The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy continues to promote investment in research-proven programs. The coalition proposes a $3 billion investment in grants permitting scaling up of evidence-based social interventions.
Our specific proposal is to establish such a program at each of the three federal departments that administers major social programs for children and youth – HHS, Education, and Labor. The program would be funded at a total of $3 billion annually. Given the number of research-proven interventions and size of the population in need, we believe this is a conservative estimate of what could be spent effectively on this effort. As an illustrative calculation, we estimate that this amount could provide a research-proven intervention of average cost to 2-4 million at-risk children and youth each year.
I have a quibble or two with the list of proven programs that the coalition recommends (it omits important educational interventions), but the basic idea is sound and merits endorsement.
Obtain a copy of the proposal. Visit The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.
Hi John
Interesting article, given the task I have been working on. I am trying to find a tutor for a learning disabled student of mine who lives in Victoria. I want someone who can deliver instruction using research-based programs and methodology. The family has already spent thousands on two tutoring agencies, with predictably poor results. I went through various channels to find an exhaustive list of service providers and phoned each one, asking for a brief snapshot of the service. Not one adhered to the Big Five that we associate with a sound program. It is frustrating- we have money to spend and nowhere to spend it!
John or Kathy,
Could you please explain what the “Big Five” are. Thanks.
Hi Elona
I am referring to the elements deemed necessary for effective early intervention. Shaywitz lists them in her book, something like this:
Systematic and direct instruction in:
-phonemic awareness
-phonics (including sight words and comprehension strategies)
2)Practice in applying these skills in reading and in writing
3)Fluency training
4)Enriched language experiences
5)Appropriate duration and intensity (long and lots!)
On a happy note…I found a tutor in Victoria who does the Lindamood program! A colleague put me on to her, and while she is moving to Vancouver in May, we have enough time to go do some good work. The family is ecstatic- and I am much relieved.
Hi, Elona. Thanks for stopping here. Kathy’s given you a good response to your question:
These days I usually hear this term applied with reference to the US National Reading Panel’s (NRP) analysis of research on reading. In the mid- to late-1990s, at the behest of the US Congress, the Department of Education and the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National Institutes for Child Health and Human Development established a blue-ribbon panel to examine the research on reading, the NRP. (I was nominated, but they got much more qualified people in the end.) The NRP performed narrative and integrative reviews of the most rigorous research in each of five areas:
Kathy’s comment reflects the panel’s emphasis on systematic and explicit instruction, a feature that one finds woven through these critical five areas of reading competence.
There are good Web resources including one developed expressly to present the NRP findings as well as one from the NICHD that has comparable content.