Re: Reading First to end?

["Nancy Patterson" <patterna@gvsu.edu>]

Both the House and Senate appropriations committees voted two weeks ago to suspend funding of Reading First because it has not proved to be successful and it is too fraught with fraud.

Nancy

Nancy Patterson, PhD
Literacy Studies Program Chair
College of Education
Grand Valley State University 
920 Eberhard Center
301 W. Fulton
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504
616-331-6226
patterna@gvsu.edu
http://faculty.gvsu.edu/patterna

>>> George Sheridan <learn@jps.net> 7/16/2008 12:49 PM >>>
NEA's Opening Bell also reports that the Reading First program may be in its last
years.

***

The Arizona Republic (7/13, Kossan) reported that the Department of Education's
$6 billion Reading First program "is expected to die out of American
classrooms...by the end of the decade." In Arizona, the program "provided $130
million to 136 schools in [the] neediest communities." The funds "helped each
school buy a uniform reading program, a reading coach, extensive teacher training
and tools for teachers. ... Many state education leaders, including those in
Arizona, said Reading First refocused their scattered reading programs and helped
their state's poorest kids learn to read more quickly." Critics "called the
program too prescribed, with an emphasis on teaching students to decode words at
the expense of comprehending sentences." The Republic noted that "Arizona
lawmakers were so enamored with the program they created a state law requiring
all schools to create reading programs that mimic it," but the "law did not
provide extra money to implement the reading programs, so its impact is
uncertain."


At 11:50 AM 7/16/2008 -0400, Monty wrote:

  What CEP ignored but has been widely covered, by Fairtest, Civil Rights
  Project and others, is that the rate of improvement on NAEP has slowed since
  2002 when NCLB began to come into effect. There has been almost no reading
  progress, some in math, quite possibly the continuing effects of the big push
  to intensify math teaching in the 1990s, intensified by NCLB which counts
  only reading and math.

  The lack of progress in reading suggests the phonics-intensive "Reading
  First" (sic) program is not working well (as many predicted and have been
  tracking). The NAEP-state discrepancy suggests that most of the state gains
  represent three things: by far the largest component is inflated state test
  scores from a narrow focus on what is covered by the tests in reading and
  math; secondly, increases in reading and math due to vastly more time on
  those subjects; and third, likely some gains due to some states taking some
  steps in schools that were in particularly bad shape by most any measure - a
  sadly uncertain means of addressing school problems, in general and for
  low-income kids in particular. This latter would be reflected in the modestly
  faster gains of the lowest scoring decile of students on NAEP reading and
  math tests. Note also that in terms of real learning outcomes, NAEP reading
  and math scores may overstate because it too is a standardized test with
  limited assessment capacities and it does not register the effects on other
  components of the wide range of learning goals people have for schools.

  Monty
  ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Sheridan" <learn@jps.net>
  To: "ARN-L" <arn-l@interversity.org>
  Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:25 AM
  Subject: [arn-l] state reading and math tests


    NEA's "Opening Bell" newsletter summarized recent reporting on a study by
    the
    Center on Education Policy on student test scores since enactment of the
    so-called No Child Left Behind Act. If these stories were reported on
    ARN, I
    missed them.

    Test scores have risen since NCLB, report shows.

    The Washington Post (6/25, A2, Glod) reported, "Students are performing
    better on state reading and math tests since enactment of the landmark No
    Child
    Left Behind law six years ago, according to an independent study
    released" on
    June 24 by the Center on Education Policy. The report "also found that
    black and
    low-income students have made gains on those exams, frequently narrowing
    performance gaps with white and middle-income peers."

    "But the law's contributions are hard to measure because a number of
    states already were taking steps to boost reading and math, the study's
    authors
    say. And because every public school falls under the law, there is no
    group of
    students to use for comparison," added USA Today (6/25, King). "What the
    law
    clearly has done -- the change some identify as its most notable benefit
    -- is
    give researchers and parents the data to track student progress. By
    requiring
    testing in math and reading every year from third through eighth grade
    and once
    in high school, the law provides a wealth of information about a school's
    performance over time, broken down by such factors as race, income and
    disability." According to Jack Jennings, president of the Center on
    Education
    Policy, NCLB does provide "a lot more accountability."

    Education Week (6/24, Cavanagh) noted, "The state gains in reading and
    math were
    not as strong when compared with states' performance on the National
    Assessment
    of Educational Progress (NAEP), the federally administered test that
    judges
    states on a common scale." Still, "Mr. Jennings said that, on the whole,
    the more
    modest state NAEP scores did not undermine the gains reflected in
    individual
    states' assessments. NAEP scores still 'confirm the general trend,' he
    said."

    The New York Times (6/24, Medina) also covered the report findings, as
    they pertain to N.Y. schools.




George Sheridan