Significant errors and misconceptions - “Billions for an Inside Game on Reading” by WP's Michael Grunwald

As the principal of a Reading First school in Wyoming, in 25 years in education it has been one of the most well-researched, results-oriented programs I have ever seen. The results in our school speak for themselves. We'd been the state leader in Reading Recovery/Balanced literacy, and were not seeing the results there. Reading First is an exceptional model every school in the country should be following. The results for children learning to read are amazing!!

As one of the panelists who reviewed state applications in 2002-03, I can heartily attest to the corrections offered by Robert Sweet. This entire saga makes me wonder about news stories published in the Post about which I do not have personal knowledge. It puts me in mind of the Welsh politician, Aneurin Bevan, who once remarked that he read the newspaper avidly because it was his "one form of continuous fiction."

Thank you for a clear focus on relevant facts of an incredibly important and to date tragically misconstrued situation. I am a school psychologist in Canada and have closely observed the wisdom and promise of the DOE's efforts to lift the "glass ceiling" of achievement for economically and otherwise disadvantaged and vulnerable children and youth. I have read the IG report, and the (some) hype, and am absolutely stunned by the cavalier response to a landmark initiative and extraordinary efforts of intelligent educational leaders who have worked tirelessly to move mountains to assure that the highest quality of instruction is delivered to the traditionally lowest priority students.

Pure and simply, Reading First is working and has the potential to change the lives of the 30% of children nationally who struggle to read and to change the relatively flat scores we have endured for the past 30 years for every other student. We should be cheering that a program has been devised that includes all the right elements - a research based core curriculum, strong intervention materials, sound assessments, progress monitoring, leadership from the principal, related professional development, small group differentiated instruction and, most importantly, a deep knowledge of ALL the components of reading including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. As a former Associate Commissioner at the Massachusetts Department of Education responsible for reading and early childhood programs, I am conpletely convinced that Reading First is one of the best educational programs to ever come out of Washington DC and must be maintained and expanded if we are ever to turn back the tide of reading mediocrity.

It is valuable that Mr. Sweet, who has the knowledge and stature to make them, has provided these corrections. As the chair of one of the panels, although I have reservations about a couple of his points, most of Mr. Sweets observations square with mine. I am concerned that inaccurate reporting about this investigation will swamp the evidence and lead to poor policies predicated more on impressionistic reports than on solid facts. I can understand why politicians misrepresent things such as opponents' actions, but I am at a loss as to why there are opponents to efforts to bring scientific evidence to bear on something as fundamental as promoting reading among those Americans on whom most of us will be counting when we have retired and our nation needs a literate task force to sustain itself (us).

It's ironic---or maybe it can be expected----that Mr. Grunwald's article is a sterling example of every (false) accusation he makes about Reading First. His article... 1. Reveals zero journalistic integrity. 2. Contains no factually correct statements. 3. Is biased against RF despite any hard evidence. 4. Supports whole language, in whose interests it is to damage RF. And 5. Mr. Grunwald gets paid for the article. It's interesting (but not surprising) that he did not find it important to observe in classrooms whose new curricula were funded by Reading First; and that he did not interview teachers who were finally using effective materials.

For the most part Mr. Grumwald based his article on the Inspector General's Report which you can read for yourselves at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/whatsnew.html. That report has lots of "hard evidence" and "factually correct statements." I have read the report and am very concerned with the way Reading First has been handled by my government. Why aren't you concerned about that report, Mr. Sweet? And where is the "hard evidence" that RF is working? The first grade children whose schools got the first funding are now in fifth grade, aren't they? What actual test scores did those children have?

I was a school administrator for 17 years and a couple of years ago I decided the best way to influence improvement in the teaching and learning process of literacy was to get back in the classroom and apply what I learned while attending the Language and Literacy graduate program from Simmons College in Boston, MA. I find myself shunning the political arena now and instead focusing my efforts toward finding ways to ensure that all my students become proficient readers, writers and thinkers. I have been blessed to have received such a quality education through the Simmons program as it has laid a very solid foundation. The elements of this foundation can be found in the Reading First initiative. As a teacher of first and second graders I now know first hand how important systematic and explicit reading instruction is. I have found that I need more than the regular school day and am tutoring my students before and after school in order to provide for them the core of knowledge and skills they need; the same core and knowledge advocated by Reading First. I am a believer because I am now in the teaching trenches, dug in for the long haul, using research, systematic and explicit instruction and yes, the elements of Reading First as my weapons to battle illiteracy. I am working with the best there is because "Failure is not an option."

As one who prepares preservice special education teachers at the university level, I have found the Reading First (RF) resources a Godsend; finally it is not just special education who is asking for evidence based practices in Reading instruction. The national effort of RF supports what I have been trying to get across for years and finally, the federal government has made effective instruction in reading a national topic. Whatever the politics are, I hope this controversy will not unravel or erode the gains that have been made.

A couple of points. First, Bob Sweet is indeed an insider and also ideologically committed to a phonics first agenda as can be easily seen by reviewing his published pieces on the this website and at www.nrrc.org. The IG report simply documents all the ways that the federal RF office violated the section of the NCLB Act that states the federal government shall not recommend nor mandate any particular method, approach, or curriculum, period. See Sections 9526 and 9527 of the law. The NCLB Act sets out criteria of the sort that were needed for federal funding including multiple independent studies using experimental or quasi-experimental designs published in peer reviewed journals showing positive effects on a population or a sub-population. The USDE however decided that was too tough a criteria because only Success for All and Reading Recovery could produce such evidence. So USDE altered Congressional intent and required only that programs meet a "checklist" standard showing that programs were based on such evidence not that they had produced such evidence of effectiveness. However, the USDE directed state agencies to the "Consumer's Guide for Core Reading Programs" available from the University of Oregon. That document was developed by two authors of one of the "privileged" DI program (Voyageur) and, surprise, their program was the highest rated! As those authors have admitted, there is no evidence that programs rated well on the checklist actually produce achievement gains greater than programs rated low on the checklist evaluation. The Guide did not undergo any substantial peer review. It represents two Voyageur authors' beliefs about what the research says. The Guide is no more reliable than if I had created a checklist of my understanding of the research. Or if any two education profs had created their own version. Reading first may some time demonstrate improved reading achievement but it has not thus far. The one "study" so far reported by the USDE on RF was a survey of opinion and organizational variables. Folks that are in RF schools beleive it is making a difference but the NAEP 4th grade data show no improvemnent between 2001 (when RF became law) and the 2005 assessment period. No gains for general population, no gains for poor children. What is interesting about these data is that the survey data indicate the 50% more instruction is being offered in RF schools since RF funding became available. But no gains. It may be that RF programs are actually less effective that whatever schools were doing before if substantial increases in instructional time produce no gains in readinmg achievement. Unless RF schools increase their achievement by something more than 50% RF will be a demonstraded failure. So if average 4th grade reading levels in RF schools were at the 3rd grade level before RF they would have attain an average 4.5 reading level to show that RF initaitive was as effective as whatever they were doing before (given the substantial increase in instructional time). On the NAEP we would need to see something like 20-30 point average increases in RF schools to even say RF was as effective as the previous reading instruction. We'll see. All of this would be easier to debate if the USDE had dared to contract an experimental evalauation (or even a quasi-experimental evaluation of the sort SFA uses) of the effects of RF. But USDE seemingly did not want good data on the effects of RF because the evaluation design for the studies that will be released next year are neither experimental nor quasi-experimental, the very sort of research Congress required for evidence of program effects. In my view, the USDE was sold a bill of goods by the NICHD. This is the agency that was charged with improving reading outcomes for LD/dyslexic students. They failed in that charge, at least as far as the NCLB data on LD students reading indicates, either because their conclusions were wrong or because their findings were not or could not be effectively communicated to special education personnel across the nation. But I've never seen a whole language special education program, just programs that look more like the NICHD model, programs that have long and continue to fail to teach any LD kids to read. In case anyone is interested you might read the damning indictment of the "evidence" on phonics provided by the NRP written by two leading special education researchers, Don Hammill and Lee Swanson, published in this month's issue of Elementary School Journal. As they conclude, ""In general, for all practical purposes, phonics and nonphonics methods are about equally successful in teaching children to read." p. 25 The NRP simply ignored or misrepresented their own data.

First of all, I applaud the careful work of Bob Sweet in preparing this important document and for his work over the years. I have never met Mr. Sweet, but I have long admired his courage and work on behalf of struggling readers. I have always said that, if people like Michael Grunwald and others were to follow the "Bob Sweets" of the world around, they would find that their motives are pure and simple: getting what works in teaching struggling readers into the hands of their teachers and others. I am writing from several relevant vantage points: -as an independent reading consultant to both Reading First and non-Reading First schools (and to other entities) - as a student of the late Dr. Jeanne Chall, long a proponent of RF type instruction and of Dr. Charles Drake, pioneer in the field of Reading Disabilities -as someone who was responsible for training trainers and teachers in Reading First schools - as a former teacher and special educator, trainer, and administrator -as someone who trains teachers at the graduate school level as well as pre-K to 12 teachers and paraprofessionals In these roles and others over the past 36 years, I have been waiting and waiting for what has finally happened via Reading First, that is, a concerted effort with strength and power to alter the course for children and (later) adults who struggle in learning to read. People might have thought that having so much reading failure was due to poverty or special ed. This is not a special ed issue, this is a general ed issue and Reading First has demonstrated (and i see it personally) that very impoverished children are now reading because of concerted effort in RF schools. In the past and in NON Reading First type schools today, people have addressed this reading crisis in many ways. Most teachers and admiinistrators will tell you that in most schools there is a "crazy quilt" of approaches and that usually assessment is not formative (the end of the year tests simply reveal that , once again, too many kids still lag). It is often no one's fault. Teacher and administrator preparation with regard to reading is often not current. This scattered approach to instruction from classroom to classroom is one of the biggest problems since the struggling readers, the very children who need consistent instruction, have different well meaning people working on several different interventions in different ways with different methodologies, some with questionable track records. Typically teachers' schedules and other constraints hinder time for weekly meetings to carefully plan instruction using ongoing data, actually gathering with the reading interventionists (paras, Title 1 teachers, sped teachers) present. In addition, there is still (though it is hard to believe) often whole class instruction for reading rather than flexible groups and work stations that address specific weaknesses (based on ongoing data collection). These are some of the most serious road blocks to student success.Thankfully, these problems have been addressed in RF schools. Not only has RF altered the course of the instructional programs, it is altering all of these above problems. It has changed how schools look at data with regard to reading, how they group children based on that data, and how they make "whole school change" so that there is "collective responsibility" to see to it that children are actually moving up on the trajectory of reading achievement....not just having schools or individuals try "this or that". If people could know how hungry vast numbers of teachers, reading specialists, professors and administrators are for RF type training, I think they would be surprised. Many still don't know what they don't know. Once they begin to see the gaps in their backgrounds, however, as they do when they are in or near a RF school, they clamor for more.Teachers and adminsitrators with whom I deal daily are breaking down many barriers to somehow figure out how to emulate their neighboring RF schools where they see kids' lives change dramatically with regard to reading. That is where the real story is. We have that data, but the many reporters have not used it when studying Reading First issues. I have long consulted to schools with other grants (even the well intended Reading Excellence Act). The leaders and teachers in those schools basically had free rein with that grant because monitoring and adequate professional development were not written into the law as they are with Reading First. Therefore, interests other than those of children often took precedence. This is the first time in my 36 years of serving struggling readers, that I see real change. It has given my colleagues and me true hope that we can really, finally provide all children with the "last Civil Right" (Phyllis Hunter), which is the right to learn to read. The results of data collection are just now coming out and will slowly show what I see up close each day. I see data sheets, I help teachers with interventions based on those data sheets, I work with principals to help teachers with learning centers, flex groups, parent education, schedules and technology that can help address varied needs revealed by the data, I also see appropriate assessments that actually tell us how to intervene, etc. Most importantly, I see children's reading imporve drastically....and even more importantly, they know it. Teachers who were reluctant at first now tell me over and over that they don't know how they adequately taught strugglers before RF. Of course, often they didn't, as they come to admit. I am with these teachers, paras, administrators and children in many, many schools almost every day helping them grapple with the daunting challenge of having huge numbers of children K-12 for whom reading is often a "guessing game". Strugglers memorize huge numbers of words, learn tidbits of phonics rather than a planned sequence, listen hard to stories so that they "kind of get it", but have a "Swiss Cheese" foundation with gaps that continue and enlarge in their school careers. Reading First type assessments stop that downward spiral and teachers all over are learning that. It is not just about time on task, although that is very important, it is about the child being involved in the right kind of task for that child. Teachers in RF schools, mostly because of the RF professional development and change in focus on data, are becoming very skilled at learning to "tilt the balance" temporarily and regularly with regard to the specific kind of instruction needed at that time. The results will slowly show up in high stakes testing....some already have. People who understand the details of the needed change in course, understand how long this will take. As Louisa Moats says, "Teaching reading IS Rocket Science". Some people think that just because some children learn to read with relative ease, that all do. That is wrong. When we begin preparing teachers adequately, reinforce RF type instruction and assessment and infrastructure broadly, we will see reading scores really improve. Now, thanks to RF, we are very slowly changing this , one school at a time....one principal at a time. One such principal, as recently as last week, co-presented with me to 47 administrators ( RF and non-RF schools) because they are trying to learn how to run literacy initiatives like this principal is runnning. (Her school has won state and national attention and its data is out performing the non Reading First schools in her district whose students are not even as challenging.) These administrators in our audience were overwhelmed because the needed training, infrastructure changes, assessments, curriculum alignment, principal coaching, etc. are very difficult to establish. BUT, Reading First schools and schools emulating them are doing it. If this were easy, most children would be reading. We just aren't always serious about doing it on a large scale basis.....except in RF and RF like schools. (Someone said, "We have the skill, not the will.") Now, in schools with RF type methodologies and practices, the teachers tell me almost daily that they finally know what to do and can prove that it is working with the appropriate data. No more do we need to wait until May to see if what the teacher did all year actually helped the child learn. My devoted collegues and I see the landscape in schools changing where RF practices exist. Teachers are united in asking about a child's recent progress, teachers are having study groups on their own time to keep current, the reading profession has been given a giant injection of pride and , most importantly, children are feeling better about themselves because they really are reading.

I am the principal of a K-5 elementary school with a very diverse population, including approximately 60% of students whose first language is not English. Coupled with that 84% of my students are from low income homes. My staff and I worked diligently for years to provide a strong academic setting where our students could learn. We made small inroads into reading achievement. When the state of Massachusetts offered the Reading First Grant it was the first time I felt excited about applying for a grant to help our children. This grant clearly defined what needed to be done, who would do it and how! Schools that followed that outline could be and are successful. Our students progressed from Needs Improvement to No Status(our highest rating) in both ELA and Math. Imagine our surprise when increased reading achievemnt translated into higher math scores, too! Reading First is a roadmap to whole school change - whether you choose to follow the map is up to individual schools but success is well documented throughout our state. We are proud of our success and host many visits from other schools wanting to duplicate it for their students. Many thanks to Reading First and all those who make it happen in such an accountable manner.

The recent allegations that Reading First monies were spentin inapropriate ways has nothing to do with the science behind the Reading First program. These issues need to be separated. The science required in Reading First programs is en example of best practices in educational policy and can be backed up with data from numerous studies showing that such practices benefit students. Mr. Sweet and others have highlighted the scientific accuracy of Reading First instructional requirements. The evidence that some monies may have been allocated inappropriately is another matter entirely. There is abundant evidence that federal money has been spent inappropriately on many things in recent decades. For example, Defense funds have been spent on unnecessary and overpriced items for years and pharmaceutical companies haved used grant monies in ways that are outside the limits of the grants. But, even when such evidence comes to light, soldiers still need armor and food, patients still need medicine and children still need effective instruction. If there is evidence of misspending it should be dealt with, but the scientific efficacy of current Reading First policy is not to be questioned. Current Reading First grants have helped millions of children learn to read and such scientifically-based programs must be continued for the good of individual children and the future of our country.

I have worked with learning disabled and dyslexic students for more than 20 years and have read much reading research. I have evaluated the efficacy of some reading programs in my district. As a result of my research and years of experience, I support the Reading First initiative. Generally speaking it is effective in improving student reading outcomes. Clearly, it would serve teh interests of taxpayers and educators to continue to evaluate the effectiveness of reading programs with different demographic populations. There is no doubt that for many students systematic explict phonics and instruction in reading fluency is an essential component of successful reading instruction. The evidence for this spans several decades from the work of Jean Chall to Marilyn Adams to Catherine Snow and the National Reading Pannel. DOE administrators should insist that programs designed to teach children should meet basic standards of efficacy just as it is wise for federal officials to insist that a medication sold to consumers should be reasonably safe and effective. While Reading First may not be a perfect solution, it is by far the best solution that has been put forward. It is in the best interest of our children and our society to create a generation of fluent competent readers who can then read to learn.

Reading First has had a positive impact on how we now teach struggling readers in Massachusetts. I have been directly involved with Reading First schools and have seen the positive impact research-based reading strategies has had on students in grades kindergarten to three. Robert Sweet's article response to Michael Gunwald cleared up a lot of misconceptions about this program. I have been training teachers in Massachusetts with methodologies and strategies recommended by Reading First and they thank me every day for helping them. Administrators, teachers, support staff and even parents say the struggling readers are reading. Every school in the country should get on board with Reading First.

I have been fortunate enough to have started at Year 1 of the implementation of the Reading First initiatives at my K-5 Elementary School. In Years 1 & 2, I was an interventionist in the classroom. I saw first-hand the growth in my students. The framework set by RF was ideal for our school. The school'a atmosphere became totally cohesive. Everyone talking the same language; teachers, paras, and students alike. The staff became a team working together and striving to create an environment dedicated to the child's needs, differentiated to the child's abilities, and proven strategies to achieve it all. In Year 3, I was asked to take on the role of coach. Because of the wonderful professional development the staff has received, the staff feels very confident and ready to educate the most struggling students. The model is followed and a really neat thing happens: READING is achieved! When you have teachers and paras coming to you excited about students' gains after they have implemented the strategies and interventions learned from RF, you know you've just hit one "out of the park"! I truly believe that one needs to see RF in action, at the school-level, before one can say that it is "ineffective". I live and breathe it everyday. I can tell you this, the air is great up here! Thank You Reading First!

The following is part of a letter I sent to Grunwald after his article was printed in the W.Post. [to Grunwald] You seem not to believe that a scientific research consensus in reading education did (and does) exist that supported the practices Doherty was mandated to promote. Those consensus findings are described in many books, scientific journal articles, and policy papers, not just the Reading First guidelines. Reading First is having a positive effect on reading achievement in the majority of states because concerted efforts have been made to implement proven practices. Those include the adoption of a core, comprehensive program that addresses all necessary components of instruction; hiring of a Reading Coach in each school; extensive professional development on research-based practices (independent of specific published programs); administrative leadership; and the use of validated screening instruments that help locate children at risk and so that intervention can occur before they fail. A large-scale research project in Washington, DC, which I directed for the NICHD [through the University of Texas, Houston] between 1997-2001, found that the specific program in use (Success for All, Reading Mastery, Open Court, or Houghton Mifflin) was much less important than the quality, quantity, and content of instruction provided. We successfully brought hundreds of “high risk” poor, black children to the national average. Unfortunately, the school district did not institutionalize the model with which we were so successful. That is the real tragedy that deserves front-page news: the huge gap between reading research and mainstream education, and the never-ending propensity of needy districts to buy into things that ultimately do not serve the needs of children. Up until Reading First went into effect (and still, in many areas of the country), districts were spending large amounts of federal and state money on programs and practices such as Reading Recovery, Whole Language, and Balanced Literacy. There is no independent research that favors these approaches, in spite of the claims of those who market them. A large group of reading scientists summarized research showing the ineffectiveness of Reading Recovery, which the promoters, nevertheless, continue to ignore. The core problem that these approaches all have in common (and Rigby) is that they do not teach children how to read (or speak, spell, and write, for that matter). They expect that children will learn if they just go through the motions of pointing at words or guessing at them from context. Someone like you should write a well-articulated article about this issue so that your readers graduate above the wrongly-conceived “meaning” vs. “phonics” debate. Research-based instruction includes solid instruction across all components, with explicit and systematic teaching of the alphabetic code; it is not just “phonics.” As for Success for All, it is a whole bundle of all the things that work, but all authored by Bob Slavin, who doesn’t seem to like anyone else’s work and has to make it all up himself. Success for All is a very expensive solution for schools. Our results, with core, comprehensive programs and other supplemental programs, were superior to or as good as any reported by Success for All. So... please run an article about why it would have been a gross mismanagement of taxpayer funds if Rigby had gotten Reading First money, so your readers understand just how important it was that someone tried to close the door on predatory publishers. [I will also add, here, that reports of my "inside influence" on Reading First are wildly inaccurate. I never reviewed grants or worked for the Technical Assistance Centers. I worked totally independently of the RF office. Although the Department of Education might have given states my name as a possible consultant on professional development, many of the states used my name in their grants but never actually contacted me for consultation or the provision of training. I was probably named as a credible consultant on the basis of several major "blueprints" or documents I had written for Reading First, the state of California, and the American Federation of Teachers, among others, and a track record of success in implementation of SBRR. The professional development program, LETRS, was not fully produced until 2004 and 2005; a few states eager to receive and implement their grants elected to use draft materials of LETRS early in the RF process, which in retrospect was not the best way to proceed.]

As the owner of a small company that distributes and supports educational software, I’m in and out of several hundred schools per year. Most of our time is spent on the ground in those schools, working with teachers and students. It’s not the easiest way to do business: sometimes it feels like a lot of footsoldiering around, with repeat visits, technology issues, and various political challenges. But you learn a lot from the front lines, and when real change sweeps through a building—when teachers discover ways to reach students effectively, and the spark of recognition lights up the face of child who’s been struggling for so long, it suddenly doesn’t matter what hardships you suffered to get to work that day. There might be any number of measures used to criticize Reading First, but effectiveness won’t be one of them. In a landscape strewn with failed initiatives, it’s been inspiring to see how many teachers and administrators—many who were less than enthusiastic about terms like “accountability” and “research-based”—have put down roots here. They haven’t done this out of political loyalty, or because anyone’s paid them more money, or by dint of some administrative decree: they’ve done it because they see kids moving where they were not before. Whatever else can be said for most teachers, whatever their abilities, one thing’s fairly certain: they didn’t get into the business for political glory or financial gain…they came here to help children, and they work hard at it. One of the best things about my business is that despite the trials we have in schools along the way, there’s a bright light somewhere in every building. Almost without exception; regardless of their opinions, education, pedagogical beliefs or politics, if teachers notice someone doing something that actually helps kids, they want to know about it. There is much disagreement about some of the tenets of Reading First, and many advocates have been hard-won. But in the end, nothing matters more to good teachers than tools that help and enrich the lives of their students; it turns out that we’ve learned a tremendous amount from this initiative about how do that, and how to measure the results. People in schools are listening. Teachers turn out to be pretty smart, which I’d guess is why you find so many of their present and former ranks at all levels in the Reading First initiative, and at the vanguard of research in learning and cognition. They tend to spend less time debating how they think kids ought to learn and more time listening to how kids do learn, and they’re constantly looking for better ways to implement. Which is why, even if we return to the days when people are escorted out of schools for mentioning things like “phonemic awareness” or “fluency,” I’ll be doing this work for a very long time.

As a reading specialist in a small rural community school I have found Reading First to be the most powerful direction our school has taken in years. For the first time we are starting to see the reading scores of our students begin to move. Reading First has the potential to change the lives of students. We now have the ability to teach ALL students to read. Reading First stands tall for our children.

Reading First has done for teachers what the majority of our colleges and universities have not. Reading First has provided teachers with professional development based on years of scientific research in the areas of reading and assessment. The success of Reading First has been documented. Not only are our students being educated, but so are our teachers and you cannot get better than that.