Washington — The beleaguered Reading First program is likely to receive another round of critical scrutiny, as the U.S. Department of Education released an interim report this morning finding that the program has had no significant effect on students’ reading-comprehension skills.
The program — which gives grants to states to improve reading instruction for students in low-income schools in kindergarten through the third grade — was widely praised for its ambition when it was created, in 2002. But it came under fire in 2006, as the department’s inspector general charged that several university-based researchers had brought financial conflicts of interest into the program. (The program’s architects continue to strenuously deny that allegation.)
After a heated Congressional hearing last May, lawmakers cut the program’s budget by more than 60 percent. The White House has asked that the original level of spending be restored for the 2009 fiscal year.
Today’s report is part of a federally financed study that has been designed and conducted by outside consultants. The study assessed more than 30,000 students in 125 schools that have received Reading First grants and 123 schools that were selected as a comparison panel. The report says that, as intended, teachers in Reading First classrooms spent significantly more time on what the program calls the “five essential components” of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary.
Despite that extra instructional time, however, the study found no significant effects on students’ scores on reading-comprehension tests. That finding is likely add fuel to the longstanding scholarly debate over reading-instruction techniques.
During a briefing on Wednesday, Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, director of the department’s Institute of Education Sciences, cautioned against interpreting the interim report to mean that the “five essential components” are not worthwhile. A final report, expected in late 2008 or early 2009, will provide much more detailed analyses of the relationships between students’ reading skills and classroom instruction in each of the five elements. —David Glenn
