Recent NAEP reading scores show students have made negligible improvement in reading. While there could be various reasons for this, it’s critical to recognize that the curse of NCLB policies has driven public education for almost 25 years, and changing course and reevaluating what isn’t working is essential.
NCLB led to Common Core State Standards, which are also problematic, but for this post, I’ll concentrate on NCLB’s effects on reading.
Here are key concerns.
1. Poverty remains a huge problem.
Underfunded schools, inequitable funding, and economic segregation have existed for years. Many children lack health care, are food insecure, and could face homelessness.
NCLB talked about the poor and reading and made promises but used punitive methods (remember KIPP charters and “No Excuses”?) to close schools and open charter schools.
Still today, poor schools might lack necessities like libraries, librarians, and decent facilities. How do children learn to read and enjoy it if they cannot access books they like or attend decent schools?
Create federal, state, and local funding formulas that steer more resources and provide better conditions for poor schools in lower socio-economic areas.
2. Why is kindergarten first grade?
Pushing kindergartners to read before they’re developmentally ready while reducing supervised, unstructured play began with the high-stakes standards promoted by NCLB.
Researchers at the University of Virginia examined kindergarten classes and teachers between 1998 and 2010, determining that this class had become the new first grade, leaving behind age-appropriate activities children once received.
…teachers in 2010 were far less likely to indicate that their classroom included various activity centers, including art areas, dramatic play areas, science areas, or water/ sand tables. These trends are consistent with the possibility that a heightened focus on literacy and math instruction crowded out coverage of other subjects.
Shouldn’t it raise questions about why kids are pressured and no longer like to read or do it well?
Return kindergarten to the joyful class it used to be, relying on early childhood specialists to determine how that class should be run.
3. Third-grade retention is unnecessary.
Many states adopted third-grade retention, and research has demonstrated its harm. Simply promoting students without helping with reading difficulties is wrong, too.
Third grade is still a pivotal year for reading instruction, where children obtain vital reading skills, including phonics. Schools should provide remedial reading or resource classes if children struggle.
There are far better solutions than third-grade retention, and children can still become good readers in fourth grade and beyond.
Drop third-grade retention and focus on more positive ways to assist students in learning to read.
4. The National Reading Panel needs a redo.
Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush supported the National Reading Panel. The panel excluded early educators, those responsible for instruction, and those who understand student reading difficulties and school problems.
Joanne Yatvin, a principal, recused herself from the panel, believing the work was dreadfully incomplete (See: I Told You So! The Misinterpretation and Misuse of The National Reading Panel Report).
The panel considered only 100 studies and failed to review research concerning whole language (See Surviving Shock and Awe: NCLB vs. Colleges of Education by Nancy Mellin McCracken).
America’s students and teachers deserve a new national reading panel that includes current early education and reading.
5. The Science of Reading has been around for years.
The Science of Reading (SoR) has been pushed since 2001 even earlier. NCLB’s Reading First, a scandal, reduced reading to isolating sounds through rote direct instruction focused on early learners. Students came away lacking comprehension skills.
The SoR still seems primarily about marketing programs for teacher education and student instruction chosen with little scrutiny.
Phonics and direct instruction can help students with reading difficulties. Still, children learn to read using various methods.
Insist teachers get well-rounded instruction concerning reading in their education schools, ensuring students get the rich reading instruction they deserve.
6. The Regular Education Movement changed classrooms.
The reauthorization of the All Handicapped Children Act in 1998 and again in 2004, during NCLB, changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), mostly favored inclusion (the least restrictive environment), placing students with disabilities in general classes, even though some parents still want more individualized and small-group instruction.
Also, for years, teachers had to earn credentials by studying reading disabilities and how to work with students with reading problems. This changed.
Now, many general education teachers include students with disabilities in large class sizes without support from a special education teacher. Teachers may choose direct instruction because it’s manageable, although not always better, than individual or small group instruction.
Increase parental options for resource or self-contained classes, including individual and small group instruction, with teachers who obtain specialized university preparation in particular exceptional areas.
7. Standardized testing is still a problem.
Since NCLB, high-stakes standardized testing has seriously changed how teachers provide instruction. Not only could children feel anxious due to testing, but teachers are forced to teach to the test.
Students with disabilities must be included in state assessments, and special education goals must align with the standardized tests, raising questions about the meaning of the IEP.
Such a narrow curriculum reduces the quality of education for all students.
Also, are these tests age-appropriate?
Reduce standardized testing in favor of teacher-administered class tests and observation, and reduce the test-taking pressure on children, especially students with disabilities.
8. Teacher quality is critical.
NCLB insisted that teachers be highly qualified (most already had certification). Concurrently, they promoted Teach for America college graduates who taught briefly after five weeks of training.
For years, policymakers and those who don’t teach have disparaged teachers in the media. It’s time for teachers who provide instruction to have a seat at the table.
We need to strengthen education schools to prepare great teachers. Specializations for students with disabilities should be included, and every student should get a credentialed teacher who understands how to teach their subjects, including reading.
9. Online instruction needs better oversight.
NCLB increased online instruction, tracking, and data collection. Today, many online programs for reading instruction and preparing teachers to teach reading are purchased by school districts with little independent peer-reviewed research.
We need independent researchers to evaluate the programs on the market better.
10. Bring back the arts.
The arts were severely reduced with NCLB since they are difficult to test with high-stakes standardized tests. However, there’s evidence that they help children do better and stay in school.
They can help children with disabilities with spatial perception and eye-hand coordination and much more.
However, the arts are essential for providing all children with a break from academics, helping them to glean new insights, and giving instruction and success to students.
All children deserve the arts: drawing, performing, painting, dancing, and more.
11. Children learn to read with a variety of subjects.
NCLB heavily focused on reading and math at the expense of history, geography, civics, science, and other subjects.
Children learn to read when they have access to subjects that pique their interest.
12. Give children several recess breaks every day.
Eliminating recess happened before NCLB, but the policy did not emphasize its return. Children need several supervised but unstructured breaks during school to recharge and socialize with their peers.
Brain breaks and shaking the wiggles out in class are not enough. Physical education is not recess.
Ensure that all children get adequate recess breaks every day in school.
___________
After 25 years of the same complaints and questionable testing, it’s time to change the paradigm and see reading in a new light.
Start by re-examining the curse of NCLB and see if children learn to like to read again.
References
Yatvin, J. (2007, April 30). I Told You So! The Misinterpretation and Misuse of The National Reading Panel Report. Education Week. Retrieved from: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-i-told-you-so-the-misinterpretation-and-misuse-of-the-national-reading-panel-report/2003/04
As always Nancy, this is great. I would like to add a more controversial thought. Reading is not learning. It is processing information. It is a tool that gives us learning opportunities, but it is not the driver of inquiry. The testing dial has demonstrated that the percentages of those struggling with reading have not changed. We have enough data on phonemic strategies, on all reading strategies, that show us that reading is a struggle for about 30 percent of all learners. That struggle could be due to physiological, intellectual, social, economic, or numerous other causes. I recently read a piece by David Brooks where he said children of non-college parents are four years behind children of college graduates. Why? Because the intellectual stimulus that comes in meaningful learning environments motivates intellectual growth. Schools have become reading labs. Not promoting literacy, but meaningless fluency. I often reflect on my experiences in school and have come to the conclusion that my success in school came from the two recess day, the freedom to paint and draw as if it was breathing, band, friends with meaningful intellect, pick up games, and romping through woods on a daily basis. The wonder of these experiences made me curious, hopeful, and happy. Our institutional obsession with process over experience has gotten us where we are today. We have forgotten the importance of prior learning and encounter as the driver for learning to read and cipher.
P.S. I see you are going to the NPE conference. I would enjoy having coffee with you that weekend if possible. Paul
Excellent! Thanks for this comment. Having worked with students experiencing a variety of reading difficulties, I agree. No two students are alike and sometimes the challenges are tough.
Yes! Let’s get coffee! I look forward to seeing you, Paul!
Florida made gains in 4th grade scores by retaining 3rd graders. Unfortunately, and perhaps foreseeably, those gains disappear in the 8th grade scores. At least in Florida, there is no overall benefit to retention.
This is true. And yet they still try to pull it off. Thanks, Steve.
Thank you,Nancy! I agree with what you say almost always, and I have a question.
I’m a teacher educator in CA, and I’m trying to keep up with the explicit and implicit meanings of the terms so I can help my students be prepared for what they may encounter when they begin their careers.
I am trying to wrap my mind around the implications and practices of MTSS, including the things that are not stated explicitly. It is starting to look to me like Tier 1 instruction is simply whole class, everyone-does-the-same-thing kind of instruction. Tier 2 is for students who are falling behind and behinder their peers in Tier 1. But only those who don’t keep up get small group instruction.
You wrote “Teachers may choose direct instruction because it’s manageable, although not always better, than individual or small group instruction.” That seems to mean that “direct instruction” is whole class instruction, Tier 1 instruction–is that right?
Thank you for helping me sort this out!
Hi Carrie, you sound like a great teacher trying to figure this all out for your students. MTSS always strikes me as confusing and I’m not sure how teachers with large classes manage it.
I was referring to the fact that when teachers have large classes they might resort to teaching DO because it is easy to accomplish, when children might benefit more from the individualized and small group instruction found in a resource class where students get 1 to 2 hours of intense reading instruction through a variety of activities but also DO.
Thank you, Nancy! That is helpful.
I’m glad. And good luck, Carrie!
This article is very timely! In Oregon, people are being told that even though there has been an increase in school funding that reading and math scores are among the lowest in the nation. Although the funding is still woefully inadequate according to the Oregon State’s Quality Education Model, there are many reasons that the scores are low that are not addressed by the media nor by the Republican Party. Many of the reasons are brought out in your blog today. For Oregon, there is a reason number 13 that can be added to your list: The current state of school libraries. See the recent data from the Oregon Association of School Librarians for details: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EJVD0CbcAsCDSd–jUsBWrewpPtn7EQg/edit. Quality school library programs should be a part of any serious effort to improve kids reading skills.
Joan Yatvin belonged to the Oregon Save our Schools group for a number of years. I was able to have the pleasure to talk with her frequently about reading instruction. She passed away last year.
Wow! I am sad to see this report. I mentioned libraries under poverty as this is a huge concern and probably deserved its own category.
I have written several posts about library closures and librarian firings and the critical importance of school libraries and I think I gave a link to the most relevant one. It is outrageous this isn’t considered.
Thank you for mentioning Joanne. Years ago I wrote a book that included a chapter about reading. I asked Joanne to review it and she spent a lot of time going back and forth with me to help get it right. It saddened me to hear of her passing. She is missed.
Thank you!
I spent my professional career as a teacher of the deaf at the middle school and high school levels, and as a sign language interpreter at the community college level. I agree with all of your points, Nancy. The one that resonates with me the most is this: “Students with disabilities must be included in state assessments, and special education goals must align with the standardized tests, raising questions about the meaning of the IEP.” There was an effort to claim that unless students with disabilities are held to the same high standard as their non-disabled peers, we are shortchanging them. The fallacy is that presenting a mass administered standardized test at grade level to a student who is actually reading many grade levels below (by a bona fide reading assessment) will contribute nothing of value that will indicate what the student’s difficulties truly are. The IEP was the process which utilized appropriate one-on-one diagnostic assessment measures in order to plan a curriculum for that particular student’s needs and strengths. Reading below grade level does not equate to learning academic content below grade level. Many of our students graduated from high school with a reading level of 5th grade as measured by a standardized reading assessment. Yet they were capable of going to college and graduating, when their learning needs were met. When we had to satisfy the Department of Education that we were writing IEP goals tied to the standards, that’s when we had no choice but to warp our brains to placate them–garbage in, garbage out. This was a complete waste of time and a total disservice to our students and their families.
Thank you, Sheila! I appreciate this so much. You describe well the strange expectations that have grasped special and general education, and I do think with students in inclusion it could also affect test scores. For years there has been the idea that disabilities should not impede students and they should move in lockstep with other students and scripted programs will get them there. Can you imagine the pressure on students? I fear that parents have come to expect that all children should move along together or else their student is failing.
I love that you end on a high note which we know can most definitely occur and students can also continue to improve as they further their education.