Finding My Inner Politician

I have never considered myself a political person. In fact, I have long held the belief that we can close our classroom doors and teach. No longer do I believe this.

I did some consulting with the Colorado Department of Education in the Colorado Reading First (CRF) department in 2005-2006, my one year of “retirement”, simply because I didn’t know what else I was going to do. It sounded interesting and I saw some names I knew from the reading community on the roster. CRF philosophy is based on the model that was interpreted from the National Reading Panel Report of 2000. During my first training session, my first thought was, “What has happened to reading instruction?” I looked over at one colleague I had known for years and she was watching me. The parameters and restrictions, the basic definition and philosophy of reading were very different from beliefs I held and I knew she held.

Out of curiosity, I went ahead and served as an “advocate” who visited three schools in far corners of Colorado to monitor their implementation of the Reading First grant. To get this grant—big money--these small, rural schools had to use a recommended , very prescriptive CORE program in a 90-minute direct instruction, whole group setting, assess and progress monitor, and have staff development training (in how to use the program and the assessment tools). What I did not realize at this time was that while relatively few schools applied for and got the CRF grant money, many schools across the nation adopted the precepts of Reading First on their own.

I loved being in the schools, of course, and found the administrators and staff truly had children’s best interest at heart. They wanted to increase reading achievement. The administrators felt that some ineffective teachers became better using the programs because they were actually teaching something. And I observed t expert teachers who knew a wide range of instructional strategies were actually able to balance the scripted program and differentiate for the kids who were beyond the scripted instruction or not yet ready for it. One teacher had book clubs at lunch and after school and pulled extra groups throughout the day.

After one year, CRF restructured the advocate program and we were all “RIF’d”. At that time, three years into the CRF grant, schools were showing very little growth on CSAP. They were showing growth on DIBELS, the assessment tool, but that growth did not carry over to comprehension measures.

I applied to teach at Metro, and found their definition of reading was very close to mine. But, I was preparing students to teach in many schools that were being required by district or school policies to implement instruction more reflective of CRF. I was reading everything I could on the National Reading Panel Report and Reading First trying to reconcile this new view of reading with the view I had held for so long.

Here is how I currently express the difference: educators who come from a definition of reading as a set of discrete skills that add up to reading believe in starting with what children do not know. I call this the “glass is half-empty” model, the deficit model. This is the definition of reading as stated by the National Reading Panel.

Educators who come from a definition of reading as a complex process believe that readers use all the information available to them in different ways to construct meaning from the text. The skills are tools used to access meaning. In this model, the “glass is half-full” model, teachers begin with what the child knows and builds upon that knowledge to teach what the child does not know. The intervention with the most solid success rate is Reading Recovery, which is based on this model.

I was asked to remain on the CRF “Leadership Team” and have attended meetings for the last few years. Often, I am the only person with a “reading is meaning” philosophy in the room. Over these years, and with my growing base of knowledge, I have begun to speak out. I can no longer not speak out. My favorite moment was once when the group was lamenting that in CRF schools, students were actually reading less. My comment was, "Perhaps we are teaching children to read, but not teaching them to want to read." You could of heard a pin dropped as they all looked at me.

Last Friday, I attended the second-to-last CRF meeting. Federal funding for Reading First was discontinued in 2008 after an independent study found that Reading First money, nationwide, had very little impact on tests of comprehension achievement. RF schools made gains on the assessments they used such as DIBELS, but not on state tests. Six million dollars over 6 years. And no growth. In Colorado, schools have dropped out or been dropped, and the final carryover money is being used for a small number of schools until September when it is all gone.

I sat next to a state senator at this meeting, as congressional representatives are always invited and frequently come. This was her first meeting and when she asked why the funding had been cut, the answer given by the director was that the program had been sabotaged for political reasons by the a national report. I turned and said to the senator, and reiterated, “Six million dollars nationwide and it did not improve scores on a test of reading comprehension.” I stated that if we had one-size-fits-all children than a one-size fits-all program might work, but kids are not cookie cutter versions of a child. They do not need to be taught the same way. The senator asked if there were other ways to teach reading, and I said, oh yes, there are many ways, and the expert teachers are those that know and use all of them depending on the needs and strengths of their students.

There is a growing body of research and writing that responds to the mandates. Elaine Garan (2002) says, “The NRP is not just some pesky little mosquito buzzing in our ears. It is Godzilla and it has its foot on our heads. Like it or not, we must deal with the findings of the National Reading Panel.” (Resisting Reading Mandates: How to Triumph with the Truth, Heinemann, p. 5.) She goes on to say that this is no longer a “pendulum” that reflects different philosophies. She has reluctantly “come to the realization that the true motives behind the current state and federal mandates for education are blatantly political and shamelessly financial.” (p. 87).

Can I do anything? Perhaps not, but I must try. I remain an optimist and believe that reason will out at some point. I want to do everything I can to make a difference. I have started a follow-up letter to the senator letting her know that there is a very active group reading community in this state and invite her to our conference. I am going to restate the need for looking at a wide body of research on what works in reading instruction. I am going to offer to sit down with her at any time and bring some of the leaders in the field. I plan on using the information in this letter as I write other congressman. I have gotten a spot on the CCIRA Legislative Committee. I have joined a group of district literacy leaders and college educators. For the children and their teachers, I have found my inner political side.