May 1, 2008

Midterm Report Card for Reading First Finds No Evidence of Effectiveness

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

Comments

1. Big surprise there.

   — Eric    May 1, 11:36 AM    #

2. I am convinced that instruction for children will never succeed unless other social conditions are also addressed. Schools and government can’t do it alone.

   — Robb    May 1, 04:06 PM    #

3. I have no problem with silly pedagogies, they are all ritualistic, faith-based and driven by administrative agendas, but corruption is another matter. We should get back to basics and demand mediocrity at a fair price.

   — Sam    May 1, 05:02 PM    #

4. dyslexia is very common among children, maybe 205, and it makes learning to read hard, yet very few classrooms have the resources – chiefly teachers trained in the science-based methods that can help dyslexia children lear to read. “Reading First” was a crock, but other methods can be used and can work; but reading is not something that can be effectively taught by one method for all kids.

   — Marc    May 1, 11:46 PM    #

5. please read that ‘205’ as 20%. sorry

   — Marc    May 1, 11:47 PM    #

6. Teachers make the difference in the classroom but until we address the core social problems caused by poverty, children will continue to arrive at school literacy impoverished. Low birth weight children are at serious disadvantage at school but as a nation we do nothing to fight this consequence of poverty.

   — jacques    May 2, 08:11 PM    #

Previous: Colorado State U. Moves to Cool a Hot Story About a Global-Warming Dispute
Next: Yale Art Student Submits an Alternate Senior Project