SBRR

RF Works, Just Ask Idaho

Eduflack AYP, IES, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

If we believe the initial buzz from this month (along with the interim study from IES), the Reading First program just doesn’t seem to do the job it was intended to take on.  By now, those who care have heard all about the IES study, as well as the growing criticism about its shortcomings, most notably its methodology.

Throughout this debate, we’ve heard little from the practitioners who have put RF to work in their states or communities.  From those who have seen the positive effects of scientifically based reading research.  From those who have determined what works for their schools and their kids.  Until now.

Over at www.ednews.org, we’re seeing continued comment on this RF debate.  Of particular note is a comment recently posted by Steven Underwood, the Reading First School Improvement Coordinator for Boise State University’s Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies.  The headline — Reading First is working in Idaho.  Not just working, but really working.  Almost as if RF was designed to help struggling schools boost student reading proficiency.

Rather than summarize Underwood’s contribution to the debate, let’s here directly from the horse’s mouth, with a thanks to Underwood for letting Eduflack use the words originally posted at www.ednews.org.

“I applaud the efforts to help the nation’s most at-risk children by consulting a large body of research and theory, sifting out opinion from facts, and making policies and practices that benefit children. It is unfortunate, but many of the critics of Reading First both here and elsewhere seem to speak foremost of theory and secondarily of students. I am saddened by the number of critics who neither have worked in Reading First schools nor fully understand their practices. To continue the analogy of the car from previous posts, many critics, who undoubtedly mean well in their criticisms, seem to misunderstand the repair work that is being done and seem to be completely unaware of the data that demonstrate that Reading First is having a positive impact on student outcomes. In the criticisms, it seems like people are criticizing the mechanic who is working on the complex engine (of literacy among disadvantaged students) without themselves having ever been truly successful at fixing engines which demonstrate the same types of problems. Literacy among our nation’s needy children has been a nationwide concern for years, and Reading First is the first systemic approach to find success in addressing that concern. Had the [IES] study been conducted more in line with the mandate given to IES, we would be able to better understand the impact of Reading First at the national level. However, since the study was not well designed and did not meet its mandate, being people of reason, we are obliged to evaluate all of the other data that has been provided through systems such as the annual performance reports over the course of the years. As one studies these data, Reading First is arguably the most powerful federal education program to date. As part of No Child Left Behind, Reading First has demonstrated powerful results among those children in our nation who have traditionally been “left behind” in literacy skills.

In support of this, allow me to briefly summarize results from the state of Idaho. To qualify to become a Reading First school in Idaho, a district has to have the highest level of needs (e.g. the largest percentages of free and reduced lunch in the state) and the lowest available financial resources to meet those needs. The reason for this qualification is that student performance has so often been correlated with socio-economic status. Even though Idaho Reading First schools have such high needs, they have not only grown in their data more quickly on state reading measures, but have closed or nearly closed the gap in all grade levels. Idaho has a universal K-3 reading screener, the IRI, which measures fluency and basic comprehension. From 2003 to 2007, Reading First schools in Idaho improved on this measure at a rate that exceeded the state’s growth during the same timeframe and currently have an overall average that is within 4 percentage points of the state average.


More importantly, Idaho’s economically disadvantaged students grew at a rate in Reading First schools that far surpassed their economically disadvantaged peers in state averages. Among this subpopulation, which is a focus in the NCLB legislation, Reading First schools performed at a rate of improvement between 2003 and 2007 that was 12% better than the state average in Grade 1, 10% better in Grade 2, and 7% better in Grade 3. These results are also mirrored in the comprehensive outcome measure for Idaho Reading First schools. Idaho Reading First schools have consistently performed more than 10 percentile points above the national cut-score on the Normal Curve Equivalence for ITBS Reading Comprehension. This average far surpasses the last year in Idaho in which the ITBS was given to all students (2001), which again demonstrates that Reading First is closing the gap among the neediest children in our state. Furthermore, among economically disadvantaged students, Reading First schools have improved ITBS scores at rates between 20% and 24% in Grades 1-3 from 2004 to 2007, which again demonstrates alignment of reading comprehension results with one of the primary missions of Reading First. Lastly, and very importantly, Idaho Reading First schools are demonstrating greater overall gains and closing the achievement gap on the Grade 3 AYP measure for reading, the ISAT.


Whereas in 2003, the participating schools were significantly behind the state average, Idaho Reading First Schools are now within 2 percentage points of the state average. While the IES interim report may show no statistical significance in its study sample, the reality of Reading First in Idaho shows a vastly different picture. As mentioned before, it is unfortunate that some well-meaning educators criticize Reading First based upon political preference, theory alone, opinion, or incomplete and misleading information. The interim study published by IES did not do an adequate job in meeting its mandate, nor was it representative of the nationwide set of Reading First schools, nor did it triangulate multiple sets of reading data, nor did it identify all of the pertinent variables, nor did it operate on the basis of a true pre-Reading First baseline. With these and other criticisms of the impact study in mind, I respectfully ask our critical colleagues who believe Reading First to be ineffective to review the broader set of data that exist. Reading First has set a high standard for our nation’s public elementary schools who serve its neediest children. According to multiple sets of data in multiple states, this high standard is paying off for thousands upon thousands of children.”


There you go.  Reading First is working in Idaho.  In a state where the motto is “Let it be perpetual,” they are making reading instruction improvements that will empower a generation of new readers.  And I’m betting there are a lot more states like it that are showing similar gains and similar benefits from RF and the implementation of SBRR in the classroom.  We should be out there cultivating these positive stories, spotlighting those schools, LEAs, and SEAs that are making a difference and boosting student achievement.  I know that is harder than promoting our failures and explaining why AYP can never be achieved, but we can learn a lot more examining what works rather than volleying around excuses for what doesn’t.

Lookin’ for Edu-R&D Sugardaddies

Eduflack Gates Foundation, IES, SBRR, STEM

For years now, we have heard IES Director Russ Whitehurst lament the dirth of funding for education research and development.  Compare the U.S. Department of Education’s research budget with that of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it is embarrassing (even if you do it as a percentage of the total agency budget).

The good folks over at Knowledge Alliance (formerly NEKIA) have waved a similar banner.  If we expect a scientifically based educational experience, we need to invest in scientifically based research.  If we are going to do what works, we need to investigate it.  And if we are going to drive the squishy research from the K-12 kingdom, we need to make meaningful investments in the strong, scientific, longitudinal research we are seeking.

Yet education R&D still seems to be feeding from the scraps of practice.  We have few industry leaders that are funding R&D the way we see it in the health industry.  And that view becomes even more acute today, when the Howard Hughes Medical Institute announces a $600 million grant to fund the research of 56 top medical researchers.  The Washington Post has the full story here — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052701014.html?hpid=topnews.

It has all got Eduflack thinking of the impact such an investment could have on education. Just imagine if a philanthropy offered up $200 or $100 or even $50 million to education’s top researchers to develop major findings in how to improve public education.  Science and math instruction.  ELL.  Teacher training.  Effects of technology.  Charters.  The list of possible topics is limitless.  In reading alone, you can take a look at the list of potential research subjects offered by the National Reading Panel in 2000.  Today, most of those still haven’t been pursued.

But we all recognize that such sugardaddies are few and far between in education reform.  We put our money on educational practice.  We fund practitioners.  R&D is an add-on, often used just to test the ROI for funders, be they philanthropic or corporate.

Yes, we have significant education investment from groups like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They have made a significant contribution to funding education reforms, particularly in our urban areas.  But the focus is not on R&D, it is on classroom practice.  Valuable indeed, but it doesn’t mean we don’t need a similar investment on the research side.  In fact, such R&D investment can ensure Gates’ money is being wisely spent.

Without question, the money available in the education industry is at levels never imagined in generations past.  Somewhere among those growing pots, there must be a potential sugardaddy (or a collection of sugarbabies) who can do for education what the Hughes Institute is doing for medicine.  

As we struggle with the definitions of SBRR and the findings of the WWC, just imagine the impact we can have with a nine-figure investment in education R&D, particularly if it is led through a public-private partnership.  

Today, education reform is kinda like filling a lake with teaspoon.  We’re adding some drops here or there, but we can’t necessarily see the impact.  With stronger R&D, we have the option of at least adding water by the barrel full, if not more.  And that’s the only way to raise the opportunity boats of the kids who need it most.
 

The Saga of RF Profiteers Continues

Eduflack IES, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Last week, Eduflack opined on where all of the Reading First profiteers have gone.  (http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/21/calling-all-rf-profiteers.aspx)  As the program is under siege and the funding has dried up, those who personally profited the most are nowhere to be found.  A word of thanks to the Core Knowledge blog for throwing some additional spotlight on the important issue.

Over the weekend, we received an interesting comment from Richard Allington, the former president of the International Reading Association.  Sure, Allington has long been tagged as a RF opponent, but no one can question that he understands the concept of scientifically based reading research.

His posting no doubt got me thinking.  But more importantly, it got Reid Lyon thinking.  As a godfather of RF, Reid definitely knows what he is talking about, and the volume of his RF conversation has increased dramatically in recent weeks.  And it is important that we listen. 

So without further ado, Reid Lyon’s response to Allington’s thoughts on RF profiteers …

“I believe that these interchanges among individuals with different perspectives on Reading First are helpful, as improvements are impossible with productive debate.  In my mind, the debates are more productive when sufficient details are presented to support a particular point of view.  Riccards brings up the detail that publishers and vendors were selling to districts and schools before the Technical Assistance Centers were ever established. He is correct,.  Many did not need a “list” to garner a substantial amount of reading First funding.   Bob Sweet and I predicted that when the legislative language for Reading First was softened to its use of the “based on” criterion, that a feeding frenzy would ensue with everybody and their brother hawking a program based on SBRR. 

Like Allington, we felt in drafting the initial language requiring program-specific language that publishers and vendors would be highly motivated to test their products.  That still has not happened.  I need more details on which programs were “banned.”  I know that Chris Doherty was compelled by the law to not fund programs with no basis in SBRR and he followed that law.  The Wright program was not funded because it was not comprehensive and did meet additional criteria in the law.  The Wright program, to its credit, attended to the reviews of its product and made substantial changes so that it now meets all criteria. 

Allington may be talking about Reading Recovery as a “banned” program but Reading Recovery was funded by some states using Reading First funds.  The allegations made by Success for All are baseless as indicated by no findings by the OIG of that product being placed at a disadvantage in either its first major auditing report  or its audit of New York State.   There has been absolutely no evidence of any state or district being pressured by the Reading First office to either drop SFA or not implement SFA.     In fact, emails between different state’s Reading First officials, SFA, and a Technical Assistance Center reveal substantial positive interactions in trying to ensure that SFA could participate fully in Reading First.

There are two points that Allington makes where more detail would be very helpful.  First, Allington makes the point the WWC found that Reading Recovery  (RR) has strong evidence that it improves general reading achievement.    This is a very general statement.  My colleagues and I have published a number of papers over the past several years addressing the effectiveness of Reading Recovery and in each review concluded it was effective – for some. Concerns about the efficacy of RR have been based, in part on whether the program is successful with the lowest performing students – students typically served in reading First programs.    Reading Recovery has typically targeted students who perform in the lowest 20% of their classes.  The actual performance level of participants varies from school to school.  Although the research from the developers of RR continues to indicate efficacy for about 70% of the students in the program ( a very strong degree of effectiveness) , its reported effects are much weaker when students who do not meet the program’s exit criteria are included in the analyses of outcomes (see Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007 for review). 

In addition,  a review by Elbaum et al. (2000), it was found that gains for the poorest readers were often minimal, which Elbaum et al. suggested may be related to the need for more explicit instruction in decoding.  A recent meta-analysis also found that RR was effective for many grade 1 students (D’Agostino & Murphy, 2004).  This study disaggregated RR outcomes by whether the outcomes involved standardized achievement tests or the Observation Survey, which parallels the RR curriculum.  It also separated results for students who successfully completed RR (i.e., met program criteria and were discontinued) versus those who were unsuccessful or left the program before receiving 20 lessons (i.e., were not discontinued) and according to the methodological rigor of the studies. When the comparison group was low-achieving students, average effect sizes on standardized achievement tests for all discontinued and not discontinued students were in the small range (.32), and higher for discontinued (.48) than not discontinued (-.34) students. This finding was consistent with Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, and Moody (2000), who reported that RR was less effective for students with more severe reading problems. D’Agostino and Murphy (2004) found that analyses based on just the more rigorous studies included in their meta-analysis in which evaluation groups were more comparable on pretests showed smaller, but significant effect sizes on standardized measures. Disaggregation according to whether the student was discontinued or not was not possible. Effect sizes were much larger for the Observation Survey measures, but these assessments are tailored to the curriculum and also have severely skewed distributions at the beginning and end of grade 1 that suggest the Observation Survey should not be analyzed as a continuous variable in program evaluation studies (Denton, Ciancio, & Fletcher, 2006).   

By assessing in greater detail the degree to which well defined groups of students respond positively to well defined interventions, we increase the likelihood that particular programs will be implemented in a more thoughtful manner rather than as a magic bullet – and this is the case for all programs.

Allington also concluded  that the IES Interim Report on the Reading First Impact Study should be the final word on the effectiveness of the program.  Details are critical in drawing this conclusion and they are missing in both Allington’s statement and in the media coverage on the report.  Two details are noteworthy – the sample is not representative of the universe of all Reading First schools nationally, and the ability to draw meaningful conclusions about the null results is very limited due to the contamination between Reading First and Non-Reading First schools with respect to shared professional development and  common instructional programs.Allington has jumped to faulty conclusions in the past before.  Recently he asked the field to read two invited papers in an issue of the Elementary School Journal that he  edited that ostensibly overturned the results obtained by the Phonics Subgroup of the NRP.   However, a formal replication of both these two studies published in a top ranked peer reviewed archival journal (Journal of Educational Psychology) did not support the conclusions of either paper regarding the impact of systematic phonics instruction on reading outcomes.  This is science at its best when replication adjudicates claims arising from publication of data particularly when the process is characterized by mature scientific dialogue.

I predict that the jury is not yet out on the effectiveness of Reading First.  Who knows, if the evaluation carried out By IES actually aligned with the evaluation required in the law, more detail would have helped us interpret the results with greater confidence.  But I bet that even if these flawed comparisons showed Reading First Schools to be superior to non-Reading First schools, many would have argued that Reading had not been in place long enough to make these claims.”

The saga continues.  Dr. Allington, I’ll offer you a chance to respond, if you are so inclined.
 

Calling All RF Profiteers

Eduflack NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Following yesterday’s post (http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/20/sbrr-fights-back.aspx) on Sol Stern’s terrific Reading First article in City Journal, I received an interesting remark from a good friend.  As we look at the validity and impact of RF and SBRR, where are all of the companies that took advantage of the new law and its new funding?

It is a provocative question.  There is little doubt that a lot of people got rich off of RF.  When a law pledges to put $1 billion a year for five years into our schools, there is a lot of money to go around.  And this was all new money.  It wasn’t about taking from bucket A to fill bucket B.  These were new dollars, available to anyone who could demonstrate that their reading programs were based on proven, scientific research.

In RF’s early days, I remember being horrified by what was qualifying as SBRR to many. A company using focus group data that showed their product made people feel better about themselves.  Others stapling a short cover letter to the National Reading Panel report, stating the NRP was their research base.  Others still simply dropped the names of “SBRR friendly” researchers, hoping for endorsement by association.

The law’s expectation of SBRR was clear.  Yet many cut corners or didn’t understand or didn’t want to understand.  The result?  A number of new companies, re-treads, and such made major dollars promising a scientifically based approach.  Some delivered.  Some sold vapor.  But all got their cut of the overstuffed RF pie.  And just think of it, even a 1% share of RF dollars meant $10 million or so each year.  That’s not pocket change.

So where are all of these companies now?  Where are the vendors who got their 1% or 3% share?  Where are those who swore their products were the silver bullet to cure our schools’ reading woes, and those who claimed their programs were built on the strongest of research to secure the largest of checks?

In the fight to defend RF and the use of SBRR in the classroom, these small, but previously profitable companies, are now quiet as church mice.  We hear virtually none of them rising to defend the program that made them who they are today.  They are quiet on the issue of SBRR.  And they are silent on the discussion of the impact RF has had in schools and classrooms across the nation.

That is both maddening and infuriating.  Eduflack hates to think these RF companies simply took the money and ran, but that seems to be the case.  Congress slashes funding for RF, and these vapor-and-promise companies simply pick up and sell to the next trend and the next bucket of dollars, be it high schools, pre-K, or whatever else is coming over the horizon.

During World War II, a number of companies and individuals earned the tag of “profiteer,” taking advantage of national priorities, concerns, and funding to squeeze maximum profit from the government and its people.  Under the guise of patriotism, their singular goal was maximizing profit, and getting rich off the situation.

When all is said and done, the NCLB era may very well be known as the boom time for educational profiteering.  And at the end of the day, those five-to-10-year-old companies whose revenue skyrocketed during the RF days will have a lot of explaining to do.  At some point, we need to see ROI.  And if they aren’t willing to defend the program they’ve been suckling from these many years, do we really expect to see results?

SBRR Fights Back

Eduflack IES, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

It’s no secret that Reading First has been education’s biggest punching back these past few years.  Earlier this month, IES released its interim study on the report, causing great glee with the whole languagers and the defenders of the status quo.  Some used the study to write RF’s obituary.  A few voices, including Eduflack, used the opportunity to highlight the flaws in the study.  (http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/02/rf-read-all-about-it.aspx)

For years now, Eduflack has been unabashedly supportive of RF.  I still believe, when all is said and done, it could have a greater POSITIVE impact on education policy than any other piece of federal legislation.  For that to happen, the law needs to be properly funded AND it needs to be implemented with true and complete fidelity.

Having worked with the National Reading Panel, I am a true believer in the principles embedded in RF.  We know students need a comprehensive, integrated reading instruction platform that focuses on phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension.  We know that scientifically based reading research should rule the roost, with schools implementing only that which has been proven effective and proven to work in schools.  We know that teachers must know the science.  We know that students must be regularly assessed, with targeted interventions used to get all students reading at grade level.

Yet, we still debate on the value of RF and SBRR.  And its been far easier to scream into the wind questioning RF.  Few have been out there defending the law, calling for the need for proven research and proven instruction in our classrooms … particularly those classes who need it the most.

In RF’s darkest hours, though, we are now starting to see SBRR’s strongest proponents rising to its defense.  It would have been easy to just awkwardly swallow the IES study, accept Congress’ funding slash, and forget the RF era.  But we will not go quietly into the night.

When the IES study came out, the Fordham Foundation released a study — penned by Sol Stern — looking at the real failures of RF.  The piece was strong, citing the operational weaknesses we’ve all heard.  But it maintained that the law itself was still strong, worthy of our support, and needed by our students.

This week, the latest issue of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal came out, and Stern was at it again.  Under the headline “Reading First Still Works,” Stern presents a strong and cogent analysis of the IES study and the flaws in its methodology.  We can only hope that IES will take his critique seriously, and will correct the flaws before its 2009 report is complete.

The Stern piece is well worth the read time — http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0520ss.html.  Its helps even us amateur researchers see the difference between strong and weak methodology.  More importantly, though, it reminds us that programs like RF are well worth fighting for.

Here’s hoping that Stern’s continued work can serve as a rallying cry for RF and SBRR supporters and advocates throughout the country.  Teaching our children to read is of paramount importance.  Using proven effective methods is the only way to go.  We need to remember that.  Results should trump politics, particularly on an issue like student reading achievement. 

What Happens in 2014?

Eduflack IES, NCLB, SBRR

Yesterday, a who’s who of the education blob gathered to discuss the future of education research.  Hosted by Education Sector, AED, AIR, and the Knowledge Alliance, folks gathered for “Towards 2014: Education Research on the Leading Edge of School Improvement?” 

It was an opportunity to soak in all that Checker Finn, Russ Whitehurst, Rick Hess, Mike Smith, and the like have to say about the state of education research.  The forum was a follow-up to a similar event hosted by similar organizations back in 2002, when we were all just learning to let scientifically based research roll of our tongues (and before IES was even part of our vocabulary).

For those who missed it, you can get the main thrust from Knowledge Alliance President Jim Kohlmoos’ guest blog on edbizbuzz — http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edbizbuzz/2008/05/friday_guest_column_is_educati.html#more.

What is particularly interesting is how little seems to have changed over the past six years.  Yes, we are all now aware of what SBR is, and why it is important.  But we seem to still struggle in two key areas, agreeing on what SBR is and applying it to practice.

For many, SBR is like the popular definition of pornography — we know it when we see it.  Ask us to define scientifically based research (as it applies to education) and we grasp for words.  Show us a recently completed research study or a journal article, and we can tell you whether it makes the cut or not.  Isn’t diagnosing SBR after the fact what has gotten us in the trouble we’re in?  Shouldn’t we know if a study meets the scientific standards BEFORE we have spent millions of dollars on its execution?  Without a firm understanding of methodologies and research models, we risk a system where we simply slap an SBR label on the outcomes we happen to like.

We don’t seem to have this problem in medicine.  We know what are scientifically based studies and what are surgically enhanced fluff.  So why is education so different? 

Some will use the statistic Russ Whitehurst uses — that the research portion of the U.S. Department of Education’s budget is less than one half of one percent of the total budget, where Health and Human Services is spending nearly 42 percent of its budget on research.  Doesn’t that mean it is even easier for ED to ensure that its research dollars are wisely spent?

I’ll be the first to advocate for additional spending on educational research.  In many urban school districts — those with schools branded as dropout factories — we are spending $10,000, $12,000, even $15,000 per student on education.  As taxpayers, we have a right to know our money is well-spent.  As parents, we have a right to know that our kids are getting effective instruction.  As members of our social community, we have the right to know our schools work.  Research is the cornerstone to all of that.

Which gets us back to the previous issue — we’re still struggling to put SBR to use in the classroom.  We understand the power of the buzzword, and are quick to describe our ideas or solutions as research-based or proven-effective.  But have we really studied what is happening the classroom?  Are we really measuring the effectiveness of specific interventions over the long term?  Are we really looking at the comprehensive research base available before deciding on a textbook or supplemental material?  Are we making sure what works is what we are using?

Unfortunately, “no” seems to be used an awful lot to answer those questions.  And it doesn’t have to be that way.  At the forum, Checker Finn called for one-stop shops on educational research, where we all have more access to statistical information.  Add to that the means to train teachers, administrators, and decisionmakers to both understand and apply SBR, and we may have a real winner here. 

Data is important, but it is also dangerous.  Put it in the hands of someone who doesn’t understand what they are looking at (or worse, thinks they do when they don’t), and you can do far more damage than just maintaining the status quo.  As part of our ed R&D investment, we should be training a cadre of educator scientists who help practitioners distill the facts, identify what works, and move that research into practice.  That was the goal, six years ago, with NCLB and SBR.  And that should still be our goal today.

Yes, Eduflack knows he is a cynic.  But after this forum, he is cautiously optimistic.  SBR is no longer a punchline to a status quoer’s ed reform joke.  We all seem to understand the importance of sound, replicable research.  Now, we are starting to break it down and see what makes the cut and what hits the trash.  With luck (and real commitment), we should see some wholesale understanding and implementation by 2014.  Let’s just hope we’re all there to see it (and still give a damn about it).

     

Keep Reid-ing

Eduflack NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Earlier this week, Eduflack recommended anyone with an interest in reading instruction should check out the www.ednews.org interview with Reid Lyon.  In recent days, the links back to that interview have grown and grown.  While I’d like to think it is my influencer, I know it is simply the value of the information Reid provides.  It doesn’t hurt that these are Reid’s first read comments on RF since leaving NICHD nearly three years ago.

Yes, the interview is an interesting one.  But if you checked it out at the start of the week, you’ve missed out on the comments that are now attached to the piece.  Those of us who write on the internet expect comments to be a sentence or two, either bouquets or brickbats.  Those who have read Reid’s interview have provided some interesting in-depth opinion.  Real thoughts from real practitioners and real researchers.  How novel!

Check it out — http://ednews.org/articles/25335/1/Interview-with-Reid-Lyon-Reading-First-is-the-largest-concerted-reading-intervention-program-in-the-history-of-the-civilized-world/Page1.html.

It doesn’t matter if your are and SBRR disciple or you’ve drunk the whole language kool-aid.  It’s worth a read.

Kids Are Reading?!?

Eduflack AYP, High School, NAEP, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

These are definitely reading days.  Don’t believe me?  Check out the front page of today’s Washington Post.  Jay Matthews brings us the latest data from Accelerated Reader, an online reading program from Renaissance Learning.  Looking at its student usage data from more than 63,000 schools nationwide, AR has identified what books today’s students are reading … and how often they are reading them.

The full Matthews story is here — http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/04/ST2008050402168.html?hpid=topnews.  The AR study can be found here — http://www.renlearn.com/whatkidsarereading/ReadingHabits.pdf?sid=ST2008050402168.

The results are both interesting and disturbing.  Some of the top titles are to be expected.  “Green Eggs and Ham” is tops for first graders.  “Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing” for fourth graders.  “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie” was most read for second graders.

All of these are fun, well-written books that can be found in most independent reading collections for those grade levels.  But we’re also seeing a number of “required” reading titles on the list, particularly with the older grades.

“The Outsiders” was tops for seventh and eighth graders.  Eduflack remembers that as required reading in middle school.  And for high schoolers, “To Kill a Mockingbird” was the most-read book.  The Harper Lee classic has long been a mandatory read in ninth or 10th grade classes throughout the country.

Such data is interesting.  The most popular titles today, for the most part, were popular titles when Eduflack was in school decades ago.  What’s disturbing, though, is the amount of reading these students are doing.  We all keep hearing about the Harry Potter effect, and how kids are reading more today than they used to (due, in part, to the tri-wizard champion).  But AR’s data seems to tell a different story.

The average seventh grader is only reading seven books a year.  Take away the required readings like “The Outsiders,” and it is probably safe to say these junior high students are only reading two or three books independently each year.  Even more disturbing are high schoolers.  The average 12th grader is reading four books a year, meaning after books assigned in English class, the only thing seniors are reading is the back of a cereal box.

If we’ve learned anything during the RF era, it is that good reading comes in two parts.  Students need to gain the instructional building blocks identified under the law — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.  Then they need to practice it.  They need to read in class and outside of it.  They need to continue to develop those skills.  They need to become readers for life.

Reading is like any other skill.  If you want to play golf, you can get instruction on how to tee off, how to chip, and how to putt.  You can learn how to read the greens and choose your clubs.  But if you aren’t out there knocking out a few buckets a week and playing on real courses, you will never be a good golfer (though completing those tasks is no guarantee of success, trust me).  Developing skills requires practice, practice, practice.  And reading skills are no different.

This data also helps us see the need to prioritize independent reading in our schools and homes.  And that is due to the continued importance of statewide assessments.  When it comes to ELA, the assessment is one big independent reading test.  Think about it.  The test may include an excerpt from “Charlotte’s Web,” but it isn’t a test on how much you know about spiders and pigs. Assessments are independent, cold reads.  We test a student’s ability to comprehend what they read. Do they know the vocabulary?  Can they read and process it in the requisite period of time?  Can they reach conclusions based on what they read?

Now, we must see what we can do with this data from AR.  How do we use it to get good books in the hands of good students?  How do we set goals to increase book consumption among students of all ages?  How, exactly, do we build the reading skills of all students?

Lots of questions.  In RF and in successful schools throughout the nation, we can find the answers.  We just need to look.  And we need to know how to read the signs.

And Now a Word from a RF Godfather …

Eduflack IES, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Last week, the education reform community was abuzz with discussion on IES’ interim report on Reading First’s effectiveness.  There’s been a great deal of good talk on the topic, particularly from Mike Petrilli and the folks over at Fordham Foundation.

Today, we’ve got a great interview on Educationnews.org with Reid Lyon.  If you’re bothering to read anything on RF, then you have to know who Reid is.  I won’t try to summarize the interview, for I couldn’t do it justice.  Instead, I’ll just forward the link.

Be warned, it is long.  But it is chock full of good information and good opinion.  Definitely worth the read.  And it begs the question — what is the other $140 million set aside for RF assessment/evaluation being used for? 

http://ednews.org/articles/25335/1/Interview-with-Reid-Lyon-Reading-First-is-the-largest-concerted-reading-intervention-program-in-the-history-of-the-civilized-world/Page1.html

Happy reading!


RF: Read All About It

Eduflack IES, NCLB, Reading First, SBRR

Today’s big education news story seems to be the IES study on the effectiveness of Reading First.  For those who have missed the IES announcement of the study, or the USA Today or NY Times piece, or the countless blog entries, the good researchers over at IES determined that Reading First has been ineffective, to date.  Looking at elementary schools implementing RF programs, the researchers found that teacher behavior has changed, but student performance still has not improved.

Some are already questioning the methodology, asking if the type of poor-performing school studied by IES impacted the outcome.  And more criticisms are sure to come.

Ask Eduflack, and he thinks it is still too soon to know the true effectiveness.  If you ask a good educational researcher, they’ll tell you it typically takes at least five years to see the effectiveness of a reform.  RF was signed into law in 2002, with state grant applications soon following.  That means the earliest checks were likely cut for the 2003-04 school year.  So if we’re lucky, IES has looking at year three, maybe year four of implementation.  So let’s give it another year or two before we eulogize Reading First.

The bigger issue, though, is the implications of the study.  Many will use this to reinforce the IG findings and to validate the attacks that RF has faced from the beginning.  Think about it — if the implementation was bad, the awards were skewed, and the impact non-existent, the law must be no good.  Right?

But we’re truly missing the bigger picture.  The IG investigation and the recent Sol Stern/Fordham Foundation report have reached similar conclusions.  RF is a well-intentioned and well-conceived program.  The flaw was in the implementation.  The feds, the SEAs, and the LEAs have not followed the true letter or spirit of the law.  Some cut corners.  Some skipped sections of the law.  And some simply didn’t understand it.

Read Stern’s report closely.  Talk to the brains behind the law — the Reid Lyons and the Bob Sweets of the world — and they will tell you the same thing.  The law is strong.  We need to better enforce it.  We need to better follow it.  We need to better live it.  

Instead, we let the status quoers use RF funding to support non-SBRR programs.  We let schools continue so-called balanced literacy programs.  And we failed to ensure that “what works” was really getting into the classroom.

I’d still like to believe that RF can be saved.  We have the technology to rebuild her.  If the IES study tells us anything, it is that we need to enforce RF with greater fidelity. We need to follow both the letter and the intent of the law.  If we don’t, we may hasten the death of RF and the implementation of SBRR.  And that’s no good for the teachers who have already changed their practice and for the kids who need to be reading at grade level.