At a time when only a quarter of college graduates rate "proficient" in literacy skills on federal reading surveys, it's no surprise that employers are struggling to find workers with the reading and writing skills they need.

About half of current workers test at literacy levels low enough to impede their progress on the job, according to a report released last month by the National Commission on Adult Literacy.

More troubling, the problem could be getting worse. A recent study found the United States to be the only country among 30 studied where young adults are less well-educated than the previous generation was.

So it came as a surprise last week when House and Senate committees axed a $1 billion-a-year program that has produced measurable success in attacking the problem at its roots. Called Reading First, it funnels money to schools that use early-grade reading programs demonstrated to work.

Literacy problems often start in homes lacking an emphasis on reading and writing, but over the past decade, much has been learned about how to compensate.

The results were summed up in 2000 by the congressionally sponsored National Reading Panel. It called for teaching an approach rooted in something familiar to many older people today - phonics - but taught in a new way developed in large-scale medical style experiments. It gives students precise skills in a specific, structured way.

So why is the program in jeopardy? The chairmen of the committees that did the cutting, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., declined to write opposing views for this page to defend their actions. Their press statements cite mismanagement and ineffectiveness.

To be sure, the program has had management problems. Some managers have bullied state education officials and others. But that's all correctable.

Ineffectiveness, however, has not been proven. At the schoolhouse level, many educators praise the program. State reading directors usually report success. In a 2006 study by the Center on Education Policy, an independent advocacy group for improving public education, 19 of the 35 states reported strong backing for Reading First.

To the extent that criticism is justified, it's that the program focuses too much on the mechanics of decoding words and too little on comprehension. But users of the Core Knowledge curriculum pioneered by E.D. Hirsch, a former University of Virginia English professor, have already conquered that problem. These Core Knowledge students use phonics to read, then marry the phonics with real-world knowledge to understand the meanings of the text.

Reading First needs adjustment, not elimination. The USA has too many literacy problems to pull the plug on a valuable program.

I applaud USA Today's editorial call for a continued systematic national effort to reduce the unconscionable reading failure rate particularly among children from disadvantage. The Reading First program was designed to help our most vulnerable young struggling readers learn how to read AND comprehend what they read so they could make it in school - and in life. I believe strongly that Reading First is helping millions of kids learn to read and I am constantly reviewing data that tells me that significant improvements in reading skills are being achieved. But as a co-author of the Reading First legislation, I am biased. The program has been beset with allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest and a recent study ostensibly found that Reading First funding did not produce significant gains in reading comprehension over and above those achieved in schools not funded with reading First dollars. With respect to the allegations of conflicts of interest, no evidence exists that show actual conflicts occurred and thus the Office of the Inspector General did not find any instance of an actual conflict. However, the perception of conflict was clearly noted and that perception has hurt the program. On the positive side, the management issues that led to the appearance of conflict and other implementation problems have been corrected. As I have watched the skewering of Reading First by politicians alleging corruption, I wonder why their anger, angst, and condemnation is so selectively deployed toward this program without similar responses to the mismanagement and ACTUAL conflicts of interest identified in other federal programs, most notably Head Start.

But those politicians - Obey and Harkin, in particular- who want to kill Reading First also base their decision on results presented in a recent government report that reported that Reading First was not effective in improving reading comprehension. However, it is now clear that this "Impact" study did not pay enough attention to a well known fact - both Reading First and non-Reading First schools within the same district were typically using the same reading programs. Non-Reading First schools did not want their kids to fail so they adopted Reading First programs and paid for them with state or district funds. For example, The Reading First evaluator for Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Washington and Wyoming reported gains in all five states in the percent of students meeting third grade benchmarks. She also reported that 65 percent to 95 percent of non-Reading First schools in districts receiving Reading First funds used the same assessments, purchased the same reading materials, provided similar assistance to struggling students and hired similar reading coaches. Essentially the study compared schools who implemented programs funded through Reading First with schools who implemented many of the same programs funded through district or state funds.

But the real issue is how are the kids doing? The state data that are now being reported show promising results. Alabama was found by independent evaluations to increase kindergarten reading development such that a remarkable 89 percent of students met literacy benchmarks at the end of kindergarten, with almost no racial gap. State wide evaluations of Reading First programs in California, Ohio, Idaho and many others demonstrated significant improvement in reading capabilities on state reading tests. Many will argue that these improvements are not occurring in every state, district, or school and thus the program is ineffective. But that is to be expected, as many educators had a very steep learning curve in implementing their Reading First program. The important point is that many districts and schools are very successful and it is essential that we examine how they implemented their programs to achieve that success.

If Reading First is on the chopping block it is not because it lacks effectiveness and is helping millions of struggling readers. It is because of political malpractice and an obsession of many who continue to want to fight the reading wars - a highly unproductive obsession to pit phonics against whole language over the past century which has derailed the futures of millions of children. But let's put these idiotic clashes between educational ideologues aside and talk about whether we even need a program like Reading First. Some commentators argue that there really is no "literacy crisis". For example, in an opposing view to this editorial, Krashen writes that 99 percent of adults read at a basic level which leads him to conclude there is no crisis. This is an alarming conclusion given the fact that there are unconscionable numbers of children who can't read who later become adults who cannot read. I guess I am hung up on the word "basic". In most if not all 50 states, reading ability is defined by proficiency on standardized reading measures. Basic does not mean proficient. It means a fourth grader reading at a first grade level, or an adult with third grade literacy skills. In today's society, basic doesn't cut it. We need proficient readers. And like it or not, 40 percent of today's fourth graders are not proficient readers.

If you don't believe there is a terrible reading problem in many of our most impoverished schools, visit inner city kindergarten and elementary classrooms and let me know what you see. Then visit Reading First schools in that same district and tell me what you see. The data will speak for themselves, but nothing beats being up close and personal with the problem. Is Reading First the total answer to our nation's reading woes? No, of course not. We do need more libraries. We do need very thoughtful (and evidence-based) pre-kindergarten programs that emphasize the development of language skills essential for understanding what is read. We do need to support educational leaders and teachers to identify and implement proven programs. In the end, I am confident that the Reading First program will demonstrate strong effectiveness as we continue to evaluate those districts and schools where the program has been implemented properly and that effectiveness will be increased further as additional essential elements are implemented including proven pre-school programs, access to quality libraries, and programs that help parents better support their children.

Kill ineffective reading program; bolster libraries in poor areas.
By Stephen Krashen

Reading First is an ineffective program based on an incorrect document, the National Reading Panel report. It takes time away from students and gives them nothing in return. It has wasted billions, money that could be spent in common-sense ways that can virtually eliminate literacy problems.

Reading First ignored many legitimate criticisms of the reading panel in adopting its recommendations. The panel, for example, recommended intensive systematic phonics, an approach that goes far beyond teaching basic letter-sound recognition, requiring the teaching of all major phonics rules in a strict order.

California State University professor Elaine Garan's re-analysis demonstrated, however, that the studies the panel reviewed show that intensive phonics has little to do with students' ability to understand what they read. Distinguished literacy experts Frank Smith and Kenneth Goodman have provided compelling evidence that comprehension is the basis for learning to read: We learn to read by understanding what is on the page.

A recent government report confirmed that the criticisms were correct. Reading First children had the equivalent of six extra weeks per year of instruction on elements the panel considered crucial but did no better than non-Reading First children on comprehension tests.

What should we do?

Ninety-nine percent of the U.S. adult population can read and write at a basic level. There is no crisis in basic literacy. The issue is how to achieve higher levels, the ability to read and write complex texts. The only way this happens is by extensive reading.

Studies show that if children have access to a plentiful supply of interesting and comprehensible books, nearly all read. The greater the exposure to books, the more they read and the better they read and write.

The real problem is that children of poverty have little access to books or high-quality libraries, preventing them from attaining high levels of literacy.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars more on Reading First, let's invest much more in libraries in low-income areas. Let's make sure all children have access to books, and solve the real literacy crisis forever.

Stephen Krashen is professor emeritus of education at the University of Southern California.

LYON'S RESPONSE (NOW POSTED ON USA TODAY WEBSITE)

Mr. Krashen may be one of the 1 % of individuals who does not read at a basic level. He failed to mention that the National Reading Panel did not find that systematic phonics instruction was the magic bullet to improve reading abilities, but only one of several reading capabilities that must be taught using direct and systematic instruction. Phonics instruction is only effective in ensuring proficiency in reading comprehension when combined with effective instruction in phonemic awareness, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension strategies. While Garan has re-analyzed data from the National Reading Panel, her results typically appeared in opinion journals and books. Conversely, the results of the National reading Panel were reviewed by external scientists prior to its publication (reviewers included Michael Pressley, Marilyn Adams, Gerald Duffy, Barbara Foorman and others with extensive publications in the scientific literature. Moreover, the National Reading Panel Results were also published in highly ranked peer reviewed journals to include Reading Research Quarterly and Review of Educational Research. He also fails to mention that the government report that reported that Reading First was not effective in improving reading comprehension was significantly flawed. For some reason, the researchers did not pay attention to a well known fact - both Reading First and non-Reading First schools within the same district were typically using the same reading programs. Non-Reading First schools did not want their kids to fail so they adopted Reading First programs and paid for them with state or district funds. For example, The Reading First evaluator for Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Washington and Wyoming reported gains in all five states in the percent of students meeting third grade benchmarks. She also reported that 65 percent to 95 percent of non-Reading First schools in districts receiving Reading First funds used the same assessments, purchased the same reading materials, provided similar assistance to struggling students and hired similar reading coaches. Essentially the study compared schools who implemented programs funded through Reading First versus schools who implemented many of the same programs funded through district or state funds. But the real issue is how are the kids doing? Alabama was found by independent evaluations to increase kindergarten reading development such that a remarkable 89 percent of students met literacy benchmarks at the end of kindergarten, with almost no racial gap. State wide evaluations of Reading First programs in California, Ohio, Idaho and many others demonstrated significant improvement in reading capabilities on state reading tests. If Reading First is on the chopping block it is not because it lacks effectiveness and is helping millions of struggling readers. It is because of political malpractice and an obsession of many who continue to want to fight the reading wars - a highly unproductive obsession to pit phonics against whole language over the past century which has derailed the futures of millions of children. But let's put these idiotic clashes between educational ideologues aside and talk about the kids. Krashen writes that 99 percent of adults read at a basic level which leads him to conclude there is no "literacy crisis" despite the fact that there are unconscionable numbers of children who can't read who later become adults who cannot read. I guess I am hung up on the word "basic". In most if not all 50 states, reading ability is defined by proficiency on standardized reading measures. Basic does not mean proficient. It means a fourth grader reading at a first grade level, or an adult with third grade literacy skills. In today's society, basic doesn't cut it. We need proficient readers. And like it or not, 40 percent of today's fourth graders are not proficient readers. That should signal crisis to every teacher, parent, business leader, or elected official in this country. It is interesting that the same press outlets that immediately reported that Reading First was not effective failed to report the fact that study had not been designed in a manner that could actually determine the effectiveness of Reading First. As the data from each State's Reading First programs are published, the amount of reading improvement - particularly among youngsters who struggled most with reading - will surprise many. But Mr. Obey and others who are more interested in scoring political points frankly do not care about the evidence. That is sad.

Home | About Us | About Phonics | Resources
Research | Topics | Reading Reform | Links | Search

Unless otherwise noted, you may copy and distribute any information on this site as long as The National Right to Read Foundation at www.nrrf.org is given credit. The National Right to Read Foundation is a 501(c)(3) publicly supported organization.