|
October 15, 2002
Supporting the Reading First Classroom: Issues and Challenges (cont'd)
The Scientific Research Mandate
This new definition of readiness is just one among several issues of current debate in the world of reading. Many educators, such as Lillian Hill, who works with preschoolers in Kankakee, Ill., are wary of what they see as "push-down" curriculum coming from the first grade. "Three- and 4-year-old kids may not be physically or mentally ready to learn some of this," she says.
"There's no way a test score can tell if kids really love what they're doing." — Lucinda Ray, IntelliTools
|
|
Of course, the "reading wars," as veteran educators wryly term them, are nothing new. Disputes over the best approaches to teaching reading, such as the phonics-versus-whole-language debate, are often carried on at the state level and can be regular headline-grabbers. Now NCLB adds a whole new hot button to the reading mix: the scientific research mandate. The $900 million Reading First initiative (affiliated with Early Reading First) makes it very clear that states receiving federal funding for literacy programs must prove that both materials and reading instruction are "scientific research-based." What does this description-as yet undefined by the Department of Education-actually mean? The International Reading Association offers the guidance that research-based instruction is a program or collection of instructional practices that "have a record of success," and that demonstrate "reliable, trustworthy, and valid evidence" that they help children make adequate gains in reading. For a more detailed description and analysis of what it means to be research-based, see "The Lowdown on Scientific Research and What It Means for Schools."
Despite the fact that everyone agrees evaluation is key to any successful learning program, a number of concerns have been voiced. For instance, author, teacher, and early literacy expert Ruth Nathan reported one negative buzz at last spring's IRA conference was around the idea of introducing the scientific process into the classroom. "Some teachers are balking at what they see as an unnatural process," she says, "where students might have to be subdivided into control and experimental groups for reading instruction." Other concerns revolve around the lack of a clear, workable evaluation model that teachers and districts can use to measure student achievement. And once a model is adopted, will it eat up precious teaching time while users get up to speed on how to apply it?
Perhaps a more widespread and basic worry among reading teachers stems from their knowledge that "unmeasurables," such as how much a child enjoys and will continue reading, remain an important part of any well-rounded program.
Lucinda Ray, a former middle school reading specialist and current director of curriculum development for special needs software publisher IntelliTools, fears the scientific research mandate could also result in the narrowing of materials deemed acceptable for use in the classroom. "I would hate for a reading program to use only the phonics approach, for example, just because it's easy to measure. What about how well a kid can retell a story? Or what he can pull from one story that is similar to another?" she asks.
Next: New Challenges for Vendors > > >
< < < Return to Supporting the Reading First Classroom
Read other articles from the October Issue
Send a letter to the Editor in response to this article.
|
