Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


[Susan notes: As Stephen Krashen observes, "This is an amazing letter, concisely presenting and explaining the problems with Reading First. I intend to share this with several thousand people, and I hope others will also circulate it widely."]

Submitted to Education Week but not published
06/04/2008

To the editor





Thanks to Kathleen Kennedy Manzo for her attempt to make sense of the research on Reading First



It took seven years, billions of dollars, and a few million victims as

young as five for the press and the politicians to realize that far

from being the fool-press scientific answer to the nation's literacy

crisis,Reading First is an absurd unworkable program,. Ironically, when

the Bush administration finally sponsored a study to see if Reading

First improved reading comprehension, as Congress had required, the

study showed no benefit. Yes, it was a flawed study. But it was designed

to prove Reading First successful and it failed to do so.



One basic flaw in the study is that it compared the comprehension of

reading first students to a control group that didn't have Reading

First. But there was no attempt to examine what they did have. That has

led many of us to play the "What if" game.



Congress mandated, in the Reading First law, a single methodology and

put the power to intepret and impliment that methodology through control

of the funding process in the hands of a small group of reading

ideologues, centered at the University of Oregon, who trusted no one but

themselves and who forced their own tests and texts on states and districts.



What if instead of that the law had permitted states and districts to

choose from a variety of clear alternative reading methodologies with a

history of support by educational researchers and professionals,

including the much maligned whole language. What we know now is that

the Reading Firsst methodology with its extreme focus on drill on

phonics didn't produce comprehension. If there had been a variety of

methods supported we could have compared them to each other regularly

throughout the years of Reading First implimentation. Instead we had

claims, made on the basis of DIBELS scores which include no measure of

the quality of comprehension, that reading first was successful. Yes it

was successful at teaching kids to respond to nonsense items in three

seconds and to rush through incoherent texts calling the names of words.

But it wasn't successful in helping learners make sense of print.



Throughout the implimentaion of reading first there has been an

atmosphere of coercion and intimidation. Teachers have been punished for

raising questions during their "training" to use the mandated tests,

texts and methodology. What if teachers had the option to teach in a

school that used a methodology they believed in as professionals? What

if the tests and texts mandated by Reading First had gone through the

usual review process that each state and district had been using prior

to Reading First? Could any of the poorly constructed and absurd

matrials forced into the schools under Reading First have passed such

professional review?



What if even half f this enormous sum of money misused by the Reading

First profiteers had been used to fund a full range of programs

evaluated by unbiased third parties?



To me the answer to these "what ifs" is clear. We would know much more

about effective reading instruction. We would have much happier

students, teachers and parents. We would not be losing dedicated,

professional teachers who can't stay in teaching if they are forced to

teach in ways they believe hurt kids. We would not have urban districts

forced to close schools because they failed to meet unachievable goals.

And we would have far fewer kids labeled as failures in their first week

of kindergarten.



Ken Goodman

Professor Emeritus

Language, Reading and Culture

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

520 7456895

email Kgoodman@u.arizona.edu



__._,_.___

Ken Goodman


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.