[Reading-hall-of-fame] Have We Flat-Lined in Reading?
Colin Harrison
Colin.Harrison at nottingham.ac.uk
Thu Dec 8 11:13:53 GMT 2005
Thanks again for this important posting, Tom.
>From the remote distance of the UK, I have noted other voices as well as =
yours on this topic: here's an extract from a piece that I have in press =
with the Elementary School Journal, comparing US and UK perspectives on =
literacy, that will come out in a special issue in 2006:
"For his part, Reid Lyon is in no doubt that educational standards in the =
US are woeful (=91once again, 4th, 8th and 12th grade reading scores are =
abysmally low=92, Lyon and Chhabra, 2004), that teaching standards are =
poor (=91we now know that the majority of students can learn to read =85. =
Unfortunately, many teachers do not have the background or training they =
need=85.=92 Lyon and Chhabra, 2004), and colleges of education are to =
blame and would be better eliminated (=91If there was any piece of =
legislation that I could pass it would be to blow up colleges of education.=
=92 =96 reported in Ohanian, 2003). Lyon, in common with Woodhead in =
England, believes that educational researchers bear a particularly heavy =
responsibility for this state of affairs (=91Education research has =
historically been of poor scientific quality, lacking in the authority of =
valid evidence, poorly communicated, and woefully impractical.=92 Lyon and =
Chhabra, 2004). "
For once, however, I tend to share the perspective of the US government on =
the NAEP data, rather than your apocalyptic interpretation. As I say in a =
later part of my paper:
"Consider too what Secretary of State Paige had to say about the results =
of the 2003 NAEP scores:
The good news in the 2003 report is that the [reading] gains recorded in =
the 2002 NAEP results for fourth graders have held steady. The 2003 scores =
continue to be well above 2000 and 1998 levels. Some of the most impressive=
gains were registered by African American and Hispanic fourth graders, =
whose 2003 scores are also significantly above 2000 and 1998 levels.
When looking at the reading scores over time, it is important to note that =
twice the number of Hispanic students=97many of whom do not speak English =
as a first language=97now take NAEP assessments in comparison to a decade =
ago. Given this increase in the proportion of non-native English speaking =
students taking the test, the fact that the scores show any improvement is =
in itself a positive sign. (US Department of Education, 2003)."
With this great a change in the demographics of the US (and as even I =
know, Spanish is now the lingua franca of the poor in Texas, California =
and Florida), holding achievement steady would appear to be a significant =
achievement, and while there is no room for complacency in either of our =
countries, this does not imply that the teaching body in the US is =
comatose.=20
Best wishes
Colin Harrison
---------------------------------------------------
Colin Harrison * Colin's office: (+44)-115-951-444=
1
School of Education * Research Office: (+44)-115-951-4990
Jubilee Campus * Colin's PA (+44) 115-846-7200
University of Nottingham * Colin's mobile: (+44)-788-777-5154
Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK * Research Fax (+44) 115 846 6188
>>> <tsticht at znet.com> 08/12/05 00:05:05 >>>
RHF Colleagues: The following note calls for serious thinking by leaders =
in
reading research and instruction. Perhaps the RHF could take some action =
in
thinking about this. Will the next 30 years of reading research and
interventions achieve anymore than the last 30? Tom Sticht
November 25, 2005
Have We "Flat-Lined" After Thirty Years of Intensive Care for Reading?
Tom Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education
Over thirty years ago the United States admitted reading instruction into
the intensive care unit of the nation=92s "Reading Failure Prevention and
Remediation Hospital." Educational researchers, educators, government
funding agencies, private foundations, publishers, and numerous citizen
groups rushed in to administer emergency care with programs such as Head
Start, then Early Head Start, numerous private preschools, kindergarten,
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), other special =
programs,=20
and thousands of off-the-shelf books telling parents how to teach their
infants and preschoolers how to read at home.
Unfortunately, data from the National Center for Education Statistics
released this year indicate that, despite heroic efforts, with costs =
easily
in the range of 500 billion to one trillion dollars, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the nation=92s indicator of the
health of the reading instruction patient, has flat-lined. From 1971 up to
2004, reading scores for 9, 13 and 17 year olds are so flat that if you
were a patient in an intensive care unit and had your health monitoring
indicators go as flat as the 30-year NAEP data you would be declared dead!
A graph of average scores on the NAEP for 9, 13, or 17 year olds for the
thirty year period from 1971 to 2004, on a scale ranging from 200 to =
around
320 scale scores, shows that 9 year olds increased from 208 in 1971 to 215
in 1980, then fell to 209 in 1990 and then rose again to 219 in 2004. This
is only 4 scale score points higher than in 1980. This is evidence of ups
and downs over a thirty year period but no real improvement. There is a
similar lack of evidence of any improvement for 13 and 17 year olds over
this period.
The lack of evidence for gains by 9 year olds is made even more apparent,
and disappointing, when the data for 9 year olds at differing percentiles
of achievement are examined. In 1971 students at the 90th percentile =
scored
260, then rose gradually to 266 in 1990 and then fell to 264 in 2004. Nine
year olds at the 50th percentile scored as indicated above. Really poorly
reading students, those at the 10th percentile scored 152 in 1971, then
rose to 165 in 1980 and then rose again to 169 in 2004, though the latter
was not statistically greater than 25 years ago in 1980.
Thirteen year olds at the 10th percentile scored 208 in 1971, rose to 213
in 1988, and then fell to 210 in 2004. The least able 17 year old readers,
those at the 10th percentile, scored 225 in 1971, rose to 241 in 1988, and
then fell to 227 in 2004.
The data for some three decades do not show great increases in reading
achievement for 9, 13, or 17 year olds at various percentile ranks. For =
the
most part, whether at the 90th percentile, the middle 50th percentile, or
the bottom, the 10th percentile, student achievement has fluctuated a bit
from assessment to assessment, but on balance does not seem to have made
much, if any improvement, and certainly not improvement that would have =
any
significant practical consequences.
The NAEP data do show that as children go up through primary, elementary,
and secondary school, they do get better at reading across the percentile
spectrum. But in 2004 the bottom ten percent of 17 year olds scored below
the median for 13 year olds, and were just 6 scale score points above the
median for 9 year olds. These poorly scoring students will no doubt be
those who will later discover the real life importance of literacy and =
will
enter into adult basic education to try to gain skills needed to support
themselves and their families.
Data for Adults
It should be recalled that adults are children who have grown up. The
purpose of reading instruction and other education in the K-12 system is =
to
produce literate adults. The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS)
provides some data bearing on the issue of whether tens of billions of
dollars in compensatory or remedial education in the K-12 system have
brought about increases in adult literacy. The NALS assessed adult =
literacy
using three scales: Prose, Document and Quantitative. A report on the
Literacy of Older Adults in America, from the National Center for =
Education
Statistics in Washington DC, November 1996 (p. 35) reported data on the =
age
and literacy proficiency for adults with varying amounts of education.
Using just the data for adults with high school diplomas or GEDs, and just
the Prose scale, because all three scales have similar findings, the
average literacy proficiencies for three age groups were:
Age Proficiency
16-24 274
25-59 273
60-69 262
Adults in the 16 to 24 age range got their diplomas or GEDs in 1992 to
1984.
Adults in the 25 to 59 age range got their diplomas or GEDs in 1983 to
1949.
Adults in the 60 to 69 age range got their diplomas or GEDs in 1948 to
1939.
Similar findings held across age groups for adults with 0-12 or some=20
post-secondary education, though with differences in the proficiency =
scores
due to less or more education relative to the high school diploma/GED.
>From these NALS data, it appears that for adults graduating from high =
school
across this 62 year period, their literacy skills do not vary much on =
the
average. This would seem to indicate that regardless of whether the =
schools
emphasized a code (phonics) or meaning (whole language) emphasis during
this time, or had the benefits of feedback from the National Assessment =
of
Educational Progress (NAEP) from the 1970s up to the time of the NALS
assessment, once adults get out of high school and spend some time in
other activities, excepting post-secondary education, their literacy
skills don=92t differ very much, at least for the high school graduate
adults sampled in 1992 and assessed using the functional literacy tasks of
the NALS.
Today, as in the past, tens of billions of dollars are being spent in
special programs to raise the literacy skills of children, while at the
same time expenditures for adult literacy education have been and still =
are
trivial. This goes on despite the fact that for the last 30 years the K-12
system has been graduating millions of young adults below the 20th and =
10th
percentiles of reading as measured by the NAEP, with no apparent improvemen=
t
in the proficiency scores for students at these percentile ranks, and =
there
is little evidence that this can or will be turned around anytime soon.
It is extraordinary that policies that attempt to take children away from
their families and "fix" them in the institutional settings of preschools
or the public schools, and then return them to their debilitating home
lives, still command such massive amounts of funding, while there is =
great
reluctance to acknowledge and meet the needs of the children=92s parents =
for
continuing education. This situation prevails despite the extensive
research which exists to suggest that, through the intergenerational
transfer of language and literacy, it seems highly likely that serious
investments in the education of adults could improve the educability of
their children.
Given the data of the last thirty years indicating mostly failure to =
improve
children=92s learning of language and literacy in the schools and up into
adulthood, even those at the 10th percentile, it seems that some new
strategy for improving children=92s and hence adult=92s literacy is called =
for.
There is a grossly under-funded and under-developed Adult Education and
Literacy System (AELS) in the United States with over 3,000 programs and
close to 3 million enrollees per year. But the federal level of funding is
less than $225 per enrollee, and even with state contributions added in,
the per enrollee is just some $650 averaged across the U. S. This is less
than one tenth what is spent per enrollee on Head Start, where it is =
mostly
the children of these poorly literate adults who are being served.
Perhaps now, after spending 30 years trying, and apparently "flat-lining" =
in
our attempts to raise the reading achievement of children through schemes
that largely ignore the literacy education needs of the children=92s =
parents,
it may be time to acknowledge the existence of this system and to provide
the funding and other resources it needs to produce genuine and extensive
improvements in the literacy and lives of adults.
Massive injections of adult literacy education might just be what is =
needed
to resuscitate a reading instruction patient that is presently in a deep
coma. And we should do this before the patient goes completely brain-dead.
Thomas G. Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education
2062 Valley View Blvd.
El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
Tel/fax: (619) 444-9133
Email: tsticht at aznet.net=20
_______________________________________________
Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
Reading-hall-of-fame at nottingham.ac.uk=20
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame
More information about the Reading-hall-of-fame
mailing list