This school year, under the reauthorization of the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), states will receive $900 million in federal money to support reading instruction—three times the amount given to states last year. Despite this increase, however, some educators are concerned about the law's enhanced focus on scientifically based reading programs.
Proponents say the rules in the Reading First section of ESEA—also called the No Child Left Behind Act—will promote the use of programs proven to work best. But opponents say ESEA's stipulation that grant recipients use reading programs supported by scientific research could limit educators' ability to customize reading instruction to fit their students' needs.
At a May symposium on reading research in Washington, D.C., Valerie F. Reyna, senior research advisor for educational research and improvement at the U.S. Department of Education, emphasized that a teacher's knowledge and observations alone are not enough to make decisions about the appropriateness of reading programs. She compared reading instruction to the practice of medicine, noting that society would never tolerate the use of medical procedures that were not grounded in scientific research. "Reading is like brain surgery," she said. "It's worthy of the same gold standard of research."
To meet ESEA's definition of "scientifically based," research must use systematic and empirical methods that draw on observation or experimentation. The measurements the research employs must yield the same results no matter who conducts the research or how many times it is replicated. Finally, independent experts must accept the research, through publication in a peer-reviewed journal or other means.
Reyna stresses that the law's demand for scientific bases for reading programs doesn't mean that policymakers discount the classroom experience teachers use to decide what's best for their students. She said the two must be used in tandem. Scientific evidence is "necessary but not sufficient," she allowed.
Critics of the law, however, say that restricting the pool of acceptable programs will mean that educators will not be able to rely on their own wisdom to select the instruction that is best for their students.
In a speech to the American Educa-tional Research Association in April, Bob Chase, president of the National Education Association, reacted to Reading First: "I am opposed to any law or directive that takes away the professional judgment and discretion of teachers. . . . We don't need a straitjacket; we need a broad range of scientifically sound options. And teachers will judge what is appropriate in a given classroom situation or with a given student. This is just common sense."
Reading First governs how federal money will be distributed to and used by public schools to support the teaching of reading in grades K–3. Under the law, any state that completes a passable federal grant application will receive funds; the amount will be based on the number of school-age children in the state who come from families with incomes below the poverty level.
At the symposium, G. Reid Lyon, chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, noted the importance of ensuring that a good portion of federal reading funds reach poor children. "A 3-year-old child in an affluent family has a larger working vocabulary than the mother of a 3-year-old from a welfare family," he said.
Up to 20 percent of the funds a state receives may be used at the state level for professional development for K–3 reading teachers; technical assistance; or planning, administration, and reporting needs. "The professional development piece is potentially a very strong element of the legislation," says Jerry L. Johns, president of the International Reading Association. "If we're going to win the battle to create literate citizens, we're going to need . . . well-qualified teachers who are able to select and design programs that are going to be responsive to the wide variation [among students] in our nation's classrooms."
The state must distribute the remaining 80 percent of the funds it receives to local education agencies (LEAs), giving priority to those LEAs that serve a population in which at least 15 percent of students (or 6,500) come from families with incomes below the poverty line. The state must also distribute the money in proportion to the number or percentage of K–3 students served by an LEA who are reading below grade level. Similar rules apply when LEAs distribute the grant funds to individual schools.
Targeting Phonics
Reading First's stipulation about scientifically based research has, in some circles, rekindled the debate over phonics instruction, a dispute that started over a decade ago when phonics advocates and whole-language supporters began clashing over how best to teach reading.
The issue is hot again mostly because the legislation is based heavily on the 2000 National Reading Panel report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. To produce the report, the panel examined research literature to determine what bearing it had on reading instruction. The report lists areas of reading instruction that it deems "essential," including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. Reading First requires these five components, in addition to a scientific research base, in any reading programs supported by federal grants.
Proponents of Reading First view the panel's report as authoritative confirmation that no quality reading program neglects phonics instruction. Critics of the legislation insist that so many non-negotiable requirements will lead to heavy emphasis on phonics to the exclusion of other reading instruction techniques. They accuse the panel of rejecting too many studies on the premise that their research methods weren't "scientific" enough.
The panel disallowed all research based on correlational studies or case studies—many of which support programs that place less emphasis on phonics—and accepted only research based on experimental or quasi-experimental studies that included a control group, according to its report.
Some educators express the fear that school officials will feel compelled to select one of several commercial programs that have been cited as fulfilling the requirements of the legislation in order to get quick approval for their grant applications. They argue that schools might be discouraged from designing their own program or choosing a less popular program that could be a better fit for the unique characteristics of their population.
However, Judy Wurtzel, executive director of the Learning First Alliance, a coalition of education associations including ASCD, says that schools should be able to retain their autonomy under the new law. "In terms of material selection and whether the law limits you, as long as you can make the case that you're covering all the major components in your materials and that you have a reasonable research basis for believing that these instructional materials are effective, I think there is room for choice," Wurtzel says.
Reaching Every Child
Reading First is not the first legislation to require that federally funded reading instruction adhere to required components and be based on scientific research. Its predecessor, the Reading Excellence Act, enacted in 1998, featured similar mandates.
The new law differs mostly in how schools will be held accountable for the instruction they give. Reading First contains stronger, more detailed language requiring states to provide evidence that they have increased the numbers of K–3 students who are reading at or above grade level. States must also include data on the academic status of subgroups of students who are traditionally "left behind"—students who are economically disadvantaged, come from minority groups, have disabilities, or have limited English proficiency.
Johns applauds the new legislation's sharp focus on eliminating that achievement gap. "The achievement gap has existed for 30 years, and I think part of what Reading First has as a goal is [improved] reading for all students, but especially for those students who have traditionally been part of that gap," he says.
Deborah White, a primary-grade teacher in reading and mathematics at Lyle Elementary School in Dallas, Oreg., says she has been following the progress of the legislation very closely. Although she has some reservations, she considers herself upbeat about the effects that ESEA can have on education. "It is raising [educator] standards, so that we continue to be the very best that we can be; it will help us to make good decisions, to focus our activities more onto things we know are proven to help students. It sets really high standards, and every child should be able to accomplish them."