The road to federal reforms
Michael C. McKenna
University of Virginia
Sharon Walpole
University of Delaware
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
is a long and winding one…
Let’s start at the beginning.
1600s
• John Locke proposes precursor of
synthetic phonics by having children
build words with letter dice.
• Reading and spelling are taught
together
1700’s
• Word-building approaches continue.
• “Reading Wars” begin, in effect, when
Rousseau attacks Locke’s methods and
recommends relying on motivation.
People make a great fuss about discovering
the best way to teach children to read. They
use desks and cards and turn a child’s room
into a print shop. Locke would teach them to
read with dice. Now is that not a clever idea!
What a pity! A means surer than all of these …
is simply the desire to learn. Give the child this
desire, and you can forget your desks and
your dice – any method will be good enough.
Jean Jacques Rousseau, Emile, 1762
1786
• Noah Webster publishes The American
Spelling Book (actually a revision of his
previous work)
• Multi-leveled
• Reading and spelling
 are taught together
William McGuffey
1800s
• Reading and spelling remain linked.
• Phonics is emphasized in the McGuffey Readers.
• Reading Wars continue as Horace Mann ridicules
phonics and recommends a meaning-based
approach.
Horace Mann
Letters are “bloodless,
ghostly apparitions.”
Horace Mann
1st Half of 20th Century
• Modern basals take shape and phonics emphasis
declines.
• Importance of automatic word recognition of
high-frequency words is recognized.
• Dolch word list published in 1936.
• Spelling taught separately and deemphasized.
1940s and 50s
• “Look-Say” approach is
dominant, emphasizing sight
word acquisition.
• Phonics is minimized.
• Basal stories stress repetition of
high-frequency words.
• Dick and Jane are born but
refuse to grow up.
Why do you think these pendulum
swings have occurred?
Can we stop the pendulum in the
middle?
If so, would that constitute “balance”?
What do you know about
“Balanced Reading”?
What are we trying to
balance?
• Isolated skills instruction with meaningdriven reading and writing?
• Teacher-driven curriculum with statecontrolled curriculum?
• Phonics with whole language?
• Small-guided reading with whole-class basal
instruction?
• Authentic, teacher-administered assessment
with standardized testing?
What is whole
language anyway?
Whole language is an approach to literacy education that
emphasizes natural development of literacy
competence. Immersion in real literature and daily
writing is favored over explicit teaching of basic
reading skills. Skills instruction occurs in whole
language classrooms on an as-needed basis only, and
then only in the context of real reading and writing,
rather than as a focal point of instruction.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for
balanced teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
To be honest, it took me a long time to
learn a lesson most researchers and
school administrators have not yet
learned: no research study, no brilliant
discovery, no book, no seminal article, no
journal, no program, no policy, no
mandate, no law can change what
happens to kids in our schools. Only
teachers can do that.
Goodman, K. (1992). I didn’t found Whole Language.
Reading Teacher, 46, 188-199.
What is the
phonics
argument?
Learning to read is not a “natural” process.
Most children must be taught to read
through a structured and protracted process
in which they are made aware of sounds and
the symbols that represent them, and then
learn to apply these skills automatically and
attend to meaning.
Moats, L. C. (2000). Whole Language lives on: The illusion of “balanced” reading
instruction. Washington, D.C.: Fordham Foundation.
Where should we stand?
• Outside of the argument?
• In the middle?
• On both sides?
Plan
• Description/characteristics of seminal
studies and policy responses
Big Issues
• What do we “know” about
development, curriculum, instruction?
• What does it mean to know?
• How much control should the
government have?
• How much freedom should teachers
and schools have?
Now back to memory lane …
1955
• Rudolph Flesch publishes Why Johnny
Can’t Read
• Theoretical but popular book about the
need for phonics instruction
Sputnik, 1957
Russians launch first artificial satellite
• Space race is born
• “Missile gap” develops, favoring USSR
• American paranoia soon focuses on education
• Reader’s Digest publishes “Can Ivan Read
Better than Johnny?”
Elementary and
Secondary Education
Act of 1965
Title I: One billion dollars of federal
money to improve reading and math
skills of poor children
Chall, 1967
Learning to read: The great debate
• Private funding
• Research synthesis plus observations and
interviews
• Concluded that research supports a “code
emphasis” in beginning reading
• Balanced approach, with phonics for beginning
and struggling readers
Guy Bond
Bond & Dykstra
(1967/1997)
The First-Grade Studies (RRQ)
• Federally funded studies at multiple sites
• Experimental design, but problematic
• Key findings:
– Phonics better than no phonics
– Teachers more important than programs
NAEP, 1969
National Assessment of Educational Progress
• Large-scale federal assessment program begins
• Stratified sample is tested in reading, math,
science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and
the arts
• Results are reported for the nation as a whole, for
large regions, for ethic groups, genders, etc.
• Results are NOT reported by state, district, or
school
• NAEP is therefore not high stakes.
CSR, 1976
Center for the Study of Reading founded
• Federally funded
• Main mission was to conduct research into
reading comprehension
• Located at the University of Illinois
• Underscored the notion of “strategic reading”
• Still exists, but without federal funding
Anderson, Hiebert,
Scott, & Wilkinson,
1985
Becoming a nation of readers
• Published by CSR
• Best-selling reading book of all time
• Supported a balanced approach, including both
phonics and read-alouds, both reading and
writing
Dick Anderson
Adams, 1990
Beginning to read:
Thinking and learning about print
• Federally funded
• Research synthesis
• Summary published by CSR in 1990
• Early establishment of alphabetic principle;
coordination of orthographic, phonological,
semantic, and syntactic processors
NRRC, 1992
National Reading Research Center founded
• Federally funded
• Main mission was to conduct research into
reading engagement
• Shared by University of Georgia and
University of Maryland
• Ended its five-year span in 1997
Steve Stahl,
UGA
John Guthrie,
UMD
NAEP, 1992
National Assessment of Educational Progress
• Federal assessment program publishes state results
for the first time
• California, spearhead of whole language in America,
finishes near last in NAEP Reading, a result that
demographics cannot explain.
• Whole language is blamed, perhaps simplistically,
for California’s plight.
• Bill Honig, California state superintendent, leaves
office and becomes phonics-firster.
Bill Honig
NAEP, 1992
Whole language died of
natural causes in California
Steve Stahl
CIERA, 1997
• Center for the Improvement of Early
Reading Achievement founded in 1997
• Federally funded
• Focus on beginning reading
• Library of reports is still online
(http://www.ciera.org/library/index.html)
• Consortium of five universities:
• Michigan, Michigan State, Virginia,
Georgia, Southern Cal
P. David Pearson
Catherine Snow
Snow, Burns,
& Griffin, 1998
Preventing reading difficulties in young children
• Federally funded panel
• Research synthesis
• Included context (home and school)
• Phonemic awareness and phonics, especially for
children at risk of failure
Reading Excellence Act
of 1998
• Clinton administration’s reform legislation,
based on 1997 priority that “all students will
read independently and well by the end of
third grade.”
• $260 million in state grants
– Professional development
– Instructional materials
– Assessments
• Scientifically based reading
research/instruction
Process
• State Grants
• Expert Reviews
• Local Grants
(Each year had a deadline for applications;
failed applications were sent back for
rewriting until the next year’s competition;
there was no guarantee of funding.)
National Reading Panel, 2000
• Federally funded through National Institutes
of Health and Human Development
• Research synthesis, limited to experimental
and quasi-experimental methodology
• Subgroup reports in phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
comprehension, teacher education, and
technology
No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001
(Reauthorization of ESEA of 1965)
• Annual spending of 12 billion
dollars for Title I
• 1.9 billion to the states in
Reading First
(professional development,
curriculum materials,
assessments, evaluations)
No Child Left
Behind:
A primer
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/
leg/esea02/index.html
What do you know about NCLB?
NCLB
• NCLB became law in 2002
– New federal moneys to the states
• Historically, 90% of education spending comes from the states
• Federal moneys come in the form of categorical grants which
the states can accept or decline, such as IDEA
– New federal involvement in education
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Structure of the law
Title I
Improving
Basic programs, reading,
academic
migrant children,
achievement of
prevention and intervention
the disadvantaged for neglected, delinquent,
or at-risk children, national
assessment of Title I,
comprehensive school
reform, advanced
placement, dropout
prevention
Structure of the law
Title II
Preparing, training Teacher and principal
and recruiting
training and recruitment,
high quality
math and science,
teachers and
innovation for teacher
principals
quality,
technology
Structure of the law
Language
instruction for
limited English
proficient and
immigrant
students
Title III
English language
acquisition,
improving language
instruction
Structure of the law
21st Century
Schools
Title IV
Safe and drug-free schools,
21st century learning
centers,
Tobacco smoke
Structure of the law
Title V
Promoting
Innovative programs,
informed parental public charter schools,
choice and
magnet schools
innovation
Structure of the law
Flexibility and
accountability
Title VI
Improving academic
achievement,
rural education
Structure of the law
Title VII
Indian, Hawaiian, Indian education,
and Alaskan native Native Hawaiian education
education
Alaska native education
Structure of the law
Title VIII
Impact aid
program
Structure of the law
Title IX
General provisions Definitions,
Flexibility,
Coordination,
Waivers,
Uniform provisions,
Unsafe school choice
Structure of the law
Repeals,
redesignations,
and amendments
Title X
Repeals,
Redesignations,
Homeless education,
Native American education
improvement,
Higher education act of
1965
General education
provisions act
4 major principles
1.
2.
3.
4.
Accountability
Research-based instruction
Local control and flexibility
Parental choice
Accountability
• States must make plans
– Rigorous academic standards
– Assessments every year from grades 3 to 8
in both reading and math
• Assessment data must be reported
– Individually, by subgroup, by school
– Low-ses, disabled, LEP, race, ethnicity
– Annual report cards
Standards
• Reading-language arts, math, and
science
– What students must know and do
– Coherent and rigorous
– Encourage teaching of advanced skills
• Elementary years grade-by-grade or in
clusters; secondary years end
proficiencies
Accountability
• Assessments must include at least
three levels (advanced, proficient,
basic)
• At least 95% of individuals in each
subgroup must take the assessment
– Annually in Reading and Math 3-8
– Once between 10 and 12
– Science added in 2006
Students with
Disabilities
• Standards are the same, but not
necessarily conditions
– Accommodations?
– Alternative assessments?
– Discretion left to the states to prepare
guidelines
Students with LEP
• LEP students must be included
– Accommodations
– First-language versions (until 3 years of
schooling in US)
• State plans must include testing of oral
language, reading and writing for LEP
students
Cross-state comparisons
• NAEP in 4th grade and 8th grade in reading,
math, and other areas every two years
– Data are reported at the national and state level
rather than at the school or individual level
• Results appear as the Reading Report Card,
available online:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
Percent Below Basic
Grade 8
Public reporting
• State report cards
• District report cards
• School report cards
Measuring AYP
• States must measure adequate yearly progress of
districts and schools to the goal of 100% proficiency
by 2013
• Starting point: average proficiency in the lowestperforming school district or the lowest-performing
subgroup (whichever is higher)
• Annual increase is the state-level goal that moves
from the starting point to 100% by 2013
Safe harbor
• If the total scores in a school or district
indicate AYP, but one subgroup fails,
schools can meet AYP if failure was
reduced in the subgroup by at least
10%
AYP rewards
• States must reward schools with
especially good progress in a two-year
period, either with money or with
recognition
AYP sanctions
• Two consecutive years of failure to make AYP =
identified for improvement
– State must provide technical assistance; school must make
an improvement plan
– Parents must be notified and offered choice
• Three consecutive years of failure to make AYP =
continued improvement
– Addition of supplemental educational services
AYP sanctions
• Four consecutive years of failure to make AYP =
corrective action
– Restructuring, firing, extending the school day and year,
assignment of outside expert
• Five consecutive years of failure to make AYP =
restructuring
– Remove and replace all administration, reopen as a charter
school, consider an outside private management company
Adequate yearly
progress
• The act specifies that all children will
be proficient in reading and math by
2013-2014
– AYP is the minimum level of improvement
necessary each year
Research-based
instruction
• Federal funds can not be used except to fund
programs and practices with reliable evidence of
effectiveness
• What Works Clearinghouse established to share
information on research-based instruction
http://www.w-w-c.org
(Now linked to GARF PD Web site)
Highly qualified
teachers
• Elementary school: Bachelor’s degree, full state
certification, general proficiency tests (e.g., Praxis
general tests)
• Middle and high school: Same plus subject-specific
tests (e.g., Praxis specific tests)
• Special education teachers: Same plus subjectspecific tests in ALL the areas in which they teach!
Current teachers
• States make a plan for documenting
that current teachers are highly
qualified
• Alternative certification routes are
also available
Paraprofessionals
• Paraprofessionals can provide direct
instructional support to children if
teachers supervise them
• Beginning in 2002, they must have two
years of college!
Local control and
flexibility
• States can combine federal funds from
one program to another without
seeking federal approval
What are the current issues in
implementation and reauthorization of
NCLB?
Reading First Process
• States grants reviewed by expert panels
• Feedback and chances for revision
• States identified eligible districts,
provided technical assistance, and ran
grant competitions
• Schools, nested in districts
RAND report, 2002
• Privately funded panel
• Model of and research about text
comprehension
• Agenda for researchers
Education Sciences
Reform Act of 2002
Federally-funded educational research
now held to the SBRR standard?
Institute for Education Sciences
Russ Whitehurst
What Works
Clearinghouse
• Federally funded source for summaries
of evidence of effectiveness of
programs, products, and strategies
http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/
The Partnership for
Reading
NIFL, the Secretary of Education, and the
director of NICHD must collaborate to
disseminate information, including
information for parents
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/
National Reading First
Centers, 2004
• Technical assistance centers funded to
support Reading First in the states
– Resources
– Reviews
– Capacity building efforts
– Consultation
http://www.fcrr.org/ERRFTAC.htm
Striving Readers, 2005
• Enhance overall reading achievement in
middle and high schools
• Improve the literacy skills of struggling
adolescent readers
• Help build a strong, scientific, research
base around specific strategies that
improve adolescent literacy skills.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/
index.html
The general argument
• We know how children learn to read
• We know how to study educational
issues
• It’s just a matter of getting that
information into classrooms