Reading First Under Fire

Title1online:

By January of 2003, Kentucky reading officials were frustrated. They had just been denied federal Reading First funds for the third time, and state leaders worried that they might lose the opportunity to bring in an unprecedented $90 million for reading instruction in grades K-3 over six years. Like most states strapped by budget cuts, they could not afford to lose that money.
Months before, consultants to the federal program strongly suggested to state officials that Kentucky’s choice of assessment was a major sticking point in their pursuit of the grant. According to the officials, consultants pushed them to drop the assessment they were using, Pearson’s Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), and choose the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), which was quickly becoming the most widely used test under Reading First. But there was a problem: One of the consultants on the four-member team had a second job — as a trainer for DIBELS.

Eduwonk has more.

4 thoughts on “Reading First Under Fire”

  1. The report listed here strongly correlates with the MMSD assessments of Reading First, and their negotiations with U of Oregon consultants. And my conversation with Jane Belmore and review of the MMSD materials supported their general conclusions of the attempt of the Reading First consultant to pressure them to abandon Reading Recovery.
    I’m not taking sides over the reading “science” — which I’m not in a position to argue one way or the other. Reading literature reviews of both math/science, and reading studies, there seems to be consensus that most of these experimental studies have significant flaws. I can only conclude there seems to be little real science in educational research.
    Regardless of the science, our only assurance that our students are benefiting from the chosen curriculum is analyzing the data we have. Regardless of the theory, only thing that should count is student achievement.

  2. MMSD’s reading performance speaks for itself: 59% proficient & advanced in 1998 and 83% in 2005 (State 3rd grade reading test), despite an increase in low-income students from 31% to 42%.
    MMSD’s rejection of Reading First’s politically motivated demand to use a lock-step curriculum and unproven commercial products looks awfully wise in retrospect.

  3. Unfortunately, the definition of these cut points are an issue. Some states set them low, some higher, depends on the test, etc. And they change, and have changed recently
    Counts based on cut-points are simply no indication student achievement.

  4. I seem to recall that some corporate entity involved with Reading First was recently either indicted or was under investigation (and threat of indictment)for some fiduciary breach. Did Art R. tell me that or did i read it somewhere?

Comments are closed.