Crippling Reading First
The Progressive Empire Strikes Back 

Reading First is a program started by Prez Bush, as part of No Child Left Behind. The idea was simple.

“Hey, you states! Listen up. You know how we used to give you all sorts of cash for making ‘reforms’?

“Well, it's clear that you have no idea what you’re doing. Otherwise, you wouldn’t need to reform anything. So, here’s the new deal. If you want any more money from U.S. citizens to improve reading instruction, you’re gonna have to write a serious scientific proposal. It has to:

1.  Present the data showing poor reading achievement in your state.    In other words, you have to admit that you suck.

2.  Summarize the preponderance of solid research on how to teach reading, and use that (a) to explain low reading achievement in your state (that is, what you've been doing wrong all this time, you dumb peckerheads), and (b) as the foundation of your reading reform.

3.  Describe how you WILL teach reading according to science---(a) 5 reading skills; (b) all taught directly; (c) three sets of materials---core, supplemental, and intervention---so all kids are served; (d) assessment of all skills before, during, and at the end; (e) and how you will train teachers."

Each state’s proposal was evaluated by a panel of persons who were not affiliated with any particular reading programs. Some states had to re-submit many times till they got it right.

Almost immediately, the whole languagists began to complain of bias against them.

Gee, no shit. Just as real doctors are biased against new age junk “healing.”

Well, Reading First worked. School and district achievement rose---sometimes dramatically.

This scared the education progressives (whole languagists and advocates of Reading Recovery) even more.  So they---and the developers of some reading programs that were not adopted by states as much (that is, sold as much) as the developers wanted (although these programs WERE approved by Readng First as meeting criteria of proper design and effectiveness)---went after the RF staff for alleged improprieties.   In other words, don't blame your crappy instruction and its harmful outcomes.  Blame Reading First.  They also attacked the statistics that showed reading achievement was going up in schools that used Reading First materials. They even got U.S. congressmen to lead the attack.

This attack is identical in form and in motivation to the attack on project Follow Through two decades earlier---which showed that children taught with direct instruction, which is the opposite of "progressive" piffle---the root of whole language and fuzzy math of today.    

And so we end up with this…

It's a good read. 

http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/reading_first_030508.pdf

But let ME tell you the REAL story---because I---Prof Plum---was one of the Reading First reviewers.

First, let's bust the apologists for Edland, who use statistics to show that public education works fine.
There are some folks in our Great Nation who use official statistics to make the case that our students are learning just fine (thank you very much), and that the criticisms of public education are therefore in error and (because of the alleged political leanings of the critics) are politically motivated (a subtle form of ad hominen). We call these persons apologists, who have sold their pinched souls for 15 minutes of being noticed.

Of course, they can't explain away THESE data.  

These same persons are often the harshest critics of the tests and the raw data (e.g., student achievement) that are the basis for the statistics.

In so doing, they betray what might be considered bad faith.

"Sure, the tests are bogus, and the 'standards' for passing are so low that nonreaders can pass, but I like what the stats say---'everything is fine in Edland.' So, I'll promote the stats as if THEY portray reality."

Let's ditch the statistics, which can be used to say anything you want them to say.  Let's look at real kids. 
Personally, I couldn't care less what official statistics say---not when I can see and hear kids reading.

Everything is NOT fine in Edland when I (all by my wittle self) have tested over a thousand kids in my county, and they are reading at below first grade level.

The lines read: Kit made a boat. She made the boat of tin. The nose of the boat was very thin….

But here’s what the typical “struggling reader” reads.

"Kite mad a bowat. She mad the bowat of thin. The noise of the bowat was real thin..."

Wow. She got 5 words right!

Oh, yeah, these kids----who have had FIVE years of school, 5 x 180 hours of reading "instruction"---can't read a simple sentence and therefore have no idea what it says---these kids are being WELL served by public education! The statistics say so.

And I know exactly who taught these kids and exactly where they learned to "teach" reading, and I know exactly HOW they taught reading.... Teachers from the ed school where I work, using whole language---the ONLY thing they’ve learned.

Here's how to make sure kid's never learn to read.  Teach them to guess what words say, using "context cues." 

Imagine that a kid realizes how stupid this "method" is.  How logically absurd.  How devastating.  How immoral. 

Teacher. "So, what do you think THIS word is?"

Kid. "How the f$#@ should I know? I don't know how to read."

Teacher. "Well, what word do you think FITS here?"

Kid. "How the f%$# should I know? I can't read ANY part of the sentence. So how can I tell what FITS means, you stupid f%$#ing cow?"

Teacher. "Well, do you see pictures on the page that can help you?"

Kid. "Oh, Sweet Jesus! Is there a picture for EVERY word? Is that how I'm supposed to read? I use pictures to tell me what the WORDS say? Then why not just write books with PICTURES and forget the alphabet, you stupid f%$#ing cloth headed rump fed gas bag?"

Teacher. "Now, you don't need to cuss. Cussing is offensive."

Kid. "Right. I DON'T need to cuss. And apparently I don't NEED to read, either! You smarmy, arrogant, dumb-ass, RACIST piece of $#@*."

Teacher. [sharp intake of breath] "Racist!! How dare you accuse me of being a racist. I give annually to every minority charity there is. Okay, maybe two. AND I once heard a speech by Martin Luther King, Jr."

Kid. "You are a racist because---despite all your bull$#@! talk about serving the needs of DIVERSE learners---and I am pretty f%$@ing diverse---you INSIST on having me GUESS what the words say and you REFUSE to teach me the five main reading skills in a STRAIGHTFORWARD way, as the RESEARCH and 3000 YEARS of history shows. THAT'S why you are a skanky, airheaded, puss-bag racist piece of sh$#. And I will hate you forever for refusing to do what the simplest COMMON sense would tell anyone with a SOUL to do. But you care MORE for your precious PEDAGOGY and your PRIVILEGED social class of UNACCOUNTABLE educators, than you care for a real live human being, you duplicitous smug self-satisfied sack of crap."

Teacher. "Well, you are certainly a struggling reader. You need to be in Reading Recovery. Sadly, Reading Recovery is for FIRST grade and YOU, as you know, are in FOURTH grade. But don't take it personally. As one of my gurus used to say...

'Saying that we are determined to teach every child to read does not mean that we will teach every child to read....The best we can do ... is ... to ensure that, if not every child lives up to our hopes, there is a minimum of guilt and anguish on the part of teachers, students, and parents. (p.441) Smith, F. (1992). Learning to read: the never-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 432-441.

Kid. "That's what your guru used to say?"

Teacher. "Yup. He sure did. Said it often. Finally, we understood. NOT our fault. Maybe YOURS."

Kid. "Well, f%$# him, too. You people are always blabbing about social justice and revolution. If there ever WERE a revolution, you and your EXPLOITING class who, as Marx said, control the means of production----in this case, the technology for educating kids----would be hanging from the street lamps."

So, if any apologist for public education wants to know if pre-Reading First instruction worked just fine, visit a NONRF school (a school whose teachers were NOT REtrained with RF money) and see how well the DIVERSE learners are doing.

Then go across town to a RF school---where they are using Reading Mastery (not SFA)---and see.

This isn't about statistics or what works or who emailed what or who influenced whom or who feels left out or what research "really" says or...

This is nothing but plain old privilege---a class of deaducators that presumes it is some kind of aristocracy--The Best---simply because it is in a position of power and has been able to get generations of gullible teachers and administrators to dance to its progressive tunes.

And when it is challenged---its legitimacy ("You don't know as much as you think. Therefore, why are you in a position of power?"), its position, and therefore its privilege---it acts the way all ELITES act.

It tries to kill those who threaten it.

But of course it has to do the killing in a socially approved way.

So it stages a pageant. Makes it seem as if some folks in RF acted improperly.

Makes it seem as if RF didn't do much good, anyway.

The usual bull$^&* "narrative."

And this elite class has just enough useful idiots (an audience and bit players)---for ex in congress and in the ed establishment of pundits---to do its bidding and applauding.

It's all show. The entire ed establishment.

A gigantic production number almost as gaudy as a Busby Berkeley musical...

We need law suits.

Break their f%$#@ing backs with law suits.

Although hanging is both effective AND provides teachable moments relevant to physics.

And as for Success for All, have y'all ever compared it with Reading Mastery---which came out maybe 20 years before SFA.

Remarkable similarities.

Even wording!

And was SFA developed by persons with a long history of designing instruction and in reading?

I dunno.

Easy to find out.

Interesting that SFA hasn't claimed that the developers of Reading Mastery ripped THEM off.

And now, if you'll excuse me, Prof Plum has to go smash something.