Search Results for: shanahan

“Science” of Reading?

Posted on September 10, 2022 Written by

I’ve hesitated to weigh in on this topic because some might see it as simply jumping on the “Reading Wars” bandwagon. I also assumed that the problems posed by improper implementation of the Science of Reading would eventually balance out. But the huge disservice currently being done to K-3 children through a misguided interpretation of SoR seems to be getting much, much worse instead of better.

For example, over the past few months, I’ve heard the following: “If you have a Guided Reading library, throw those books out and replace them with decodable readers!” “Do not let children attempt to read any book until they have mastered the phonics rules because they might guess at words.” “The science clearly supports a ‘phonics-only’ approach in kindergarten and first grade.” It’s important to note that each of those statements was made by people conducting SoR trainings … and then blindly accepted by most educators because, well, those are the experts, right?

To say that many of us find such statements appalling is a major understatement. Assertions like these fly in the face of decades of reputable, peer-reviewed reading research. Admittedly, such claims do help sell product (millions of dollars worth) … but these and similar one-sided statements hardly reflect what we know to be best when teaching young children to read.

I was also hesitant because although I’m very knowledgeable and passionate about this subject, I’m hardly a national expert. And there’s the further complication that SoR has been mandated by state law. Plus some aspects of SoR can indeed be very helpful when properly implemented (as opposed to an either/or approach).

However, I recently breathed a sigh of relief when Tim Shanahan hit the Phonics First/Phonics Only issue head-on in his Blog. Shanahan is one of the country’s most respected researchers, and he has decades of experience in this area, including serving on the historic National Reading Panel in 2000. His balanced comments are an absolute must-read for K-3 teachers or administrators who want to clearly understand this issue!

Feel free to pass this along.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged: , , , , , , ,

The Reading Wars

It’s important for principals (and teachers) to stay informed about emerging educational issues … especially current “hot topics.” This not only allows us to talk intelligently about the issue, but also to clearly understand what is and is not good practice.

And right now, nothing is hotter than the so-called Reading Wars!

On one side, you have the “balanced literacy” crowd. On the other, the “scientific-based reading” tribe. The first group models their approach on the historic research and practice of Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell, and others. The second relies on a body of work by Lousia Moats and certain psychologists and cognitive scientists.

This article provides a good overview of the situation. Please note the comments by Lucy Calkins and Wiley Blevins near the end. Though coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, there are some surprising commonalities there.

My thoughts? Despite what you may have heard in Science of Reading workshops, there are dangers in using either of these approaches in a completely exclusive way. Like the old Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup commercials, there are times when a careful combination can result in something better than both.

Yes, I’ve heard the arguments (from both sides) that this has to be an “either or” proposition. But frankly, those are based more on theory than practice (and the efforts of publishers to sell books). I’ve personally seen schools greatly increase students’ early literacy skills by combining a structured leveled reading program with explicit phonics instruction, then backing that up with additional focused interventions (as part of RTI) for students who need additional support.

Of course, experienced educators know that effective implementation and balance are often far more important than rigid adherence to a specific curricula. In the examples above, a significant amount of time was spent training teachers to focus on basic reading skills (like phonics and phonemic awareness) while simultaneously promoting activities that encourage a love of reading (a vital motivational component).

This common-sense combination is described in a recent article by Carol Ann Tomlinson. The third paragraph under the “Individual Differences Matter” section is one of the most balanced, insightful, comments I’ve seen on this subject, and reflects what’s happening in real-world classrooms.

There’s also this ASCD article by Benjamin Riley (executive director of Deans for Impact) that specifically mentions Arkansas as one of five states that have passed “Science of Reading” legislation. In it, he states that he’s encouraged by the renewed interest in reading instruction, but that “caution is warranted” when it comes to implementing SoR.

One final note: The use of the NAEP as an assessment in this area is deeply troubling. As this article points out, many researchers not only find the NAEP system seriously flawed, but also find NAEP results tragically misleading. Yet NAEP results are still reported extensively (primarily due to political factors) … even though there are much more effective ways to assess student progress in Early Literacy.

And sadly, poor assessments not only lead to poor conclusions … but ultimately to bad decisions.

For those of you who want to go deeper into this topic, this document from the International Literacy Association offers sound advice on how to approach this controversial subject. It’s definitely a “must read” for anyone directly involved with Early Literacy.

You may also want to review my earlier post on Scientific Reading Instruction.

UPDATE (October 1, 2022): The entry above was written in 2018. Since then, this topic continues to evolve. Here’s the latest, including a link to an excellent article by distinguished national researcher, Tim Shanahan.

State Testing

It’s important to remember that the primary purpose of assessment is to monitor student progress so we can adjust classroom instruction. As Hope Worsham (ADE) often says, “student growth comes from TEACHING, not TESTING.” 

This short article from nationally-recognized reading expert, Tim Shanahan provides an excellent overview on understanding how and how not to approach assessment. You may wish to read it before continuing.

Background

During the 2015-2016 school year, Arkansas replaced the PARCC assessment with the ACT Aspire (3rd-10th grades) and the ACT Test (11th grade).

This new assessment system offered many advantages. Testing times were significantly reduced, giving teachers back much-needed instructional time. There were better opportunities for bite-size assessments throughout the year (Interim or Classroom tests). Most importantly, state standards, periodic assessments, and annual summative assessments were now fully aligned. This allowed teachers to be much more focused with classroom instruction.

As long as legislators and the public insist on high-stakes testing, this is at least a more logical system. Here’s an overview of these programs …

ACT Aspire

The ACT Aspire program (3rd-10th grade) was not only designed to help students meet the increasing rigor of state and national standards, but also has the potential to eventually boost students’ scores on the ACT Test during their junior year.

The ACT Aspire program consists of an annual Summative Assessment, and two types of Periodic Assessments that allow teachers to monitor and adjust instruction.

ASPIRE Summative Assessments are given near the end of the school year to all 3rd – 10th graders. This helps administrators, teachers, and parents track academic growth and identify gaps in learning. Content areas include English, reading, writing, math, and science. Question types include multiple choice, short answer, and long response. 

ASPIRE’s Strong Start video provides a more detailed overview. In addition, samples of Summative Tests are available for all subjects, all grades. (See “Exemplars” below.)

Scale ranges for Summative Tests are between 390-470. Students are expected to grow a certain amount of points each year. Useful tools include an overview of how individual student growth is measured, and the Score Scale by Grade. 

In addition, the Arkansas Department of Education has created special ASPIRE resources to help teachers, parents, and students better understand the program. Resources for Parents/Students can be found here.  Resources for Educators can be found here.

Periodic Assessments

As mentioned above, ASPIRE offers two types of Periodic Assessments to help teachers identify the specific needs of individual learners: Interim Assessments (3rd-10th grade) and Classroom Assessments (3rd-8th grade).

Interim Assessments are relatively short evaluations (45 minutes or less) that provide fast, accurate measurement of individual student progress. They evaluate growth in English, reading, math, and science. These short assessments are designed to give teachers data to help adjust instruction, thus better helping students develop essential skills and master key concepts.

Classroom Assessments are even shorter evaluations (15-20 minutes) that produce snapshots of individual student achievement. The flexible nature of Classroom Assessments lets teachers determine the best time for their administration, and their use is entirely at the discretion of the individual teacher (subject to state guidelines). Note: Classroom Assessments are available for 3rd-8th grades only.

Both Interim and Classroom Assessments are computer-based with rapid scoring and feedback.

It should be noted, however, that this type of assessment is only one form of progress monitoring. Also, some districts have expressed concerns that ASPIRE’s Periodic Assessments do not align well with the Summative Test because the Periodics have significantly lower DOK expectations than the Summative.

Useful Tools

ASPIRE includes several useful tools to help teachers plan and implement instruction. They include exemplars, rubrics, performance level descriptors, and a “standards covered” matrix. At the bottom of this section, you’ll also find detailed descriptions of each reporting category (all subjects, all grades).

Exemplars (all subjects, all grades) can be found here. Scroll down past the overview to find the tabs for each content area. Click on the content area, then click on the grade level. The resulting document provides exemplar test questions that are representative of the range and type of questions students will encounter. 

Rubrics for Writing can be found in the appendix of the ASPIRE Technical Manual. The Third Grade rubric begins on page F.15;  Fourth Grade on page F.17;  Fifth Grade on page F.19;  Sixth Grade on page F.21;  Seventh Grade on page F.23;  Eighth Grade on page F.25;  Early High School (9th-10th) on page F.27.

Performance Level Descriptors outline the knowledge and skills that students should be able to demonstrate at each grade level in each content area. PLDs (all subjects, all grades) can be found here. Scroll down past the overview to find the tabs for each grade level. Click on the grade level, then click on the content area. The resulting graph shows the given level a student must exhibit to be considered “exceeding,” “ready,” “close,” or “needs support.”

“Standards Covered” Matrix: There are ten Classroom Assessments at each grade level covering four content areas (English, reading, math, science). A detailed matrix is provided for each content area showing which state standards are covered by which tests. To view these, click on English, Reading, Math, Science.  

Reporting Category Descriptions –A description of the Reporting Categories (all subjects, all grades) can be found here. This can be useful as you begin to drill down into the sub-categories below each subject area. For example, under Reading … what does “Craft and Structure” really mean? Find out by clicking on the link above.

ACT Test (11th Grade)

The ACT Test is the most widely-used assessment for high school achievement and college admissions in the United States. There appears to be a direct correlation between a student’s composite ACT score and his/her chances of completing a college degree.

The Arkansas Legislature provides funding to make the spring ACT Test available to all Arkansas 11th graders free of charge. (Note: a high score on the ACT Test often translates into significant scholarship money!)

For more information about the ACT Test, and what your child can do to prepare, contact your School Counselor.