Eduflack

Eduflack 2008-07-04T18:07:57Z http://blog.eduflack.com/atom.aspx Quick Blog Punishing Those We Should Be Helping tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-25:ae9329a4-0124-45d6-83bd-f6bfa8791b72 Eduflack 2008-06-25T12:50:52Z 2008-06-25T12:16:00Z
Of course, the funding was never restored, and RF is now a funding shell of its former shelf. That was bad news for the program, but worse news for the countless schools across the nation that boosted student reading achievement because of RF support and programs. Now, we're moving into disaster.

Last week, House appropriators moved to eliminate the Reading First program entirely. They want to zero out the program, putting an end to what was a signature component of NCLB. One can't blame, them, really. The program has been a high-profile effort of the Administration. There is plenty of blame to go around on the stumbling blocks and problems that arose during its early implementation. And after the release of the IG report, the Department has done little -- if anything -- to promote the law, perhaps fearing greater attention or critique. It's become the bastard stepchild of NCLB.

Let's forget -- for a second -- that RF works. Let's forget the data released last week -- prepared by American Institutes for Research for the U.S. Department of Education -- that shows the effectiveness of the program. Forget that RF increased reading comprehension proficiency for first graders in 44 of 50 SEAs. Forget that it boosted reading success of second graders in nearly 4 out of 5 SEAs. Forget that third graders in 70% of reporting SEAs saw test scores increase. And forget the similar positive impact it is having on both English Language Learners and students with disabilities.  Forget all of it.

Forgetting it all is the only way one can justify action to eliminate the program. Student proficiency increasing in first, second, and third grades (the very grades targeted by RF)? Interventions that work with all students, including ELL students? Funds for results-based teacher professional development? Real interventions that work with virtually all students? No, we don't need any of that.

Yes, Spellings deserved (and deserves) to have her wrist slapped. The problems with the implementation of RF happened under her watch, first as quarterback over at DPC and then over at the building of little red schoolhouses. The proverbial buck has to stop somewhere, and it should be at her desk. She has to take responsibility. More importantly, she has to fix it. The data is clear -- the program works. She needs to whatever it takes to keep the mission, vision, and goals of this necessary law in place. She's been fighting to save NCLB for the past year, demonstrating flexibility to bring more states and their politicians into the fold. She should be doing the same thing for RF.

If she can't, then she's just letting Congress punish the wrong people. When House and Senate leaders choose to zero out RF, the only people they are punishing are the teachers and students who depend on the funding and who are making demonstrable gains because of the guidance and support it provides. They're hurting those elementary school students who now finally gaining the reading skills they need to succeed in both school and life. And they are penalizing those schools that have made a success of RF, despite the problems at the national level.

I'm all for strong rhetoric with real teeth. Congress should demand more accountability for RF and NCLB programs. They should expect the problems highlighted in the IG report to be remedied. And they should use the stick when the carrot isn't working. But they also need to remember why we committed $1 billion a year to effectively teach reading. They need to look at both the letter and intent of the RF law, and ensure it is implemented with fidelity. They need to fulfill their commitment to our schools and beginning readers across the nation.

It's easy to throw up our hands, get out the red pens, and draw and X through RF. It's far, far harder to teach kids to read. If Reading First works (and even the recent Center on Education Policy data shows it does), we need to support it, not sentence it to a slow, political death. Otherwise, we're just punishing those kids that are picking up their first book ... or it may be their last.
]]> Closing the Achievement Gap? tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-25:be1e04f8-03e9-46ea-9c3d-fb2cd065575e Eduflack 2008-06-25T12:14:17Z 2008-06-25T11:49:00Z
The multi-billion-dollar question out there is did it work? Has NCLB made a difference in closing the achievement gap. Critics of the law have made NCLB all about inflexibility and high-stakes tests and unreachable expectations. And they've been successful, in large part, because many believe the law hasn't worked (basing their beliefs on the opinion pages and coffee clatchs, instead of real, hard data).

This week, the Center on Education Policy released its comprehensive study, "Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?"

The findings are just fascinating. USA Today draws out the highlights (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-06-24-no-child_N.htm).

What does all this tell us? First and foremost, the tenets of NCLB seem to be working. Several states -- including Texas and Arkansas -- showed moderate to large gains in both reading and math. Others -- including Tennessee -- showed similar gains in reading. And others more -- such as New Jersey and Ohio -- showed those gains in math. Scores are rising. The achievement gap between white and black students is shrinking. And states are far more serious about data collection and accountability today than they were six years ago.

We're a far, far ways away from declaring "mission accomplished" with NCLB. But we are starting to see its impact (and it is a positive one to boot). Once we move beyond the rhetoric and vitriol of NCLB, and start looking at the resources it provides, the supports it offers, and the roadmap it lays forward, we can still see the positive impact the law can have if implemented correctly.

Sure, NCLB is the furthest thing from the collective mind of Congress. And yes, it is far easier to kill the law rather than improve it. But if our goal is to improve student achievement, particularly among low-income and minority students, it is hard to ignore this CEP data or the continuous roll call of teachers, parents, and students who speak on the positive impact the law has had on them.

And just imagine the success it could have if it went from being the education community's Stretch Armstrong doll and once again enjoyed the bi-partisan support and encouragement it received in 2002?

]]> SES Not Supplementing Learning? tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-13:a12decf3-7a28-4706-9924-1f8d0ce283fd Eduflack 2008-06-13T13:50:04Z 2008-06-13T13:16:00Z
Of course, those of us in education reform know that the promise and the reality are often far, far away from each other. Exhibit 1, today's Washington Post piece on how SES programs in Virginia and Maryland have done little to improve student achievement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061203681.html

For years, Eduflack has heard about the problems with SES tutoring. For much of the NCLB era, SES funding sat dormant, with many schools not sure how to spend the money. Originally, people said the tutoring funds would be spent to send poor kids to for-profit providers like Sylvan or Huntington or Kumon. Makes sense, right? If a family with means has a kid struggling to make the grade, they pick up the phone and book their kid in a tutoring program. Why shouldn't a family without the financial ability be able to take the same advantages with SES?

The hitch, of course, is that many of the for-profit tutors have business models that set them up near those families of means. We see tutoring centers in the suburbs. We certainly don't see them in our urban centers, where many of the struggling schools are located. So who provides the tutoring?

Unfortunately, in far too many of these struggling neighborhoods, the schools turned to classroom teachers to provide after-school tutoring (with extra pay funded through SES, of course.) Imagine the logic. Students are not getting the skills they need during school hours from their teachers, so we pay the SAME teachers extra money to teach the SAME kids after school? And then we wonder why SES funding isn't demonstrating measurable improvements on student assessments? Only in America.

And the circle of life continues. We look to education reforms to change practice and fix that which is broken. SES is a well-intentioned reform with strong potential. But like so many other NCLB-era policies, it fails in the execution. With so much supplemental money available to boost struggling students, it's a shame so many don't get much more than a retread of the instruction that just doesn't work in the first place.

Where does all of this take us? Under NCLB, we also give those struggling students the option of transferring to better schools that provide the academic means get students on track. We've all seen the numbers, and few families ever take advantage of the school choice provisions, fearing transportation costs and believing their neighborhood schools are doing the best they can.

Maybe this latest data will have more families take a second look at the options available to give their kids the educational helping hand they deserve.
]]> CBS on DCPS tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-11:7f742b62-f8a5-4be7-a8e0-09f4a9320bee Eduflack 2008-06-11T20:39:31Z 2008-06-11T20:26:00Z
Yes, many would -- and have -- questioned some of Rhee's actions. The local AFT affiliate has had their issues, particularly with the notion of "firing" teachers. Parents have been frustrated by being cut out of the loop, particularly when it comes to school closings and the elimination of principals they love. But meaningful reform does not come without criticism. If everyone agreed with Rhee, then she was likely avoiding hard decisions and just rearranging the educational furniture.

But there was one thing about the CBS segment that bothers Eduflack. Rhee is shown teaching in an elementary school classroom. For those of us in the greater DC area, we read about Rhee and DCPS almost daily. (I personally think the Washington Post goes out of its way to find bad photos of the Chancellor.) But I have never read or heard anything about her teaching in the classroom. If she's doing it, she needs a PR team to better promote it. If not, the footage just contributes to the larger criticism that many actions are just for "show."

The larger issue was the classroom Rhee was teaching. Maybe it was the camera angle, but it appeared she was teaching to an virtually all white elementary class. Nothing wrong with that, no, but if Rhee is taking a serious stand talking about the change needed to improve DCPS' performance, she should be showing it in the classrooms that are most affected. She should be in SE DC, and not Upper NW.

At the end of the day, though, we know this is all just the dress rehearsal. How much longer will friends and foes alike give Rhee (and Mayor Fenty) until they ask to see the test scores and demand to see improvements in achievement? Ultimately, it is all about the numbers.
]]> Some Ed Reccs for Senator Obama tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-06:0094f509-539d-4c21-9814-6ffa5f5931c2 Eduflack 2008-06-06T10:16:48Z 2008-06-06T09:56:00Z
Unfortunately, Obama's message of hope and opportunity doesn't quite jive with the education (particularly K-12) mantras of hopelessness and obstacles. How do we restore hope for education reform in an industry that has been paralyzed by the fear of change?

More than a year ago, Eduflack offered some recommendations to the Democratic candidates running for president on how they can focus on education. Since then, we've seen Ed in 08 and others try to do the same. What's funny is how wrong I was in March of 2007. I thought it was a gimme that the Democrats would focus on education, seeing it as a great equalizer and a bridge to a stronger economy and better jobs. How wrong I was! Even the talking snowman has gotten more media play than the party's education ideas.

But let's take a second to look back on Eduflack's specific recommendations, knowing full well they are just as strong and pertinent today as they were a year ago:

1. We all must commit to improve our schools. We cannot and should not simply protect the status quo. That means having hard conversations with the teachers unions and pushing them and school administrators to make hard decisions. Sacrifices today can yield improvements tomorrow.

2. Additional funding does not directly result in improved achievement. For every carrot, there is a stick. If we are to increase NCLB spending (and we should, particularly to get effective teachers in the classroom), we need to ensure that such funding increases are focused on proven programs, improved assessments, and effective interventions. As a nation, we will pay more if we see the results.

3. National standards level the playing field. Regardless of who controls Congress or the White House, no one should be afraid of national education standards. Such standards offer a promise of equity in all of our schools. For those traditional blue states, and the urban centers located in them, national standards ensure that all students, regardless of their hometown, race, or socioeconomic status, are taught and measured compared to every other student in the country. That equal field only helps when it comes to college, to jobs, and to life.

4. The time has come for Democrats to push the unions. Can anyone honestly say that our schools wouldn't benefit from teacher improvement. HQT provisions in NCLB are fine, but the NCLB Commission got it right — we need to focus on effective teachers, not just qualified ones. Teaching is one of the most difficult jobs out there, but intellectually and emotionally. We need to do everything possible to support those teachers on the front lines. But we also need to recognize that not everyone is cut out for the challenge.  Our schools need an assessment/improvement/mentoring model for all teachers. Good teachers will thrive. Those not destined to teach can move on with their professional lives.

5. Education reform is a shared responsibility. Meaningful change is not just left to the teachers or the national education organizations. Just as Hillary Clinton wrote about it taking a village to raise a child, it also takes a village to educate one. Improving our schools requires teamwork. Teachers and parents, business and community leaders, local, state, and federal officials all play a role in identifying, implementing, and assessing meaningful, results-based reform. Shared responsibility results in shared success.

I maintain that all of these are still cogent, winning issues for Obama. Case in point, Obama's previous endorsement of teacher merit pay. It is a strong idea, and one that can have an immediate impact on teacher and instructional quality in the schools. It is an idea that resonates with most parents, and means something to local decisionmakers. And it is a concept that the unions -- particularly the NEA -- greatly oppose. We all recognize that Obama and the teachers unions are allies. But performance pay can be one of those flag-in-the-sand moments that demonstrates Obama's independence and the priority of kids in his education policy.

But it all seems to loop back around to national standards. The National Governors Association and CCSSO have long been champions of a the concept. This week, the National Association of Secondary School Principals threw its collective weight behind the issue as well. And Obama endorser Roy Romer has been carrying the banner for it over at Ed in 08.

Imagine the rhetorical impact national standards could have coming out of Obama's mouth. The opportunity that all U.S. students, regardless of their home state, are learning and achieving together. The belief that the nation is stronger academically, and can measure it, because of national standards. The elimination of have and have not states, knowing that a kid in Alabama is getting the same education as a kid in Connecticut. Imagine.

Senator Obama, it is quite easy for you to write off education policy as part of your stump speech this all. You'll have the endorsement of the unions. Education has never been a strong policy concern of Senator McCain's. And the anti-NCLB crowds will crow a vote for a Dem is a vote against NCLB.

But as you have all year, you have the opportunity to tell us what you stand for, and not just what you speak against. If your recent anti-NCLB remarks are coming from the heart, tell us what you will do to fix the law. If you are concerned about high-stakes testing, let Romer and company develop a national standard that lessens the stress on our student test takers. But please, please, please, do and stand for something.

We've spend far too much time in recent years talking about what's wrong and what we're opposed to. We need more people -- particularly our leaders -- telling us what they stand for in education reform.
]]> A Display of RF Commitment tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-06:2b061b53-f249-4980-81ea-546162a8ce86 Eduflack 2008-06-06T09:36:21Z 2008-06-06T09:08:00Z
That seems to be the MO that the good educators down in Louisiana are following. Yesterday's Shreveport Times reports that the Caddo School District have committed $1.6 million to continue funding their Reading First programs. And if the feds don't make the funding available, they will find the money themselves in the district's general fund. The full story can be found here -- http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008806050330.

Why? The good folks in Caddo know that RF works. They've seen it help their low-performing, high-poverty K-3 classrooms, and they don't want to lose that help. They recognize that once you find something that works, and I mean really works, you do what is necessary to keep it in place.

The educators and decisionmakers down in Caddo deserve some credit. Despite all of the RF "sky is falling" chickens out their waiving around the IES RF interim study, Caddo knows a good thing when they see it. RF works in schools like theirs and with kids like theirs. It works, and you can't take that away from them.

Over at Flypaper, Mike Petrilli praises the folks in Caddo for stepping up to the plate and agreeing to fund RF even if Congress won't. And he's absolutely right. It's easy for a district to complain about a federal decision, and bemoan stripped funding and say "if only." Caddo Interim Superintendent Wanda Gunn is acting, not talking. If the feds won't do it, she'll do it herself.

But the situation down in Shreveport also raises one important issue that ed reformers and RF advocates alike need to be mindful of. The Shreveport Times positions this as Caddo spending $1.6 million on "Reading First," as if the federal funding law were an off-the-shelf basal reading curriculum that school districts can pick up at their next trip to the store. If only it were that easy.

RF provides clear guidelines about the sorts of reading programs that should be implemented in the low-income, low-performing schools most in need of assistance. It requires an educated, savvy superintendent, curriculum director, or reading teacher to take those guidelines, gain an understanding of scientifically based reading research, and make an educated decision on what is best for them, their schools, and their kids.

Despite the growing urban legend, there is no golden list of reading programs that guarantees both federal funding and student success. It falls to educators to make their way through the smoke, move beyond the mirrors, and really identify the most effective, research-based reading programs for their students. Programs that embody both the letter and the intent of the federal law.

It seems like the folks in Caddo have done that, and are putting their money where their mouths are. Here's hoping other districts will do the same, continuing to build on the gains and successes of the past few years that can only be attributed to SBRR in the classroom.]]> Caffeinating NCLB tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-06:df27eaaf-1261-4e1f-8652-4b11ded1fa37 Eduflack 2008-06-06T09:00:44Z 2008-06-06T08:34:00Z
You hear it so much that you almost believe it. Then you get that slap upside the head, much like an overcaffeinated espresso, that reminds of you the truth. This week, that slap has come from Seattle, hardly the home of the George W. fan club. It seems the Seattle Times has thrown its editorial muscle behind NCLB (kudos to Ed Trust's Equity Express for highlighting it.)

In a strongly worded editorial this week, the Seattle Times praises NCLB for "injecting rigor and accountability into a system that previously had little of both." The editors also note that recent improvements to the law -- including demonstrations of flexibility on AYP -- will take years for us to see, and we need to be patient. The full article is here -- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004444420_nclbed29.html.

It's unusual to see such pieces these days, when NCLB has been left as a punchline to a national education joke. But as the Seattle Times and many others have noted, there is value to the law. Forget, for a moment, that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act isn't going away. There are real positives in this law, and states, municipalities, and schools are seeing that.

The Times is absolutely correct. We are a better nation because of NCLB. A national commitment to academic rigor is a good thing. A national commitment to student achievement is a good thing. A national commitment to doing what works in getting kids to learn is a good thing. And a national belief that EVERY kid can succeed, given the right opportunities and circumstances, is indeed a good thing.

These were the sorts of messages we needed to hear three years ago, when we actually had the chance to reauthorize NCLB.  As Spellings and ED now play out the clock, there are few sane policywonks that believe reauthorization will happen this year. Most don't even believe it will happen in 2009.

That could be a very different story is editorials like those appearing in Seattle had been printed years ago, and with in greater numbers. ANd the responsibility, or the failed responsibility, for that falls squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. Department of Education. The want us to drink the kool-aid, but they failed to market it to us as the end-all, be-all thirst quencher for our educational woes.  They failed to build demand for NCLB, and instead tried to force it upon us, no questions asked. Thus, we are in the situation we're in today.

The age-old story of opportunities lost and chances squandered. Hopefully, we will always have the intent of NCLB propelling our ed reform sails ... even if it goes by a different name and has different champions. Rigor, accountability, achievement, success should have no party affiliation and should always remain in vogue.    ]]> Mr. Weaver, Tear Down the NEA Wall tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-05:c858573e-83a6-42ac-a804-14af0336aa6a Eduflack 2008-06-05T14:09:00Z 2008-06-05T13:15:00Z
Of course, the AFT had previously endorsed Clinton, has announced it "will engage in a process to prepare to make an endorsement for this fall's general election." Anyone who has been around the political block knows that the AFT endorsement of Obama isn't that far behind. Hopefully, they'll take the time to talk to McCain's education team first, though.

Back in the winter, Eduflack asked what, specifically, AFT was supporting when it endorsed Hillary. And the question is even more valid regarding today's endorsement (or proposed endorsement) of Obama. Is Reg Weaver endorsing Obama's support for merit pay for teachers? His support for Teach For America style programs? Backing of charter schools? Or is he endorsing the recent rhetoric attacking high-stakes testing and NCLB? (I'll put my money on the latter.)

I join with Obama in supporting merit pay for teachers and supporting charter schools, particularly in our inner cities. And I was impressed when he went into the NEA and supported incentive pay, particularly when the union has been so strongly against it. So does an endorsement of Obama mean the NEA is changing course on performance pay for teachers?

Unfortunately, we may never know. If yesterday's post-primary statement from Weaver is any indication, this isn't about Obama. It's about the NEA supporting the Democrats. And that's a cryin' shame. Now is the perfect time for NEA to get both candidates to put their education platform together, and let the brothers and sisters of the NEA weigh and measure both.

If we've learned anything from the Democratic primary, it is that hope trumps fear. The positive far outweighs the negative. And the high ground is far more adventageous than the mud pits. Unfortunately, Weaver seems to have missed that point. In calling on his nearly 3 million members to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee, Weaver says:

"You can go down any list of what public school employees believe they need to truly help every child be successful, and you'll see that Senator Obama supports that list and that Senator McCain not only opposes it, but has probably already voted against it."

It's unfortunate that the NEA can't support Obama without attacking John McCain. The NEA has effectively sat itself on the bench for the past eight years on federal education policy, deciding it was easier to shout into the wind than to look for some middle ground with the current Administraton. If the Bush Administration wasn't going to use the NEA's ball, then the NEA just wasn't going to play. And it looks like they are drawing the same line again this year.

I'm all for effective rhetoric, and during campaign times, I've been accused of being a little vitriolic. (For the record, I worked, successfully, on behalf for Democratic candidates, and have a keener than keen appreciation for the value of an NEA or AFT endorsement.) But when the NEA says that McCain has already voted against everything a child needs to be successful, they do the union, its members, and the students they teach a great disservice.

The NEA endorsement will go to the Democrat. We all know that. But let's make it about the hopes, policies, and positions he stands for. It is an endorsement, and shouldn't be an endorsement by rejection of the other guy.

No one has ever accused John McCain of being an opponent of education. If anything, now is the time for McCain to start formulating a real plan on federal education policy and demonstrate his commitment to reform and school improvement. He may not get the union endorsement, but that doesn't mean he can't get the votes of teachers.

Mr. Weaver, how about letting McCain speak to the collected membership and make an educated choice?
]]> Swingin' at an RF Pitch tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-05:3f2aabfc-1f79-493b-91a3-945831005a41 Eduflack 2008-06-05T13:05:08Z 2008-06-05T12:55:00Z
Kudos go to Kathleen Kennedy Manzo over at Education Week. Manzo is one of the original RF reporters (along with Greg Toppo), having covered it from the early stages to today. It's meant that she's likely been flooded with information, data, research, opinion, and spin over these past six or so years. It's meant a continuous learning process. And it's meant having to sort through it all, avoiding the pitches in the dirt and waiting for the good pitch to hit.

Hit it she did. In this week's Education Week, Manzo's got a great piece on the IES study. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/06/04/39read.h27.html?tmp=1914927477 She explores many of the quality issues that have been raised to date. More importantly, though, she gets Russ Whitehurst to state that no conclusions should be made based on the interim report. Instead, we need to wait for the final.

I, for one, am hoping that means there's a whole lot of fixing coming in the final report. Of course, I've been disappointed before. Regardless, EdWeek and Manzo deserve credit for taking a complicated and growing issue, and reporting on it so that the average educator or the average policymaker understands the issues and knows the tough questions to ask.

Gold stars all around.]]> Is This the Ed of Our RF Study Quest? tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-06-03:374547e7-318b-4d02-8e92-5c6953d8d42e Eduflack 2008-06-03T15:42:21Z 2008-06-03T15:04:00Z
With all of these factors, it only stands to reason that we should do anything and everything we can to ensure our schools -- and our kids -- are getting reading instruction that works. They need effective learning. How can anyone say that a student with no or poor reading skills has a real chance to succeed in society? They can't. Reading is the building block for success in K-12, higher ed, career, and life.

For that reason, Eduflack has put the IES interim study under the microscope. We've heard from experts such as Reid Lyon, Tim Shanahan, and Richard Allington. We've scrutinized the methodology. We've pined for what could have been. Now we eagerly await for the next study that Dr. Shanahan has promised is on the way.

We close this chapter of the debate with questions, not with statements of fact. If the last week has taught me anything, it is that we know far less than we should. If these questions are keeping me up at night, they must be keeping others up as well. So I offer these so that the media, policymakers, educators, and influencers can ask them as well, knowing that together we may get some real answers.

* The Reading First law set aside $150 million for research and assessment over the last six years. By most reports, IES spent approximately $30 million. Where is the remainder of this money? What is it going toward? Are we measuring the effectiveness of this reallocation?

* What is the real intent of the IES study? Personally, I think we should be studying ROI for Reading First spending. Six years and billions of dollars later, where is student reading achievement? This study seems to be more process over outcomes.

* How can we measure RF versus non-RF schools or classrooms? Are we suggesting that non-RF schools are not using scientifically based reading in their classes? Of course not. Both buckets are using the same textbooks and have access to the same professional development and the same supplemental materials. The only real difference between RF and non-RF is from whose account the check is being cut.

* Forget how IES has interpreted it, what does the federal law say should be part of this assessment? RF has gotten into some trouble when it comes to the law's intent (and letter) and its implementation. The law seems pretty clear and comprehensive to me. (Just check out section 1205)

* Why has IES taken a different path? And is there time to get us on the right path?

We need to follow the money here. Had IES spent the full $150 million and gotten a study like this back, advocates and nay-sayers would be screaming from the mountaintops about mismanagement and poor decisions. Yes, we have a bad study. But the nation was given the money to do a great study. Some would even say a $150 million national assessment study would be a researcher's dream. So why wasn't that dream fulfilled, particularly after Congress wrote the check to make it a reality? We've created a problem that never should have arisen.

A big check. Clear congressional intent. Opportunity to make a lasting, meaningful impact on both education and education research. It all was there. Today, we're left holding a flawed study, and we still have no clear idea that RF -- or more importantly, SBRR -- works.

Yes, there is a value to doing an impact study like IES'. Such studies are valuable for the internal agency and for the structure of its future funding opportunities. But we also have a clear need for a study that tells us whether the program is working or not.

We need to get our kids reading. We need them reading at grade level. And we need to identify what works and get it in every classroom across the nation. Whatever it takes. Until we have answers to these questions, though, we may never have a national study that gives us the data -- and the guidance -- we need to make every child a reader.

I yield the floor and will hold my tongue until more data (and opinion, of course) is presented.
]]> Under the Hood of the IES Reading Study tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-30:f9a9c8f6-ad50-462f-b2f5-56b778cd25c3 Eduflack 2008-05-30T09:04:13Z 2008-05-30T09:01:00Z
I come here today not to prosthelatize on RF. Instead, I want to serve as a conduit for needed information. If we've learned anything from the back-and-forth on the IES study, it is that there are some real questions with regard to the methodology and the project design. Rather than just trust the salesman that the engine under the study hood is legit, I've brought in an expert mechanic of my own.

Today, we hear from the University of Illinois-Chicago's Tim Shanahan. If you've heard of the IES study, you know Tim. A leader on the National Reading Panel, Dr. Shanahan has served on a number of similarly influential groups on reading instruction. He is also the former reading czar of Chicago Public Schools and recently completed his tenure as president of the International Reading Association.

I met Tim a decade ago, when I began my service to the NRP. Immediately, I found that he was one of those rare breeds who knew the research cold, but could explain it to anyone's grandma so she understood it ... thoroughly and completely. Even more, he had the patience and the perseverance to teach this old dog about research methodology and scientific approaches, giving me the foundational understandings I have put to use virtually every day since.

Put simply, there are few researchers I trust more than Dr. Tim Shanahan. He is as straight a shooter as they come. And for our purposes today, Tim was an advisor to the IES study, so he knows of what he speaks. So we asked some questions, he provided far better answers.

EDUFLACK: What does the IES study really say? How strong are the findings?

SHANAHAN: THE IMPLEMENTATION STUDIES INDICATE THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RF AND NON-RF SCHOOLS WERE PRETTY MODEST (ABOUT 50 MINUTES OF INSTRUCTIONAL DIFFERENCE PER YEAR IN AMOUNT OF INSTRUCTION), MEANING THAT RF KIDS PROBABLY RECEIVED FEWER THAN 30 HOURS OF ADDITIONAL READING INSTRUCTION EACH YEAR DUE TO THE INTERVENTION. CLEARLY A MODEST INTERVENTION, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SIMILARITIES IN CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND ASSESSMENTS.

Q: How valid are the findings, knowing there may be contamination across groups (that both the RF and non-RF groups may have been doing the same things in the classroom)?

A: MOST SCHOOLS EMPLOY SOME KIND OF COMMERCIAL CORE PROGRAM. WHEN READING FIRST EMPHASIZED THE ADOPTION OF PROGRAMS WITH CERTAIN DESIGNS ALL MAJOR PUBLISHERS CHANGED THEIR DESIGNS TO MATCH THE REQUIREMENTS.

READING FIRST SCHOOLS ALL BOUGHT NEW PROGRAMS IN YEAR 1; ALMOST ALL OTHER TITLE I SCHOOLS ADOPT NEW CORE PROGRAMS EVERY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. THAT MEANS IN YEAR 1, 100% OF THE RF SCHOOLS GOT A NEW PROGRAM, AND 25% OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS DID. IN YEAR 2, THAT NUMBER WENT TO 50%, IN YEAR THREE 75%. ALL RF SCHOOLS HIRED COACHES IN YEAR 1, SO DID MORE THAN 80% OF THE OTHER SCHOOLS. ETC.

THIS ISN’T A CASE OF SPOT CONTAMINATION, IT WAS INTENTIONAL AND PERVASIVE (IN FACT, IT WAS PART OF THE RF LAW ITSELF—20% OF THE STATE MONEY, THAT MEANS $1 BILLION TOTAL WAS DEVOTED TO GETTING NON-READING FIRST SCHOOLS TO ADOPT THESE REFORMS).

Q: Given that contamination, are there contamination rates that can be tolerated in the design? For example, let’s say 15 percent of the RF and comparison groups received identical programs/PD. Is this level of contamination tolerable? What if there is a 30 percent overlap – is this level tolerable? Are there ways to estimate the degree to which percent contamination will indicate a need to increase sample size?

A: THE PERCENTAGES OF OVERLAP WERE 75-100% DEPENDING ON THE VARIABLE. THE ONLY ONE WHERE WE HAVE ANY KIND OF IDEA ABOUT WHAT IS TOLERABLE IS WITH TIME.

FROM PAST RESEARCH, ONE SUSPECTS THAT 100 HOURS OF ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE A HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF GENERATING A LEARNING DIFFERENCE, A 50-60 HOUR DIFFERENCE WOULD STILL HAVE A REASONABLE CHANCE OF RESULTING IN A DIFFERENCE. AT 25-30 HOURS A SMALL DIFFERENCE IN LEARNING MIGHT BE OBTAINED, BUT IT IS MUCH LESS LIKELY (ESPECIALLY IF THE CURRICULA WERE THE SAME).

Q: Did the evaluation design include procedures/strategies to avoid contamination between RF and the comparison group?

A: IT [THE IES STUDY] NOT ONLY DID NOT TRY TO AVOID CONTAMINATION, IT COULDN’T POSSIBLY DO IT SINCE THE SOURCES OF THE CONTAMINATION WERE SO PERVASIVE. FIRST, THE FEDERAL POLICY EXPLICITLY CALLED FOR SUCH CONTAMINATION TO BE PUSHED. SECOND, STATES AND LOCAL DISTRICTS MADE THEIR OWN CHOICES (AND THEY FELT ENTICED OR PRESSURED TO MATCH RF).

FOR EXAMPLE, SYRACUSE, NY RECEIVED READING FIRST MONEY FOR SOME SCHOOLS, BUT MANDATED THAT ALL OF ITS SCHOOLS ADOPT THE SAME POLICIES AND PROGRAMS. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RF AND NON-RF SCHOOLS IN SYRACUSE, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IN FUNDING STREAM—HOW THE CHANGES WERE PAID FOR, AS THE NON-RF SCHOOLS ATTENDED THE SAME MEETINGS AND TRAININGS, ADOPTED THE SAME BOOKS AND ASSESSMENTS, RECEIVED THE SAME COACHING, PUT IN PLACE THE SAME POLICIES, ETC.

Q: Did the evaluation design describe practices in the comparison groups?

A: YES, THE IMPLEMENTATION STUDIES SHOW THE SIMILARITIES IN PRACTICES AND HOW, OVER TIME, THE PRACTICES THAT WERE SIMILAR AT THE BEGINNING BECAME INCREASINGLY SIMILAR EACH YEAR. THAT WILL BE CLEARER IN THE NEXT STUDY OUT

Q: Did the evaluation design account in any way for contamination, crossover, compensatory rivalry, etc.?

A: NO. THE FEDERAL LAW CALLED FOR THE EVALUATION OF READING FIRST IN TERMS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL, BUT DID NOT CALL FOR A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF READING FIRST UPON THE ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

EVEN THOUGH I HAD PERSONALLY MADE A BIG DEAL OUT OF THE PROBLEM FROM THE VERY FIRST STUDY DESIGN MEETING, THE METHODOLOGISTS THOUGHT THEY COULD HANDLE MY PROBLEM SIMPLY BY ACCOUNTING FOR THE RF ROLLOUT EACH YEAR. THEIR ASSUMPTION WAS THAT RF WOULD IMPLEMENT SOME CHANGES IN YEAR 1, OTHERS IN YEAR 2, AND STILL OTHERS IN YEAR 3 AND THAT THIS PATTERN OF IMPLEMENTATION WOULD ALLOW THEM TO EXAMINE A CONTINUING LAG BETWEEN THE RF AND NON-RF SCHOOLS.

I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE THINKING THAT AND THEY NEVER ASKED DIRECTLY ABOUT THAT. LAST YEAR, I FIGURED OUT WHAT THEY WERE THINKING AND I HAD TO EXPLAIN SEVERAL TIMES THAT RF PUT ALL OF ITS REFORMS IN PLACE DURING YEAR 1, WITH NOTHING NEW IN YEARS 2 AND 3, SO IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO TEST THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION, ETC. USING THEIR APPROACH. I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET THIS FIXED IF I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE ASSUMING THAT KIND OF DESIGN (OR IF THEY HAD ASKED ME ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY).

Q: Can we assume that the RF group is just like the comparison group except for exposure to RF funding?

A: READ THE IMPLEMENTATION PART OF THE REPORT (AND THERE IS ANOTHER STUDY COMING LATER THAT WILL MAKE THIS CLEARER) AND YOU’LL SEE THE DEGREE OF SIMILARITY IN THE KEY FACTORS BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF SCHOOLS. I RAISED THIS AS A THEORETICAL PROBLEM ORIGINALLY, BUT THE IMPLEMENTATION STUDY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT CONTAMINATION WAS A BIG PROBLEM (IT CANNOT TELL US WHETHER THE CONTAMINATION CAME FROM THE $1 BILLION FEDERAL EXPENDITURE ON THIS, BECAUSE THE STATES AND LOCAL DISTRICTS OFTEN SIMPLY ADOPTED THE SAME IDEAS.

AS ONE ILLINOIS DISTRICT TOLD ME, “IF THIS IS THE RIGHT STUFF TO DO, THEN WE ARE GOING TO DO IT WITH EVERYONE.”

That's a lot to chew on, but it is a worthwhile meal. Even for the most simple-minded of laypeople (like Eduflack), it is clear that the IES study had no real control group. We had RF schools and non-RF schools, both pools of which were doing similar things with similar materials. How can we compare the two groups as haves and have nots when the only measure of separation is the bucket of money that was paying for the approach?

Dr. Whitehurst, I'll yield the pulpit to you if you'd like to respond.

]]> "What Happened?" tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-30:5ba4c737-60a5-4a79-ad3e-d6a0b9c58e65 Eduflack 2008-05-30T08:33:44Z 2008-05-30T08:02:00Z
One piece of advice she left me was a simple one that I have followed every since. "Never, ever lie," Marsha said. Lie to a reporter once, and you've lost his trust. Lose his trust, and you can't do the job.

She was absolutely right, and I have done my best to ensure that I always told reporters the truth. I went on to serve as spokesman for other senators and congressmen. I did it for government panels and government agencies. For non-profits and corporations. I even did it on the campaign trail. And while I'd sometimes joke about plausible deniability (usually around questions of campaign fundraising), my goal was always to provide needed information to reporters. Sure, I'd spin it in a favorable way. But the information was always accurate (or as accurate as it could be), and I trusted what I said.

I have always known I was fortunate when it came to who I worked for. Be it Byrd, Senator Bill Bradley (NJ), or Congressman John Olver (MA), I worked for honorable men who I trusted and who I was proud to work for. Yes, I regularly jousted with them on particular policy issues, asking if voting against X policy was good for the upcoming campaign, but I knew I worked for good men who were ultimately doing what they knew was best. And I thought that's what most spokespeople did. Particularly if you worked for the President of the United States.

By now, most of us have heard of Scott McClennan's new memoir, "What Happened." The former Bush press secretary takes a very aggressive stance against his former boss. And, essentially, McClennan says he regularly stood up behind the podium and lied to reporters on a host of issues. Of course, it was his higher-ups' fault that he lied. He just followed orders.

Eduflack just can't buy that. Sure, I have never walked in McClennan's shoes. I've only done the job on Capitol Hill. But I've done it long enough to know that a good press secretary (or communications director, whatever your preferred title may be) takes the time to look under the hood and understand the issues. He moves beyond the talking points to learn. He asks questions. He anticipates even more questions. And he is prepared to deal with any issue that is thrown his way. He becomes an expert on all issues, and rarely takes any one person's word on a controversial topic.

Saying you lied and just followed orders is a cop out. It's lazy work, and it is one of the reasons folks think PR is so easy. A good spokesman knows all the facts. He relays those facts as effectively as possible. He speaks truth, even under tough circumstances. He truly sees himself as an extension of his boss, sharing information to as broad an audience as possible.

I know, I know, what does all of this have to do with education reform? A great deal, actually. When educators are selling their education reforms, be it to the media or the community, they need to be trustworthy. They can't stretch the data or make guesses about impact. They need to know the facts, and stick to them. And they can never, ever lie. If you do, your reform is history. No educator, no policymaker, no reporter will take you seriously if you are caught telling an untruth about efficacy or impact.
]]> Is 100% Proficiency Possible? You Betcha tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-28:2a5d822d-51fb-4afc-8568-f8279cd2a3c8 Eduflack 2008-05-28T13:40:20Z 2008-05-28T13:16:00Z
Such promises became a punchline for folks. It seemed like some would have felt better if we had said "Only 10 Percent Left Behind" or "Just a Few Left Behind."

Today's Washington Post, though, shows that 100 percent proficiency is not just a campaign slogan, it can be a way of life for some schools. Over at the Core Knowledge Blog, they've done a good job discussing this very topic, and the fact that a school in Ocean City has already completely fulfilled its AYP obligations. Check it out at http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/2008/05/28/no-child-no-problem/.

Such gains are not just left to our beachside communities. We are starting to see more and more examples of schools that have cracked the code and have figured out how to get every child reading and get every child performing. Case in point, Pennsylvania's Souderton Collaborative Charter School.

Full disclosure, I recently came across Souderton as part of my day job. Based in Montgomery County, PA, this K-8 school has clear academic goals. For language arts, that goal is to "read with comprehension, to write with skill, and to communicate effectively and responsibly in a variety of ways/settings."

To achieve this goal, the school leadership adopted a scientifically based approach to independent reading. The school provides books on topics of interest to the student, at reading levels and content appropriate to the students' age. In return, the students develop an interest and a passion for reading, developing the skills they need to succeed in ELA and other classroom results.

The result? Success. Don't believe Eduflack? Take a look at Souderton's results on the PSSA for 2005-06 -- Pennsylvania's state assessment. Third grade PSSA reading scores -- 100% proficient or better. Fourth grade PSSA reading scores -- 100% proficient or better. Even seventh grade reading scores -- 100% proficient or better. That's every child reading at grade level.

Souderton achieved this, in part, because they are using approaches that are proven effective. Their reading instruction models the best practices called for by the National Reading Panel and Reading First. They are empowering both students and teachers, inspiring both to achieve. And the results show.

Ocean City and Souderton can't be the only schools with these sorts of results. While schools don't have to be 100 percent proficient until 2014, I have a feeling that these two schools are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unsung heroes that are achieving despite the white noise of failure and impossibility. We should be modeling behaviors after schools like OC and Souderton. And we, including Eduflack, should be doing a better job uncovering those schools that are doing it right. Finding those schools that are achieving. Throwing the spotlight on those communities where SBRR works, and where student reading proficiency is the norm, not the exception.

]]> RF Works, Just Ask Idaho tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-28:5c031eef-b079-4630-84e5-19e24265f212 Eduflack 2008-05-28T13:10:52Z 2008-05-28T12:54:00Z
Throughout this debate, we've heard little from the practitioners who have put RF to work in their states or communities. From those who have seen the positive effects of scientifically based reading research. From those who have determined what works for their schools and their kids. Until now.

Over at www.ednews.org, we're seeing continued comment on this RF debate. Of particular note is a comment recently posted by Steven Underwood, the Reading First School Improvement Coordinator for Boise State University's Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies. The headline -- Reading First is working in Idaho. Not just working, but really working. Almost as if RF was designed to help struggling schools boost student reading proficiency.

Rather than summarize Underwood's contribution to the debate, let's here directly from the horse's mouth, with a thanks to Underwood for letting Eduflack use the words originally posted at www.ednews.org.

"I applaud the efforts to help the nation’s most at-risk children by consulting a large body of research and theory, sifting out opinion from facts, and making policies and practices that benefit children. It is unfortunate, but many of the critics of Reading First both here and elsewhere seem to speak foremost of theory and secondarily of students. I am saddened by the number of critics who neither have worked in Reading First schools nor fully understand their practices. To continue the analogy of the car from previous posts, many critics, who undoubtedly mean well in their criticisms, seem to misunderstand the repair work that is being done and seem to be completely unaware of the data that demonstrate that Reading First is having a positive impact on student outcomes. In the criticisms, it seems like people are criticizing the mechanic who is working on the complex engine (of literacy among disadvantaged students) without themselves having ever been truly successful at fixing engines which demonstrate the same types of problems. Literacy among our nation’s needy children has been a nationwide concern for years, and Reading First is the first systemic approach to find success in addressing that concern. Had the [IES] study been conducted more in line with the mandate given to IES, we would be able to better understand the impact of Reading First at the national level. However, since the study was not well designed and did not meet its mandate, being people of reason, we are obliged to evaluate all of the other data that has been provided through systems such as the annual performance reports over the course of the years. As one studies these data, Reading First is arguably the most powerful federal education program to date. As part of No Child Left Behind, Reading First has demonstrated powerful results among those children in our nation who have traditionally been “left behind” in literacy skills.

In support of this, allow me to briefly summarize results from the state of Idaho. To qualify to become a Reading First school in Idaho, a district has to have the highest level of needs (e.g. the largest percentages of free and reduced lunch in the state) and the lowest available financial resources to meet those needs. The reason for this qualification is that student performance has so often been correlated with socio-economic status. Even though Idaho Reading First schools have such high needs, they have not only grown in their data more quickly on state reading measures, but have closed or nearly closed the gap in all grade levels. Idaho has a universal K-3 reading screener, the IRI, which measures fluency and basic comprehension. From 2003 to 2007, Reading First schools in Idaho improved on this measure at a rate that exceeded the state’s growth during the same timeframe and currently have an overall average that is within 4 percentage points of the state average.

More importantly, Idaho’s economically disadvantaged students grew at a rate in Reading First schools that far surpassed their economically disadvantaged peers in state averages. Among this subpopulation, which is a focus in the NCLB legislation, Reading First schools performed at a rate of improvement between 2003 and 2007 that was 12% better than the state average in Grade 1, 10% better in Grade 2, and 7% better in Grade 3. These results are also mirrored in the comprehensive outcome measure for Idaho Reading First schools. Idaho Reading First schools have consistently performed more than 10 percentile points above the national cut-score on the Normal Curve Equivalence for ITBS Reading Comprehension. This average far surpasses the last year in Idaho in which the ITBS was given to all students (2001), which again demonstrates that Reading First is closing the gap among the neediest children in our state. Furthermore, among economically disadvantaged students, Reading First schools have improved ITBS scores at rates between 20% and 24% in Grades 1-3 from 2004 to 2007, which again demonstrates alignment of reading comprehension results with one of the primary missions of Reading First. Lastly, and very importantly, Idaho Reading First schools are demonstrating greater overall gains and closing the achievement gap on the Grade 3 AYP measure for reading, the ISAT.

Whereas in 2003, the participating schools were significantly behind the state average, Idaho Reading First Schools are now within 2 percentage points of the state average. While the IES interim report may show no statistical significance in its study sample, the reality of Reading First in Idaho shows a vastly different picture. As mentioned before, it is unfortunate that some well-meaning educators criticize Reading First based upon political preference, theory alone, opinion, or incomplete and misleading information. The interim study published by IES did not do an adequate job in meeting its mandate, nor was it representative of the nationwide set of Reading First schools, nor did it triangulate multiple sets of reading data, nor did it identify all of the pertinent variables, nor did it operate on the basis of a true pre-Reading First baseline. With these and other criticisms of the impact study in mind, I respectfully ask our critical colleagues who believe Reading First to be ineffective to review the broader set of data that exist. Reading First has set a high standard for our nation’s public elementary schools who serve its neediest children. According to multiple sets of data in multiple states, this high standard is paying off for thousands upon thousands of children."

There you go. Reading First is working in Idaho. In a state where the motto is "Let it be perpetual," they are making reading instruction improvements that will empower a generation of new readers. And I'm betting there are a lot more states like it that are showing similar gains and similar benefits from RF and the implementation of SBRR in the classroom. We should be out there cultivating these positive stories, spotlighting those schools, LEAs, and SEAs that are making a difference and boosting student achievement. I know that is harder than promoting our failures and explaining why AYP can never be achieved, but we can learn a lot more examining what works rather than volleying around excuses for what doesn't.

]]> Lookin' for Edu-R&D Sugardaddies tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-27:b957e427-29f4-4543-86c1-069fb8dff4e3 Eduflack 2008-05-27T10:20:09Z 2008-05-27T09:57:00Z
The good folks over at Knowledge Alliance (formerly NEKIA) have waved a similar banner. If we expect a scientifically based educational experience, we need to invest in scientifically based research. If we are going to do what works, we need to investigate it. And if we are going to drive the squishy research from the K-12 kingdom, we need to make meaningful investments in the strong, scientific, longitudinal research we are seeking.

Yet education R&D still seems to be feeding from the scraps of practice. We have few industry leaders that are funding R&D the way we see it in the health industry. And that view becomes even more acute today, when the Howard Hughes Medical Institute announces a $600 million grant to fund the research of 56 top medical researchers. The Washington Post has the full story here -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052701014.html?hpid=topnews.

It has all got Eduflack thinking of the impact such an investment could have on education. Just imagine if a philanthropy offered up $200 or $100 or even $50 million to education's top researchers to develop major findings in how to improve public education. Science and math instruction. ELL. Teacher training. Effects of technology. Charters. The list of possible topics is limitless. In reading alone, you can take a look at the list of potential research subjects offered by the National Reading Panel in 2000. Today, most of those still haven't been pursued.

But we all recognize that such sugardaddies are few and far between in education reform. We put our money on educational practice. We fund practitioners. R&D is an add-on, often used just to test the ROI for funders, be they philanthropic or corporate.

Yes, we have significant education investment from groups like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They have made a significant contribution to funding education reforms, particularly in our urban areas. But the focus is not on R&D, it is on classroom practice. Valuable indeed, but it doesn't mean we don't need a similar investment on the research side. In fact, such R&D investment can ensure Gates' money is being wisely spent.

Without question, the money available in the education industry is at levels never imagined in generations past. Somewhere among those growing pots, there must be a potential sugardaddy (or a collection of sugarbabies) who can do for education what the Hughes Institute is doing for medicine.

As we struggle with the definitions of SBRR and the findings of the WWC, just imagine the impact we can have with a nine-figure investment in education R&D, particularly if it is led through a public-private partnership.

Today, education reform is kinda like filling a lake with teaspoon. We're adding some drops here or there, but we can't necessarily see the impact. With stronger R&D, we have the option of at least adding water by the barrel full, if not more. And that's the only way to raise the opportunity boats of the kids who need it most.
]]> The Saga of RF Profiteers Continues tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-27:5dd1737d-0076-4c7c-a648-8badbbf3760c Eduflack 2008-05-27T08:12:55Z 2008-05-27T09:13:00Z http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/21/calling-all-rf-profiteers.aspx) As the program is under siege and the funding has dried up, those who personally profited the most are nowhere to be found. A word of thanks to the Core Knowledge blog for throwing some additional spotlight on the important issue.

Over the weekend, we received an interesting comment from Richard Allington, the former president of the International Reading Association. Sure, Allington has long been tagged as a RF opponent, but no one can question that he understands the concept of scientifically based reading research.

His posting no doubt got me thinking. But more importantly, it got Reid Lyon thinking. As a godfather of RF, Reid definitely knows what he is talking about, and the volume of his RF conversation has increased dramatically in recent weeks. And it is important that we listen.

So without further ado, Reid Lyon's response to Allington's thoughts on RF profiteers ...

"I believe that these interchanges among individuals with different perspectives on Reading First are helpful, as improvements are impossible with productive debate. In my mind, the debates are more productive when sufficient details are presented to support a particular point of view. Riccards brings up the detail that publishers and vendors were selling to districts and schools before the Technical Assistance Centers were ever established. He is correct,. Many did not need a "list" to garner a substantial amount of reading First funding.   Bob Sweet and I predicted that when the legislative language for Reading First was softened to its use of the “based on” criterion, that a feeding frenzy would ensue with everybody and their brother hawking a program based on SBRR.

Like Allington, we felt in drafting the initial language requiring program-specific language that publishers and vendors would be highly motivated to test their products. That still has not happened. I need more details on which programs were “banned.” I know that Chris Doherty was compelled by the law to not fund programs with no basis in SBRR and he followed that law. The Wright program was not funded because it was not comprehensive and did meet additional criteria in the law. The Wright program, to its credit, attended to the reviews of its product and made substantial changes so that it now meets all criteria.

Allington may be talking about Reading Recovery as a “banned” program but Reading Recovery was funded by some states using Reading First funds. The allegations made by Success for All are baseless as indicated by no findings by the OIG of that product being placed at a disadvantage in either its first major auditing report or its audit of New York State.   There has been absolutely no evidence of any state or district being pressured by the Reading First office to either drop SFA or not implement SFA.    In fact, emails between different state’s Reading First officials, SFA, and a Technical Assistance Center reveal substantial positive interactions in trying to ensure that SFA could participate fully in Reading First.

There are two points that Allington makes where more detail would be very helpful. First, Allington makes the point the WWC found that Reading Recovery (RR) has strong evidence that it improves general reading achievement. This is a very general statement. My colleagues and I have published a number of papers over the past several years addressing the effectiveness of Reading Recovery and in each review concluded it was effective – for some. Concerns about the efficacy of RR have been based, in part on whether the program is successful with the lowest performing students – students typically served in reading First programs. Reading Recovery has typically targeted students who perform in the lowest 20% of their classes. The actual performance level of participants varies from school to school. Although the research from the developers of RR continues to indicate efficacy for about 70% of the students in the program ( a very strong degree of effectiveness) , its reported effects are much weaker when students who do not meet the program’s exit criteria are included in the analyses of outcomes (see Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007 for review).

In addition, a review by Elbaum et al. (2000), it was found that gains for the poorest readers were often minimal, which Elbaum et al. suggested may be related to the need for more explicit instruction in decoding. A recent meta-analysis also found that RR was effective for many grade 1 students (D’Agostino & Murphy, 2004). This study disaggregated RR outcomes by whether the outcomes involved standardized achievement tests or the Observation Survey, which parallels the RR curriculum. It also separated results for students who successfully completed RR (i.e., met program criteria and were discontinued) versus those who were unsuccessful or left the program before receiving 20 lessons (i.e., were not discontinued) and according to the methodological rigor of the studies. When the comparison group was low-achieving students, average effect sizes on standardized achievement tests for all discontinued and not discontinued students were in the small range (.32), and higher for discontinued (.48) than not discontinued (-.34) students. This finding was consistent with Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, and Moody (2000), who reported that RR was less effective for students with more severe reading problems. D’Agostino and Murphy (2004) found that analyses based on just the more rigorous studies included in their meta-analysis in which evaluation groups were more comparable on pretests showed smaller, but significant effect sizes on standardized measures. Disaggregation according to whether the student was discontinued or not was not possible. Effect sizes were much larger for the Observation Survey measures, but these assessments are tailored to the curriculum and also have severely skewed distributions at the beginning and end of grade 1 that suggest the Observation Survey should not be analyzed as a continuous variable in program evaluation studies (Denton, Ciancio, & Fletcher, 2006).

By assessing in greater detail the degree to which well defined groups of students respond positively to well defined interventions, we increase the likelihood that particular programs will be implemented in a more thoughtful manner rather than as a magic bullet – and this is the case for all programs.

Allington also concluded that the IES Interim Report on the Reading First Impact Study should be the final word on the effectiveness of the program. Details are critical in drawing this conclusion and they are missing in both Allington’s statement and in the media coverage on the report. Two details are noteworthy – the sample is not representative of the universe of all Reading First schools nationally, and the ability to draw meaningful conclusions about the null results is very limited due to the contamination between Reading First and Non-Reading First schools with respect to shared professional development and common instructional programs.Allington has jumped to faulty conclusions in the past before. Recently he asked the field to read two invited papers in an issue of the Elementary School Journal that he edited that ostensibly overturned the results obtained by the Phonics Subgroup of the NRP. However, a formal replication of both these two studies published in a top ranked peer reviewed archival journal (Journal of Educational Psychology) did not support the conclusions of either paper regarding the impact of systematic phonics instruction on reading outcomes. This is science at its best when replication adjudicates claims arising from publication of data particularly when the process is characterized by mature scientific dialogue.

I predict that the jury is not yet out on the effectiveness of Reading First. Who knows, if the evaluation carried out By IES actually aligned with the evaluation required in the law, more detail would have helped us interpret the results with greater confidence. But I bet that even if these flawed comparisons showed Reading First Schools to be superior to non-Reading First schools, many would have argued that Reading had not been in place long enough to make these claims."

The saga continues. Dr. Allington, I'll offer you a chance to respond, if you are so inclined.

]]> "Fortune and Glory ..." tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-25:74e65979-088f-481b-b3a1-62437ba4e8a9 Eduflack 2008-05-25T21:52:50Z 2008-05-25T21:24:00Z
This weekend, Eduflack had one of those rare instances where he was able to slip out to a movie. (Having a two-year-old in the house means this was the first newly released moving in six months I and Eduwife have been able to see.) Without giving it a second thought, we jumped in the Edumobile and headed out to an early morning show of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."

Two hours later, I was certain I needed to quit all of this ed reform stuff, go back to school, and become an archaeologist. If it weren't for my inability to gain competency in any foreign languages (Indy seems to speak dozens, including the dead-for-a-thousand-year-ones), I'd be fitting myself for a fedora, mastering the bullwhip, and heading out to the jungles, deserts, and mountains when antiquities, fortune, and glory can be found. I wouldn't even mind teaching those quaint little undergraduate classes on the civilizations and legends of the past.

Of course, I know this isn't what archeology is really like. But it is enough to get the juices and the mind flowing, while inspiring us to pursue new ideas. We also knew that going to law school didn't mean a high-powered barrister life in the City of Angels, nor did the forensic sciences afford us a life of glamour, power, and intrigue. But these pop culture moments inspire others to pursue education. They see something on TV or at the movies, and have an "a ha" moment. A career possibility to be explored. An academic pursuit recently discovered. Doors of knowledge opening for the first time.

Areas like archeology and ancient history are in need of such "a ha" moments. College majors where many don't see true fortune and glory are passed over for business or pre-law or economics. But much value can be found in these subjects and others like them. Sure, none of us are going to become the next Indiana Jones, but that doesn't mean we use these moments to educate and to inspire. To teach and learn. It is a similar philosophy that has us putting a lense of relevance, interest, and passion around the STEM subjects.

But sometimes we have cold water thrown on our dreams of leather jackets, arks, and temples. Just check out the piece in today's Washington Post from Neil Asher Silberman. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302453.html He paints the job much differently, of excavating by centimeters and analyzing plant remains. With the stroke of a pen, he took all of the excitement and passion out of a career path that needs passionate and committed scholars. Unintentionally, Silberman took away a great teaching moment to inspire students to study history, science, and the humanities all rolled into one.

Oh well, I guess that archaeologist-adventurer job will have to be left to my dreams. Back to ed reform.
]]> What Would Darwin Think of These Teachers? tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-22:bb0a85f6-d0ed-42c4-8fac-b536341ec47c Eduflack 2008-05-22T10:08:55Z 2008-05-22T09:32:00Z
But then we see reports like that released by ABC News. Researchers from Penn State surveyed 2,000 high school science teachers last year. Nearly 1,000 teachers responded. And they found 12.5 percent of them taught creationism as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species." Sixteen percent believe that human beings were created by God within the past 10,000 years. And teachers who "subscribed" to creationism spent 35 percent fewer hours teaching evolution than their non-creationist colleagues. Check out the article here -- http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4895114&page=1.

We'd all like to believe that teachers leave their personal opinions and points of view at the classroom door, particularly when it comes to supposedly fact-based courses such as science. In fact, when we hear about the problems of teacher points of view, we usually think of social studies classes and teaching about wars and social policy issues. We think of courses on cultural issues and current events and such subjective ones, not biology and the earth sciences. We'd think wrong.

In an era where students are on the lookout for biased textbooks and teachers with an agenda, it is fascinating that 12.5 percent of teachers are so open with their beliefs and their teaching of creationism. It is even more interesting that we don't hear the complaints. Creationism stories seem to be anecdotal at best. If we are truly getting creationism lectured in one out of every eight high school science classes, where is the ACLU? Where are the separation of church and staters? Where is the liberal conspiracy?

Eduflack was raised in a strong Catholic household. I spent eight years in CCD. I learned how God created the heavens and the earth in six days. But I never heard it in my K-12 experience. Not in biology, not in chemistry, not in physics (and not even in those social studies classes). Maybe I was attending one of those seven in eight classes. Maybe my teachers realized that the science behind evolution was uncontroverted. Maybe they just followed the texts, and the texts were all Darwin, all the time. Or maybe, just maybe, we are looking for conspiracies, personal agendas, and things that go bump in the night in places where they just don't exist.

Do we really believe their is a national spike in creationism instruction? Or is this yet another example of individuals telling pollsters what they want to hear (or what they believe and refuse to act on)? Anyone have data on teachers and creationism from 20 years ago? Or even 10? Anyone?

]]> Calling All RF Profiteers tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-21:93161945-3869-4f99-a8c0-4c68ef40c3ad Eduflack 2008-05-21T08:56:50Z 2008-05-21T08:26:00Z http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/20/sbrr-fights-back.aspx) on Sol Stern's terrific Reading First article in City Journal, I received an interesting remark from a good friend. As we look at the validity and impact of RF and SBRR, where are all of the companies that took advantage of the new law and its new funding?

It is a provocative question. There is little doubt that a lot of people got rich off of RF. When a law pledges to put $1 billion a year for five years into our schools, there is a lot of money to go around. And this was all new money. It wasn't about taking from bucket A to fill bucket B. These were new dollars, available to anyone who could demonstrate that their reading programs were based on proven, scientific research.

In RF's early days, I remember being horrified by what was qualifying as SBRR to many. A company using focus group data that showed their product made people feel better about themselves. Others stapling a short cover letter to the National Reading Panel report, stating the NRP was their research base. Others still simply dropped the names of "SBRR friendly" researchers, hoping for endorsement by association.

The law's expectation of SBRR was clear. Yet many cut corners or didn't understand or didn't want to understand. The result? A number of new companies, re-treads, and such made major dollars promising a scientifically based approach. Some delivered. Some sold vapor. But all got their cut of the overstuffed RF pie. And just think of it, even a 1% share of RF dollars meant $10 million or so each year. That's not pocket change.

So where are all of these companies now? Where are the vendors who got their 1% or 3% share? Where are those who swore their products were the silver bullet to cure our schools' reading woes, and those who claimed their programs were built on the strongest of research to secure the largest of checks?

In the fight to defend RF and the use of SBRR in the classroom, these small, but previously profitable companies, are now quiet as church mice. We hear virtually none of them rising to defend the program that made them who they are today. They are quiet on the issue of SBRR. And they are silent on the discussion of the impact RF has had in schools and classrooms across the nation.

That is both maddening and infuriating. Eduflack hates to think these RF companies simply took the money and ran, but that seems to be the case. Congress slashes funding for RF, and these vapor-and-promise companies simply pick up and sell to the next trend and the next bucket of dollars, be it high schools, pre-K, or whatever else is coming over the horizon.

During World War II, a number of companies and individuals earned the tag of "profiteer," taking advantage of national priorities, concerns, and funding to squeeze maximum profit from the government and its people. Under the guise of patriotism, their singular goal was maximizing profit, and getting rich off the situation.

When all is said and done, the NCLB era may very well be known as the boom time for educational profiteering. And at the end of the day, those five-to-10-year-old companies whose revenue skyrocketed during the RF days will have a lot of explaining to do. At some point, we need to see ROI. And if they aren't willing to defend the program they've been suckling from these many years, do we really expect to see results?
]]> SBRR Fights Back tag:blog.eduflack.com,2008-05-20:c963953f-2b7c-445a-a0d1-5cc6cdffb188 Eduflack 2008-05-20T12:31:58Z 2008-05-20T12:02:00Z http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/02/rf-read-all-about-it.aspx)

For years now, Eduflack has been unabashedly supportive of RF. I still believe, when all is said and done, it could have a greater POSITIVE impact on education policy than any other piece of federal legislation. For that to happen, the law needs to be properly funded AND it needs to be implemented with true and complete fidelity.

Having worked with the National Reading Panel, I am a true believer in the principles embedded in RF. We know students need a comprehensive, integrated reading instruction platform that focuses on phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. We know that scientifically based reading research should rule the roost, with schools implementing only that which has been proven effective and proven to work in schools. We know that teachers must know the science. We know that students must be regularly assessed, with targeted interventions used to get all students reading at grade level.

Yet, we still debate on the value of RF and SBRR. And its been far easier to scream into the wind questioning RF. Few have been out there defending the law, calling for the need for proven research and proven instruction in our classrooms ... particularly those classes who need it the most.

In RF's darkest hours, though, we are now starting to see SBRR's strongest proponents rising to its defense. It would have been easy to just awkwardly swallow the IES study, accept Congress' funding slash, and forget the RF era. But we will not go quietly into the night.

When the IES study came out, the Fordham Foundation released a study -- penned by Sol Stern -- looking at the real failures of RF. The piece was strong, citing the operational weaknesses we've all heard. But it maintained that the law itself was still strong, worthy of our support, and needed by our students.

This week, the latest issue of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal came out, and Stern was at it again. Under the headline "Reading First Still Works," Stern presents a strong and cogent analysis of the IES study and the flaws in its methodology. We can only hope that IES will take his critique seriously, and will correct the flaws before its 2009 report is complete.

The Stern piece is well worth the read time -- http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0520ss.html. Its helps even us amateur researchers see the difference between strong and weak methodology. More importantly, though, it reminds us that programs like RF are well worth fighting for.

Here's hoping that Stern's continued work can serve as a rallying cry for RF and SBRR supporters and advocates throughout the country. Teaching our children to read is of paramount importance. Using proven effective methods is the only way to go. We need to remember that. Results should trump politics, particularly on an issue like student reading achievement. ]]>