Stephen Krashen addressed the Richmond/Fairfax situation. I don’t know about the more recent test scores. It is tempting to compare the two sets of results, as if this was a scientific experiment, but the samples may not have been sufficiently equivalent, and other non-obvious variables may also be present.

For some DATA that I am more personally familiar with: My own school has not applied for Reading First grant money, though we are a Title I school. Language Arts scores for “economically disadvantaged” students improved over the last two years from 59% to 73% making AYP. African American students’ scores improved from 60% to 86% proficient. The school as a whole moved from 74% to 80% proficient for Language Arts. Despite our test score improvements, our “students with disabilities” continue to lag.

There’s no magic in any program or set of materials. Furthermore, all of these DATA are simply standardized test scores, which are highly suspect as indicators of real learning, IMO. I do believe that we have to do a better job of teaching reading, but I don’t see cookbook solutions as the best way to make that happen. Better teacher training would be my first choice. And unfortunately, packaged programs lead in exactly the opposite direction, away from broadening the professional repertoire.

And still, this doesn’t address my larger point, that there is no real science of reading. The foundation of Reading First, the “building blocks theory” of reading, is based on assumptions that were NOT the result of a scientific inquiry.

Here’s Krashen, from the same source linked to above:

Study after study confirms that reading for meaning (especially “free voluntary reading”) is the source of our reading ability, our ability to write well, much of our vocabulary and spelling knowledge, and our ability to handle complex grammatical constructions (Krashen, 2004). Spending money on school libraries is the best investment we can make, especially for children of poverty, who have few sources of reading material elsewhere. Studies in fact confirm that library quality is related to reading achievement (Krashen, 2004).

This year, on the state 5th grade reading tests, the passing rate for Richmond black children was 8% below Fairfax white children. The gap between Fairfax black children and Fairfax white children was 19% — more than double the Richmond gap.

Overall, in 5th grade reading, 88% passed the 5ht grade reading test in both Richmond and Fairfax. The urban district tied one of the wealthiest districts in the nation.

In 5th grade math, the passing rate for Richmond black children was 3% below Fairfax white children. The gap between Fairfax black children and Fairfax white children was 18% — more than six times the Richmond gap.

Richmond adopted reading programs recommended by the National Institutes of Heath, the instititution that has made the quality of American medicine the envy of the world. Is it any surprise that scientific studies can help avoid difficulties learning to read?

On this issue, what does the DATA say? And what is the impact on children, especially poor children? Isn’t that what counts?