Here's an irony. Alabama's Pre-K program has been given a top award as "best in the nation for overall quality", the same day there was an attempt * to divert some added funding from Pre-K to K-12. The proposal came from Senator Scott Beason (R-Gardendale), who wanted to use the money instead for teachers to have $400 a year for use in their classroom. The Beason proposal was tabled on a 26-3 vote. Used to be the big fight was between Higher Ed and K-12. Now there's another entity in the fight for funds.
[*NOTE: This link is to a blog I have not seen before, and I was reluctant to link to it because it doesn't offer any indication about who is behind it. There is no email or other contact information. Their information matched what I saw on a blog from WSFA-TV, so I decided go ahead and link to it, but if you are "Alabama 2009 Legislative Bloggers", how about some disclosure?]
Tim,
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion of Reading First initiatives at both state and Federal levels? Do you have any ideas regarding their efficacy?
The latter is actually a trick question because I already know the Feds analyzed Reading First and determined there was no statistical difference in reading achievement between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders in the program and those outside it in almost 300 schools. Why do you think this report was totally ignored by the national and state media? Is only good news allowed where education is concerned?
What are your thoughts?
williakz
Williakz: Can you share with me the source of the report? I'd like to review it!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTim,
ReplyDeleteI tried putting up the government link but it was dead. If I was the suspicious type, I just might think...
At any rate, here is a link that describes the impact study and still has the newly dead links to the report.
http://www.mdrc.org/project_28_65.html
Of course, BEING the suspicious type I am, I downloaded the original report back in January 2009 and saved it on my hard drive in PDF format. I will it forward to you via email (approx 2Mb).
williakz
williakz...you are refering to the national No Child Left Behind mandated "Reading First" reading program, not the "Alabama Reading Initiative"? I was under the impressions that the state program was having a positive impact. I just did a Google News search under the name of the report and found few stories at all--positive OR negative--about the program, much less about the report itself. Here's a site that includes some studies of the ARI: http://www.bestpracticescenter.org/publ/index.html
ReplyDeleteTim,
ReplyDeleteThe reason you can't find an evaluation of the state program is because one was never done.
Everyone took it for granted that the fed program was a roaring success. Initially, the feds saw reading scores going up in the RF schools and shouted to the sky "It works! It works!" Unfortunately, the highly qualified leader of the Education Department had neglected to provide a control group for comparison. When this most basic check was performed, the awful truth was apparent. But you didn't see any headlines declaiming "It DOESN'T work!" Billions of dollars, all for nothing.
Worse, as you point out, several states had taken the bit in their mouths and expanded the program to all grades and all schools with funding assistance from the feds. By the time the fed report came out, Alabama's RFI was a fait accompli. I'm sure you, along with the majority of residents, were honestly under the impression the RFI program was working.
The question, Tim, is WHY were you under that impression? Who demonstrated, not just asserted, the efficacy of the program? The answer is that no one did the hard analysis required before, during, and after spending millions of tax dollars. It has not been done to this day!
Worse still, intelligent and educated professionals like you failed to apply reasonable standards of proof and skepticism to the claims of interested parties. Without getting too critical, I would pose the following question to you:
Would you have trusted a pharmaceutical firm making claims about a new medication without conducting supervised clinical trials?
No? Then why was your BS meter disabled when your own government sold you a bill of goods? Hard questions with difficult answers.
williakz
"apply reasonable standards of proof..."
ReplyDeleteOuch!
That's gotta' STINK... er, STING!
Now ya' see here, Tim, it sure sounds like Mrs. WilliaKZ is a school marm.
It's folks like her whom are the TRULY in the know about these failures.
And, as she points out, we drank the Kook-Aid.
Say... wasn't that a Bush-era job?