Posts
And that, paradoxically, is the one area which has just come in for a scandal, the reading first program, because that program insisted that you have to have a phonics-oriented early reading program which was just what they have been pilloried for in this recent GAO report.
I'd been asking Ken about it, because I figured if anyone would know, he would.
Ken said he'd heard the same thing, but didn't know.
Turns out Hirsch was right.
Reading First has worked; Ken reports that it is one of only four programs in the Department of Education - and the only program within NCLB - rated "effective."
Reading First
- Reading First is a focused nationwide effort to enable all students to become successful early readers.
- Funds are dedicated to help states and local school districts eliminate the reading deficit by establishing high-quality, comprehensive reading instruction in kindergarten through grade 3.
- Building on a solid foundation of research, the program is designed to select, implement, and provide professional development for teachers using scientifically based reading programs, and to ensure accountability through ongoing, valid and reliable screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based assessment.
4 of 88 programs rated "Effective "
By my count, 4 of 88 Department of Education programs are rated "Effective":
- Adult State Education Grants "The Adult Education State grants program funds literacy and basic skills education programs to help adults become literate, get a secondary school education, or learn English. Funds are distrbuted by formula grants to States and States must distibute funds competitively to local providers." (that's good news)
- NAEP ("The Nation's Report Card")
- NCES (National Center for Education Statistics)
whole language lives on
New report out from Fordham; schools still disguising whole language as balanced literacy:
Moats, a psychologist and widely respected authority on early reading, authored a previous Fordham report in October 2000 called Whole Language Lives On. In it, she uncovered many whole-language programs hiding behind the phrase "balanced literacy" in order to win contracts from school districts and avoid public scrutiny.
Seven years later, such programs still exist-and still try to pull the wool over educators' eyes. Worse, major school systems, including Denver, Salt Lake City, and New York City, continue to adopt them, misled by materials that "talk the talk," touting the five elements of effective reading instruction identified by the National Reading Panel, but which are actually just whole-language programs in disguise.
Here's Mike Petrilli:
"This report's findings help to explain why the federal government has to be prescriptive in its implementation of Reading First," said Michael J. Petrilli, Fordham's Vice President for National Programs and Policy. "Anyone can put the label ‘scientifically-based' on the cover of their reading program. But if we want to do right by kids, we need to dig below the surface. If the policy is to fund only programs that truly work, officials at all levels need to fend off the charlatans."This is where I team up with Engelmann.
It's time for think tanks, policy wonks, and researchers to stop telling us about the "five principles" of effective reading instruction or whatever it is, and start telling us the names and authors of the programs that work.
But no.
Instead, Moats tells parents to ask their school, Does our school reading program--
- Have valid screening measures in place to identify children at risk and provide them with early/extra instruction in word recognition, comprehension, and writing skills?
- Interweave multiple language components (such as speech sounds, word structure, word meaning, and sentence structure) together in the same lesson?
- Support reading comprehension by focusing on a deep understanding of topics and themes rather than developing a set of shortcut strategies?
So say you ask your school these probing questions.
What's the answer going to be?
NO?
We DON'T interweave multiple language components such as speech sounds, word structure, word meaning, and sentence strugure together in the same lesson?
School district personnel, in my experience, routinely tell parents programs are "scientific," "supported by research" and all the rest whether they are or not.
My favorite instance of this was the time our former middle school principal told a huge gathering of parents that "all the research shows constructivist math is the way to go."
The only way to make that a true statement is to change "all" to "none."
He made this remark with aplomb.
Parents don't have a chance against aplomb.
My district uses balanced literacy, I'm told.
In case you were wondering.
Advanced Placement Test Fees and AP Incentives rated moderately effective
These are programs designed to increase minority participation in AP courses.
By my count 7 programs, of 88, are rated "Moderately Effective."
Not bad.
Reading First has worked
Reading Last
15 comments:
"balanced literacy"
This means phonics as a last resort in forth grade. That's what it means at our schools.
SteveH must have been a victim of a "sequential, systematic phonics program", as evidenced by his spelling. There is no one "program" that works for all students. What is needed is a knowledgable teacher.
My favorite instance of this was the time our former middle school principal told a huge gathering of parents that "all the research shows constructivist math is the way to go."
I've been the victim of aplomb statements in this vein. Any time someone starts a sentence with, "All the research shows . . " I don my skeptical hat.
how often is aplomb a bad thing?
often?
always?
Anon,
I've been reading Steve's comments for over a year. He rarely has a typo, but if that makes you feel better....
There is no one "program" that works for all students.
That may or may not be true, but one thing is clear, some programs work a LOT better than others. And some programs work best with MOST children.
"forth"
Usually I catch these things right after I hit the publish button and it makes me feel stupid. This had a delayed stupid effect. Actually, I have this habit of typing words that sound the same even though I know the difference. I'm constantly catching myself typing "their" instead of "there". Those are typos. I know how to spell, but my fingers don't. That isn't true because I have my Sharp Electronic Dictionary sitting right next to me.
But don't worry, pay attention and you'll have fun finding all of my mismatched verb tenses. If that thrills you, perhaps you would like to watch me tie my shoes.
What is needed is a knowledgable teacher.
Really? We have lots of supposedly knowledgable teachers in failed schools, so that obviously isn't the answer.
"What is needed is a knowledgable teacher."
"a", as in one? You need one every year, but even that's not enough. The curriculum does matter.
This must be the person who wrote the same sort of thing about math in the other thread. Many people believe in the "only one thing" theory of education. It usually involves vaguely-defined good teachers.
In math, all it takes is one bad teacher to screw everything up.
I'm constantly catching myself typing "their" instead of "there".
I did this TWICE recently.
It was mortifying.
Thank God I caught myself.
Ever since the spelling bee alerted me to the fact that I am NOT a savant speller I've been aware of a whole new area of personal under-education.
(Spelling bee was a gas, but intensely nervewracking; I've got a post sitting around in draft form. The ENTIRE district was there, all of the machers, AND I HAD TO SPELL STUFF IN FRONT OF THEM.)
"I'm constantly catching myself typing "their" instead of "there"."
That's mild compared to my affliction. I find that very often my mind and fingers are disconnected. The fingers seem to be on auto-pilot. Then I catch myself and can't believe what I wrote.
"Then I catch myself and can't believe what I wrote."
There are the times when I reread what I wrote 5 times and THEN find a mistake. My son brought home an assignment where he had to find 5 spelling errors and 6 other mistakes in 4 paragraphs. He couldn't find the last mistake. I couldn't either. We read and reread it and still no luck. Later on, he found it. There were two "his" in a row. We were looking for those things before and still missed it.
(Spelling bee was a gas, but intensely nervewracking; I've got a post sitting around in draft form. The ENTIRE district was there, all of the machers, AND I HAD TO SPELL STUFF IN FRONT OF THEM.)
We have something similar. It is called the "Gran-Bee" Trivia contest. Teams form around town (including a team from our Board of Ed, which never does well), and compete. It is a huge fundraiser in town. People dress in costumes, stuff like that.
I find that very often my mind and fingers are disconnected. The fingers seem to be on auto-pilot.
Oh, that's funny!
I don't think I have that.
At the spelling bee I discovered that the ONLY way I could spell was to write down the word as fast as I could the instant I heard it.
That was so important to the team that one of the 3 team members was arranging my pens and paraphernalia (I was also in charge of writing our spelling on a white board) so I could do it.
The team aspect was fascinating.
The best speller on our team, by far, was a publisher, writer, and editor.
However, we needed a check on him & I was the "second opinion." Basically we worked out a "wisdom of the crowd" mode for just 3 people.
We had some kind of implicit rubric for figuring out when we were correct and didn't have to consider alternative spellings AND for figuring out, when there was a split vote, whose version to go with.
I found the whole thing fascinating. Two of us had just met; I only knew the Team Captain to chat with on the Aqueduct Trail.
And yet within about 20 minutes of sitting together in the audience we had become a team; we had developed a form of team functioning.
Since I was the "second opinion," and since I could only provide a second opinion if I didn't allow my conscious mind to spend a single second contemplating the word, our third team member (who just so happens to have a Pulitzer Prize - had to get that in) took it upon himself to remove all distractions ("Where's the Dry Erase pen?") and increase my automaticity.
I sure wish I could have played team sports as a kid.
There were two "his" in a row.
Your brain is specifically constructed NOT to see this!
My favorite instance of this was the time our former middle school principal told a huge gathering of parents that "all the research shows constructivist math is the way to go."
Every time an educationist mumbles something about "research shows..." and doesn't specify what the goal of the research was, what question it tried to answer (and cite chapter and verse), he should be slapped with a wet noodle (I would prefer caning but I try not to be too aggressive).
A statement like "all the research shows constructivist math is the way to go" is vacuous and meaningless. Go where? To McDonald's to flip hamburgers?
A meaningful research question, for example, would be to try to answer the question: What's the best way to make a substantial number of students math proficient, in real math that is.
Post a Comment