When technology fails, shouldn’t there be accountability–like real teachers?
In Gainesville, Florida, home of the prestigious University of Florida, the Alachua School District spent $1.19 million on a reading computer program called Fast ForWord.
But children who did Fast ForWord did worse than children not participating in the program!
Will the company Scientific Learning pay the money back to the district? No. Alachua will continue Fast ForWord because they claim there were some gains for certain children.
Yet, according to The Gainesville Sun, outside studies by the U.S. Institute of Education Sciences, an evaluation branch of the Education Department, indicate Fast ForWord has no apparent effects on reading fluency, and only mixed effects on comprehension.
Another study in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines found, in 2011, Fast ForWord didn’t work with children with oral language or reading problems either.
Alachua’s school district is not the only purchaser of the program. Many, many, school districts bought it. Here’s a list.
Fast ForWord ferociously promotes their own program online. They tie the program to changing a child’s brain. I am always leery of brain studies tied to miracle learning programs for children.
Many of us look at the word “scientific” in regard to education as suspicious. The word was inaccurately promoted during No Child Left Behind.
Indeed, they have a video that tells us learning starts in the brain, in case you thought it started in your stomach or some other anatomical region.
They even have a “brain changers” conference.
In this era of belt-tightening for schools, you would think that school boards and superintendents would look beyond the company’s appraisal of itself, and find outside research.
Where were the reading researchers from the University of Florida?
Several groups hail the program as successful with endorsements. I think they need to be held accountable too, so they will be more careful backing programs in the future.
They are:
- District Administration
- Readers’ Choice Awards
- Council of Administrators of Special Education
Norman Doidge MD, who wrote the popular book The Brain that Changes Itself is apparently fascinated by Fast ForWord. Why?
The Scientific Learning website is all aglow about it.
Have you read the best-selling book, “The Brain That Changes Itself,” by renowned psychiatrist Dr. Norman Doidge? In his book, Dr. Doidge interviews Dr. Michael Merzenich about his early discoveries on neuroplasticity that changed the way we view neuroscience today. He also delves into the creation of Fast ForWord – if you’ve ever been interested in how the program came about this is a fascinating read.
Obviously, if the program was as scientific and as good as they hype, Gainesville students would have changed brains and be reading fluently now.
Perhaps there should also be a brain study as to why some people mash words together and tweak their meaning like Fast ForWord.
There’s Reading Assistant too. Perhaps there is some benefit to students with learning disabilities reading words that provide cues and do self-correction. But consumers should proceed with caution.
And maybe it’s me, but I rarely see an online program that isn’t boring. The characters aren’t endearing.
It isn’t like a picture book with a Little Bear or an intriguing Dr. Seuss character.
Why would a student be motivated to learn, especially when they lose their art classes in order to do the program as was the case in Alachua County.
A school district could buy a lot of picture and early reading books for $1.19 million! Art materials too!
Of course Fast ForWord and Scientific Learning are connected to Common Core. Wouldn’t you know it?
You are right – anything to do with learning with ‘brain’ in the title should be treated with extreme caution. eg. ‘brain pills’, brain-gym etc
See
For learning inspiration turn first to a real person, not a computer program. See
https://rogertitcombelearningmatters.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/the-pleasure-of-finding-things-out/
Lovely, Roger. But I am sorry your leaders are as out of touch as ours when it comes to education.
From my understanding Fast forward only targets two areas of the brain that relate to learning. Chances are quite good that those who benefit are weak in those two areas. In his book Norman Doidge also highlights the Arrowsmith Program (chapter 2) that targets 19 areas in the brain that relate to learning. I encourage parents to check it out. Arrowsmith could be life changing for a child with learning challenges. Unfortunately it is not in public schools, just private schools sprinkled throughout the US. http://Www.arrowsmithschool.org.
I don’t like to post comments that are ads for programs. But, Sally, you help me prove a point.
First, Fast ForWord had dismal results in Gainesville which raises all kinds of red flags for programs that are not peer reviewed by educational experts.
Arrow Smith. It sounds like another program without peer reviewed research. http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/experts-question-arrowsmith-learning-program-20121102-28qcc.html
I don’t begrudge those with degrees and backgrounds trying new ideas and creating programs. We are all interested in finding what will work with students who have difficulty learning.
But marketing programs as miracles is more about marketing than children I’m afraid.
Nancy, here is a live demonstration of an Arrowsmith Cognitive Classroom that was filmed this past Monday..
I remember well a story I read long ago where a teacher was frustrated by her inability to make headway with a little child learning to read. One day she picked the little girl up and set her upon her own lap, and found that this was all it took. Kids are HUMAN. THEY. ARE. NOT. ROBOTS.
The association of love and reading is a good one for young children. Thanks Ciedie.
This program is being used in Westerly, RI. Is this a ringing endorsement?
“At both elementary schools, teachers tell Federico they have noticed positive results in the classroom as well. ‘They say students are more focused, and feel more confident and motivated,’ she said. ‘Teachers also say that, for some students, Fast ForWord is the best part of their day because it’s the part of their day where they feel successful. When students feel confident and look forward to a program, it makes a big difference in their success.’”
If sitting at a computer for 30 minutes per day is the only part of the day that a child feels successful, I shudder to think what is going on the rest of the day. I agree with Ciedie, Children are not robots. They need human connection.
https://www.scilearn.com/results/success-stories/case-studies/westerly-public-schools-builds-brain-fitness-reduces-number-of-personal-literacy-plans
Thank you, Sheila. Yes it is highly endorsed on their website. See below for concerns. So many promises.
You raise a good point, Nancy, that just spending money in education doesn’t get the job done. The same could be said for spending the same amount of money on art classes as you suggest. As for the ‘outside researchers’, I would consider you, as one with a PhD in education, to be one of those leaders who would dig a more deeply before presenting only one side of the equation as to the ‘research’ about Fast ForWord.
Everyone reading this post would do well to read Dr. Doug Aquillard’s report and how his District has addressed struggling students’ learning in St Mary Parish, Louisiana. It is not about spending money or not, but on the complete action plan and the successful implementation by teachers. Outcomes for students under Dr. Aquillard’s leadership have been outstanding, and Fast ForWord has been a contributor. http://hechingerreport.org/longer-days-helped-struggling-middle-schoolers-lessons-turnaround-st-mary-parish/
As a worker in the field of education, all I ask is that well-educated individuals who present themselves as leaders, do their due diligence and really do the research.
Marilyn, the difference is school districts are pushing tech not art programs for kids. And Fast ForWord promotes itself as a miracle for reading for students who have difficulties learning to read. It is not.
For the record, I am not anti computer learning programs, but I don’t think they are better than teachers. And I think they are being hyped much more than the research supports.
Fast ForWord might help some with the some things but not many of the other things it promotes. I find this to be similar to the results in Gainesville. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_ffw_031913.pdf .
Is it worth the money?
My post is about what happened in Gainesville, but it doesn’t take much to search the Internet and find that Fast ForWord it is not a miracle program when it comes to cognitive disabilities as it promotes. The program sells its own research. That was my point.
Dr. Aquillard promotes the program but this is not a research study. It is advertisement for the program. http://www.scilearn.com/sites/default/files/imported/alldocs/cp/St-Mary-Parish-case-study.pdf
Here are two articles of concern.
http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/1-3-2012/Oak-Park-schools-should-take-a-step-back-from-Fast-ForWord/
https://www.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/171096/musec_briefing_28-fast_forword_languagepdf-1.pdf
For the record, I am not anti computer learning programs, but I don’t think they are better than teachers.
I couldn’t agree more! But the problem is that there are so many children who are failing in reading, who need highly individualized instruction from well-trained specialist teachers, and there are not enough teachers (and money to pay them) to meet the need. If school districts cannot provide 1-1 teaching daily for each child who is struggling because they don’t have the money, than who would object to those children getting the 1-1 instruction they need on a computer?
After their struggles have been resolved with reading, they can participate in all of the enjoyable aspects of education that come with being a capable reader. Fast ForWord, when used as recommended, is a short-term intervention to get kids reading successfully and into the regular stream of education.
It is concerning to me when highly educated leaders disrespect an intervention which could make a life-changing difference for a child who might otherwise be a failure in school and in life. Our money-strapped school districts (even the affluent ones) need specialist leaders who know how to use the available funds for maximum benefit.
I am not disrespecting the program. I am showing the research that says it doesn’t do the things it claims.
Please read my links. I wrote this post based on what happened in Gainesville. I didn’t just come up with this because I decided I didn’t like the program.
Our money-strapped schools are not all that money-strapped when they can spend a million on a computer program that doesn’t have the research behind it to show it works!
A million dollars can buy a lot of things.
If you are in contact with District administrators you would know that a million dollars pays for only a few specialist teachers’ salaries………..not enough for all of the 1-1 intervention needed. That is why effective computer intervention is well justified.
You may be reporting about what happened in Gainsville, but you should know that your link was distributed to an association for parents of children who have learning disabilities on the west coast of Canada. These are lay people with children in great need. When they see that a leader who has a PhD in education is disrespecting a product, they believe it. They don’t know that there may be other information available that supports the effectiveness. My hope in providing the link to St Mary Parish’s work is that they will see that there are leaders who have used Fast ForWord correctly with good success
I was careful when naming your comments as ‘disrespectful’. I landed on this because you did not provide information which supports FFW success, and you suggested that Scientific Learning should pay a million dollars back to Gainsville.
The program isn’t what they claim, my son did the program for about a year. He loathed the program missing more time with peers in the classroom. The audiologist that encouraged the district’s to funnel money for this program accused kids of not trying when gains weren’t seen. I wish I would have done more research. I pushed my kid on this program and read the stupid book about how the brain changes it’s self. I drank the kool-aid and believed every word that audiologist said about my son. I’m not saying it doesn’t have some cool parts but school districts shouldn’t funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars for licensing for this thing.
Thank you for sharing, Rachael. How sad that they blamed children for not trying. Don’t feel bad. We listen to those who also believe they’re doing the right thing. I hope your son can learn to enjoy books and that you have a good school library at his school with a compassionate qualified librarian who can help him find books of interest.
Hi Nancy
Learning to read is not innate. I know many excellent schools with beautiful, well-stocked libraries, where a significant number of children are struggling to read. For any child struggling, good intervention by a qualified professional is needed. Fast ForWord is a good tool, which used in the right hands is very effective.
Exposure to more good, attractive interesting books is not the magic that will help these children learn to read.
Marilyn, Did you mean this for the current blog post? If so, please read the examples of the many schools across the country that are losing libraries and librarians. Certainly some children will still have learning disabilities like dyslexia, but good libraries are important to them too. I am not against some use of an online program for review, but it is not to replace a good reading teacher and a library. Has there been any new research on Fast ForWord?
I was responding to your comment to the parent, Rachel, when you made the comment about good libraries at her son’s school. I wasn’t sure if you were making the link to good libraries, as a remedy for her son’s difficulty learning to read.
I was hoping to provide information to her as well as any other parents out there who may have heard from professionals that children will be able to ‘pick up’ reading if they are exposed to good books, and enthusiastic teachers. This is not accurate information, although it does happen for a small percentage.
I appreciate that you support online learning as a part of an intervention program for struggling readers. Yes, of course, well-trained teachers who are up-to-date with current research are always essential for all of these children, The children are not robots who can be sat in front of a screen without support. Of course, good libraries are a bonus.
A little online, NOT a total reading program. A little goes a long way. Most programs are the central part of the reading program. No research to show that’s a good thing.
Hi Rachel.
I am sorry your son is struggling. You seem very motivated to be helpful as a parent. Do you know any more about why your son loathed the program? It may be that the audiologist made a good recommendation for the program, but that your son was not supported adequately by well-experienced professionals. It is true that no child can be set in front of a computer with a learning program, and it will automatically ‘work’ for the child’s learning. Every child needs good support. The success of the program is in the program itself AND the qualified professional support that is also needed. You must have both for there to be success
Nancy, have you ever seen the Fast ForWord Program yourself or any children while they are engaged in the Fast ForWord Exercises?
Sandra and Marilyn,
Take your eyes off of me.
Here is what I wrote about. I have several other links too. I did not make this up or go looking to destroy your belief in the program. You are blaming the messenger. Please read the links I have provided.
I cannot advocate a program when I read conflicting results in the research. Maybe it helps your children in some way, but it is not, from what I have read, a miracle program.
Here is what was reported in the Gainesville Sun.
“After elementary students took the reading Florida Standards Assessments in 2016, the district compared their scores with their performances in 2015 if they used Fast ForWord both years.
Of 705 then third- and fourth-graders who failed the 2015 FSA, 36 percent made learning gains in 2016, and 10.9 percent passed the 2016 test. Of 697 students who failed the 2015 FSA but who did not use Fast ForWord, 40 percent made learning gains, and 20.5 percent passed the 2016 test.
‘It really doesn’t show any tremendous growth for those students,’ Deputy Superintendent Karen Clarke said.”
I wish you well..
Eyes ARE on you to provide balanced information.
You are correct that anyone can read the newspaper or journals, but when a leader puts out information. they have an obligation to make it balanced. We desperately need trustworthy educational leaders.
Since you have presented only information which discredits Fast ForWord, you have an obligation to present the other side. Please do.
I looked for pro-FF research before I wrote the post. The best I found is that it does some good with Alphabetics ? Mixed results with comprehension and no positive results with reading fluency.
I provide that link.
But this is hardly a miracle program. I have searched. If I find something I will report it. If you find something send me a link. But not endorsements off their website unless they are actual research papers–peer reviewed and reputable.
The findings in Gainesville matter.
Educational systems now know that children develop their reading skills on the foundation of their language skills. Fast ForWord is a learning intervention developed to improve language skills, and underlying speech sound processing abilities. Anyone evaluating FFW should understand the science of its design. These would be good places to start.
Merzenich, Michael M., et al. “Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training.” Science 271.5245 (1996): 77.
Tallal, Paula. “Auditory temporal perception, phonics, and reading disabilities in children.” Brain and language 9.2 (1980): 182-198.
Temple, Elise, et al. “Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: evidence from functional MRI.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100.5 (2003): 2860-2865.
FFW is an intensive intervention tool to be implemented by highly qualified specialists, following specific implementation protocols. As with any intervention, or even an excellent medication prescribed by a physician, if it is not implemented/taken as directed, the results will be less than stellar. There may actually be no benefit at all if implemented poorly. So with all the ‘research’ articles discrediting FFW there needs to be a thorough review of how the program was implemented to make an adequate judgment. A thorough review of each research article (not just a Google search) is important. That is why I cited Dr. Aguillard’s work in St Mary Parish, because their implementation is stellar, and it does show the positive benefits.
Nancy, let’s take our responsibility as educational leaders seriously, and do a proper job of investigating before dissing what could be a life-changing intervention for children!
You say, “children develop their reading skills on the foundation of their language skills.” Sure. I’m not sure why that makes FFW unique. We have known this for a long time.
Also, who are the highly qualified specialists that administer the FF program? It’s a computer program. Curious.
Pretty sure Alachua County knows what they are doing, but call or write to them if you are not sure.
Also, Dr. Aguillard is obviously a fan of FFW but it looks like they increased the school day and were already improving their test scores before FFW.
http://hechingerreport.org/longer-days-helped-struggling-middle-schoolers-lessons-turnaround-st-mary-parish/
That’s why clear cut research is important. There are many variables that can affect learning.
I am sorry I am not giving you a blanket endorsement of FFW. It might work with some children.
It wasn’t just Gainesville that I looked at.
http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/1-3-2012/Oak-Park-schools-should-take-a-step-back-from-Fast-ForWord/
https://www.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/171096/musec_briefing_28-fast_forword_languagepdf-1.pdf
But give me some time to look up the research articles you present . Today is Thanksgiving so I need a little time. But thanks for sending them to me.
If I change my mind I will write another post about the program. People who like FFW are not going to be swayed by me.
I am an educator and a parent. Some pieces of the program were helpful for my older son. I thought the games with sounds were excellent. However, a good chunk of games were very disappointing. The stories were nonsensical and the questions old style with today’s expectations in understanding a piece of text. The game with graphic organizers were out of the date. The game with sequencing was poorly thought out. Fast Forward needs to update themselves, and it is very expensive for families.
I appreciate this comment and information, from someone who has used the program. I have been trying to figure out if this would benefit my own child. Would you use the program again/recommend it?
I am also interested in this FFW for my soon to be middle school son. Is there something that you recommend?
Why are you interested in this? Does he have reading difficulties? I’d encourage him to read books. That’s what I would do. Get him his own library card. Or try comic books if he doesn’t like to read.
Hello, I’m posting because I remember seeing this site before buying FFP last year may…then I bought it anyway. We are in Sydney my boy turned 8 this feb and he is in the last month of the program. Mine finished several ff/reading programs as well. He is now on his 2nd round of ff. My boy went to a small school last year composite yr 1 and 2 with 10 kids only. He was in yr 1. All his teachers and even speech pathologist saw a very clear improvement within 2 months. He has continued to improve, I dont know if it was a coincidence but we kept his yr 1 teacher as a tutor this year and she said when she first got him last year she was very worried. But now she thinks he could be fine at least for yr 2 and 3. I am very happy…the program cost way too much for what it is! the sounds are tinny and words not completely related to our times or country. I personally couldnt stand it but I cant pretend it didn’t help us. My child has always had early intervention, speech, ot, small class settings, my help…I dont work cos he needs me. I dont regret buying the program but the program COULD be updated for sure!
Thanks, Kristine. It sounds like your son was also being seen by a speech pathologist and had good attention in a smaller class. Could that have been part of the reason behind his improvement?
Whatever the reason, I am happy to hear of his progress. Thank you for your comment. It is interesting.
Hi Nancy,
Thanks for your response, so just to clarify, he has always been seen by speech and ot since around 3yo. Small classes since 4yo at the same school, speech pathologist was less intensive last year, only about 7 sessions. Speech was initially very offended that I went ahead and purchased the program without talking to her, but was just gobsmacked to see his dramatic improvements between our extremely sporadic sessions. All educators at school saw a very steep improvement in him despite having been heavily involved in his learning development for 3 years prior. Of course I also understand that it could just be that he naturally reached a point in his learning that boosted his performance. I am in no way promoting the program which I do find both tedious and dated. I really just wanted to share my experience and I thank you so much for not dismissing it 🙂
Sure. I am not favoring this program obviously, but I realize that sometimes something clicks with children. Whatever it takes. I also want to add that sometimes students have leaps in their progress. It isn’t always steady upward.
Hi Kristine . Thank you for sharing your experience about your son. So excellent that he is doing better now. I am a speech-language pathologist who fully supports Fast ForWord and have worked with children with the program. It has been my experience too that many children have an uptick on their skills in school and with learning at the same time as they have done FFW. I give credit to FFW because it works on the underlying cognitive skills of memory, attention, processing speed and sequencing, which are skills important for all school learning.
Unfortunately, Marilyn, you are somewhat in the minority. https://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/1-3-2012/Oak-Park-schools-should-take-a-step-back-from-Fast-ForWord/ I see no current research to substantiate your claims, and substituting a questionable program for good teachers and speech-language pathologists should not be allowed. Her son had good teachers over a long period of time. While the program may have reinforced his skills there’s no proof his improvement was due to the program. Feel free to submit some current research for the program–by research I mean peer-reviewed university studies by those not selling the program.
Hi Nancy . Could you please help me out with your point. If you are saying that quality/intensive intervention with a real teacher is the best……..I agree. I think many parents who come here are looking for answers when these real-teacher/specialist resources are not available for a variety of reasons. What then? I think this would be the position Oakpark School District was in when this post originated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361096/ . This article (so often used to say FFW is ‘ineffective’) actually says that “The children with language impairments in our sample who received FFW-L did not fare better than children in other language interventions of equal intensity on our primary outcome measure of language,” What were the other interventions they used to compare?
The article describes these. What was the intensity? “1 hour and 40 minutes per day, five days per week, for six weeks”
So I agree, if parents have access to that level of intensive intervention from a qualified special education teacher/SLP, they should certainly take advantage of it, and outcomes would be as good as with Fast ForWord.
Going back to my confusion about your point. If you are looking to advocate for real-teacher resources, I am 100% in support. There just aren’t enough well-training specialists in schools to meet the needs. If you are looking to help parents when the high levels of quality staffing are not available, I would ask that you provide guidance about how they can get the help their children need.
I have never worked in a public school district where there were no speech and language teachers. I am not sure how it works in Australia, although that did not seem to be Kristine’s difficulty. Her child had a speech therapist. I also just added that students sometimes make sudden progress. So it isn’t clear if Fast Forward helped her child. The professionals had been working with him for awhile.
It is troubling that there may be shortages of professionals due to under funding professionals like other areas of special education etc. This is the way privatization works. You’re trying to get me to say rely on a substandard program instead. But it isn’t a good program. I’d look around for something else first. School districts should improve salaries and conditions.
We live in scary times due to the push for choice and charters and many of these schools will also rely on tech. There is no proof they will be better schools. And little proof Fast Forward is going to be helpful. I know you like this program but it just doesn’t sound good thus far. I’m sorry to still disagree. Is it better than nothing? I really can’t say….
I would also like to add that my child was attending a private mainstream school, it was an infants campus quite far from main campus hence the low numbers. This year he assimilated extremely well into a single stream catholic school. His class size is 25. I had many goals for him last year, he has 22q11.2 deletion with global developmental delays. The most important one last year was preparing him for this year’s school change. My son is quite advanced in a form of martial arts to help him with confidence despite his age and size (small stature, he looks like he belongs in kindy) he has been doing it for 3-4 years. The only things he was good at was remembering his kungfu form and other gross motor skills. MA didn’t seem to help him in the classroom though. He consistently scored a 1/5 in handwriting with spalding method last year and his reading was very slow in kindy and beginning of yr1, he also could never turn to the “next blank page” nor stick his work in a neat upright manner. He spent two years in reception with the most amazing teacher which was my plan and I honestly can’t fault any of his teachers. The only difference was that we started FFW in May 2018 and suddenly he was following directions, recalling instructions and details in stories better than ever. His reading improved so much during the reading program last year he came running to me in tears because the program tried a year 5 book on him (about arctic and geology) it really stressed him out so we stopped the reading program since he ran out of age appropriate books. The improvement was extremely clear to everyone, it wasn’t just in my head.
I bought FFW online immediately after speaking with our school’s principal on the telephone one Friday morning after visiting a local catholic school. The discussion was about whether I apply for a school with currently only 13 students for his year? or do I apply for the catholic school with the Arrowsmith program in case it might help him down the track? (I want to be clear that my son is NOT enrolled in Arrowsmith) The principal who actually taught both my children in 2014 and 2017 advised that since teaching my son (my daughter is a high achiever) she has also looked into possible benefits of neuro exercises and her opinion was that trying them at the expense of a smaller class size, geography, history, music etc at a young age is definitely worth risking just in case it helped even a little (we were discussing Arrowsmith). During this phonecall we realised how silly that we didn’t think to try some sort of brain exercises during his time left with this infants campus (it closed down this year) because what better way to see whether this form of neuro exercise will benefit my child than the educators who already know him well at his current school, the school had less than 30 kids for 4 year groups and 4-5 teachers. We were ridiculously spoilt for attention.
I remember clearly, as soon as we hung up I hopped online, found FFW (also found this article) researched for about 2hrs and purchased a 12month subscription without speaking with anyone from FFW because I wanted him to start straight away on Monday so I can make the most out of his time left with this school. I called the site I purchased it from and asked to be set up by Monday (it was almost COB Friday, they must’ve though this had to be the weirdest purchase in history as I had no idea about the program, committed to 12 months and wanted it NOW!) They set me up by saturday so I was ready to go on Monday, I sent the school instructions on Sunday ask them to ensure he does 1 exercise during the morning so that he doesn’t do all his FFW afterschool hrs when he is probably over learning. School planned the best timeslot for him, set up his special table and he did one exercise everyday at the same time. This is why I didn’t discuss anything with speech or anyone else before purchasing FFW, in fact I had no idea FFW overlapped with speech at the time, I was sold on the word “cognitive”. Our speech pathologist then told me she knows the program but does not sell or use, she admittedly said that basically FFW is her job, she could’ve done similar exercises with him. Doing the math in my head quickly, I justified the cost of FFW to sending him to speech daily for 30mins. I honestly feel that the program has helped, and our speech pathologist was able to focus her efforts elsewhere like teaching him how to respond to potential bullying and other bad behaviour he might come across at his new school which I am also forever grateful for.
I may still do another session of FFW with him in yr 4 which is when our educators and speech separately suggested his next stumbling block will arrive.
Thought I better paint a clearer picture of our circumstances for anyone who might find our story helpful. My son might have 22q11.2 deletion syndrome but it IS mild and he has no other impairments. No surgeries, physical disabilities, brain dysfunctions or autism. His iq is low average but his eq is off the charts, he is a a kind and lovely boy who clowns around way too much and can manipulate everyone kids and teachers into helping him with everything from opening his lunch to writing his sentences despite that his speech could be clearer etc. And because of that everyone went into panic mode when we got word he had to find a new school this year. No child with or without syndrome should be compared. Thanks again 🙂
Neuro exercises? Kristine you almost sound like you are advertising Fast Forward. I’m glad it worked for your son. But the research (or lack of) doesn’t really indicate it is the miracle program you describe.
Hi Nancy,
I’m not advertising anything, I am a stay at home mum who ended an engineering career when my baby failed to thrive at 12mos while I was on maternity leave. God knows the work involved behind the scenes to have my son presenting like normal to those around us wasn’t because of a mere miracle program. I am pointing out that despite all the help we had from early intervention to caring educators to an ott mum who demanded Drs for test after test (he wasnt diagnosed until 15mos) since he was apparently “just small” to them – having weighed 4.2kg at birth! Despite what feels like I have been engineering both my kids since birth cos my world changed from crazy hours involved in making sure nothing blows up on any of my projects in the heavy industries to “being a mum”, I was used to solving problems and high workloads. Nothing worked FASTER than forcing my kid to train his brain every single day on whatever program it may be. Eventhough he already had homework from school, speech and ot, doing what seemingly felt like brain dead exercises to me, possibly to you, to anyone normal who has heard/seen how excruciatingly tedious these exercises are, they worked for him. Before that, I even tried him on Big Brain Academy on the Nintendo Wii! I’m not saying FFW is the ultimate program, I am a time poor mum who failed to find anything better in the time frame I had (one Friday arvo). I am absolutely open to other suggestions.
Please don’t disregard what has been a very real, long and painful journey as some false advocacy trying to make a buck. Please nobody make their decision regarding FFW based on our experience only. I also apologise if I am not overly coherent or too repetitive, all my responses have been typed on a mobile the window is quite small ????
Thanks again.
I did not disregard your painful journey. I repeatedly noted how glad I am that your child has improved. But you seem to credit FF as a miracle program. I have to make sure the readers know there is no research backing this. I wish you and your child continued progress and my best!
Thank you Marilyn and Nancy for your kind words and well wishes. Reviving this thread for you wasn’t my intention, I was actually googling about FFW and if anyone felt the same way as I, which was – that the audio needs serious updating! I can’t stand the tinny robotic voices, I was sitting next to my son who was struggling on a part called Stellar Stories. I have never felt more intense ambivalence towards something ???? Instead of finding similar woes, I again stumbled upon this site and thought, well I combed through your words and comments section around this time last year and despite it didn’t deter me from trying FFW, I wanted to leave a comment anyway. I don’t often let a lack of research or trials or proof stop me from trying any theory that makes sense to me. From omega 3 potentially delaying early onset of psychosis, to intermittent fasting slowing down degenerative neurological disorders. To the simple act of singing from a musical score lighting up one’s brain like no other activity. If a theory sounds somewhat substantiated, I will give it a go, the only thing I truly advocate is open mindedness – about our ever evolving knowledge of life, the universe and everything! So long! and thanks for all the fish! ????????
Hi Kristine . Thank you for that detailed description of your little boy, and the help you and the school have been able to provide. Your SLP was correct to say that “FFW is her job”. This is because the skills worked on in FFW are ones that SLPs target and understand. She and you did an excellent thing because you asked that some of the FFW be supervised at school, and you did the remainder with him at home. It was also fabulous that the SLP did other things with him, that a computer cannot do, such as work on social skill learning to address the bullying. Using FFW is not a substitute for SLP or specialist teacher support. It most effective when it is included in the day’s learning with other supports also provided. In all, though, I am sure your little boy got the intensive level of support he needed, which I don’t believe the school could have provided with their limited SLP time..
Your little boy is very fortunate to have you as his Mom. Kudos to you.
Yes it is definitely a dilemma for parents who have children who struggle in the public school system. Yes there are speech-language pathologists in every school district. I am one. But the dilemma is that there are not enough to provide the intensity of speech-language service for each of the students who struggle. In the article I sent, it outlines the amount of therapy needed to make a difference. If you would talk with SLPs in schools all over the world, you would hear that there is much dissatisfaction because they cannot do what they know needs to be done.
You say I ‘like the program’, and I do specifically because the computer can deliver the level of intensity of support that I can’t. Would I love to work with children at the intensity level they need? For sure, but it would take 50 of me to meet the needs. The district would not be able to afford that, plus there are not enough trained SLPs to fill the jobs even if there were positions (there is a worldwide shortage of SLPs).
To help children, it is our responsibility to find ways to be helpful under the circumstances. These children only have a short window to acquire the skills they need for life. Just moaning about the problem isn’t a solution.
Marilyn I have got to end with going back and forth here. This is an old post and we disagree. The research doesn’t seem to be on your side that this is a great program. I can see you arguing for it instead of getting more speech therapists which is what your county could likely afford but is probably putting into more charter schools and online learning. Please read up on school privatization. Thanks.
I am a veteran teacher of 37 years. I was just told this week at our PLC meeting that I am to have ALL of my students, struggling or not, to use this program 30 minutes a day.
I tried it with one struggling student last year who didn’t qualify for our school wide intervention program. Her main difficulty in the classroom was focus. This program completely bored and frustrated her.
After a couple of weeks I took her off the program.
My fear is that if I am forced to put all of my students on the program it will bore them or cause them to dislike reading.
I am considering contesting this forced use of FFW . Do you have any information about it being used as an enrichment tool? I was told that it will help my struggling readers as well as provide enrichment for my on and above level readers. I disagree, but would like some feedback.
I’m sorry I missed this comment, Maureen. The post might help.
Interesting commentary. My daughter had a cognitive perceptual learning disorder. She couldn’t blend “h-a-t” together to say the word hat. She failed her TCAP in grade 2. After going through FF, the end of the year she was reading on 4th grade level. On the cases of her success, the school system added it to their reading program and we have had great success over the past 20 years with other students. I am a physician, educator and researcher, but don’t know of a lot of evidenced based research to support stories like mine, and don’t have time to do them myself. Would be great of some teacher educators would look into that more. I do know that a neighboring county had all their TCAP scores go up across the board when they put all their students on it a few years ago. So there is something somewhere that should be studied more, I would think. Although, evidence based medicine isn’t the panacea that people think it is, it is all we currently have to evaluate our science.
How do you explain this post? Who’s science?
Nancy Bailey –
I have just recently heard about Fast ForWord & was googling when I ran across your article. I read it, all the comments, & more research. Let me be clear that “I have no dog in this hunt” regarding FFW or any other program -I don’t even have a young child. Also, I am retired & never an educator in K-12, although I do have lots of family in the educational field. I am just interested in the topic of brain plasticity -which is truly fascinating & remarkable; and that opinion is based on a large amount of research.
What has compelled me to write this (& commenting like this is a rarity for me) is that I find your research unbalanced & inadequate to be speaking so negatively about a program that has helped so many children & families. Of particular note is that this article was written over a year ago, more discussion happened sporadically into the fall of last year, & then you commented again in March of 2020. In this comment, you only reiterated your poor opinion of FFW.
This was the final push for me to comment, as it seems apparent that in over a year, you have not done any further research to bring more information to this important discussion. It appears that you are more interested in defending your opinion than helping to educate parents & educators. My apologies for being harsh with this criticism, but this is an extremely important topic for many children & there are simply not enough SLPs & other educational specialists in schools to provide the help these children need.
I sincerely appreciate your efforts to provide information on educational topics. I feel strongly that you missed it on this subject. & still hope you will conduct more & better balanced research. Thanks for the opportunity to share.
Thank you Joan for your thoughtful comments. You are so accurate in saying that there are not enough SLPs and educational specialists in schools for the need. It is not only because districts do not have the funds for hiring these specialists, but also because there are not enough qualified SLPs for the need if the funds were found. There is a worldwide shortage. There are many reasons why the aid of computer-delivered service is necessary and valuable to meet the ethical need for help for children. A program like FFW is helpful in augmenting the work of an SLP, and is not a replacement for the specialist support. I am an SLP, so I see the need on a daily basis.
I have cited this article which is old now, but it has demonstrated the efficacy of FFW since the research was done in 2008. I have referred to it on Nancy’s blog, but I have not observed that she has read it. It was published by the NIH, so the report is not effected by any marketing. If she read this article, we could begin a discussion about how FFW intervention compares to other interventions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361096/
I might add that, yes Scientific Learning does marketing. Is it not true that many (all?) educational products are marketed? How else can customers learn about a product? Is it not also true that the best and most effective medical products are well marketed, AND they are effective? If a product is well marketed, does that automatically brand is as a sham?
Thanks for your balanced thoughts, Joan. I am not interested in sparring with Nancy or anyone, just for the sake of debate. We are in an educational crisis in North America. Many of the social issues around us are directly related to literacy difficulty. As specialists (including Nancy), we are ethically bound to provide possible solutions. This takes thoughtful conversation, with a reasonable expectation that we will find realistic solutions.
It was a 2008 study but later information was not so glowing. I wrote this based on the article I cited from Gainesville. And my point is that your comments here are meant to market your product. I’m always willing to look at new information that is objective and not promotional material.
Why are you saying “your product” about my comments?
Do you have any proof this is ‘my product’?
You do not, because I have no affiliation with Scientific Learning except that I have used Fast ForWord as a practitioner in a public school district. I gained no financial benefit at any time.
Please be fair and professional.
Sorry. If you aren’t somehow affiliated. I’ve never known anyone to believe in a program so religiously as you do, or to dismiss the links I based this post upon. I have been fair. This is an old post and I don’t need to continue to allow your comments, but I do. We disagree. I also don’t have anymore time to devote to this, Marilyn. I need to focus on the difficulties during this crisis. I wish you the best. Stay well!
Please read the links like this one. https://www.gainesville.com/news/20161106/12-million-reading-program-produces-weak-results
I did not pull my thoughts about this program out of thin air. You tell me you’re not an expert but I see no citations.
I will say FF has a good marketing group.