[Reading-hall-of-fame] Proposal

[Farr, Roger C.]

Ken,

I think it is an interesting idea. I am not sure if a large scale study is the answer. I would opt for more focused an more tightly controlled studies. The criteria for evaluation, whether test scores or teacher observations or work samples, will be crucial.

I am willing to help if you need me.

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Ken Goodman
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 1:51 PM
To: Reading Hall of Fame
Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Proposal

I've sent the following letter to Education Week in response to Kathleen
Kennedy Manzo article on the lack of research support for Reading First.
In my letter a Ask "What If .What if even half f this enormous sum of
money ($6 BILLION) misused by the Reading First profiteers had been used
to fund a full range of programs evaluated by unbiased third parties?

In the spirit of the on-going discussion in the Reading Hall of Fame of
our role in advancing progress in literacy education, what if the
Reading Hall of Fame proposed such a large scale comparitive study of
the full range or reading methodologies? It would, of course, replicate
the First grade studies but on a much larger scale. A lot has been
learned since that study about reading, reading development and reading
instruction so it would not be hard for us to identify several alternate
methodologies. And a lot is known about better and fairer ways of
evaluating and comparing the effectiveness of alternate methodologies.
Certainly we could get far more useful and unbiased information than the
Reading First evaluations provided.

If there is enough interest in this idea, I would make a proposal that
our President, Jim Hoffman appoint a committee to write a proposal. That
could be then be circulated to other professional and research
organizations for support and then submitted to the relevant
Congressional committees and the Department of Education. I believe,
with a change in administations coming there is a possibility that there
would be support for this kind of research.


My letter to Education Week

Thanks to Kathleen Kennedy Manzo for her attempt to
make sense of the research on Reading First

It took seven years, billions of dollars, and a few
million victims as young as five for the press and the
politicians  to realize that far from being the
fool-press scientific answer to the nation's literacy
crisis, Reading First is an absurd unworkable
program,. Ironically, when the Bush administration
finally sponsored a study to see if Reading First
improved reading comprehension, as Congress had
required, the study showed no benefit. Yes, it was a
flawed study. But it was designed to prove Reading
First successful and it failed to do so.

One basic flaw in the study is that it compared the
comprehension of  reading first students to a control
group that didn't have Reading First. But there was no
attempt to examine what they did have. That has led
many of us to play the "What if" game.

Congress mandated, in the Reading First law, a single
methodology and put the power to interpret and
implement that methodology through control of the
funding process in the hands of a small group of
reading ideologues, centered at the University of
Oregon, who trusted no one but themselves and who
forced their own tests and texts on states and
districts.

What if instead of that the law had permitted states
and districts to choose from a variety of clear
alternative reading methodologies with a history of
support by educational researchers and professionals,
including the much maligned whole language.  What we
know now is that the Reading First methodology with
its extreme focus on drill on phonics didn't produce
comprehension. If there had been a variety of methods
supported we could have compared them to each other
regularly throughout the years of Reading First
implementation.  Instead we had
claims, made on the basis of DIBELS scores which
include no measure of the quality of comprehension,
that reading first was successful. Yes it was
successful at teaching kids to respond to nonsense
items in three seconds and to rush through incoherent
texts calling the names of words. But it wasn't
successful in helping learners make sense of print.

Throughout the implementation of reading first there
has been an atmosphere of coercion and intimidation.
Teachers have been punished for raising questions
during their "training" to use the mandated tests,
texts and methodology. What if teachers had the option
to teach in a school that used a methodology they
believed in as professionals? What if the tests and
texts mandated by Reading First had gone through the
usual review process that each state and district had
been using prior to Reading First? Could any of the
poorly constructed and absurd materials forced into
the schools under Reading First have passed such
professional review?

What if even half f this enormous sum of money misused
by the Reading First profiteers had been used to fund
a full range of programs evaluated by unbiased third
parties?

To me the answer to these "what ifs" is clear. We
would know much more about effective reading
instruction. We would have much happier students,
teachers and parents. We would not be losing
dedicated, professional teachers who can't stay in
teaching if they are forced to teach in ways they
believe hurt kids. We would not have urban districts
forced to close schools because they failed to meet
unachievable goals.

And we would have far fewer kids labeled as failures
in their first week of kindergarten.

Ken Goodman
Professor Emeritus
Language, Reading and Culture
University of Arizona



_______________________________________________
Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame