The road to federal reforms

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Michael C. McKennaUniversity of Virginia

Sharon WalpoleUniversity of Delaware

is a long and winding one…

Let’s start at the beginning.

1600s

• John Locke proposes precursor of synthetic phonics by having children build words with letter dice.

• Reading and spelling are taught together

1700’s

• Word-building approaches continue.

• “Reading Wars” begin, in effect, when Rousseau attacks Locke’s methods and recommends relying on motivation.

People make a great fuss about discovering the best way to teach children to read. They use desks and cards and turn a child’s room into a print shop. Locke would teach them to read with dice. Now is that not a clever idea! What a pity! A means surer than all of these … is simply the desire to learn. Give the child this desire, and you can forget your desks and your dice – any method will be good enough.

Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile, 1762

1786• Noah Webster publishes The American Spelling Book (actually a revision of his previous work)

• Multi-leveled• Reading and spelling are taught together

1800s

• Reading and spelling remain linked.• Phonics is emphasized in the McGuffey Readers.

• Reading Wars continue as Horace Mann ridicules phonics and recommends a meaning-based approach.

William McGuffey

Horace Mann

Horace Mann

Letters are “bloodless, ghostly apparitions.”

1st Half of 20th Century

• Modern basals take shape and phonics emphasis declines.

• Importance of automatic word recognition of high-frequency words is recognized.

• Dolch word list published in 1936.• Spelling taught separately and deemphasized.

1940s and 50s

• “Look-Say” approach is dominant, emphasizing sight word acquisition.

• Phonics is minimized.• Basal stories stress repetition of high-frequency words.

• Dick and Jane are born but refuse to grow up.

Why do you think these pendulum swings have occurred?

Can we stop the pendulum in the middle?

If so, would that constitute “balance”?

What do you know about “Balanced Reading”?

What are we trying to balance?

• Isolated skills instruction with meaning- driven reading and writing?

• Teacher-driven curriculum with state-controlled curriculum?

• Phonics with whole language?• Small-guided reading with whole-class basal instruction?

• Authentic, teacher-administered assessment with standardized testing?

What is whole language anyway?

Whole language is an approach to literacy education that emphasizes natural development of literacy competence. Immersion in real literature and daily writing is favored over explicit teaching of basic reading skills. Skills instruction occurs in whole language classrooms on an as-needed basis only, and then only in the context of real reading and writing, rather than as a focal point of instruction.

Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford Press.

To be honest, it took me a long time to learn a lesson most researchers and school administrators have not yet learned: no research study, no brilliant discovery, no book, no seminal article, no journal, no program, no policy, no mandate, no law can change what happens to kids in our schools. Only teachers can do that.

Goodman, K. (1992). I didn’t found Whole Language. Reading Teacher, 46, 188-199.

What is the phonics

argument?Learning to read is not a “natural” process. Most children must be taught to read through a structured and protracted process in which they are made aware of sounds and the symbols that represent them, and then learn to apply these skills automatically and attend to meaning.

Moats, L. C. (2000). Whole Language lives on: The illusion of “balanced” reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: Fordham Foundation.

Where should we stand?

• Outside of the argument?• In the middle?• On both sides?

Plan

• Description/characteristics of seminal studies and policy responses

Big Issues

• What do we “know” about development, curriculum, instruction?

• What does it mean to know?• How much control should the government have?

• How much freedom should teachers and schools have?

Now back to memory lane …

1955• Rudolph Flesch publishes Why Johnny Can’t Read

• Theoretical but popular book about the need for phonics instruction

Sputnik, 1957

Russians launch first artificial satellite

• Space race is born• “Missile gap” develops, favoring USSR• American paranoia soon focuses on education

• Reader’s Digest publishes “Can Ivan Read Better than Johnny?”

Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965

Title I: One billion dollars of federal money to improve reading and math skills of poor children

Chall, 1967

Learning to read: The great debate• Private funding• Research synthesis plus observations and interviews

• Concluded that research supports a “code emphasis” in beginning reading

• Balanced approach, with phonics for beginning and struggling readers

Bond & Dykstra (1967/1997)

The First-Grade Studies (RRQ)• Federally funded studies at multiple sites

• Experimental design, but problematic• Key findings:

– Phonics better than no phonics – Teachers more important than programs

Guy Bond

NAEP, 1969

National Assessment of Educational Progress• Large-scale federal assessment program begins

• Stratified sample is tested in reading, math, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts

• Results are reported for the nation as a whole, for large regions, for ethic groups, genders, etc.

• Results are NOT reported by state, district, or school

• NAEP is therefore not high stakes.

CSR, 1976

Center for the Study of Reading founded• Federally funded• Main mission was to conduct research into reading comprehension

• Located at the University of Illinois• Underscored the notion of “strategic reading”

• Still exists, but without federal funding

Anderson, Hiebert, Scott,

& Wilkinson, 1985Becoming a nation of readers

• Published by CSR• Best-selling reading book of all time

• Supported a balanced approach, including both phonics and read-alouds, both reading and writing

Dick Anderson

Adams, 1990

Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print• Federally funded• Research synthesis• Summary published by CSR in 1990• Early establishment of alphabetic principle; coordination of orthographic, phonological, semantic, and syntactic processors

NRRC, 1992National Reading Research Center founded

• Federally funded• Main mission was to conduct research into reading engagement

• Shared by University of Georgia and University of Maryland

• Ended its five-year span in 1997Steve Stahl,UGA

John Guthrie,UMD

NAEP, 1992National Assessment of Educational Progress• Federal assessment program publishes state results for the first time

• California, spearhead of whole language in America, finishes near last in NAEP Reading, a result that demographics cannot explain.

• Whole language is blamed, perhaps simplistically, for California’s plight.

• Bill Honig, California state superintendent, leaves office and becomes phonics-firster.

Bill Honig

NAEP, 1992

Whole language died of natural causes in California

Steve Stahl

CIERA, 1997

P. David Pearson

• Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement founded in 1997• Federally funded• Focus on beginning reading• Library of reports is still online (http://www.ciera.org/library/index.html)• Consortium of five universities:

• Michigan, Michigan State, Virginia, Georgia, Southern Cal

Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998

Preventing reading difficulties in young children

• Federally funded panel• Research synthesis• Included context (home and school)• Phonemic awareness and phonics, especially for children at risk of failure

Catherine Snow

Reading Excellence Act of 1998

• Clinton administration’s reform legislation, based on 1997 priority that “all students will read independently and well by the end of third grade.”

• $260 million in state grants– Professional development– Instructional materials– Assessments

• Scientifically based reading research/instruction

Process

• State Grants• Expert Reviews• Local Grants

(Each year had a deadline for applications; failed applications were sent back for rewriting until the next year’s competition; there was no guarantee of funding.)

National Reading Panel, 2000

• Federally funded through National Institutes of Health and Human Development

• Research synthesis, limited to experimental and quasi-experimental methodology

• Subgroup reports in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, teacher education, and technology

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(Reauthorization of ESEA of 1965)

• Annual spending of 12 billion dollars for Title I

• 1.9 billion to the states in Reading First

(professional development, curriculum materials, assessments, evaluations)

No Child Left Behind:

A primerhttp://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/

index.html

What do you know about NCLB?

NCLB

• NCLB became law in 2002 – New federal moneys to the states

• Historically, 90% of education spending comes from the states

• Federal moneys come in the form of categorical grants which the states can accept or decline, such as IDEA

– New federal involvement in education

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Structure of the law

Title I

Improving academic achievement of the disadvantaged

Basic programs, reading, migrant children, prevention and intervention for neglected, delinquent, or at-risk children, national assessment of Title I, comprehensive school reform, advanced placement, dropout prevention

Structure of the law

Title II

Preparing, training and recruiting high quality teachers and principals

Teacher and principal training and recruitment, math and science, innovation for teacher quality,technology

Structure of the law

Title III

Language instruction for limited English proficient and immigrant students

English language acquisition, improving language instruction

Structure of the law

Title IV

21st Century Schools

Safe and drug-free schools,21st century learning centers,Tobacco smoke

Structure of the law

Title V

Promoting informed parental choice and innovation

Innovative programs,public charter schools,magnet schools

Structure of the law

Title VI

Flexibility and accountability

Improving academic achievement,rural education

Structure of the law

Title VII

Indian, Hawaiian, and Alaskan native education

Indian education,Native Hawaiian educationAlaska native education

Structure of the law

Title VIII

Impact aid program

Structure of the law

Title IX

General provisions

Definitions,Flexibility,Coordination,Waivers,Uniform provisions,Unsafe school choice

Structure of the law

Title X

Repeals, redesignations, and amendments

Repeals,Redesignations,Homeless education,Native American education improvement,Higher education act of 1965General education provisions act

4 major principles

1. Accountability2. Research-based instruction3. Local control and

flexibility4. Parental choice

Accountability

• States must make plans– Rigorous academic standards– Assessments every year from grades 3 to 8 in both reading and math

• Assessment data must be reported– Individually, by subgroup, by school– Low-ses, disabled, LEP, race, ethnicity

– Annual report cards

Standards

• Reading-language arts, math, and science– What students must know and do– Coherent and rigorous– Encourage teaching of advanced skills

• Elementary years grade-by-grade or in clusters; secondary years end proficiencies

Accountability

• Assessments must include at least three levels (advanced, proficient, basic)

• At least 95% of individuals in each subgroup must take the assessment– Annually in Reading and Math 3-8– Once between 10 and 12– Science added in 2006

Students with Disabilities

• Standards are the same, but not necessarily conditions– Accommodations?– Alternative assessments?– Discretion left to the states to prepare guidelines

Students with LEP

• LEP students must be included– Accommodations– First-language versions (until 3 years of schooling in US)

• State plans must include testing of oral language, reading and writing for LEP students

Cross-state comparisons

• NAEP in 4th grade and 8th grade in reading, math, and other areas every two years– Data are reported at the national and state level rather than at the school or individual level

• Results appear as the Reading Report Card, available online:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/

Percent Below Basic

Grade 8

Public reporting

• State report cards• District report cards• School report cards

Measuring AYP• States must measure adequate yearly progress of districts and schools to the goal of 100% proficiency by 2013

• Starting point: average proficiency in the lowest-performing school district or the lowest-performing subgroup (whichever is higher)

• Annual increase is the state-level goal that moves from the starting point to 100% by 2013

Safe harbor

• If the total scores in a school or district indicate AYP, but one subgroup fails, schools can meet AYP if failure was reduced in the subgroup by at least 10%

AYP rewards

• States must reward schools with especially good progress in a two-year period, either with money or with recognition

AYP sanctions

• Two consecutive years of failure to make AYP = identified for improvement– State must provide technical assistance; school must make an improvement plan

– Parents must be notified and offered choice

• Three consecutive years of failure to make AYP = continued improvement– Addition of supplemental educational services

AYP sanctions

• Four consecutive years of failure to make AYP = corrective action– Restructuring, firing, extending the school day and year, assignment of outside expert

• Five consecutive years of failure to make AYP = restructuring– Remove and replace all administration, reopen as a charter school, consider an outside private management company

Adequate yearly progress

• The act specifies that all children will be proficient in reading and math by 2013-2014– AYP is the minimum level of improvement necessary each year

Research-based instruction

• Federal funds can not be used except to fund programs and practices with reliable evidence of effectiveness

• What Works Clearinghouse established to share information on research-based instruction

http://www.w-w-c.org(Now linked to GARF PD Web site)

Highly qualified teachers

• Elementary school: Bachelor’s degree, full state certification, general proficiency tests (e.g., Praxis general tests)

• Middle and high school: Same plus subject-specific tests (e.g., Praxis specific tests)

• Special education teachers: Same plus subject-specific tests in ALL the areas in which they teach!

Current teachers

• States make a plan for documenting that current teachers are highly qualified

• Alternative certification routes are also available

Paraprofessionals

• Paraprofessionals can provide direct instructional support to children if teachers supervise them

• Beginning in 2002, they must have two years of college!

Local control and flexibility

• States can combine federal funds from one program to another without seeking federal approval

What are the current issues in implementation and reauthorization of NCLB?

Reading First Process

• States grants reviewed by expert panels

• Feedback and chances for revision• States identified eligible districts, provided technical assistance, and ran grant competitions

• Schools, nested in districts

RAND report, 2002

• Privately funded panel• Model of and research about text comprehension

• Agenda for researchers

Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002

Federally-funded educational research now held to the SBRR standard?

Institute for Education Sciences

Russ Whitehurst

What Works Clearinghouse

• Federally funded source for summaries of evidence of effectiveness of programs, products, and strategies

http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/

The Partnership for Reading

NIFL, the Secretary of Education, and the director of NICHD must collaborate to disseminate information, including information for parents

http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/

National Reading First Centers,

2004• Technical assistance centers funded to support Reading First in the states– Resources– Reviews– Capacity building efforts– Consultationhttp://www.fcrr.org/ERRFTAC.htm

Striving Readers, 2005

• Enhance overall reading achievement in middle and high schools

• Improve the literacy skills of struggling adolescent readers

• Help build a strong, scientific, research base around specific strategies that improve adolescent literacy skills.

http://www.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/index.html

The general argument

• We know how children learn to read

• We know how to study educational issues

• It’s just a matter of getting that information into classrooms