EducationNews.org

5 comments by Maurice Wolfthal

I believe strongly that Reading First is helping millions of kids learn to read and I am constantly reviewing data that tells me that significant improvements in reading skills are being achieved.But as a co-author of the Reading First legislation, I am biased.The program has been beset with allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest and a recent study ostensibly found that Reading First funding did not produce significant gains in reading comprehension over and above those achieved in schools not funded with reading First dollars.With respect to the allegations of conflicts of interest, no evidence exists that show actual conflicts occurred and thus the Office of the Inspector General did not find any instance of an actual conflict.However, the perception of conflict was clearly noted and that perception has hurt the program.On the positive side, the management issues that led to the appearance of conflict and other implementation problems have been corrected.As I have watched the skewering of Reading First by politicians alleging corruption, I wonder why their anger, angst, and condemnation is so selectivelydeployed toward this program without similar responses to the mismanagement and ACTUAL conflicts of interest identified in other federal programs, most notably Head Start.

But those politicians who want to kill Reading First also base their decision on results presented in a recent government report that reported that Reading First was not effective in improving reading comprehension.However, it is now clear that this "Impact" study did not pay enough attention to a well known fact – both Reading First and non-Reading First schools within the same district were typically using the same reading programs.Non-Reading First schools did not want their kids to fail so they adopted Reading First programs and paid for them with state or district funds.For example, The Reading First evaluator for Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Washington and Wyoming reported gains in all five states in the percent of students meeting third grade benchmarks. She also reported that 65 percent to 95 percent of non-Reading First schools in districts receiving Reading First funds used the same assessments, purchased the same reading materials, provided similar assistance to struggling students and hired similar reading coaches. Essentially the study compared schools who implemented programs funded through Reading First with schools who implemented many of the same programs funded through district or state funds.

But the real issue is how are the kids doing? The state data that are now being reported show promising results. Alabama was found by independent evaluations to increase kindergarten reading development such that a remarkable 89 percent of students met literacy benchmarks at the end of kindergarten, with almost no racial gap.State wide evaluations of Reading First programs in California, Ohio, Idaho and many others demonstrated significant improvement in reading capabilities on state reading tests.Many will argue that these improvements are not occurring in every state, district, or school and thus the program is ineffective.But that is to be expected, as many educators had a very steep learning curve in implementing their Reading First program.The important point is that many districts and schools are very successful and it is essential that we examine how they implemented their programs to achieve that success.

If Reading First is on the chopping block it is not because it lacks effectiveness and is helping millions of struggling readers.It is because of political malpractice and an obsession of many who continue to want to fight the reading wars – a highly unproductive obsession to pit phonics against whole language over the past century which has derailed the futures of millions of children.And, true to form, Wolfthal invokes the tired phonics argument when in fact Reading First did not allow a singular focus on phonics.By law, instruction had to be comprehensive – that is, instruction had to cover Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension – and instruction had to be delivered systematically and directly. Why, because of the overwhelming evidence that these instructional factors led result in significant improvements in reading capabilities of those who are disadvantaged and struggling to read.Indeed, if one examines the IES impact study, that unfortunately did not account for the fact Reading First and Non-Reading First schools were frequently employing the same instructional and professional development programs, it becomes evident that more instruction was being carried out in the comprehension area that in phonics.

But let's put these idiotic clashes between educational ideologues aside and talk about whether we even need a program like Reading First.Some argue that there is in fact no reading problem in the schools.Well, if you don't believe there is a terrible reading problem in many of our most impoverished schools, visit inner city kindergarten and elementary classrooms and let me know what you see.Then visit Reading First schools in that same district and tell me what you see.The data will speak for themselves, but nothing beats being up close and personal with the problem.Is Reading First the total answer to our nation's reading woes? No, of course not.We do need more libraries.We do need very thoughtful (and evidence-based) pre-kindergarten programs that emphasize the development of language skills essential for understanding what is read.We do need to support educational leaders and teachers to identify and implement proven programs.In the end, I am confident that the Reading First program will demonstrate strong effectiveness as we continue to evaluate those districts and schools where the program has been implemented properly and that effectiveness will be increased further as additional essential elements are implemented including proven pre-school programs, access to quality libraries, and programs that help parents better support their children.But for any of this to work in the most optimal fashion we must move on from the ignorance reflected in the phonics-whole language dichotomy.

Reid Lyon
Dallas, Texas