Image by jackhynes via Flickr
The nation's report card, formally called the National Assessment of Educational Progress, for reading was released yesterday. The results are grim. The 2009 reading scores for eighth graders are one point higher (out of 500 points) than the scores for 2007 for eighth graders. For fourth graders the scores were exactly the same in 2009 as they were in 2007. Even more depressing is the fact that since the NAEP testing began in 1992, these scores of both fourth and eight graders have gone up four points each (remember this is 4 out of 500). A number of resources are available on the NAEP website. Starting at this map, you can check out your state profiles. You can compare data across states here. Here is the entire report.
OK, this is not really a special ed issue, except that all kids need to be able to read. So my question, and I don't think that this is out of place, is after all these years of reforms, and all the new peer-reviewed, data-driven, scientific based reading methodologies, why can't Johnny read?
Any theories?
OK, this is not really a special ed issue, except that all kids need to be able to read. So my question, and I don't think that this is out of place, is after all these years of reforms, and all the new peer-reviewed, data-driven, scientific based reading methodologies, why can't Johnny read?
Any theories?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4ba4b8f7-96e3-42e5-821b-02f1208f9c4c)
I think that schools, in general, are really slipping. Teachers don't seem to care as much as they used to. A major reason for this is that kids these days have parents that don't really parent them. It's a vicious cycle. The school doesn't care, the kid doesn't care, and the parents don't care. The cycle needs to be broken somewhere, and I think it may be the parents who need to step up because it's obvious that the school won't and the kid won't. My son could read when he was 5 - not because of school, but because we made a point of reading to him and helping him learn how to read to us. We didn't teach him math, though. He is now 15 and is getting D's and F's in algebra. His teachers don't care and his school doesn't care. See a pattern? The problem we have with all of this is that we pay a LOT in taxes to pay people to teach our child for us and they aren't doing it.
ReplyDeleteAmanda,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment.
Jim
There is a tremendous body of evidence of what works in reading instruction but it's apparently not taught in ed schools.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_reading_study_app_20071202065019.pdf
is the cite to a national study. It's also consistent with every conversation I've ever had with teachers.
We wouldn't license a doctor who had never studied anatomy but we regularly license teachers who have never studied nor shown an understanding of the phonetic nature of the English language.
Our kids can't read (or add, or write) because the States' response to NCLB was to design tests with pitifully low standards that give a false sense of achievement and ability. Then textbooks, curricula, and matching benchmarks were all designed around these deficient standards. Nowhere else in life will our children be deemed successful when they score 40-60%. We have 10 years worth of students who can't analyze, comprehend, or compute. We know this. We shop online to avoid dealing with them as store clerks. It's not even their fault they are the product of this flawed system. The bar was set low and they met it. Even worse they were applauded for their excellent scholastic achievement. On the 2009 5th grade NJASK (our state assessment) a child had to score 37 of 63 possible points to be proficient in LAL- that's just under 59%. For math, scoring only 23 of 50 points-just 46% earned the coveted "proficient". Both scores would be an F on the child's report card. Why are they passing grades for the school? This is a critical problem that must be addressed as part of the reauthorization of ESEA, especially for kids in special education. I live in New Jersey and one of the tactics Child Study Teams are using is to deny related services based on the child's performance on the state assessment (NJASK). The standard for being on grade level is attaining "proficient" on the assessment. Basically, a child who has accommodations to 'level the playing field' on the test is at a significant disadvantage when they score proficient. In my son's district there is no reading specialist available to children with IEP's, who according to their IDEA evals (WIAT, WJ III) and classroom measures are performing below grade level, if the child scored proficient on the NJASK. The specialist is only allowed to work with "non-proficient" students. Basically, the child is punished for passing a test that is neither normed or intended to be used for IDEA eligibility, nor is it an accurate measure. Yet it is being used to trump all other data. I know this application of the intersection between IDEA and NCLB is wrong and am working to remedy that locally. PLEASE help bring this 'loophole' to the forefront to make sure it is closed and DEMAND that the states require actual passing scores (at least equal to a report card C) on the assessments when ESEA is reauthorized. I submitted comments to the USDOE, and to other organizations, but it will take a lot of rancor to fix this. Thanks for reading!
ReplyDeleteOne of the conclusions we may reach with our advanced ability to assess students in reading is that - at some point, the numbers are not going to change very much. We have reached a point where the data is showing the natural reaction of the general student population to instruction. It really doesn't matter what we do. I don't mean to sound negative or defeatist. It is not politically correct to actually say this fact out loud. The important policy considerations should not be ignored however. Just think of the promising educational programs, strategies and focus the states and local educational agencies could embark on if we all just stopped chasing our tails?
ReplyDeleteMy own professional experience teaching at four universities (two major research universities and two "teaching universities") supports Robin's comments.
ReplyDeleteFaculty at all four schools were openly contemptuous of research-based methods. At one school, a colleague who received many federal grants explained to me that "you have to write them so the feds think you're buying into all that 'research based' [bleep], but you don't have to actually do it." At another school, my colleagues frequently complained of the challenges of "re-educating" teachers who had been indoctrinated by "Reading First [bleep]."
Some (but definitely not all) special ed teacher prep programs are friendlier to research-based methods, but their regular ed colleagues outnumber them and have the overwhelming influence on reading instruction.
Thank you for your comments Robin,Carol, ND & Mary Anne.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting discussion.
Jim
Johnny can't read because most schools do not teach reading in accordance with research based instruction by trained teachers. In New York State for example many of the reading teachers have no training at all in Orton-Gillingham based methodologies and those that do have usually taken a weekend training course and then claim they can do the ... See Moreentire methodology such as Wilson. Train teachers to teach children how to read using scientifically based reading instruction in college and graduate school vs. the eclectic methodologies that are used now - and hold schools accountable for this for all children including those with special needs.
ReplyDeleteThanks Deborah,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment.
Jim
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn the schools that I have been in the emphasis has been on AR test and DIBBLES. Teachers expect the students to benchmark and improve but so nothing to help them improve except retest them and give them another AR book.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Kelee
ReplyDeletePlease be sure to take a free subscription to the blog.
Jim