Response by Reid Lyon to: Use of phonics overrated as way to learn to read

Here we have a multi-million dollar evaluation, conducted using the closest possible approximation to what is alleged to be the "gold standard" of design. Its bottom-line finding, supported by the Director of the Institute of Educational Sciences, is that Reading First is having "no effect. At each grade,1-3, the mean percentile in both RF and non-RF was near the the 40th percentile (Exhibit D.10,Page D-11). That leaves a large proportion of kids who aren't being taught to read. To counter this finding, you offer "data" from an un-named "evaluator" reporting "gains" in 5 states. Gains to what? She also finds that RF and non-RF schools are doing about the same thing. This is consistent with the national evaluation which showed that they were getting the same results. If there's little difference in what the schools are doing and little difference in the results, the data provide no support for RF. The data DO indicate that the "new science of reading" and it's implementation as mandated in NCLB are failing to teach a substantial proportion of kids to read. The "phonics" vs "whole language" matter is moot. "Balanced Literacy" is a political/professional accomodation to publishers that combines both.

I am not too familiar with the program but know from experience if "phonics" did not work it was not administered properly, or intelligently.

Give it up, please. The RF plan was underconceptualized, underfunded, and corruptly implemented by entrepreneurial ideologues. Instead of defending a failed program let's begin to ask what role, if any, the federal government might have in improving American reading instruction. Given roughly 50 years of failure of federal education plans in improving reading achievement I'll suggest that it is a slim hope that there is anything the feds can do that might improve educational outcomes. Nonetheless, I'll suggest that truly focusing on high-quality teachers might be a start. Given the abysmal and recent failure, however, of the USDE to develop any standards related to high-qulaity teaching, I am not even sure that this is an area that the feds should go. But it is teachers that matter, expert teachers of reading. The current HQ standards under NCLB have no standards for being a HQ teacher of reading (reading specialist or reading coach) beyond whatever minimal coursework is required by each state to become certified as an elementary classroom teacher (in TN that is two 2 credit reading courses). These same standards require roughly 24 hours of coursework in mathmatics to be HQ as a math teacher though. Odd that USDE "forgot" to include any similar standard for teachers of reading. Odd that professional development under NCLB became training in using one of those new "proven" commercial reading programs rather than the development of professional expertise about learning and teaching reading. We now have 5 large-scale, federally-funded studies showing bthat programs are basically impotent as factors in improving teaching or learning. These studies go back 40 years to the first-grade studies and up though the IES study of RF. Time to give up on the traditional federal top-down model of improvement and follow the research on how teachers become expert teachers.

Dr. Allington, There is no "mud pie" fight over quality instruction and the necessity of reaching kids in the acquisition stages of learning to read. Regarding kids in upper elementary this is a different story. It is a little late! I am schools everyday and to date haven't had the pleasure of discussing with any teacher, reading coach or administrator how to teach beginning reading must less addressing the needs of the needs of upper elementary and beyond students. What I continue hearing is the 3 Cueing System garbage and Guiding Reading and all the other fluffy garbage taught in universities and in-service training. I wouldn't bother yourself with Reading First. As long as the NCTE has their stoolies in the curriculum departments of school districts the failures will continue. Take the vendors and politics out of the discussion. What really irks you and others with the same or similar beliefs is the lack of control over the failure to teach a majority of kids how to read. Our inner-city schools are on the same level of third-world countries and getting worse. Krashen spews the same excuse we need more libraries when so many kids are incapable of basic decoding. I conclude this is more about religion then about reading instruction. Howe liberals blacks continue allowing the failed mythology to be experimented on black students is criminal. But, considering everything is about entitlements today who cares. They have theirs and expect the next generation to get it on their own. I guess the reading gurus and their occult followers like to keep em' down on the plantation? Jimmy Kilpatrick SpecialEdAdvocate.org

With all due respect, where has Dick Allington been all these years? He points out concerns about the development of expert teachers that have been stressed by many for the last half century. He is correct in pointing out that strong data exist with respect to the conditions under which teachers become experts. We also have a substantial amount of converging evidence on how reading develops, why many students have difficulties, and the characteristics of instructional programs that have a high probability of improving reading abilities (including vocabulary and comprehension) among kids at risk for failure. Appropriately he argues for an increased emphasis on providing teachers with the information from these bodies of research to enable teachers to indeed become experts. But he did not address the question of who is going to prepare teachers to become experts. This is not about bashing or disrespecting the amazing work that many teachers do in neither the classroom nor their dedication to ensuring that kids learn to read. But many accomplish this in spite of their teacher preparation. Many others report that they were not prepared to teach youngsters how to read. If we are to expect that the majority of colleges of education will serve a resource to serve at the core of the development of teacher expertise, we may have a problem. In 2006, Arthur Levine, a very highly respected educational leader concluded following his study of “Education School teachers that…” too often teacher education programs cling to an outdated, historically flawed vision of teacher education that is at odds with a society remade by economic, demographic, technological, and global change. Equally troubling, the nation is deeply divided about how to reform teacher education to most effectively prepare teachers to meet today’s new realities”. He further reported “…Many students seem to be graduating from teacher education programs without becoming effective teachers. Even graduates give their programs low grades. “More than three out of five teacher education alumni surveyed (62 percent) report that schools of education do not prepare their graduates to cope with the realities of today’s classrooms. Fewer than half of principals surveyed thought that teachers very well or moderately well to integrate technology into their teaching (46 percent); use student performance assessment techniques (42 percent); and implement curriculum and performance standards (41 percent). Only about one-third of principals said that their teachers are very or moderately well prepared to maintain order in the classroom (33 percent) or to address the needs of students with disabilities (30 percent). A shockingly low percentage of principals said that their teachers were very or moderately well prepared to meet the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds (28 percent); to work with parents (21 percent); and to help students with limited English proficiency (16 percent).” If expert teachers are to be provided the content, assessment knowledge, instructional expertise, and classroom management capabilities (among many other skills) to improve student learning, then many colleges of education must also address their own typically low admissions standards, fragmented and inconsistent curricula, education faculty who are disconnected from the real world of the classroom, and insufficient quality control of program structures and courses. Factors that Levine reports constitute serious impediments to teacher quality. It is not an issue of teacher dedication; the issue is who prepares our nation’s teachers. One of the arguments that many institutions put forward as excuses for the lack of preparation of their teachers typically revolves around limited funding for colleges of education. Another is the the fact that teachers are required to take only a few reading courses. Another is that the low status of the field and relatively low teacher salaries reduce the number of highly qualified applicants from entering the profession. Some questions, (1) given increases in funding, who will be responsible for developing expertise among teachers? (2) would it not be the same programs and faculties that Levine has studied? (3) would adding courses make a difference if they were offered by the same programs Levine is concerned about? (4) Why is it that there are only a handful of programs that meet Levine’s criteria for excellence in teacher education (Stanford, UVA, Emporia State, Alverno, While many are not aware of this, the NICHD reported on these problems in teacher preparation for many years and consistently tried to inform policy makers about the need for improvements in teacher preparation. Moreover, many of Allington’s recommendations made today are those we (and many others) made years ago. For example. in my 1997 congressional testimony before the House Education and work Force Committee, I testified: “As evidence mounts that reading difficulties originate in large part from difficulties in developing phoneme awareness, phonics, reading fluency, and reading comprehension strategies, the need for informed instruction for the millions of children with insufficient reading skills is an increasingly urgent problem. Unfortunately, several recent studies and surveys of teacher knowledge about reading development and difficulties indicate that many teachers are under prepared to teach reading. Most teachers receive little formal instruction in reading development and disorders during either undergraduate and/or graduate studies, with the average teacher completing only two reading courses. Surveys of teachers taking these courses indicate: (A) teachers rarely have the opportunity to observe professors demonstrate instructional reading methods with children; (B) course work is superficial and typically unrelated to teaching practice; and (C) the supervision of student teaching and practicum experiences is fragmentary and inconsistent. At present, motivated teachers are often left to obtain specific skills in teaching phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency and comprehension on their own by seeking out workshops or specialized instructional manuals. Teachers who instruct youngsters who display reading difficulties must be well versed in understanding the conditions that have to be present for children to develop robust reading skills. They also must be thoroughly trained to assess and identify children at-risk for reading failure at early ages. Unfortunately, many teachers and administrators have been caught between conflicting schools of thought about how to teach reading and how to help students who are not progressing easily. In reading education, teachers are frequently presented with a “One Size Fits All” philosophy that emphasizes either a “whole language” or “phonics” orientation to instruction. No doubt, this parochial type of preparation places many children at continued risk for reading failure since it is well established that no reading program should be without all the major components of reading instruction (phoneme awareness, phonics, fluency, reading comprehension) and the real question is which children need what, how, for how long, with what type of teacher, and in what type of setting. It is hard to find disagreement in the educational community that the direction and fabric of teacher education programs in language arts and reading must change. However, bringing about such change will be difficult. In addition, if teacher preparation in the area of language and reading is expected to become more thoughtful and systematic, changes in how teaching competencies and certification requirements are developed and implemented is a must.” In 2002 in my testimony before the same House Committee, I summarized the following: “No matter how trustworthy a set of research findings might be, the relevance and applicability of the findings will be minimal if teachers and administrators: (1) cannot access the data; (2) do not understand and cannot interpret the findings in an accurate and meaningful manner; And, (3) are unable to develop plans and strategies to implement the research in everyday practice. Unfortunately, several recent NICHD supported studies and surveys carried out by Virginia Berninger and her colleagues, and Louisa Moats and by myself in the late 1980s indicate that teachers feel unprepared to address the individual learning needs of their students, and they report that they are particularly under prepared to provide adequate reading instruction. This perception is supported by a recent report from the National Center for Educational Statistics indicating that only one in five teachers feel adequately prepared to teach their students. Why is this case? Drs. Berninger and Moats have reported that teachers receive insufficient instruction in reading development and reading instruction during their undergraduate, and even graduate studies, with the average teacher completing only one or two reading courses. Surveys of teachers taking these courses indicate consistently that they have not observed professors demonstrate instructional reading methods with children, that course work is frequently superficial and unrelated to teaching practice, and that supervision and guidance during student teaching is fragmentary and inconsistent. Many motivated teachers report that they are left to their own devices to obtain specific skills to improve their instructional practices. Many teachers report that they do not use educational research findings to guide their teaching practices and many report that they do not trust the idea that research can effectively inform their teaching. This is not unexpected given that it is quite difficult to apply research findings when the information is often of poor quality, lacks authority, is not accessible, is communicated in an incomprehensible manner, and is not practical. Of equal concern is that teachers report that they are not specifically trained in even the most basic approaches to interpreting different types of research studies and are not able to make accurate judgments about the trustworthiness of the research that they do read. Until teachers are provided the necessary basic training to understand how to read and interpret research and how to assess the methodological appropriateness and rigor of the research, they will continue to be buffeted by the capricious pendulum swings that characterize educational fads and instructional practices. This is highly demoralizing. Many teachers find themselves today attempting to implement the latest “research-based” instructional practice only to learn, after it fails, that the research upon which it was based was seriously flawed.” Many recommendations were provided to Congress such as these: In 1997 House Testimony: • We must acknowledge the limitations of current teacher preparation programs and models for both general and special educators. For example, the statement that many children are identified, as LD are actually “instructional casualties” is unfortunately all too often accurate. Almost all children can learn to read, for example, if taught appropriately, but many miss out on the help they need because teachers are not adequately prepared. Both special and general educators must be prepared on the basis of the converging scientific evidence of how children learn, why some children have difficulties, and how the most effective instructional approaches can be identified and implemented. All educators should share a common language about these fundamental principles and hold a common dedication and ability to address the needs of students who arrive in their classrooms from highly diverse backgrounds and a range of initial abilities. To do this, teachers must be prepared to identify the characteristics of high quality research and to be able to distinguish between research that is trustworthy and that which is weak and ill informed. • Encourage alternative models for teacher preparation and continuing professional development. It is unlikely that colleges of education will change their current preparation practices in the near future. What is clear is that teachers must be provided the critical academic content, pedagogical principles, and knowledge of learner characteristics that they need in order to impart evidence-based systematic and informed instruction to their students. 1998 Senate Testimony If trustworthy research findings are going to be effectively used to inform instructional practices in classroom settings, we must acknowledge that teachers must be provided the necessary basic knowledge to translate research into effective classroom practices. Teachers, who are the most important consumers of research, have been let down in this regard. At a minimum, these recommendations are offered: Systems of accountability must be developed and put into practice to ensure that all teachers have mastery are teaching, can deliver instruction through a wide range of approaches and methods, and have a clear understanding of individual differences in their students. Teachers must be prepared to understand the basic principles underlying the development of the skills that they are teaching and how these principles relate to instructional practice. It is also critical that teachers receive basic training in how to access and interpret the research literature relevant to their instructional responsibilities. It is only in this way that they will be empowered to judge both the quality and applicability of the research findings. All too often, teachers are provided simplistic “magic bullet” solutions to increasing student achievement. Unfortunately and frequently, many instructional approaches have been developed with children in a setting far different from that the teacher now encounters. We must provide teachers with systematic and rigorous training sufficient to develop the ability to evaluate these of claims with confidence. Teachers must be included in the planning, design, and conduct of educational research that is expected to influence their instructional practices in the classroom. Both researchers and teachers must have the opportunity to develop genuine research collaborations where constant input and feedback are provided bilaterally. This will require substantial changes in the current training of both researchers and teachers. 1999 Testimony We must continue to strive to improve the quality and relevance of training teachers at the preservice and inservice levels. No matter how powerful our research findings might ultimately be, the impact of those research investments will be minimal if researchers, professors, teachers, and policy makers do not speak the same language about what constitutes trustworthy quality research and how that information can be implemented in the complex world of classrooms. It is critically important that professional development activities and programs align specifically with ongoing major efforts to employ scientifically research-based practices to enhance student achievement. As such, we must consider developing comprehensive school-based teacher preparation and professional development programs that are coherent, easily accessible, relevant and meaningful to teachers. These and many other recommendations were made to congress through 2005 and those can be accessed from www.reidlyon.com. Given these challenges in supporting teachers with the knowledge they needed, we ensured that 20 percent of Reading First funds were allocated for professional development for ALL schools and teachers (not just Reading First teachers). The goal was to provide teachers trustworthy information to assist them in selecting and implementing instructional programs and strategies with fidelity and to assess student progress and differentiate instruction where needed. I would not close the door on the effectiveness of the professional development programs developed through Reading First. I can’t agree more with Dick that a substantial effort must be made to provide teachers with the expertise they need to improve reading abilities and achievement. My concern is that the current teacher preparation infrastructure is not itself prepared to meet that challenge no matter how much money is deployed. With respect to federal funding streams, I am assuming that Dick would argue for the elimination of Title I and Head Start funding. It might be instructive to note that despite the billions of dollars provided to Title I, there has yet to be a comprehensive impact evaluation of the effectiveness of that program. I continue to argue that the data are still out on how effective the Reading First program has been not only with respect to improving reading competencies among disadvantaged kids but also strengthing the knowledge, assessment skills, and instructional capabilities implemented by their teachers.