Think again.
The Feds implemented Reading First to force educators to adopt Reading Programs based on scientific research. The Feds offered educators lots of grant money provided they adopt reading programs that were consistent with the research on reading. To effect Reading First, the feds:
sponsored three major reading academies, the Secretary’s Reading Leadership Academies (RLAs). The RLAs were held in Washington, D.C., in January and February 2002, and hosted policymakers and key education leaders from every state and territory in the nation. The academies were designed to help state leaders gear up for the implementation of Reading First, the Department’s program to improve the quality of reading instruction in kindergarten through third grade.The RLA's included a session entitled “Theory to Practice: A Panel of Practitioners.” in which:
The speakers discussed how implementing a scientifically based reading program had brought about great improvements in the reading skills of their kindergarten through third grade students.
The a majority of the panel consisted of principals who had implemented either the Direct Instruction (DI) reading program or the Open Court reading program, two of only three programs that have been research validated.
After the RLA sessions the "policymakers and key education leaders from every state and territory in the nation" had an opportunity to comment on the RLA sessions by filling out evaluation forms.
Normally, such evaluation forms are maintained in confidence and I suspect that the attendees never expected that their comments would come to light. But then a little thing happened on the way to the teachers' lounge ....
The Department of Education's internal auditing department, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audited the Reading First program. (I'll have a post on the merits of this latest OIG audit in an upcoming post (quick take: it is laughable).) As part of that audit, they reviewed the evaluation forms submitted by the policymakers and key education leaders from every state and territory in the nation. And now as part of the OIG's Final Audit Report February 2007 you can see some of their comments in all their glory. See pages 25-39.
A few points immediately jump out. Many of these policymakers and key educators:
1. have not accepted the reading research and are not willing to abandon their beloved whole language programs.
2. were a hostile audience.
3. intensely hate DI and open court, i.e., the reading programs that have been validated by reading research.
4. were conspiring behind the scenes to give the impression that DoE was trying to force them to adopt specific curricula.
5. Know all the cliches very well.
These are THE state level policy makers and education leaders, not a bunch of powerless teachers or academic ideologues. These are the people who make the education policy in your state. From, these comments, it is clear that they won't be abandoning their beloved whole language anytime soon. At least not willingly.
And the research for reading is much further advanced than it is for math. Consider this a preview of the math wars five years hence.
9 comments:
Ken - let's get the 3 series posted.
What's the third??
(Sorry - I've forgotten.)
Actually, I've just skimmed - doesn't seem too bad to me.
The number of highly positive comments pretty strongy outweighs the "I'm not convinced there is converging evidence" folks.
Or did I read this wrong?
Nevertheless, I'm with rightwingprof: this is political.
My message now is: let parents choose.
Ask parents if they want SBRR instruction or Reading Recovery.
ASK.
You have to watch out for this Ken. DI will be assimilated.
Here is a new (6 years old, K-6) charter school that looks interesting, but...
"Kingston Hill Academy is dedicated to providing students with the opportunity for an inclusive, individualized, and challenging curriculum that supports them to reach their full potential."
"Ability groups for the basics . . .
Grouping students at their developmental ability levels is the key to mastery in reading, spelling, and basic mathematics skills. Each morning, Monday through Thursday, students work together in homogenous ability groups for language arts and mathematics. Students move around in these groups throughout the school year as they develop at their own pace. Groups may range from 1:1, 5:1, to 20:1, depending on the makeup of the students at any given point in time."
They use "Reading Mastery" and Connecting Math Concepts"
However, there is no indication that the ability groups span grade levels.
"An outcomes-oriented curriculum insures that students are taught specific skills to mastery in each of the content areas. Data is collected using standardized assessments, curriculum based assessments, and the use of rubrics. Mastery tests are embedded in the curriculum at all levels. Students who have difficulty in any area of the curriculum are given remediation until they have mastered the skill required. In addition, portfolio data is collected to show families what the student has actually achieved."
"Interest groups for specials. . .
At other times, students are grouped by interest levels. For example, each Wednesday students get together for ILP groups (Individual Learning Plan groups). Students get to rank their top choices for a six-week class taught by a teacher or consultant. Classes have included specialized sciences, creative writing, music, gardening, mural painting, digital technology, furniture refurbishment, puppetry, spelling B, tumbling, and many others. These groups are often multi-age groups so that students can learn from each other at different developmental levels. Students also work in multi-age interest groups in the arts throughout the year for specialized projects and extended curriculum."
Sounds great, so why don't I like it? Why are their standardized test scores not very good (suburban area) even though they emphasize mastery tests?
Could it be low expectations and the people who are running it? Can you say "spelling B" and furniture refurbishment?
In theory, the DI stuff should only take half the day. The rest of the day could be devoted to hand puppets and recess.
For a school to do well on tests, they need to finish level one of the curricula in K. In first grade the students need to be working on the second and third levels depending upon ability.
This is the schedule the City SPring school was working on in Baltimore and by the end of the first grade they were testing at 99th percentile in reading and math up from the 28th and 8th (!!) percentiles respectively. It took them five years to reach this level and I suspect it happened to be a very good cohort. Nonetheless, if a school is doing DI and scores aren't above the 80th percentile by the end of first grade, they're doing something wrong.
" if a school is doing DI and scores aren't above the 80th percentile by the end of first grade, they're doing something wrong."
I agree. It could be related to kids transferring into the new charter school. Their model looks promising if they allow ability groupings across grades and they really emphasize mastery. I think they got away with this charter school because their big emphasis is inclusion.
Ken -
What's the best thing for me to read on Baltimore??
"trust but verify"
I now believe that one shouldn't trust any school to do what it says it's doing.
Parents need their own set of tests they can administer at home & have scored objectively, far, far away from the school.
That's what I'm doing with the ITBS from now on.
I don't care if a school is DI; I still want my own tests.
Steve's right; any instructional system can be coopted and sabotaged.
catherine, search baltimore curriculum project
Post a Comment