[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING THE LITERARY SKILLS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 19, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-373 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice John Kline, Minnesota,
Chairman Senior Republican Member
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia California
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Mark E. Souder, Indiana
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Judy Biggert, Illinois
David Wu, Oregon Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
Judy Chu, California
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Barrett Karr, Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Michael N. Castle, Delaware,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Ranking Minority Member
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Susan A. Davis, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
David Loebsack, Iowa Judy Biggert, Illinois
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Jared Polis, Colorado Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico Rob Bishop, Utah
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Mariana Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Duncan Hunter, California
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania
Dina Titus, Nevada
Judy Chu, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 19, 2009................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.................................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan:
Statement of the American Library Association............ 52
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona:
Questions submitted for the record....................... 71
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas:
Questions submitted for the record....................... 74
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado:
Statement of the Colorado Department of Education........ 63
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia:
Questions submitted for the record....................... 65
Statement of Witnesses:
Berger, Larry, co-founder and CEO, Wireless Generation....... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Responses to questions submitted for the record.......... 65
Dore, Mary Kay, district student support services manager,
Summit School District, Frisco, CO......................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Responses to questions submitted for the record.......... 66
``Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago
Child-Parent Center Program''.......................... 67
Gomez, Leo, Ph.D., professor, the University of Texas Pan
American; officer, the National Association for Bilingual
Education (NABE)........................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Responses to questions submitted for the record.......... 70
Henriquez, Andres, program officer, Carnegie Corporation of
New York................................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Responses to questions submitted for the record.......... 75
Meyers, Sandra D., Ed.D., education associate, Delaware
Department of Education.................................... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Responses to questions submitted for the record.......... 79
Strickland, Dorothy S., professor emeritas, Rutgers, the
State University of New Jersey............................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
IMPROVING THE LITERARY SKILLS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS
----------
Thursday, November 19, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kildee, Payne, Scott, Holt, Davis,
Loebsack, Hirono, Polis, Pierluisi, Hinojosa, Kucinich,
Altmire, Chu, Castle, Petri, Ehlers, and Biggert.
Also present: Representative Yarmuth.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Calla Brown,
Staff Assistant, Education; Adrienne Dunbar, Education Policy
Advisor; Ruth Friedman, Senior Education Policy Advisor (Early
Childhood); David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Fred Jones,
Staff Assistant, Education; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor,
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and
Competitiveness; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Lillian Pace, Policy
Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education; Alexandria Ruiz, Administrative Assistant
to Director of Education Policy; Melissa Salmanowitz, Press
Secretary; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant;
James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education and Human
Services Policy; Kirk Boyle, Minority General Counsel; Allison
Dembeck, Minority Professional Staff Member; Ryan Murphy,
Minority Press Secretary; Susan Ross, Minority Director of
Education and Human Services Policy; and Linda Stevens,
Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel.
Chairman Kildee. Good morning. A quorum being present the
committee will come to order. Pursuant to committee rule 12a,
all members may submit an opening statement in writing, which
will be made part of the permanent record. Governor, how are
you doing?
Mr. Castle. Good.
Chairman Kildee. Before we begin, we expect our colleague,
Representative John Yarmuth, a former member of this committee,
and welcome back, John. You were a good member then, and you
moved on to another responsibility, but your interest in this
is undying, and I appreciate you being here this morning.
We welcome him to attend today's hearing, and I ask
unanimous consent for him to sit on the dais to listen to
testimony and to ask questions. Without objection, I now
recognize myself for an opening statement.
I am pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, the
public and our witnesses to this hearing on improving the
literacy skills of children and young adults.
Only 30 percent of our fourth and eighth grade students
tested at proficient or higher in reading on the most recent
national assessment of educational progress. These scores do
not reflect students failing a test, so much, but an education
system that is failing students.
Many of these struggling readers face a grim future without
our help and certainly your help. You bring an expertise to
this committee that we certainly are hungry for. Some are
likely to become discouraged and drop out of school, while
others will graduate unprepared for what lies ahead.
For those who do graduate high school, about 40 percent
will lack the literacy skills employers seek. This creates a
serious dilemma in an economy, where the 25 fastest growing
professions require greater than average literacy skills. We
have taken steps to address this problem at the federal level
investing in a handful of programs to provide intensive reading
support for students.
While many elements of these programs provide promise, we
clearly have more to do. As a strong supporter of early
childhood education, I believe we must start early. We know
that literacy development begins early in life and is a strong
indicator of student achievement.
By investing in our youngest learners, we can prevent
students from falling behind at a critical point in their
education. We must also strengthen existing programs targeted
at our pre-k and elementary age children to ensure they benefit
from the most effective practices. Challenges are not always
solved by more money. Sometimes we need to realign resources,
and empower our educators with the skills to maximize their
impact on student learning.
And finally we need to pay attention to the needs of our
adolescent readers. Researchers have documented a fourth grade
reading slump for years. Yet federal investment in reading
programs for grades 4 through 12 remains minimal. In order to
reverse the high school dropout crisis, and prepare all
students for post-secondary opportunities, we need to provide
reading support far beyond the fourth grade.
During today's discussion, we will hear from a panel of
literacy experts. Some who have devoted their entire careers to
identifying effective reading practices and others who have
worked on the front lines turning these practices into results
for children.
Their perspectives are unique and cover the broad range of
needs facing today's learners from birth through high school. I
look forward to today's testimony and hope it provides this
subcommittee with new perspectives as we work to reevaluate the
federal role in literacy development.
I now yield to the ranking member of this committee,
Governor Castle, for his opening statement.
[The statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
I'm pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, the public,
and our witnesses to this hearing on ``improving the literacy skills of
children and young adults.''
Only 30 percent of our 4th and 8th grade students tested at
proficient or higher in reading on the most recent national assessment
of educational progress. These scores do not reflect students failing a
test, but an education system that is failing its students.
Many of these struggling readers face a grim future without our
help. Some are likely to become discouraged and dropout of school,
while others will graduate unprepared for what lies ahead. For those
who do graduate high school, about 40 percent will lack the literacy
skills employers seek. This creates a serious dilemma in an economy
where the 25 fastest-growing professions require greater than average
literacy skills.
We have taken steps to address this problem at the federal level,
investing in a handful of programs to provide intensive reading support
for students. While many elements of these programs provide promise, we
clearly have more to do.
As a strong supporter of early childhood education, i believe we
must start early. We know that literacy development begins early in
life and is a strong indicator of student achievement. By investing in
our youngest learners, we can prevent students from failing behind at a
critical point in their education.
We must also strengthen existing programs targeted at our pre-k and
elementary age children to ensure they benefit from the most effective
practices. Challenges are not always solved by more money. Sometimes we
need to realign resources and empower our educators with the skills to
maximize their impact on student learning.
And finally, we need to pay attention to the needs of our
adolescent readers. Researchers have documented a fourth grade reading
slump for years, yet federal investment in reading programs for grades
4 through 12 remains minimal. In order to reverse the high school
dropout crisis and prepare all students for postsecondary
opportunities, we need to provide reading support far beyond the 4th
grade.
During today's discussion, we will hear from a panel of literacy
experts--some who have devoted their entire careers to identifying
effective reading practices and others who have worked on the front
lines turning these practices into results for children. Their
perspectives are unique, and cover the broad range of needs facing
today's learners from birth through high school. I look forward to
today's testimony and hope it provides this subcommittee with new
perspective as we work to reevaluate the federal role in literacy
development.
I now yield to ranking member castle for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for this hearing on what I consider to be a very important
subject. And I thank all the witnesses and all the other
individuals who attended here today. I think hopefully we can
learn a lot.
I am pleased that the committee is examining current
federal literacy initiatives and ways to improve the
comprehensive skills of all children from birth through high
school. Today, 14 percent of Americans over the age of 16,
about 30 million people, have trouble with basic reading and
writing skills and cannot read well enough to fill out a job
application, follow a prescription or even read a simple
children's story.
Too many adults do not have the skills to find and keep a
job, support their child's education or participate actively in
civic life. Reading is a fundamental skill, and many of us take
it for granted. Yet we know that reading is a skill that does
not come naturally.
For children who do not learn to read in early educational
settings can easily translate into a lifelong learning
disability. Fortunately, children who are at risk for reading
failure can learn to read at average levels or above if they
are identified early and provided with intensive instruction.
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law.
The act sought to address some of these literacy issues for
children in pre-K through the third grade by authorizing the
Early Reading First and Reading First programs.
In 2005, Congress created the Striving Readers program,
which focuses on middle and high school students as part of the
fiscal year 2005 Labor HHS Education Appropriations Act within
No Child Left Behind.
The success in the first 7 years of the scientifically
based Reading First program in particular has been astounding.
Nationally, the percentage of third graders scoring proficient
on state reading assessments has grown nearly 8 percent, much
faster than overall growth.
In addition, state-reported performance data released last
year indicates impressive gains in reading comprehension with
improvements seen by nearly every grade and subgroup of
students.
Despite the clear success of the Reading First program,
however, Congress has cut funding for this important program
over the last 2 years and recently eliminated funding for the
program. I am hopeful that we will reconsider this elimination
and restore funding for this program, which continues to
produce strong results for children.
In a few moments, Dr. Sandra Meyers from the Delaware
Department of Education will discuss the work my home state is
doing in the area of literacy, particularly within the Early
Reading First and Reading First programs.
Delaware has long recognized that what children experience
early in life has a direct impact on their future success in
school and life, and I am pleased that the state is addressing
literacy skills with several early literacy programs, such as
Reach Out and Reading is Fundamental, Delaware Read Aloud and
Growing Together portfolios, as well as various adult literacy
services.
Each of these literacy programs have demonstrated success
in helping students develop their literacy skills. However, as
we all know, education is not just the responsibility of our
federal, state and local governments. It is our collective
responsibility whether it is a parent reading to a child or a
business reaching out to those in need in their community.
We all have a role to play in helping people who lack
literacy skills to overcome their difficulties. And I want to
thank all of you here today and our witnesses in particular, of
course, for your interest and efforts in drawing the public's
attention to the problem of illiteracy. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Castle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education
Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Kildee for holding
today's hearing. I am pleased the Committee is examining current
federal literacy initiatives and ways to improve the reading
comprehension skills of all children from birth through high school.
Today, 14 percent of Americans over the age of 16--about 30 million
people--have trouble with basic reading and writing skills (IES:
National Assessment of Adult Literacy) and cannot read well enough to
fill out a job application, follow a prescription, or even read a
simple children's story. Too many adults do not have the skills to find
and keep a job, support their child's education, or participate
actively in civic life.
Reading is a fundamental skill and many of us take it for granted.
Yet, we know that reading is a skill that does not come naturally. For
children who do not learn to read, an early educational stumble can
easily translate into a lifelong learning disability.
Fortunately, children who are at-risk for reading failure can learn
to read at average levels, or above if they are indentified early and
provided with intensive instruction.
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law. The Act
sought to address some of these literacy issues for children in pre-K
through the third grade by authorizing the Early Reading First and
Reading First Programs. In 2005, Congress created the Striving Readers
programs, which focuses on middle and high school students as part of
the FY2005 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act within NCLB.
The success in the first seven years of the scientifically-based
Reading First program in particular has been astounding. Nationally,
the percentage of third graders scoring proficient on state reading
assessments has grown nearly eight percent, much faster than overall
growth. In addition, state-reported performance data released last year
indicates impressive gains in reading comprehension, with improvements
seen by nearly every grade and subgroup of students.
Despite the clear success of the Reading First program, however,
Congress has cut funding for this important program over the last two
years and recently eliminated funding for the program. I am hopeful
that we will reconsider this elimination and restore funding for this
program which continues to produce strong results for students.
In a few moments, Dr. Sandra Meyers from the Delaware Department of
Education will discuss the work my home state is doing in the area of
literacy, particularly within the Early Reading First and Reading First
programs. Delaware has long recognized that what children experience
early in life has a direct impact on their future success in school and
life and I am pleased that the State is addressing literacy skills with
several early literacy programs, such as Reach out and Read, Reading is
Fundamental, Delaware Read ALOUD, and Growing Together portfolios, as
well as various adult literacy services.
Each of these literacy programs have demonstrated success in
helping students develop their literacy skills; however, as we all
know, education is not just a responsibility of our federal, state, and
local governments; it is our collective responsibility, whether it is a
parent reading to a child or a business reaching out to those in need
in their community. We all have a role to play in helping people who
lack literacy skills overcome their difficulties, and I want to thank
all of you here today and our witnesses in particular for your interest
and efforts in drawing the public's attention to the problem of
illiteracy.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Governor. Without objection,
all members will have 14 calendar days to submit additional
materials or questions for the hearing record. Now, I would
like to introduce our very distinguished panel of witnesses
here this afternoon.
I would hope that in the history of literacy progress in
this country that someday someone may cite to what we hear here
today as something that was instrumental in improving our
literacy. So I don't want to put you on the spot and make you
nervous, but this is a very, very important hearing.
This is a very, very important issue, and we have asked the
people around the country who really are expert in that. So
your role is important, and these hearings do have effects and,
therefore, you have a very important responsibility, and I
appreciate you being here.
I would like to introduce our very first witness this
afternoon. Our first witness, Dr. Dorothy S. Strickland is the
Samuel Dewitt Proctor Professor of Education and the state of
New Jersey Professor of Reading at Rutgers University.
She was formerly the Arthur I. Gates Professor of Education
at Teachers College Columbia University. A former classroom
teacher and learning disabilities specialist, Dr. Strickland is
past president of both the International Reading Association
and the Reading Hall of Fame.
She currently serves on two National Academy of Science
panels, one on teacher preparation and the other on
recommendations to the administration for educational policy.
Dr. Strickland was also appointed to the New Jersey State Board
of Education in 2008. She received her bachelor's degree from
Newark State College and her master's degree and doctoral
degrees from New York University.
I will now yield to Congressman Polis to introduce our next
witness.
Mr. Polis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor
to introduce Mary Kay Dore who is a native daughter of your
home state, Mr. Chairman. She is from Redford, Michigan, a
suburb of Detroit.
She graduated from DePaul University in Indiana with a
bachelor's degree in sociology and a minor in education. She
has been involved with special education since she was in high
school when she worked at a summer camp for children with
special needs.
She then attended graduate school at Michigan State
University where in 4 years she got a bachelor's degree in
elementary education and a master's degree in special
education. After finishing her graduate program, she moved to
Breckenridge, Colorado and began her work as a special
education teacher in Summit County School District.
During her 13-year tenure with Summit Schools, she has
worked at the elementary, middle and high school levels and now
at the administrative level. Her positions have included
resource special education teacher, severe needs special
education teacher, district special education coordinator and
now as a district student support services manager.
During her time in Breckenridge, Summit County has become
an increasingly diverse school district. Around the time she
started Summit County was about 3 percent ELL students, and
it's now about 22 percent ELL students, adding a new dimension
to the literacy challenges in the district.
She has played a significant role at curriculum development
and response to instruction system planning and implementation
and all other district initiatives, as well as working
cooperatively with the Mountain Board of Cooperative
Educational Services.
BOCES is a cooperative agency that delivers educational
special ed services in our state and the Colorado Department of
Education, as well, during which time I happened to be on the
Colorado State Board of Education while our staff there spoke
very highly of her efforts. Yield back.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much. You mentioned
Redford. I lived on Grand River Avenue when I taught at
University of Detroit High School many, many years ago.
Our third witness, Andres Henriquez, is a program officer
in the national program of Carnegie Corporation of New York
where he leads the corporation's advancing literacy initiative.
Prior to joining the corporation, Mr. Henriquez served as the
Assistant Director for Strategic Planning Center for Children
and Technology at the New York Offices of the Education
Development Center, Incorporated.
He has also worked at the National Science Foundation as an
associate programming director responsible for the network
infrastructure for education and assistant with the Research
and Education Policy and Practice program.
He was a researcher at Sesame Workshop and a senior
researcher at MTV Networks. Mr. Henriquez taught for 5 years
with the New York City Public Schools. He received his
undergraduate degree in psychology from Hamilton College and an
masters of education from Futures College Columbia University.
I will now yield to Congressman Hinojosa to introduce the
next witness. Mr. Hinojosa?
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to
introduce Dr. Leo Gomez. He is a professor of bilingual,
bicultural education at the University of Texas Pan American
University UTPA, an outstanding Hispanic-Serving Institution we
call HSI in my congressional district that serves over 17,500
students.
Dr. Gomez's research has focused on instructional practices
affecting language minority students. He has been involved
extensively in the development, the implementation and
assessment of two-way dual language programs.
Dr. Gomez is the co-author of a dual language enrichment
model that is being successfully implemented in over 60 school
districts representing over 440 elementary schools across four
states, which include Texas, Washington state, Nevada and
Kansas. In Texas alone, this model is being implemented in 417
elementary schools.
As a nationally recognized scholar in this area, Dr. Gomez
has an extensive list of publications. They include books,
articles and monographs. Dr. Gomez has also made hundreds of
conference presentations in Texas and across our nation.
As a prominent educator, Dr. Gomez has taught in public
schools and continues his teaching assignments at the
university while serving as the Assistant Dean for the College
of Education at UTPA. His entire career has been devoted to
literacy issues, particularly for the art of teaching and
learning in both English and Spanish.
Dr. Gomez holds a B.A. in secondary education, as well as
an M.A. in interdisciplinary studies from UTPA. Dr. Gomez also
earned a PhD in curriculum and instruction from Texas A&M
University at College Station.
Dr. Gomez, we are fortunate that you found time in your
busy schedule to be with us today. We welcome you to this very
important hearing. And I yield back.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa.
I will now yield to our committee's ranking member,
Governor Castle, to introduce the final two witnesses.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will introduce first
Dr. Sandra Meyers who currently serves as the Education
Associate of Elementary Reading for the Delaware Department of
Education where she oversees programs, such as Reading First
for the state. Prior to working at the department, Dr. Meyers
worked in Delaware's Colonial School District from 1991 to
2003.
During her 12-year tenure with the Colonial School
District, Dr. Meyers served as the program coordinator for the
extended summertime program, a Title I reading teacher and
reading resource teacher, a University of Delaware instructor
of the graduate level course preventing reading failure and a
coach for Colonial teachers being trained in reading success
from the start.
Dr. Meyers is a member of the Association for Supervision,
the International Reading Association and the Diamond State
Reading Association. Dr. Meyers graduated from Westchester
University with a bachelor's degree in elementary education.
She then attended graduate school at Temple University
where she received her master's in psychology of reading. And
in 2006, Dr. Meyers received her doctoral degree from
University of Delaware in educational leadership. And we
welcome Dr. Meyers here today.
And Larry Berger is the CEO and co-founder of Wireless
Generation, an education company that has pioneered the
adaptation of emerging technologies to improve pre-K through 12
teaching and learning. Prior to launching Wireless Generation,
Mr. Berger was president of Interdimensions, a Web solutions
company.
He also served as the educational technology specialist at
the Children's Aid Society. Mr. Berger serves on the Carnegie
Institute for Advanced Study Joint Commission on Mathematics
and Science Education and of the Board of Trustees to the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. And we
welcome you here, also, Mr. Berger. Thank you for being here.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Governor. Before we begin, let
me briefly explain our lighting system here and the 5-minute
rule. Everyone, including members of Congress, is limited to 5
minutes of presentation or questioning. The light is green when
you begin to speak. When you see the yellow light it means you
have 1 minute remaining. When the light turns red your time has
expired, and you need to conclude your testimony.
Now, there are no ejection seats there, so you could
certainly finish a reasonable paragraph to conclude your
remarks. But please be certain as you testify to turn on, and
speak into the microphones in front of you.
And we will now hear from our first witness, Dr.
Strickland. Welcome, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF DOROTHY STRICKLAND, PROFESSOR EMERITAS, RUTGERS,
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
Ms. Strickland. Good morning, and thank you for the
opportunity to share some of the current thinking about
literacy learning during the early childhood years. I have done
a fair amount of research over the years. My primary
contribution to the field has been as translator of research
and practice. I have been a classroom teacher, learning
disability specialist and teacher educator. I am also a mother
and a grandmother, so I bring many perspectives to the table
Before I begin, however, I would like to state that,
although I believe that greater attention to literacy is
extremely important, I also believe that early literacy should
never be stressed at the expense of or in isolation from the
other domains of child development.
In fact, all of the domains of early childhood development,
physical, social, emotional, cognitive, language and literacy
are interrelated and interdependent. I have organized my
comments around four questions. The first two provides the
research and background information, and the last two deal with
recommendations,
Question one, what is known about the importance of early
literacy development? And you have already expressed some of
these ahead of me so I am glad to hear them. Early literacy
plays a key role in enabling the kind of early experiences that
research shows are linked with academic achievement, reduced
grade retention, higher graduation rates and enhanced
productivity in adult life.
We know that literacy learning starts early and persists
throughout life. From the earliest years, everything that
adults do to support children's language and literacy really,
really counts. We know that all language and literacy develop
concurrently. What children learn from listening and talking
contributes to their ability to read and write and vice versa.
We know that children's experiences with the world and with
print greatly influence their ability to comprehend what they
read. True reading involves understanding. What children bring
to a text whether it is oral or a written text influences the
understandings they takeaway.
My second question is what is needed to support young
children's language and literacy development? And I want to
offer just a few examples so that you will see that these are
not extraordinary experiences, certainly not skill drill, but
the kind of experiences found in most middle class homes.
For example, young children need parents, caregivers and
teachers who know that a child's capacity for learning is not
determined at birth, who involve children's interests to local
points of interest, and talk with them about what they see and
do, who provide time for reading to children and talking with
them about what is read. Ordinary, maybe, but too many children
are denied these opportunities.
My third question is, how can we improve existing early
childhood programs to better support early literacy
development? Both my knowledge of the research, and my
experience suggests that we have come a long way in providing
quality zero to five education in the United States, but there
is much more to be done.
Following are some ideas for your consideration and
recommendations for policy and practice. First, we do need
well-conceived standards for child outcomes, for curriculum
content, and for teacher-caregiver preparation to establish a
clarity of purpose and a shared vision for early literacy
education.
Second, comprehensive support for all children with clear
adaptations for children with special needs. Third, support for
early literacy development in the English language learner must
be specified. Fourth, early literacy assessment should be age
appropriate, and employ multiple means of collecting,
synthesizing and making use of information.
Fifth, program outreach should reflect respect for the
diversity of cultures and linguistic backgrounds of children
and their families, and include parent involvement programs
with a strong early literacy component.
And perhaps most important, highly capable early childhood
professionals are needed to implement today's more challenging
early literacy expectations. This involves knowledge of how
young children learn and how they are best taught, knowledge
and respect for diversity of children and their families,
ability to foster all the domains of development and to work
collaboratively with a variety of professionals, an effective
use of technologies.
All of these are important, and we need to keep in mind the
context in which this would be done. For example, many early
literacy professionals have implications for their own literacy
development as well. And this is a fact that we have come to
grips with.
My final point has to do with my work as an evaluator of
Early Reading First and the implications for federal efforts.
That work largely confirms the recommendations already offered.
For the most part, I saw exceptionally effective preschool
programs with a high degree of emphasis on early literacy.
My hope is that we might learn from the past, learn from
Early Reading First, especially in the areas of assessment,
family literacy and professional development, including
attention to coaching. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Strickland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dorothy S. Strickland, Professor Emeritas,
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Thank you for the opportunity to share some of the current thinking
about literacy learning during the early childhood years. Though I have
done a fair amount of research over the years, my primary contribution
to the field has been as translator of research to practice. I have
been a classroom teacher, learning disabilities specialist, and teacher
educator. I am also a mother and grandmother. So, I bring many
perspectives to the table. Before I begin, however, I would like to
state that although I believe that greater attention to literacy is
extremely important, I also believe that early literacy should never be
stressed at the expense of or in isolation from the other domains of
child development. In fact, all of the domains of early childhood
development--physical, social-emotional, cognitive, language, and
literacy--are interrelated and interdependent. I have organized my
comments around four questions.
Question #1. What is known about the importance of early literacy
development?
Early childhood professionals have long recognized the importance
of language and literacy in preparing children to succeed in school.
Early literacy plays a key role in enabling the kind of early learning
experiences that research shows are linked with academic achievement,
reduced grade retention, higher graduation rates, and enhanced
productivity in adult life.
Literacy learning starts early and persists throughout life.
In the past, our field has talked about early literacy in terms of
what was called reading readiness, the necessary level of preparation
children should attain before beginning formal reading instruction. Key
factors or predictors include oral language, alphabet knowledge,
knowledge of how the sounds of our language link to the alphabet, and
knowledge about print. Reading readiness largely focused on targeted
instruction in kindergarten and early first grade. While the notion of
certain predictors has been maintained, the way we look at their
development has changed. Today's research suggests that learning to
read and write is an ongoing and emerging process from infancy. This is
consistent with what has been learned from neurocognitive research
about young learners and learning. From the earliest years, everything
that adults do to support children's language and literacy really
counts.
Oral language and literacy develop concurrently.
Although oral language is foundational to literacy development, the
two also develop concurrently. What children learn from listening and
talking contributes to their ability to read and write and vice versa.
For example, young children's phonological awareness (ability to
identify and make oral rhymes and manipulate the individual sounds--
phonemes- in spoken words) is an important indicator of their potential
success in learning to read. Phonological awareness begins early with
rhyming games and chants, often on a parent's knee.
Children who fall behind in oral language and literacy
development are less likely to be successful beginning readers; and
their achievement lag is likely to persist throughout the primary
grades and beyond.
It is not enough to simply teach early literacy skills in
isolation. Teaching children to apply the skills they learn has a
significantly greater effect on their ability to read and write
Children's experiences with the world and with print greatly
influence their ability to comprehend what they read.
True reading involves understanding. What children bring to a text,
whether oral or written, influences the understandings they take away.
The more limited a child's experiences the more likely he or she
will have difficulty with reading. There are two kinds of experiences
that are highly influential to literacy development: background
knowledge about the world and background knowledge about print and
books.
Question #2. What is needed to support young children's language
and literacy development?
Young children need parents, caregivers, and teachers who:
Know that a child's capacity for learning is not
determined at birth and there is a great deal they can do about it.
Respect and build upon the home language and culture of
the child
Are aware that there are many informal and enjoyable ways
that language and literacy skills can be developed at home and in pre-
school settings
Provide opportunities for children to use what they know
about language and literacy in order to help them transfer what they
know to new situations.
Take time to listen and respond to children.
Talk to and with children not at them.
Engage children in extended conversations about events,
storybooks, and a variety of other print media.
Explain things to children.
Use sophisticated and unusual words in their everyday talk
with children, when it is appropriate to the conversation.
Recognize that interesting concepts and vocabulary do not
emerge from a vacuum and, thus, make sure to provide interesting
content to think and talk about.
Involve children in trips to local points of interest and
talk with them about what they see and do.
Establish a habit of raising and responding to children's
questions about things that occur in the home environment or at trips
to local points of interest.
Provide time for reading to children and talking with them
about what is read.
Share a variety of types of literature, including lots of
informational books to stimulate conversations about ideas and concepts
beyond everyday experiences.
Make books accessible for children to return to on their
own to ``pretend read''--a child's personal reenactment of the read-
aloud experience.
Question #3. How can we improve existing early childhood programs
to better support early literacy development?
Both my knowledge of research and my experience suggest that we
have come a very long way in providing quality 0-5 education in the
United States, but there is much to be done. Following are some ideas
for your consideration with recommendations for policy and practice.
1. Well-conceived standards for child outcomes, curriculum content,
and teacher/care giver preparation help establish clarity of purpose
and a shared vision for early literacy education.
States and districts should establish standards for early
literacy that are articulated with K-12 programs and reflect
consistency and continuity with overall program goals.
Early literacy curricula, teaching and care-giving
practices should be evidence-based, integrated with all domains of
learning and understandable to staff members.
2. Early literacy programs should be designed to provide
comprehensive support for all children with clear adaptations for
children with special needs.
3. Support for the early literacy development of English language
learners must be specified with language learning opportunities in both
the home language and English provided where feasible.
4. Early literacy assessment should be age-appropriate and employ
multiple means of collecting, synthesizing, and making use of
information to support children's overall development, improve the
quality of care giving/teaching, and the total program.
5. Program outreach should reflect respect for the diversity of
cultures, and linguistic backgrounds of children and their families as
well as support for families as children's first teachers.
Parent involvement programs should have a strong early
literacy component that guides parents and care givers in providing
appropriate early literacy experiences at home.
6. Highly capable early childhood professionals are needed to
implement today's more challenging early literacy expectations.
Standards for early childhood professionals--
administrators, teachers, caregivers, educational support
professionals--should require that staff members be qualified to meet
early literacy standards according to their roles and responsibilities.
Improved pre-service education and professional
development to prepare and support professionals to meet increased
demands and challenges associated with high quality early literacy
education. Includes--
Knowledge of how young children learn, (including brain
research) and how they are best taught.
Knowledge, respect, and support for the diversity of
children's families, cultures, and linguistic backgrounds are important
to early literacy Know:
The ability to integrate and build on all of the domains
of a child's development--physical, social-emotional, cognitive,
language--to foster literacy development.
The ability to work collaboratively with a variety of
professionals and social agencies to meet children's needs
Effective and prudent use of television, digital media at
home and in school settings--area that many are still struggling to
understand
Effective use of technologies in professional development
Note: The above must be considered in terms of the context in which
many early childhood educators work. Low wages, stress, and the need to
support the literacy levels of some early childhood educators have
implications for the success of professional development.
Question #4. What did my work, as an evaluator of Early Reading
First, reveal about what needs to be done to improve federal efforts?
My work with Early Reading First largely confirmed the
recommendations already offered. For the most part, I saw exceptionally
effective early childhood programs with a high degree of emphasis on
early literacy. Clearly, the quality of instruction was grounded in
high quality professional development, effective use of literacy
coaches, and the collaborative efforts of all staff members. My hope is
that we might learn from ERF in the following areas:
Assessment, used wisely, can be a catalyst for positive change.
Because ERF is a federally funded project, assessment received major
attention. My hope is that we can distill what was learned from ERF to
determine more effective and efficient ways to monitor children's
ongoing progress. Particular emphasis should be placed on authentic
types of assessment that help teachers and caregivers make use of what
they learn and offer guidance for professional development.
Family literacy remains an area in need of more inquiry and
application of what is known to be effective. What families know and do
has direct impact on young children's language and literacy
development. The need is particularly critical in areas where children
have the greatest need.
Professional development (includes all personnel and the selection
and training of literacy coaches)--Quality support for children's
development rests in the hands of the adults that care for them.
Effective professional development that is informed by evidence, a
shared vision of expectations, and supported by sufficient resources,
will produce the quality of early education that all children deserve.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dore?
STATEMENT OF MARY KAY DORE, DIRECTOR OF STUDENT SUPPORT
SERVICES, SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Ms. Dore. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member
Castle, Representative Polis and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. First
time doing this.
I am Mary Kay Dore, District Student Support Services
Manager in Summit School District located in Frisco, Colorado.
I am honored to share some of the work that we have done in
Summit School District over the past 3 years in regards to
improving instructional practices and achieving positive gains
for students in literacy and learning.
Summit County is a rural resort district located 70 miles
west of Denver in the 10-mile range of the Rocky Mountains. Our
year-round population is approximately 25,000 residents, but
during high tourist season the county's population can swell
upwards of 100,000. The county has experienced growth in the
past decade and an increase in diversity of our resident
families.
In 1995, there were 40 students whose native language was
not English. In 2009, we have 864 students who speak 24
different languages. The predominant first language for these
students is Spanish. Poverty has also increased. In 2000, 354
students qualified for either free or reduced lunch. In 2009,
949 students qualified for the assistance.
As we experienced growth in our community and
diversification, our district saw a decline in its standardized
test scores. As school district officials examine new student
data, they realized the need for change in some of their long-
held practices.
They refused to attribute lower test scores to students who
didn't speak English well enough or whose parents were
struggling financially. It wasn't the child's fault; it was the
school's practices that needed to improve.
In 2001, we formed a district instructional team or I-team,
which included the district staff in areas of literacy, ELA,
gifted and talented, IB, special education and technology to
focus on students who continue to struggle academically even
with parent involvement and school support services. We were
inspired to challenge our own status quo and develop a Summit
County system of multi-tiered supports for students.
Following several years of internal fine-tuning and cross-
departmental process planning, we established a new system with
four components we believe hold the key to improved instruction
in student achievement.
Number one, using formative and summative assessment data
to drive instruction and interventions. Number two, focused
collaborative time for teachers to discuss data, instruction
and students. Number three, discrete progress monitoring of
student achievement. And number four, professional development
that is linked to that identified student need.
This system, called response to instruction, instead of
response to intervention, emphasized the importance of
instruction. The team worked with the school's teachers to
create a framework and mechanism for responding to student
needs.
Once every quarter the staff reviewed a body of evidence on
each student regarding their academics and assessed who was at
grade level and who needed further conversation. The principal
carved out time during the school day for grade levels of
teachers to work with their building specialists for an hour a
week rotating through all grade levels, preschool through fifth
grade in a 3-week rotation cycle.
During this grade level collaborative time, universal
screening data was reviewed and the results from formative and
summative assessments. This gave the team the opportunity to
look at students beyond their label and flexibly group students
by need, even across grade level.
This cross-departmental approach matched the professional
with the best skills for addressing each student's needs. Data
from benchmark assessments were critical elements of this
process. Teachers learned how to use the data with confidence
when discussing a student's progress with their parents.
It helped parents better understand their child's literacy
skills and what parents could do at home to help. Teachers use
the data with their student to share their progress and buy
into their learning. Literacy resource teachers also developed
a document that housed all literacy data for a class that was
easy to reference as shown in Appendix F.
The school shifted to a culture of problem solving.
Teachers began to load their toolboxes with research-based
literacy strategies and supplemental programs for the direct
student needs for universal, targeted and intensive levels of
instruction. Student results were continually monitored
determining if progress had been sufficient and if
interventions needed to be continued or altered.
This collaborative time and multi-tiered system of support
structure has helped the staff continue the educational
practices that were effective and allowed them to let go of
programs that didn't produce results. As shown in Appendix D,
since RTI began at Upper Blue Elementary in 2007, the school
has consistently seen results on the Colorado reading
assessment that outpace the district and state averages.
As we continue today's discussion on literacy of children,
I want to leave you with a few reflections based off my work in
the field. First, I want to applaud you, and thank you for your
focus on literacy and literacy instruction.
Second, I know that we need to work with teachers in
preparatory programs. Teachers new to the field need to
understand systems of multi-tiered support, principles of the
problem-solving process and be well-versed in the five
components of literacy, including oral language development and
its effective instruction.
Third, schools need to shift to a systems way of thinking
beginning with a strong universal tier of instruction that is
linked to state standards and district curriculum. Teachers
need time to look at data, discuss students and plan
interventions or extensions to track their effectiveness in a
continuous improvement cycle. This system must be able to
discuss many computing topics. Teachers have more to complete
with less time. We need to make the time they have more
effective.
Finally I have also learned that just having three-ringed
binders on how to do something does not change a system.
Leadership that supports cultural changes and a strong
instructional focus are essential for continuous improvement.
With looming budget cuts in the state of Colorado the
already limited amount of time we have currently for teacher
professional development and collaborative work time will
become an increasingly difficult practice to support.
We need to provide a setting that works for children, one
for time and support to schools and districts so that they can
focus on instruction, particularly in the area of literacy. We
need to make changes if we are going to impact our children.
And after all, isn't that our purpose? Thank you for the
opportunity to share some of our successes.
[The statement of Ms. Dore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Kay Dore, District Student Support Services
Manager, Summit School District, Frisco, CO
Good morning. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle,
Representative Polis and members of the subcommittee thank you for this
opportunity to speak to you today. I am Mary Kay Dore, District Student
Support Services Manager in Summit School District located in Frisco,
Colorado. I am honored to share some of the work we've done in Summit
School District over the past few years in regards to improving
instructional practices and achieving positive gains for students in
literacy and learning.
Background of Summit School District
Summit County is a rural resort district that is located 70 miles
west of Denver in the Ten Mile Range of the Rocky Mountains. The county
sits high in the Rockies at about 9,000 feet. We are home to 4 world
class ski resorts and many other outdoor activities that attract year
round visitors. Our year round population is approximately 25,000
residents, but during high tourist season the county's population can
swell upwards of 100,000. The county has also experienced a great deal
of growth in the past several decades, and with that has come an
increase in the diversity of our resident families. In 1995, the
district had a total of 40 students whose native language was other
than English. Fourteen years later, in 2009, we have 864 students who
speak 24 different languages. The predominant first language for these
students is Spanish. The changes in poverty echo the same trend--in
2000, 354 students qualified for either free or reduced lunch; in 2009,
949 students qualified for the assistance.
Summit School District serves six towns and a little over three
thousand students at our nine preschool programs, six elementary
schools, one middle school, one high school, and three alternative
programs which include diploma outreach and programming for students
who are at risk of being expelled. Within our six elementary schools we
have two schools that qualify for Title I Program assistance, one of
which is a dual language school. The district is working toward full
district authorization in the International Baccalaureate Programme.
Summit County Schools has also been chosen as one of six districts
statewide to participate in the Colorado Department of Education's
CTAG, or Closing the Achievement Gap program, to address our higher
than-state-average gap of English and non-English speaking student
achievement.
Changes in instructional practice
As we experienced growth in our community and an increase in our
diversity, our district saw a decline in its standardized test scores.
As school district officials examined new student data, they realized a
need to change some of their long held practices. They refused to
attribute lower test scores to students who didn't speak English well
enough, or whose parents were struggling financially. It wasn't the
children's fault; it was the schools' practices that needed to improve.
The district first adopted a core literacy program K-6 and
empowered literacy resource teachers to examine student performance on
common literacy assessments. Two key questions surfaced:
Why were some students making progress in the area of literacy
while others were not?
What could we change for the students not making the progress we
would expect?
In 2001, we formed a district Instructional Team, or Iteam, which
included the district staff in the areas of literacy, ELA, gifted and
talented, IB, special education and technology to focus on students who
continued to struggle academically even with parent involvement and
school support services. After listening to national leaders and
speakers in literacy and language development, early intervention for
at-risk students, and Response to Intervention, we were inspired to
challenge our own status quo and develop a Summit County system of
multi-tiered supports for students.
Following several years of internal fine tuning and cross
departmental process planning, we established a new system with four
components we believe hold the key to improved instruction and student
achievement:
Using formative and summative assessment data to driven
instruction and interventions
Focused collaborative time for teachers to discuss data,
instruction, and students
Discrete progress monitoring of student achievement
Professional development linked to identified student need
This system, which we called Response to Instruction instead of
Response to Intervention to emphasize the importance of instruction,
began its implementation at Upper Blue Elementary. The team worked with
the school's teachers to create a framework and mechanism for
responding to student needs. Once every quarter the staff reviewed a
body of evidence on each student regarding their academics. Teachers
looked at students who were at grade level and those who needed further
conversation. The principal carved out time during the school day for
grade levels of teachers to work with their building specialists;
literacy, English language acquisition, special education, counselors
and their building principal for an hour week, rotating through all of
the grade levels preschool through fifth grade in a three week rotation
cycle.
During this grade-level collaborative time the team would review
the universal screening data and results from formative and summative
assessments. This gave the team the opportunity to look at students
beyond their ``label (special ed, ELL, ILP)'' and flexibly group
students by their individual needs, even across grade levels. This
cross departmental approach matched the professional with the best
skills for addressing each student's need.
Data from benchmark assessments were critical elements of this
process. Teachers learned how to use the data with confidence when
discussing a student's progress with their parents. It helped parents
understand their child's current literacy skills and what parents could
do at home to help. Teachers were even using data with their students
so students could see their progress and buy-in to their own learning.
Literacy resource teachers developed a document that housed all
literacy data for a class that was easy to reference. See Appendix A.
The teachers at Upper Blue also shifted to a ``culture of problem
solving.'' One teacher reflected that it allowed her to look at all
students in her classroom which impacted her daily instruction and made
her differentiate and use a variety of literacy strategies, including
small groups, centers, read aloud, writers workshop and other
strategies based on the needs of her students. The problem solving
process also held her accountable for the fidelity of interventions and
student results. This contributed an increased awareness of the need
for differentiated instruction based on a guaranteed and viable
curriculum that was grounded in sound instructional practice. As
teachers worked together they strengthened their understanding of
essential learning outcomes, linked to the state standards and
curriculum, and most importantly how they could support all students.
An important change that we observed was that fewer students were
being referred for a special education evaluation. As the teams worked
together, looking at student data, intentional interventions and their
results, referrals became more focused; evaluations for learning and
other disabilities now included a discussion about the need for the
sustained intensity and duration of the interventions that were
currently occurring with students.
Teachers began to load their ``tool boxes'' with research-based
literacy strategies and supplemental programs that addressed students'
needs through universal, targeted, and intensive levels of instruction.
Student results were continually monitored, determining if progress had
been sufficient, and if interventions needed to be continued or
altered. This collaborative time and multi-tiered system of support
structure has helped the staff continue the educational practices that
were effective and allowed them to let go of the program that didn't
produce results.
As shown in Appendix B, since RTI began at Upper Blue Elementary in
2007, the school has consistently seen results on the Colorado reading
assessment that outpace the district and state averages. At present,
reading scores are higher than the writing scores; however, the
building staff has been working on common writing benchmark assessments
and writing samples that will better assess student's writing needs.
District wide work
The district has also seen a great deal of success in implementing
this systemic reform. For many buildings this is the first year they
are formally beginning the school wide initiative. The Middle School
has started to track trends, allowing it to enact innovative programs
such as a group that engages Latino boys with the school, increasing
their engagement and achievement. Teachers are experiencing a paradigm
shift of moving from the ``I taught it'' point of view to the ``They
learned it'' philosophy. At administrative team meetings principals are
beginning to share their school data to help build professional
development offerings for all staff members in the district. Dillon
Valley, our dual language elementary school, is using its data in both
English and Spanish to build appropriate interventions to increase
student achievement. Also, our two Title I program assistance schools
have implemented before and after school intervention groups, summer
programming, and literacy and math nights for parents to help impact
student achievement. The increase of systems thinking has altered the
way we look at our students, our expectations for them and how we can
make the difference.
Reflections
As we continue today's discussion on the literacy skills of
children, I want to leave you with a few reflections based on my work
in the field.
First, I want to applaud my own Congressman Jared Polis and
Congressman Yarmuth for introducing H.R. 4037, the LEARN Act, which
will hopefully give districts across the nation the much-needed
resources to implement intensive, multi-tiered support systems for
literacy just like the one we have implemented at Upper Blue Elementary
School and in other Summit County schools.
Second, I know that we need to work with teachers in higher
education. Teachers new to the field need to understand systems of
multi-tiered support. They need to understand the principles of the
problem solving process when it comes to students. They need to be well
versed in the five components of literacy, including oral language
development and its effective instruction.
Third, schools need to shift to systems thinking to make any
sustainable change. This process begins with a strong universal tier of
instruction that is linked to state standards and district curriculum.
Additionally there needs to be systems in place that allow teachers
time to look at data, discuss students, and plan for interventions or
extensions and track their effectiveness in a continuous improvement
cycle. Even though we have placed a priority on literacy, the system
must be able to discuss many competing topics: math, behavior, science,
bullying, and inquiry based instruction, wellness, and 21st century
skills, just to name a few. Teachers have more to accomplish with less
time. We need to make the time they have effective.
And finally, I also have learned that just having binders on how to
do something does not change a system. Leadership at the school
building level that supports cultural changes and a strong
instructional focus are the essential components to guide this
difficult process of continuous improvement. With looming budget cuts
in the State of Colorado, the already limited amount of time that we
have currently for teacher professional development and collaborative
work time will become an increasingly difficult practice to support. We
need to provide the setting that works for children--one of time and
support--to schools and districts so that they can focus on
instruction, particularly in the area of literacy. We need to make
changes if we are going impact our children and after all, isn't that
our true purpose?
Thank you for the opportunity to share some of our successes
______
Chairman Kildee. Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Dore.
Mr. Henriquez?
STATEMENT OF ANDRES HENRIQUEZ, PROGRAM OFFICER, CARNEGIE
CORPORATION OF NEW YORK
Mr. Henriquez. Good morning. Chairman Kildee, Ranking
Member Mike Castle and members of the subcommittee, thank you
for inviting me to speak today. My name is Andres Henriquez,
and I serve as Program Officer at Carnegie Corporation of New
York which is a philanthropic organization established in 1911
by Andrew Carnegie to deal with real and permanent good in this
world.
I am particularly proud to be serving at Carnegie
Corporation as the foundation nears its 100th year as a
philanthropy. Carnegie Corporation's name has been practically
synonymous with literacy for close to a century. The
foundation's legacy includes over 2,000 free public libraries
established by Andrew Carnegie.
We also funded the development and initial production of
the PBS television series ``Sesame Street,'' now celebrating
its 40th anniversary. Today I will speak to you about our
recent initiative called Advancing Literacy which is working to
expand knowledge and practices in literacy beyond third grade.
Our work has shown that strong literacy skills beyond grade
three is the cornerstone for success in high school and for
college readiness and beyond. This insight grows out of an
earlier initiative to reform high schools which we funded with
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The high school reform work which was aimed at promoting
systemic and district-wide reform in seven urban communities
produced a critical, if unexpected, finding. Almost half of the
entering ninth graders were reading several years below grade
level.
It became clear that the kinds of outcomes we wanted to
achieve from this initiative, higher graduation rates, more
students going on to college, more students taking advanced
placement courses, were going to be difficult to achieve
because of students' low literacy levels.
The problem was not limited to these seven districts. In
fact, I learned that eighth-grade reading scores had not
improved in more than 30 years, and 70 percent of entering
ninth graders were reading below grade level.
Simply put, these high school students were not
understanding or engaging with text. We discovered that
struggling readers represent a substantial proportion of
students who are dropping out of our high schools. As fourth
graders, their scores are among the best in the world. By
eighth grade, their scores are much, much lower. By the time
they get to tenth grade, U.S. students' score are among the
lowest in the world.
The surprising conclusion from this work was that good
literacy, early literacy especially instruction does not
inoculate students against struggle or failure later on. And
let me just say, while the issue is exacerbated by poverty and
is particularly prevalent in poorer urban districts, the
comprehension problem is also common in middle class suburbs,
exurbs and rural areas throughout our country.
This is a problem in every single one of your districts. It
is clear from our nation's report card that too few students
are reading at the most advanced level. And many students who
do graduate from high school are not prepared for college
coursework.
This lack of strong literacy skills is so widespread that
many colleges and universities have introduced remedial reading
programs for the large numbers of freshmen unable to cope with
the quantity and complexity of college level work.
Seventy percent of students who take one or more college
remedial reading course do not attain a degree or certificate
within 8 years of enrollment.
And this handicap extends into our workforce. Private
industry estimates that it now spends as much as $3.1 billion
per year to bolster the writing skills of entry-level workers.
President Obama has pledged that by the year 2020, we will have
the highest percentage of college graduates in the world.
We have done a great job convincing nearly every high
school student in the land that with a college degree comes the
promise of career success. But it is all meaningless if those
high school graduates don't have the fundamental literacy
skills to succeed.
So where does this leave us? We had thought, or hoped, that
if you work to get a student to read with proficiency by fourth
grade, you could call it success, and move on. If they weren't
proficient by fourth grade, you would prevail upon that hope
and that they would catch up in later grades.
Yet, it is after the fourth grade that far greater demands
are placed on student's literacy skills, and far less time is
spent teaching literacy proficiency. At this point, students
are no longer learning to read, but they are reading to learn.
And that is what led us to create the Advancing Literacy
initiative.
The goal has been to target reading for young people in
grades 4 through 12. Since then we have established and built
research, policy and practice specifically in adolescent
literacy. Our reports and our studies have created a body of
work to better understand the literacy needs of our students.
So why do we have this problem of adolescent literacy to
begin with? Middle and high school students must decipher much
more complex passages, and synthesize information at high level
and learn to form independent conclusions based on evidence.
They must develop special skills and strategies for reading
text in each of the different content areas including science,
math and history.
The demands of literacy change and intensify quickly after
fourth grade, text is longer and more complicated and
vocabulary is more specialized. Additionally, students must
grapple with the increasing importance of comprehending graphic
representations, particularly in science and mathematics.
There is also infrastructural issues. There is a shortage
of qualified literacy experts to coach and teach students and
teachers in middle grades and high schools. Teachers will argue
that they are not literacy teachers, but teachers of content.
So it is difficult for content area literacy instruction to
take place.
There is a decrease in student motivation to read as
children progress from fourth grade through 12th grade. And
middle and high schools are not accustomed to using assessments
to identify, and target students who need literacy assistance.
So what can we do? Over the last 40 years, our nation's
adolescent literacy rates have been stagnant. Recent success in
improving early literacy is a very good start, but good early
literacy is only a foundation, not the whole structure. We must
re-engineer our nation's schools to support adolescent learning
and ambitious goals for literacy for all. And this is how we
can get there.
First, increase Title 1 support for middle schools and high
schools. At the moment, only 5 percent of federal Title 1 funds
go to middle and high schools. If the nation is to remain
competitive, we must increase our high school graduation and
college going rates among our most disadvantaged students. An
infusion of resources at the secondary level focused on higher
levels of literacy is critical to making this happen.
Second, establish fewer clearer higher common standards.
This will help to increase attention to reading and writing
especially focus on comprehension that can be embedded in other
content areas.
Third, fully fund and expand a comprehensive pre-K through
12 literacy continuum with specific support allocated for
grades 4 through 12. Last week, the LEARN Act was introduced
and was the first critical step to meet recommendations at the
federal level.
We acknowledge the work of Chairman Miller, Representatives
Polis and Yarmuth for introducing this promising piece of
legislation.
Fourth, investigate the cost and benefits of linking the
nation's report card to international literacy tests. While
NAEP has been indispensible in tracking America s educational
progress, it provides no sense of how America stands in
relation to other nations.
Funding and efforts to equate long-term NAEP trends with
international literacy tests such as PISA and PROSE would allow
us to get an instant snapshot of how our young people are
performing vis-a-vis the rest of the world. And finally,
increase federal funding for evidence-based research for
adolescent literacy.
We need to intervene and individualize instruction with
students as soon as they have begun to lose ground. We need
increased government-funded research at NICHD and IES that
could demonstrate how best to assess adolescents in order to
determine their need for intervention and support.
In conclusion, the status quo in middle school and high
schools in America is no longer acceptable. It is based on a
20th century vision of the literacy skills which no longer
guarantee success after high school.
High school graduates today face higher expectations in the
new global economy than ever before. I thank you for your time.
[The statement of Mr. Henriquez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andres Henriquez, Program Officer,
Carnegie Corporation of New York
``The generation that is in school now, and those who will follow
them are the people who will envision the future of our nation and
chart our course through the 21st century and beyond. We owe it to them
and to ourselves to ensure that they can read, write and learn at a
high level in every classroom and every school, college and university
throughout the United States.''
Vartan Gregorian, President,
Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Overview
Throughout the history of Carnegie Corporation, its presidents have
been engaged with literacy. Andrew Carnegie's legacy includes over 2000
free public libraries that he saw as a link ``bridging ignorance and
education.'' Access to books and the explicit teaching of reading are
two ways in which literacy is fostered. From the 1930's to the 1960s
reading was increasingly taught through methods that concentrated on
``whole words'' (or whole language), using sentences and stories that
were closely geared to children's interests. Surprisingly, the teaching
of reading became an intensely debated national issue in 1955, when
Rudolf Flesch's Why Johnny Can't Read And What You Can Do about It
(Harper) moved onto a national best-seller list. Flesch charged that
the neglect of phonics instruction had caused a national crisis in
literacy and that ``whole language'' was based on a flawed theory that
required children to memorize words and guess how to pronounce a word
they did not know, instead of sounding out the word. The ``look-say''
or whole-word method had swept the textbook market, despite the fact,
Flesch alleged, that it had no support in research.
Carnegie Corporation President John Gardner (1955-1967) saw the
debate about reading as central to the foundation's interests, writing
in a 1959 Annual Report, ``The question of whether Johnny can or cannot
read-if so why, if not why not-has probably given rise to more hue and
cry throughout the land than any other single educational issue. There
are those who claim that today's youngsters cannot read as well as
their parents did at their age; others state the situation is actually
reversed. Proponents of one or another method of reading argue
vociferously for their method and heap scorn upon other methods.
Wherever the truth lies, it's not yet obvious, and any research which
may shed light on this complicated problem will be to the good.''
Following this logic, the Corporation soon funded a key grantee, Jeanne
Chall of the City College of New York, to help ``settle'' the reading
debate.
Chall spent three years visiting classrooms, analyzing research
studies, examining textbooks and interviewing authors, reading
specialists and teachers. She found substantial and consistent
advantages for programs that included systematic phonics, finding that
this approach was particularly advantageous for children from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds. In 1967, Chall collected her Corporation-
supported research and published Learning to Read: the Great Debate
(Chall, 1967), which became a classic. Later, after moving to Harvard
University, Chall developed a conceptual framework for developmental
reading stages that extended from the pre-reading stage of very young
children to the highly sophisticated interpretations of educated
adults. Chall's reading stages clearly distinguished ``learning to
read'' from ``reading to learn;'' she also identified and named the
``fourth grade slump.''
Advancing Literacy Initiative
The Corporation's distinguished history in support of literacy--
some of which is described above--has recently extended from pivotal
initial support for the Emmy award-winning PBS series Between the
Lions, to the work of the International Development Division in
strengthening libraries in sub-Saharan countries in Africa. As always,
our work in this area includes a concern with access to books, the
search for better methods of teaching reading, and building a body of
knowledge about the developmental issues associated with early
childhood and adolescence. Taking all these factors into account,
Carnegie Corporation came to its current focus on literacy with
enormous comparative advantage. Indeed, to many people, the name
Carnegie Corporation is associated with the very foundations of
literacy going all the way back to the philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie
himself and of the Corporation in its early years; both were
instrumental in helping to create the nation's network of free public
libraries.
The Corporation's Advancing Literacy Initiative was developed after
an extensive two-year review that included consultations with the
nation's leading practitioners and researchers. We learned that the
teaching of reading in K-3 is well supported with research, practice
and policy, but that these are lacking for grades beyond this point. In
2002, Carnegie Corporation commissioned RAND to convene a small group
of scholars and policy analysts to discuss the then-current state of
research on adolescent literacy and help lay the groundwork for a long-
term effort directed toward supporting and improving the literacy
skills of adolescent students in our nation's schools. The resulting
task force on adolescent literacy produced a ``briefing book'' that
identified and examined several topics relevant to adolescent literacy
about which more thinking was needed.
Despite the recognized importance of specialized literacy skills
for adolescents, the knowledge base on this issue was at that time
relatively small, with school instruction relying more on intuition
than solid evidence and the institutional dissemination of best
practices. Notable earlier reports, including Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998) and the
Report of the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel Report,
2000), had offered strong arguments and recommendations for systematic
literacy instruction in the primary grades even though international
comparisons suggested that the performance of American children in the
primary grades had long been comparable to that in other developed
nations (Martin, Mullis, Gonzalez, & Kennedy, 2003). The specific
challenges of adolescent literacy and learning had been comparatively
ignored in favor of the ``inoculation'' model of literacy instruction,
wherein later problems are avoided through early efforts at prevention.
The RAND Task Force delivered its briefing book to the Advisory
Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy (ACAAL), an enlarged group
established by the Corporation, in 2004. ACAAL members then took on the
task of working out how to expand knowledge about the topics identified
in the briefing book by overseeing (and in some cases themselves
producing) synthetic reports and white papers. Some of these early
reports were widely distributed and have received considerable
enthusiasm. ACAAL commissioned a substantial list of reports and small
studies focused on issues as varied as comprehension assessment, out-
of-school learning, second language learners' instructional needs,
writing in adolescence, literacy in the content areas, and standards
for adolescent literacy coaching (see Appendix A for a complete listing
of books and reports from the initiative). Members of ACAAL also
contributed to teams that produced a variety of guides for policy
makers including governors, state school boards, principals,
superintendents, district school boards, and curriculum developers, and
participated in adolescent literacy summits organized and promoted by
the Alliance for Excellent Education.
Therefore, we have chosen to focus our efforts on intermediate and
adolescent literacy, to build research, practice and policy for
literacy in students in grades 4 through 12. Our decision is informed
by our grantmaking, which has helped us and the nation learn a great
deal about children in their early, middle and adolescent years of
development, as well as about teaching and learning and the complexity
of school reform. What has become evident is that good school reform
and knowledge of adolescent development are not mutually exclusive:
they go together.
During the last twenty years our nation's educational system has
scored some extraordinary successes, especially in improving the
reading and writing skills of young children in grades K-3. Yet the
pace of literacy improvement has not kept up with the pace of growth in
the global economy, and literacy gains have not been extended to
adolescents in the secondary grades.
Overall, we are failing to create highly literate, college-ready
adults with the literacy skill sets that qualify them for employment in
the new global knowledge economy. The most recent data shows poor
performance by U.S. students compared to many other nations (UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, 2007). Although U.S. students in grade four
score among the best in the world, those in grade eight score much
lower. By grade ten, U.S. students score among the lowest in the world.
In addition, many of our high school graduates are not prepared for
college-level coursework, a widespread problem that has impelled most
colleges and universities to introduce remedial reading programs for
the large numbers of freshmen unable to cope with the quantity of
reading assigned to them college classrooms (NCES, 2001, 2003).
Likewise, estimates indicate that private industry now spends up to 3.1
billion USD (National Commission on Writing, 2004) per year to bolster
the writing skills of entry level workers. Part of the problem is that
societal demands for high levels of literacy have increased
dramatically: ``The skills required to earn a decent income have
changed radically. The skills taught in most U.S. Schools have not''
(Murnane & Levy, 1996)
In other words, our adolescents are not being adequately prepared
for the demands of higher education, employment and citizenship in the
21st Century (American Diploma Project, 2004; Center on Education
Policy, 2007; Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, 2007; Perie, Grigg, & Donahue,
2005). It is a well-publicized fact that young people who fail or
under-perform in school are increasingly likely to suffer from
unemployment or drastically lower income levels throughout their lives
(e.g., OECD, 2007).
The Corporation is by helping to build the nation's capacity to
teach and strengthen reading comprehension skills, with a special focus
on grades 4 through 12, i.e., ages 9 through 17. Therefore, we refer to
this effort as intermediate and adolescent literacy. The Corporation
begins from a position of comparative advantage, having established a
knowledge base of theory and effective practice in early learning and
education systems reform.
The marketplace for employment is governed by a new knowledge-based
economy, requiring better educated, highly literate and technologically
fluent high school graduates. The causes of the weakness in
intermediate and adolescent literacy are poorly understood, but current
research suggest several reasons why students do not maintain the gains
they make in earlier grades:
A shortage of qualified literacy experts who can coach and
teach literacy for students and teachers in the middle grades;
A lack of capacity, time and will for middle and high
school teachers to teach literacy within their content areas;
A lack of reinforcement of comprehension of
``informational text'' in early reading;
A lack of strategies at the end of the third grade for
pupils to deal with a rapid shift from narrative text to expository
text;
A lack of systemic thinking in schools about literacy
beyond age eight;
Decrease in student motivation to read as children
progress from fourth grade through twelfth grade;
Middle and high school designs that lack the capacity to
identify and target students that need literacy assistance;
Little awareness by parents and community groups that
literacy instruction needs to continue after children have learned the
basic skills of decoding words and following a simple narrative.
We believe there is strong evidence that schools with a focus on
literacy (reading and writing) are associated with improved academic
performance and successful academic outcomes for students. At the
Corporation, we are making grants aimed at having a profound influence
on adolescent literacy by directing national attention to the issue,
bringing together the best talent in the field to address the issue,
and supporting needed research and innovative practices (See Carnegie
Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy Time to Act: An agenda for
advancing adolescent literacy for college and career readiness and
other corresponding reports at: http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta).
Good early literacy instruction does not inoculate students against
struggle or failure later on. Beyond grade 3, adolescent learners in
our schools must decipher more complex passages, synthesize information
at a higher level, and learn to form independent conclusions based on
evidence. They must also develop special skills and strategies for
reading text in each of the differing content areas (such as English,
Science, Mathematics and History)--meaning that a student who
``naturally'' does well in one area may struggle in another.
We have a strong knowledge base of reading instruction for grades
K-3. However, literacy supports for adolescents present greater
instructional challenges and demand a range of strategies. Middle and
high school learners must learn from texts which, compared to those in
the earlier grades are significantly longer and more complex at the
word, sentence and structural levels, present greater conceptual
challenges and obstacles to reading fluency, contain more detailed
graphic representations (as well as tables, charts and equations linked
to text) and demand a much greater ability to synthesize information.
Also, each content-area has its own set of literacy skills that
students are required to master before they can move fully from
``learning to read'' to ``reading to learn.'' Adolescents who fail to
master these more complex tasks in their learning process are likely to
become unskilled workers in a world where literacy is an absolute
precondition for success.
This is particularly true in mathematics and science. The Carnegie
Corporation of New York--Institute for Advanced Study Commission on
Mathematics and Science Education report, The Opportunity Equation:
Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the
Global Economy (www.OpportunityEquation.org), advocates for expanding
Science Technology Education and Mathematics (STEM) education by
educating significantly more students to be STEM-capable for college
readiness rather than viewing STEM as subjects offered only to the
highest achievers. The Commission also recommended reframing STEM to be
a catalyst for the kinds of education reform that is needed to
accelerate the development of rigorous curricula, improved teaching
practices, and high quality assessment and accountability measures.
However, reading scientific texts pose specialized challenges to
inexperienced and struggling readers. For example, scientific research
reports include abstracts, section headings, figures, tables, diagrams,
maps, drawings, photographs, reference lists and endnotes. Science
textbooks usually include similar elements. Each of these elements
serves as a signal as to the function of a given stretch of text and
can be used by skilled readers to make predictions about what to look
for as they read, but consider the situation of an adolescent reader
confronted for the first time by such texts and trying to make sense of
them using the basic decoding tools acquired in ``learning to read.''
Comprehension of scientific texts also often requires mathematical
literacy, or an ability to understand what mathematical tables and
figures convey. It is not uncommon for such figures and tables to
invite multiple points of view or to open up questions that are not
posed directly in the text (Lemke, 1998). Many scientific texts also
require visual literacy, using diagrams, drawings, photographs and maps
to convey meanings.
Similarly, mathematics textbooks can serve as a significant barrier
for students who are struggling readers. ``It is a myth that
mathematics and math-dependent majors in college do not require strong
reading and writing skills. Students have to be able to comprehend
complex informational text so they can identify which mathematical
operations and concepts to apply to solve a particular problem'' (Lee &
Spratley, 2010). In order to integrate reading and writing instruction
successfully into the academic disciplines, district, state and federal
policymakers must:
1. Define the roles and responsibilities of content area teachers
clearly and consistently, stating explicitly that it is not those
teachers' job to provide basic reading instruction;
2. Members of every academic discipline define the literacy skills
that are essential to their content area and which they should be
responsible for teaching;
3. All secondary school teachers receive initial ongoing
professional development in teaching the reading and writing skills
that are essential to their own content area;
4. School and district rules and regulations, education funding
mechanisms, and states and accountability systems combine to give
content area teacher positive incentives and appropriate tools with
which to provide reading and writing instruction.
The challenge is to connect reading and writing instruction to the
rest of the secondary improvement agenda, treating literacy instruction
as a key part of the broader effect to ensure that all students develop
the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers
(Heller & Greenleaf, 2007).
Re-Engineering Schools for Literacy
After the investment of millions of dollars and the talents of the
best and brightest reformers over decades of educational reform, it is
now clear that urban schools cannot be successfully reformed without
substantially changing the way school districts operate. The
Corporation considers the redesigning of urban high schools to be a
daunting challenge but also a promising target of opportunity for
accelerating the pace of school district reform. This requires treating
urban schools as a complex system rather than an aggregation of
individual schools. School districts are embedded within communities
that strongly influence their mode of operation. Therefore, school
districts cannot succeed in addressing the problems of educating all
students to high standards in isolation and must also employ community
and organizational resources.
Carnegie Corporation seeks to increase the number of promising
school designs demonstrating substantial gains in student achievement
and to build on those, in particular, that are addressing systemic
barriers and demonstrating effectiveness at scale. New models of small,
academically rigorous high schools developed with support from Carnegie
Corporation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which have
significantly improved graduation rates of the schools they replaced,
are outstanding examples of such designs. These schools, all of which
have been developed with partnering higher education, cultural or
community organizations and school development organizations, also
include leadership and teacher recruitment and professional development
components.
New school designs aim to overcome the inherent weaknesses in urban
schools and systems, which include low expectations, weak curricula,
incoherent management approaches, limited talent pools and capacity-
building strategies, entrenched school models that prevent innovation,
poor instructional practices and systems of support, and isolation and
failure to benefit from external resources. To reinforce the
development and sustainability of these new designs, it's essential to
build up a sector of intermediary organizations, university centers,
non-profit school and design developers, and research and demonstration
organizations--some of which specialize in content areas like
adolescent literacy or mathematics while others focus on leadership
development and turning around low-performing schools.
Without question, literacy is a critical component of learning and
therefore of all new, improved school designs. In order to have
``literacy for all'' we must also have a comprehensive agenda for re-
engineering America's schools that will support adolescent learners.
Re-engineering for change at the school level must achieve the
following:
1. The school culture is organized for learning: Quality
instruction is the central task that organizes everyone's work. Thus,
teachers feel personally responsibility for student learning, and trust
one another and the principal to support them in their work. Because
there is a sense of participation in a professional community,
decisions are made collaboratively and are based upon data. The staff
strives for continuous, incremental improvement of student performance
over time. The school provides optimal learning conditions
characterized by a warm, inviting, and low-threat learning environment
for students and for teachers. Students and teachers are well-known to
and by each other.
2. Information drives decisions: Student achievement data is that
it drives decisions about instruction, scheduling, and interventions.
District- and state-provided test data are used as appropriate for
these decisions. In addition, the staff receives support in efforts to
gather and analyze real-time data from team-developed formative
assessments and uses that information to inform instruction and to
target remediation. As a result, teaching and learning become a dynamic
process based upon the current needs of all learners. Additionally,
data are systematically archived so knowledge is accumulated over time
regarding the effectiveness of programs and other innovations.
3. Resources are allocated wisely: Time, energy, and materials are
focused on areas deemed critical for raising student achievement.
Scarce resources are distributed wisely according to student needs. The
schedule allows time for teacher professional development and
collaborative data analysis as part of regular work. There is also time
in the schedule for supplementary instruction in smaller classes to
bring struggling students up to grade level. Professional support
(coaches, mentors) for promoting literacy skills is available to all
content-area teachers.
4. Instructional leadership is strong: The school's leadership
works tirelessly to keep student learning the primary goal. Time and
attention are distributed according to consensual importance. Leaders
work in partnership with subject area specialists, literacy coaches and
other skilled experts to ensure successful implementation of critical
programs. The principal understands assessment data, knows struggling
students and their teachers by name, creates effective internal
accountability mechanisms, and manages both the instructional (i.e.,
curriculum, assessment, professional development) and the
infrastructural (i.e., scheduling, budgeting) literacy needs of the
school. A literacy leadership team is centrally engaged in designing,
supporting, and overseeing the school's literacy work.
5. Professional faculty is committed to student success: Teachers
subordinate their preferences to student needs, participate willingly
in professional development because it is focused on the challenges
they are facing and is designed to improve their work, recognize the
importance of literacy skills to content area learning, participate in
vertical and grade-level teams, and work with colleagues and coaches in
observing, describing, and analyzing instructional practice. Coaches
participate in the professional community as colleagues rather than as
evaluators or as administrators.
6. Targeted interventions are provided for struggling readers and
writers: Multi-tiered, scaffolded instruction helps students to build
the skills and strategies they need for success. A logical progression
of interventions is available, to which learners are assigned based on
their differential needs. Those students lagging furthest behind
receive intensive courses that provide explicit instruction on critical
reading and writing skills and strategies with ample opportunities for
scaffolded practice. Such scaffolding allows for acceleration and helps
struggling students to tackle rigorous work. Courses aimed at
overcoming specific reading difficulties, whether decoding, fluency, or
comprehension are taught by teachers with specific expertise in
reading. These courses do not replace instruction in English Language
Arts or other content area classes, and whenever possible carry credits
toward graduation.
7. All content area classes are permeated by a strong literacy
focus: Teachers naturally address literacy instruction as a normal part
of the teaching and learning process. Core classes (math, science,
language arts, social studies) have reading and writing (instruction
and application) woven in throughout. Content-area teachers have a
strong background in their content areas and a metacognitive
understanding of the specific types of literacy skills these areas
require. Teachers have strategies for teaching challenging content both
to advanced readers and to struggling readers, by identifying critical
course content, focusing on the big ideas, and delivering content in an
explicit, learner-friendly way. The skills struggling readers learn in
reading class are explicitly reinforced in content-area classrooms, and
reading teachers use content area materials as a basis for practicing
the reading skills they are teaching.
Recommendations
While federal legislation historically has had a ``hands off
approach to school-school based practices in the past, we have seen
that a more active role, particularly around policies that have the
potential to impact classroom practices based on sound research, can
have indelible impact on teachers and a nation of readers (i.e. Reading
First). Strong federal legislation, such as the LEARN Act, that support
middle and high school to ensure many more of our young people graduate
high schools and are well prepared for postsecondary education and the
workforce are critical. A funding stream focused on middle and high
schools should include the following:
Increasing Title I support for middle and high schools or
creating a new funding stream. At the moment only 5 percent of federal
Title I funds go to middle and high schools. If the nation is to remain
competitive we must in increase high school graduation and college-
going rates among our most disadvantaged students. An infusion of
resources at the secondary level focused on higher levels of literacy
is critical to making this happen. As we have mentioned, an
``inoculation'' in primary grades does not presume students will do
well in secondary schools.
In a globalized economy we need world-class common
standards and assessments. Common standards in English language arts
will help to increase attention to reading and writing and especially
focus on comprehension that can be embedded in other content areas.
Common standards discussion will also accelerate the development of
high quality assessments for secondary school students.
Fully fund and expand a comprehensive preK-12 continuum
with specific support set aside for grades 4-12 adolescent literacy so
that more students and their teachers have access to federal support.
The ``Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation Act'' or LEARN
Act, specifically addresses this call to action.
Investigate the costs and benefits of linking the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to international literacy
tests, such as PISA and PIRLS. While NAEP has been an indispensable
measure for tracking America's educational progress, it provides no
sense of how America stands in relation to other nations. Funding an
effort to equate long-term trend NAEP test with PISA and PIRLS would
allow us to get an instant snapshot not only of how today's youth
perform in relation to yesterday's youth, but also how America's youth
perform in relation to the larger world's youth. With the rapidly
changing face of the 21st century economy, we need accurate and timely
information on America's educational standing
Literacy demonstration sites in high poverty areas that
can implement best practices and proven strategies for what works in
middle and high schools. This is particularly important for districts
that need to coordinate their professional development efforts to
effectively work with content area teachers to embed literacy into
their domain areas.
Support states to build comprehensive preK-12 literacy
plans. While almost all states have made K-3 literacy plans, we need to
ensure the all states have strategic literacy plans for grades 4-12 in
reading and writing and are working systemically work with school
districts to ensure all schools have a way of embedding literacy with
their designs. Literacy extends well beyond 3rd grade with states.
Federal resources can help to establish efforts similar to those run by
the National Governors Association's Reading to Achieve: State Policies
to Support Adolescent Literacy and High School Honor States--to help
states develop adolescent literacy plans (Snow, Martin and Berman,
2008).
Additional support to improve the education of middle
grade students in low-performing schools by developing and utilizing
early warning data systems to identify those students most at-risk of
dropping out, assisting schools in implementing proven literacy
interventions, and providing the necessary professional development and
coaching to school leaders and teachers.
Increase support for the National Writing Project (NWP).
NWP has been one of the most coherent literacy professional development
efforts in the nation for over 30 years. The NWP's substantial network
of 175 sites and in Washington DC, Puerto Rico and Guam. NWP has also
begun a National Adolescent Reading Initiative to complement its work
in writing. Increased support for NWP will ensure that the research-
based methods used in reading and writing in secondary schools are
infused in a large number of school districts across the country.
Increase federal funding for evidenced-based research for
adolescent literacy. There are a number of questions to which a robust
and well-funded research effort could provide answers, with the
prospect of immediate improvement in adolescent literacy outcomes. We
know we need to intervene and individualize instruction with students
as soon as they begin to fail. We don't know what the best strategies
are for the particular levels of failure. It is critical that funding
for research in middle and high schools be increased to fund research
at NICHD and IES that could demonstrate how best to assess adolescents
quickly and efficiently in order to determine their need for
intervention and/or support, what works for older readers, and what
some of the most productive strategies are for struggling readers. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is an exciting opportunity for
much of education but there is little reference to English-language
learners. ELLs deserve more research attention particularly the issue
of language proficiency and academic content needs. Research into the
impact of different approaches to teacher education and professional
development, and the best design of vocabulary and comprehension
instruction for ELLs and other struggling readers is critical.
Conclusion
The Corporation's rich history in literacy has, at its core, Andrew
Carnegie's belief that, ``Only in popular education can man erect the
structure of an enduring civilization.'' This belief has guided the
Corporation as it has moved from helping to establish public libraries,
to laying the groundwork for what we know as Head Start, to its
groundbreaking efforts to improve middle schools and high schools. At a
the recent launch of the Time to Act report, Corporation president
Vartan Gregorian encouraged us all to take action: ``Today, let us set
ourselves the task of helping all American students to become wealthy
in knowledge and understanding by improving their literacy skills. As
Andrew Carnegie said, one of the jobs of a patriot is ``* * * the
dispelling of ignorance and the fostering of education.'' Hence, as
patriots and as parents, teachers, leaders of business and government--
and as Americans--let us commit ourselves to being good ancestors to
the generations who follow by ensuring that each and every student can
``read to learn.''
references
American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school
diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act:
An Agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and
career success. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1959). Carnegie Corporation of New
York: Year in Review. New York: Author.
Carnegie Corporation of New York & Institute for Advanced Study.
(2009). The opportunity equation: Transforming mathematics and
science education for citizenship and the global economy. New
York: Author.
Center on Educational Policy (2007). Answering the question that matter
most: Has student achievement increased since No Child Left
Behind. Washington, DC: Author
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can't read: And what you can do about it.
New York: Harper & Row.
Heller, R. & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content
areas: Getting to the heart of middle and high school
improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Lee, C. D., and Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the Disciplines: The
Challenges of Adolescent Literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie
Corporation of New York.
Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation's Report Card:
Reading 2007 (NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics.
Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in
scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading
science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourse of
science (pp. 87-113). NY: Routledge.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Kennedy, A. M.
(2003). Trends in children's reading literacy achievement
1991--2001: IEA's study of trends in reading literacy
achievement in primary school in nine countries. Chestnut Hill,
MA: Boston College, Lynch School of Education, PIRLS
International Study Center.
Murnane, Richard J. & Levy, Frank (1996). Teaching the new basic
skills: principles for educating children to thrive in a
changing economy. NY: Free Press.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2001). The
condition of education, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2003).The condition
of education, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work * * *
or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. New York:
College Board.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the scientific research literature on
reading and its implication for reading instruction.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Organisation Education for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(2007). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: Author
Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation's report card:
Reading 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading
Difficulties among Young Children. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Snow, C. E., Martin, T., and Berman, I. (2008). State literacy plans:
Incorporating adolescent literacy. Harvard Educational Review,
78, 1, 211-230.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2007). Global education digest:
Comparing education statistics across the world. Montreal:
Author.
appendix a
Carnegie Corporation of New York's Advancing Literacy Initiative:
Works and Commissioned Papers. Most posted on www.carnegie.org/literacy
2009
Haynes, Mariana (2009). Issues in Brief: State Actions to Improve
Adolescent Literacy, Results from NASBE's State Adolescent
Literacy Network. Arlington, VA: National Association of State
Boards of Education. http://nasbe.org.
Irvin, Judith L. Meltzer, Julie, Mickler, Martha J., Phillips, Melvina
P., & Dean, Nancy. (2009). Meeting the Challenges of Adolescent
Literacy: Action Sops for Literacy Leaders. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association. http//www.reading.org
2008
Cobb, Velma, Meltzer, Julie, William, Martha (2008). Mobilizing
Communities to Support the Literacy Development of Urban Youth:
A Conceptual Framework and Strategic Planning Model. New York,
NY: National Urban League and Center for Resource Management.
www.nul.org.
Guglielmi, R. Sergio (2008). Native Language Proficiency, English
Literacy, Academic Achievement, and Occupational Attainment in
Limited-English-Proficient Students: A Latent Growth Modeling
Perspective, Journal of Educational Psychology, American
Psychological Association, 100:2, 322-342.
Harvard University (2008). Adolescent Literacy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Educational Review, 78:1, Spring 2008. www.hepg.org.
Marsh, Julie A., Sloan McCombs, Jennifer, Lockwood, J.R., Martorell,
Francisco, Gershwin, Daniel, Naftel, Scott, Le, Vi-Nhuan, Shea,
Molly, Barney, Heather, Crego, Al (2008). Supporting Literacy
Across the Sunshine State: A Study of Florida Middle School
Reading Coaches. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. www.rand.org.
2007
Batalova, Jeanne, Fix, Michael and Murray, Julie (2007). Measures for
Change: The Demography and Literacy of Adolescent English
Learners. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute.
www.migrationpolicy.org.
Calderon, Margarita (2007). Teaching Reading to English Language
Learners, Grades 6-12: A Framework for Improving Achievement in
the Content Areas. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Deshler, Donald D., Palincsar, Annemarie Sullivan, Biancarosa, Gina,
and Marnie Nair (2007) Informed Choices for Struggling
Adolescent Readers: A Research-based Guide to Instructional
Programs and Practices, Commissioned by Carnegie Corporation of
New York. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
www.reading.org.
Graham, Steve and Perin, Dolores (2007). A Meta-Analysis of Writing
Instruction for Adolescent Students, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99:3, 445-476.
Graham, Steven and Perrin, Dolores (2007). Writing Next: Effective
Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High
Schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
www.all4ed.org.
Heller, Rafael, Greenleaf, Cynthia L. (2007). Literacy Instruction in
the Content Areas: Getting to the Core of Middle and High
School Improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education. www.all4ed.org.
Irvin, Judith L., Meltzer, Julie and Dukes, Melinda, Taking Action on
Adolescent Literacy: An Implementation Guide for School
Leaders, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. www.ascd.org.
2006
Henriquez, Andres. ``Principals Can Help Improve Literacy for English
Learners,'' National Association of Secondary School
Principals, NewsLeader, December 2006. www.nassp.org
Guensberg, Carol. ``Why Johnny (Still) Can't Read: Creative Educators
Push to Boost Adolescent Literacy,'' Edutopia. February 2006.
Volume 2, Issue 1. San Francisco, CA: The George Lucas
Educational Foundation. www.edutopia.org
International Reading Association.(2006). Standards for Middle and High
School Literacy Coaches. International Reading Association in
Collaboration with National Council of Teachers of English,
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science
Teachers Association, National Council for the Social Studies.
Newark, DE: Author. www.reading.org
Salinger, Terry, Bacevich, Amy (2006). Lessons & Recommendations from
the Alabama Reading Initiative: Sustaining Focus on Secondary
Reading. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
www.air.org.
Short, Deborah and Fitzgerald, Shannon (2006). Double the Work:
Language Acquisition and Academic Literacy for Adolescent
English Language Learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics. www.cal.org.
National Association of State Boards of Education.(2006). Reading at
Risk: The State Response to the Crisis in Adolescent Literacy.
Alexandria, VA: Author. www.nasbe.org
National School Board Association. (2006). The Next Chapter: A School
Board Guide to Improving Adolescent Literacy. Alexandria, VA:
Author. www.nsba.org.
2005
Berman, Ilene and Biancarosa, Gina (2005). Reading to Achieve: A
Governor's Guide to Adolescent Literacy. Washington, DC:
National Governors Association. www.nga.org
Grosso de Le"n, Anne ``America's Literacy Challenge: Teaching
Adolescents to Read to Learn,'' Summer 2005. Carnegie Results.
New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
www.carnegie.org
Henriquez, Andres (2005). The Evolution of an Adolescent Literacy
Program: A Foundation's Journey. Reading Research Quarterly,
40, 376-380.
McCombs, Jennifer Sloan, Nataraj Kirby, Sheila, Barney Heather,
Darilek, Hilary and Magee, Scarlett, Achieving State and
National Literacy Goals: A Long Uphill Road: A Report to
Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2005). Santa Monica, CA:
RAND. www.rand.org
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005). Creating a
Culture of Literacy: A Guide for Middle and High School
Principals. Reston, VA: Author. www.nassp.org.
2004
Biancarosa, Gina and Snow, Catherine, E. (2004). Reading Next: A Vision
for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy, A
Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education. www.all4ed.org
Snow, Catherine, Foorman, Barbara, Kamil Michael, Roderick, Melissa,
Schwartz, Robert (2004). Project Memorandum: Issues in the
Field of Adolescent Literacy: Information and Recommendations
for the Carnegie Advisory Council on Reading to Learn, Santa
Monica, CA: RAND. www.rand.org
2003
Kamil, Michael L. (2003). Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the
21st Century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
www.all4ed.org
Sturtevant, Elizabeth (2003). The Literacy Coach: A Key to Improving
Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education. www.all4ed.org
2002
Grosse de Leon, Anne (2002). ``The Urban High School's Challenge:
Ensuring Literacy for Every Child,'' New York, NY: Carnegie
Corporation of New York www.carnegie.org
Grosse de Leon, Anne (2002). ``Moving Beyond Storybooks: Teaching Our
Children to Read to Learn,'' Carnegie Reporter, Vol. 2/No. 1,
New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
www.carnegie.org
______
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman's time has just expired. I
am in a very good mood today, so.
Dr. Gomez?
STATEMENT OF LEO GOMEZ, PROFESSOR OF BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL
EDUCATION, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PAN AMERICAN COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, and good morning Chairman Kildee and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this invitation and
this opportunity to discuss this very important issue of
literacy. As we strive to achieve equity in our schools, it is
more important than ever that our educators are well informed
and understand the diversity they face.
I have seen firsthand how quality instructional programs
have made a difference for children and how they have achieved
K-12 and how the dropout rate has been reduced. I am going to
speak specifically to the issue of limited English proficient
children, or often referred to as English language learners.
And personally I am also going to share that I think we need to
change that label.
Research steadily demonstrates that literacy development in
the child's first language facilitates development in the
second language. Bilingual learners are more academically
successful in schools that they receive for the most formal
schooling in their first language. As discussed by Mr.
Henriquez, our problems in high school stem from our challenges
with literacy at the elementary level.
Kids are not always leaving elementary more or less okay,
but the gap begins to widen as they leave elementary school,
and that is very consistent across most minority children. So
it is rooted at the elementary level.
I would like to demystify to the committee this issue of
this controversy of native language instruction and how native
language literacy leads to English literacy. It seems
counterintuitive to think that a child learning to read in his
first language will learn to read in a second language, but
this is exactly what happens. And I am going to share five
points to present this point.
First of all, literacy comes in many languages. Kids are
literate across the world in many different languages, and they
learn to read, of course, in their native languages. Our
English dominant children learn to read in English, and
therefore, that is their native language, and it is a very
natural progression.
So kids that come to school speaking a language other than
English need to have the same opportunity because you learn to
read only once, and you want to learn to read at a high level
as possible.
Simply put, my first point, literacy transfers. Reading and
writing is a skill that is common across the world and
especially in the majority of minority children who are Spanish
speaking. Those two languages are very similar.
So literacy transfers. Reading skills, comprehension skills
are transferrable both from one language to another,
mathematics, science, the water cycle, multiplication, all that
transfers. The important thing is for kids to receive that
content at grade level, learning and at the same time
developing their second language, English.
The second point is that we change the term of limited
English proficient to bilingual learners because LEP does not
reflect what children are doing. It continues to promote,
erroneously, that English is the purpose for these children.
And therefore we abandon academic instruction and focus on the
language. Kids learn the language at the set up--after
sacrificing academic content. A lot of it was shared just
previously.
So how do we do this? I propose dual language programs. We
have seen dual language education across the country beginning
to explode. It is beginning to grow exponentially because of
the success of closing the academic gap because of the
reduction of the dropout rate among many, many of these
children, as they are educated in their first language and
English, they are at an elementary education.
So these children essentially become bi-literate children
by the end of fifth grade. Dual language programs serve both
English and Spanish or English and dominant children and
children from another language together or they can also serve
as the instructional model for bilingual learners by
themselves.
And that is what has been happening across the country and
certainly in Texas, where one out of four schools in Texas is
now a dual language school serving a lot of our children.
The fourth point I want to share is native language
assessments. Since we predominately have English assessments in
most of our states, it is really derailing native language
programs.
English assessments, of course, are part of our
accountability system, and they are affecting the move toward
more first language learning or dual language type of
education. We recommend the federal level to provide incentives
to states for the development of native language assessments.
My last point is teacher education. It is really important
that all our teachers have an understanding of the diversity
that they will inherit in the schools as they become teachers
and, therefore, that every teacher education and teacher
preparation program provide teachers with course work or
preparation on second language acquisition on understanding the
benefits and advocacy for dual language education as a global
opportunity for all children.
And that we begin to focus on an extensive recruitment of
certified teachers and bilingual education and an ESL education
that understands how to address a language difference as they
come to our schools. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Gomez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leo Gomez, Ph.D., Professor, the University of
Texas Pan American; Officer, the National Association for Bilingual
Education (NABE)
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I want
to thank the subcommittee for this invitation to testify on this very
important issue of literacy for children and young adults. I want to
especially thank Congressman Ruben Hinojosa for this opportunity to
come before you and speak to the issue of literacy development for
Bilingual Learners (BL).
As we strive to achieve equity in the education of all students,
the need for well-informed educators is more critical than ever.
Schools across the country are facing growing enrollment of BL students
and many schools lack the necessary preparation for effectively
educating this group. Historically, an academic achievement gap has
persisted between native English speakers and BL students resulting in
a persistent dropout rate in many cases greater than fifty percent
(50%) for this population. Positive change requires a comprehensive
understanding of the issues affecting this population.
There is over 40 years of research in second language acquisition
in this country that affirms the effectiveness of utilizing a child's
native language to learn academic concepts while learning the English
language. My testimony today is based on this research as well as over
16 years of my own research and study of this subject, together with
practical experiences in the development and implementation of
successful programs and practices. I have seen first-hand how quality
bilingual education programs provide long-term achievement of BL
students and help close the academic gap based on standardized
assessments as compared to native English speakers.
BL students are achieving in schools across the country when
provided an appropriate education through a sound quality bilingual
program. The list below shares examples of BL students' long-term
academic success through quality bilingual programs:
The Pharr-San Juan Alamo ISD located in South Texas has
been successfully educating BL students over 10 years implementing
successful dual language programs at the elementary and secondary level
to over 10,000 BL students & non-BL students. At this district, an
unprecedented 1,000 LEP students participate in a dual language
education program at the middle and high school level boasting a zero
dropout rate among this group.
The Dallas ISD located in North Texas is implementing
successful dual language programs at the elementary level (143 schools)
to more than 30,000 BL students (PreK-3rd) and 3rd grade results (2009)
showed an amazing 92.4% passed the state reading exam.
The Fort Worth ISD in North Texas is also implementing
successful dual language programs at the elementary level (49 schools)
to more than 10,000 BL students and is currently at the 2nd grade
level.
The Spring Branch ISD located in Houston, Texas is also
implementing successful dual language programs at the elementary level
(21 schools) to more than 4,000 BL students and is currently at the 2nd
grade level.
These are many more examples in Texas--programs I have personally
worked with and studied- and hundreds more success stories across the
country. In Texas alone, over 75 school districts are today
implementing a form of dual language and more effectively serving BL
students and non- BL students. It is projected that there are
approximately 1,000 dual language programs nationwide.
Research steadily demonstrates that literacy development in a
child's first language facilitates literacy development in the second
language. There is overwhelming research that tells us that BL students
are more academically successful in our schools if they receive formal
schooling in their native language, while they learn English (Cummins,
1991; Thomas & Collier, 1998). As clearly described in gap closure
program effectiveness studies by Thomas & Collier's (2002), only
enrichment forms of bilingual education, that provide instruction in
both the native language and English throughout elementary, close the
English academic achievement gap between BLs and native English
speakers as they continue their schooling (see figure 1, page 5).
The education of BL students is a K-12 issue and therefore must be
viewed and addressed as a part of K-12 education. Still, a K-5
elementary education is the foundation for a successful secondary
education. The permanent solution to high schools in academic trouble
with this population is rooted in their elementary schools. It makes
sense that the learning of ``on-grade level'' content, knowledge and
skills in a K-12 education largely depends on the clear
``understanding'' of classroom instruction. Academic gaps occur when
children do not learn ``on-grade level'' certain concepts or skills
(academic literacy) well or at all. If an English dominant child falls
behind academically for whatever reason, the child speaks English well
but is not ``academically on-grade level in English.''
These two points apply to BL students as well. It is critical that
BL students learn ``on-grade level'' academic knowledge and skills,
which includes literacy, at the elementary and secondary levels in
order to receive an equal and successful academic and linguistic
education eventually becoming ``English proficient'' and academically
on grade level.
So how do we ensure that LEP students receive ``on-grade level''
(literacy) education and learn English at the same time?
The five (5) major points that follow, based on my experience, if
supported in policy and carried out in practice on a national scale,
would have a significant impact on the academic and literacy attainment
of BL students at both the elementary, middle and high school level,
based on standardized English assessments.
Point #1: Understand that knowledge and skills are transferable from
one language to another
First, we must recognize that content, knowledge, and skills are
not specific to any language and therefore are ``transferable'' from
one language to another. In other words, the skill of writing, reading
and addition is learned only once and once learned will transfer to a
second language. For example five times five is twenty-five in the USA,
and in China, and in Mexico, and everywhere else in the world. The key
is to ensure that these skills are learned ``on-grade level'' as the BL
child progresses in school while continuously developing the second
language, English. If a child learns new knowledge and skills, etc. in
a language he/she fully understands, the probability of learning this
greatly increases. This is central to understanding literacy
development for LEP students.
Point #2: Change Limited English Proficient (LEP) Label to Bilingual
Learner (BL)
Over the last 40 years, non-English speaking students have commonly
been labeled as Limited English Proficient (LEP), English Language
Learners (ELLs), Language Minority Students (LMS), English Learners,
and other terms that do not respect these students as academic
learners, but rather emphasize a limitation and English as the sole
purpose of their education. The continued use of these inaccurate
terms, not only stigmatizes these students, but also perpetuates an
erroneous emphasis on English as the sole purpose for schooling. A more
fitting term better suited to describe the academic and linguistic
behaviors of these students in any instructional model is Bilingual
Learner. After all, appropriately educated, bilingual learners are at
all times engaged in and/or learning in both their native language and
English regardless of instructional program.
Point #3: Schooling through Dual Language Programs
Dual language programs represent an increasingly effective strategy
for educating bilingual learners. In 2001, Texas passed a state law
encouraging school districts to develop and implement dual language
programs for BLs and native English speakers. In 2007, the state
developed clear guidelines for development, implementation and
evaluation of dual language programs. Today, there are over 700 dual
language schools in Texas. Dual language is increasingly the go-to
program for literacy development of BLs in most southern states serving
the highest and concentrated numbers of BLs.
Dual language programs are designed to educate students through two
languages; English and the native language. In dual language programs,
students develop literacy and learn academic content (math, science,
social studies) in two languages throughout their elementary years and
the goal is to produce a full biliterate child by the end of 5th grade.
Dual language is a quality program for all students. For BLs, it is the
ONLY bilingual education model that fully closes the academic
achievement gap between native English speakers and BLs. For native
English speakers, it provides tremendous opportunities for bilingualism
and biliteracy. Research evidence demonstrates that for all
participating students, dual language yields ``cognitive advantages''
and higher academic achievement. Inherent in dual language programs is
an enriched, challenging, and engaging instructional paradigm (gifted
and talented (GT) type of learning environment) which benefits all
learners
Types of Dual Language Programs
There are two fundamental types of dual language education
programs:
Two-Way: both language groups in the classroom learn
together through two languages (BLs & non-BLs)
One-Way: one language group (BLs only) learn together
through two languages (this is the recommended program for BLs)
One-Way Dual Language is increasingly being adopted by school
districts and schools as THE bilingual education program serving BLs,
thereby achieving stronger long-term academic literacy in English,
closing the academic gap, and lowering the dropout rate.
Dallas ISD is a good example of how a literacy initiative for BLs
must include dual language as the instructional model. In 2006 the
district adopted One-Way Dual Language as the required bilingual
program serving all Spanish speaking BLs (largest group) district-wide.
This decision was based their research and visiting other successful
districts, as well as the need to do something different for this
group. For over 30 years, their BL population continued to perform
poorly at the high school level. Although the district used many
strategies to address this, years later they came to the realization
that it was not the high school program that was broken for these
students, but the elementary program. They brought in experts and
connected the K-12 dots. A successful middle and high school student is
largely based on the child's elementary educational foundation. If
students leave elementary school below grade level, they are bound to
achieve poorly in high school. The district realized that the emphasis
had been on English language development for BLs at the expense of
academic literacy. BLs at high school level spoke English well, but
could not function academically on grade level in English. The academic
literacy gap began in elementary and widened in middle and high school
as the curriculum became more demanding and abstract. Today, after 3\1/
2\ years of dual language implementation, preliminary results are
extremely positive. This spring 2009, the district recorded the highest
literacy and math achievement for over 5000 BLs based on state
assessments.
Dual Language High School Programs
Literacy development and second language development at the middle
and high school level (6th-12th) for BLs can also be improved by
providing opportunities for BLs to learn in their native language.
Recent arrivals that come well educated from their home country can
continue learning academic content (e. g. math, science) while they
learn English. This simultaneous goal improves overall literacy and can
be accomplished through some coursework utilizing the native language
for content-area instruction if available.
figure 1.--long-term academic english literacy development of bls
served through different types of bilingual & esl programs
Data consisted of 210,000 BLs (96% Spanish) from 23 school
districts and 15 states
In remedial programs, BLs do not close the literacy gap
after reclassification. For most students, only dual language programs
fully close the academic literacy gap between BLs and native English
speakers
For BLs schooled in the U. S. at the K-5 level, dual
language models are the most successful (based on standardized tests
across all subject areas)
When students are schooled bilingually (first and second
language), rather than focus on English, there is greater academic
achievement.
As depicted in figure above, ESL and Transitional (Early-
Exit) bilingual education (TBE) programs are NOT successful literacy
models for BLs
Point #4: Bilingual Learner Literacy Assessments
Successful literacy development requires appropriate literacy
assessments. For BLs, lack of native language literacy assessments is
in conflict with best practices for BLs. Even when there is
understanding of and commitment to native language literacy through
dual language, states and districts are faced with lack of congruency
regarding literacy assessments. There are overwhelming costs to develop
native language tests, at a minimum, at the elementary level.
Literacy assessments in languages other than English may be an area
of consideration as the federal role is re-designed related to literacy
assessments. For instance, the U. S. DOE could fund literacy
assessments, in as many languages as the department deems appropriate,
to support strong literacy attainment of BLs.
This would provide incentives for states to move toward more native
language literacy, as well as promote bilingualism and biliteracy
opportunities for all students, a vision for America by President
Obama. Literacy assessments in languages other than English will also
assist states to more accurately measure the true academic skills of
BLs rather than have these skills obscured by the language of the
tests.
Point #5: Support BLs through Teacher Education Programs
Providing a quality education for all students, including BLs, is
the responsibility of ALL educators these children come in contact
with. It is therefore imperative that ALL educators be well informed on
the best practices for educating this population. To this end, all
teacher education programs should provide pre-service teachers
coursework on second language acquisition (SLA) methodology and an
understanding of bilingual/dual language education.
Teacher education programs would also benefit from incentives to
recruit and educate more bilingual and ESL certified teachers.
Increasing numbers of BLs across the country require that this area be
addressed. Lack of bilingual education teachers is harmful to the
successful literacy development of BLs since they will be served
through English-only programs (ESL). This continues to perpetuate poor
literacy achievement of BLs and inadvertently the cycle of poverty.
Another strategy to support the literacy development of BLs is to
increase university-based teacher education programs collaboration with
public schools, particularly high-need school districts serving
concentrated numbers of BLs. As an example, the Teacher Education
Program at the University of Texas Pan American in South Texas has
established strong ties with local school districts that have resulted
in the collaborative development and implementation of successful dual
programs serving BLs.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Dr. Meyers?
STATEMENT OF SANDRA D. MEYERS, ED.D, EDUCATION ASSOCIATE OF
ELEMENTARY READING, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Ms. Meyers. Good morning. As Delaware's Department of
Education's Director of Reading First, I am honored to present
testimony about the work we are doing to create a seamless,
comprehensive literacy program for all children in Delaware.
We have benefited from federal support especially for Early
Reading First and Reading First. Our Early Reading First
Projects have made a difference for very young children who
experience high levels of risk of literacy failure.
The University of Delaware was awarded two Early Reading
First grants, and data for their first cohort of students
indicated that these children performed as well or better than
the general population of children their age in language and
early reading and kindergarten.
These children were at risk when they began preschool. Many
were not only low income, but also came from homes that English
was not the primary language spoken. Thus, systematic explicit
instruction in oral language, and beginning reading skills
allowed these children to enter school prepared to succeed in
the Reading First curriculum.
Reading First in Delaware has not been just a paradigm
change in teaching reading, but is a model that requires
systemic changes at the school and district level. For
Delaware, these have included increased daily instructional
time for the teaching of reading, design of assessment systems
that include screening, progress monitoring, diagnostic
assessment and evaluation of outcomes, differentiated
instruction based on these data, additional intensive
intervention for students at high levels of risk, common
planning time for teachers to review data and plan instruction,
full-time literacy coaches who support teachers to improve
their instruction.
Enacting these components in Reading First required
extensive professional development for the teachers, coaches
and principals, as well as continuous monitoring and
reflection. Our literacy coaches are comfortable and competent
working in classrooms alongside teachers providing formative
feedback.
They also have strong partnerships with building principals
as instructional leaders. Our accomplishments in this area are
extensive, but they have been hard won. Our professional
development has evolved each year. We began with letters
trainings for all the teachers which is a professional program
developed by Dr. Louisa Motz. We moved to book studies and
formal trainings for coaches which were then redelivered to
teachers.
We then brought teachers and coaches together in teams for
intense study of differentiated instruction. Along the way, we
evaluated our efforts. Our state team worked school by school
each year with Dr. Sharon Walpole, a University of Delaware
professor who has had extensive experience in Reading First.
We learned together to analyze data, set goals and design
ongoing professional support for teachers. We now have 13
schools from six districts in the program. Unfortunately, this
is the last year of funding, but we have made good use of these
federal dollars.
Evidence-based instruction became the catalyst for ongoing
change in Delaware. We have preschool grade level expectations,
the early learning guidelines, that have been nationally
recognized and that are aligned with our kindergarten grade
level expectations.
We revised our K-3 literacy standards so that they were
consistent with the research that underlies Reading First. Many
districts increased their attention to coherent professional
development in early reading.
In 2007, the state chose to require a response to
intervention model and based the state regulations on lessons
we learned from the Reading First program. Implementation of
the RTI model is now occurring in every elementary building.
The Reading First team was instrumental in the planning of
much of this professional development. Reading First
administrators and coaches presented at these trainings,
sharing their expertise in areas such as scheduling and
staffing.
This year the training is available on DVDs to reach more
schools and teachers. We are offering technology-based support
so that a broader group of teachers can ask questions and have
their concerns addressed. We are now working to include middle
and high school teachers and administrators.
We are offering trainings in an instructional framework
which incorporates the strategies that most impact learning
extended thinking, vocabulary, summarizing, non-digital
representation and advance organizers. This model full of
learning focus ensures that comprehension strategies,
vocabulary instruction and writing to inform are part of all
lessons.
Delaware is a small state, but the challenges of bringing
teaching in line with current research and of evaluating the
effects of teaching on student learning are large. Early
Reading First and Reading First have provided us opportunities
to design and provide professional support for teachers and
administrators that is coherent and ongoing. We have leveraged
federal dollars well.
Our current focus on professional support for all classroom
teachers in Delaware to have the knowledge and skills to use
data to design and evaluate differentiated instruction is the
direct result of opportunities that federal support for high
quality research-based professional development has provided.
We hope that you will consider ways to continue to support our
professional development efforts. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Meyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sandra D. Meyers, Ed.D., Education Associate,
Delaware Department of Education
Delaware's Comprehensive Approach to Literacy
As Delaware's Department of Education's Director of Reading First,
I am honored to present testimony about the work we are doing to create
a seamless, comprehensive literacy program for all children in
Delaware. We have benefited from federal support, especially for Early
Reading First and Reading First.
Our Early Reading First projects have made a difference for very
young children who experience high levels of risk of literacy failure.
The University of Delaware was awarded two Early Reading First grants
and data for their first cohort of students indicated that these
children performed as well or better than the general population of
children their age in language and early reading in kindergarten. These
children were ``at risk'' when they began preschool. Many were not only
low income, but also came from homes where English was not the primary
language spoken. Thus, systematic, explicit instruction in oral
language and beginning reading skills allowed these children to enter
school prepared to succeed in the Reading First curriculum.
Reading First in Delaware has not been just a paradigm change in
teaching reading, but is a model that requires systemic changes at the
school and district level. For Delaware these have included
Increased daily instructional time for the teaching of
reading
Design of assessment systems that include screening,
progress monitoring, diagnostic assessment, and evaluation of outcomes
Differentiated instruction based on these data
Additional intensive intervention for students at high
levels of risk
Common planning time for teachers to review data and plan
instruction
Full-time literacy coaches who support teachers to improve
their instruction
Enacting these components of Reading First required extensive
professional development for the teachers, coaches, and principals as
well as continuous monitoring and reflection. Our literacy coaches are
comfortable and competent working in classrooms alongside teachers,
providing formative feedback. They also have strong partnerships with
building principals as instructional leaders. Our accomplishments in
this area are extensive, but they have been hard won.
Our professional development has evolved each year. We began with
LETRS trainings for all teachers, which is a professional development
program developed by Dr. Louisa Moats. We moved to book studies and
formal trainings for coaches which were then redelivered to teachers.
We then brought teachers and coaches together in teams for intense
study of differentiated instruction.
Along the way, we evaluated our efforts. Our state team worked
school by school each year with Dr. Sharon Walpole, a University of
Delaware professor who has had extensive experience in Reading First.
We learned together to analyze data, set goals, and design ongoing
professional support for teachers. We now have fourteen schools from
six districts in the program. Unfortunately, this is the last year of
funding, but we have made good use of these federal dollars.
Evidence-based instruction became the catalyst for ongoing change
in Delaware. We have preschool-grade-level expectations, the Early
Learning Guidelines, that have been nationally recognized and that are
aligned with our kindergarten grade-level expectations. We revised our
K-3 literacy standards so that they were consistent with the research
that underlies Reading First. Many districts increased their attention
to coherent professional development in early reading.
In 2007 the state chose to require a Response to Intervention Model
and based the state regulations on lessons we learned from the Reading
First program. Implementation of the RTI model is now occurring in
every elementary building. The Reading First team was instrumental in
the planning of much of this professional development. Reading First
administrators and coaches presented at these trainings, sharing their
expertise in areas such as scheduling and staffing. This year the
training is available on DVDs to reach more schools and teachers. We
are offering technology-based support so that a broader group of
teachers can ask questions and have their concerns addressed.
We are working now to include middle and high school teachers and
administrators. We are offering trainings in an instructional framework
which incorporate the strategies that most impact learning: extended
thinking, vocabulary, summarizing, non-visual representations, and
advance organizers. This model called ``Learning Focused'' ensures that
comprehension strategies, vocabulary instruction, and writing to inform
are part of all lessons.
Delaware is a small state, but the challenges of bringing teaching
in line with current research and of evaluating the effects of teaching
on student learning are large. Early Reading First and Reading First
have provided us opportunities to design and provide professional
support for teachers and administrators that is coherent and ongoing.
We have leveraged federal dollars well. Our current focus on
professional support for all classroom teachers in Delaware to have the
knowledge and skills to use data to design and evaluate differentiated
instruction is the direct result of opportunities that federal support
for high-quality, research-based professional development have
provided. We hope that you will consider ways to continue to support
our professional development efforts.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Berger?
STATEMENT OF LARRY BERGER, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER,
WIRELESS GENERATION
Mr. Berger. Chairman Kildee, Congressman Castle and members
of the committee, good morning. Thank you for your leadership
on this important issue and for the opportunity to speak with
you. My name is Larry Berger, and I am the CEO and co-founder
of Wireless Generation.
We are an educational technology company that is helping to
invent the future of literacy instruction. More than 200,000
teachers are teaching 3 million children to read with the help
of our software. I would like to share three ideas about where
the breakthroughs are in reading instruction and how
enlightened public policy can accelerate them.
All over the country right now, elementary teachers are
using mobile computers like this or like this to conduct
scientifically valid, formative and progress monitoring
assessments and to record precise data about how each of their
students are learning to read. This technology is much more
efficient than the paper records teachers used to keep, and
teachers like it because it cuts out the paperwork and lets
them focus on teaching.
The breakthrough that my company and others are working on
is that the data the teacher collects using this technology can
now be put to use instantaneously to personalize teaching and
learning to the needs of each student.
The software that we build punches through all the
diagnostic data about a given student or a class and all that
researchers know about reading instruction and then immediately
shows exactly where the kids are in the process of learning to
read, what the teacher needs to know to reach them, and then it
sends the teacher what we call a Burst.
A Burst is a 10-day mini-curriculum that is assembled
automatically to differentiate instruction for what a group of
students need to learn next.
So instead of teaching from a big textbook that was written
with no knowledge of my particular class, I am now using a
personalized packet of lessons. At the end of 10 days, the
system will send me a new Burst for each group in my class.
So we still have the magic of a human teacher working with
young children. The computer isn't doing the teaching. But
computers in the background have done all of the paperwork and
all of the analysis that makes teaching more precise and more
fun.
With tools like this, the prior debates about reading
practice fall by the wayside. It is no longer a matter of basic
skills versus comprehension. Now, children who are struggling
with basic skills will get them along with bridges to
comprehension that are personalized to how that child learns.
Children who are already reading on level will be challenged
and accelerated.
So my three points are, we have entered the age of
technology-driven personalization in every other sector of
society. It is now time for our reading assessment and
instruction to get there, too. I have attached to my written
testimony several quantitative examples of the breakthroughs in
student outcomes that this sort of personalization enables.
Two, this personalized instruction model could pay for
itself by preventing unnecessary referrals into special
education. Instead of falling through the cracks in the
instructional cracks in the early years and eventually being
classified with a specific learning disability, many children
can thrive in general education if they receive early
interventions that respond to their progress and their needs.
This could save the system billions in special ed costs and has
enormous implications for the long term success of students.
Three, tools like this mean we can raise the evidence
standards in education. The new technologies have in common
that they capture a steady stream of data about how students,
teachers, schools, systems and instructional programs are
doing. Instead of data from one test at the end of the year,
these tools capture potentially thousands of data points per
year about how each student is progressing.
Interventions should therefore demonstrate that they are
based on scientifically valid research, that their foundations
are sound and should be able to demonstrate significant
outcomes in student learning.
This virtuous cycle of using the data to do more of what
works, but also to remove invalid assessment and ineffective
curriculum, creates continuous improvement in the products we
build as an education company, and in the school systems and
classrooms that we work with.
The next generation of reading policy can exist on a high
standard of scientific evidence of effectiveness, but also on a
process of continuous improvement that means products and
practices that may be experimental have a chance to keep
getting better.
Members of the committee, literacy is the foundation for
all academic success and innovations of this sort I have been
talking about are our great hope that all children can become
readers. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
[The statement of Mr. Berger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Berger, Co-Founder and CEO,
Wireless Generation
Chairman Kildee, Congressman Castle, Members of the Committee, good
morning. Thank you for your leadership on the important issue of
literacy and for the opportunity to speak with you.
My name is Larry Berger and I am the CEO and co-founder of Wireless
Generation. We have been working with teachers, principals, and school
superintendents on K-5 literacy instruction for the past eight years.
Today, more than 200,000 teachers are teaching 3 million children
to read using new technology. We provide mobile and web software, data
systems, and professional services that help teachers to use data and
deliver individualized instruction. Our partner states, districts, and
schools are seeing results in every state in the union--in places like
Oklahoma, Montgomery County Maryland, Indiana, Washington DC, and more.
Today I would like to share with you the new model of instruction
that has emerged in the classrooms with which we work. Teachers are
using mobile devices like this handheld computer or this netbook to
collect real-time data about their students' progress and learning
needs. They use this data to customize lesson planning for each child--
for instance, one small group of children might work on sounding out
words while another group plays a vocabulary game. We have an algorithm
that can generate custom curriculum units for ten-day ``Bursts'' of
instruction, which adjust and adapt as teachers monitor students'
progress.
We find that schools and districts using these technology tools
reorganize themselves around the data. Teachers and coaches run regular
grade level meetings in which they strategize around student strengths
and weaknesses and share ``what works'' with one another. Principals
and district staff engage on the teaching and learning. Professional
development refocuses from ``stand and deliver'' presentations to
active planning based on real student data. And parents find out, mid-
year, whether their children are on track to read at grade level.
When teachers use this technology toolset and are able to identify
and address the needs of each student, the prior debates about reading
practice fall by the wayside. Children who are struggling with the
foundational skills of reading get relevant lessons, along with bridges
to comprehension. Children who are reading on level are appropriately
challenged and accelerated.
In addition, this instructional model will likely pay for itself by
preventing unnecessary referrals into special education. Instead of
struggling with reading and eventually being classified with a
``specific learning disability,'' thousands and thousands of children
(a full two percent of the student population) can get back on track
with the right early interventions. This is the ``Response to
Intervention'' model, which has enormous implications for long-term
student success and for cost savings in service delivery.
This instructional model depends on a high degree of confidence in
the quality of the screening and diagnostic assessments used in
classrooms. They must be reliable and valid, so that every stakeholder
can count on the resulting information to effectively guide classroom
practice. High-quality research has established the key benchmarks that
we should expect assessments to meet.
When good assessment data is collected, in turn we can demand a
higher standard of evidence for our instructional programs.
Interventions should demonstrate that they are based on scientifically
valid research--that their foundations are sound--and at the same time
should be able to demonstrate valid outcomes in student learning. This
virtuous cycle has already led to continuous improvement in our own
toolset.
Members of the committee, literacy is the foundation for all
academic success. We respect the committee's leadership on this
important issue and are proud to work with thousands of schools and
districts across the country, helping more children learn to read.
About Wireless Generation
Founded in 2001, Wireless Generation creates innovative tools,
systems, and services that help educators teach smarter. Wireless
Generation currently serves more than 200,000 educators and 3 million
students.
With its mobile assessment software, the company invented a better
way to give classroom assessments and make data-based instructional
decisions. Wireless Generation has since broken new ground with
technology that analyzes student data and produces curriculum
customized to individual learning needs.
Wireless Generation also builds large-scale data systems that
centralize student data, give educators and parents unprecedented
visibility into learning, and foster professional communities of
educators with social networking tools. As a key partner to New York
City on its ARIS data system, Wireless Generation led development,
including data integration, permissioning, usability and reporting, and
Web 2.0 collaboration tools, and helped New York City roll out the
system to more than 90,000 educators serving 1.1 million students. In
spring 2009, ARIS Parent Link online walkthroughs were launched in 9
languages to give parents unprecedented ability to engage in their
children's education with easy-to-understand access to their children's
data. Wireless Generation is also a lead partner on New York City's
School of One initiative, named by TIME Magazine as one of the Best
Inventions of 2009.
The genesis of the Mobile Classroom Assessment (mCLASS) solution
was Wireless Generation's realization that educators could benefit
greatly from an easy-to-use technology solution for conducting
observational assessments, collecting and analyzing assessment data,
and linking assessment results to appropriate instructional supports
and intervention strategies. Studies have shown that Wireless
Generation's mCLASS system cuts assessment administration time in half
and in a year returns approximately 3--5 instructional days per
teacher.
With the launch and widespread adoption of mCLASS for K-6 literacy
assessment and instruction, Wireless Generation committed itself to
developing tools that help educators answer the critical questions that
should be central when assessment data is presented--``So what?'' and
``Now What?'' Helping educators answer these questions, the heart of
the assessment-to-instruction connection, has since become the focus of
Wireless Generation's efforts. mCLASS ACT and Now What Tools were
Wireless Generation's first offerings to embody what we've come to term
``SoNos,'' now hallmarks of every system, tool, and service we develop
and bring to market.
The significance of these tools is that they make the connection
between assessment and instruction seamless by placing customized
instructional routines directly in the teacher's workflow. For example,
upon completion of an assessment, mCLASS ACT immediately suggests a set
of targeted skill-reinforcement activities based on individual student
results and response patterns. The teacher is guided in implementing
the activities by a scaffolded sequence of objectives, prompts, and
detailed instructions on both the handheld device and the web. The
Burst curriculum products take this even further by grouping students
who share similar skill needs based upon the assessment data, and
producing 10-day lesson sequences that match those needs. The teacher
receives the lessons, delivers them, and then assesses again to monitor
students' progress. The Burst cycle then repeats. Even the best
teachers can find it challenging to find the time to differentiate
instruction each day. The Burst technology is their partner in this
effort.
Partner Results
Our partner districts and state are seeing tremendous results.
Examples include:
Montgomery County Public Schools
Results of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Assessment
Program show that the percentages of students in kindergarten, Grade 1,
and Grade 2 who have achieved grade level benchmarks have reached and
maintained historic highs. MCPS has worked with Wireless Generation
since 2004.
District of Columbia Public Schools
DCPS selected Burst:Reading Early Literacy Intervention to assist
the 37 lowest performing elementary schools in boosting student
achievement. The district was undergoing major instructional reform
efforts. Implementation began in February 2009 for their kindergarten
and Grade 1 students. The district saw strong gains in these schools
with less than one semester of Burst:Reading ELI instruction. Burst
students in Burst schools regularly outperformed students in the same
instructional recommendation category as students in the better
performing non-Burst schools, even though Burst students had lower
initial scores.
In kindergarten and Grade 1, Burst students in schools with strong
fidelity of implementation gained more than non-Burst students on PSF
(phonemic awareness) and NWF (phonics) across all risk levels, despite
lower initial scores. In kindergarten, Burst students in the Intensive
instructional recommendation category in schools with strong fidelity
of implementation gained 25 points on PSF (phonemic awareness) versus
gains of 17 points for non-Burst students. In kindergarten, Burst
students at Intensive instructional recommendation category in schools
with strong fidelity of implementation gained 20 points on NWF
(phonics) as opposed to gains of 12 points for non-Burst students. In
first grade, Burst students at Intensive instructional recommendation
category in schools with strong fidelity of implementation gained 19
points on PSF (phonemic awareness) while non-Burst students realized
gains of only 12 points. In first grade, Burst students at Intensive
instructional recommendation category in schools with strong fidelity
of implementation gained 24 points on NWF (phonics) whereas non-Burst
students had gains of 19 points.
Oklahoma
Most schools in the Oklahoma Department of Education's Reading
First program achieved significant student growth, and while the
Department of Education was pleased, it was not yet satisfied,
believing that all schools could perform at high levels. The Department
identified a subset of 15 schools in need of additional support, and
collaborated with Wireless Generation on delivering targeted, ongoing
professional development at these sites during the 2007-2008 year.
Teachers, principals, and reading coaches at each school received up to
six monthly visits from a Wireless Generation consultant who provided
customized professional development on various topics according to each
school's needs.
Results:
Based on an analysis of student data collected during the
2007-2008 school year, the 15 schools made substantial achievement
gains and produced more student movement toward benchmark (grade level)
than in previous school years. By the end of the year, 61% of K-3
students in these schools were reading at proficiency, compared to
these schools' first year in Reading First, when only 38% reached
benchmark. By comparing beginning of year 2007-2008 formative
assessment scores to end of year scores, the data reveal that the
customized professional development contributed to the biggest increase
in students at grade level over the past four school years, a 19%
increase.
The 15 schools receiving customized professional
development made significant progress toward closing the achievement
gap with high performing schools in Oklahoma. Prior to receiving
customized professional development, the 15 schools ended each year
with 20% fewer students at grade level than the high performing
schools. At the end of the 2007-2008 school year, the 15 schools
finished only 13% below their peers, which represents a 35% reduction
in the gap between the two groups.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Berger.
I thank all of our witness for their testimony, and we will
now proceed with the question and answer portion of this
hearing. And I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Language is basically an oral and aural development.
Writing came rather late in mankind's development. And I lived
in Peshawar, Pakistan, for a year studying at the University of
Peshawar, and my bearer, who prepared my tea, spoke three
languages fluently. He spoke very good English, Pashtu, and
Urdu. He was totally illiterate.
That seems strange here, but language basically as it
develops with mankind is oral and aural and then writing and
symbols came in later. What can we do to maybe accelerate or
help in that period when the person, the child, is still in an
oral-aural part of language, but have not yet made a transition
to the symbol part?
Anyone have any comments on that. Yes?
Ms. Strickland. Well, you are absolutely right, the oral
language, oral-aural it is foundational. There is no question
about that. But while children are developing their listening
and speaking capacities, there is every opportunity to begin to
introduce print, and they learn about the functions of print.
Mommy writes down a list to go to the grocery story, on the
stop sign--all those kinds of things. Print is very much a part
of our consciousness, and what we do.
So what they learn about through speaking and listening,
they apply to reading and writing and vice versa. And then
there comes a time when the reading vocabulary and writing
vocabulary really are larger than our everyday speech.
We can write more, especially when we do draft things, and
convey information to others far better and with a greater deal
of flexibility and coherence than we do in our regular speech.
So that is why introducing print early in informal ways is so
important. And those kids that have those opportunities just go
a long, long way.
Chairman Kildee. That is interesting because I have seven
grandchildren from 19 months to 11 years and all of them--we
have always had books for them from the very beginning, and
sometimes they are only picture books but some, little by
little, some print in there.
Ms. Strickland. Sure.
Chairman Kildee. And I have always felt that that was
helpful in them making that transition and whether we can even
research more how we can enhance that helpfulness when they are
very, very young.
All my grandchildren were able to read some before they
ever got to kindergarten. But we did use books a lot. But if we
can maybe study and see how we can enhance that transition from
the oral-aural to the recognizing symbols or signs that might
be more helpful.
Yes, Dr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. If I could add a point to Dr. Strickland. There
is a natural progression as you have stated from oral to
written and reading skills which means that you go from
language you have developed that you speak, that you
understand. Then you begin to see that language in print, and
that is where the reading and then, of course, in writing.
And that is why it is so important when we think about this
process, and of course we know that children are reading at the
age of two when they see the McDonalds sign. The M is reading.
So they know it means something when they see symbols like
that.
But actual school reading or beginning to read with phonics
type of, you know, of understanding and decoding, there is a
natural progression to do it from the oral into print. But if
you do it in a language you have not developed yet, you don't
have the aural skills, you don't have those receptive and
expressive skills and then it is very difficult to move toward
the print.
And that is the, well, the point I guess from the value of
literacy in the child's first language because that is a
natural progression for all children.
Chairman Kildee. Well, I appreciate you reflecting on that
because I think it is something that we can learn from, you
know, interesting. I will just conclude with this. I could read
Urdu and still can read Urdu better than I can speak it.
So it was the opposite with me. And I had already went
through that process so it was more I had to have more active
memory when I was speaking it or my passive memory would
generally jump into play when I would see the word.
But it is interesting the relationship between oral-aural
and the reading symbols and just--you reflect upon it as you go
through your professional growth because we are all still
growing. Thank you very much.
Governor?
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am afraid the
chairman is going to start having these hearings in foreign
languages I don't speak if this continues. I would like to ask
Mr. Henriquez a question, and then a follow-up to Mr. Berger on
that.
In your testimony, you mentioned that our fourth grade
students score very well as far as reading is concerned. And by
tenth grade they score at a much lesser rate, perhaps among the
lowest in the world.
And usually we hear that students have problems because of
not having early preparation or whatever. You don't often hear
that there is a fall down between, say, fourth grade and tenth
grade. And I am just wondering how those results coexist, and
what we could be doing--what we are not doing now, and what we
could be doing to make sure that we continue literacy programs
perhaps between fourth and tenth grades or whatever in this
country?
Mr. Henriquez. Yes, yes, and I--yes, Congressman. The issue
becomes very clear that data from UNESCO is quite shocking as
it is in our nation's report card where we see our kids
progressively do very well in fourth grade, and we see those
very frustrating stagnant scores at the eighth grade and even
worse at twelfth grade.
What is happening is that nothing is happening between
grades four through twelve in terms of literacy. I think we
have managed to think as a nation that once you teach children
to read, they are readers for life.
But in fact, we see that youngsters are struggling with
difficult academic texts in middle schools and in high schools
and different than elementary schools where you have one single
teacher teaching to a class of students.
You can imagine middle school, high school students that
have four or five teachers. And these teachers want to teach
their students their content and want to teach those students
how to comprehend their content, but they lack the sort of the
skills around how to imbed strategies around literacy that
would allow those students to enrich their experiences with
that text.
In addition, there seems to be, given the structures of
middle schools and high schools, it is very, very difficult to
know if a kid is having difficulty with the content or if they
are having difficulty with the language, of reading within that
language.
So there is no making sense for, say, a science teacher
whether that student is having difficulty with the biology of
the subject or whether he or she, or the student, is having
difficulty with basic vocabulary within that text or whether
they are having fluency problems or much more serious problems.
Some of the strategies that I believe are suggested by the
comprehensive literacy bill that was introduced last week get
at some of these issues. We started doing some of that work in
the Striving Readers Act where we are beginning to imbed
literacy coaches that are helping content area teachers to try,
and train them to imbed literacy instruction within domains.
As well as really looking at youngsters who are in the
ninth grade who are way behind and doing something for them
during ninth grade and doing some kind of boot camps, in a
sense, that would allow those students to do the kind of catch-
up that is really, really necessary.
And there are a number of models around the country that we
need to learn from that are currently taking place that I think
are excellent examples that we need more research on them so
that we can make those kinds of choices.
Mr. Castle. Thank you. Mr. Berger, in your testimony about
the Wireless Generation, seems to focus, as I understood, on
the early in elementary education. We have heard this
discrepancy of the problems later. Is anything that you are
doing applicable to that or less applicable to it? How would
you so help in that circumstance?
Mr. Berger. So I think that it is helpful to think of the
issue that Andres is discussing as a compound interest problem
which is to say that we are already--that we do see a gap. It
is not as dramatic at fourth grade.
And then some of those children who are in fourth grade
seem proficient are falling off by eighth grade. The question
is, is that only because of instruction that they are not
having between fourth and eighth grade, or are there in fact
characteristics that we could tease out that would begin to
predict that this is a kid who is at risk despite meeting the
standards of proficiency at fourth grade.
And I think there is evidence on both sides. There is
exactly the phenomenon that Andres has discussed in which the
falling off in the focus on literacy in the upper grades means
that kids who haven't become readers don't get the support they
need.
But I do think that there are characteristics that we can
see all the way in the early grades that would begin to show
that and that just worsen when that falling off of attention
happens.
And so I think that the same idea of personalization that
we have been able to do in the early grades because the science
of what are the precise things that are going wrong are quite
well developed, that that is beginning to happen now in the
upper elementary and middle school grades as well, so we need
to keep pushing on that.
The one other thing that is not a silver bullet but I think
it is probably the most promising area of new research is the
close connection between writing and the development of more
advanced literacy skills in upper elementary and middle schools
And so I think that what we are finding is that upper
elementary and adolescent kids want to be able to express
themselves and see language as as much a tool for expressing
themselves as a tool for taking information in.
And developing those writing skills is almost synonymous
with developing the skills they need to become better readers.
And I think we are starting to tap into deeper motivations that
young kids have. And so I think--I have been happy to see that
policy recommendations recently have seen reading and writing
in those upper grades as mutually supportive, and I think that
is a big opportunity.
Mr. Castle. Thank you. My time is up so I can ask no more
questions. I was going to ask Dr. Meyers about that but I don't
want to get hit with the gavel from the chairman, so I will
hold back.
Chairman Kildee. I would never hammer a governor out of a--
however, we are expecting a vote in about 15 to 20 minutes, so
we will try to go through and--because if we go before a vote,
it might be a half hour, 45 minutes before we come back, and I
hate to hold you. So we will try to move along but we certainly
want to hear from you and, of course, any testimony and
questions can be asked or answered within 14 days.
I will call upon Mr. Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
Ms. Dore for sharing with us the success story at Upper Blue
Elementary. It is wonderful to hear that this year many at
Summit School, Summit District schools are implementing the
school-wide systemic reform that has produced such great
results, and holds such promise.
The improvements in student reading performance on the
Colorado Student Assessment Program after the implementation of
your response to instruction approach is really impressive, but
as you pointed out, the writing scores--and I will point out to
my colleagues the Colorado test writing is a category even
though it is not required under No Child Left Behind--the
writing scores are, while higher in the district and state
averages, could be higher, and you mentioned that the district
has focused its attention on this area.
As you are aware, Representative Yarmuth and I recently
introduced the LEARN Act which will support comprehensive state
and local literacy initiatives to ensure that children from
birth through twelfth grade have the reading and writing skills
necessary for success and schooling beyond.
And the LEARN Act includes all language and, as Chairman
Kildee mentioned, also writing as part of developing literacy
competence and seeks to ensure a systemic approach to providing
high quality instruction in both reading and writing from early
childhood through grade 12.
Can you please describe how the legislation, if enacted,
would help you and educators across the country implement and
scale up effective practices that raise student achievement in
both reading and writing?
Ms. Dore. It is all connected. So that is what helps when
you are talking about the LEARN Act is how it starts to
describe the picture of all of those oral language and reading
and writing all being connected.
When I talked about our results, it is easy, as you see on
this sheet, we have all sorts of different oral language with
the CELA test and then all of the reading benchmarks. What we
don't have a lot in writing are those same benchmark
assessments.
We have the CSAP scores, and then we have what we are
trying to develop at schools are some common assessments and
some common benchmarking to see how students' writing
progresses. But it hasn't been as well tuned as literacy and as
reading.
So those are the pieces that we are trying to create some
ourselves to try and make sure that teachers know what
benchmarks students should be hitting during their writing and
how that progresses.
It is also practice. As Dr. Strickland was talking I just
kept thinking, students need to practice, practice, practice.
Practice that writing for different purposes. So I applaud you
for looking at literacy in that whole perspective. Oral
language, reading and writing, that is what is going to help
folks understand how those are all interconnected.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, and I would also point out we
approach reading in the whole age perspective as well from
early childhood all the way through high school where the needs
are. This question is for whoever would care to address it.
You have all described how professional development is a
critical component of successful literacy programs and
initiatives from early childhood through elementary and
secondary. But I often hear from educators in my district and
across the country that there is not enough time and resources
available for meaningful professional development and
collaborative teamwork.
So recognizing this, the LEARN Act focuses on providing
high quality professional development for staff including
literacy coaches and teachers of students with disabilities and
English language learners that is job embedded, ongoing,
research-based and data driven.
Can you please discuss, if any of you have any comments on
the significance of effective professional developments
programs for improving literacy instruction and outcomes and
how the LEARN Act will enable districts to implement effective
models?
Ms. Dore. I think having that support for the professional
development is crucial. The time that teachers need--we talked
about it a little bit--that when they are working from 7 am to
4 o'clock and then having teacher meetings after school, it is
hard to do that professional development on top of a day that
they have already spent with children.
Even though literacy is a cornerstone, we are also having a
lot of competing 21st century skills, science, math, all those
things are still--teachers need to focus on those, too. So the
idea of having a job embedded in literacy coaches is crucial,
without that support, it doesn't work.
Mr. Polis. I know you shared this with me earlier, but tell
me how some would count as literacy coaches, and I think you
called them a different thing but tell me how that works?
Ms. Dore. We call them literacy resource teachers, and we
have one in each elementary school, in the middle school and
the high school as well as some Title 1 support. So those
teachers not only do direct intervention but they also support
teachers in the way of coaching, gathering data, synthesizing
data, looking at big trends.
Then linking those trends to professional development needs
that we have not only in the school but across the district, so
they have been really crucial at that synthesizing, crunching
the data that sometimes classroom teachers don't have the time
to take and then don't have the time to do with that.
And then they also get the big perspective that helps them
look at big district trends and what is happening with separate
demographic groups and subpopulations. So they have been
essential in moving us forward with literacy instruction.
Chairman Kildee. Yes, Mr. Henriquez?
Mr. Henriquez. Yes, one of the things we were very
interested in noting was the impact of literacy coaches not
only on teachers but how those teachers impacted student
learning. One of the things we funded was the RAND Corporation
to do a study of literacy coaches in the state of Florida,
which at that time, had the largest number of literacy coaches
statewide.
And what they found was that the literacy coaches who used
data to instruct their teachers were the ones who were able to
best have the kind of results that we want for our students. So
it is absolutely essential that we not just have blind literacy
coaches but that they have the tools necessary to understand
that data systems and also that they are using that data as a
way of giving instruction.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Kildee. Gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I think it is very timely and
interesting.
Mr. Berger, you know, coming from a generation where we
didn't have computers and all the software and all of these
things and I can remember going to the library, riding my bike
and filling up the basket with books and riding home to read
them for the week. And then this process continued on and on.
Is there--with your software, were books involved in this
as well as--I know I have seen some of the programs, and they
are great because they really do customize, you know, when a
child doesn't get something, it goes back so many times and
gives them the tools to move ahead. But how do books fit into
the picture as we have, you know, such a change in technology?
Mr. Berger. It is a really important question. I think part
of the reason why we have focused on small devices like this is
that whereas in the early enthusiasm about the role that
computers could play in technology, a lot of what people did
was to insert the computer between the teacher and the student,
and sometimes spend too much time leaving kids alone with
computers.
And I think the philosophy in classrooms that really work
is that kids need a lot of time alone with books. I don't know
how much time they need alone with computers.
And the other thing that we need to think about is what are
the ways that we can design a classroom where technology is
humming behind the scenes to extend the reach of a human
teacher, to extend the different kinds of interactions kids
have with each other in the classroom but maybe not so central
to how teaching happens, or let the computer teaching happen in
after school or in special class times that allow freeing up
teachers for professional development. But to see teaching as a
really human process that technologies that support.
And we have made a point of in every one of the
intervention programs that we have done, having the program
come with a basket of additional books on top of whatever else
teachers have to just keep reminding teachers, that even when
you are teaching very basic skills, like what are the letters,
that one of the most important ways to do that is to find the
letters in a book so that you keep connecting to kids.
The reason we are teaching you these basic phonic skills is
because some day you are going to be able to read a book in
your backyard.
Mrs. Biggert. Well, what about the older, you know, there
seems like there is such a drop off as we get in the middle
school and then to the high school. And of course now research
has done so much on the computer that, you know, there isn't--
well, it is a lot of ease to find what they are looking for
that we didn't have. But could this be a negative? That--not
using books for a lot of these things?
Mr. Berger. I think the question of whether the medium is
paper or a computer is less important than our kids struggling
with difficult texts that are at their reading level and
starting to push beyond their reading level.
And are they having to have situations where in addition to
struggling individually, they are forced to talk with teachers
and with fellow students about big ideas that they are pulling
out of text. And there is precious little of that happening in
classrooms and the question of what we can do to focus teacher
time and student time on what it takes to grapple with the
difficult text.
And technology there can support, student attention can
support student focus, can help explain difficult vocabulary
words. But it still is a matter of the text, whether it is on a
screen or in a book.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. And then, Dr. Meyers, I assume
that you have a grant for the program that you have, the
Reading First. And it is going to expire, or the program is
going to expire.
Ms. Meyers. Yes.
Mrs. Biggert. So you have had the coaches, and are you
going to--let us assume that you won't have one, which we hope
you will continue in the program. But if not, what would you do
you know to keep the teachers, you know, the professional
development, will you be able to--are there other teachers then
that can take that role and help new teachers as they come in
to the district?
Ms. Meyers. I think from what I have seen in just the
Reading First school, the districts will take on that
responsibility, and they will use other funding. For instance
in one of our districts, they use their ELL funding to provide
additional coaches in schools that they put in the Reading
First Program so that each one of their buildings had a reading
or a literacy coach.
The state does not have a plan at this point to take care
of any kind of funding. We are certainly struggling with
cutbacks ourselves, so it will be up to the individual school.
But as we go along and put in RTI in all our schools as
required in the regulation, I personally don't see how it will
happen without these literacy coaches because that is the type
of professional development you need.
You cannot have these one shot deals, you have got to
sustain, keep it moving, build your capacity up, and you have
got to go in those classrooms, and give them feedback, team--
plan with the teachers.
But they are--I think those coaches are essential. They
have been essential to our programs, and they are your
instructional leaders as we bring on our principals to be
instructional leaders. And those principals are a big piece of
making these things work.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert.
Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. And I don't know whether
the chairman thought I needed help in literacy. I wanted to
introduce Dr. Strickland but as you know, she is from New
Jersey and has served in Newark, and we co-chaired a literacy
group back in the early 1990s. But I will forgive you this
time, Mr. Chairman.
However, it is great to see Dr. Strickland and all the work
that you have done for so many years with former Governor
Florio and Senator Florio in the setting up in the 1970s or I
guess it was in the 1990s the literacy centers in New Jersey,
which after the National Literacy Act was passed in the early
1990s.
So it is really great to see you. I just would like to ask
you about the fact that research as you have mentioned,
demonstrates that substantial achievement gaps in literacy
develop early in childhood. And that early life experiences
influence reading ability.
We know that youngsters who are in more affluent
communities tend to hear more words and the number in their
vocabulary has increased, and therefore it helps with literacy
in general. I just wonder if, you know, in your opinion how can
early literacy programs successfully address this reality?
What is it that we can do, and are there promising early
education models that provide the appropriate levels of family
involvement and focus on family literacy because as we know
that is where it begins.
Ms. Strickland. Well, the final thing that you have
mentioned is something that I don't think we have stressed
enough here today. And that is family literacy and family
involvement, both at the early childhood years and those middle
school years, where very often we find very little family
involvement.
They come for the assembly programs and not much of
anything else. So many of us were pleased to see that as a part
of the LEARN legislation. One piece of research that is
astounding to me and is very important for this comprehensive
look that we are addressing today, is the fact that about 50
percent of the gap at the end of high school already exists
when children enter first grade.
Now, this has been done by analyses of the data across
grade levels. That is profound. So it is very hard to catch up
once you have had problems during those initial years. The
benefit of what I believe is being proposed here is this notion
of a comprehensive approach that truly addresses young children
and their families and all of the things that are attendant.
The need to address children's well-being, children who
aren't well-fed, who don't have a good social, emotional
status, these kids aren't going to learn. It is very hard to
teach them. They are not going to be able to take advantage of
the teaching.
But we have got to continue that throughout. And I think
that we have come to grips with that. And we have learned a lot
from both Early Reading First and Reading First with the flaws,
with the problems, with the issues that we have had, we need to
use what we have learned, and use that to make this legislation
really as good as it can be.
And I am very excited because I have been working for so
long with so many different administrations. I was kidding with
Andres that I worked with every president since Abraham Lincoln
but it is not quite that bad, but sometimes I feel that way.
We have learned a great deal. Our children deserve a lot
better than we are giving them right now but I am so hopeful
for everything that you are doing and which the Senate is doing
at this point in time. And the notion of coaches has been
addressed beautifully here.
One of the things we do with coaches is differentiate
coaching, you know, for different teachers. We have never done
that before. This is a new time, a new day, and I am extremely
hopeful.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. It seems like resources
would also help there. Thank you.
Ms. Strickland. Glad you said it.
Ms. Meyers [continuing]. In reading the data on our Early
Reading First, it was amazing to me to see that the majority of
children were of ELL, and the majority of them did succeed and
perform in K and first grade as well as children who did not
come from the low income families or families where English was
not the primary language.
And their scores actually increased in first grade as they
got good instruction in Reading First schools, where we were
doing the essentials and doing the coaching.
So it is to me, and then when I look at the Reading First
schools who do not have that type of preschool experiences
coming to them and do not have full day kindergarten, those
children start in kindergarten with approximately 20 percent at
benchmark as opposed to in our high poverty schools--as opposed
to the children who would come out of an Early Reading First
Program.
So I support this comprehensive idea because I know that we
are in bad shape as far as our adolescent literacy. But it does
start in the preschool, and we have got to--and even in
infancy--but we have got to work it up but it is amazing what
that can do.
And the technology piece I would like to add is crucial to
our children who have lacking in background experiences. We
have got to have ways in the classrooms that we can build that
background knowledge to go along with that oral language. Thank
you.
Chairman Kildee. We have three votes pending. The first
vote is called for 15 minutes, and then there are two 5-minute
votes after that. There is a little there in between, but I
think we are going to have to come back.
And but I will--Mr. Ehlers is next in line. I will call
upon him. We can take the first 15 minutes they usually stretch
out a little bit. So we will take Mr. Ehlers.
You are recognized, gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try not to
use all 15 minutes.
Chairman Kildee. Did I say 15?
Mr. Ehlers. But at any rate, I appreciate you very much for
holding the hearing. Literacy is extremely important as we all
know. And I do want to note that I think libraries are an
extremely important part of this. And I see Mr. Henriquez
smiling because Mr. Carnegie was influential in getting a great
many libraries started across this land.
I personally learned to read because as a sickly child, I
was not able to go to school. And I learned to read primarily
with library books and read voraciously, starting with very
simple Dick and Jane stories and going on up.
I would--there is a letter that was submitted to you, Mr.
Chairman and to Mr. Castle, from the American Library
Association regarding this issue in connection with this
hearing. And if that has not already been entered into the
record, I would like to see this placed in the record.
Chairman Kildee. We will make sure that is in the record.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
November 19, 2009.
Hon. Dale Kildee, Chairman; Hon. Michael N. Castle, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education,
Committee on Education and Labor, 2181 Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Kildee and Castle: On behalf of the American
Library Association (ALA), I am writing in support of your efforts to
improve literacy skills and respectfully ask that you include this
letter as part of the official record for the Subcommittee's November
19, 2009, hearing to highlight the contributions of librarians and
library programs in improving the literacy skills of children and young
adults.
In general, librarians are professionally trained information
experts who help improve the literacy skills of children and young
adults. They regularly aid teachers in building students' research and
information literacy skills; they possess deep knowledge of adolescent
literacy development; and they are the absolute best resource for
ensuring that schools have a wide variety of reading materials that
students both need and want to read.
The public library is the community's center for early literacy
coaching for parents and child-care providers. As you know, a child's
brain develops at an incredible rate during the first three years of
life. A child's early experiences with language contribute to healthy
brain development.
The 1998 publication Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young
Children was a landmark report that clearly established the link
between providing a rich early literacy environment in the preschool
years and later success in school. After this publication, public
librarians developed a program to develop children's reading skills
based on six key pre-reading skills that children must have before they
can learn to read: narrative skills, print motivation, vocabulary,
phonological awareness, letter knowledge and print awareness. This
model of service focuses on teaching the parents and caregivers how to
foster early learning skills. This model of library service should be
available to every community in a public library with a comprehensive
materials collection.
Public librarians provide many other types of resources that
support early childhood literacy: children's books that are suited to
various ages and interests, story-time, parenting books that provide
specific information and techniques for effective parenting skills, the
latest research about brain development and learning; and trained
librarians who can teach parents and caregivers the most effective ways
to read to children.
Public librarians have embraced their responsibility to be the
first literacy coach for parents and caregivers of all children,
especially children in low-income families. Some services provided to
these families include bookmobile and storytelling mobiles, story-time
kits, early literacy classes for childcare providers, Head Start staff
and parents. Bringing books to neighborhoods in communities without
many books available is an important task for bookmobiles.
School librarians are the central teachers who know the school's
curriculum and effective techniques necessary to cross disciplines and
integrate information and technology literacy. They have collaboration
skills for effective participation in the school improvement process
through involvement in curriculum development, implementation and
evaluation with individual educators and departmental committees, and
are well-positioned to participate in the improvement of data-based
assessment systems. Every school that hires a state-certified school
library media specialist employs a staff member who possesses an
advanced degree or state-level certification and experience in both
reading and literacy, which is ideal for complementing the learning
taking place in classrooms.
In schools, libraries are both the physical and virtual hubs of
learning. They provide access to a wide variety of reading materials,
as well as a real and virtual space for learning and exploration, to
every student and faculty member in the building. Libraries are cost
effective in that they are the single place that maintains a collection
of a broad-range of reading material and learning resources. We know
that children will learn to love reading if they have a wide selection
of materials to choose from.
It's no wonder that research repeatedly shows that a well-funded
and fully staffed school library with a state-licensed school librarian
is an integral component of a student's education. Across the United
States, studies have demonstrated that students in schools with good
school libraries learn more, get better grades, and score higher on
standardized tests than their peers in schools without such resources.
Accordingly, ALA is pleased that both the House and Senate versions
of the LEARN Act (Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation)
contain various provisions to support libraries in the development and
implementation of early learning through grade 12 literacy programs.
Specifically, we applaud provisions included in both bills that
would:
Improve reading, writing, and academic achievement for
children and students by strengthening coordination among various
programs and entities including public libraries;
Authorize funds to be used to promote reading, library,
and writing programs that provide access to engaging reading material
in school and at home;
Define an eligible entity to include a public library
program;
Define instructional staff to include librarians and
library school media specialists; and
Include a library media specialist on the State Literacy
Team.
As the Congress moves forward in advocating for improved literacy
among our children and young adults, ALA asks that you continue to
recognize the integral role libraries and librarians play in achieving
this goal.
Again, thank you for your focus on improving literacy skills, we
look forward to working with you in completing this effort and
successfully implementing the LEARN Act.
Sincerely,
Emily Sheketoff,
Executive Director, ALA Washington Office.
______
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. The librarians are professionally
trained information experts, and I have had a lot to do with
them. I served on a city library board, a county library board,
state library board also at the Library of Congress.
And librarians are incredibly well-trained to deal with the
literacy problems in my hometown. They are the leaders in
helping people who are illiterate and helping them learn how to
read. And I am talking about adults.
They regularly aid teachers in building students' research
and information literacy skills, they possess deep knowledge of
adolescent literacy development, and they ensure children have
a wide variety of reading materials that they both need and
want to read.
And I would just like reaction from the panel on this. Do
you believe it is appropriate to include library programs and
librarians in our efforts to improve the literacy skills of
children and adults, and how do you think they can best be
incorporated? It is open to anyone.
Ms. Dore. We have a great interface in our community with
our libraries. They come and do presentations to the elementary
school students, they hold book hours and book shares, and so
it is a really--I know we are a small community but it is a
nice way for the libraries to really connect with schools and
then support parents and children. So we see it as a huge
community resource piece in our area.
Mr. Ehlers. Any others?
Mr. Henriquez?
Mr. Henriquez. Yes, I appreciate you bringing up the
library issue. I am a big fan obviously. It is a required part
of the job. The librarians are oftentimes the individuals
within schools, particularly in middle schools and high schools
that can really reach out to the youngster, and engage them in
a whole other world of books and in reading that sometimes
doesn't exist in the school building. So when there is a lack
of professional expertise around adolescent literacy, a
librarian can be a real anchor within that community.
That said there are also other issues that librarians could
be trained to do particularly around how to work with
youngsters around very difficult expository text that a lot of
our youngsters are struggling with. And that is something that
we really need to get under.
Mr. Ehlers. What can you recommend? What do you think
Congress should do to help ensure that all students have
greater access to certified library media specialists? So is
there anything specific you can recommend for the Congress to
do? And that is open for anyone, too.
Dr. Strickland?
Ms. Strickland. Love that question. I would love to see
library media specialists in every school. They really help
coordinate literacy programs. Again, Andres mentioned earlier
on about the need to have the content area teachers take more
responsibility for literacy.
Well, this means schematic kinds of opportunities where
they are learning content but it is in the best interest of the
content area teachers, too, because after all if children can
access the text that they are reading in biology or physics or
anything else that they happen to be studying, then they are
going to learn it better and act on it more responsibly and
better.
So in many places where they have these kinds of people
working together with teachers to get the kinds of materials
they need and technology, print and media of all sorts because
kids today read across media.
And they need to separate fact from fiction. It is really
much harder to be a competent reader today because there is so
much out there. Select what you need, make good decisions about
what is useful to your endeavor, and then use it in some way.
So I would love to see one in every single school.
Mr. Ehlers. Any other comments? Yes?
Mr. Gomez. May I add that there is a direct correlation
with number or volume of children's books, reading books at all
grade levels and reading performance in schools. And the more
kids that have access to reading books via library, in the
classrooms, there are numerous studies that point to the more
books that are accessible, the higher the reading scores of
that particular campus.
Mr. Ehlers. I was not aware of that.
Dr. Meyers?
Ms. Meyers. Yes, I would like to just support that
statement as well, and we have seen that in our schools as we
have struggled to raise the scores, especially in our first
grade. We have seen the improvement, and the improvement has
come when we have gotten more text into the classrooms both--
and especially the expository text.
And children have had many opportunities to practice and
read and practice reading connected text. Too much time is
spent sometimes on isolated skills but not only do we broaden
their background and knowledge but we give them a lot of
practice.
And practice is a key piece of this. So the more that we
can introduce and more books we can get in classrooms, and get
teachers to use those books so that their children can read and
have those opportunities, the better our scores seem to be.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
Mr. Berger?
Mr. Berger. This may seem like a somewhat technical point
but I think it is an important one about the collaboration
between libraries and schools. As I said in my testimony, the
process of education in the classroom is now generating a very
detailed web of data about each child, what level they read at,
what they are interested in, what things they find challenging.
Because of the nature of laws around privacy in our
country, the transfer of that information to a librarian who is
not a school librarian but to a municipal librarian is quite
difficult and almost never happens. And the power of that data
set for a certified librarian could be really effective in
their ability to match kids with books, which is a fundamental
task that they do.
And so whatever we can do as we look not only at reading
legislation but at online privacy legislation to clear that
path for certified librarians would be most helpful.
Mr. Ehlers. Are you referring to the Patriot Act or
something else?
Mr. Berger. I think the main one that applies is actually
the FERPA registry laws.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hinojosa [presiding]. You are welcome. I believe we
only have time for one more member to ask questions. And I am
next on the line. So after I ask my questions we will adjourn
but come right back after the votes. My question is going to
be--the first one to Dr. Gomez, but before I ask that question
I wanted to reiterate my great interest in early reading and
writing programs that we are discussing here today.
And say that in my area of Deep South Texas, we have
literacy programs that have been started in the last 2 or 3
years by bringing a coalition of three members of Congress with
adjoining districts to carry out this initiative, and it is
working.
And so I want to say that I heard early in the panel's
discussion that the art of learning can be learned in so many
different languages. And I served 10 years on the Texas State
Board of Education, and our commissioner of education told us,
this is between 1970 and 1980, that the art of learning can be
learned in any language and then transcend or transfer onto the
English language.
But we didn't learn that lesson in Texas, and we certainly
didn't learn it in Washington. And so if we look at the number
of children who are in need of this literacy program it is
greater than 50 percent, just count the Hispanic, the Asian
American, the Native American and the immigrant children, and
you will see that it is way over 50 percent of the children who
need this literacy program.
All children need it but especially those who come from
families where English is not the first language. So I ask you,
Dr. Gomez, what do you recommend that we in Congress and the
federal government do to increase the number of highly
qualified bilingual teachers and educators in our nation's
classrooms?
Mr. Gomez. Well, I think that it is really important that
there be incentives supporting states for the recruitment of
bilingual ESL certified teachers that understand educating
children whose primary language is not English all the way
through high school because these kids although we know that we
have been talking about early literacy, there were some
discussions about secondary, middle school, high school
literacy.
And of course literacy is relative to grade level, so when
we are talking kindergarten literacy, then we are talking high
school literacy. Those are two very different levels of
literacy.
Mr. Hinojosa. Be specific on what you think would help to
move the ball forward and score.
Mr. Gomez. If we provide, if we require in essence teacher
preparation programs that every teacher, every public school
teacher that is certified in every state somehow has the
preparation coursework, one or two courses where they
understand second language acquisition.
They understand the academic value of first language
literacy and how that benefits second language literacy, and
they become advocates. Right now we have rifts in our schools
from bilingual certified teachers and non-bilingual certified
teachers that don't understand what these folks are all about
and why they are doing what they are doing.
Mr. Hinojosa. Would you give me something in writing so
that you are very specific on what we in this committee can
try----
Mr. Gomez. Yes, most definitely, most definitely.
Mr. Hinojosa [continuing]. In the No Child Left Behind
reauthorization. And my next question and last point is to
Andres Henriquez. Can you highlight the strategies that are
critical and necessary to improving adolescent literacy for
African American, Latino, Native American and Asian American
students?
Mr. Henriquez. Yes, as I said in my testimony is that while
kids of color are certainly affected by this the most, it is
not only an issue of children of color. It is many, many
students. However it is exacerbated in the issues around
English language learners in particular.
One of the things that we see, especially in middle schools
is what we called double the work, meaning that our youngsters
are acquiring their first language, in a sense, which would be
English, and at the same time, acquiring another language,
which is academic language. So all of the work that they are
doing in middle schools and high schools in terms of acquiring
knowledge around chemistry and biology that is not written in
their language, so we call that double the work, they have to
do twice as much work as the average student.
And in my extended testimony that I gave this morning, the
report, which is called ``Double the Work: Actions to Do with
English Language Learners for Adolescent Literacy,'' outlines a
whole host of recommendations that we can do for those
youngsters who are way behind in reading in more English
language learners.
Mr. Hinojosa. The presentations that you all made were
extremely interesting and informative. And I am looking forward
to the second part of the dialogue that we are going to have
with all of you.
I personally want to thank you because this is one of the
most important initiatives and things that I work on on my
Education Committee. And I thank you for that. I now say that
we are recessed for a few minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Kildee [presiding]. Again, I apologize for the
break but this is the process of legislation down here. We
have--Woodrow Wilson said that ``Congress at work is Congress
in committee,'' and this is really where we do our--we go over
there and vote once in a while, but we learn so much in
committee, and we appreciate your understanding of our process
here of running over to vote on naming post offices and things
like that. I am not sure I would.
And at that I think I have the governor's permission to go
ahead. Have I? We were riding in the same car over here, so we
will now recognize Mr. Yarmuth, the co-sponsor of the bill for
questions.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you and Ranking Member Castle for extending the courtesies of
the subcommittee to me, but on the other hand you owe me having
lured Lillian Pace away from my staff.
Chairman Kildee. Yes, sure.
Mr. Yarmuth. And but I----
Chairman Kildee. You know that was grand theft.
Mr. Yarmuth. I know she is doing as phenomenal a job for
you as she did----
Chairman Kildee. She is doing a great job.
Mr. Yarmuth [continuing]. As she did in my office. Thank
you all for your work and for your testimony. I was just home
last week and sat in on an educational forum and one of the
things that was talked about more than anything else was
literacy and particularly Dr. Strickland, with regard to the
sociological context of early childhood and doing what we could
to see that everybody started off on a sound footing.
And a lot has been talked about today in that regard. In my
community we have an organization called the Seven Counties
which does a lot of the social service work, particularly with
regard to Medicaid families, and they have a program that they
have instituted in conjunction with hospitals and actually a
bank, that helped fund them, to counsel young mothers about
reading and literacy and talking to their children, actually
give them the books that Chairman Kildee was talking about.
But from a governmental perspective, what in your opinion
can we do to try and to give parents that input and help to
establish that that environment that is conducive to early
childhood learning. Is that a government role, and what can we
do?
Ms. Strickland. It is very much a part of what early
childhood professionals should be involved in, certainly zero
to five and beyond as I indicated earlier on. Two very
important programs that were mentioned earlier on, Reach Out
and Read, which is really an initiative of pediatricians and--
who do give books to parents and explain the role of early
literacy and their role in it early on and then, of course,
Reading Is Fundamental.
They were both mentioned early on. But parents are indeed
the child's first and most important teachers. There is just no
question about it. So what we do, and what they do should be
reinforced. Good family literacy programs, parent involvement,
can go a long way, and they also reach out to the other
services which you indicated, the social services and so on, to
help support families.
When families are supported they are more likely to do the
kinds of things that we ask them to do. I am one who is always
saying read to your child every night, talk with them, and yet
I know that a lot of parents from certain communities are under
such stress and have so many difficulties on their own that
this may be the last thing they think of.
So it will need a comprehensive approach at that point as
well. But I think it is worth it. It is worth every cent of it
to get that foundation and have the whole family involved.
Mr. Yarmuth. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Berger, one of the things that we, I think, all
generally assume is technology is going to continue to play an
increasing role in education, and I appreciate the work you are
doing. I am a big fan of ``Disrupting Class'' by Clayton
Christensen, so I kind of become a disciple of that as well.
But the question I have is, because there have been
controversies in the past with Reading First about the
proprietary systems, and it is great that you are doing the
work that you are doing. Does government have a role here in
supporting research into whether it is technology related to
education or just basic research as to how kids learn and all
of the techniques that we are talking about here?
Mr. Berger. Absolutely. I think one of the statistics that
I believe is in ``Disrupting Class'' is the interesting
comparison between the amount of funding we do for basic
research through the NIH and the amount of funding we do for
basic research through IES, and it is a 100 to 1 ratio. And so
the question of why we don't have the basic research foundation
for some of the kind of things we want to get going in
literacy, may be findable in that 100 to 1.
Mr. Yarmuth. Yes.
Mr. Berger. I think that the connection between the tools
of technology and the kind of data that they can gather about
student performance, and that research agenda may be the place
where there is a bit of a disruption in the way things work. It
used to be that an efficacy study was a 3 to 5-year endeavor
with graduate students running around to try to get data out of
a classroom that was otherwise hermetic.
What we have now are steady streams of data about how kids
are progressing, down to individual samples of work, down to
particular developmental skills and the exact day they show up
in a child's development, and I think that becomes a really
fascinating foundation for new research.
And so as money is made available for research, and the key
thing to understand about this sort of legislation is the level
at which you set the standard of what counts as valid research
drives a whole marketplace of investment in serious R&D. If
there isn't a standard of research, then it is easy for the
publishing industry to just use marketing as their way to
decide which one to sell.
As soon as there is a standard of what efficacy is and the
higher it is, the more pressure you put on the forces of supply
and demand, which have more money than the research agenda ever
will to invest in real gold standard research to prove what
works and doesn't work.
Mr. Yarmuth. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up. I
would just like to make another observation that occurred to me
in listening to some of the testimony earlier and that is the
observation we may have made a mistake all these years in
telling school kids to shut up? Maybe we should have been
encouraging them to talk more in class and to each other. It
might have helped.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, and it is always to
have you back here, and you are always welcome here. And again,
I am glad that I have Lillian on my staff, and I know you miss
her, but by the way, while I am mentioning that I want to thank
both Lillian Pace and Allison Dembeck for their great work, you
know, to assemble a panel like this requires some input from
us.
We know something is going on, but to assemble the panel
and get people who really know this in depth and various
aspects of it, requires great staffing, and I want to thank
Allison and Lillian for having really assembled--while I was
over on the floor many of the members were saying, ``That is a
great hearing,'' and sometimes we have other dull hearings.
This was not dull. This was very, very informative. This
was--every one of you, individually and collectively, have
contributed to the knowledge we need to do what this country
needs very, very badly.
So let me just ask one final question. You know, we have
about four basic programs running through ESEA or through the
appropriations committee. One never was authorized but it is
through the appropriations committee. How do we move forward to
perhaps a more comprehensive program, taking the best parts of
the existing literacy programs? Anyone want to just start down?
Ms. Dore. The way that we have looked at it on the ground
in the school district is really that multi-tiered level
support, having that good universal tier of instruction and as
you heard Mr. Berger talk about research, is so that schools
have that menu of things to choose from that works in their
school and works in their district. But they are still using a
good universal tier of instruction where at least 80 percent of
the kids are proficient or above.
And then when students struggle how do you support them? Or
how do you extend them if they already have those skills? So it
really is helping schools change so that everybody gets the
same thing so that kids what they need. And we support them
through that, and we bring their families in, and we work with
their families as to how they can support children at home.
It really is changing--I keep calling it changing how we do
business. We need to do different work for the consumers that
we have now, our kids and our families.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment?
Mr. Henriquez. Yes, I would just like to say that if this
becomes part of the ESEA in the future, and as I said in my
testimony that there is only 5 percent of resources going into
middle schools and high schools in terms of literacy for middle
schoolers and high schoolers. And so we hope that we can shift
some resources to go to the older grades so that we can
actually have a knowledge basis as to what we need to do.
We have some evidence that IES and others are doing in
terms of researching this, but we need much more, and we need a
lot more doing the research while we are doing the practice.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Gomez?
Mr. Gomez. Well, we really need to emphasize more on the
strategies to eliminate the need for interventions. There seems
to be quite a bit of emphasis on interventions in the upper
elementary grades and even middle school grades and by that
time it is a little too late. We have dropped the ball for
these kids.
So the idea of doing this early literacy, identifying these
strategies that work for these kids early, working with
families, is--and understanding that literacy come in different
languages, will allow for making sure that no gap begins early,
which is where the gaps really begin.
We fix high schools and middle schools and elementary. For
the most part studies continue to show longitudinal studies
that follow kids over time, show that the kids are somewhat
okay in elementary but they are not okay, the same kids, in
middle school and high school.
And of course for many, many kids, either from poverty
issues or language differences, cultural differences and so on,
so it is really an elementary discussion that we need to really
focus on so that we eliminate the need to focus on the
intervention which means it is already--the problem is already
there. We need to go to the root of the problem.
Chairman Kildee. Ms. Chu?
Ms. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Dr. Leo
Gomez. First of all I want to commend you for your
recommendation to change the name of limited English proficient
students to--or English language learner students, to bilingual
learners. In California we call them English language learner
students, but to use such terminology only points to the
limitations and not to just a state of being.
Now, in California we have had a really stormy history with
bilingual education, including an initiative to end it totally.
In addition we have had a state board of education that is in
essence implementing a one-size-fits-all curriculum, focused
just on the basics. However, there are many, including me that
have advocated for a curriculum with alternatives for bilingual
learners.
Do you believe that there are consequences to a one-size-
fits-all type of curriculum and if so, what are they?
Mr. Gomez. Yes. I think we need to look at education or
what we many times refer to as mainstream education a little
differently than we have 20, 30 years ago because the
mainstream has changed. The type of children and what children
bring to school in the past, and we still continue to some
extent, we look at their differences, whether it be language,
cultural as deficits, as problems we need to overcome so that
they can become like the mainstream.
And I think we are at a point now in our history where we
are a diverse group, a diverse America, and we need to rethink
how we address these differences and look at children's assets
as opportunities to enrich other children. And then, of course,
properly educate them.
I believe, just to try to answer your question more
directly, there is no one-size-fits-all, but there are some
basic tenets that we must follow when educating children
regardless of the situation. There are some fundamental pieces
that we must not veer away from and one of those, as we talked
about is, of course, children learn more effectively if they
understand the lesson.
They learn their skills. They learn to read more
effectively if they are understanding what is going on in the
classrooms while they learn and develop that second language.
It is not a coincidence that for over 40 years now our English
speaking population outperforms our non-English speaking
population.
It is because we are treating our non-English speaking
population like our English-speaking population, and we have to
look at this issue and say, okay, this is not the same so we
can't change them.
We cannot make them something they are not. Let us look at
what they bring. Let us look at that as a resource, as a tool
for learning, and let us close achievement gaps by addressing
our diversity versus kind of sweeping it under the rug and
saying, you know, just learn English, and everything will be
fine.
That has been our approach and every strategy shared here
today is an excellent strategy, excellent ideas for literacy
development, but until we understand that literacy development,
literacy is literacy and literacy in Vietnamese, in Spanish, in
Chinese is literacy, and that literacy transfers, then we are
not going to get very far, and we are going to continue to see
the underachievement of our children, especially in the middle
school grades.
As I was pointing out to Mr. Henriquez, that I shared in my
testimony, a huge study that was conducted, looking at the same
results that they found in the Carnegie results that the kids
look--all these minority children they look fine in elementary,
but the gap widens in secondary, in middle school and high
school because they really were not literate.
They were English-speaking. You know, they learned the
language, but they really were not literate. If you look at our
high school dropout rates there are studies out there that look
at children that are dropping out, and 92 percent are English
proficient.
They speak English. What they are not is academically
proficient on grade level in that language, so their academics
suffered along the way and of course, as we have said, it
started early. So it is about getting that academic and English
development at the same time to reach that goal for these kids.
Ms. Chu. And a quick question, how did Texas fund the dual
language? Were federal funds used, and should literacy
reauthorization include funding to address bilingual learners?
Mr. Gomez. We are very fortunate in Texas that we have got,
you know, our legislators are very visionary and progressive
and we have a dual language law in Texas now that allows and
actually encourages school districts to move toward dual
language as the program, the go-to program or the program of
choice for educating our non-English speaking population, but
also for educating our English speaking population because dual
language consistently shows that these kids that are educated
through two languages develop cognitive advantages in their
learning.
And are actually outperforming monolingual English children
when they are educated through two languages, and of course
other countries in the world have known this for years because
they have been educating children through two or more languages
for many, many years.
A lot of the funding is really funding from traditional
bilingual funds from the state and federal government. The
state is just now beginning to provide some specific funding
for dual language or for dual language schools.
Right now huge school districts like the Dallas Independent
School District, the Fort Worth Independent School District,
are implementing dual language district-wide for all of their
non-English speaking children, specifically their Spanish
speaking children.
And as one way dual language, but at the same time they are
offering to something over 3,000 English dominant children dual
language. But what is really interesting in Dallas is, our
African American population, which are being underserved in our
school systems due to cultural reasons in particular, are
participating in dual language in high numbers, and we are
seeing some tremendous results with that group as well, which
we hoped would happen in Dallas.
So it is this kind of forward thinking, you know, and
moving away from traditional approaches and looking at our
diversity as assets that we should be embracing as
opportunities for all kids.
Chairman Kildee. I understand that Mr. Payne has no further
questions? Is that correct?
Mr. Payne. That is correct.
Chairman Kildee. Again, I want to thank all of you for this
hearing. It will go down as part of the history I think of
really making some quantum leaps forward. You know, everything
begins with baby steps, but ultimately we need a quantum leap
some time.
And this has always been a bipartisan interest in this
Congress and in this committee. Matter of fact, one of the
bills, Even Start, is named officially after Bill Goodling when
he was a minority member of this committee. Then he became
chairman later on, and I have seen the program in operation in
Saginaw. So it has always been bipartisan. Education generally
is bipartisan. This particularly, literacy, is so basic.
So we thank you for all you do in it. We thank you for your
testimony today and as previously ordered, members will have 14
calendar days to submit additional materials for the hearing
record. And any member who wishes to submit follow-up
questions, so you may get some follow-up questions, in writing
to the witnesses, should coordinate with the majority staff
within the requisite staff.
And without objection and with my thanks, this hearing is
adjourned.
[A submission of Mr. Polis follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Colorado Department of Education
a bill: h.r. 4037 (the ``learn act'')
Currently Being Presented to the United States House of Representatives
The Colorado Department of Education wishes to express its support
for the landmark federal literacy bill, the LEARN Act, as well as
appreciation for the leadership of Rep. Polis in introducing this major
legislation to fund comprehensive literacy programs spanning early
childhood through grade twelve. The opportunities this legislation will
afford the states in supporting the development of a comprehensive
state literacy plan will be substantial and ensure a systemic approach
to providing high quality instruction in reading and writing from early
childhood through grade twelve.
Colorado congratulates the sponsors of the bill for proposing
legislation that: (1) provides a means for scaling up pilot literacy
programs that have shown promise in raising student achievement in
literacy, (2) is comprehensive, thus expanding support for literacy
from preschool through high school, (3) prompts states to accelerate
and expand their implementation of evidence-based practices for all
students, (4) proposes a multi-tier system of support to address the
needs of all students, (5) includes oral language and writing as a part
of developing literacy competence, (6) includes meaningful family
engagement in its focus, (7) builds in safe-guards against potential
conflicts of interest, and (8) has the potential of increasing high
school graduation rates.
Representatives John Yarmuth (D-KY3), Jared Polis (D-CO2), and
George Miller (D-CA7) might consider the following for inclusion in the
LEARN Act :
Additional criteria for the definition of ``scientifically
valid research'' using the definition of ``scientifically based reading
research'' found within the Title I, Part B (Reading First)
legislation: ``(6) SCIENTIFICALLY BASED READING RESEARCH- The term
`scientifically based reading research' means research that----
(A) applies rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to
obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading
instruction, and reading difficulties; and
(B) includes research that----
(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation
or experiment;
(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the
stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide
valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple
measurements and observations; and
(iv) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a
panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective,
and scientific review.''
(See also Stanovich outlining the importance of scientific thinking
and scientific research in educational decision-making: http://
www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ScientificallyBasedResearch.pdf
http://www.nifl.gov/publications/html/stanovich/index.html)
State Education Agency (SEA) ``allowable use'' of funds
targeted at SEA development of partnerships with institutions of higher
education for the purpose of conducting research on teacher
effectiveness as measured by student achievement and for the
development of pre-service literacy related courses for educators.
These funds could be used for course review and reporting of review
results to the public. Aligning pre-service literacy related coursework
to evidence/standards-based practices is a major leverage point that
has a direct influence on teacher effectiveness. In addition, this
activity will help states meet the charge of Sec. Duncan's call to
improve teacher preparation to better impact student achievement.
Sec. Duncan's Speech to Schools of Education: http://www.ed.gov/
news/pressreleases/2009/10/10222009a.html
SEA ``allowable use'' of funds targeted at providing
professional development to SEA staff in order to ensure SEA staff can
effectively carry out the activities outlined in:
(Page 27, LEARN Act) Sec.6.(b)(2)(C)(ii): ``ensure that eligible
entities in the State have leveraged and are effectively leveraging the
resources to implement high-quality literacy instruction, and have the
capacity to implement high-quality literacy initiatives effectively;''
Increase the SEA ``Use of Funds'' allocation of ``State
Activities'' (see page 25, Learn Act) from 5 percent to 10 percent.
Increasing the SEA state activity use of funds from 5 percent to 10
percent will provide necessary resources to support (1) SEA
administration/facilitation of effective K-12 literacy programs, (2)
SEA administration capacity to carry out activities required in the
LEARN Act, including the review and development of improved state
licensure and certification standards, (3) professional development of
SEA staff, and (4) robust research studies to study the effectiveness
of school-wide and state-wide literacy programs.
Note that the Title I, Part B (Reading First) SEA funds were 20%.
Colorado used these funds to provide professional development,
technical assistance, including onsite coaching to LEA's from experts
outside of the district and have received feedback that these state
level supports made the most significant difference in improving
instructional practices and ensuring fidelity of implementation at the
school level. Finally, these funds were essential for related
administrative tasks including professional development for staff, and
data collection, analysis and reporting.
Include language in the Act that recognizes the importance
of SEAs in providing LEAs guidance on how to identify effective
instructional materials and programs supported by scientifically valid
research.
Include language in the Act that recognizes the importance
of SEAs in providing LEAs guidance on how to identify valid and
reliable formative assessments that have a high likelihood of
predicting performance on summative assessments.
Include a definition of ``extended learning time'' based
on scientifically valid research for accelerating the literacy skills
of struggling students
Include a definition of ``developmentally appropriate''
(pg. 68, lines 17-18) (http://www.nifl.gov/publications/pdf/
NELPReport09.pdf)
Extend implementation of a multi-tier system of support
from pre-K through high school (http://www.centeroninstruction.org/
files/Conversations%20with%20Practitioners%20Corr.pdf)
Include phonic decoding instruction and fluency beyond
grades K-3, as needed (http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/
Academic%20Literacy.pdf; http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/
Adol%20Struggling%20Readers%20Meta-analysis.pdf)
Thank you again for the opportunity for the Colorado Department of
Education to enter a statement in the Congressional Record expressing
support for the LEARN Act and to commend Rep. Polis and his colleagues
for their leadership in educational reform and proposing comprehensive
federal literacy legislation. We look forward to this new initiative
and the support it will give to the students of Colorado and our
nation's youth.
______
[Questions for the record, their responses, and additional
submissions from the witnesses follow:]
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
Mr. Larry Berger,
CEO and Co-Founder, Wireless Generation, 500 New Jersey Ave., NW,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Berger: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on
Education and Labor's hearing on, ``Improving the Literacy Skills of
Children and Young Adults,'' on November 19, 2009.
Representative Robert ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) has asked that you
respond in writing to the following questions:
During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy
programs was discussed by all of the witnesses. My questions are as
follows:
1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost
effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with?
2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of
programs that increase literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc?
3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy
programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
December 8, 2009.
Hon. Robert C. Scott,
Committee on Education and Labor, 2181 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Scott: Thank you and the Committee again for the
opportunity to testify at the November 19, 2009 hearing on ``Improving
the Literacy Skills of Children and Young Adults.'' Thank you also for
your follow up questions regarding the cost effectiveness of early
literacy programs. My responses follow immediately below.
Early literacy programs reduce the need to refer students to
special education programs, which can lead to substantial cost savings.
As of 2006-07, about 13.6% of students received special education
services--up from 8.3% in 1976-77. (See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
coe/2009/pdf/9--2009.pdf, at Table A-9-1.) Yet, as research presented
at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities RTI Symposium
showed, some 35% to 40% of children referred to special education due
to a Specific Learning Disability were in fact referred incorrectly.
(For a complete listing of research presented at the Symposium, see the
following website: http://www.rti4success.org/index.php?option=com--
content&task=view&id=841.) These unnecessary referrals come at a
substantial cost: a 2003 study found that the cost to educate special
education students with learning disabilities is 1.6 times that of
educating general education students. (See http://www.csef-air.org/
publications/seep/national/Final--SEEP--Report--5.PDF, at v.) Thus, if
we could eliminate a substantial portion of the 35%--40% of unnecessary
special education referrals, the cost savings would almost certainly be
dramatic.
Early literacy programs, as part of a Response to Intervention
(RTI) approach, reduce these unnecessary referrals. RTI works by
identifying at-risk students early and providing appropriate reading
``interventions'' to help them. In our many years of working with
teachers, principals, and school superintendents on Kindergarten-
through-5th Grade literacy instruction, we have found that many
students will get ``back on track'' toward reading proficiency if given
appropriate support through RTI programs. I am attaching as an appendix
to this testimony a white paper authored by two of my colleagues last
year that demonstrates the effectiveness of the RTI approach.
By identifying students before they are referred to special
education, effective early literacy programs that include RTI save
money for schools, districts, and states. In addition to reducing
unnecessary referrals, these programs free up special education
services and dollars for the children who truly need them.
Thank you again for the opportunity to supplement my testimony by
responding to Representative Scott's questions, and please do not
hesitate to contact me if I may be of further service to the Committee.
Sincerely,
Larry Berger.
______
[The information referred to may be accessed at the
following Internet address:]
http://wirelessgeneration.com/media/rti-white-paper.pdf
------
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
Ms. Mary Kay Dore, Director of Student Support Services,
Summit School District, 150 School Road, Frisco, CO.
Dear Ms. Dore: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on
Education and Labor's hearing on, ``Improving the Literacy Skills of
Children and Young Adults,'' on November 19, 2009.
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) has asked that you
respond in writing to the following questions:
During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early
literacy programs was discussed by all of the witnesses. My questions
are as follows:
1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost
effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with?
2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of
programs that increase literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc?
3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy
programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Response to Mr. Scott's Questions From Ms. Dore
There are many observations as a professional that I have witnessed
that tell me early intervention works and therefore is a cost savings
to society. I have had the fortune to work in one school district long
enough to see students enter kindergarten and then watch the same
students exit high school. Anecdotally, I can recount stories of
students who can in with little foundation in the early years and their
struggles to finish high school, some of whom didn't make it. I come
from a small district of just over 3,000 students, in this size
community we are able to try to leverage community supports to help
students who are struggling. Sometimes that worked and other times the
support was not enough to overcome their family situation, or the pull
of drugs and alcohol. Discussions at school often debate the epicenter
of the student's struggles; is the behavior choices of the student that
is causing the issues or is the inability to read which has led to
student to act out and try to mask their struggles? I know in my heart
and professional experience that catching children early is the key
into to starting them on the oath the life long learning.
What you wanted were numbers, which I understand and applaud.
Referenced are the results of the Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the
Title I Chicago Child-Parent Center Program, which I have also attached
for your reference.
Results of the cost-benefit analysis indicated that each component
of CPC program had economic benefits that exceeded costs. With an
average cost per child of $6,730 (1998 dollars) for 1.5 years of
participation, the preschool program generated a total return to
society at large of $47,759 per participant. The largest benefit was
program participants' increased earnings capacity projected from higher
educational attainment. Economic benefits of the preschool program to
the general public (taxpayers and crime victims), exclusive of
increased earnings capacity, were $25,771 per participant. The largest
categories of public benefits were increased tax revenues associated
with higher expected earnings capacity (28%), criminal justice system
savings due to lower rates of arrest (28%), savings on tangible costs
for crime victims (24%), and savings on school remedial services (18%).
Overall, $7.10 dollars were returned to society at large for every
dollar invested in preschool. Excluding benefits to participants, the
ratio of program benefits to costs for the general public was $3.83 for
every dollar invested. The ratio of benefits to costs for government
savings alone was $2.88 per dollar invested.
The present value of benefits for preschool participation was
substantially higher than the benefits for school-age participation.
The school-age component provided a societal return of $4,944 per
participant. Given a cost of $2,981 per child for 2 years of
participation, benefits modestly exceeded the investment in the
program. The benefit-cost ratio for society at large was $1.66 per
dollar invested ($1.42 public benefit per dollar invested). The main
benefit was savings on school remedial services.
This is a short excerpt of some of the studies that have been
conducted in regards to the effectiveness of early intervention with
children. There are many studies that reveal the different readiness
levels that children come to school with and the ways that systems need
to support children. It is important for us as an educational system to
discover how we can best support students and at the earliest time
possible. It is the foundation that crucial to their success in later
life.
______
Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I
Chicago Child-Parent Center Program
executive summary (june 2001)
Arthur J. Reynolds,\1\ Judy A. Temple,\2\ Dylan L. Robertson,\1\ and
Emily A. Mann\1\
Introduction
In this study, we conducted the first cost-benefit analysis of the
federally financed Title I Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC) Program.
The major question addressed was: Do program benefits exceed costs? The
CPC program is a school-based preschool and early school-age
intervention for low-income children that emphasizes parent involvement
and the development of literacy skills. Previous studies have indicated
that program participation beginning in preschool is independently
associated with higher school achievement, higher rates of school
completion through age 20, lower rates of school dropout, lower rates
of juvenile arrest for violent and non-violent charges, and with less
need for school remedial services (see Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, &
Mann, 2001, and Reynolds, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Waisman Center and School of Social Work, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
\2\ Department of Economics, Northern Illinois University.
Reynolds and Temple also are affiliated with the Institute for
Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample and Methods
The main study sample includes 1,286 youth of the original sample
of 1,539 in the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Data in this on-going,
prospective study were collected from family surveys, educational
records, and justice system records up to age 21 (March 2001). An
alternative-program, quasi-experimental design was used in which the
behavioral adjustment of the entire cohort of 989 children who attended
20 CPCs in preschool and kindergarten from 1983-86 was compared to a
random sample of 550 eligible children who did not participate in the
program but enrolled in an all-day kindergarten program. Less than one-
fourth of the comparison group attended a preschool program. Sample
recovery rates were 85% and 81%, respectively, with no evidence of
selective attrition. At the beginning of the study, groups were
comparable on many family background measures.
Opened in 1967 with funding from Title I of the landmark Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the CPC program provides
comprehensive educational and family support services from ages 3 to 9
in neighborhood schools. The philosophy of the program is to help
children develop skills in reading, math, and communication through a
broad spectrum of classroom and parent activities, and field trips.
Each Child-Parent Center is run by a head teacher and includes a
staffed parent resource room, school-community outreach activities, and
health services. After preschool and kindergarten, the school-age
program in the elementary school provides reduced class sizes, teacher
aides for each class, continued parent involvement activities, and an
enriched classroom environment for developing reading and math skills.
Following standard economic procedures, we estimated the present
value of program benefits and costs in 1998 dollars for five main
categories of benefits: (1) reductions in expenditures for the school
remedial services of grade retention and special education, (2)
reductions in criminal justice system expenditures for both juvenile
and adult arrest and treatment, (3) reductions in child welfare system
expenditures associated with child abuse and neglect, (4) averted
tangible costs to crime victims, and (5) increases in adult earnings
and tax revenues projected for increases in educational attainment. The
present value of program benefits was estimated based on a 3% annual
discount rate evaluated at the beginning of preschool participation.
The distribution of benefits were calculated separately for society at
large (program participants and the general public), the general
public, and government savings.
Results
Relative to comparison groups and controlling for family economic
disadvantage, participation in the CPC preschool, school-age, and
extended intervention (4 to 6 years) components was associated, in the
expected direction, with two or more of the following outcomes: school
achievement at age 14, special education placement and grade retention,
juvenile arrest by age 18, child maltreatment, and high school
completion by ages 20/21. Relative to the comparison group, preschool
participants had a 29% higher rate of high school completion, a 33%
lower rate of juvenile arrest, a 42% reduction in arrest for a violent
offense, a 41% reduction in special education placement, a 40%
reduction in the rate of grade retention, and a 51% reduction in child
maltreatment. School-age participation and extended program
participation for 4 to 6 years were associated with 30 to 40% lower
rates of grade retention and special education placement. Compared to
children with 1 to 3 years of participation, extended program
participants also had higher achievement test scores in adolescence and
lower rates of child maltreatment by age 17.
Results of the cost-benefit analysis indicated that each component
of CPC program had economic benefits that exceeded costs. With an
average cost per child of $6,730 (1998 dollars) for 1.5 years of
participation, the preschool program generated a total return to
society at large of $47,759 per participant. The largest benefit was
program participants' increased earnings capacity projected from higher
educational attainment. Economic benefits of the preschool program to
the general public (taxpayers and crime victims), exclusive of
increased earnings capacity, were $25,771 per participant. The largest
categories of public benefits were increased tax revenues associated
with higher expected earnings capacity (28%), criminal justice system
savings due to lower rates of arrest (28%), savings on tangible costs
for crime victims (24%), and savings on school remedial services (18%).
Overall, $7.10 dollars were returned to society at large for every
dollar invested in preschool. Excluding benefits to participants, the
ratio of program benefits to costs for the general public was $3.83 for
every dollar invested. The ratio of benefits to costs for government
savings alone was $2.88 per dollar invested.
The present value of benefits for preschool participation was
substantially higher than the benefits for school-age participation.
The school-age component provided a societal return of $4,944 per
participant. Given a cost of $2,981 per child for 2 years of
participation, benefits modestly exceeded the investment in the
program. The benefit-cost ratio for society at large was $1.66 per
dollar invested ($1.42 public benefit per dollar invested). The main
benefit was savings on school remedial services.
Relative to participation for 1 to 3 years, participation in the
program for 4 to 6 years (preschool to second or third grade) also was
associated with economic benefits that exceeded costs. The present
value of benefits to society at large was $24,772 per participant.
Given an average cost of $4,068 per participant (above and beyond less
extensive participation), the extended intervention program provided a
substantial return to society at large. The benefit-cost ratio for
society at large was $6.09 per dollar invested ($3.59 public benefit
per dollar invested). The greatest benefits were savings on school
remedial services, increased tax revenues, and averted crime victim
costs. Extended program participants typically had the highest levels
of adjustment in the study. Overall, our findings of cost-effectiveness
were robust to different discount rates and alternative procedures for
estimating projected earnings and criminal justice system expenditures.
Conclusion
As the first cost-benefit analysis of a federally-financed,
comprehensive early childhood intervention, findings indicate that
participation in each component of the program was associated with
economic benefits that exceeded costs. This was accomplished by
increasing economic well being and reducing educational and social
expenditures for remediation and treatment. Similar to Head Start, the
CPC preschool program is the most intensive and comprehensive component
and yielded the greatest benefits by age 21. Findings for school-age
and extended intervention demonstrate the benefits of reduced class
sizes and enriched school environments in the early grades. Thus,
contemporary, large-scale child-development programs can provide
substantial long-term benefits to society.
Given limited financial and human resources for health and
educational interventions, greater levels of public investments in
programs with demonstrated cost-effectiveness are warranted. Unlike
most other social programs, the Child-Parent Center Program provides
benefits to society that far exceed costs and is routinely implemented
through a large urban school district. The present value of public
benefits of the preschool program for the 1,000 study children totaled
$26 million. Since 100,000 children have been served by the program to
date, these benefits translate to as much as $2.6 billion in public
savings since the program opened (1998 dollars). As states and
localities increase access to early childhood care and education
programs, public schools appear to be the location of choice for these
initiatives. The findings of this study show the long-term payoffs that
these public programs can provide.
affiliations and funding
Preparation of this report was supported by funding from the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (No.
R01HD34294-06), and the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
U.S. Department of Education (No. R305T990477). This report was
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research
in Washington, DC on June 1, 2001.
Address correspondence to Arthur Reynolds, Waisman Center,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1500 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI
53705. Electronic mail: [email protected]. Voice: 612-625-4321. Fax: 612-625-
6472. Web site: education.umn.edu/ICD/ReynoldsLab/.
references
Reynolds AJ. Success in Early Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent
Centers. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press; 2000.
Reynolds, AJ, Temple JA, Robertson, DL, & Mann, EA. Long-term effects
of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement
and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children
in public schools. JAMA. 2001; 285:2339-2346.
additional readings
1. Reynolds, AJ. The state of early intervention. In Success in Early
Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers (Ch. 1, pp. 1-
21). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press; 2000.
2. Reynolds, AJ. The Child-Parent Center Program and Study. In Success
in Early Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers (Ch. 2,
pp. 22-63). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press; 2000.
3. Temple, JA., Reynolds, AJ., & Miedel, WT. Can early childhood
intervention prevent high school dropout? Evidence from the
Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Urban Education. 2001; 35:31-56.
4. Reynolds, AJ., Miedel, WT., & Mann, EA. Innovation in early
intervention for children in families with low incomes: Lessons
from the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Young Children. 2000;
55:84-88.
5. Reynolds, A J. (Ed.) Educational success in high-risk settings:
Contributions of the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Journal of
School Psychology (Special issue). 1999; 37(4).
______
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
Mr. Leo Gomez, Ph.D., Professor of Bilingual-Bicultural Education,
The University of Texas Pan American, College of Education, 1201 W
University Drive, Edinburg, TX.
Dear Dr. Gomez: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on
Education and Labor's hearing on, ``Improving the Literacy Skills of
Children and Young Adults,'' on November 19, 2009.
Representative Robert ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) has asked that you
respond in writing to the following questions:
During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy
programs was discussed by all of the witnesses. My questions are as
follows:
1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost
effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with?
2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of
programs that increase literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc?
3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy
programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Response to Mr. Scott's Questions From Mr. Gomez
During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy
programs was discussed by all of the witnesses. My questions are as
follows:
1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost
effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with?
2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of
programs that increase literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc?
3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy
programs?
I did not provide any testimony related to cost effectiveness of
early literacy programs. And I have no first-hand knowledge of this.
However, I can comment that studies do indicate that early literacy
development is crucial to grade-level achievement. Children that enter
school with limited vocabulary and experiential knowledge need
intensive early literacy preparedness to succeed with ``on grade
level'' academic instruction.
I would like to respond to your second question as this relates to
LEP students. As shared in my testimony, lack of knowledge regarding
the ``academic learning value of native language instruction,''
particularly among decision-makers in leadership roles, continues to
negatively impact policy for quality programs for non-English speaking
students. An emphasis on English (language) versus both academic
content learning (schooling) in native language and English language
development continues to short change the education of BLs. It is
critical that leadership at the state, federal, university and public
school level be advocates for BLs and knowledgeable of research-based
best practices for successful long-term literacy development for these
students. The following is a direct response to your first two
questions:
The evidence is overwhelming against English-only (immersion)
programs for bilingual learners. It is quite unfortunate that the state
of Arizona adopted this approach for the education of BLs in their
state. Arizona went completely in the opposite direction of research-
based practices and instead adopted ``opinion-based policy.'' The
efficacy of English immersion approaches is well documented: English-
only methods do not yield strong long-term academic outcomes for BLs.
Students in these programs learn English, but fall behind miserably in
grade level content and skills (schooling) since they essentially
receive their initial education in a second language. In other words,
BLs acquire the English language, but do not learn well (on grade
level) the content and skills being taught in that language, therefore
creating an ``academic gap'' (not a language gap) early on that
continues and widens in middle school and high school (as curriculum
becomes more demanding) leading many to eventually drop out. I should
note that most high school drop-outs speak English well, but drop out
due to lack of grade-level literacy (read 2-3 grade levels below). The
ineffectiveness of such English-only practices manifests itself in the
upper grades (4th-12th) based on English achievement tests.
Proponents of English-only programs typically share ``English
language data'' to support their position. Do not be fooled with
English language gains data. There is no doubt that BLs will learn
English and make significant English gains, since they are receiving
English-only lessons. What English-only proponents cannot produce is
positive long-term English academic achievement data (standardized
English reading & writing tests assessing grade-level literacy)
comparable to native English speakers because it does not exist.
To my knowledge, there is not one long-term effectiveness study
(middle school & high school performance) that demonstrates grade-level
academic achievement (literacy) in English for BLs served through
English-only programs. On the other hand, there are countless long-term
effectiveness studies (middle school & high school performance) that
demonstrate grade-level academic achievement (literacy) in English for
BLs served through dual language programs.
This is the very essence of understanding the literacy issue for
BLs, both short and long-term. Policy-makers must recognize that a
quality education for BLs is grade-level literacy or schooling
(reading, math, science and cognitive development in native language)
and simultaneously developing the English language throughout their
elementary years. When both of these happen for at least 5-7 years, BLs
are academically and linguistically successful both short and long-term
(MS & HS) based on English academic assessments because simply put,
literacy transfers! Reading, writing, math, and thinking skills
transfer from one language to another. Therefore, native language
instruction and English language instruction at least throughout
elementary (dual language) yields higher academic achievement. This is
why Dual Language Enrichment (DLE) programs are so successful for BLs.
DLE programs adhere to fundamental learning principles. If native
English speaking children learned only in Spanish when they entered
school, they would also fail.
Thank you for your attention.
______
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
Mr. Leo Gomez, Ph.D., Professor of Bilingual-Bicultural Education,
The University of Texas Pan American, College of Education, 1201 W
University Drive, Edinburg, TX.
Dear Dr. Gomez: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on
Education and Labor's hearing on, ``Improving the Literacy Skills of
Children and Young Adults,'' on November 19, 2009.
Representative Raul Grijalva has asked that you respond in writing
to the following questions:
1. Some states have very different policies with regard to students
who do not currently speak English. For example, in Arizona we have
four hour English emersion in segregated classes. Can you comment on
the efficacy of some of these programs?
2. What do you think the federal government should do to give more
guidance to states so that we can address states that are failing to
provide an adequate education for students who do not speak English?
3. Can you give some insights into effective policies to address
older students, say those in middle school and high school, who do not
speak English?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Response to Mr. Grijalva's Questions From Mr. Gomez
Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
November 19, 2009, regarding the literacy skills of young children and
youth. My testimony focused specifically on appropriate literacy
development of Bilingual Learners (BLs), inappropriately referred to as
Limited English Proficient (LEP) or English Language Learner (ELL).
This memo is a response to follow-up questions submitted by
Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ):
1. Some states have very different policies with regard to students
who do not currently speak English. For example, in Arizona we have
four hour English emersion in segregated classes. Can you comment on
the efficacy of some of these programs?
2. What do you think the federal government should do to give more
guidance to states so that we can address states that are failing to
provide an adequate education for students who do not speak English?
3. Can you give some insights into effective policies to address
older students, say those in middle school and high school, who do not
speak English?
As shared in my testimony, lack of knowledge regarding the
``academic learning value of native language instruction,''
particularly among decision-makers in leadership roles, continues to
negatively impact policy for quality programs for non-English speaking
students. An emphasis on English (language) versus both academic
content learning (schooling) in native language and English language
development continues to short change the education of BLs. It is
critical that leadership at the state, federal, university and public
school level be advocates for BLs and knowledgeable of research-based
best practices for successful long-term literacy development for these
students. The following is a direct response to your first two
questions:
1. Some states have very different policies with regard to students
who do not currently speak English. For example, in Arizona we have
four hour English emersion in segregated classes. Can you comment on
the efficacy of some of these programs?
2. What do you think the federal government should do to give more
guidance to states so that we can address states that are failing to
provide an adequate education for students who do not speak English?
The evidence is overwhelming against English-only (immersion)
programs for bilingual learners. It is quite unfortunate that the state
of Arizona adopted this approach for the education of BLs in their
state. Arizona went completely in the opposite direction of research-
based practices and instead adopted ``opinion-based policy.'' The
efficacy of English immersion approaches is well documented: English-
only methods do not yield strong long-term academic outcomes for BLs.
Students in these programs learn English, but fall behind miserably in
grade level content and skills (schooling) since they essentially
receive their initial education in a second language. In other words,
BLs acquire the English language, but do not learn well (on grade
level) the content and skills being taught in that language, therefore
creating an ``academic gap'' (not a language gap) early on that
continues and widens in middle school and high school (as curriculum
becomes more demanding) leading many to eventually drop out. I should
note that most high school drop-outs speak English well, but drop out
due to lack of grade-level literacy (read 2-3 grade levels below). The
ineffectiveness of such English-only practices manifests itself in the
upper grades (4th-12th) based on English achievement tests.
Proponents of English-only programs typically share ``English
language data'' to support their position. Do not be fooled with
English language gains data. There is no doubt that BLs will learn
English and make significant English gains, since they are receiving
English-only lessons. What English-only proponents cannot produce is
positive long-term English academic achievement data (standardized
English reading & writing tests assessing grade-level literacy)
comparable to native English speakers because it does not exist.
To my knowledge, there is not one long-term effectiveness study
(middle school & high school performance) that demonstrates grade-level
academic achievement (literacy) in English for BLs served through
English-only programs. On the other hand, there are countless long-term
effectiveness studies (middle school & high school performance) that
demonstrate grade-level academic achievement (literacy) in English for
BLs served through dual language programs.
This is the very essence of understanding the literacy issue for
BLs, both short and long-term. Policy-makers must recognize that a
quality education for BLs is grade-level literacy or schooling
(reading, math, science and cognitive development in native language)
and simultaneously developing the English language throughout their
elementary years. When both of these happen for at least 5-7 years, BLs
are academically and linguistically successful both short and long-term
(MS & HS) based on English academic assessments because simply put,
literacy transfers! Reading, writing, math, and thinking skills
transfer from one language to another. Therefore, native language
instruction and English language instruction at least throughout
elementary (dual language) yields higher academic achievement. This is
why Dual Language Enrichment (DLE) programs are so successful for BLs.
DLE programs adhere to fundamental learning principles. If native
English speaking children learned only in Spanish when they entered
school, they would also fail.
To respond to your second question, the federal government can:
take a position that encourages the use of native language
instruction for grade-level literacy achievement and English
development.
revise current ESEA policy that emphasizes ``English-
only'' so that bilingualism or English Plus is encouraged through Dual
Language Enrichment (DLE) programs.
revise current ESEA policy and re-instate the Bilingual
Education Act (BEA), the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority
Language Affairs (OBEMLA), and the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education (NCBE) with an emphasis on dual language enrichment. For the
last 8 years, (NCLB, 2001), quality educational programs for BLs have
dropped to an all-time low across the nation. Federal policy has
focused on English only and academic gaps have widened.
target funds for DLE program development and
implementation and where bilingual education (dual language) is not
available, support ``content-based ESL'' models (self-contained
classroom with ESL certified teacher) and discourage English-only or
ESL Pullout models (least effective approaches)
target funds for the development of literacy assessments
in languages other than English. Successful literacy achievement of BLs
requires appropriate literacy assessments. This would also encourage
bilingualism and biliteracy opportunities for ALL students, a vision
for America by President Obama.
target funds for higher education and other teacher
preparation programs designed recruit and train highly qualified
bilingual and ESL teachers
target funds for higher education ``Public School
Administrator Preparation Programs'' (principals, superintendents)
designed to prepare highly qualified Bilingual/ESL administrative
leaders (critical need in public schools)
target funds for ``rehiring'' of highly qualified
Bilingual/ESL certified teachers that have recently left the teaching
profession due to frustration with poorly implemented or supported
bilingual/ESL programs
establish Graduate Bilingual Education Fellowships in
higher education to increase highly qualified Bilingual Education
leaders at the Masters and Doctoral level
3. Can you give some insights into effective policies to address
older students, say those in middle school and high school, who do not
speak English?
Fundamentally, the same principles apply as discussed earlier. A
student will learn more grade-level content the more they understand
the lesson. Therefore, practices for learning at the secondary level
are no different than elementary. Learning academic content and
developing or learning a second language (English) are two separate but
interrelated goals and must be mutually addressed. One is not exclusive
of the other.
First, policy for educating BLs at the secondary level (6th--12th)
must recognize that there are different types of BLs:
1. Recent Arrivals (first time in a U. S. school coming with
schooling)
2. Recent Arrivals (first time in a U. S. school coming with
limited or no schooling)
3. Long-term BLs (students that have been in U. S. school(s) for 3
or more years and are still considered LEP because they are not
academically on grade level in English. Served through a poor ESL or
bilingual elementary program)
4. Native-born Long-term BLs (students that have been in U. S.
school(s) since kindergarten and are still considered LEP because they
are not academically on grade level in English. Served through a poor
ESL or bilingual elementary program)
Obviously, policy to address the education of these students would
differ. However, most school districts do not. It is common for schools
to ``lump'' these students together simply based on their LEP status.
Ultimately, the goal is to eliminate ``long-term LEPs'' commonly
produced by poor ESL or bilingual programs at the elementary level. For
groups 3 and 4, we fix the middle and high school poor LEP achievement
at the elementary level. Very briefly, here are some recommended
policies for each group:
1. Recent Arrivals (first time in a U. S. school coming with
schooling)
a. Provide some academic content learning in native language if
possible so that they continue learning grade-level content while
learning English
b. Provide ESL classroom for language development with no
translation
c. Delay English intense content coursework (e.g. SS, science) for
at least one year through student scheduling
2. Recent Arrivals (first time in a U. S. school coming with
limited or no schooling)
a. Provide \1/2\ day of native language literacy for one year
b. Provide some academic content learning in native language if
possible so that they learn more grade-level content while learning
English
c. Provide ESL classroom for language development with no
translation
d. Delay English intense content coursework (e.g. SS, science) for
at least two years through student scheduling
3. Long-term BLs (students that have been in U. S. school(s) for 3
or more years and are still considered LEP because they are not
academically on grade level in English. Served through a poor ESL or
bilingual elementary program)
a. Provide in-class academic content learning support with
additional school staff (use native language if needed or appropriate)
b. Provide English language development through additional reading
course
4. Native-born Long-term BLs (students that have been in U. S.
school(s) since kindergarten and are still considered LEP because they
are not academically on grade level in English. Served through a poor
ESL or bilingual elementary program)
a. Provide in-class academic content learning support with
additional school staff
b. Provide English language development through additional reading
course
Thank you for your attention.
______
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
Mr. Leo Gomez, Ph.D., Professor of Bilingual-Bicultural Education,
The University of Texas Pan American, College of Education, 1201 W
University Drive, Edinburg, TX.
Dear Dr. Gomez: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on
Education and Labor's hearing on, ``Improving the Literacy Skills of
Children and Young Adults,'' on November 19, 2009.
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) has asked that you respond in
writing to the following questions:
What do you recommend Congress and the federal government do to
increase the number of highly qualified bilingual teachers and
educators in our nation's classrooms? Can you send us some specific
recommendations as to what the federal government can do in ESEA
reauthorization to support the training of bilingual teachers?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Response to Mr. Hinojosa's Questions From Mr. Gomez
What do you recommend Congress and the federal government do to
increase the number of highly qualified bilingual teachers and
educators in our nation's classrooms? Can you send us some specific
recommendations as to what the federal government can do in ESEA
reauthorization to support the training of bilingual teachers?
In the interest of bilingual learners receiving an equal
educational opportunity, it is imperative that they are all served by
highly qualified bilingual education and ESL teachers and that ALL
teachers are prepared with a significant understanding of second
language acquisition and sheltered instruction strategies and knowledge
of bilingual education. It is also critical that leadership at the
state, federal, university and public school level be advocates for BLs
and knowledgeable of best practices for successful literacy development
for these students. To this end, the federal government can:
revise current ESEA policy that emphasizes ``English-
only'' so that bilingualism and bilingual education is encouraged thus
increasing the number of highly qualified bilingual preparation
programs and teachers
target funds for teacher preparation programs to prepare
highly qualified teachers for ``enrichment models'' of bilingual
education programs (dual language) and where bilingual education is not
available, support ``content-based ESL'' models (de-emphasize ESL
Pullout programs that are not serving BLs well)
target funds for teacher preparation programs to
``initially'' prepare K-12 content-area teachers (mainstream-non-
bilingual teachers) with second language acquisition pedagogy (ESL,
sheltered instruction: how to best teach content in a second language)
target funds for professional development of ``in-
service'' K-12 content-area teachers (mainstream-non-bilingual
teachers) with second language acquisition pedagogy (ESL, sheltered
instruction: how to best teach content in a second language)
target funds for higher education and other teacher
preparation programs designed recruit and train highly qualified
bilingual and ESL teachers
target funds for higher education ``Public School
Administrator Preparation Programs'' (principals, superintendents)
designed to prepare highly qualified Bilingual/ESL administrative
leaders (critical need in public schools)
target funds for ``rehiring'' of highly qualified
Bilingual/ESL certified teachers that have recently left the teaching
profession due to frustration with poorly implemented or supported
bilingual/ESL programs
establish Graduate Bilingual Education Fellowships in
higher education to increase highly qualified Bilingual Education
leaders at the Masters and Doctoral level
target funds to be used by public schools as
``incentives'' or ``stipends'' to support highly qualified bilingual
and ESL teachers and reduce the attrition rate
Thank you for your attention.
______
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
Mr. Andres Henriquez, Program Officer,
National Program, Carnegie Corporation of New York, 437 Madison Avenue,
New York, NY.
Dear Mr. Henriquez: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on
Education and Labor's hearing on, ``Improving the Literacy Skills of
Children and Young Adults,'' on November 19, 2009.
Representative Robert ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) has asked that you
respond in writing to the following questions:
You indicated at the hearing that increasing Title I support for
middle and high schools or creating a new funding stream. At the moment
only 5 percent of federal Title I funds go to middle and high schools.
An infusion of resources at the secondary level focused on higher
levels of literacy is critical. You also indicated that investments in
elementary grades do not ensure students will do well later on in high
school.
1. Should we be spending more on literacy programs in middle and
high schools to increase educational outcomes such as graduation rates,
college completion and literacy?
During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy
programs was discussed by all of the witnesses. My questions are as
follows:
1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost
effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with?
2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of
programs that increase literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc?
3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy
programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Response to Mr. Scott's Questions From Mr. Henriquez
Thanks for your follow-up questions. Answers to each of you
questions are below:
Q. Should we be spending more on literacy programs in middle and
high school to increase educational outcomes such as graduation rates,
college completion and literacy?
A. Yes, there is a need to invest in literacy across the
educational continuum. While investments in early literacy are
necessary, the research shows that we also need to continue literacy
instruction in the middle and high school years so that all students
have higher-level literacy skills, such as writing using critical
thinking and the ability to analyze diverse texts. Mastery of this type
of literacy skill is associated with increased graduation rates and
postsecondary success (Appendices A & B of my oral testimony: http://
carnegie.org/sub/news/2009--testimony.html).
However, currently less than a third of eighth grade students are
considered proficient in reading according to the National Assessment
of Educational Progress. For too many low-performing students,
difficulty reading high-school level content leads to the decision to
drop out. These dropouts cost the nation $335 billion annually in lost
lifetime income. Even many high school graduates lack the literacy
skills they were supposed to obtain during middle and high school: each
year the nation loses over $1.4 billion providing remedial literacy
education to 42 percent of community college freshmen and 20 percent of
freshmen in four-year institutions. In other words, our adolescents are
not being adequately prepared for the demands of higher education,
employment and citizenship for the 21st Century. It is a well-
publicized fact that young people who fail or under-perform in school
are increasingly likely to suffer from unemployment or drastically
lower income levels throughout their lives (Please also see Time to
Act: An Agenda for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for Career and College
Readiness: http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/).
Q. During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy
programs was discussed by all of the witnesses. Compared to what? What
was the cost effectiveness of early literacy compared with? Are there
specific studies that quantify effectiveness of programs that increase
literacy, reduce D/O, and crime etc? What are the cost savings?
A. While I am not an early literacy expert, Dorothy Strickland, co-
testifier, has pointed me toward the seminal work of Nobel Laureate
James Heckman's The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young
Children as well as Steve Barnett at Rutgers University who recently
published Lives in the Balance. Both authors are economists and argue
strongly about the cost-benefit analysis of preschool education based
on a 25 year studies. Both show the long-term cognitive effects of
early intervention in early childhood education. Literacy, and language
development specifically in the early years, are part crucial to early
childhood development and long-term success.
In addition, I would like to cite the work of Henry Levin at
Teachers College who has done two studies. The first is a study of
Adolescent Literacy Programs: Cost of Implementation (http://
www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta--Levin.pdf). That looks at the
cost of implementing three separate programs in middle and high schools
and the cost associated with implementing each of the programs. The
second is analysis that Hank did on NELS 88 data that showed the power
of graduating for students. His analysis shows that if you increased
students reading scores by one standard deviation they are much less
likely to drop out (as powerful predictor if mathematics scores were
improved for these young people as well). With Hank's permission, I've
attached this study for your perusal.
Bottom line, interventions at any developmental stage in a child's
life, is necessary to keep young people on track which could make it
less likely for them to drop out and increase the likelihood that they
will be better prepared for college.
It should be noted that none of these studies are ``cost effect''
studies per se since little research has been done looking at the cost
of a program and long-term effect of particular programs on individual
student learning. These are cost analysis studies, as opposed to cost
effect studies. An important distinction. A future research agenda that
calls for such analysis could, however, be enormously interesting for
our country.
______
appendix b
Resources for Teachers and Principals:
Biancarosa, Gina and Snow, Catherine. (2004). Reading Next--A Vision
for Action and Research in Middle and High School Literacy: A
Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ReadingNext.pdf
Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act:
An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and
career success. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta--Main.pdf
Graham, Graham and Perin Dolores. (2007). Writing Next: Effective
Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High
Schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/writingnext.pdf
Grosso de Leon Anne. (2005) America's Literacy Challenge: Teaching
Adolescents to Read to Learn Carnegie Results. New York:
Carnegie Corporation of New York.
http://www.carnegie.org/results/10/index.html
Heller Rafael and Greenleaf, Cynthia. (2007). Literacy Instruction in
the Content Areas: Getting to the Core of Middle and High
School Improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Content--Areas--report.pdf
Lee, Carol and Spratley, Anika (2010). Reading in the Disciplines: The
Challenges of Adolescent. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of
New York.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta--Lee.pdf
Morsey, Leila, Kieffer, Michael and Snow, Catherine. (2010). Measure
for Measure: A Critical Consumer's Guide to Reading
Comprehension Assessments for Adolescents. New York, NY:
Carnegie Corporation of New York.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta--Morsy.pdf
Moje, Elizabeth and Tysvaer, Nicole. (2010). Adolescent Literacy
Development in Out of School Time: A Practitioner's Guide. New
York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta--Moje.pdf
National Association for Secondary School Principals. (2005). Creating
a Culture of Literacy: A Guide for Middle and High School
Principals. Reston VA: Author.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Culture--of--Literacy.pdf
English Language Learners:
Fix, Michael and Batalova, Jeanne. (2007). Measures of Change: The
Demography and Literacy of Adolescent English Learners.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Measures--of--Change.pdf
Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006).
Practical Guidelines for the Educations of English Language
Learners: Research-based Recommendations for Instruction and
Academic Intervention. Book 1.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ELL1-Interventions.pdf
Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006).
Guidelines for the Educations of English Language Learners:
Research-based Recommendations for Serving Adolescent
Newcomers. Book 2.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ELL2-Newcomers.pdf
Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006).
Practical Guidelines for the Educations of English Language
Learners: Research-based Recommendations for the Use of
Accommodations in Large-Scale Assessments. Book 3.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ELL3-Assessments.pdf
Henriquez Andres. (2006) Principals Can Help Improve Literacy for
English Learners. National Association of Secondary School
Principals, NewsLeader.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NewsLeader--AHenriquez.pdf
Short, Deborah J. and Shannon Fitzsimmons. (2007). Double the Work:
Challenges and Solutions to Acquiring Language and Academic
Literacy for Adolescent English Language Learners. Washington
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/DoubletheWork.pdf
Literacy Coaching:
Hall Barbara. (2004). ``Literacy Coaches: An Evolving Role.'' Carnegie
Reporter: New York. Carnegie Corporation of New York, Fall
2004.
http://www.carnegie.org/reporter/09/literacy/index.html
International Reading Association, National Council of Teachers of
English, National Council of the Social Studies, National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Standards for
Middle and High School Literacy Coaches. Newark: International
Reading Association..
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/IRA--NCTE--NCSS--NCTM--literacy--
coaching--standards.pdf
Marsh, J. A., et al., (2008). Supporting Literacy Across the Sunshine
State: A Study of Florida Middle School Reading.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND--MG762.pdf
Sturtevant, E. (2003). The Literacy Coach: A Key to Improving Teaching
and Learning in Secondary Schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education.
http://www.all4ed.org/files/LiteracyCoach.pdf
Resources for State Policymakers:
Bates, L., Breslow, N., and Hupert, N. (2009). Five states' efforts to
improve adolescent literacy (Issues & Answers Report, REL
2009--No. 067). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational
Laboratory Northeast and Islands.
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/IES.Stateadlit--report--
2009067.pdf
Berman, Ilene and Biancarosa, Gina. (2005). Reading to Achieve: A
Governor's Guide to Adolescent Literacy. National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices. Washington, DC: National
Governors Association.
http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0510GOVGUIDELITERACY.PDF
Berman, Ilene. (2009). Issue Brief: Supporting Adolescent Literacy.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0902ADOLESCENTLITERACY.PDF#TopOfPage
Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act:
An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and
career success. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta--Main.pdf
Levin, Henry, Catlin, Doran and Elson, Alex. (2010). Adolescent
Literacy Programs: Costs of Implementation. New York, NY:
Carnegie Corporation of New York.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta--Levin.pdf
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2006). Reading at
Risk: The State Response to the Crisis in Adolescent Literacy.
Author.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Reading--at--Risk--report.pdf
National Association of State Board of Education. (2009). Issues in
Brief: State Actions to Improve Adolescent Literacy. Author.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NASBE.Adol--Lit.pdf
National School Board Association. (2006). The Next Chapter: A School
Board Guide to Improving Adolescent Literacy. Arlington, VA:
National School Board Association.
http://www.carnegie.org/pdf/literacy/NSBATheNextChapter.pdf
Salinger, Terry and Bacevich, Amy. (2006). Lessons and Recommendations
from the Alabama Reading Initiative: Sustaining Focus on
Secondary Reading. Washington, DC: American Institutes for
Research.
http://www.air.org/publications/documents/ARI%20Popular%20Report--
final.pdf
Sloan McCombs, Jennifer, et al. (2005). Achieving State and National
Literacy Goals, A Long Uphill Road: A Report to the Carnegie
Corporation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation
http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical--reports/2005/RAND--TR180-1.pdf
The Southern Regional Education Board. (2009). A Critical Mission:
Making Adolescent Reading an Immediate Priority in SREB States.
Atlanta, GA: SREB.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/SREB--Critical--Mission--
Reading--.pdf
Resources for Researchers:
ACT inc. (2006). Reading Between the Lines: What the ACT Reveals About
College Readiness in Reading. Cedar Rapids, IA. Author.
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/reading--report.pdf
Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2003). Adolescent Literacy and the
Achievement Gap: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here?
Carnegie Corporation of New York Adolescent Literacy Funders
Meeting Report.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ALFF1.pdf
Kamil, M.L. Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Century.
Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education, 2003.
http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/
AdolescentsAndLiteracy.pdf
Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M.,
Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Francis, D. J, Rivera, M.
O., Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for
adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on
Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center
on Instruction.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Academic--Literarcy--Inst--
Adolescents.pdf
Parents and Communities:
Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2005). Reengaging Families with
Their Adolescent Children. Great Transitions: Preparing
Adolescents for a New Century. New York, NY: Author
http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/reports/great--transitions/gr--
chpt3.html
Cobb, Velma, Meltzer, Julie, and William, Martha. (2008). Mobilizing
Communities to Support the Literacy Development of Urban Youth:
A Conceptual Framework and Strategic Planning Model. New York,
NY: National Urban League and Center for Resource Management.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NUL--Literacy--WhitePaper.pdf
Cobb, Velma, Meltzer, Julie, and William, Martha. (2008). Parent/
Guardian Engagment in Adolescent Literacy. New York, NY:
National Urban League and Center for Resource Management.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NUL--Component2--Parent.pdf
Cobb, Velma, Meltzer, Julie, and William, Martha. (2008). Youth/
Adolescent Growth in Adolescent Literacy. New York, NY:
National Urban League and Center for Resource Management.
http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NUL--Component3--Student.pdf
Grosso de Leon, Anne. (2002). Moving Beyond Storybooks: Teaching Our
Children to Read to Learn. Carnegie Reporter. New York:
Carnegie Corporation of New York.
http://www.carnegie.org/reporter/05/learning/index.html
Guensberg, Carol. (2006). Why Johnny (Still) Can't Read: Creative
Educators Push to Boast Adolescent Literacy. Edutopia. San
Francisco, CA: The George Lucas Educational Foundation
http://www.edutopia.org/files/existing/pdfs/feb--06/readingskills.pdf
McGrath, Anne. (2005). A New Read on Teen Literacy. US News and World
Report. February 28, 2005.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050228/28literacy.htm
______
[Additional information referred to by Mr. Henriquez may be
accessed at the following Internet address:]
https://sites.google.com/site/andreshenriqueznet/testimony
------
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, December 1, 2009.
Ms. Sandra D. Meyers, Ed.D., Education Associate of Elementary Reading,
Delaware Department of Education, 401 Federal Street, Dover, DE.
Dear Dr. Meyers: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on
Education and Labor's hearing on, ``Improving the Literacy Skills of
Children and Young Adults,'' on November 19th, 2009.
Representative Robert ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) has asked that you
respond in writing to the following questions:
During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy
programs was discussed by all of the witnesses. My questions are as
follows:
1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost
effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with?
2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of
programs that increase literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc?
3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy
programs?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Response to Mr. Scott's Questions From Ms. Meyers
I am responding below to the questions that Representative Robert
``Bobby'' Scott requested in your December 1, 2009 letter to me:
1. To determine the cost of early literacy programs, it is
necessary to look at the results of these programs and compare these
results with research on students who enter school with low literacy
skills. In fact, a number of research studies and reviews reflect
significant correlations between children's language competencies on
entry to kindergarten and success in learning to read during the
primary grades (Pressley, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001).
Scarborough (2001), in a meta analysis of sixty-one kindergarten
predictive studies for reading achievement, determined that the
cognitive-linguistic strands are very stable by the age of four and,
consequently, children who arrive at school with weaker verbal
abilities and literacy knowledge are much more likely than their
classmates to experience difficulties in learning to read during the
primary grades. In fact, Dickinson and Sprague (2001) found that the
receptive vocabulary scores of children at the end of kindergarten are
strongly related to end of seventh grade vocabulary and reading
comprehension scores. Children with larger vocabularies often have more
developed phonological sensitivity, and this relationship has been
found to begin early in the preschool period (Whitehurst & Lonigan,
2001). Vocabulary development thus becomes a crucial element in the
designing of early interventions (NICHD, 2000).
Fernandez-Fein and Baker (1997) discovered that children who come
from homes where they have been exposed to singing, language play, and
reading activities have a higher degree of sensitivity to discrete
sounds than those who have not had such experiences. Children must
identify these discrete sounds in order to decode words. Preschools,
thus, need to emphasize these aspects of literacy in developing
children's oral language abilities.
Language games and nursery rhymes help the child to identify key
aspects of the sound patterns of English more explicitly. Fernandez-
Fein and Baker further found that children from low-socioeconomic
backgrounds and/or students whose mothers have less education tend to
have lower levels of rhyme sensitivity skills than middle class
students. They further concluded that these low-income students less
frequently participated in word games or book interactions.
Moats (as cited in Lehr, Osborn, & Hiebert, 2004) also found this
``word poverty'' distinguished advantaged from disadvantaged children
in her study of kindergarten students in a large city district. Many
such children were unable to name pictures that showed the meanings of
words such as sewing or parachute. This lack of vocabulary knowledge is
important if that knowledge is assumed in the instructional programs
that teachers are using to develop literacy skills.
Hart and Risley (1995) vividly portrayed the differences in
language experienced by preschoolers from homes of different economic
levels. They found that on average, professional parents spoke more
than 2,000 words per hour to their children, working-class parents
spoke about 1,333 words, and welfare mothers spoke about 600. At the
age of four, children of professionals had vocabularies that were
nearly 50% larger than those of working-class children and twice as
large as those of welfare children. Children in higher SES homes
engaged in many interactive discussions with their parents. There was a
significant difference between the vocabulary richness and cumulative
vocabulary growth of these children and their peers from the lower SES
families of welfare parents. The parents of children from the higher
SES homes helped build the children's language use and knowledge
through extensive repetitive and interactive talk. Thus, this parent-
child dialogue along with the quantity of language resulting in an
increase in the quality of their children's language as demonstrated by
an increased use of nouns, verbs, modifiers, and complex clauses. In
contrast, Hart and Risley found that children in lower-SES families had
many fewer such experiences. Consequently, the amount of language that
children experienced at home affected the quantity of their oral
language growth.
Socioeconomic backgrounds and a mother's educational level thus are
very often predictors of a child's future success in reading. Children
from families of lower socioeconomic or minority status often enter
school strikingly delayed in a much broader range of prereading
skills--including oral vocabulary knowledge (Whitehurst and Lonigan,
2001). Because these children are delayed not only in phonological
knowledge, but also general oral language skills, they are deficient in
both of the critical kinds of knowledge and skill required for good
reading comprehension, identifying words and constructing meaning after
identifying the words in print (Torgesen, 2000). In essence the
majority of reading problems could be prevented by, among other things,
increasing children's oral language skills (Snow et al., 1998).
The National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) declared vocabulary to be
critically important in oral reading instruction. Oral vocabulary holds
an important place in the road to learning to read; it enables the
reader to make a transition from oral to written forms. As a learner
begins to read, reading vocabulary is mapped on the oral vocabulary the
learner brings to the task. The benefit in understanding text by
applying letter-sound correspondences to printed material only results
if the decoded oral representation is a known word in the learner's
oral vocabulary. If the resultant oral vocabulary word is not in the
learner's vocabulary, it will not be better understood than it was in
print (NICHD, 2000).
It is difficult to comprehend the meaning of a passage when many of
the words are neither accurately identified nor understood. In
addition, limited knowledge of a subject or lack of understanding of
many of the words in a text will limit an individual's comprehension no
matter how accurately the words are identified. Consequently, children
with general oral language weaknesses will require additional
instruction in a broader range of knowledge and skills if they are to
adequately comprehend text at their instructional level (Torgesen,
2000; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). Children who have larger
vocabularies and greater understanding of spoken language have higher
reading scores.
Quality preschools for students from low SES homes and homes where
English is not the primary language must design their programs to
incorporate the latest research so that their students do not enter
school with a literacy and oral language deficit that has a strong
possibility of affecting their school performance throughout the
grades. Delaware's Early Reading First data has demonstrated that a
student from a low SES family can enter school performing as well or
better than the general population of children their age in language
and early reading. In addition this performance was maintained in first
grade. Unlike these students who had the opportunity to benefit from
preschool, Reading First students in Delaware who do not have preschool
experiences enter kindergarten with approximately 30% performing at the
benchmark expectation. The odds of these students closing the gap and
being successful in learning to read are limited.
2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of
programs that increase literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc?
Children who do not succeed in first grade have almost a 90%
probability of remaining a poor reader at the end of grade 4 (Juel,
1988). Juel's longitudinal study of children from a low socioeconomic
population revealed how imperative it is to begin the intervention
process early in a child's school career. These same students who do
not read moderately well by the end of third grade will be unlikely to
graduate from high school (Snow et al., 1998). Students who have
difficulty in learning how to read very often are retained or placed in
special education programs, both of which are also highly correlated
with a lower possibility of graduation. Lack of graduation from high
school also carries a greater risk of unemployment and imprisonment.
Finding an effective method of accelerating the progress of struggling
students thus becomes a top educational priority.
The window of opportunity to work successfully with these high-risk
children obviously does not remain open very long. We know that most
students experiencing little success and continual frustration tend to
shut down early in the learning process. Reading is a difficult process
for them and so they avoid it. They thus lose the opportunity to
practice and to develop their proficiency in decoding, the automatic
recognition of sight words, and development of vocabulary and concepts
about the world. They have no intrinsic motivation to read. These
struggling readers fall farther and farther behind their peers; the
poor do indeed become poorer (Stanovich, 1986). Unless early, strategic
interventions in reading are provided for them, poor readers lose more
and more ground as they progress through the grades. The gap grows
wider if we wait to help the struggling student (Hiebert & Taylor,
1994)
The Carnegie Corporation's report Adolescent Literacy Development
in Out-of-School Time: A Practioner's Guidebook points out that
information on graduation rates is not consistent due to the lack of
accurate reporting by most school districts and report a graduation
rate as low as 50% or less for schools serving the urban poor (Swanson,
2001). This report also acknowledges the correlation between low
reading and writing abilities and drop-out rates (Raudenbush & KIasim,
1998)
Delaware also conducted its own longitudinal study on its state-
funded Early Childhood Assistance program (ECAP) which adds to the
capacity of federally-funded Head Start to guarantee a quality
preschool program for every four year old in poverty and its preschool
special education (PSE) program that supports children with
disabilities from birth to five. This study begun in 1997 as the
children entered kindergarten, compared children in poverty who had
participated in the ECAP /PSE program with a like sample of poor
children who had not participated and children with disabilities who
were identified during early childhood and received early intervention
services with children identified as special education students after
entering the public school system.
In this longitudinal study, three points of measurement (3rd, 5th,
and 8th grades) were analyzed for students' academic outcomes. As
measured over time at all three grade levels, the students who had
received early intervention services (ECAP/PSE interventions) have
shown markedly better outcomes than students who did not receive those
interventions. Students in the intervention groups significantly
outperformed students who did not receive intervention. From the most
recent analysis at 8th grade, the following results are examples of the
success rates:
73% of the students in poverty who participated in ECAP/
PSE performed at or above the standard in reading compared to 51% who
had not participated in ECAP/PSE.
43% of the students 2ho received preschool special
education performed at or above the standard in reading compared to 31%
who had not received such services.
3. I am unaware of specific cost savings (specific numbers) of
early literacy programs. It would seem that if an early childhood
program for students from low SES families and students from homes
where English is not the primary language, such as populated Delaware's
Early Reading First program, can reduce the drop-out rate and increase
graduation rates, the result is a huge benefit for our growth and
stability as a democratic society. However, these programs must be
based on the latest scientifically based research to successfully
address the gaps of children coming from low SES homes. All children
should have the opportunity to begin their education on a level playing
field.
I hope that this information is helpful to you. I am also enclosing
the data from the Delaware's Early Reading Research first cohort.
______
November 10, 2009.
Executive Summary
FY 2007 Delaware Early Reading First Supplemental Award
The Achievement of Project Alumni
Project Directors: Martha J. Buell, Myae Han, and Carol Vukelich
One hundred twenty nine children `graduated' from the Delaware
Early Reading First (DERF) project in spring 2007 and entered
kindergarten in August 2007. Of these 129, 103 children entered
kindergarten in the project's partnering district and were available
for testing in the spring of their kindergarten year. Of the 103
children, 97 had experienced at least one year of the Delaware Early
Reading First project prior to their entry into kindergarten. These 97
children were tested in May of their kindergarten year (May 2008) to
assess their language and early reading proficiency. The project
directors employed two retired elementary teachers, trained in the
administration of the selected tests, to administer the tests to the
children. Both had extensive prior experience administering tests to
young children. In addition to the standardized tests, the project
directors asked the children's teachers to report their judgment of
these children's skill development and readiness for first grade. The
teachers provided the requested information on 96 of the 97 children.
Of the 97 children tested in the spring of their kindergarten year
(May 2008) 69 remained in the project's partnering district and were
available for testing in the spring of their first grade year. These 69
children were tested in May 2009 to assess their language and reading
proficiency by the same retired elementary teachers who had tested them
at the end of their kindergarten year. Again, in addition to the
standardized tests, the children's teachers were asked to report their
judgment of the children's school-specific and social development, and
readiness for first grade. The teachers provided this information on 28
of the 69 children.
The Children
Table 1 provides demographic information on the children at the
end-of-kindergarten and at the end-of-first-grade, all of whom were
from low-income families and all had experienced at least one year of
Head Start prior to their kindergarten experience. These data were
gathered by parent self-report at the time of the children's entry into
the Head Start/DERF project.
TABLE 1.--DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ON THE 97 DERF 2006-2007 ALUMNI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage End-
Number End-of- of- Number End-of- Percentage End-
Kindergarten Kindergarten First-Grade of-First-Grade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gender:
Male........................................ 49 50.52% 33 47.82%
Female...................................... 48 48.48% 36 52.17%
Home Language:
English..................................... 24 24.74% 35 50.72%
Spanish..................................... 68 70.10% 34 49.28%
Other....................................... 5 5.15% 0 0%
Race:
White....................................... 6 6.19% 4 5.80%
African American............................ 45 46.39% 30 43.48%
Latino...................................... 39 40.21% 30 43.48%
More than one race.......................... 3 3.09% 1 1.45%
Not reported................................ 4 4.12% 4 5.80%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Data Collection Tools
The following language and early reading measures were used.
GPRA measures:
Woodcock-Johnson III, Letter-Word Identification subtest
is a standardized assessment. On this subtest, the tester asks the
child to identify letters and read words. This subtest is a measure of
children's word recognition skills.
Woodcock-Johnson III Story Recall subtest is a
standardized assessment. On this subtest, the tester asks the child to
listen to short stories and repeat them back. This subtest is a measure
of children's expressive oral language skills.
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test--IV is a standardized
assessment. The tester presents the child with four pictures and asks
the child to point to the picture depicting the target word. This is a
measure of children's receptive vocabulary skills.
Project selected additional measures:
Woodcock-Johnson III Understanding Directions subtest is a
standardized assessment. This subtest asks the child to listen to and
then follow a set of directions. This is a measure of children's
receptive vocabulary and short-term memory.
Woodcock-Johnson III Word Attack subtest is a standardized
assessment. This subtest asks the child to read non-words. This is a
measure of children's decoding skills.
Woodcock-Johnson III Reading Fluency subtest is a
standardized assessment. This subtest measures the speed of reading
sentences and answering ``yes'' or ``no'' to each. This is a measure of
children's comprehension skills.
The project used these measures in addition to the teacher
questionnaire which asked the teachers to judge the children's
preparedness for kindergarten and for first grade.
The Findings
The project asked and answered the following questions:
1. What percentage of the children achieved a standard score above
the ``at risk'' range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III, Letter-
Word Identification (Test 1) subtest, a test of children's word
identification skills?
At the end-of-kindergarten, 87.63% (n=85) of the children achieved
standard scores of 90 or above on this measure. Consequently, with the
standard score of 90, 12.37% (n=12) were identified as `at risk'. Using
the typical 85-115 standard score spread as the definition of
``average'' or ``age-appropriate development,'' 90.72% (n=88) scored in
the 85-115 range, 6.19% (n=6) scored 116 or above (+1 standard
deviation), and only 3.09% (n=3) of the children were identified as
``at risk'' (-1 standard deviation), with one of these 3 children
earning a standard score of 84.
At the end-of-first-grade, 86.96% (n=60) of the children achieved
standard scores of 90 or above on this measure. Consequently, with the
standard score of 90, 13.04% (n=9) were identified as `at risk'. Using
the typical 85-115 standard score as the definition of ``average'' or
``age appropriate development,'' 78.26% (n=54) scored in the 85-115
range, 13.04% (n=9) scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and
8.69% (n=6) of the children scored below 85 (-1 standard deviation).
2. What percentage of the children ranked in the 50th percentile or
above as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Letter-Word Identification
(Test 1) subtest?
At the end-of-kindergarten, more than one-half of the children,
57.73% (n=56), achieved the criterion of performance at or above the
50th percentile on this subtest.
At the end-of-first-grade, 71.01% (n=49) of the children achieved
the criterion of performance at or above the 50th percentile on this
subtest.
3. What percentage of the children achieved a standard score above
the ``at risk'' range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III, Story
Recall (Test 3) subtest, a test of aspects of oral language, including
language development and meaningful memory?
At the end-of-kindergarten, 94.85% (n=92) of the 97 children
achieved standard scores of 90 or above.
Consequently, with the standard score of 90, 5.15% (n=5) of the
children were identified as `at risk'. Using the typical 85-115
standard score spread as the definition of ``average'' or ``age-
appropriate development,'' 96.90% (n=87) scored in the 85-115 range,
8.25% (n=6) scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and 4.12%
(n=4) of the children were identified as ``at risk''(-1 standard
deviation).
At the end-of-first-grade, 98.55% (n=68) of the 69 children
achieved standard scores of 90 or above. Consequently, with the
standard score of 90, only 1 child (1.45%) was identified as `at risk.'
Using the typical 85-115 standard score spread as the definition of
``average'' or ``age-appropriate development,'' 81.16% (n=56) scored in
the 85-115 range, 18.84% (n=13) scored 116 or above (+1 standard
deviation), and no children were identified as ``at risk'' (-1 standard
deviation).
4. What percentage of the children ranked in the 50th percentile or
above as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Story Recall (Test 3)
subtest?
At the end-of-kindergarten, considerably more than one-half of the
children, 72.16% (n=70), achieved the criterion of performance at or
above the 50th percentile on this subtest.
At the end-of-first-grade, 81.16% (n=56) of the children achieved
the criterion of performance at or above the 50th percentile on this
subtest.
5. What percentage of the children demonstrated age-appropriate
oral language skills as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test-IV?
At the end-of-kindergarten, 84.54% (n=82) of the 97 children
achieved a standard score of 85 or above. Of the 97 children, 74
(76.28%) achieved a standard score in spread typically defined as
``average'' or ``age-appropriate development,'' 8.25% (n=8) scored 116
or above (+1 standard deviation), and 15.46% (n=15) of the children
were identified as ``at risk'' (-1 standard deviation).
Given that 70.10% of the children came from families who described
their home language as Spanish, these data show that these children
made considerable gains in their acquisition of
English vocabulary
At the end-of-first-grade, 86.95% (n=60) of the 69 children
achieved a standard score of 85 or above. Of the 69 children, 54
(78.26%) achieved a standard score in a spread typically defined as
``average'' or ``age-appropriate development,'' 8.69% (n=6) scored 116
or above (+1 standard deviation), and 8.69% (n=9) of the children were
identified as ``at risk'' (-1 standard deviation).
6. What percentage of the children made significant gains (defined
by the Department of Education as a standard score increase of 4 or
more points) on the PPVT-IV between May 2007 and May 2008?
At the end-of-kindergarten, the percentage of children who made
significant gains (standard score increase of 4 or more points) on the
PPVT-IV between May 2007 and May 2008 was 60.82% (59 of the 97
children).
At the end-of-first-grade, the percentage of children who made
significant gains (standard score increase of 4 or more points) on the
PPVT-IV between May 2008 and May 2009 was 62.32% (43 of the 69
children).
7. What percentage of the children achieved a standard score above
the ``at risk'' range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III,
Understanding Directions (Test 4) subtest, a test which required the
children to listen to a sequence of audio-recorded instructions and
then follow the directions by pointing to various objects in a picture?
At the end-of-kindergarten, 68.04% (n=66) of the 97 children
achieved standard scores of 90 or above.
Therefore, using the standard score of 90, 31.96% (n=31) were
identified as `at risk'.
Using the typical 85-115 standard score spread as the definition of
``average'' or ``age-appropriate development,'' 75.26% (n=73) scored in
the 85-115 range, 3.09% (n=3) scored 116 or above (+1 standard
deviation), and 21.65% (n=21) of the children were identified as ``at
risk'' (-1 standard deviation).
At the end-of-first-grade, 55.07% (n=38) of the 69 children
achieved standard scores of 90 or above. Consequently, using the
standard score of 90, 42.03% (n=29) were identified as `at risk'. Using
the typical 85-115 standard score range as the definition of
``average'' or ``age-appropriate development,'' 68.11% (n=47) scored in
the 85-115 range, 1.45% (n=1) scored 116 or above (+1 standard
deviation), and 27.54% (n=19) were identified as ``at risk'' (-1
standard deviation), with three of these 19 earning a score of 84. This
subtest was not administered to two children.
8. What percentage of the children ranked in the 50th percentile or
above as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Understanding Directions
(Test 4) subtest?
At the end-of-kindergarten, less than half of the children, 40.21%
(n=39), achieved the criterion of performance at or above the 50th
percentile on this subtest.
At the end-of-first-grade, 31.88% (n=22), achieved the criterion of
performance at or above the 50th percentile on this subtest.
9. What percentage of the children achieved a standard score above
the ``at risk'' range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III, Word
Attack (Test 13) subtest, a test that measures the children's skill in
apply phonic and structural analyses skills to the pronunciation of
unfamiliar printed words?
At the end-of-kindergarten, 86 of the 97 children (88.66%) achieved
standard scores of 90 or above. Therefore, using the standard score of
90 as the cut score, 11.34% (n=11) were identified as `at risk'. Using
the typical 85-115 standard score spread as the definition of
``average'' or ``age-appropriate development,'' 76.29% (n=74) scored in
the 85-115 range, 19.59% (n=19) scored 116 or above (+1 standard
deviation), and 4.12% (n=4) of the children were identified as ``at
risk'' (-1 standard deviation).
At the end-of-first-grade, 92.75% (n=64) of the 69 children
achieved standard scores of 90 or above. Consequently, using the
standard score of 90 as the cut score, 7.25% (n=5) were identified as
`at risk'. Using the typical 85-115 standard score spread as the
definition of ``average'' or ``age-appropriate development,'' 88.40%
(n=61) scored in the 85-115 range, 4.35% (n=3) scored 116 or above (+1
standard deviation), and 7.25% (n=5) of the children were identified as
``at risk'' (-1 standard deviation), with one child earning a score of
84.
10. What percentage of the children ranked in the 50th percentile
or above as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Word Attack (Test 13)
subtest?
At the end-of-kindergarten, 71.13% (n=69) of the children obtained
scores at or above the 50th percentile as measured by this subtest.
At the end-of-first-grade, 65.22% (n=45) of the children obtained
scores at or above the 50th percentile as measured by this subtest.
11. What percentage of the Grade 1 children achieved a standard
score above the ``at risk'' range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson
III, Reading Fluency (Test 2) subtest?
At the end-of-first-grade, 76.81% (n=53) of the children achieved
standard scores of 90 or above on this measure. Consequently, with the
standard score of 90, 23.19% (n=16) were identified as `at risk'. Using
the typical 85-115 standard score spread as the definition of
``average'' or ``age- appropriate development,'' 68.11% (n=47) scored
in the 85-115 range, 13.04% (n=9) scored 116 or above (+1 standard
deviation), and 18.84% (n=13) of the children were identified as ``at
risk'' (-1 standard deviation).
12. What percentage of the Grade 1 children ranked in the 50th
percentile or above as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Reading
Fluency (Test 2) subtest?
At the end-of-first-grade, more than one-half of the children,
56.52% (n=39), achieved the criterion of performance at or above the
50th percentile on this subtest.
13. How did the teachers assess the children's preparedness for
kindergarten?
The project asked the DERF graduates' kindergarten teachers to rate
the children's preparedness for kindergarten in the domains of social
development, school-specific instrumental development, reading and
writing, logical thinking and the use of numbers, and perceptual-motor
development. Teachers provided descriptions of their perceptions of 96
of the 97 children's development. Teachers rated children's readiness
on questions in each domain using a 4-point rating scales, with 1 being
not apparent and 4 being proficient. Table 2 provides the mean ratings
for each of the domains noted above. Table 3 describes the teachers'
responses to the checklist's items regarding readiness for and
adjustment to kindergarten.
How did the teachers assess the children's preparedness for Grade
1?
The project asked the DERF graduates' Grade 1 teachers to rate the
children's preparedness for Grade 1 in the domains of social
development, school-specific instrumental development, reading and
writing, logical thinking and the use of numbers, and perceptual-motor
development. Teachers provided descriptions of their perceptions of 28
of the 69 (40.58%) children's development. Teachers rated children's
readiness on questions in each domain using a 4-point rating scales,
with 1 being not apparent and 4 being proficient. Table 2 provides the
mean ratings for Grade 1 for each of the domains noted above. Table 4
describes the teachers' responses to the checklist's items regarding
readiness for and adjustment to Grade 1.
TABLE 2.--TEACHERS' DESCRIPTION OF DERF GRADUATES--DEVELOPMENTAL DOMAIN ITEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean
Kindergarten Mean Grade 1
Domain Description (Maximum (Maximum
Rating=4) Rating=4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Development: uses appropriate strategies to initiate interactions with 3.24 2.96
peers and uses alternate strategies when initial attempts fail; responds
appropriately to other's expressed emotions and intentions; overall emotional
tone is positive when interacting with peers and adults; displays age-
appropriate impulse control and regulation during challenging situations;
peer relationships are generally positive and satisfying; effectively uses
adults as sources of support, comfort, and assistance
School-Specific Instrumental Development: focuses attention during large group 3.32 3.16
teacher-directed activities; can work independently; demonstrates willingness
to try new things; generally completes tasks in allotted time; understands
and generally follows playground and classroom rules; enjoys being in school;
can work effectively in a group; actively participates in class activities
Reading and Writing: chooses books and stories during free-choice activities; 3.43 3.55
recognizes most upper and lower case letters and knows most of their sounds;
uses some initial letter-sound associations to predict meaning; uses context
clues to predict meaning; recognizes some common words; draws and paints
pictures; writes name; writes using upper and lower case letters with few or
no reversals; writes numerals with few or no reversals; can describe what an
author does; can describe what an illustrator does; can answer questions
about a story's plot such as main character and ending; can answer questions
about what a storybook character might be thinking; can identify the
beginning letter of a word; can identify rhyming words; can blend phonemes to
make words; can delete phonemes to make new words; adds writing to art work
or projects; writes words phonetically when does not know conventional
spelling
Logical Thinking and Use of Numbers: actively uses all senses to examine and 3.35 3.08
explore familiar and unfamiliar objects; shows interest in and understanding
of the concept of comparing; uses elaborate language to describe objects and
events; uses language to initiate and maintain interactions with adults and
peers; uses language to gather information and solve problems; understand and
uses such concepts as many, more, less, etc.; uses appropriate labels (one,
two, etc.) when counting objects; uses counting reliably to quantify
perceptual numbers; uses counting reliably to quantify elementary (5-12)
numbers; uses counting to quantify larger numbers (20+) objects
Perceptual-Motor Development: demonstrates a positive disposition toward 3.71 3.55
movement activities, enjoys, and feels confident during physical activities;
demonstrates age-appropriate static and dynamic balance; demonstrates age-
appropriate locomotors patterns; demonstrates age-appropriate fine motor
movement differentiations; demonstrates age-appropriate eye-hand coordination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3.--TEACHERS' DESCRIPTIONS OF DERF GRADUATES--KINDERGARTEN READINESS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Items Far below Below Above Far above
average average Average average average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, how would you rate this child's academic 1 (1%) 14 (15%) 47 (49%) 30 (32%) 3 (3%)
skills?
Some children have an easy time adjusting to 0 11 (12%) 51 (54%) 27 (28%) 6 (6%)
kindergarten. In contrast, other children have
difficulty. Based on your experience, how easy or
difficult will this adjustment be for this child?
Based on your experience, how intellectually ready 4 (4%) 10 (10%) 50 (53%) 25 (26%) 6 (6%)
is this child for first grade?
Based on your experience, how socially ready is this 0 12 (13%) 54 (57%) 24 (25%) 5 (5)
child for first grade?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 4.--TEACHERS' DESCRIPTIONS OF DERF GRADUATES--FIRST GRADE READINESS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ratings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Items Far below Below Above Far above
average average Average average average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, how would you rate this child's academic 3 (11%) 7 (25%) 11 (39%) 6 (21%) 1 (4%)
skills?
Some children have an easy time adjusting to first 1 (4%) 4 (14%) 18 (64%) 4 (14%) 1 (4%)
grade. In contrast, other children have difficulty.
Based on your experience, how easy or difficult
will this adjustment be for this child?
Based on your experience, how intellectually ready 2 (7%) 7 (25%) 12 (43%) 6 (21%) 1 (4%)
is this child for second grade?
Based on your experience, how socially ready is this 0 (0%) 6 (21%) 17 (61%) 4 (14%) 1 (4%)
child for second grade?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 5.--TEACHERS' DESCRIPTIONS OF DERF GRADUATES--ACADEMIC RATING SCALE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean Grade 1
Academic Rating Scale (Maximum
Rating=5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language and Literacy: uses complex sentence structures; understands and interprets a story or 3.54
other texts read to him/her; easily and quickly names all upper- and lower-case letters of the
alphabet; produces rhyming words; reads simple books independently; uses different strategies
to read unfamiliar words; composes simple stories; demonstrates an understanding of some of
the conventions of print; uses the computer for a variety of purposes.
General Knowledge: recognizes distinct differences in habits and living patterns between him/ 3.61
herself and other groups of people he/she knows; recognizes some ways people rely on each
other for goods and services; uses his/her senses to explore and observe; forms explanations
bases on observations and explorations; classifies and compares living and non-living things
in different ways.
Mathematical Thinking: sorts, classifies, and compares math materials by various rules and 3.65
attributes; orders a group of objects; shows an understanding of the relationship between
quantities; solves problems involving numbers using concrete objects; demonstrates an
understanding of graphing activities; uses instruments accurately for measuring; uses a
variety of strategies to solve math problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 6.--DERF GRADUATES' ATTITUDES TOWARD READING AND WRITING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean Grade 1
Full Scale
Elementary Reading and Writing Attitude Survey (Maximum
Rating=112)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading Attitude: 60
Writing Attitude: 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions
As indicated in the demographic table, between kindergarten and
first grade, a much higher percentage of children whose home language
is Spanish left the partnering school district. Where at the end-of-
kindergarten, children from English-speaking homes represented only
about a quarter of the sample, by the end-of-first grade, 50% of the
sample came from English-speaking homes. However, examination of the
data reveals few differences in the percentages of children performing
in the normal and above normal ranges on the various assessments or in
the percentage of children performing above the 50th percentile. In
other words, it appears that the children who have departed from the
sample represent a range of performances; not all are the lowest
performing or the highest performing children.
Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998) conceptualize children's emergent
literacy development as encompassing two separate domains: inside-out
skills (e.g., code-based skills like print knowledge, phonological
awareness, and alphabet knowledge) and outside-in skills (e.g.,
comprehension-related and meaning-based skills). At the end-of-
kindergarten, the children did well on all inside-out skills, and they
continued their high performance on the code-based skill tests (e.g.,
Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack,)as illustrated by the high
percentage of children performing in the normal and above range and
above the 50th percentile. The findings were only slightly more mixed
on the outside-in skills. The children performed well to very well on
most Woodcock-Johnson III meaning-based subtests (e.g., Story Recall,
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV, Reading Fluency), but not as well
as expected on only one assessment, Understanding Directions.
Overall, based on the testing data, we conclude that the children
who graduated from the Delaware Early Reading First project and
experienced kindergarten and first-grade in our Reading First partner
district continue to perform as well or better than the general
population of children their age in language and early reading. Their
kindergarten teachers thought they were well-prepared for kindergarten,
and the first-grade teachers who responded similarly viewed the
children as well-prepared in language and reading for first grade. The
children's performance is particularly impressive when one remembers
that these children, by definition, as children from low-income
families, were eligible for Head Start because they were ``at risk''
for academic challenges and failure. Challenges to school success and
performance in language arts are further possible when one considers
that in kindergarten the majority of the kindergarten sample and half
of the first-grade sample were not only low-income but also came from
homes where English was not the primary language spoken.
In short, at least a year of Head Start programming that
implemented systematic, explicit instruction in language and reading
skills resulted in the vast majority of children arriving in
kindergarten prepared for the developmental and academic challenges of
the Reading First school's language arts curriculum. Likewise the Head
Start DERF experience, plus a year of kindergarten and first-grade
instruction in a Reading First school's curriculum, appears to have had
a positive effect on the majority of the children's language and
reading skill development.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]