Below is a letter I sent to my mentor teachers in the field. It is a welcome and thank you letter for taking on our (first) internship (which is placed in the public school classroom for two hours each morning, Mon-Thur).  But this letter also serves to inform.  Scroll down past the chart to "what's new" where I provide an SBRR update from a recent HEC meeting. My incentive for doing this was based on my perception of significant frustration and opposition among the faculty in that school to the new curriculum imposed upon them in September.  My concerns were for the children caught in between all of this (as usual).

Carol Abel
SFASU

guided reading:
www.newton.k12.ks.us/Dist/curr/bp/lit/guided_reading.htm#*Running%20Records  
making words:
www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view_printer_friendly.asp?id=150
www.readinglady.com/ww/Working_With_Words/working_with_words.html

It is not enough to "teach" students to read; teachers in Reading First Schools use the latest "proven" methods to teach reading and they carefully monitor the progress of their students to "make sure" their students learn to read.

Money for schools willing to put their neck on the line--to take accountability for insuring ALL students in their schools learn to read by 3rd grade. Schools may apply for this money but if they get it, they must follow the rules they promise to abide by.

...to "make sure" their students are, in fact, learning to read.

They attempted (to the best of their ability) to control for any other variables that might interfere with their results.  To do this, they would target small areas of instruction for their study so as not to confuse one particular area with another. For instance, they would study "how children learn to hear a certain sound" or "how children learn to identify the letter B" (easy simple targeted skills) instead of studying "how children become readers" (general and too large to control). They would study them over and over to see if their results were the same for more than just one school or group of students "just to be sure" (checking validity); if they got the same or similar results when they repeated a study more than once, they figured their results could be considered "reliable."  This is where the term "replicable and reliable" comes from.  Eventually, they added up all of their small targeted studies and then thought critically about them in order to determine what they could possibly "generalize" as true for "how to teach all children to read."  Since they discovered that "average and accellerated" students seem to do well with most any type of instruction, they focused mainly on the "at risk" (strugglers and disadvantaged) group.  Clearly this is a new idea for education so we haven't done all the research yet.  But we do think we know some things now that we didn't know before and are anxious to begin using them (the research base). Read more: http://www.ed.gov/print/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/guide.html

Phonemic awareness http://www.ncrel.org/rf/sbrr/phonemic.htm
Phonics http://www.ncrel.org/rf/sbrr/phonics.htm
Fluency  http://www.ncrel.org/rf/sbrr/fluency.htm
Vocabulary http://www.ncrel.org/rf/sbrr/vocab.htm
Comprehension  http://www.ncrel.org/rf/sbrr/comprehn.htm

They call it: Scientifically Based Reading Research (SBRR)
http://www.education.sfasu.edu/ele/classes/abel/ABEL_hec_SBR_lab.doc

Of note:  Many teachers seem to be ignoring the phonics piece for early readers, whereas the research-base would like all teachers to respect the importance of explicitly teaching the alphabetic principle (blend letter-sounds to produce words) to all children plus provide them with opportunities to read decodable text so they learn to use it automatically. It does not say there are no other ways to read, but this one important strategy should be more than incidental in our teaching: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/reading/products/howdokno.pdf

Additionally, it seems to be working best for "at risk" students who are our greatest challenge.

In other words, they "connect the dots" for everyone (align the curriculum) so it becomes a seamless instruction manual, containing "all" the important parts (Texas standards, research base, good teaching ideas, etc.)  Scott Foresman, chosen by your district,  is one such publisher http://www.pearsoned.com/pr_2005/062705.htm Another is Open Court among others http://www.sraonline.com/index.php/home/curriculumsolutions/reading/ocr/622 

When a school district writes a request for grant money, they must specify "how" they will teach the research-base. Selecting one of these approved curriculums (containing the research-base) makes things easier to control especially if they are "linked" to the state standards already in place.  They promise to use this or that curriculum which helps them implement the research-base into their existing programs. Most curriculum publishers align their curriculum directly with each state's needs. So, for instance, they may call it the TEXAS version or the CALIFORNIA version, etc. Read more http://www.ncrel.org/rf/sbrr/choose.htm

Teachers are expected to follow it so they do not forget to include certain skills.
Beyond this, teachers should "adapt and adjust" to meet the learner, as always...especially if a student(s) is not responding to the more "scripted" recommended lesson(s).

• When teachers hate it, their negative "attitudes" can interfere with students' learning.

• When teachers follow it "to the letter" they may forget they are dealing with human beings and may not implement it as intended (e.g., reading scripts with students & teacher falling asleep) See "What is a Core Reading Program" page 1 http://www.tea.state.tx.us/reading/readingfirst/SimKam.pdf

• When teachers do not realize this is not the end all--that this is only the tip of the iceberg and that "all" of the research is not yet completed or understood--they might teach in a very limited fashion and may not give their students all they need to succeed.  Explicit systematic teaching gets us started, but ultimately we seek to educate our students in broad more complex ways.

• When teachers do not realize that the publishing companies can make mistakes--those individuals who are sent to your campus who may or may not be teaching you to implement it correctly--they can do their students a disservice.

• When teachers ignore the new researched-based program and "do their own thing" they are in legal hot water because their district "signed on" to implement research-based instruction in order to get the federal money and if they want to get it and keep it, they must do what they say they will do.

And, because we also know that any good veteran teacher is already an effective competent instructor, we are again inclined to look more closely at ways to help the high number of new teachers manage all of their students until they know what they are doing.  

Think back to your first day of teaching--wouldn't it have been nice to have a manual that spelled out what to do "just in case" you weren't sure?  Think how nice it would be to follow the guide until you could jump in there without first referring to the page. Think, too, of the fortunate suburban student who has had a lot of "lap time" and ABC's on the fridge.  Consider that his vocabulary when he enters school is twice that of an "at risk" student.

The research-based deliberate instruction is focused on the "at risk" student to ensure that ALL children get a running first start in school. The manuals are there to guide you....to be sure you use the research-base with your students. But the research never saw YOUR student and it doesn't know YOU (the context).  Research-based "approved" curriculums provide explicit systematic instructional pages specifying "how to" teach reading so that all teachers (old and new) will know what to teach and so all students (advantaged or disadvantaged) will learn to read. It's decent stuff even if it is not exactly what you might want to teach or precisely the way you might prefer to go about teaching it. You owe it to kids to at least begin there and then you can adapt and adjust to "meet your learners." It is designed to give kids a firm solid foundation and the feeling of success with an "I can do this" attitude even if you find there are indeed other ways to help kids along in their reading, which of course, we are permitted to do.

Clearly this student should be in a "flexible" group with other readers. Applying the research base with these students is also important.  We do not ignore those who can read until the "at risk" catch up.  According to Margaret Spellings, secretary of education, the goal is to move EVERYone forward while CLOSING the GAP.

Sometimes when things are added to our plates but nothing is removed, we feel frustrated in being asked to do so much.  

Quite often when we don't "own" something (didn't create it or invest our creative energies toward it) we are less inclined to enjoy doing it.  

Sometimes we think we know better and would prefer to teach it our way; we do not realize that 90 minutes a day covers the basic SBR and that we can adjust it a little if need be and we can teach the way we want after the 90 minutes  

All of these considerations will need to be studied, but for now, we must do the best with what we have.

Even though some of our former approaches seemed "intuitively" correct, many students did not learn to read or read well, and no one really seemed to notice or care. They thought (in the past) that if a child sat in his seat for a certain number of days in a year, he could simply be passed along to the next grade level. When he got to 12th grade, he graduated--simple as that!  Because the education system did not monitor itself, the govt stepped in to begin the monitoring.  Since the U.S. depends upon educated citizens for it to work, the U.S. cannot accept "some children being left behind."  Because the education system did not assume accountability for this, the U.S.govt felt it needed to get things rolling.  At this point, states are not being "forced" to adopt research-based, but if they want federal money and "perks & PR" (which most states cannot live without), then they need to "buy in" to the research-based instruction.

If teachers want to include some of their former activities, they may do so but not during the "reading" time. Perhaps this could change over time but first we must be sure all teachers understand and appreciate the research-base.  IF a veteran teacher (who knows what she is doing) knows a better way to "get the skills" into her particular students, then by all means, she may adapt or adjust a little here or there (but not significantly change the curriculum) to meet the individual learners in front of her. However, in the end, if she is not "checking off" and teaching according to the guildlines in the recommended published curriculum adopted by the school (which must follow the research-base), and dares to "miss something," she is in a bit of hot water, to say the least.

This is the "age of accountability."  We all must "get with the new picture" and try our best to make it work. Nothing is perfect but this seems to be "on the right track."  If we don't like it, then we must participate in the research to prove our own ideas work better. Then everyone will be reading about our ideas and following those guidelines.

Clearly the old way was not working well. Should we keep going back and forth fighting bitterly, or should we begin where we can get ourselves anchored responsibly and move forward in an accountable (and humane) manner....continually improving as we go?

Transitional times are not easy times.  We all need to help tweak this here and there to make it better because right now, it is only the beginning of a good idea--all children reading, not just your kid or mine.

NCLB progress report
http://www.education.sfasu.edu/ele/classes/abel/nclb_works_july05.doc
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/07/07142005.html

Because kindergarten children are particularly difficult to assess, the TPRI will be used with them. For older students in Reading First schools, yearly student achievement may be monitored by a more objective & neutral party such as the norm-referenced standardized test called the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (this test does not belong to Iowa; it's just called this even though many states have been using it for many years). Of course, as you know, the TPRI will continue to be given in Texas so that "Texas progress" can still be monitored over time.

The N.A.E.P. National Assessment of Educational Progress is an organization that samples students from across the U.S. throughout all grade levels. They keep adapting and changing their tests based upon what they feel Americans need to know in order to be successful as citizens living in America (and probably abroad, some day). http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/faq.html

The first standardized test above (while not perfect) allows us to compare kids from long ago till now and into the future (since the test does not change) whereas the other (NAEP) tells us how well we are doing w/respect to our changing times and goals which include "keep up with the Jones" (the rest of the world).

Both of these are "standardized" (snapshot) tests-- the kind your principal is most interested in to guage how your school (in general) is doing. Those funding your grants are also looking at your school's standardized tests.  However, you and I both know that the informal day-to-day tests that we do in our classroom (observing kids, checklists, portfolios,  running records, etc.) keep us informed in a more personal individualized way about how our students are doing and whether or not our instruction is working. Both are important for different reasons although more recently those "informal" tests are becoming more standardized, as well (handheld Dibels & TPRI progress monitoring).

BUT it may not look the same when all is done. Many teachers say they have better ideas but the problem is that their ideas are not well researched "yet." As more and more studies are conducted, better sollutions and teaching ideas will emerge.  If teachers think they are "caught in the crunch" consider how the students must feel.

Change is inevitable & constant.....and never easy.

Dibels info & pronunciation videos
http://dibels.uoregon.edu/benchmark.php 
http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/
k-3 benchmarks
http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/pdffiles/k-3_risk_levels.pdf
4-5 benchmarks
http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/PDFfiles/4-5_RISK_LEVELS.pdf
MAKING DECISIONS
http://dibels.uoregon.edu/benchmark.php
http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/pdf/dibels/DecisionRulesPatterns.pdf
LIST & DETAILS RE PRE-k ASSESSMENTS & VALIDITY CHART
http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/pdffiles/prek_kassessments.pdf

TPRI  http://www.education.sfasu.edu/ele/classes/abel/abel_resources.html#tpri
TPRI Training Videos http://www.tpri.org/Training/Videos/Activities/?plyr=win&spd=low
Reading First Requirements http://www.tpri.org/About/