Reading First

A Closer Look at the President's Budget: Early Literacy Grants

Sara Mead — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:00:00 -0400

On May 7 the Office of Management and Budget released the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2010. As Early Ed Watch reported at the time, that budget includes funding for several new early education programs, including Title I Early Childhood Grants, Early Learning Challenge Fund, Early Literacy Grants, and Home Visitation. Previous installments have considered Title I Early Childhood Grants and the Early Learning Challenge Fund. Today we turn our attention to Early Literacy Grants.

The President’s fiscal year 2010 budget proposal for the Department of Education includes $300 million in funding for a new program of Early Literacy Grants. This proposed program would provide grants to school districts to implement strategies to improve the literacy skills of children in the early elementary school grades.

From fiscal years 2002 through 2008, the Reading First program provided funding for scientifically-based early literacy programs. But Congress eliminated funding for Reading First in fiscal year 2009, in response to complaints about the program’s management and an Institute of Education Sciences evaluation that failed to find evidence that Reading First improved children’s reading comprehension skills. The proposed Early Literacy Grants program would restore funding for early literacy programs, while also seeking to address the issues that led members of Congress to defund the program.

Under the proposal, Early Literacy Grants program would be funded out of the existing Striving Readers account. The Department of Education would make competitive grants directly to local educational agencies (LEAs). LEAs would apply for funds on behalf of schools in the LEA that are eligible for Title I schoolwide programs and have a substantial number of students reading or at-risk of reading below grade level.

Local educational agencies that receive Early Literacy Grants would be able to implement a variety of strategies to improve children’s literacy and reading comprehension. As with Reading First, these efforts must reflect the five components of effective reading instruction, as identified by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. In addition, initiatives must place a particular emphasis on reading comprehension, vocabulary development, oral language fluency, and writing skills. Grantees would be required to use funds for activities similar to those required under Reading First: implementing an evidence-based reading curriculum; using formative, diagnostic, and outcome assessments to track student progress; providing high-quality professional development; and supporting reading interventions for students who need additional help.

We’re pleased to see the administration seeking to restore funding for early literacy programs. Learning to read and write proficiently is perhaps the most important goal for the early elementary school years, because literacy is the key that opens the door for all future learning. Evidence shows that whether or not students can read proficiently by the end of 3rd grade is a very strong predictor of later educational success or failure. Yet a staggeringly high percentage of our youngsters—especially low-income children and those from racial and ethnic minorities—arrive in 4th grade without the skills to read proficiently. Only 33 percent of 4th graders can read at grade level, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and one-third of 4th graders are not even reading at a “basic” level.

Since 1998, the federal government has provided funding to states and school districts specifically to support early literacy programs, first through the Reading Excellence Act and then through Reading First. Regardless of one’s views on Reading First generally, it is clear that some states and school districts have used the program’s funds effectively to implement reforms and research-based approaches that are improving students’ reading achievement. Eliminating those funds—particularly in the current state fiscal climate—has negatively impacted efforts to help young children read proficiently by 3rd grade. Restoring dedicated federal funding for early literacy is the right thing for the administration and Congress to do.

Moreover, we’re pleased to see that the administration’s proposal for the Early Literacy Grants maintains a commitment to the National Reading Panel’s five components of effective reading instruction. We’ve been concerned that the last few years’ disputes over Reading First had the potential to reopen the so-called “reading wars.” By maintaining commitment to the consensus created by the National Reading Panel, we hope that the administration can avoid that.

Finally, we’re very pleased that the administration’s proposal would not only allow but encourage school districts to use Early Literacy Funds to support effective literacy strategies in pre-k, as well as in kindergarten through 3rd grade. Reading First funds were restricted only to children in grades K-3^rd, and as a result elementary schools that serve pre-k students could not use Reading First funds to implement an aligned reading curriculum across the PreK-3^rd continuum, or to deploy Reading First-funded literacy coaches to help pre-k teachers improve the quality of literacy supports in their classrooms. That was dumb. Two years ago, we proposed expanding Reading First funding to serve children in grades PreK-3^rd, and we’re glad to see that recommendation incorporated into the administration’s proposals here.

That said, we do have some concerns about the Early Literacy Grants proposal. First, while we’re all for strengthening students’ reading comprehension, we’re very concerned that the program’s emphasis on reading comprehension could lead many schools to devote excessive time to teaching so-called “comprehension strategies.” Research shows that teaching students comprehension strategies—find the main idea, identify the author’s purpose, monitor comprehension, summarize—provides a one-time, significant boost in children’s reading comprehension skills, but that repeated instruction focused on reading comprehension strategies does not add additional value. Moreover, there is very little evidence that teaching comprehension strategies makes much difference before 3rd grade. There’s already some reason to believe that elementary school teachers currently spend more than the optimal amount of time instructing children in comprehension strategies—especially since questions related to comprehension strategies: “What is the main idea in this paragraph?” “Identify the author’s purpose” play a major role on many states’ reading/language arts assessments. (Linda Perlstein’s book Tested, for all its faults, does illustrate the ridiculousness, and wastefulness, of constantly drilling students in reading strategies.)

The administration says that the Early Literacy Grants program will allow school districts to “test a variety of strategies designed to improve children’s reading comprehension,” but we’re fearful that without strong guidance about effective ways to strengthen children’s comprehension, this could mean that schools just waste a lot more time on reading strategies drills. That would be both unproductive and really unpleasant for children.

As we’ve written here before, and as Daniel Willingham compellingly argues here, the best way to strengthen children’s ability to comprehend what they read is to expose them to rich and diverse content across various domains, so that they have the general knowledge to easily understand written passages on a wide variety of topics. That requires less time spent drilling comprehension strategies, and more time reading a variety of texts (especially non-fiction), and studying science, social studies, music, and the arts. If this program can help school districts move in that direction—while also maintaining a focus on strengthening students’ decoding skills and helping them gain fluency and vocabulary—that could be a really good thing.

Oh, what the heck, we really wanted an excuse to post Dan's excellent video one more time:

Early Education in the FY2009 Omnibus Bill

Sara Mead — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:20:00 -0500

Yesterday, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees jointly released text of a fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill that would fund federal agencies for the remainder of the fiscal year. Since fiscal year 2009 began in October, federal agencies have been operating under a continuing resolution that maintained funding at 2008 levels. (Yes, we know it's confusing--you can learn more about the federal budget process here and here).

For the most part, the Omnibus bill maintains funding levels for key early education programs at fiscal year 2008 levels or provides very modest nominal increases.

While the relatively stable funding for early education programs may look unimpressive, it's important to remember that Congress just passed a stimulus bill that provided substantial amounts of funding for many of these programs, so in fact states, local school districts, and Head Start agencies will be receiving a lot more federal dollars for these programs this year than they did in the past.

The big exception here is the federal Reading First program, for which the appropriators eliminated funding altogether. We think that was a lousy call. The "mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and cronyism" that a House Appropriations Committee press release cites as justification for the program's elimination all occurred under the Bush administration, which is no longer in power. Congress should have given the new administration an opportunity to demonstrate they could run the program better before zeroing out its funding. Abundant evidence suggests that far too many children go through our schools without learning to read proficiently, demonstrating the need for a stronger federal commitment to supporting effective literacy programs in the early grades. Rather than eliminating funding for Reading First with nothing to replace it-- and thereby penalizing school districts, teachers, and students who had benefited from the resources the program provided--Congress should have waited until ESEA reauthorization, which would have provided an opportunity to replace Reading First with a new federal literacy program that would support scientifically based reading programs while also emphasizing content and expanding literacy supports for adolescents.

The House and Senate are working to pass identical versions of the bill so that it can be passed on to the president and signed into law quickly. That's good because the current continuing resolution expires at the end of next week, on March 6th, so the President must sign the 2009 budget into law by then (alternatively, Congress could pass yet another continuing resolution, but they appear to be trying to avoid that). We'll continue to update you on this issue over the course of the week.

Steal These Ideas

Sara Mead — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:14:00 -0500

The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation is known for the high quality of its research work, particularly its evaluations of federal and publicly funded workforce, education, and other programs. But while it turns out excellent research, it's typically much more hesitant to make unsolicited policy recommendations or attempt to influence federal or state policies. That's why a series of "Policy and Research Recommendations" briefs that MDRC published late last year, to provide guidance to the new administration and Congress, deserve particular attention from the policy community. The briefs address a broad range of topics within the areas of education, youth development, and workforce policy, but three are of particular relevance to early education:

The first two focus primarily on why research shows these areas are important and type of research Congress and the new administration should fund to improve our understanding of what works, and thus the policies we fund, in the respective areas they address. The third, however, offers specific policy recommendations for the Reading First program:

Even if these PD efforts have not produced overall impacts on student reading achievement, they have been able to improve teacher knowledge and instruction. Federal support through Reading First and in special PD initiatives has demonstrated that it is possible to fairly quickly change teacher instruction and teacher knowledge, suggesting that further efforts to improve PD could be worthwhile. However, improving student achievement may require a longer timeframe or other changes. Exploratory analyses suggest that focusing on multi-year PD programs and strategies that target needier schools may show promise. Continue to experiment with innovative ways to deliver PD and related support in large school districts. For example, recent findings illustrate the need for new ways to deliver teacher coaching that will increase its power to improve instruction.

All three are worth checking out, as is a fourth policy brief on How Best to Determine Whether Social and Educational Programs Work-Or Don't Work.

Must See YouTube: Teaching Content is Teaching Reading

Sara Mead — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:44:00 -0500

UVA cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham is at it again, with a new YouTube video about the connection between content knowledge and reading comprehension. You never knew cognitive science could be so much fun!

Willingham's core message: While decoding skills and vocabulary are essential for students to read proficiently, reading comprehension requires something more. To truly comprehend what they read, students need a strong base of content knowledge that allows them to connect concepts on the page with existing knowledge to understand what the text is telling them. The implication for policy and practice? If we really want children to read proficiently, we need to not only teach them to read, but also equip them with content knowledge in a wide range of subjects.

This point is particularly relevant to the ongoing debate over NCLB and curricular narrowing: Elementary schools currently spend the lion's share of their limited class time on "teaching reading"--particularly decoding and reading strategies--but relatively little time on content areas such as social studies and science. And some schools have responded to increased accountability pressures by spending more time on reading and language arts, at the expense of time spent on other subjects. But the research Willingham cites suggests that this approach may be counterproductive, because in order to become good readers children need to acquire content knowledge in a wide range of fields.

It's also directly relevant to the ongoing debate about the Reading First program. As we've noted previously, the Reading First evaluation used a test of reading comprehension to measure the program's impact on students' reading skills. Yet a test of reading comprehension is hardly the best measure of Reading First's impacts, since Reading First is intended to build children's decoding, vocabulary, and other reading skills--not their content knowledge. What the Reading First evaluation shows is not necessarily a failure of Reading First--it also reflects a failure of our schools to equip children with the content knowledge they need to comprehend new texts.

One solution to this problem: Integrate literacy into other subjects, such as science and arts, rather than teaching it in isolation. Also, ensure that the text children read during time devoted to language arts are content-rich texts that expand their knowledge, including both nonfiction works and high-quality children's literature. As Congress approaches NCLB reauthorization, and also considers the fate of Reading First funding, they should keep the importance of content knowledge in mind and look for ways to improve both the law's accountability provisions and Reading First to increase the emphasis on content knowledge in the early grades.

Must Reading

Sara Mead — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:10:00 -0500

Richard Colvin makes the case against allowing the scandals around Reading First and the less than glowing results of the recently released Impact Study of the program to launch a new reading wars. We concur. The lesson from Impact Study is not that we've placed too much emphasis on decoding (Kids who can't decode have no hope of comprehending, and the Impact Study does show that Reading First works to improve first graders' decoding skills), but that we also have to do much more to improve children's background knowledge and vocabulary so that they can understand what they read.

The Last Word on Reading First? Don't Bet On It.

Sara Mead — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:13:00 -0500

Last week the Department of Education released the final report of the Reading First Impact Study, a rigorous evaluation designed to measure the effectiveness of the federal Reading First program, which funds scientifically based literacy programs in kindergarten through third grade.

The researchers found that Reading First had a positive, statistically significant impact on the amount of instructional time devoted to components of scientifically based reading instruction, the amount of professional development teachers received in scientifically based reading instruction, the extent to which schools used literacy coaches, and the amount of support provided to struggling students.

It did not, however, find any evidence that Reading First improved students' reading comprehension.

These results won't be surprising to anyone who read the interim report, and much of what we said then applies now. Unlike the earlier report, however, which looked only at reading comprehension scores, the final report also evaluated first graders' decoding skills--and found that Reading First did positively affect children's decoding skills at the end of first grade.

This report hasn't gotten the attention the earlier interim report received, but critics of Reading First will no doubt seize on it as further evidence that the program isn't working and should be defunded. We agree that the disappointing evaluation results suggest a need to rethink some elements of the Reading First program in order to improve its effectiveness--and the upcoming NCLB reauthorization provides and opportunity to do that. (One change we'd recommend: expand the program to cover PK-3, not just K-3, so that pre-k teachers can participate in coaching and professional development alongside their K-3 peers.)

In the meantime, however, these results should not be used as a rationale to defund the program. Ensuring that students can read proficiently by the end of third grade is perhaps the most essential educational goal: There's just too much evidence pointing to very bad prospects for kids who can't read proficiently by the end of third grade. And, recent NAEP data shows us that far too many students are arriving at fourth grade without the ability to read on grade level. Given those facts, it's essential that we maintain a federal commitment to literacy by third grade.

Moreover, despite the disappointing evaluation findings, there is evidence from other studies that Reading First is having a positive impact in some schools and districts that use it. Richmond, Va., for example, has used Reading First funds to implement major scientifically based reading reforms, which have resulted in substantial literacy gains. Black students in Richmond are now proficient in reading at higher rates than their peers in Arlington and Fairfax County. Cutting funding for Reading First, at a time when state budgets are already facing massive shortfalls that will likely affect education funding, could mean an end for these promising efforts--and harm to the kids who are currently benefitting from them. Moreover, it makes no sense for Congress to eliminate this significant source of early education funding at the same time as it's considering major new investments in early education.

Reading First is hardly a perfect program, but it addresses an issue of national importance and there is evidence that it is having some positive impacts, at least at the local level and on children's early decoding skills. Until Congress has an opportunity to redesign the program in NCLB reauthorization, it should continue funding Reading First at current levels.

Photo courtesy of flickr user adwriter, used under a Creative Commons license.

Another Look at Reading First

Sara Mead — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:08:00 -0400

Earlier this month the U.S. Department of Education released the final report from the implementation evaluation of Reading First. While the report didn't get much media attention, some of its findings are noteworthy.

First, it finds that Reading First schools are spending more time on reading, and are more likely to use reading strategies aligned with scientifically based reading research, than reading programs in non-Reading First schools. At the same time, it finds that non-Reading First schools are also increasing the amount of time they spend on reading, as well as their us of practices aligned with scientifically based reading research.
Second, it finds modest but statistically significant evidence that third- and fourth-grade students in Reading First schools had improved their reading performances more rapidly than did students in non-Reading First schools.

Those findings are promising, but need to be interpreted with some caution. This implementation evaluation, commissioned by the Department's Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, seeks to describe how states and districts are responding to Reading First, as well as national trends in student achievement in Reading First and non-Reading First schools. It is different from the impact evaluation, of Reading First commissioned by the Institute of Education Sciences, which seeks to evaluate the effectiveness or results of the Reading First program. The interim report from the impact evaluation, released this past April, got considerable press when it found no statistically significant improvements in the reading comprehension of students in Reading First schools, as compared to their peers in schools that did not receive Reading First funds.

So how are policymakers and educators to interpret these results? For starters, these reports buttress the case for caution in using the results of the impact evaluation to justify cutting funding for the Reading First program. The implementation evaluation cannot show whether Reading First is effective, but it does show that Reading First seems to be "working" in the sense that it's driving the changes in curriuclum and teaching strategies that policymakers intended. That's good news, as is the fact that Reading First schools seem to be making gains in reading performance greater than those of non-Reading First schools. These results also square with other analyses, such as the Center on Education Policy's study of schools' and districts' responses to Reading First.

Moreover, this report describes contamination or spill-over effects from Reading First that should shade how we consider the findings of impact evaluations. The evaluators found that not only Reading First schools, but also non-Reading First schools, increased their implementation of strategies aligned with teh principles of Reading First--such as extra assistance for struggling readers, or the use of curricula and instructional materials aligned with scientifically based reading research. This is due in part to the fact that, while states cannot award Reading First grants to all schools in a state, they can use Reading First funds to provide professional development to teachers working in schools that don't receive Reading First funding. In the real world, such contamination and spill-over effects are often a good sign: They show that a program is working and that funding for the program is leveraging broader impacts beyond simply the schools or programs that receive grants. But when it comes to evaluating a program's impact, such spill-over effects can undermine evidence of results, because some schools in the control group may be implementing the same approaches as those in the treatment group.

Policymakers and educators should keep both these factors in mind as we wait until the release of the final impact evaluation of Reading First, and should also consider them when evaluating the findings of that study.

Given the fact positive findings from the implementation and some other studies of Reading First, and the fact that the impact study is not complete, we believe it would be foolish for Congress to continue to defund the Reading First program at this time. As a recent report from the Foundation for Child Development documents, far too many American children aren't learning to read proficiently by the end of third grade. That's the problem Reading First was intended to solve, and even if that program has fallen short of some expectations, there's still a real need for concentrated federal attention to and investment in high-quality research-based reading instruction to improve literacy outcomes in the early grades. Moreover, as the fiscal climate at the federal level becomes increasingly challenging, we can't afford to lose any of the existing funding streams for young and early elementary school aged children. At least until there's a concrete proposal to improve Reading First or repurpose funds to other programs demonstrated to have positive impacts on young children's reading skills, Congress should continue funding Reading First at least at the current levels.

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.