Reading & Literacy

Is Reading First Working?

July 14, 2008 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The debate rages on over Reading First, with supporters trying to make their case for preserving the federal program, which they say is proving itself in higher test results, improved teacher knowledge, and support among educators. The critics are picking through the data and arguing that, at best, there is little evidence that it is effective, and, at worst, is promoting a low-level form of literacy in its skills-based approach.

Over at there are about 60 comments! to this story by Greg Toppo, arguing for and against and otherwise. And the debate continues among researchers like Reid Lyon and Stephen Krashen here andhere.

Patrick Riccards, a.k.a. Eduflack, who helped promote the work of the National Reading Panel and is a longtime fan of Reading First, continues to defend the program and scold some of its harsher critics here.

His posts on Reading First often conclude with: We know it works.

Well, I keep wondering how we know?

Riccards says its effectiveness is “evidenced by the growing number of statements from educators and from recent studies—such as those released last month by CEP—that demonstrate improvement. And RF offices in states from Idaho to Ohio to Alabama have added their voice to save the necessary program.”

I don’t think there is evidence that Reading First is ineffective, despite what some opponents say. If anything, there is a kind of “it can’t hurt” message in the data. Certainly teachers and administrators I’ve spoken with and visited over the last six years provide enthusiastic endorsement of an intensive and organized effort to improve reading instruction and monitor the results. And they feel more prepared than ever to implement just that.

I’m no researcher, and I admit that I could use a bit of tutoring, or more coffee, to absorb the findings of many of the research studies I read, but I haven’t really seen any rigorous evidence that Reading First is working overall. At least not the kind of evidence that I think would have satisfied the powers that be at the Ed Dept. and the NICHD when they were talking tough about the law’s requirements six years ago.

Sure, there are schools that have seen phenomenal results and serve as the poster children of the program. Those stories are pretty compelling and inspiring, but are they representative?

Most of the claims that I’ve seen are based on improved DIBELS scores, on self-reported state data that average results, and, of course, the folks who’ve told Margaret Spellings in her travels around the country how wonderful the program is.

In between his Reading First posts, Eduflack chastises Spellings for pointing to parent surveys in her defense of the D.C. voucher program.

“The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) found that parents of scholarship children express confidence that they will be better educated and even safer in their new schools,” Spellings said.

Eduflack finds that statement “downright funny, and quite a bit concerning.”

“In all of the discussions about scientifically based research, high-quality research, the medical model, double-blind studies, control groups, and the like,” he continues, “I don’t remember public opinion surveys meeting the IES standard for high-quality research. Parents feel better about their children because of vouchers? That’s a reason to direct millions in federal funding to the program?”

But that’s exactly the kind of evidence many of Reading First’s supporters are using to bolster their arguments. Teachers and administrators love it, they say.

All well and good, but hardly the kind of definitive results officials and lawmakers had called for.

Many observers thought the interim impact study released by IES would have provided deeper insights into what has and has not worked in the program. For the money that is being spent, perhaps a special trial study under NAEP, similar to the urban district assessments, would have been useful, or better analyses and comparisons of state data.

I wonder if more and better data would have mattered when push came to shove in the appropriations committees, which have led the death march for the program.

A version of this news article first appeared in the Curriculum Matters blog.


This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Equity & Diversity Webinar
Classroom Strategies for Building Equity and Student Confidence
Shape equity, confidence, and success for your middle school students. Join the discussion and Q&A for proven strategies.
Content provided by Project Lead The Way
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Professional Development Webinar
Disrupting PD Day in Schools with Continuous Professional Learning Experiences
Hear how this NC School District achieved district-wide change by shifting from traditional PD days to year-long professional learning cycles
Content provided by BetterLesson
Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and other jobs in K-12 education at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Reading & Literacy Most States Screen All Kids for Dyslexia. Why Not California?
The state teachers' union has historically been among those opposing a bill to screen students for signs of the disorder.
5 min read
Dyslexia word formed with wooden blocks.
iStock/Getty Images
Reading & Literacy Q&A Why Printed Books Are Better Than Screens for Learning to Read: Q&A
UCLA professor Maryann Wolf outlines the best ways to teach reading to kids who have grown up using digital devices.
3 min read
ed tech survey march 2023 klein q&a
F. Sheehan / Education Week and Getty<br/><br/>
Reading & Literacy From Our Research Center Reading on Screens for Class Assignments, in Charts
The EdWeek Research Center surveyed teachers nationally to probe how they use digital and printed reading materials.
1 min read
ed tech survey march 2023 bushweller
F. Sheehan / Education Week and Getty
Reading & Literacy Kids Understand More From Books Than Screens, But That's Not Always the Case
What the research says about the benefits and drawbacks of reading on screens versus printed text.
7 min read
ed tech survey march 2023 schwartz
F. Sheehan / Education Week and Getty<br/>