Reading First: Hard to Live With—or Without

Abstract

Responding to these four exemplary state-level studies of Reading First evoked mixed feelings. On one hand, I was impressed by the commitment of my colleagues in taking on the responsibility for evaluating a significant effort to direct resources on the all-important goal of achieving early success (K-3) in order to reduce the need for directing additional remedial resources to older students who have failed in our system. In an ironic way, Reading First promotes the very same goal as Reading Recovery (intensive early intervention before failure has a chance to settle into the culture of schools and the recesses of children's minds), albeit with a decidedly distinct theoretical framework and set of core practices. I enjoyed these four reports from Utah, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida very much, and learned from the close reading my review required, especially gratifying was the range of theoretical and methodological approaches that competent scholars bring to the evaluation process. I left the experience feeling that there is hope that we might actually learn something from evaluation studies after all. On the other hand, I found myself saying, all too often, I wonder why they did not do X, where X was some design detail that I wish they had handled differently. I will raise several of those issues later on in this essay.Reading these four cases also conjured up all of the tensions I felt when I first read the disappointing results in the Reading First Impact

Reading Coaches and the Relationship Between Policy and Practice

“…Reading First has been the subject of considerable debate in the United States, with controversy surrounding the approach to reading instruction that it promoted (Pearson, ; Stevens, ; Yatvin, Weaver, & Garan, ), the nature of student outcomes (Coburn et al, ; Gamse, Jacob, Horst, Boulay, & Unlu, ; Pearson, ; Scott, ), and allegations of conflict of interest in awarding government contracts associated with the initiative (Manzo, ; U.S. Government Accountability Office, ). Additionally, some have vociferously debated the uses and implications of the widely adopted assessment under Reading First: the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, ; Goodman, ; Manzo, ).…”

“…Reading First has been the subject of considerable debate in the United States, with controversy surrounding the approach to reading instruction that it promoted (Pearson, 2007;Stevens, 2003;Yatvin, Weaver, & Garan, 2003), the nature of student outcomes (Coburn et al, 2010;Gamse, Jacob, Horst, Boulay, & Unlu, 2008;Pearson, 2010;Scott, 2007), and allegations of conflict of interest in awarding government contracts associated with the initiative (Manzo, 2007;U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2007).…”

What Can Students Do With the Words They Know? An ELA Teacher Takes on Science

“…Ann provided evidence of naturalistic morphology instruction through classroom discussion. Beck (2010) and Pearson (2010) have called for such examples, and Snow (2015) has emphasized the need for views of how teachers implement research-based practices.…”

Reading aloud in an era of common core: An exploratory study of the perspectives of primary teachers serving African American children in low-income communities

“…Most importantly, some teachers originally thought the CCSS ELA did not dictate any particular instructional approach. While its predecessor, Reading First, supported the use of highly scripted instructional materials and produced marginal improvements in student reading achievement (Beck, 2010; Gamse et al., 2008; Pearson, 2010), the CCSS ELA purported to advocate teacher autonomy, or control over how to teach standards. However, the release of the Publisher’s Guide, which included scripted lessons and instructional guides, may have reduced teacher control in cases where teachers were encouraged to use curriculum materials produced after the development of Common Core with fidelity (Pearson and Hiebert, 2013).…”

“…These initiatives have heavily shaped literacy teaching and learning with a focus on disparity reduction in literacy achievement among culturally diverse student groups. Unfortunately, the impact of such policies on student reading achievement and reading instruction is mixed (Beck, 2010; Gamse et al., 2008; Pearson, 2010; Shanahan and Duffett, 2013). In other words, there is little consensus or firm evidence to document substantial positive outcomes of reading policy implementation.…”