Reading First

Put PK-3 First, with or without Reading First

Sara Mead — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:59:00 -0400

In late June both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees approved separate versions of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, which funds federal education programs. Both the House and Senate committee bills would zero out funding for the Reading First program, which funds scientifically-based reading programs in grades K-3. If the bill passes in its current form, Congress will have cut funding for PK-3 literacy by $1 billion over two years. And that’s something early education advocates, regardless of their views on Reading First per se, should be up in arms about.

The appropriators cite unimpressive results from a recent evaluation of Reading First as a rationale for eliminating the program. They also cite management scandals that plagued the program last year but which the Department has addressed. Early Ed Watch has previously discussed why these are not necessarily good reasons to defund Reading First.

We agree that congress should not waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective education programs. But we also shouldn’t judge Reading First just on one, preliminary evaluation—particularly when other data sources yield more promising (albeit less rigorous) evidence. If the appropriators are going to defund Reading First based on one evaluation, there are a number of other programs, which they did choose to fund in the current bills, that have even less evidence of effectiveness and that we’d like to see them apply the same standard to—We’ve got some ideas about better ways to use that money.

Yet there’s a bigger picture here: If congress does indeed eliminate Reading First funding for fiscal year 2009, that will constitute a $1 billion cut in K-3 education funding over just two years. That’s a huge step backwards at the very time that many in congress are seeking to increase federal investments in young children.

Early education advocates are understandably excited about the prospects for increased federal investment in young children in the next congress and administration. But even as the political climate seems increasingly hospitable for new federal early education investments, the overall federal fiscal situation is making it all the more difficult to pay for those investments. Early education advocates will face increasing pressure to identify potential savings to offset the cost of new investments.

That makes it all the more important that early education advocates not stand idly by while congress eliminates $393 million that Reading First currently provides to support early education. If the appropriations committees are dead set on eliminating Reading First funding, early education advocates should put intense pressure on them to ensure that the funding remains focused on PK-3 education. Otherwise, the money freed up by eliminating Reading First will be distributed in dribs and drabs across a variety of committee members’ favored programs—or be used to fund earmarks—and little kids will wind up the net losers.

What could congress do for early education with $393 million in funding? Given American students’—and adults’—poor showings in reading, keeping the money focused on early literacy, under another name, would be a smart idea. Here's another option: We’ve previously proposed creating a “2020 Early Education” state grant program that would provide grants to states to align standards, curricula, and teacher quality requirements from pre-k through third grade; improve the quality of PK-3 programs; and expand access to pre-k and full-day kindergarten for low-income students. That would be a good way to use $393 million, which would go a long way there. And we’re sure the early education community could come up with some other good ideas.

The current Committee Bills are not necessarily the death knell for Reading First. Appropriations bills still need to pass in the full House and Senate, go to conference committee, and either get the President’s approval or overcome a veto (which President Bush has already threatened for the bill). During that process, funding levels for many programs will change. Assuming, of course, that congress can even complete work on a Labor-HHS-Education bill this year at all. But right now the outlook for Reading First is certainly grim. All the more so, because the Bush administration and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings aren’t expending much political capital to preserve their signature initiative.

Looks like it’s time for the early education advocacy community to gird up its loins and start pressuring congress to keep Reading First funding focused where it counts—on children from preschool through third grade.

A Second Look at Reading First

Sara Mead — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:26:00 -0400

Last week the Institute of Education Sciences released the first report from an ongoing national evaluation of Reading First. And, as a front page Washington Post story (and plenty of other newspaper articles across the country) reported, the news wasn’t good. Researchers found no evidence of statistically significant improvements in the reading comprehension of students in Reading First schools, compared to students in similar schools that did not receive Reading First funding. Since the point of Reading First is to improve students’ literacy skills, that’s a disappointing result.

Reporters, Reading First critics, and policymakers quickly concluded that Reading First is not working and needs to be either revamped or scrapped entirely. For instance, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.), who has been highly critical of last year’s scandals involving the Bush administration’s management of the program, stated last week that this report “shows that we need to seriously re-examine this program and figure out how to make it work better for students.”

Certainly, the research raises serious questions about Reading First’s effectiveness, but it’s worth taking a closer look before writing the program off entirely. Several points are particularly noteworthy:

First, while the researchers found no evidence that students in Reading First schools had better achievement than those in non-Reading First schools, that finding was not consistent across the whole sample of schools studied. Researchers looked at Reading First schools (and similar non-Reading First schools) from two cohorts of Reading First awards: schools that first received funding between April and December 2003, and schools that received funding between January and August 2004. The study found no evidence that Reading First improved student achievement in the schools that received earlier awards—in fact, analysis suggests that Reading First had, if anything, a negative (though non-significant) impact on children’s reading achievement in these schools. In contrast, the study did find statistically significant improvements in the percentage of students reading at grade level in second cohort of schools, those that received funding later.

Does this matter? It’s tough to say. The researchers suggest two possible reasons Reading First could have improved student achievement in the later school cohort but not the earlier one: First, schools in the later cohort received more Reading First funding per pupil than those in the earlier cohort. Second, schools in the later cohort had lower student achievement in reading to start with, so they had more room to improve. Unfortunately, the researchers didn’t have sufficient data to investigate whether either of these differences—or other potential factors—cause differences in student achievement impacts between the two sets of schools, so we have no way of knowing whether the statistically significant improvements for the later set of schools matters.

Schools that received awards earlier didn’t just fail to show evidence of improved student achievement, though. Researchers also found no evidence that Reading First increased the time teachers in these schools devoted to the 5 essential components of effective reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension—these 5 components are the cornerstone of the Reading First program. In contrast, researchers found evidence of both increased instructional time devoted to the 5 components, and improved reading comprehension test scores in the later group of schools. That makes intuitive sense: Reading First is based on the idea that implementing the 5 components of effective reading instruction will improve student reading, so the program is unlikely to improve student achievement in schools where it doesn’t also cause teachers to increase time devoted to the 5 components.

That still doesn’t explain, though, why Reading First had a greater impact on teacher behavior in the schools that received awards later than it did in those that received earlier awards. Ultimately, we just have to hope that later reports will shed more light on the differences between earlier and later award schools.

That brings us to another important point—this report is only the first one from an ongoing evaluation, and may not capture the full picture. The researchers themselves caution:

“The evaluation design calls for three years of data collection. This report presents findings based on two years of data collection. While there is no prior researcher on the among of time necessary for schools to have fully implemented the Reading First program, prior research on implementation of programs designed to improve student achievement through changing teachers’ instructional practices suggests that while changes in instruction may be evidence sooner, changes in student achievement can take several years to appear. This holds particular salience for the Reading First program, which attempts to promote a comprehensive approach to reading instruction that persists from kindergarten through grade three. Some aspects of Reading First may be easy to implement quickly (i.e., purchase of new core reading programs and assessments, providing research-based professional development). Yet other aspects may require several years to implement effectively and consistently across the entire K-3 grade span (i.e. aligning curricula, instructional practices, and support services with the underlying principles of Reading First) to yield sustained improvement in student reading performance. Further, it will take four years of implementation before any students will have been able to experience Reading First funded activities as they progress from kindergarten through third grade.” (emphasis added)

In other words, it’s too early for this to be the last word on Reading First. Impatience with the speed at which educational improvement progresses is a common issue in education reform—and one that can cause real problems for reform efforts. When the federal government is investing a billion dollars annually in a program, it’s understandable—indeed, essential—to ask how that program is doing—but we also need to be cautious about evaluating programs too early, before they’ve been sufficiently implemented to show results. Policymakers should wait for the final report before making substantial changes to the Reading First program. Since NCLB reauthorization appears to be on hold until at least 2009, they have time.

Finally, we should ask whether the person who should really be declaring victory here is not Reading First’s critics, but E.D. Hirsch. This study focused on one indicator of children’s reading performance: student reading comprehension as assessed by the Stanford Achievement Test. The researchers did not assess children’s phonemic awareness, decoding ability, or fluency, for example. That makes sense because comprehension is, in the researchers’ words “the essence of reading.” But it’s also problematic because, as Hirsch has argued passionately in recent years, reading comprehension is about much more than basic literacy skills. To comprehend, readers must also have a rich content knowledge that enables them to connect what they read to existing knowledge. (Hirsch is fond of citing an article describing a baseball game as an example here: Poor readers who know a lot about baseball will comprehend the article better than excellent readers who have never seen a baseball game.) Teachers observed in this study spent substantial time teaching children reading comprehension, but teaching comprehension strategies is not the same and equipping children with the content knowledge they need to understand what they read.

None of these points or questions reverse the fact that a rigorous evaluation has, so far, found no clear evidence that Reading First improves students reading. Policymakers, parents, and the public should be aware of this fact and should be asking questions about it. But we should also consider the entire picture—including forthcoming reports—before writing the program off or making major changes to it.

Photo by flickr user Leo Reynolds, used under a Creative Commons License.

Ending the Reading First Funding Limbo

Sara Mead — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:01:00 -0400

Early Ed Watch's colleague Lindsey Luebchow has a great post on the impact of cuts in Reading First funding, and the prospects for restoring Reading First funds in the fiscal year 2009 budget, up at our sister blog Ed Money Watch. Key points:

States and school districts are starting to feel the impact of major funding cuts to the federal Reading First program. Congress cut Reading First funding by 61 percent in fiscal year 2008—the unfortunate result of a serious federal-level management scandal. On the ground, however, the Reading First program is producing results in many schools, and school administrators and teachers have praised it.

President Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget request would restore Reading First funding to $1 billion annually. As school districts scramble to look for other funding sources to keep Reading First programs alive this year, Members of Congress should reassure them by making a commitment to restore funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget. Congress has made its point on the scandal and should end the political games.

The Administration did make grave errors in program management. But Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has promised that the program is running cleanly, and she's fighting to restore funding to the $1 billion level.

Of course, in order to restore funding, Congress will have to pass a fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill, instead of a continuing resolution (which would maintain funding at the 2008 level for the next fiscal year). Reading First is a prime example of why Congress should work on and pass a Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill--NOT postpone funding questions until fiscal year 2010. While some states and school districts may be able to produce one year of stop-gap funding to cover the Reading First cuts, most will have to significantly alter and downsize their Reading First programs if Congress maintains funding at $393 million for another year. Continue...

Ensuring that children learn to read proficiently by the end of third grade is perhaps the most important outcome goal for the PK-3 years, and Reading First, which supports scientifically based reading instruction in grades K-3, is a critical source of funding to help schools achievee that goal. Early Ed Watch will continue covering Reading First funding issues, as well as making the case to expand Reading First to support high-quality pre-k literacy interventions aligned with scientifically based K-3 literacy programs. Previous EEW commentary on Reading First is available here and here.

Scandal is Easy, Curriculum is Hard

Sara Mead — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:44:00 -0400

Sol Stern seems to be in a bomb-throwing mood lately. Earlier this year he set the school choice world abuzz with a City Journal piece arguing that “school choice isn’t enough,” because improving student performance demands better curriculum and instruction, too—a sentiment with which we couldn’t agree more, but one that alienated lots of Stern’s pro-voucher friends. Now Stern’s written a fiery report on the Reading First program for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

For those of you who’ve been living under a rock the past year—or who simply aren’t education policy junkies like we are: Reading First, created as part of the 2001 No Child Left Behind legislation, is a federal program that provides funding to states and school districts to support early elementary reading programs grounded in “scientifically-based reading research” (SBRR). As defined under NCLB, SBRR programs must include explicit instruction the five components of effective reading instruction—phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension strategies—identified by the National Reading Panel. Last year the program came under intense media and Congressional scrutiny following allegations of management problems and conflicts of interest on the peer review panels evaluating state Reading First applications.

Stern’s report seeks to offer the “other side” of the story—the one that didn’t get reported in the press but deserves to be heard. Stern argues that Reading First’s problems began even before the program was enacted, when Congressional drafters decided to not to require programs funded with Reading First dollars to be “scientifically proven”—ie, to have evidence from rigorous experimental trials that they improve children’s reading skills—as the program’s architects initially proposed. Instead, Congress adopted a “scientifically based” standard, which allowed programs to pass muster if they reflect scientific evidence on how children learn to read, but did not require the programs themselves to have undergone experimental evaluations. It did so because only two reading curricula—Direct Instruction and Success for All—met the “scientifically proven” standard (since then, the Reading Recovery program has also met this standard). Stern argues that this “softer” standard made problems inevitable, because it required the Reading First program office to apply discretion in determining whether or not programs were scientifically based, and created an opening for purveyors of ineffective curricula to attempt to label their wares.

There’s plenty to take issue with in Stern’s report—In particular his attacks on the Education Department’s Office of Inspector General and House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller for performing the oversight functions that are a part of their jobs. Stern and Fordham are clearly and, to their credit, forthrightly aligned with one pole of the ongoing wars over curriculum and pedagogical approaches. And their defense of Reading First director Christopher Doherty may be too personal to gain credibility beyond their immediate sphere.

Smart readers should look at the evidence and judge for themselves. But no matter what you think of its overall approach, Stern’s report illustrates several important points: First, it remains extremely rare for Congress to tie federal funding to requirements that funded programs show evidence of effectiveness—in part because there’s often too little research to guide key policy or instructional decisions, but also because some educators resist research-based practices. Second, much as we want to believe that the National Reading Panel report brought peace to the Reading Wars, they continue to rage, especially in education schools and at the local level. Third, the appearance of scandal in bureaucratic and process terms is much more salacious, and easy to write about, than the complexities of curriculum or scientifically based research.

Most important, while Reading First is still a relatively new program, all evaluations to date—by the Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, and even the liberal Center on Education Policy—suggest that Reading First is working, that it’s helping disadvantaged kids learn to read. And Congress’ response to last year’s scandals—slicing Reading First funding by nearly two-thirds—ultimately hurts these kids, not the people responsible for the programs’ problems.

The Bush administration’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposal requests a restoration of $1 billion in funding for Reading First, and recounts the steps the administration has taken to address program management issues identified by the Department of Education’s Office of the Inspector General. We believe that Congress should not only return Reading First funding to its previous levels, but should also expand the program to support scientifically based reading instruction in pre-k, as well as grades k-3. Perhaps increasing availability of Reading First funding for pre-k youngsters could even be part of a compromise to restore Reading First funding.

Ultimately, however, the Reading First controversy raises important questions for the broader debate about the federal role in setting standards and improving instruction. There’s something cart-before-the-horse about the feds advancing a national definition of quality reading programs when we don’t even have national standards for what children should know and be able to do in reading. That’s not a criticism of Reading First, but it does suggest we need to think beyond Reading First. There are two ways to respond to issues raised by the Reading First controversy: One is to advocate that the federal government remove itself entirely from trying to improve the quality of standards, curricula, or instructional approaches in public schools, and leave these issues entirely in the hands of states and local school districts. The other is to support an unprecedentedly stronger federal role in setting national standards and supporting effective curricula. We're on record in supporting rigorous national academic standards to address the disparities in expectations for children in different states under the current system. It's increasingly looking like NCLB won't be reauthorized until we have a new Congress and President--these are questions they'll have to take up then.