The Last Word on Reading First? Don't Bet On It.

Last week the Department of Education released the final report of the Reading First Impact Study, a rigorous evaluation designed to measure the effectiveness of the federal Reading First program, which funds scientifically based literacy programs in kindergarten through third grade.

The researchers found that Reading First had a positive, statistically significant impact on the amount of instructional time devoted to components of scientifically based reading instruction, the amount of professional development teachers received in scientifically based reading instruction, the extent to which schools used literacy coaches, and the amount of support provided to struggling students.

It did not, however, find any evidence that Reading First improved students' reading comprehension.

These results won't be surprising to anyone who read the interim report, and much of what we said then applies now. Unlike the earlier report, however, which looked only at reading comprehension scores, the final report also evaluated first graders' decoding skills--and found that Reading First did positively affect children's decoding skills at the end of first grade.

This report hasn't gotten the attention the earlier interim report received, but critics of Reading First will no doubt seize on it as further evidence that the program isn't working and should be defunded. We agree that the disappointing evaluation results suggest a need to rethink some elements of the Reading First program in order to improve its effectiveness--and the upcoming NCLB reauthorization provides and opportunity to do that. (One change we'd recommend: expand the program to cover PK-3, not just K-3, so that pre-k teachers can participate in coaching and professional development alongside their K-3 peers.)

In the meantime, however, these results should not be used as a rationale to defund the program. Ensuring that students can read proficiently by the end of third grade is perhaps the most essential educational goal: There's just too much evidence pointing to very bad prospects for kids who can't read proficiently by the end of third grade. And, recent NAEP data shows us that far too many students are arriving at fourth grade without the ability to read on grade level. Given those facts, it's essential that we maintain a federal commitment to literacy by third grade.

Moreover, despite the disappointing evaluation findings, there is evidence from other studies that Reading First is having a positive impact in some schools and districts that use it. Richmond, Va., for example, has used Reading First funds to implement major scientifically based reading reforms, which have resulted in substantial literacy gains. Black students in Richmond are now proficient in reading at higher rates than their peers in Arlington and Fairfax County. Cutting funding for Reading First, at a time when state budgets are already facing massive shortfalls that will likely affect education funding, could mean an end for these promising efforts--and harm to the kids who are currently benefitting from them. Moreover, it makes no sense for Congress to eliminate this significant source of early education funding at the same time as it's considering major new investments in early education.

Reading First is hardly a perfect program, but it addresses an issue of national importance and there is evidence that it is having some positive impacts, at least at the local level and on children's early decoding skills. Until Congress has an opportunity to redesign the program in NCLB reauthorization, it should continue funding Reading First at current levels.

Photo courtesy of flickr user adwriter, used under a Creative Commons license.