By Murlin Evans
Policy Analysis: Reading First Initiative: No Child Left Behind Act, 2001
5/18/2003
Central to the legislation is its focus on intervention with the goal of early reading achievement in the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten years known as the Reading First Initiative. Built on the work of the National Reading Panel, the Reading First Initiative draws heavily on the “hierarchy of skills model”; that is, an assumption that reading is an integration of skills that should be taught in a step-by-step manner until the final skill (comprehension) is achieved.
No skills, no comprehension; no comprehension, no skills, grade promotion or diploma (Sopko 2002). As a consequence, “Free play” time, or recess, is in deep decline in Pre-K and Kindergarten classrooms across the country as more and more time is hoarded for phonemic awareness and isolated skills instruction. Experiential learning and exploratory instruction were replaced by standardized and sequenced canned reading programs and an overall narrowing of literacy experiences as characterized by David Elkind’s “Hurried Child” model (1987). However, because many of the studies chosen by the National Reading Panel to determine the overall “effect” various reading programs had on reaching scores fail to meet even the most basic standards of good research (i.e. Failing to consider the relationship between daily writing practice and improved reading scores) the scientific basis of the NRP’s conclusions is disputable (Garan, p. 501).
Ignored in the quest to verify that schools and teachers are doing their jobs is the lack of evidence supporting any relationship between improved standardized test scores and improvement in overall reading outcomes. The cutting of recess from the schedule to make room for more intensive reading instruction removes another, for some the only, outlet for movement and physical activity for a generation of children who are at increased risk for childhood obesity or of being prescribed dangerous stimulant medications for their “hyperactivity” in the classroom.
Once the domains of non-academic learning, pre-school and kindergarten classrooms are being transformed into “kiddie colleges” where direct academics instruction takes precedence, often at the expense of play (Zernike, 2000). The No Child Left Behind Act has created a one size fits all mandate that assumes the key to improved reading success depends primarily on explicit instruction, though such an approach runs contrary to what we know about brain development in early childhood (Hannaford, 1995).
Good readers develop from good speakers (Sanders, 1994). And good speakers become so through social interaction with more competent language users, most commonly through free play.
It is here that children can assert their competence processing their environment into a personal experience with language (Cordes & Miller, 2000). On a more fundamental note, the high stakes testing gambit is stressful for teachers, parents and children. By closing outlets for self-expression and assimilation such as free play, music and art – all deemed expendable the rush “back to basics” – and plugging them with more testing demands, schools are denying children the most healthy opportunity to relieve the stress of unrealistic expectations. Losing these channels of self-expression also narrows the options for the kind of output that establishes “meaningful connections for the learner” (Hannaford, 1995, p.87) making effective learning even more difficult.
According to research, the fear factor looms large over standardized testing but does not motivate children to learn. In fact, it may contribute to school burnout and the high school dropout rate (Amrein & Berliner, 2003). Finally and perhaps most importantly, I will argue that before reaching what Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget called the concrete operational stage at around six or seven, children are not cognitively prepared to take full advantage of the abstract thinking challenges of formal instruction (Elkind 2001; Gould, 2003; Hannaford, 1995).
According to Vygotsky theorist Laura Berk (1994), through its symbolic representation, imaginary play in fact sows the seeds for later development of these abstract thought processes. However, before arguing the importance of play to more refined abstract academic work such as reading, I must first define what I mean by play. Unless otherwise noted, when I refer to play in this paper, I refer to “make-believe” play as opposed to the play of organized games, sports or physical education classes.
This type of spontaneous play, whether called make-believe, socio-dramatic or free, is play that allows children the opportunity to create their own rules, allowing a process for the discovery of new relationships and flexible, inventive thinking. Though play may be a child’s first abstract thinking, motivation to play does not come from the extrinsic promise of academic preparation. Put simply, play is fun (Berk, 1994; Cordes & Miller, 2000; Petrash, 2002). Play is also learning in motion. With socialization being the principal lesson of the pre-school and kindergarten years, no approach is better formulated than make-believe play in teaching it.
Expounding on Vygotsky’s notion of the social origins of cognition, Berk (1994) notes that it is the spontaneous nature of make-believe play and its allowance for flexible rulemaking, that allows interactions to last longer. Such interpersonal experiences propel a greater depth of understanding and tend to draw larger numbers of children into the activity, resulting in not only more positive social interactions but the development of attention span as well.
It is not surprising that preschoolers who
spend more time at socio-dramatic play are
advanced in general intellectual development
and show an enhanced ability to understand
the feelings of others. These students are also
seen as more socially competant by their teachers
as well. (p. 33)
The Reading First Program favors early academic reading instruction and intervention as the key to reducing the growing numbers of students referred to special education due to their failure to meet standardized achievement levels (Sopko, 2002). In fact, the National Assessment of Educational Progress and Achievement (NAEP) – one authority consulted by authors of Reading First – presents some rather bleak statistics on student reading achievement in the U.S. According to the NAEP approximately 40 percent of student cannot read at a basic level, including some 70 percent of low-income fourth grad students and almost 50 percent of students living in urban areas (Sopko, 2002).spend more time at socio-dramatic play are
advanced in general intellectual development
and show an enhanced ability to understand
the feelings of others. These students are also
seen as more socially competant by their teachers
as well. (p. 33)
In response, the Reading First Program seeks to intensify formal reading instruction of students from pre-kindergarten through third grade and has committed additional federal funding to do so. States and districts must implement programs supported by research that adheres to a “hierarchy of skills” model. In this model the components of reading -- the alphabetic principal, phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency and reading comprehension – are believed to be learned systematically and are best taught directly (NRP, 2000).
The shortcomings of the NRP Report on phonemic awareness and phonics instruction, upon which the Reading First Program is based, have been thoroughly debated in the literature and mostly acknowledged by the panel. Illogical interpretations of the research – itself a curious collection of decades old studies that are riddled with design flaws and conducted primarily with non-English speaking students abroad – an apparent bias toward a “hierarchy of skills” model and the lack of any input from real reading teachers have been cited as its most basic failures (Garan, 2001; Krashen, 2003).
Underlying these liabilities is the NRP’s complete silence on both the established relationship between oral language ability and early exposure to literacy rich environments and, perhaps more disturbing, the relationship of writing to reading. In his review of the NRP Report on phonemic awareness (PA), Krashen (2003) notes both the lack of true PA studies (those that did not mix PA and phonics instruction) and the illogic of trying to teach these skills through formal training as advocated by the NRP Report: One cannot conclude on the basis of this evidence, as many have, that PA training is essential or even very important. Evidence supporting the PA hysteria that appears to have gripped the schools should be made of much sterner stuff (p.3).
Reading First requires students in the third grade to take a high stakes reading test that, in at least 18 states, determines whether a student will be promoted or retained (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Horn, 2003). Though researchers have noted these retention policies, along with increased pressure on teachers and administrators in these states may have contributed to annual overall score improvement on state tests, little correlation between these gains was found in other established measures of learning achievement.
Scores on NAEP tests, Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT), and Advanced Placement (AP) tests, examined in these states during the period when state test scores improved either flattened or declined (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Horn, 2003). This data begs the question, “Do high stakes tests promote learning achievement, or simply teaching to the test?”
Additionally, at a psychological level, children who are subjected to unreasonable academic and formal schooling expectations in “goal directed” learning environments are also at increased risk for learned helplessness (Elkind, 2001). By its emphasis on formal reading instruction, Reading First ignores the body of evidence stressing the importance of memory, reason, and, most importantly, strong language control, to future reading success, all of which coincidentally, are refined through play (Berk, 1994; Cordes & Miller, 2000; Corson, 2000; Elkind, 2001).
The unfortunate irony could be that Reading First programs end up sending even more students to special education for reading difficulties, behavior problems and learned helplessness as a result of failing the state test and suffering the applicable sanctions. The picture is even grimmer for students in states with attendant grade retention policies and could disproportionately affect historically underperforming populations. In these states minorities and students of low socio-economic (SES) status – who are being retained at four times the rate of white and Asian students, perpetuating a cycle of failure (Allington, 2003; Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Horn, 2003).
Furthermore, the overwhelming evidence linking grade retention to the potential for dropping out of high school, especially for minority and low SES students, seem to have wholly escaped policy discussion. According to Jimmerson and Kaufman (2003) “Grade retention increases the risk of dropping out by 20 to 50 percent. Available research suggests that early failure (grade retention) is highly associated with the ultimate school failure (dropping out)” (p.4).
Many risks are attached to the NCLB high stakes testing mandate and its much-ballyhooed “scientific research” supporting early skills instruction as the key to improving reading outcomes. In the mass genuflection to science and the frenzy to fix public education by returning to basics, a blatant contradiction has escaped discussion. The fact that little to no evidence exists supporting high stakes testing as a means for improving student learning – as opposed to state test scores – often goes unnoticed (Allington, 2003; Amrein & Berliner, 2003).
Sadly, as schools push out recess and play in early childhood and the lower elementary grades, to better prepare students for the academic testing that awaits them in the third grade, they not only cheat children out of “the preeminent activity of childhood” (Berk, 1994, p.33), but out of their best outlet for stress relief at the time they need it the most (Berk, 1994; Elkind, 2001). If we really want to improve reading in public schools, policy makers should take note of the links between good reading and good speaking. Language drives thought and thought drives language (Berk, 1994). In a Vygotskian sense, it is our primary means for communicating and constructing knowledge about the world. As suggested by Berk, the sources for this wisdom, and for improved language skills, are usually an adult caregiver or children with more proficient language abilities who provide a zone of proximal development during play.
By supporting rich make-believe play experiences, preferably with mixed ages and environmental print, exposing children to fine literature and incorporating recitation exercises, we are strengthening their oral competency and laying the groundwork for future reading skills. Teachers need to provide continual instruction in the oral arts – from primary school through the upper grades, on into college. Past generations were more literate because they learned to speak well, and acquired and increased vocabulary through rhetorical practice. Good readers grow out of good reciters and good speakers (Sanders, 1995).
As spontaneous play experiences outside of school are eclipsed by organized sports, music lessons, more cautious “planned” play outings or P.E., we as early childhood educators need to keep the best interests of childhood in mind by continuing to offer time for free play in their curriculums. Research on the social, cognitive and psychological benefits of extended play experiences is as convincing as the research on the risks of high stakes testing and grade retention is troubling.
What has been lost in this current round of education reform is the importance of developmentally appropriate practices in early childhood education programming. These practices spring from biological basis stages of chilldhood development that are beyond legislative influence. Preserving extended play experiences in early childhood and staving off formal academics in pre-school and kindergarten will likely pay off not only in better reading achievement, but in the positive school experiences that inspire a lifelong love of learning.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. (2003). High stakes testing does not improve the teachingor learning of reading. New England Reading Association Journal, 39(1), 31-36. Amrein, A.L., Berliner, D.C. (2003). The effects of high stakes testing on
student motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32-38. Berk, L.E. (1994). Vygotsky’s theory: The importance of make-believe
play. Young Children, 5(1), 30-39.
Cordes, C., Miller, E. (2000). Fool’s Gold: A Critical Look at Computers in the Classroom. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
Corson, F. (2000). Laying the foundation for literacy. Childhood Education, 76(6), 385-389. Elkind, D. (1987). Mis-education: Preschoolers at Risk. NY: Knopf.
Elkind, D. (2001). The Hurried Child. (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Publishing.
Garan, E.M. (2001). Beyond the smoke and mirrors: a critique of the National Reading Panel report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan. 82(7), 500-506.
Gould, F. (2003). Testing third-graders in New Hampshire. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(7), 507-513.
Hannaford, C. (1995). Smart Moves: Why Learning is not all in your Head. Arlington, Virginia: Great Ocean.
Horn, C. (2003). High stakes testing and students: stopping or perpetuating a cycle of Failure? Theory into Practice, 42(1), 30-41.
Jimmerson, S.R., Kaufman, A.M. (2003). Reading, writing and retention: A primer on grade retention research. The Reading Teacher. 56(7), 622-635.
Krashen, S. (2003). False claims about phonemic awareness, phonics, skills vs. whole language and recreational reading. NoChildLeft.com Journal. 1(5), 1-13. Retrieved Sept. 22, 2004, HYPERLINK“http://www.nochildleft.com/2003/may03reading.html”
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Information Analyses (070) Reports – Descriptive (141). (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED467136)
Petrash, Jack (2002). Understanding Waldorf Education: Teaching from the Inside Out. Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House.
Sanders, Barry (1994). A is for Ox. NY: Vintage.
Sopko, K.M. (2002). Reading first program: An overview. Quick turn
around (QTA).
Zernike, K. (2000). No Time for Napping in Today's Kindergarten. New
York Times. (23) 11.
