Post by Vince BranniganIf you hadn't noticed yet another Bush lovin expensive right wing
educational piece of junk just came up a loser
*Study: 'Reading First' Program Fails to Boost Reading Skills*
By Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 1, 2008; 10:01 AM
Children who participate in the $1-billion-a-year reading initiative at
the heart of the No Child Left Behind law have not become better readers
than their peers, according to a study released today by the Education
Department's research arm. The report from the Institute of Education
Sciences found that students in schools that use Reading First, which
provides grants to improve grade-school reading instruction, scored no
better on reading comprehension tests than peers in schools that don't
participate. The conclusion is likely to reignite the longstanding
"reading wars," because critics argue the program places too much
emphasis on explicit phonics instruction and doesn't do enough to foster
understanding.
Reading First, aimed at improving reading skills among students from
low-income families, has been plagued by allegations of mismanagement
and financial conflicts of interest. But the Bush administration has
strenuously backed the effort, saying it helps disadvantaged children
learn to read. About 1.5 million children in about 5,200 schools
nationwide, including more than 140 schools in Maryland, Virginia and
the District, participate in Reading First. The congressionally
mandated study, completed by an independent contractor, focused on tens
of thousands of first-, second- and third-grade students in 248 schools
in 13 states. The children were tested, and researchers observed
teachers in 1,400 classrooms.
No Child Left Behind was enacted in 2002 with support from President
Bush and a broad bipartisan majority in Congress. The law, a signature
domestic achievement for Bush, required an expansion of standardized
testing in schools and authorized other measures meant to help close
achievement gaps, including Reading First. That reading program, which
drew on conclusions in a 2000 report by the National Reading Panel, has
been widely promoted by Bush and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.
It requires participating schools to use instructional techniques
supported by scientific research. Proponents of a whole-language
approach, which teaches skills through reading stories, say Reading
First favors methods that emphasize explicit phonics instruction.
.....
"There was no statistically significant impact on reading comprehension
scores in grades one, two or three," Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst,
director of the Institute of Education Sciences said in a briefing with
reporters. "It's possible that in implementing Reading First there is a
greater emphasis on decoding skills and not enough emphasis, or maybe
not correctly structured emphasis, on reading comprehension," he said.
"It's one possibility."
I often wonder just how much of the modern trend of functional
illiteracy is not coupled with the ever more easily available visual
stimulus - TV, DVD, Web,etc.. When I was a kid reading was about the
only escape available - it took one to foreign climes, gave one
incredible adventures, amused, educated and satisfied. There was not
the option of switching on alternate media. In our little military
outpost the generator was switched off at 9 in the evenings anyway -
even if we had TV, which we did not! Being able to read, and read
well, was a link with the world denied those who could not. And I
cannot think of any of my guttersnipe mates who could not read well at
an early age, most even before we went to school. No impetus other
than the need for wanting to know more. And when you live in a little
place with 28 houses in the middle of an arid nowhere - there seemed
to be a burning need to want to know more! Biggles, the Hardy boys,
Famous Five - even the much denigrated comics, of which the community
owned but few, were avidly passed about amongst us and read from cover
to cover. A weekly visit to the barber (a sergeant who supplemented
his pay by providing this service) was much anticipated due to the
fact that he kept a stock of comics for those awaiting his tonsorial
attentions to peruse.
Looking at some of the "modern" people I work with - they would no
more read a book than spend a night under a cold shower. To them it
would be an ordeal rather than a delight. Somewhere the motivation to
read has diminished. Yet there is segment of the community that does
read. We keep a number of bookshops liquid in the community I live in
- maybe 10000 people. Our local shopping mall has 4 - all prospering.
So why this split - why do some never find the urge? Could it be the
psychologists who dictate a lot of how education should be prosecuted
are missing some vital factor? They seem to have made a lot of hashes
with education - starting in the late fifites and early sixties. I
read a paper a few weeks - outlining why the whole "new math" teaching
of the sixties was an unmitigated disaster. I lately listened to a
professor of education expounding on why the "outcomes based
education" scheme implemented here a decade or more ago is a complete
failure.
Why did fierce old Miss Harrington, devoid of any psychology other
than the application of a cane to the seat, seem to get better results
than the "scientific" methods implemented so avidly of late?
Eugene L Griessel
Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them.
- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -