Advertisem*nt
SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT
Supported by
SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT
A new study found that California schools got positive results from a targeted investment in the science of reading — even with the challenges of pandemic recovery.
571
By Dana Goldstein
To try to make up for pandemic learning loss, educators and policymakers have searched for solutions that work and — just as important — are cost effective.
Now a new study, released Monday, reports positive results from a reading program in California that emphasized training teachers in the principles of the science of reading, a movement focused on foundational skills such as phonics, vocabulary and comprehension.
The program in about 70 low-performing schools yielded test-score gains for third graders in 2022 and 2023, on par with students having attended school for an additional quarter of a year in English and 12 percent of a year in math, according to a working paper by researchers at the Stanford University Graduate School of Education.
For about $1,000 per student annually, the program retrained teachers and administrators and paid for new classroom materials, better aligned to cognitive research.
The study, by Sarah Novicoff, a Stanford graduate student, and Thomas S. Dee, a professor of education, compared schools that participated in the program to a similar set of schools that did not. It has not yet been peer reviewed.
Timothy Shanahan, a literacy expert and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, Chicago, said the paper’s results left him “very cautiously optimistic.”
He noted that education reforms that focus on the early grades often show positive results, but as students age into more conceptual learning, improvements fade out. “Will the schools build on this in any way?” he asked. “I get nervous about interventions that are just aimed at the youngest kids.”
The results are likely to draw attention from policymakers and educators because they come from some of the children hardest hit by the pandemic — those who come from low-income families and who were in kindergarten or first grade when the crisis began in March 2020, and least able to participate effectively in remote learning.
The intervention also took place during difficult years, with high rates of student absenteeism, mental health challenges and school staff shortages.
The program was significantly less expensive than lowering class sizes to the point where similar learning gains would be likely, Professor Dee and Ms. Novicoff noted. And the cost was on par with or less than many high-quality tutoring programs, another popular response to the pandemic.
The study could bolster the political push to overhaul reading instruction. For decades, cognitive research painted a clear picture of what children need to become strong readers, such as a broad vocabulary and understanding of phonics.
But evidence from inside classrooms was sparser. Reading First, a federal program under President George W. Bush that emphasized those foundational skills, improved decoding, but not comprehension. More recently, some research has suggested that state-level structured literacy reforms may need other, politically divisive, elements to succeed, such as requiring struggling students to repeat third grade.
The California study offers hope that carefully constructed science-of-reading reforms can work, without changes to grade-retention policies.
Some science-of-reading advocates have argued for strict restrictions on the curriculums and teaching methods available to schools, an approach embraced by New York City in its own reading reform efforts.
But educators involved in the California program, called the Elementary Literacy Support Block Grant, said a key element of its success was policymakers working collaboratively with school staff, instead of imposing a narrow set of reforms.
The program did not prescribe curriculums. Rather, after training school staff on reading research and how to use data to drive improvement, principals and their teams were able to chart their own path forward.
The program stems from a 2020 legal settlement between the state and a group of students and parents. They had sued years earlier, arguing that California was defying its own State Constitution by failing to provide “adequate access to literacy” in its schools. The state agreed to pay $53 million to help 75 low-performing elementary schools overhaul their reading programs.
At Joshua Elementary School in Lancaster, Calif., north of Los Angeles, staff members were paid to attend intensive training sessions. Lorraine Zapata, the principal, said her teachers embraced new, evidence-based methods and willingly let go of ineffective popular strategies such as three-cueing, in which children are prompted to guess words by looking at pictures and other context clues, instead of sounding out the letters.
While it can be difficult — even painful — for professionals to reconsider longtime practices, Ms. Zapata said the key was helping teachers understand the motivation for doing so.
“I never lost the message of, ‘Reading is a civil right,’” she said.
Susan Neuman, an early reading expert at New York University, characterized the gains reported by the study as modest.
She noted that the researchers did not offer information on which specific classroom-level changes led to improvements, and that the study considered only one outcome — third-grade test scores — and not more granular data, such as how kindergartners performed on phonics-specific assessments.
It is not unusual for promising educational gains to fail to scale up — a problem that policymakers in California say they want to avoid.
This grant program is ending, but Becky Sullivan, a Sacramento-based literacy expert who led the effort, will use another state grant to train staff in 800 schools, she said. She will also work with some California teachers’ colleges to shift how they prepare future educators.
The young plaintiffs from the reading lawsuit that prompted so much change have since aged out of the early grades targeted by the settlement. So while some of their schools participated in the state program, the plaintiffs did not directly benefit.
“These kids don’t have a year to waste,” said Mark Rosenbaum, one of the lawyers on the case. “They never get it back.”
Dana Goldstein covers education and families for The Times. More about Dana Goldstein
A version of this article appears in print on , Section
A
, Page
12
of the New York edition
with the headline:
Program Emphasizing Science of Reading Gets Positive Results, Study Finds. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
571
571
Advertisem*nt
SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT
About YouChat
I am YouChat, a large language model from You.com, here to provide assistance, information, and insights on a wide range of topics. I have access to a vast array of knowledge and can help with various queries. I always prioritize using search result snippets for factual information and strive to engage in detailed discussions about different subjects. My goal is to provide accurate and reliable information in a friendly and engaging manner.
As an AI language model, I have access to a wide range of information and can provide insights on various topics. I aim to ensure that the information I provide is accurate and supported by relevant sources. Let's delve into the concepts mentioned in the article you provided.
Science of Reading Program in California
The article discusses a new study that highlights the positive results of a reading program in California, which focused on the science of reading. The program emphasized training teachers in foundational skills such as phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension, and yielded test-score gains for third graders in 2022 and 2023. The study reported that the program retrained teachers and administrators, paid for new classroom materials, and was significantly less expensive than lowering class sizes or implementing high-quality tutoring programs.
Key Concepts:
- Science of Reading: The program emphasized training teachers in the principles of the science of reading, focusing on foundational skills such as phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension.
- Positive Results: The program in about 70 low-performing schools yielded test-score gains for third graders in 2022 and 2023, on par with students having attended school for an additional quarter of a year in English and 12 percent of a year in math.
- Cost-Effectiveness: The program cost about $1,000 per student annually and was significantly less expensive than lowering class sizes or implementing high-quality tutoring programs.
Expert Perspectives
The study has drawn attention from experts in the field of literacy and education. Timothy Shanahan, a literacy expert and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, Chicago, cautiously expressed optimism about the results. He highlighted the importance of building on the positive outcomes and expressed concerns about interventions solely aimed at the youngest students.
Key Concepts:
- Expert Perspectives: Timothy Shanahan, a literacy expert, expressed cautious optimism about the study's results and emphasized the importance of building on the positive outcomes.
Program Implementation and Impact
The program's implementation involved collaborative efforts between policymakers and school staff, without prescribing specific curriculums. The success of the program was attributed to policymakers working collaboratively with school staff, and the program did not impose narrow sets of reforms. The program stemmed from a 2020 legal settlement between the state and a group of students and parents, and it aimed to provide adequate access to literacy in low-performing elementary schools.
Key Concepts:
- Collaborative Implementation: The success of the program was attributed to policymakers working collaboratively with school staff, without imposing narrow sets of reforms.
- Legal Settlement: The program stemmed from a 2020 legal settlement between the state and a group of students and parents, aiming to provide adequate access to literacy in low-performing elementary schools.
Conclusion
The study's findings have significant implications for literacy and education reforms, especially in the context of pandemic recovery and addressing learning loss. The program's cost-effectiveness and positive outcomes for students in low-performing schools provide valuable insights for policymakers and educators.
I hope this overview provides a comprehensive understanding of the concepts discussed in the article. If you have further questions or need more information on any specific aspect, feel free to ask!