Michael F. Shaughnessy
Senior Columnist EdNews.org
Eastern New Mexico University

G. Reid Lyon has served as advisor to President George W. Bush, has been a Professor at the University of Vermont, Northwestern and the University of Alabama and is the primary architect of the federal " Reading First Program". He received his Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico in 1978 and continues to write, publish, and consult on issues related to reading. In this interview, he responds to questions in an attempt to clarify misconceptions about Reading First and reading instruction in general.

1) You have been intimately involved with the development of Reading First.What is the background for your work in reading and how does that relate to Reading First?

The relationship between my work and the eventual development of the Reading First program goes back to 1976 when I began to study reading development and reading difficulties.At that time, I was interested in asking – and trying to answer three basic questions:(1) how does someone learn to read – that is, what are the skills, environments, family variables, instructional factors, neurobiology and genetics that provide the foundation for proficient reading; (2) why do some children (and adults) have difficulty learning to read; and most importantly, (3) what can be done to prevent and/or remediate reading difficulties.

Obviously, there was no way I or any one person could adequately address these questions but I was lucky enough to meet and work with many colleagues over the past three decades that worked together in multidisciplinary teams to get a pretty good handle on the answers.

Much of the research information bearing on these questions was obtained through literally hundreds of studies supported by the NICHD within the National Institutes of Health.I was fortunate to direct the research program that brought together scientists from education, psychology, cognitive neuroscience, pediatrics, radiology, linguistics, sociology, demography and economics who labored at 44 sites across the country.

The majority of these sites carried out longitudinal studies with over 44,000 kids and adults, many for at least nine years and some still ongoing working with people who are now in their thirties.

Given that they started as 5-year-olds, that is a long time to study someone.What was pretty rare about these studies was that they addressed both normal reading development, as well as atypical reading development.

Thus, there was an opportunity to gain a pretty comprehensive understanding of how the reading process unfolded in alphabetic languages like English and Spanish (and other languages) as well as in non-alphabetic languages like Chinese.

This background is only important because the research obtained through the NICHD studies as well as studies supported through the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation, formed the evidentiary background upon which Reading First rests.

As the data from these studies were showing replicated findings with respect to the three major questions noted earlier, events were unfolding in the mid-1990s that led educators and policy makers to request objective, scientific data for policy purposes.

The impetus for moving to a data driven reading policy framework was based on the simple fact that millions of kids were not learning to read, and reading failure was epidemic among kids from poverty – kids who did not have the advantages of being read to on a consistent basis or having the opportunity to be raised in a language rich home.

To be sure, many kids from middle class families have a tough time learning to read but not nearly at the level observed among kids from poor families.

What is amazing is that money from a number of federally funded education programs had been thrown at the reading issue without any discernable effect – and this went on year after year.It is mind boggling when you think about it.

It was as if anything thought of as remotely related to effective reading instruction, was tried with these kids without determining whether it was in any way beneficial in improving reading capabilities and under what conditions it was beneficial.It was human experimentation in the most negative sense and reflected nothing more than trial and error.A persistent idea was that learning to read was natural – similar to the ease by which kids learn to listen and speak.

The problem is, as good as it sounds, that was an idea that was never validated through trustworthy research and it ending up harming untold numbers of kids.No one seemed to care about evidence of effectiveness – indeed many in the educational world have felt that evidence was in the eye of the beholder, without any regard for either the tenants of science or common sense.

In 1996 and 1997, Bill Goodling, Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee and his staff asked for briefings on the state of the science on how children learn to read and how to help those who were having difficulties.He was extremely concerned that far too many kids were failing to learn to read and thus failing in school and in other areas of their lives.As Chairman Goodling and his staff saw the converging scientific evidence indicating that we could reduce reading failure dramatically by implementing instructional programs that had been found to be effective, two questions were asked: why are we not implementing these programs and strategies, given that we know for whom they are effective and the conditions under which they are effective?

And, why is there such a gap between what we know works and what we are currently doing (and basically always have done) and why in the world does that gap continue to exist?

Subsequently, Chairman Goodling asked me to provide testimony to his committee on several occasions to summarize what we had learned about reading at the NICHD and the difficulties we observed in the implementation of this information.

When asked by congressional members whether the educational community – and more specifically, the reading community, would embrace the scientific findings and implement them in teacher preparation programs and in the classroom, I had to say no.

Unfortunately, our analysis of the conditions under which science could inform educational policies and practices indicated that many barriers existed including, but not limited to, an anti-scientific spirit that pervaded mainstream education, a lack of accountability for results, a tendency toward postmodern and other philosophical positions on teaching and learning, a tendency to implement instructional strategies and programs on the basis of tradition, anecdotes, and untested assumptions (e.g., reading develops naturally), and a lack of attention to evidence-based instruction in teacher colleges.

And, we also found that educational practices were rarely changed to any discernable degree by widely read policy papers and reviews and policy studies carried out by major think tanks and universities. The gaps between what we knew scientifically and what was implemented in schools remained.

Let me be clear, this gap was not a function of difficulties in implementing proven instructional practices.The gap remained because science could not compete with status quo.

Given this as background, the thinking was that the only way we could change the way in that evidence-based reading instructional programs were developed and implemented was to make federal funding contingent upon the level of scientific support for particular programs and professional development.

To cut to the chase, if reading instructional products did not contain the essential features of an effective program, they could not be purchased with Federal funds.

These policy discussions led to the Passage of the Reading Excellence Act (REA) and subsequently Reading First (RF).

2) What have been your main concerns about Reading First?

As I have written in several venues, both Bob Sweet and I were concerned when the criteria for receiving Reading First funding was modified from what we had recommended – which was that funding should be provided for programs with proven effectiveness – to a "softer" criterion that programs had to be based on Scientifically Based Reading Research (SBRR).

We predicted that this change would stimulate a number of unintended consequences ranging from many programs claiming that they were based on SBRR when they were not and, related to this, states and local districts having difficulty identifying which programs were actually effective with the kids in their districts and schools.I believe that this concern has been realized.

Another major concern I have is that we have not addressed adequately the tension that exists between the requirements of Reading First and the requirements for ensuring local control of education. Consider this scenario, which actually occurred several times in Reading First implementation.

A state application was approved on the basis of its alignment with Reading First criteria that are established in law. The state did not have to provide a list of programs—in fact, the majority did not. What they did have to clearly articulate was how their program-selection process aligned with Reading First criteria, and how they would review applications from local districts to ensure local educational agencies met the criteria.

Federal funds were then awarded to the state, which, in turn, provided funds to local districts. In some cases, a decision was made at the state or local level to then fund and implement programs that clearly did not meet scientifically based reading-research criteria.

In a stark analogy, suppose a state or local district promised that it would implement effective instruction based on the best science to date, but in actuality implemented leeches or apricot pits to improve reading. Its decision to do this was wrong, it did not adhere to the requirements of the law, and it placed students at risk for continued reading failure. The Reading First director then would have to take corrective action and inform the state that it was out of compliance, as the Reading First legislation mandated him to do. In fact, it would be an outrage if he did not monitor compliance with the law.

The ultimate policy decision that will have to be addressed is whether local control enables a state or local educational agency to accept federal funds on the basis of meeting criteria established in law, but then eschew that promise in favor a local district's preferences—evidence-based or not. To do that returns us to business as usual, where over 50 percent of our most vulnerable, disadvantaged students fail to learn to read. And a majority of them have failed to learn to read when taught by programs based on nothing but fads, sheer guesswork, and untested philosophies and assumptions.

3) Some seem to believe that " Reading First " is focused on phonics. Is this True or False?

False and why this myth persists is beyond me.Reading First is based on the converging evidence that reading development requires the acquisition and integration of several essential skills to include phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension strategies.

While phonics is absolutely essential, learning phonics skills is in no way sufficient in learning to read.Indeed, Reading First calls for the application of assessment strategies that help teachers identify which of the critical skills are weak so that instruction can be focused on those skills.

The polarization of reading instruction into a binary framework like "phonics versus whole language" is not only harmful to students but keeps the field from understanding the complexity of reading.In every one of my appearances before Congress beginning in 1997 and occurring every year until 2005, I tried to emphasize that the phonics-whole language debate was counter productive and clearly a waste of time.

But my explanations sure did not have any impact on the reading community or in how the press characterized reading instruction.For some reason, most media outlets would always want to shift any discussion about reading to this phonics-whole language nonsense.

It was almost like folks could not get their hands around the fact that reading instruction must address several essential skills.

Sports reporters talk and write continuously about how a particular sport requires multiple elements. Piano teachers talk about this as well.Many in the reading community constantly refer to the Report of the National reading Panel as a "Phonics" report.Even a cursory reading of the report shows that phonics is constantly described as only one essential element and cautions the reader many times to NOT only address phonics – or any skill – at the exclusion of others.

4) As kids grow from kindergarten to say eighth grade, what curriculum changes or focuses should be emphasized?

I think the best way to approach reading instruction at any level is to first understand what it takes to learn to read, to assess all of the essential skills that undergrid proficient reading comprehension, and then provide direct and systematic instruction to ensure those skills are developed and integrated to achieve reading mastery.Many have argued that word level skills (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics) should not be taught to kids beyond the 3rd grade.

That does not make sense, if the kids have not yet developed these skills – how in the world are they going to be able to pull the print off the page, relate it to background knowledge and known vocabulary and understand what the heck they are reading.

To be sure, word level skills have to be introduced and taught differently to older kids as Barbara Wilson and Jane Fell Greene have taught us – but the fact remains that all reading skills must be in place at any age and strong assessment will indicate which of the skills are in need of extra attention.There is absolutely no argument that the ability to comprehend what is read is the primary reason we teach reading.

Proficient word level skills are useless if we ignore the development of reading fluency, vocabulary, background knowledge, writing skills, and comprehension strategies.

Clearly, the challenge with all kids – but particularly kids as they move through middle and high school, is to ensure that proficient reading capabilities are developed within an age appropriate context and significantly integrated with the teaching of content.

Peggy McCardle, my successor at the NICHD has done a wonderful job building the research program in adolescent literacy and that program is teaching us a great deal about reading instruction with older kids.

5) Are Colleges of Education really training teachers well to work with kids who have reading difficulties?

I think my views on the current capacity of colleges of education to prepare teachers are well known.I have to say it was gratifying to read Arthur Levine's three reports on how colleges of education were addressing the preparation of educational leaders, teachers, and researchers.Arthur was just much more diplomatic than I was.His conclusion – and mine – was that many colleges of education do not do a good job in preparing educators.

When I was critical of colleges of education several years ago, I focused on the limited training that many education researchers received in their training programs.I had found that many doctoral level students were matriculating that branded themselves as either a "qualitative researcher" or a "quantitative researcher".That floored me, given that any attempt to understand complex phenomena within a research context would require knowledge of multiple designs and methodologies.One indicator mark of a well prepared researcher is knowing when to employ particular designs and methodologies for particular questions.

This either-or thinking, which is very similar to the "phonics-whole language" debate reflects an intellectual immaturity at best and a political agenda at worst.In the preparation of teachers to address individual differences in reading ability, I would focus on helping them answer the three basic questions:(1) how does reading develop – what are the essential skills, abilities, and instructional interactions that are required to read proficiently?; (2) why do some kids (and adults) have difficulties – which of these skills, abilities, instructional interactions are not at optimal levels?; and (3) what can we do to eradicate the difficulties?In essence, if teachers can answer these questions, they will have identified the essential skills they must assess, teach, and then continuously assess to inform additional instruction.

6) How do we ensure  "implementation fidelity" or as some have called it " treatment integrity"? 

This is a great question as implementation is as critical a factor as a good teacher and an effective program.Even with the best teacher and the most powerful program, kids will not learn unless conditions are in place that allows the teacher to implement the program for the required amount of time with the resources and support they need.

To ensure treatment fidelity, it is incumbent on program developers and researchers to identify the essential conditions that must be in place for any program to work.

This includes articulating the skills that the teacher needs, the types of kids that have found to be helped with the program, the kids who have not been helped with the program, the necessary time and resources essential for effectiveness, and so on.

Let me just say that in my experience, building level leadership is absolutely critical to implementation fidelity.A strong principal supports the teachers implementing the program in every way, and holds himself or herself accountable for ensuring that the teachers have everything they need for success, no matter what it takes.

7) What is the biggest misconception about Reading First that you have encountered?

Here are several.That it is a "phonics" program.That it is not effective. That it is an unfunded mandate.That it leaves out professional development.All are false.

Published June 18, 2007