons Learned from Music City

Eduflack Reading First, SBRR

Eduflack has definitely enjoyed his time down here in Music City for the National Reading First Conference.  The entire experience strengthened my commitment to evidence-based reading and made even clearer (if that was possible) that Reading First is working, particularly for the schools, teachers, and students it was designed to help.

Yes, the experience has led to some rants (from me) this week.  But it also has left me with a few general observations:

* Particularly impressive was the bulletin board for attendees to “plant their flag” on a map of the United States.  If you don’t think RF is having an effect, all you need to do is take a look at how many people have come from near and far to continue RF information sharing.

* For years, we have heard that RF was “wired” to promote certain curricular programs.  If that were the case, the RF Conference would be the perfect place to showcase those on the “golden list.”  But did you know conference organizers do not allow an exhibit hall, and haven’t since the conference first began five years ago.  Why?  Organizers say they don’t want to be seen as endorsing any commercial product.  It is a strong statement to make, particularly when virtually every other education industry conference has an exhibit hall bursting at the seams.  The Reading First Office and conference leaders deserve kudos for taking such a noble stand and are worried about even the perception.

* Branding is important.  A strong, unifying logo can go a long way to promote a movement’s message, goals, and efforts.  But sometimes, too many logos can just be clutter, and Nashville is the case in point.  Virtually all materials down here at the conference are branded with three separate logos — the old U.S. Department of Education tree of knowledge seal (which is seldom seen in recent years), the official Reading First logo, and a special Fifth Annual Conference in Nashville logo.  It is all a little too much, with little to hold all three together.  And where’s the NCLB logo?

* Reading guru Tim Shanahan is now leading the charge to crosswalk what we know about reading research through the National Reading Panel with what we know about teaching reading with ELL/ESL populations.  His presentation, found at www.shanahanonliteracy.com, is well worth the look.

* RF seems to be a veteran educator game.  There were few newbie teachers making the rounds in Nashville.  Those veterans MUST take what they have learned here and in their classrooms and share it with all of the teachers back home.

* All of the sessions and the strands have Eduflack thinking.  Do we really know how to effectively teach adults?  Do we know how to teach professionals?  Gathering thousands of adults in big ballrooms so they can hear lectures seems to conflict with what many say is necessary of an adult learning community.  Is the time coming for a sea change in professional conferences?

Moving On From RF

Eduflack Reading First, SBRR

What comes next for Reading First?  Do we accept that the law is finished with, and prepare to move on?  Do we fight the good fight, hoping that saner heads will prevail?  Or do we look for new ways to ensure that the foundations and goals of the law continue, well after the funding dries up?

There is little doubt that federal funding for RF is nearing its end.  Both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives have zeroed out the program from the next Labor-HHS-Education budget.  Even if Congress fails to approve that budget this fall, and education is level funded based on last year’s levels, it simply provides RF a one-year reprieve before it must step aside.  Reading First has likely met its official end as a federal funding priority.

But that doesn’t mean we are done putting reading first.  Reporting from down at the National Reading First Conference, EdWeeker Kathleen Manzo reports on her Curriculum Matters blog (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/) of the establishment of the National Association for Reading First.  Launched by concerned state Reading First Directors, this new group is committed to further promoting the goals and priorities of RF.

The group is crystal clear in its objectives on its new website (www.nationalreadingfirst.org). 

Its purpose — “To advocate for inclusion of the tenets of Reading First in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  To advocate for K-3 models of effective, scientifically-based reading instruction in legislation related to addressing the literacy crisis on our nation.  To promote and disseminate applied scientific research-to-practice information to guide effective reading instructional practices and interventions for all students.  To foster a mutually informative relationship between scientific researchers and members of the professional educational community.”

Its vision — “All educational professionals will provide research-based instruction ensuring literacy success for all students.”

Its mission — “Bridging scientific research and classroom practice to increase student literacy achievement.”

All noble goals.  And all necessary steps.  The folks behind the National Association for Reading First are to be commended.  It is easy to shout into the wind and whine and complain about RF coming to an end.  It is easy to sit around and ask “why” and wonder “what if.”  And it is even easier to try to assign blame to those “responsible.”

It is hard to take action.  It is hard to do something to change the hand we’ve been dealt.  It is hard to stand up and actually do something.  And it is harder still to effectively advocate for change you truly believe in.  But the hard stuff is usually well worth it.

It is too early to tell if the National Association for Reading First will be successful.  To date, less than 100 people have visited their website.  But if the group can harness the power and networks of state RF directors, combine it with the vast network of RF advocates and champions around the country (current author included), and set a few hard, specific goals it can succeed.

What sort of goals?  Off the top of Eduflack’s head:
* Recommit our nation to ensuring all children can read at grade level by fourth grade
* Ensure that reliance on scientifically based education research is included in ESEA’s reauthorization next year, and that the definition of SBR is clear and strong.
* Require continued investigation into the efficacy of reading programs, providing our SEAs and LEAs with clear data (disaggregated, please) on the effectiveness of the programs they are adopting

There are clearly others, but these should get the discussion rolling.  There is a lot of good we can learn from Reading First, and we should take advantage of it all.

As for Eduflack, I’ve spent a lot of time over the last year howling into the wind over RF and the U.S. Department of Education’s failure to save this needed program.  The National Association for Reading First, though, shows us that the future of RF cannot and should not rest solely in the hands of ED leaders.  If the program is working on Main Street, USA, if it is working in real districts and schools across the nation, it is up to those communities and those community leaders to help save the foundations of the program and ensure they are continued for many years to come.

I’m ready to join the Association and do what I can do to help.  Anyone committed to student reading achievement should be doing the same.

Where’s Spellings?

Eduflack Reading First, SBRR, Spellings

It is just incredible to see, hear, and feel the energy that seems to surround the Fifth Annual National Reading First Conference.  Just walking the halls, and you hear educators talking about hiring the right people, selecting the right materials, capturing the right data, and just plain doing what works.  Those gathered in Nashville are committed to making a difference and improving reading ability in all of their students.  And at the end of the day, nothing is more effective promoting the value and impact of RF than hearing from those, like attendees, who are on the front lines.

This passion and commitment has been received by a strong group.  Deputy Education Secretary Ray Simon was here.  Reading First Director Joe Conaty has been presiding.  First Lady Laura Bush found the time to celebrate with her fellow educators, highlighting the success stories and calling on congressional leaders to support a program that deserves their full endorsement.

There is a glaring absence down here in Nashville, though.  Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.  This was a prime opportunity for Spellings to rise to the defense of RF.  It is an enthusiastic, supportive audience.  They are eager to hear from those in the know.  And they all want to do whatever they can to keep this valuable initiative moving forward.  It’s even a short flight over from Washington, DC.  Yet no EdSec.  (And for those worried she was too busy, her current public event calendar for the week shows NO PUBLIC EVENTS for the entire week.)

Spellings has been out there trying to protect the general NCLB concept, working with states to show some flexibility and defending the law to all that will listen — including Steve Colbert.  She’s opined on the need to protect vouchers in The Washington Post, penning an oped (one of only one or two a year the Post will allow from her).  She’s been out there on higher education, convening summits and establishing commissions.

On Reading First?  She wrote a couple of Dear John letters to Congress, the legislative equivalent of breaking up with someone via email.  No passionate defense of the program.  No rallying of the troops.  It is almost as if she wants to let the whole thing drop, now believing that RF simply isn’t worth the trouble.

That’s just a cryin’ shame.  As Bush’s domestic policy advisor, Spellings was one of the prime actors responsible for establishing the Reading First law.  In her years at the DPC, she was a passionate advocate for RF, doing what was necessary to get it off the ground and get funding and guidance to those who need it most.  In many ways, it is as much her legacy as it is the President’s.  But since moving over to Maryland Avenue, she’s seem to have forgotten WHY RF is so important and WHAT the U.S. Department of Education can do to ensure we achieve those objectives.

All of this presents us with one very clear reality — Reading First has run its course.  Despite the goals, despite the need, and despite the results, we must accept that RF is nearing the end.  The big question, then, for all of us is how do we extend the passion and commitment found here in Nashville, even when the funding faucets are shut off?

Hey Congressman, Read(ing First) Me

Eduflack Reading First, SBRR

As this is Eduflack’s de facto Reading First week (I know, how is this week any different than the others), I thought I would share a very interesting and powerful document that has just passed our desk.  Any reader knows that Eduflack has refused to accept the premature demise of Reading First. Here at the National Reading First Conference, there are thousands upon thousands of educators who share that view.

Now we have an open letter to Congress from Steve Underwood, who has been running RF point out in Idaho.  For those in the dark, Idaho is one of the great RF success stories.

I’ll let the letter speak for itself.


July 27, 2008

Honorable Members of Congress:

Early reading skills are very closely matched to the lifelong ability to read.  This is why Reading First targeted Kindergarten through 3rd Grade.  Reading First has been tremendously successful throughout the nation over the course of the past few years and is worthy to receive continued funding and support.

Reading First is a school improvement model that works at many different levels to improve the practices among schools that have traditionally had significant struggles in teaching children from disadvantaged backgrounds how to read at an early age. Two very large obstacles must be overcome in this process of school improvement: 1) the professional knowledge of teachers, principals, and other district leadership, and 2) the emotional challenge involved with the significance of what is known as “second-order change” (e.g., not simply minor adjustments in practice and systems of organizations, but large-scale change).To have the knowledge without the second-order change, or vice versa, does not result in a changed school nor in the improvement Thus, these processes of change are at the root of Reading First, making it a very worthy, but difficult task.

Despite these two very large obstacles, the Reading First model has succeeded in causing monumental changes in student performance throughout the United States over the course of the past five years.  Traditionally, large scale improvement in reading achievement is not seen in overall populations or in subpopulations.  This is the very reason for Reading First.  Therefore, it is significant when we see Reading First populations, which are made up of thousands of students, improving by even as much as 5%.  However, when improvements of 10-20+% are seen, it is unheard of.  This is exactly what is happening in Reading First schools and states.

In Idaho, for example, we have seen tremendous gains in student achievement over the past five years.  Here are a few of the highlights.


 






































Idaho 2002-2007: Fluency


Gain in Percentage of Proficient Students


Kindergarten

All Students

+21%


Grade 1

All Students

+12%


Grade 2

All Students

+7%


Grade 3

All Students

+7%


Kindergarten

Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES)

+22%


Grade 1

Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES)

+25%


Grade 2

Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES)

+20%


Grade 3

Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES)

+17%


 
The significance of the growth happening can been seen especially when comparing Reading First schools to the rest of the state.  In Idaho, all students in Kindergarten through Grade 3 take the same fluency test, regardless of participation in Reading First.  Here is a chart that demonstrates the difference in growth in just one year (SY 2007-2008) when comparing Reading First (RF) schools’ fluency gains to the state of Idaho (State) as a whole.  Please note that all RF grades are greater in gains than the State, with the exception of Grade 2 which is equal.  Particularly noteworthy are the very large gains in achievement in Kindergarten and Grade 1 which are nearly double that of the State. 

(Editor’s Note: The original letter contains a power graph, that tracks the following in Idaho
GRADE                                        Non-RF Gain                        RF Gain
Kindergarten                                    +16                                    +30
First Grade                                         +17                                    +28    
Second Grade                                   +7                                       +7
Third Grade                                        +10                                    +13


 


Similar improvements are seen in comprehension assessments, especially when looking at economically disadvantaged students who are at the very core of the Reading First model.  The following diagram illustrates the vast improvements among this subpopulation of Idaho’s students. 


 


















Idaho 2002-2007: Comprehension


Gain in Percentage of Proficient Students


Grade 1

Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES)

+20%


Grade 2

Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES)

+24%


Grade 3

Economically Disadvantaged (Low-SES)

+22%



Between the requirement to report data for comprehension and fluency which is disaggregated by many subpopulations, there are 18 data points per state per year per cohort.  States often have 3 cohorts.  That creates about 54 data points per state per year.  It is true that not all 54 points are improving in every state every year.  If they were, this would be nothing less than miraculous.  However, many data points are moving in very significant ways.  This shows the success of the Reading First model.  The chart below gives a synopsis of many such improvements occurring in the Western region of the United States based on both the US Department of Education Annual Performance Data for Reading First and data collected and shared in a report given by the Western Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center in April, 2008.  It is by no means a comprehensive summary of the improvements; it simply highlights some of the significant growth occurring in this school improvement model.


 












































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































State

Grade

Students[i]


Improvement

Reported Measure[ii]

Timeframe

Alaska

1st

All

+9%

Fluency

2004-2007


Alaska

2nd


All

+14%

Fluency

2004-2007


Alaska

3rd


All

+10%

Fluency

2004-2007


American Samoa

1st

All

+2%

Fluency

2004-2006


American Samoa

2nd


All

+5%

Fluency

2004-2006


American Samoa

3rd


All

+12%

Fluency

2004-2006


Arizona

3rd


All

+13%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Arizona

3rd


All

+25%

Fluency

2004-2007


Bureau of Indian Education

1st

All

+4%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Bureau of Indian Education

2nd


All

+6%          


Comprehension

2004-2006


Bureau of Indian Education

3rd


All

+6%          


Comprehension

2004-2006


Bureau of Indian Education

K

All

+11%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Bureau of Indian Education

1st

All

+18%

Fluency

2004-2006


Bureau of Indian Education

2nd


All

+11%       


Fluency

2004-2006


Bureau of Indian Education

3rd


All

+21%       


Fluency

2004-2006


California

“Since 2002, Grades 2, 3, and 4 teachers and students in high implementation Reading First schools have outperformed all non-Reading First schools in the increase of the percent of proficient scores” on the California Standards Test (E. Jankowski, WRRFTAC Western States Directors Meeting, April, 2008).


California

2nd

All

+22%

Comprehension

2002-2007


California

3rd

All

+12%

Comprehension

2002-2007


California

4th


All

+20%

Comprehension

2002-2007


Colorado

3rd


All

+11%

Comprehension

2005-2007


Colorado

1st

All

+20%

Fluency

Winter 2006-Winter 2008


Colorado

2nd


All

+13%

Fluency

Winter 2006-Winter 2008


Colorado

3rd


All

+12%

Fluency

Winter 2006-Winter 2008


Colorado

K

All

+16%

Fluency

Winter 2006-Winter 2008


Hawaii

3rd


All

+26%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Idaho

1st

Low-SES

+20%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Idaho

2nd


Low-SES

+24%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Idaho

3rd


Low-SES

+22%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Idaho

1st

Low-SES

+17%

Fluency

2004-2007


Idaho

2nd


Low-SES

+18%

Fluency

2004-2007


Idaho

3rd


Low-SES

+14%

Fluency

2004-2007


Minnesota

1st


All

+4%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Minnesota

2nd


All

+5%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Minnesota

3rd


All

+13%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Minnesota

1st


All

+6%

Fluency

2004-2007


Minnesota

2nd


All

+6%

Fluency

2004-2007


Minnesota

3rd


All

+4%

Fluency

2004-2007


Montana

4th


All

+8%

Comprehension

2003-2007


Montana

1st

All

+16%

Fluency

2004-2007


Montana

2nd


All

+16%

Fluency

2004-2007


Montana

3rd


All

+16%

Fluency

2004-2007


Montana

K

All

+18%

Fluency

2004-2007


Nebraska

2nd


All

+27%

Comprehension

2005-2007


Nebraska

3rd


All

+16%

Comprehension

2005-2007


Nebraska

1st


All

+20%

Fluency

2005-2007


Nebraska

2nd


All

+18%

Fluency

2005-2007


Nebraska

3rd


All

+24%

Fluency

2005-2007


Nevada

3rd


All

+1%

Comprehension (ITBS)

2005-2007


Nevada

3rd


ELL

+14%

Comprehension (ITBS)

2005-2007


Nevada

3rd


All

+15%

Comprehension (NV Crit. Rf. Test)

2005-2007


Nevada

3rd


ELL

+18%

Comprehension (NV Crit. Rf. Test)

2005-2007


Nevada

1st

All

+18%

Comprehension(ITBS)

2005-2007


Nevada

1st

ELL

+17%

Comprehension(ITBS)

2005-2007


Nevada

2nd


All

+11%

Comprehension(ITBS)

2005-2007


Nevada

2nd


ELL

+23%

Comprehension(ITBS)

2005-2007


New Mexico

1st

All

+21%

Fluency

2004-2007


New Mexico

2nd


All

+20%

Fluency

2004-2007


New Mexico

3rd


All

+19%

Fluency

2004-2007


New Mexico

K

All

+24%

Fluency

2004-2007


North Dakota

1st

All

+13%

Comprehension

2005-2007


North Dakota

2nd


All

+5%

Comprehension

2005-2007


North Dakota

3rd


All

+3%

Comprehension

2005-2007


North Dakota

1st

All

+28%

Fluency

2004-2006


North Dakota

2nd


All

+15%

Fluency

2004-2006


North Dakota

3rd


All

+51%

Fluency

2004-2006


Oregon

K

All

+23%

Alphabetic Principle

2004-2006


Oregon

1st

All

+14%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Oregon

1st

All

+15%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Oregon

2nd


All

+10%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Oregon

3rd


All

+4%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Oregon

2nd


All

+22%

Fluency

2003-2006


Oregon

3rd


All

+18%

Fluency

2003-2006


South Dakota

1st

All

+8%

Comprehension

2004-2006


South Dakota

2nd


All

+13%

Comprehension

2004-2006


South Dakota

3rd


All

+6%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Utah


1st


All

+18%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Utah

1st


ELL

+12%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Utah


2nd


All

+4%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Utah

2nd


ELL

+6%

Comprehension

2004-2007


Utah


3rd


All

+8%

Comprehension

2004-2006


Utah

1st


All

+19%

Fluency

2004-2007


Washington

4th


All

+23%


(*The entire state only gained 13% in same timeframe.)

Comprehension (WASL)

2003-2007


Washington

4th


Native American

+25%

Comprehension (WASL)

2003-2007


Washington

4th


Black

+20%

Comprehension (WASL)

2003-2007


Washington

4th


Asian

+31%

Comprehension (WASL)

2003-2007


Washington

4th


Hispanic

+28%

Comprehension (WASL)

2003-2007


Washington

4th


White

+15%

Comprehension (WASL)

2003-2007


Wyoming

3rd


All

+17%

Comprehension

2006-2007


Wyoming

1st

All

+26%

Fluency

2004-2007


Wyoming

2nd


All

+26%

Fluency

2004-2007


Wyoming

3rd


All

+25%

Fluency

2004-2007


Wyoming

K

All

+52%

Fluency

2004-2007


 


As is readily seen in this small sample of data from Idaho and other Western states, the Reading First model is making great strides in school improvement as in pertains to early literacy for our nation’s most needy children.  There are aspects at the school, district, state, and federal level that can be improved, but overall the program has been highly successful.  It is essential that the United States continue to provide this opportunity to our nation’s children by continuing what has worked well and improving upon the model for the future.


Sincerely,


Steve Underwood


Idaho Reading First Consultant






[i] All students or identified subpopulation.



[ii] Fluency or Comprehension: the two types of measures required for the annual performance report data due to the US Department of Education.

Rewriting RF History?

Eduflack Reading First, SBRR

Today at the National Reading First Conference, Deputy Education Secretary Ray Simon accused Reading First opponents of “changing the truth” of RF through appropriations and reauthorization.  And for this he gets resounding applause from Eduflack (in addition to the thousands of teachers on their feet). 

Over the past two years, RF’s vocal opposition has invested its time, efforts, and professional reputation to rewriting history when it comes to RF.  We’ve all but forgotten the goals and intent of the law.  Many have ignored the wide and deep research base upon which the law was based.  We’ve given up on the thousands of teachers who have improved their craft through RF professional development offerings.  And in denying funding for the law, we’ve abandoned the countless children who have improved their outlook on education, their enthusiasm for school, and the host of potential opportunities before them.

The Deputy Secretary noted that a better way to teach reading was put into place through Reading First.  Nothing could be more true.  Just look at the schools cited by First Lady Laura Bush, listen to the teachers and administrators gathered this week in Nashville, or take a closer view at the RF schools and the non-RF schools who have all improved their practice, their instruction, and their results because of the tenets of the law.

There are some RF truths we simply shouldn’t allow anyone to change.  Virtually every child can be a proficient reader.  The research on how to get to that level is clear and incontrovertible.  Proven-effective reading instruction has been embraced by teachers across the nation.  And if implemented with fidelity, RF can work.  These truths should be self-evident.  Unfortunately, to far too many people, they are viewed as heresy, white noise, or rants of a misguided few.

The clock may be running out shoring up these truths.  The power of RF is likely run its course by the end of the Administration.  Even if the program receives CR funding for FY2009, the money is but a shell of what was intended, and what is needed, for schools in need to make a real difference.  But maybe, just maybe, the truth can win out.  After all, who can argue with the need to get every kid reading … and reading proficiently?