You knew it was coming, and today Sol Stern dissects the IES study documenting the “failure” of Reading First, describing it as neither rigorous nor comprehensive.
“The study found that students in a small sample of Reading First schools showed no greater improvement in reading comprehension than those in a similar group of schools that applied for the program but didn’t get federal grants. The IES’s poorly designed study, together with sloppy media coverage of its findings, will likely cause irreparable damage to Reading First—the only federal education program that requires schools receiving federal grants to adhere to instructional approaches backed by evidence and science.”
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
It’s frustrating to see that we may not have a reliable study with which to judge the Reading First program. I’m not necessarily advocating for the continuation of Reading First but it would be nice to at least have a trustworthy study so that fair minded people could come to reasonable conclusions about whether to continue the program. Without it, we are left with politicians making the decision which inevitably leads to unqualified praise from those who created the program and unqualified derision from those who didn’t.
Interesting angle on this over at Eduflack, who wonders about the deafening silence from companies peddling SBRR programs who got rich off of Reading First.
http://blog.eduflack.com/2008/05/21/calling-all-rf-profiteers.aspx