Is “Reading First” a Failure?

by desertjim

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education act was premised on three goals. To focus on low-performing schools, to beef up the federal role in education and to promote teaching methods backed by “scientifically based research”. The centerpiece of the research-based approach was supposed to be Reading First. However, for at least two years, questions have been asked about an apparent push to adopt reading programs based on campaign contributions rather than on research. In 2006 the Inspector general found that states were pressured to approve materials from only a handful of preferred publishers including SRA/McGraw-Hill, whose CEO has been a major Republican fund-raiser.

In spring of this year, the Federal Department of Education released a report that indicated the reading comprehension of children participating in Reading First wasn’t growing as fast as that of children in a control group. Defenders of Reading First questioned the study’s methodology. Reid Lyon (former head the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human development) said that the report’s findings are, “Not a cause for ... political opportunism, but a cause for deliberation and careful consideration of all the possible explanations - ineffective treatment, poor implementation .. and many other factors.”

Well, the careful deliberation has taken place. The final report of the Reading First Impact Study, released today, shows no effect on reading comprehension in participating schools. The study gave reading proficiency tests to 30 to 40 thousand students, one-half of whom were in Reading First programs. The $6 billion spent on Reading First has helped more students to identify letters and words, but has not had an impact on reading comprehension among 1st, 2nd or 3rd graders. More time is spent on reading instruction in schools that received Reading First grants, but students are no more likely to become proficient readers.

Since NCLB was supposed to be based on research, the current Reading First program would seem to be a prime candidate for the ash heap. Perhaps a new iteration of the program could actually be based on science instead of cronyism, but that decision will rest with a new administration and a new Congress. I am not a reading teacher, so I cannot claim expertise in the field. Perhaps TEN readers who have experienced the effects of Reading First can react to the new study. What should be done to improve reading instruction for current 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders?

Labels: