Reading First Curriculum Review

Reading First, subject to a scathing economic/lobbying audit recently was also just reviewed in this report from the Center for Education Policy [Kathleen Kennedy Manzo] [Full Report 176K PDF]:

“Participating schools and districts have made many changes in reading curriculum, instruction, assessment, and scheduling,” the report by the Washington-based Center on Education Policy says. “Many districts have expanded Reading First instructional programs and assessment systems to non-Reading First schools.”
Titled “Keeping Watch on Reading First,” the Sept. 20 report by the research and advocacy group is based on a 2005 survey of all 50 states and a nationally representative sample of some 300 school districts in the federal Title I program, as well as case studies of 38 of those districts and selected schools.
Some 1,700 districts and more than 5,600 schools receive grants under Reading First, which was authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act.
While hard data, such as test-score comparisons, are still not available, the survey results show that “with scientifically based research, strict requirements [for following research findings], and substantial funding, you can bring about results,” said CEP President Jack Jennings.

Rotherham has more.

One thought on “Reading First Curriculum Review”

  1. The MMSD superintendent was absolutely wrong to unilaterally reject Reading First funds, especially when they would have gone to schools with high percentages of low-income kids and kids of color. The results on the reading test at fourth grade in 2003–part of the Wisconsin Knowledge Concepts Evaluation tests—show these gaps between the economically disadvantaged students scoring “proficient or advanced” and their peers.
    Hawthorne: Econ. Disadvantaged = 57%
    Not Disadvantaged = 77%
    Glendale: Econ. Disadvantaged = 73%
    Not Disadvantaged = 82%
    Orchard Ridge: Econ Disadvantaged = 55%
    Not Disadvantaged = 90%
    Lincoln: Econ. Disadvantaged = 66%
    Not Disadvantaged = 88%
    For District elementary schools combined: Econ. Disadvantaged = 66%
    Not Disadvantaged = 88%

Comments are closed.