If you've been following education news online in the last two weeks, you've probably been seeing lots of references to Reading First, the federal government's attempt to influence reading instruction nationally:

Through Reading First, states and districts receive support to apply scientifically based reading research - and the proven instructional and assessment tools consistent with this research - to ensure that all children learn to read well by the end of third grade.

The proven instructional techniques the law refers to are specified:

Phonemic awareness - the ability to hear, identify, and play with individual sounds - or phonemes - in spoken words.
Phonics - the relationship between the letters of written language and the sounds of spoken language.
Fluency - the capacity to read text accurately and quickly.
Vocabulary - the words students must know to communicate effectively.
Comprehension - the ability to understand and gain meaning from what has been read.

Since it was implemented, many districts have complained that the Reading First materials and trainings they received seemed to imply that only extremely regimented programs such as Direct Instruction and Open Court would be approved for Reading First. A Feb. 2007 report by the USDE Inspector General suggests that trainings were indeed biased, and that US Department of Education officials did not do enough to clarify that many possible programs were eligible for Reading First, not just those two.

In fact, Reading First is, to some extent, optional. Districts can choose to forgo the RF funding in order to continue using a reading program they feel is better for their students. Last Friday, in an article in the New York Times, reporter Diana Schemo described Madison, WI's decision to forgo federal Reading First funding in order to continue using their district's reading program, which they felt was highly successful. According to Schemo:

Under[Madison's] system, the share of third graders reading at the top two levels, proficient and advanced, had risen to 82 percent by 2004, from 59 percent six years earlier, even as an influx of students in poverty, to 42 percent from 31 percent of Madison’s enrollment, could have driven down test scores. The share of Madison’s black students reading at the top levels had doubled to 64 percent in 2004 from 31 percent six years earlier.

But the real story in Madison, say a variety of education commentators, is much different. Ken DeRosa who writes about education at D-Ed Reckoning went through the Wisconsin and Madison scores and concludes that the district is "spinning its numbers" to show big test score increases that are easily explained away by changes in the Wisconsin state test and the pass cutoff point. He points to the NAEP scores, which have not shown any increases.

What this story is really about, when you boil it down, is, of course, the age-old debate between proponents of reading programs based primarily on Whole Language and those who support reading programs with a much greater emphasis on phonics and skills instruction.

You can get into all the analysis of Reading First by going to any of these sources:
EdWeek
D-Ed Reckoning
This Week in Education
Joanne Jacobs

But, for my money, the most thoughtful commentary is coming from two of our most powerful education thought leaders, who have a new blog in which they exchange letters and ideas. To hear Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch think it through, go to Bridging Differences and scroll down to March 7, and then read up from there.

TEN members, what has your experience been with Reading First?

Labels: resources