EducationNews.org

By Reid Lyon and Patrick Riccards
Columnists EdNews.org

The old adage tells us, if it doesn't kill you, it only makes you stronger. Now, as we acknowledge five years of Reading First, the component of the No Child Left Behind law that focuses on early reading, and begin exploring the reauthorization of this important program, there is no question it has received far more slings and arrows than virtually any other education initiative in the history of our nation. Even before it became law, individuals and organizations lined up hoping to block the law, and then dilute the law, then muddle the law, and, finally, repeal the law. Why? Because the program did not just send money to states and districts; it required that they use scientifically based reading research (SBRR) to identify reading programs and be held accountable for improved achievement for the nation's poorest children.

The bottom line is that when Reading First is implemented rigorously, it is helping many kids read who, in the past, would have not been successful. In many states across the country, students in classroom after classroom in high poverty districts are better readers because of Reading First. The introduction of scientifically based reading research in our classrooms has improved teacher quality, improved student reading skills, and improved school achievement. Look at Washington State for example. Reading achievement in Reading First schools has increased at double the rate as the state average. Specifically, since the program began, the scores in Reading First schools have increased 22 percent compared to an 11 percent increase across the state. And, it is worth noting that the poverty rate in Reading First schools is 84 percent; the statewide average is 36 percent. This is just one of many success stories we are seeing across the nation.

The improvements in achievement reflect changes in the work of educators. Visit any Reading First school and you will hear principals and teachers discussing what is working and what is not working for individual students. You will hear phrases (at the start of school no less) like, "what are the data telling us about how the kids are reading?", or "we have to modify Sarah's instruction – she is continuing to struggle in developing vocabulary", or "the reading program that the district is considering is not comprehensive enough and does not align with SBRR."

Reading First works because it is based on scientific research, in what we know is most effective in teaching all children to read. This reliance on reading science to inform instruction represents a sea change in the behaviors and attitudes of many educators who teach our most vulnerable students. Of course, making these changes has been difficult. Even so, the rash of criticism and outright hostility directed at Reading First is surprising.

Without question, some aspects of Reading First could have been implemented better, but that is the case with any large, new initiative – let alone an initiative that moves from entitlement funding to accountability for results. When Reading First became law in 2002, its goal was to improve reading achievement for all students -- but particularly and especially for those youngsters whose futures have typically been limited because poor kids in low performing schools are not expected to excel. Reading First levels the playing field. While it still has work to do, recent reports from both the OMB and the GAO indicate that the program is well on its way to achieving this goal.

The most recent attacks on Reading First, however, paint a picture that is disconnected from reality. The zeal to discredit Reading First could return our schools to a status quo of struggling readers, flat test scores, and limited futures for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. It could also undermine the teachers who have dedicated their lives to helping all kids succeed and who have finally been given the tools to help all children succeed. By over emphasizing the shortcomings of the implementation of Reading First at the expense of its significant strengths, some critics have done a grave disservice to the staff committed to seeing Reading First succeed, to the teachers who have dedicated their lives to helping all kids succeed, and to the millions of students who have been granted a chance at life success because they have acquired strong reading skills.

The law is clear; only those programs that are based on scientifically proven principles of instruction are to be used in our classrooms. The U.S. Department of Education is mandated, under the law, to monitor states and school districts to determine whether their reading programs meet the research standards necessary to be funded through Reading First. Unfortunately, that often means stating that a program in place, or even a program with strong community support, does not meet the research standards in the law and is not eligible for funding. Such actions may be unpopular, but they are the right thing to do. Indeed, the Reading First staff would have been negligent had they not made sure that non-SBRR programs were excluded from funding. Note though, that as the GAO recently reported, there was and is no federally mandated list of approved reading programs.

Reading First enforcement is critical because of the shift from entitlement funding to research and accountability. Many have sought to weaken the law from the start. The intent of the law was to raise our standards and expectations to the highest levels possible. To date, there have been too many stories of schools and individuals – as noted in the many reports from the U.S. Department of Education's Inspector General - seeking to skirt the law or doing the bare minimum to receive federal funding. As a result, too many people have looked to readjust the law to the lowest common denominator – what is the least that has to be done to meet the standard. At its heart, Reading First is about improvement, accountability for results, and success for all, not mediocrity for most.

As the history of Reading First is written, much will be told about the initial intent of Reading First. The legislation itself was first softened during the legislative process, well before it became law. Instead of requiring reading programs to have data on effectiveness, the law required only that programs be "based on" scientific reading research. Those of us involved in the process, though, were clear on what Reading First was intended to do. We urge legislators, policymakers, educators, and community leaders to remember three essential points as we continue to implement research-proven reading instruction and reauthorize and strengthen Reading First.

First, Reading First is a strong program that has improved the quality of reading instruction in our schools. While there are components of the Reading First legislation that require improvement, the law, as a whole is accomplishing its goals. Don't believe it? Progress toward reaching these goals is demonstrated by U.S. Department of Education data, reports from OMB and the GAO, and by impartial organizations such as the Center for Education Policy. Armed with those facts, we must work together to strengthen the law where needed.

Second, the law requires, and should continue to require, that any reading programs, approaches and strategies must meet scientifically based reading research criteria. Federal officials must be empowered to enforce this law by establishing very clear, objective and impartial guidelines for defining effectiveness and what it means to be scientifically based, both for programs and for assessments. The absence of these guidelines is the root cause of the controversy surrounding Reading First. .

Finally, we must remember why Reading First is needed in the first place. As recently as five years ago, millions of American students simply could not read. Their schools had been peddled the latest reading fads and silver bullets resulting in the same horrible outcomes that we, unfortunately, had come to expect.

When appropriately implemented, Reading First is closing the gap between those children who can read and those who cannot, ensuring our schools only use programs, materials, strategies, and professional development strategies aligned with proven research standards and being shown to work in classrooms throughout the United States.

Teaching kids to read should be a non-partisan issue. Changing the parties in power should not be a license to change truths. And teaching our children effectively is a concern that belongs to us all. Indeed, what more important concern could there be? Why Reading First is being treated as a political issue is bewildering and heartbreaking. How can the door to success for millions of children be cast to the political winds?

(Reid Lyon is executive vice president for research and evaluation at Higher Ed Holdings and was one of the architects of the 2002 Reading First law. Patrick Riccards is vice president with Lipman Hearne and served as senior advisor to the Partnership for Reading.)

Published June 4, 2007