$6 billion and "No Impact"?

Culpeper Star Exponent

Dec. 4, 2008

Robert Legge

It's hard to imagine life without the ability to read.

So naturally it's job #1 for all elementary schools. There have always been arguments about the best methods for teaching reading. In 1998, Congress appointed 14 reading experts to sort through the research to determine the best methods to teach reading in the nation's public schools.

The result was the National Reading Panel that issued their report in 2000. President Bush made its recommendations part of Reading First, a centerpiece of the No Child Left Behind Act. The federal Department of Education handed out $1 billion in Reading First grants each year to states that used prescribed "science-based" curricula.

Almost immediately there were complaints about what materials would satisfy the feds. In 2006, the DOE's inspector general admitted that the Reading First program had violated conflict of interest rules in awarding grants to favored commercial textbook publishers. The director of the program resigned after emails were released calling some less favored textbook publishers "dirtbags" intent on "crashing our party".

But officials went beyond the law, which prohibits federal employees from influencing or directing states’
decisions on curricula, tests, or instructional methods. Some DOE officials simply said that grant awarders were zealous in assuring that kids got the best materials.

But that excuse fell flat after a 2008 report from the DOE's research arm found that that the $6 billion spent on Reading First had had "no impact" on reading comprehension. Ouch. They hastened to point out that some first graders were better able to decode words mostly through phonics drills.

This should be no surprise. Returning to the National Reading Panel, a word search of the document finds 930 references to phonics or phonemic awareness. Motivate to read more got 19, literature-7, reading to child-2, and library-1.

In other words, the NRP was mostly about decoding skills that could be taught with drills and commercial materials, but precious little about the importance of encouraging reading at home where kids usually spend most of their day, especially during their first 4 years. Kids don't get excited about a favorite vowel or consonant blend. They get excited about a really cool book they are interested in. And excited readers usually become good readers.

Some struggling readers have learning disabilities that require special help, but the majority of struggling readers came to kindergarten unprepared to begin reading, having not been read to enough and/or had access to reading materials. Finland has led the world in student reading for decades. One reason is that most kids view TV with captioning. We can do that too.

Yet still we have the "Reading Wars" with some advocates promoting phonics and others lots of literature or "whole language". The Republican Party platform has included calls for more emphasis on phonics since 1996.

Most school systems have settled on a "balanced literacy" approach that includes both phonics and literacy-based programs. But students learn best when teachers customize lesson plans based on current assessments rather than rely on scripted commercial programs.

But most schools have become addicted to federal money no matter what strings are attached. VA DOE officials discount Reading First's dismal results. They only point to increasing 3rd grade SOL scores as evidence that it must be working. One school district (Fairfax) turned down the grant money this past year, finding it too restrictive. Complaints included increased testing taking away instruction time, only a prescribed list of materials allowed, and no adaptation allowed for special needs students.

In sum, Reading First was shamelessly used to promote those few companies with friends in high places. It also wasted the taxpayer's money as it did little to help kids read.

The National Reading Panel should be revisited. This time taking more time, keeping politics out, putting more emphasis on home support for literacy, not be dominated by university professors, include classroom teachers who are a better judge of what is practical for the classroom and putting far more emphasis on getting kids excited about reading.