May 2003 — Special Feature
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Challenging Districts to 'Put Reading First'
The heightened importance of SBRR creates some new challenges for most school districts. District officials are often not qualified enough and lack the time to review the quality of the scientific research underlying the products that vendors pitch to them. Naomi Hupert, a senior research associate at the Educational Development Center Inc.'s Center for Children and Technology, has advised on the development of evaluation plans for both Reading First and Early Reading First proposals. Hupert explains, "There are a lot of requirements in the law and people in districts are often not sure how to address them. ... In districts there's always the lack of resources and time to plan for the future. They feel several layers below where the Reading First decisions are being made, so preparing for it, particularly in those states where funding is not yet in place, isn't high on those districts' to-do lists."
That said, for those who are comfortable with the underlying philosophy of Reading First, the legislation can be a source of excitement and action. Based on her work in New Mexico, Hupert says, "While some districts feel overburdened, there are some that feel 'finally, this is what we've been hoping to do all along.' They're finally getting to dig in to talk about the content of teaching reading, because people know there will be money available if they have a good plan."
To help states and districts sort out the decisions they need to make, the leaders of Reading First have spread the word about the National Reading Panel's findings and distributed an abridgement of "Put Reading First" (www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/PFRbooklet.pdf), which describes how to design instruction based on scientifically based research. In technical assistance workshops, state-level Reading First teams received guidance from the U.S. Education Department (ED) regarding basal reading programs and reading assessment instruments, and how well each aligned with the guidelines of the initiative. These reviews have simplified matters for many states and districts, but, as we will see below, may have narrowed the choices for others.
The List That Isn't a List
ED guidance was intended both to provide a model of how SBRR can help educators evaluate curriculum and assessment products, and to provide some ready examples of products that meet the Reading First requirements. For instance, a report on assessments conducted by researchers at the University of Oregon reviewed several publisher products and some state tests. The list was by no means exhaustive, nor did it claim to be. The report was also quick to clarify that it was reviewing the quality of the research data about the assessments, not offering endorsements.
But according to Scott Paris, a reading researcher at the University of Michigan, "All of the district educators I've talked to think there is a list, despite all the denials to the contrary." Paris points out that in Michigan "20,000 teachers have been trained on a locally developed assessment called the Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP). Michigan educators created it and researchers have studied it, but now it is not approved for Reading First programs in Michigan, because the state chose assessments from 'the list.'"
