Since No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 2001, the International Reading Association has been committed to the goals of the legislation—to enable all children to achieve their best academically while closing the achievement gap. IRA, however, over the past five years has continually voiced its concerns about certain aspects of the Act’s implementation.
The recent audit of Reading First by the Inspector General’s office of the U.S. Department of Education was the latest report to find fault with the management of the program. Reading First is an important component of NCLB and funds professional development in schools with a high percentage of low-achieving, low-income students.
Specifically, the Inspector General found that workshops held in 2002 to educate professionals how to “gear up” for Reading First gave the appearance of promoting certain instructional programs (Open Court and Direct Instruction) and assessment tools (specifically, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills—DIBELS). In a variety of venues, IRA has made its position clear on how such programs and tests should be vetted and has delineated what “evidence-based reading instruction” means. (See IRA’s 2002 brochure, What Is Evidence-Based Reading Instruction?) In brief, the evidence supporting a particular program or test tool should be objective, valid, reliable, systematic, and refereed.
IRA joined with more than two dozen other education, civil rights, children’s, disability, and citizens’ organizations in October 2004 (“Joint Organizational Statement on the No Child Left Behind Act”) in recommending changes to NCLB that included using nationally recognized evidence-based criteria to evaluate professional development programs, instructional programs, and student assessments.
Barbara Walker, vice-president of the International Reading Association, further questioned the apparent promotion of the DIBELS assessment at the Reading First conferences. DIBELS is a timed reading test designed to rate fluency in reading by young children. She said it has been “a perceived requirement of NCLB as a way to periodically evaluate student learning, but it only evaluates under timed conditions.” Consistently, she added, “evidence-based research has shown that comprehension is the most important aspect of reading. DIBELS does not assess comprehension.”
With regard to irregularities in how technical assistance contracts were awarded, IRA urged in its Board position statement On Reading First in November 2006 that it is “essential that all laws and regulations be closely adhered to in the administration of [Reading First].”
The IRA Board of Directors further requested the Secretary of Education “to develop and make public rigorous administrative procedures and establish new partnerships with professional organizations to ensure that the intent of this legislation is fully realized.”
The IG audit noted that now that a larger body of reading research exists, “there seems to be some movement to place more emphasis on the scientific effectiveness of reading programs rather than just the inclusion of the commonly accepted five essential components of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, fluency, and comprehension).” The IG audit also suggested that during the NCLB reauthorization process, Congress and the Department of Education clarify whether reading programs need to have scientific evidence of effectiveness to be eligible for Reading First funds.
In “A Call to Action and a Framework for Change: IRA’s Position on NCLB Reform,” (October 2006) IRA recommended constant revision of the definition of reading through “continuous review of scientifically based reading research.” IRA also recommended going beyond the already identified essential components of effective reading instruction to include the following:
classroom organization,
differentiated instruction,
expert intensive tutoring,
motivation and engagement,
writing, and
oral language.
IRA cautioned that adopting research-based programs alone cannot guarantee reading success for all students. Teachers and administrators must evaluate methods and programs to determine if the instructional strategies are a good match for their schools and the children they teach. Programs, no matter how well designed, must be adjusted as necessary when they are not working.
IRA will continue to monitor NCLB and Reading First as the NCLB reauthorization makes its way through Congress. Recognizing the importance of local communities in the democratic process of reform, the IRA in its “Call to Action” appealed to teachers, “who are fundamentally connected to the classroom...to lead the way...so that children receive the resources they need to succeed.”
IRA constant in monitoring Reading First, NCLB. (April 2007). Reading Today, 24(5), 7.
Journals
Reading Today