In the upcoming budget deliberations, I urge the board to direct as many available funds as possible to proven in-school programs which support the board’s three stated goals:
* All students complete 3rd grade able to read at grade level or beyond.
* All students complete Algebra by the end of 9th grade and Geometry by the end of 10th grade.
* All students, regardless of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic or linguistic subgroup, attend school at a 94 percent attendance rate at each grade level.
On the flip side, I urge the board to avoid cuts in proven in-school programs that support these goals.
To go a step further, I urge the board to initiate new in-school programs and expand those MMSD programs already proven to succeed.
Maybe I am naive, but it seems to me that the academic goals can be well supported outside the MMSD budget. For the 3rd grade reading goal, probably the most important measures are to support early chilhood education. Early literacy means better support for young families and preschools in Madison. We shouldn’t have let the erosion of city and county support of preschools to erode like it has in the past 5 years. More jobs and transportation for low income families would also be a big help to the academic goals.
For the 9th/10th grade math goals, tutoring and a community-wide response to the importance of mathematics and mathematical reasoning are very helpful. The community can express a real interest in mathematics (beyond simple performance on standardized tests but to service critical needs within our society). Exposing more kids to “real-life” mathematics in our local businesses, universities, and even social service agencies coud be enhanced. Another way we can demonstrate our interest in mathematics is to understand and communicate how the very revenue caps have led to this mess – and how we’ll be pressed with similar cuts in the following years.
For the academic goals, we must acknowledge the real progress made already and continue to support the teachers, administrators, and staff. They need to know that they have our support, we value their expertise, and that we are not going to bail on them. Their “efficiency” can be positively influenced by our respect for them.
For the attendance goals, the biggest factors relate to a more supportive and creative learning environment. This can start by raw, proactive support of the schools, youth services, and the surrounding communities themselves. This goal is also probably the most challenging to meet without stronger budgetary support to MMSD, because guidance counseling, athletics coaches, social workers, community outreach staff, special and regular ed assistants, music, drama and art teachers will likely see the greater cuts. We have to remember that some kids have only a few threads keeping them at school. To get to the 94% mark, we really have to try to reach every student.
The most vulnerable programs to budget cuts are often the ancilliary staff and programs, like administrative specialists, janitors, building maintenance, and other administrative positions. It’s really silly, however, to say these must be cut because they don’t support the academic goals. We need many people with different talents to keep the schools working – and cuts away from the classrooms often erode the kinds of fiscal efficiency that we are looking for.
I would encourage a real dialogue with principals and teachers, who know very well how schools and their classrooms run. They need to be involved to some degree to let us know what the potential impacts of particular proposed budget cuts would be – and we would hear some good ideas. Short of any clear ideas and consensus, however, it seems that the magnitude of the budget problems is so large that wide-spread expansion of class size will be the main way to close budget gaps. No one likes it – and the costs to the three goals will be significant. However, it is probably the most sensible adjustment because it does not pit one program vs. another. The erosion caused by us biting at each others heels compounds the agony of the cuts themselves.
Another idea is for people who supported the operating referenda last time to contribute (now) what they would have normally paid in additional property taxes. I’ll gladly join others on this. If we close even 10% of the gap with contributions, it will help. The primary disadvantage is that it will be severely inequitable. For those unwilling to support operating referenda, wishing to punish the administration or board for the lack of fiscal responsibility, you can see your contribution as allowing a more lenient punishment.
The key to this isn’t any one set of the “best” budget cuts, but how we all build the community around the schools. I think we’re looking in the wrong direction, hoping the board will somehow find the right mix of cuts. We should be looking more at each other and finding ways (money and diverse/coordinated support) to address to the very real and pressing needs.
– Jerry
Ed,
Your comments about making decisions based on research prompted me to go out and see what I could find about the effectiveness of Reading Recovery. As the District’s own figures show this costly program (greater than $8000 per child) has only a success rate of about 50%.
From Bonnie Grossen at the University of Oregon – Reading Recovery an evaluation of benefits and costs.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/pubs/rr.htm
Summary
* The Reading Recovery data reporting system is flawed.
* The standard for successful completion of Reading Recovery is not equitable.
* Reading Recovery does not raise overall school achievement levels.
* Far fewer students than claimed actually benefit from Reading Recovery.
* Children who are not expected to be successful are removed from the program and from the calculation of the success rate.
* Reading Recovery does not reduce the need for other compensatory reading services.
* Research-based alternative interventions are more effective than Reading Recovery.
* Reading Recovery is extremely expensive and does not save other costs.
Other research finds similar conclusions:
Reading Recovery: An Independent Evaluation of the Effects of an Early Instructional Intervention for At-Risk Learners
Timothy Shanahan, Rebecca Barr
Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Oct. – Nov. – Dec., 1995) , pp. 958-996
An Evaluation of Reading Recovery
Yola Center, Kevin Wheldall, Louella Freeman, Lynne Outhred, Margaret McNaught
Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr. – May – Jun., 1995) , pp. 240-263
Commentary: On the Effects of Reading Recovery: A Response to Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer
Timothy V. Rasinski
Reading Research Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr. – May – Jun., 1995) , pp. 264-270
These are just some of the articles that have been published. Can’t we find a more efficient way to teach reading? …maybe I should ask Why won’t we?
Yes, Jeff, Reading Recovery could be replaced with more effective, less expensive reading programs, but the administration and past board majorities have refused to face the data, even the district’s own data on Reading Recovery failure.
Actually, what the district’s figures show is: For all the first grade children who received Reading Recovery in 2002 and were still in the district 2 years later to take the 3rd grade reading test, 89% tested at grade level (66% scored Proficient or Advanced). (The 50% figure refers to the number who are “discontinued” – not the number who learn to read.)
Carol and the MMSD administration have always vigorously defended the status quo of Reading Recovery, despite reams of solid research and the MMSD’s own analysis of its failures.
In this case, the report, page 5, shows that in 2003-2004 48% of the students in Reading Recovery “have been ‘discontinued’ (i.e., successfully graduated), from the program.” “Successfully graduated,” I presume, means learned to read, leaving 52% who did not learn to read. Twenty-two percent were “recommended” for special education services, which might be a factor in why the MMSD has such a high number of kids in special education.
The report goes on to say (page 14), “Discontinued Reading Recovery student outperform the comparison group by 1.2 text reading levels while all other Reading Recovery student score almost 4 test levels less than their comparison group.”
Saying “89% tested at grade level” on the third grade reading test (a figure I can’t find in the report, but I’m rushing to get to work), only says that among those 50% of the students who were “discounted,” 89% could still read in the third grade, which is a way of ignoring the failure of Reading Recovery to help the 50% who the program did not teach to read in first grade.
Carol, your defense of the status quo (in this case, Reading Recovery) is what frustrates so many of us and undermines board credibility when so much research including the MMSD’s contradicts the status quo.
Would it be possible to post a link to the report Ed Blume quotes?
TJM
A quick look at the literature also turns up studies which are supportive of Reading Recovery and which are more recent than those cited by Jeff. I think all studies agree that early intervention, before a child gets really far behind, is a good idea.
Below is a link to a summary of 6 studies addressing Reading recovery, covering the time period from 1993 to 2005:
http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/research/6SBRRStudies.pdf
I am not endorsing Reading Recovery, but just would like to point out that it’s pretty easy to find educational research to support a given position. My personal opinion is the success of any program that involves a lot of individual work on the part of student and teacher will (1) be expensive and (2) yield positive results. The question I would like answered is whether the success rate being quoted, whatever it is, is better than anything else available for a comparable cost. This is probably difficult to answer but I assume there is ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of the program. I don’t know that there should be a wholesale change in the program without some pilot trial to see if the alternatives are better or worse than what we have.
A final, unrelated comment:
Last week I was in Walnut Creek CA, where I saw a pretty ordinary 1500 sq. ft. house for sale for over $800,000. My friend told me how AP classes are financed at their local high school -at the beginning of the year, the school tells the parents how much it’s going to cost and the parents write a check.
Tom,
Here’s a link to newspaper coverage of the MMSD report: http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2004/11/reading_program.php
A link on Isthmus’ site connects to the report. (I could not find the report on the MMSD site. The MMSD did not release the report until forced by Isthmus, and may still be trying to ignore it by not posting it on the district’s site.)
An independent evaluation of the MMSD by Virchow Krause suggested a reduction in funding to Reading Recovery:
http://www.madison.k12.wi.us/topics/fa/fa_01_10.pdf
The suggestion was promptly ignored.
Ann,
Most of the “research” you found seems to come from advocates for Reading Recovery, rather than independent researchers as published in peer-reviewed journals. The methodology of such research has always been suspect since it does not adhere to scientific research standards. The research tends to make arguments similar to Carol’s above, e.g., the research measures the success only of “discontinued” students, not the universe of students who began in Reading Recovery but were dropped because they weren’t making progress.
When the independent researchers at the National Institutes of Health a number of years ago asked for the right to investigate Reading Recovery, a copyrighted program, the publishers did not give it permission to use Reading Recovery material; thereby, leading to no research.
The link above to news coverage, as posted on this blog, also leads you to a video of a wonderful presentation on Reading Mastery/Direct Instruction, a much more effective and far less expensive curriculum, which the MMSD does not support or plan to use, on the misguided belief that Reading Recovery is absolutely the best and absolutely the only way to teach reading to struggling readers.
Does anyone know what percentage of kids in Reading Recovery are also ESL? If there are significant numbers of ESL students included in the analysis of Reading Recovery, there could be confounding of improvement in English language skills with the impact of Reading Recovery.
Joan (et al.)
Thanks for the link. The Isthmus link links to the report: http://www.thedailypage.com/features/docfeed/docs/2945c.pdf
I don’t read it as being all that negative. It seems that those in the “discontinued” (i.e. finished) segment did quite well, that the “incomplete” group and the recommended group had very limited benefits. The incomplete group’s outcomes say little about the worth of the program, although in these times of scarce resources, perhaps the district should look to not enrolling students late in the school year (the report indicates that that is one reason for the incompletes). With the recommended group it appears that Reading Recovery was done prior to a full special education assessment. I don’t know the costs, but it is very possible that special edcuation assessments and services would be more expensive and that without Reading Recovery more students would be given these services. There may in fact be hidden savings.
On the Virchow Krause report, there are many possible reductions presented there, including a substantial reduction of TAG services. The report itself cautions that it is not meant to be read as a set of recommendations, but as an analysis of the impact of possible program changes and cuts.
I stongly agree with Ann that respectable education research can be found to support conflicting positions. You can play dueling cites all day and night. Yes research needs to be considered, but it needs to be considered critically. I don’t know enough about Reading Recovery to really do this, but I do know that many, many respected researchers think that it is program that works and is cost effective for many students:
http://www.lesley.edu/crr/content/rr/meta_analysis_of_reading_recovery.pdf
Is reading recovery a “best practice”? I don’t know, but I’m not going to let the screed of one DI proponent decide the case for me.
It is also clear that there is a politically motivated attack on RR and that Bonnie Grossen has been identified as one who distorts research to serve political ends (no link, but see Allington and Woodside, “The Politics of Literacy Teaching,” _Educational Researcher_ (28: 8, November 1999). This is part of an ongoing conversation about how research and politics interact (see links below). I’m not saying absolutely that Allington and Woodside are correct or that Grossen is wrong, but pointing to this as an illustration of Ann’s point. I will also add that in this exchange (perhaps not one of the articles linked below) the NIH researcher’s defense of Grossen was tepid to the point of being meaningless.
Here are some links to some of this conversation:
http://35.8.171.42/aera/pubs/er/pdf/vol29_06/AERA290602.pdf
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3785/is_199912/ai_n8873875/print
http://www.rrcna.org/pdfs/IGevidenceFINAL3-16revWEBATT.pdf
http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives/Jan2000_date/msg00719.html
http://www.readingrecovery.org/pdfs/JRR%2020th%20Anniv/Allington.pdf
http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3005/AERA3005_RNC_Strauss.pdf
http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3007/AERA3007_Stone.pdf
http://cars.uth.tmc.edu/debate/
This goes on and on.
TJM
Tom,
It doesn’t make any difference what the reserach says, the MMSD will cling to Reading Recovery until the administration changes.
The administration and the current board majority defend Reading Recovery to the death. Bill Keys said that he was happy with Reading Recovery’s 50% success rate. If that’s all you want out of an expensive reading program, then keep doing Reading Recovery.
Personally, I want a success rate that meets the board’s stated goal: All students complete 3rd grade able to read at grade level or beyond.
The intransagent powers that be, however, will not even support a pilot program to test another reading program for struggling readers.
They’re so intransagent that long ago I stopped talking with them about the reading curriculum. I’m just waiting until they retire.
Ed
I hope what you say about MMSD isn’t true and I hope that those who have been calling attention to the limitations of Reading Recovery aren’t also inclined to ignore research that doesn’t support their position.
I’ve read about the literacy instruction debates in _Educational Researcher_ and other journals over the years, but haven’t followed the local version much. I know that nationaly and internationaly the battle lines are clear (much clearer than the research) and mixed up with all sorts of other things that shouldn’t have anything to do with reading instruction. I hope that this isn’t true in Madison. I guess I’ll find out.
TJM
It’s true, Tom.
This is from the Isthmus article:
Supt. Rainwater urges people to keep a balanced view. He says the study results were what he expected, and the program will continue: “Would we walk away from a program that is enabling 50% of our children who are not successful in reading to be successful? No, we wouldn’t. That would be crazy.”
So, I only wait for the retirement of the powers that be.
The conclusion of the school board elections has largely quieted overt political agendas. But pedagogical agendas march on: Mr. Henriques offers cherry-picked negative studies about Reading Recovery and Mr. Blume misstates published MMSD data. Both conclude that something is rotten in MMSD.
“…(T)he report…shows that in 2003-2004 48% of the students in Reading Recovery ‘have been discontinued (i.e., successfully graduated), from the program.’ ’Successfully graduated,’ I presume, means learned to read, leaving 52% who did not learn to read…”
Posted by Ed Blume, April 11, quoting from Reading Recovery Evaluation, Tim Potter, MMSD Planning/Research & Evaluation, August 2004. http://www.thedailypage.com/features/docfeed/docs/2945c.pdf
A more careful reading of the Potter report would surely constrain Mr. Blume from “presuming” that 52% did not learn to read. Potter’s Table 1 (p. 5) indicates that, of 305 students who received at least some Reading Recovery instruction in 2003-04, 48% of participating students were successfully “discontinued,” 22% were “recommended” for additional services, 25% received an “incomplete” program (mainly students who started during 2nd Semester) and 5% withdrew from the program.
Of those students who actually completed the RR program, the success rate, defined on RR’s own terms, was better than two-thirds. [Regarding the “incomplete” students, Potter pointedly observes that “(t)he district should also review how we use Reading Recovery resources during the latter portion of the school year…”]
A better definition of RR’s success is a standard, external measure: how well these kids did 2 years later on the 3rd grade reading test. On this score, school board member Carstensen reports some MMSD data: “For all the first grade children who received Reading Recovery in 2002 and were still in the district 2 years later to take the 3rd grade reading test, 89% tested at grade level (66% scored Proficient or Advanced).” Posted by Carol Carstensen, April 10.
This particular measure is undoubtedly biased in favor of kids with enough residential stability to remain in MMSD from 1st through 3rd grade. And whether that 66% “proficient or advanced” rate is good or bad, given the resources expended, is not obvious on its face. But I am nevertheless pleasantly surprised that two-thirds of MMSD’s most troubled 1st grade readers would ultimately “pass” the 3rd grade reading test.
Mr. Blume predictably concludes by criticizing everyone in sight: “Carol and the MMSD administration have always vigorously defended the status quo of Reading Recovery, despite reams of solid research and the MMSD’s own analysis of its failures.” Try as I might, I cannot discern any conclusion in the Potter report that labels Reading Recovery a “failure.”
Neal,
You apparently didn’t read the report, but only used the posted quotes to jump to the defense of Reading Recovery. You quote Carol, not the report, to cite an 86% success rate. The report (page 21), however, shows that only 64% of the “discontinued” students scored proficient or advanced on the third grade reading test. Out of all of the students who participated in Reading Recovery, only 56% scored advanced or proficient. Neither group reaches the MMSD average of 78% advanced and proficient.
A less expensive and more effective reading intervention should replace Reading Recovery so that all students complete 3rd grade able to read at grade level and beyond.