Here we go again – more wasted money attributed to No Child Left Behind

The $1 billion-a-year Reading First program, authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act, has had no measurable effect on students’ reading comprehension. The long-awaited interim report from the Reading First Impact Study , released last week by the Institute of Education Sciences, says that students in schools receiving grants from the federal program have not fared any better than their counterparts in comparison schools in gaining meaning from print.

Its purpose was to help improve reading instruction in the nation’s struggling schools by focusing students on explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

 

So what were the results?  Well… students’ understanding of reading material did not change significantly whether or not they were in Reading First schools. In fact, researchers determined that without the Reading First funding in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, children in grades 1 – 3 would not have lost (in 3^rd grade) or gained (1^st and 2^nd) more than 3 percentage points.  (Source: Institute of Education Sciences)

 

Thankfully, congress cut the budget for the program by 60% in October (for the 2008 fiscal year).  These cuts were driven mostly by federal reports that suggested conflicts of interest had occurred among officials and contractors who helped implement the program. Some contractors were tied to commercial reading programs used in participating schools.

 

However, a bigger problem has plagued the program, the problem of a drastically narrowed focus on basic (low level) skills, at the expense of critical thinking and understanding literature and nonfiction.  Reading instruction is a comprehensive task.  You can’t focus all of the child’s time on basic phonemic awareness and decoding skills and expect to have a fluent reader and writer.  If you teach and expect mastery of only basic skills, you will get only basic results.

 

Background knowledge is crucial in building students’ reading skills and their ability to understand subject-area texts. The teaching of content and interesting content has obviously been neglected through this program.  How is the learning relative to the child’s life and interest?  Why would a child want to read if they are subjected to educational boredom through drill and practice style reading activities?

 

Specific skills are important, but you can’t just teach the low level skills and assume the other skills will emerge by themselves.  Too much time has already been wasted with this program’s basic fanfare, that’s time that’s being stolen from recess, math and science class, and the children are getting nothing in return.  We are in a global society.  We need to connect students learning to 21^st century skills.  We need to empower students to reach higher than a basic level of understanding and knowledge.

 

My opinion – shameful!  Early education is the key to future success.  We must teach our children from birth and we must motivate others around us to do the same.  Give your child the world – set expectations high for educational development before he even begins school!