Bridging Differences

Dear Deborah,

I am glad to see that our discussion of Reading First is getting a lot of reaction, and quite a number of interesting and well-informed responses.

I don't like mandates any more than you do, but I also think it is important to learn from experience and even, when it is cumulative, to learn from research. I think it would be irresponsible, perhaps anti-intellectual, to wave away the very extensive research that has been conducted over many years about reading. The research in "Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children," for example, should not be lightly dismissed.

Surely there are appropriate mandates: for example, the mandate not to discriminate against people because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or disability status; the mandate to provide compulsory schooling; the mandate to vaccinate all children against disease; the mandate to pay taxes, even for government activities we don't like; and various other legislated mandates that we accept without question.

I don't agree with you that American schools are "at the top" in reading. International surveys of reading—unlike those in math and science—are suspect because reading—unlike math and science—tends to be culture-bound and therefore difficult to compare across cultures. We don't see "at the top" performance on NAEP tests of reading in 4th grade or 8th grade. Government surveys of adult literacy report that the ability to read well is declining, even among college graduates. A report last year from the National Endowment for the Arts documented that young people are reading less than 10 years ago. Yes, there is a problem.

I have been appalled (as I know you are) by the mandated imposition of "balanced literacy," Everyday Math, and Lucy Calkins' "workshop model" in the NYC schools since September 2004, when Mayor Bloomberg's program began. Literacy coaches and math coaches were detailed to every school to make sure that every teacher was doing exactly the same thing in every classroom. Every hour, every minute of the literacy and math class was tightly scripted. Teachers were disciplined if they went "off point." I heard similar stories in San Diego about professional development sessions that seemed to be akin to Chinese re-education camps. Behind this lockstep approach is the belief that there is only one correct way to teach and that those who dare to think otherwise are troublemakers. The results of this mandate that forced balanced literacy and the workshop model on every teacher, whether they liked it or not, have been unimpressive to date. The system can compel compliance, but it can't compel enthusiasm.

I suggest that here on the ground in NYC, the mandated balanced literacy/workshop model has been far more consequential than Reading First, about which so many fulminate. Forty-five elementary schools in NYC have received Reading First funds. But over 1,300 have been subject to the lockstep, inflexible mandates imposed by Chancellor Joel Klein.

I join you as a charter member of the tolerance-for-uncertainty club. One of my favorite quotations comes from Robert Hutchins. He said that you must always keep listening to the other person because they may be right.

So let's keep talking. May I suggest that we move on to a discussion of the "Tough Choices, Tough Times" report? I see that Education Week had a discussion with two of its signatories on March 14, so this is timely.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 7:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

You're right, Reading First is not mandatory. I just visited a school in Oakland that turned down being part of a Reading First initiative because they thought it wrong-headed. I wish others were as professionally responsible. But the published correspondence between the leaders of Reading First demonstrates with what glee and persistence they went about the task of twisting arms—especially in Districts with needy kids under threat of NCLB sanctions. Diane, if the next administration chose to use the same pressure on behalf of Balanced Literacy (as California once did re whole-language—to my dismay at the time), I think we might agree it was abusive. Still you are right to remind me that the fault lies both with those who tried to bribe districts into using their favorite methods and those who took the bribe.

I'll accept the idea that the bribe was offered with good intent, by people who think there is only one best method. It scares me since at this point research into learning proves only one thing: that there is more than one right method. Other examples: research shows that holding kids over does not—usually—help. I still believe that school people and parents are in the best position to make such decisions based on their firsthand knowledge about how it might impact on a particular child in a particular school. Ditto for spelling research, etc.

There is a strong tendency to want to remove controversy from school life and base our decisions on Science. We too often assume Science removes uncertainty. Untrue. The ground between Infallible Certainty and Infallible Faith is above all what schools need to prepare our future citizens for. Democracy requires us to act "as if" we could be wrong. Tolerance for uncertainty is a critical quality of being a well-educated person—for teachers also. It's in our ability to negotiate in this vast in-between that democracy rests. We're not seeking to remove fallible judgment, but to better inform it.

Since, as I mentioned before, American schools rank near the top in teaching kids "how-to read"—based on international test score data of 4th graders—the panic and passion on this narrow subject is curious. I'd like us to explore instead why this edge disappears in later years. It may relate to how we formally introduced reading to 5 year olds—or may not.

I'm back to what first amazed me when I subbed in Chicago schools: how is it that kids who seemed so lively and smart on the playground in front of my house seemed so passive and "dumb" in school?

Deborah

Posted by Deborah Meier at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Deb,

I don’t think you understand how the Reading First program works. No state or district is compelled by federal mandates to use the reading methods specified by the Reading First program. No state is required to apply for RF funding. No district is required to accept RF funding. The Reading First dollars are available only to states and districts that apply for them. Reading First is a competitive grant program.

For example, in New York State, the RF money went only to districts that sought the money and then only for a limited number of schools that were prepared to follow the law’s guidelines. The districts had to fill out an application saying that the schools would accept the requirements of the program to use only methods based on “scientifically based reading research.”

New York City, which has about 800 or so elementary schools requested RF funding for 46 public elementary schools and 36 nonpublic (mainly Catholic) schools. The State Education Department reviewed all the proposals and the city received $107 million for three years. (A few months ago, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education said that New York state should refund the $107 million to the feds because NYC’s application didn’t receive enough points from reviewers, and the state had arbitrarily awarded bonus points to the city. This matter is still in dispute.)

The point is that states are not required to accept Reading First funds, nor are districts. The states do not lose ESEA funding if they do not apply for Reading First funding. You are confusing Reading First with No Child Left Behind. States do have to comply with NCLB requirements if they want to continue to receive federal funding. But again, Reading First money goes only to districts that request the funding, and even then not to all schools in a district.

Some newspapers (such as The New York Times) have frequently attacked Reading First, but I don’t think the reporters realize that states and districts get the money only if they ask for it. Nor have they reported the success stories associated with Reading First. Consider the contrast between inner-city Richmond, Virginia, which sought Reading First money, and Fairfax County, Virginia, which did not. Richmond’s schools, 95% black and more than 70% free lunch, have been among Virginia’s lowest performing; Fairfax County is an affluent, high performing district. Richmond implemented RF programs in its lowest performing schools. Since adopting RF methods, African American third-graders in inner-city Richmond have surpassed African American third-graders in rich Fairfax County on state tests, by 74% to 59%. (For more on this story, see Sol Stern, “This Bush Education Reform Really Works,” City Journal, Winter 2007 .

I agree with you that different methods work with different kids who have different needs. The problem is that for many years, whole language—or some variant of whole language—was the only method found in most schools. Kids who were not learning to read were called “learning disabled” or promoted from grade to grade not knowing how to read. Few schools of education even taught reading methods that relied on phonics for beginning readers, except for special education. If you truly believe, as you say, that “teachers need to understand how to instruct in various ways,” then you should agree that teachers need to know how to teach phonics and the correspondence between letters and sounds as one of those “various ways.”

We agree that, beginning in the earliest grades, children should have lots of time devoted to science, the arts, stories about historical persons, and classic children’s literature. Knowledge about the world and immersion in literature and science builds vocabulary and background knowledge. Jeanne Chall knew this; her wise and wonderful book "Learning to Read: The Great Debate" should be required (oops, sorry) reading for everyone who cares about these issues, as we all should.

Unlike you, I don’t think that a knowledge-rich curriculum is inconsistent with learning to crack the code that unlocks the English language. Many kids learn to crack the code at home, because their parents read to them and teach them the code. Many more need help to do it.

That’s the purpose of Reading First, and given that no state or district gets RF funds unless they put in an application, I don’t see why this is a problem for you.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 7:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

We were both irritated by Chancellor Klein's effort to mandate that all teachers in NYC use the Lucy Calkins Writing Workshop Method. So it surprised me that you were sympathetic to the Federal government for doing the same re Reading First. I sometimes think it may stem from where we see ourselves in the pecking order of power—with me always imagining myself in the position of the receiver not deliverer of orders. But the many unexpected ways intelligent people—including 5 year olds—make sense of the same world is why I love being a teacher! So let's explore this difference.

Re: your argument that it's not a mandate, but strictly voluntary. Well…yes, the states can turn down ESEA funds. But at a fairly heavy price and one that would fall on the most vulnerable kids.

Secondly, we need a longer discussion about the Reading Panel report upon which Reading First's claims are based. Of course if kids are not instructed in certain pre-reading activities they will do worse on measures of these activities. But whether such prereading skills are necessary for reading comprehension is a different question. Yes, for some kids. No, for others. That's a fact. (Even the study was far more nuanced than Reading First's interpretation.)

Thirdly, the Panelists definition of successful readers and mine are not the same. By 4th grade US kids are right behind the top scoring Finns who don't teach reading at all until kids are 7 years old. What matters after 4th grade is not whether they can but whether they are "in the habit" of picking up books. I think certain forms of learning to read are obstacles to developing the habit and love of reading. See the minority report by panelist Elaine Garan, Resisting Reading Mandates, Heineman Press.

Fourth, one-size no more fits learning how to read than learning how to do anything else. Doctors know that sometimes only trial and error can tell which medicine will work. Ditto for reading. ETS researchers Chittenden, Amarel, and Bussis, ( Inquiry Into Meaning, Teachers College Press) followed fairly typical kids learning to read and concluded that teachers need to understand how to instruct in various ways if they were to create classrooms that served all kids.

Finally, there are those unintended consequences of different approaches to teaching reading. As a teacher I started with the easiest and most natural approach first because it saved a lot of time. It's all most kids needed. When we spend time on one thing, we have less for others. So I had time to devote to science, social studies, the arts, and the sheer love of the language, written and spoken. Lucky are the Finnish children who are allowed to "read the world", not just "the word" in their early years of schooling. Given the complexity of what we lately assume all children need to be explicitly taught it's no wonder that our elementary schools teach almost nothing but literacy any more.

My friend George Wood has taken to reading to audiences Story 117—A Girl in a Cave—from the approved Reading First system produced by SRA/Macmillan/McGraw Hill. It makes one long for Dick and Jane. That's the fix I'd be in today were I still teaching Kindergarten.

Sure, our judgment is fallible, but it's at the heart of the democratic ideal—which is also fallible.

As a friend wrote me: The phaenmenl pweor of the hmuan mind azmaes me. Aoccdrnig to a rsaeerch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy it doenost mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olnyu iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm, Amzanig huh?

Deb

p.s. I'm avoiding for the moment the Inspector General's report on how Reading First created its list of Approved vendors.

Posted by Deborah Meier at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Deborah,

So much is happening and I am afraid that I jumped ahead and wrote a blog entry on the upheavals in NYC before I saw your post about teaching reading.

Here is the bottom line on the federal Reading First program.

No one in the federal government, not the Department of Education, not the Congress, tells teachers how to teach reading. Any teacher can use any program or method they prefer without federal dictates or interference. Nothing in the law says otherwise.

The Reading First program is a part of No Child Left Behind that got bipartisan support. It provides an extra billion dollars a year to districts that agree to use methods based on the research funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development over the past 15 years. That research was conducted during the eight years of the Clinton administration as well as the tail end of the first Bush administration (I was there, working in the US Department of Education and was not aware of the NICHD research, which was still new at the time).

You may not like the findings of this research, even though it was reflected in the report compiled by Catherine Snow's panel ("Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children," 1997) and the National Reading Panel (2000), but if not, then you or your school or your district should not apply for Reading First dollars. NYC got a big chunk of Reading First dollars ($107 million), even though only a tiny proportion of its schools intended to abide by the law's requirements.

The betting in DC is that the Democratic Congress will reauthorize Reading First. They don't see it as partisan.

Diane

Posted by Diane Ravitch at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Diane,

Glad to hear you are of two minds about this “scientifically-proven” stuff that the Bush administration is so fond of touting when it comes to K-12 schooling. To pursue the point a bit.

Why do I think the Bush Administration claim to stand for science when it comes to teaching reading to be nonsense? Since being well educated rests, I’d argue, on respect for credible evidence and learning from the past it would seem I’d count Bush as an ally. (I would perhaps chuckle at the irony that the Bushites require obedience to "scientific evidence" when it comes to prescribing how Johnny learns to read but not the scientific consensus on global warming, or the origins of the species.)

So why do I cringe every time I hear that phrase? Because there is nothing comparable in the science or consensus behind the research on learning to read that should allow the Federal government to dictate particular publisher products to the nation's schools, nor ever likely to be. It’s dumbing down Science. Even in the field of medicine or related fields like nutrition we are more humble about the role of science. When I showed three highly regarded doctors my x-rays, described my symptoms and underwent an examination not long ago, I got more than one opinion. In the end, despite my enormous respect for the profession, I had to exercise my judgment. Good doctors are, furthermore, aware that individuals differ and what’s best for x may not for y. Unlike the Fed’s understanding of reading research.

Fortunately Big Brother doesn't dictate that overweight people buy specific brand-named diet cures, or that we outlaw coffee one year and then require it the next based on the latest Science research. Yet defining and measuring good reading is more, not less complex than losing weight, or testing the impact of coffee. For some odd reason when it comes to the teaching of reading we have allowed the Department of Education to exercise the power of the purse to dictate which reading methods we buy, in the name of Science!

Deborah

(p.s. It would help if teachers had the professional time to be the wisest professionals they could be, still I’m not prepared to substitute the wisdom of those who do not know my kids at all for the school’s judgment and mine.)

Posted by Deborah Meier at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)