Michael F. Shaughnessy has published responses by Reid Lyon, one of the architects of Reading First, to questions about the “Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report” by Beth Gamse and colleagues. Here’s a link to his comments. They are wide-ranging and detailed.
Continue reading ‘Lyon on RF impact study’
Tag Archive for 'Policy'
The US Institute for Education Sciences released an important report about the effects of Reading First program at the end of April. In the report, “Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report,” Beth C. Gamse and colleagues describe the methods and findings of a study mandated by law to examine the effects of the RF program on instruction in classrooms and outcomes for children attending those schools where it it is implemented.
For those of us who think RF methods represent an improvement over garden-variety reading instruction, the results are disappointing. Although teachers were found to be devoting more time to phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension, students were not experiencing significant improvements in their reading outcomes.
Here’s the executive summary from the report.
Continue reading ‘Weak impact for RF’
Over on d-edreckoning, Ken De Rosa has a wonderful post explaining how some widely discussed educational constructs fail to have the impact that teaching effectively has. He’s constructed normal curves showing the relative effects of class size and socio-economic status on the average achievement when low-level achievement is the base.
Continue reading ‘Sucky pet reforms’
Former “reading czar” G. Reid Lyon has responded to questions posed by Michael F. Shaughnessy about the U.S. Reading First program. As those who have been paying attention know, the federal foray into guiding schools to use scientifically based reading instruction ran into rocky allegations of malfeasance, allegations that at least one reporter has questioned strongly. Mr. Lyon describes his disagreement with some of those allegations, and you can read why he does.
Continue reading ‘Lyon on Reading First’
Singapore Math was featured in an article by Mitchell Landsberg on the front of the Web site of the Los Angeles (CA, US) Times on 9 March 2008. To introduce his case study of the success of Singapore math, Mr. Landsberg used a clever bar-math-like lead:
Here’s a little math problem:
In 2005, just 45% of the fifth-graders at Ramona Elementary School in Hollywood scored at grade level on a standardized state test. In 2006, that figure rose to 76%. What was the difference?
If you answered 31 percentage points, you are correct. You could also express it as a 69% increase.
But there is another, more intriguing answer: The difference between the two years may have been Singapore math.
On it’s face, Singapore Math looks appealing. It has multiple strengths: teaching students algorithms; integrated and multiple repetitions; low reading load; etc. What it doesn’t really have is clear and powerful research support; in their synthesis of research on effective programs in elementary mathematics, Bob Slavin and Cynthia Lake could not find strong studies examining the effects of Singapore Math. We—educators concerned with providing effective instruction for students—need those studies.
Link to Mr. Landsberg’s article. Link to the review by Professors Slavin and Lake. Learn more about Singapore Math from a study by Alan Ginsberg and colleagues.
Sphere: Related ContentAmong the many reporters covering the story, John Hechinger of the Wall Street Journal wrote that a US federal advisory panel will soon release a report that is supposed to put to rest contentious disagreement about the teaching of arithmetic and mathematics in our schools. Some have likened the pending report to another report on reading issued by the National Reading Panel at the turn of the millennium.
A presidential panel, warning that a “broken” system of mathematics education threatens U.S. pre-eminence, says it has found the fix: A laserlike focus on the essentials.
The National Mathematics Advisory Panel, appointed by President Bush in 2006, is expected to urge the nation’s teachers to promote “quick and effortless” recall of arithmetic facts in early grades, mastery of fractions in middle school, and rigorous algebra courses in high school or even earlier. Targeting such key elements of math would mark a sharp departure from the diverse priorities that now govern teaching of the subject in U.S. public schools.
Link to Mr. Hechinger’s article.
Sphere: Related ContentThe frequently maligned local education agency of Washington (DC, US) is taking steps to improve the services it provides to students with disabilities, according to an article by V. Dion Haynes entitled “Special-Ed Getting New Computer System, Staff” and published 27 February 2008 in the Wasington Post. These changes stem from a suit—Blackman v. District of Columbia—in which parents claimed that their children were not receiving special education services in a timely manner.
The District school system plans to spend $4.3 million on a computer system designed to keep track of special education students’ academic life, replacing several systems plagued by bad data and an inability to communicate with one another.
During a news conference yesterday, D.C. State Superintendent of Education Deborah A. Gist also announced that the city plans to hire 30 full-time case management workers, at a cost of $3.2 million, so that students referred to special education can receive services more quickly
The initiatives are “a way in which we intend to serve students more effectively,” Gist said. She was joined by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) at a news conference in the lobby of her office at Judiciary Square.
I am glad to see that the DC schools are responding to the issue of getting services to students quickly. Given the numbers of students served in large local education agencies, it is understandable that computer systems could be helpful. Including case managers also is quite sensible, and I hope that they can be authorized and prepared to work collaboratively with parents in ensuring the delivery of services.
What remains to be ensured, of course, is the quality of those services. I’m not talking about “Cadillac-vs-Chevrolet” quality of services. I’m referring to the nature or character of the services. Will the case managers broker evidence-based practices? Will the computers track progress on important relevant student outcomes and the services that produce those outcomes?
I hope that the DC schools place similar emphasis on preparing and empowering special education providers to deliver effective teaching practices.
Link to Mr. Haynes’ article.
Sphere: Related Content
Bogus Bowl IV
This was a tough one to develop. Thanks to many suggestions from colleagues, however, we have a new opportunity to waste time.
Which of the following do you consider the most bogus answer to the question, "How do you know that [teaching practice] is effective?"
Total Voters: 53
To see the results of the previous poll, take a look at the original posting of it.
As with previous Bogus Bowls, please remember that the results of these polls do not provide credible scientific evidence; they simply reflect the opinions of the respondents. Also, note that some of the choices that got few votes in a poll might just re-appear in a future BB on Teach Effectively!; mayhaps we’ll have a challenge bowl about which was the most bogus question, too.
To see the results of all Bogus Bowls and other polls from Teach Effectively, please follow the link labeled “polls” in the top navigation element. Meanwhile, I welcome suggestions for topics for future Bogus Bowls. Just drop ‘em in the comments.
Sphere: Related Content