[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: Toward Improving Reading by Age 17

[David Reinking]

Tom, Thanks for again providing an opportunity to consider interpretations of flat NAEP scores, a topic discussed on this list about 3 years ago in response to another of your reflective postings.

One interpretation suggested in that previous discussion was that flat test scores might be viewed positively as “holding our own” in the face of greater challenges created by changing demographics (e.g., more linguistic and cultural diversity) and greater economic disparities.  Berliner (2014) has pointed out that in-school factors, broadly in aggregate, account for roughly only 20% of differences in academic achievement, whereas out-of-school factors account for around 60% (e.g., family income; medical care; level of food insecurity; language spoken at home; etc.).

It was also pointed out in that previous discussion too that, across decades, NAEP scores indicate some small, but encouraging, progress in closing the gap between more- and less-advantages students.

Finally, it was pointed out that we should take care in suggesting that flat NAEP scores are an indictment of teachers, schools, or research.  Legitimizing such interpretations provides ready ammunition for those who wish to lay blame on teachers, schools, and teacher educators, giving dodge to addressing the more complex, difficult, and controversial social factors that inhibit higher achievement.

Berliner, D. (2014). Effects of inequality and poverty vs. teachers and schooling on America’s youth. Teachers College Record, 115(12).

David

David Reinking
Adjunct Professor of Education
Dept. of Language and Literacy Education
Mary Frances Early College of Education
University of Georgia
David.Reinking @uga.edu
http://www.davidreinking.info<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.davidreinking.info-252F-26data-3D01-257C01-257Clg40-2540txstate.edu-257Cd43f2d8241584a0ca81608d50aa7b5c9-257Cb19c134a14c94d4caf65c420f94c8cbb-257C0-26sdata-3Dji-252FNnlYJBKtAbG0lEfttgJUZxsi6BinXvN1OaPMm5Uc-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAg&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=gUnMZ3Xw_juA4Q4q8MsCC_IKO_x_v_mImmv8TQcuKAs&m=UedHPeoTlZDAK_Y35nsdvaZ1tvfVsAXM3l43vQNlACI&s=5qWqgpYErOqlfng1rqjL41TgwAGTYZ6oMB15g45RwUc&e=>/
orcid.org/0000-0001-8040-6673


From: <reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk> on behalf of Thomas Sticht <tgsticht at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 11:48 AM
To: reading hall of fame <Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Toward Improving Reading by Age 17


11/18/2021

Can We Improve Reading By Age 17?

Tom Sticht, International Consultant in Adult Literacy (Ret.)

In 1984, following a six year gestation period, the first Handbook of Reading Research appeared.  Edited by P. David Pearson and others and printed by Longman’s the 891 page tome came in the wake of what Preface writer Robert Dykstra estimated as some 1000 pieces of published reading research arriving each year.

That same year of 1984, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that the average reading score for 17 year old's was 289, up four points from when the first NAEP score of 285 was recorded for 17 year old's 13 years earlier 1n 1971.

In 1991, the second Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, now at over 1100 pages, was published by Longman’s with Rebecca Barr and others as editors. This time the preface observed that, “Reading research, we found, moves at such a frenetic pace that between the moments  of conceptualization and publication, particular fields of inquiry had risen to a level which justified a separate chapter. …There are fields that did not seem appropriate as separate chapters then, but they do now.”

In 1992, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that the average reading score for 17 year old's was 290, up five points from when the first NAEP score of 285 was recorded for this age group 21 years earlier in 1971.

In 2000, the third Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3, with some 1024 pages, was published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates with Michael Kamil and others as editors. The Preface notes that this third volume has two major themes: (1) broadening the definition of reading, and (2) broadening the reading research agenda.

Just a year earlier, in 1999, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that the average reading score for 17 year old's was 288, down two points from 1992 but still up three points from when the first NAEP score of 285 was reported for 17 year old's in 1971.

In 2010, the fourth Handbook of Reading Research, Vol.4, with some 800 pages, was published by Routledge with Michael Kamil and others as editors. The Preface discusses efforts by the federal government to try to improve instruction in reading and reports,  “The National Reading Panel (NRP) reported that there were over 100,000 research studies produced between 1966 and 2000, with some 15,000 prior to that time. These numbers illustrate the exponential growth in the research base stimulated by both research funding and urgent concern for improving reading instruction.”

 In 2012, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that the average reading score for 17 year old's was 287, down one point from 1999 but still up two points from when the first NAEP score of 285 was recorded for this age group 41 years earlier in 1971.

In 2019, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that the average reading score for 17 year old's was back down to 285, the same as it was when the first NAEP test results were recorded for this age group 48 years earlier in 1971. The Nations Report Card in Reading for 2019 reported, “The average reading score for twelfth-grade students was lower in 2019 compared to the last assessment in 2015. The nearly 30-year trend line shows that the 2019 average reading score for twelfth-graders was lower than it was approximately a decade ago in 2009, not significantly different from 2002, and lower than the first assessment year in 1992.”                                 (https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2019/g12/).

 In 2020, the fifth Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 5, with 540 pages, was published by Routledge with Elizabeth Birr Moje<https://www.routledge.com/search?author=Elizabeth%20Birr%20Moje> and others as editors. The Preface discusses gaps between what researchers do and know and what practitioners (e.g., teachers, administrators)  need to know and do and asks, “Why do the findings of research so rarely find their way into practice in any sustained or scaled way?”

This is a good, if somewhat belated, question given the over 115,000 and more research studies before 2000 and hundreds if not thousands of research studies since 2000, five volumes of Handbooks of Reading Research, a National Reading Panel report, federal investments of hundreds of millions of dollars in research and guidance in reading instructional practices, and decades of NAEP testing showing some modest gains in 4th and 8th grade reading scores but which seemingly disappear and result in an essentially flat line in reading performance of 17 year old's over the last half century.

If the NAEP assessments are valid indicators of how well these 17 year old, nearing adulthood teens can read, and if there has not been any improvement in their average reading abilities in half a century, given the tremendous amounts of money that has been spent on trying to improve the teaching and learning of reading, we need to know why. The present revival of the so-called “reading wars” and “science of reading” indicates that issues surrounding the teaching and learning of reading are still with us, and whether the findings of research rarely find their way into practice, or whether the research findings are not up to the task of improving practice is yet to be discovered.

Resources:

Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 5 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_of_Reading_Research_Volume_V/CgPpDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

Reading Wars: https://hechingerreport.org/four-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-reading-wars/



[Image removed by sender.]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>





This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee

and may contain confidential information. If you have received this

message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and

attachment.



Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not

necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email

communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored

where permitted by law.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/pipermail/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20211121/c37d2402/attachment-0001.html>