What can we learn from the Grand Experiment in Reading Instruction, Round 1

[Dick Schutz]

The implementation of the Phonics Screening Check in the UK provided the natural constituents for a Grand Educational Experiment, with results at the international level (England vs. US) and at the national, local authority, and school level (within England). I’ve documented the experiment in a series of articles in Teachers College Record. [TCR has a modest paywall but the papers can be accessed from the Social Science Research Network:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1898823
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2018636
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2356004 ]

The final results of Round 1 of the experiment will be published in TCR early next year, but the results are well-known to IFERI readers. In the zeitgeist of “evidence-based education" it’s ironic that the best evidence about reading instruction has largely gone unnoticed, but that’s a whole nother story.

Australia’s initiative to implement an “annual phonics check” will either replicate the results of Round 1 or build on the conclusions that can be drawn from the first round of experience. A replication of Round 1 would be useful, but building on the findings of Round 1 would be an advance.

The following five advisories can be drawn from Round 1:

View the measure as a “screen” not as a “test.”
The nearest analog of the measure is the Snellen Eye Chart that is used in driver license screening. The screening takes very little time, and there are a lot of other ways that visual acuity can be measured, but it ensures that individuals have the sine qua non for driving “wherever they want.” The Screening Check functions in a similar way. There are a lot of different ways to get at "reading," and "lots more is involved," but anyone who "can read," can read all 40 items on the Check. Any child learning to read should be able to do likewise. This advisory addresses the legitimate concerns regarding over-testing, teaching to the test, and such.

Focus on the “Alphabetic Code” for English rather than on “Phonics.”
The Alphabetic Code is the human invention that provides the link between written and spoken language. One can be ignorant about the history and substance of the Code, but one can’t argue against it without displaying one’s ignorance. This advisory addresses the finding that despite enacting “systematic synthetic phonics” into law in England, “balanced literacy/mixed methods” still prevails in the UK as well as in all other English-speaking countries.

Acknowledge the professional qualification of teachers and the capability of littlies rather than dwelling on their deficiencies.
The finding that a number of schools in England, differing widely in teacher cadres, are successful in “all pass” on the Check indicates that the products and protocols used by the schools rather than the general qualifications of teachers is the critical concern. Any teacher who can personally read has the minimal prerequisite to reliably teach children how to read. Any littlie who can speak in complete sentences and participate in everyday conversation has the minimal prerequisite to be taught how to read. This advisory addresses the opposition of teacher unions and some academics (although it's unlikely to change their views).

Focus on the benefits of the screening rather than on techno-educationese.
Teachers are right when they say they “already know the results.” Within a very few days in a school year, not only does the teacher know, each kid knows, other kids know, and parents know. That’s beside the point. A few kids enter schooling already able to read all of the words on the Screening Check. The point of schooling is to enable all kids to do so, and students, teachers, and citizenry benefit by knowing this accomplishment has occurred. The individual school rather than the individual teacher is the lowest reasonable level for publicly reporting this accomplishment. The end of Yr 1 is the earliest reasonable time for reporting the accomplishment. The school should report two items of information in addition to student scores: the teacher's professional assessment that a student is “good to go—irrespective of score,” and the programme/programmes thw school is using. The same information should be reported for upper years for all students who did not read 40 items in Yr 1. This advisory addresses concerns about “cut scores,” undue stress on students and teachers, and such.

View the screening as “scientific evidence” generating rather than “accountability” management.
Round 1 focused on the responsibilities of students and teachers, holding harmless government/administrative officials, publishers, and teacher training institutions. These are all intimately responsible, but Round 1 yielded little or no leverage to modify their status quo. Round 2 can address this imbalance.

Note: I’ve drafted these advisories as dicta. However, they are actually “first draft copy.” The sketch seems sensible to me at the moment, but I’ll change it at the drop of a hat if anyone comes up with something better/different.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Hi Dick, thank you for your suggestions.

I'll share them with others and, when I have sufficient time (it's past midnight in England right now!), I'll add some thoughts/comments.

;-D

[Dick Schutz]

The Australian Government's initiative to implement a "National Year 1 Literacy and Numeracy Check" will be as much a test of the Aussie Education Ministry and the Expert Advisory Panel as it will be of Year 1 littlies. The Government's "Terms of Reference " remit to the Panel is far from the best-of-all possible remits. The terms "Literacy" and "Numeracy" muddy the matter from the get-go, and adding arithmetic, let alone Numeracy, to an Alphabetic Code [Phonics] Check is a dubious complication. There are other flaws in the remit, but the terms are "good enough" and give the Panel wide latitude.

The Aussie initiative constitutes the beginning of Round 2 of the Grand Experiment in Reading Instruction. Whether it amounts to the beginning of Round 1 of a Grand Experiment in Mathematics Instruction remains to be seen.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Hi Dick,

I'm cross-referencing your latest thread with the one on Simon Birmingham's announcement about the panel to advise the Education Council on the phonics check and maths assessment:

http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewto ... 1329#p1329

[Dick Schutz]

The most recent event in early Round 2 can be followed elsewhere on this site: Y3 phonics check resit dropped by government
http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewto ... ?f=3&t=731

The thing is, the opposition is coming from a different direction of belief and they have evidence to support the belief system. More specifically. The teaching profession, government/media, and the public believe that any school-instruction failures are attributable to what they see with their own eyes: some adults are "not good teachers" and some kids are "not good students." The results of the ungrounded achievement tests that everyone is familiar with provide scientific evidence to support this belief, and "Tier 1" [everyday] instruction is treated as"quality instruction. If we could "somehow" get better teachers (by better training, better pay, etc.) and/or get better students (by educating parents, eliminating poverty--etc.) all would be well. The possibility that the flaws are in the instruction, not in the kids or teachers never enters their mind.

This belief system is deeply embedded. Any suspicion by parents that they may not be sending their kid to a "good school," by teachers and schools that they may be inadvertently messing up kids instructionally, or by authorities that they are fallable and culpable is highly threatening.

So when kids are still flunking the Screening Check at Yr 3, the "obvious" thing to do is drop the "test." The few kids involved are dyslexic, and school keeps. Moreover, the opposition believes they were right in the first place: They tried to tell people the Phonics Check was a bad idea from the beginning; the pilot study shows they were right; now the Check should be scrapped altogether.

The opposition's specific objections DO have a tad of truthiness:

*we [don’t] believe that this will help parents know how well their children are learning to read…

True. If the only thing you tell them is whether the kid "passes" or "fails" another "test."

*They will not show whether a child can understand the words they are reading, nor provide teachers with any information about children’s reading ability they did not already know…

True, on both counts. A child will have the same understanding were the words read to the kid, and no more or less than that. And teachers do know the kids' "reading ability" and have assigned kids to groups accordingly.

*The use of made-up words …. risks … frustrate [sic] those who can already read
True. If kids have been taught to read via guessing or by taking other maladaptive shortcuts, some in the "smart group" will find the Check jarring.

*…using unrealistic, arbitrary benchmarks in the checks plucked out of the air is of benefit to no one

True. Although setting a cut-score seemed right at the time, doing so complicated rather than simplified the initiative.

The good news is that the results of round one of the Grand Experiment provide the foundation for improvement in Round 2. Whether anything is learned from Round 1 remains to be seen. The Natural Experiment is ongoing.