The Hechinger Report describes a study from an online company that has been data mining the kids.
Based on data mining and test scores, it reaches the conclusion that only 4.7 minutes of additional reading is enough to lift kids at the bottom to the top half!
Please, what is .7 of a minute?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
we found at one point that 10 minutes a day in math would raise achievement scores (under the guidance of a skilled Chapter I teacher)…. 10 minutes is reasonable for the kind of practice that raised a math test score. It took us longer for the reading gains and we didn’t get them in the first year (Chapter I classrooms)…. I think the teacher’s guidance, a carefully selected curriculum with a scope and sequence etc… can give results. But not all results can be replicated in every situation…. there is a little something called “program fidelity” when anything goes to a large scale (beyond a lab school)
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
. 7 of a minute is 42 secs.
LikeLike
Darn it! I only had my kid read for 4 minutes and 41 seconds. Now she’ll never “perform!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL…it is a random number
LikeLike
for the report mentioned in Math Henry Levin did the independent evaluation and I trusted his work…. and he reported cost-effectiveness of the data as to how much it would cost to raise the math scores. Since Henry Levin’s work I have not seen anything else where I would put a lot of faith or trust in what they call “research”…. It is useful to review the medical literature and see how the data can be ignored, rigged, and plied in order to get a drug through the FDA trials etc. as there is a lot of that going on in education and we don’t have the gold standard of a double blind study.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
LikeLike
Isn’t the ultimate answer to everything “42”?
Thank you Douglas Adams.
LikeLike
Yes it is. 😎
LikeLike
Thanks for all the fish.
LikeLike
Fish? ?? You lost me
LikeLike
I thought the ultimate answer to everything was to bubble in or click ‘B’! I didn’t know 42 was going to be on the test.
LikeLike
42 was a movie reference to “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”
LikeLike
Re: fish:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok. Got it. 😎
LikeLike
Fish? Hitchhiker’s Guide? “So long…thanks for all the fish?”
LikeLike
there are studies from Pearson that say they are “raising scores” in districts where previous programs have been unable to raise scores. I would be very suspicious of these kinds of data in the reading curriculum — the math curriculum (10 minutes out of a 45 minute class) were on basic skills / basic facts….. so if you define the narrow test items and concentrate only on those and drill that material I would imagine it is possible to do this in math but I am very skeptical about “reading”…. would have to see how they define “reading” and what the program consists of for further clarification …. as I mentioned I am skeptical of the Pearson report that says they have done this in public schools… it just makes me think they have fudged the data somehow or played around with the numbers of students tested (the population sample)
LikeLike
Four minutes more than no reading ever at all could raise the score.
LikeLike
Doesn’t student interest in what they read and how that motivates them to read not just more but mort interestedly really matter more than 4.7 minutes of boredom?
LikeLike
Reminds me of 7-minute abs.
LikeLike
There will always be a bottom half. Once everyone is reading an extra 4.7 minutes, there will be a new population in the bottom half. At some point, in an alternate universe, students will be required to read 24 hours/day.
LikeLike
A word of warning on concepts.
One must remember that when you go see your doctor, there is an even chance that he/she graduated in the bottom half of the class. Does that mean you are not getting good/excellent health care by your doctor?
Remember that admission to medical schools in this country is extremely selective and only the very best amongst us become doctors.
LikeLike
“. . . only the very best amongst us become doctors.”
There’s another fish for my stringer!
LikeLike
Raj, you might not realize it, but what you have just implied is that the answer to failing schools is making sure that elementary schools are “extremely selective and only the very best amongst us become Kindergarten students”.
I agree with you that your solution is probably one of the few ways to make sure all the students in public schools are “above average”. Even the bottom 1% will be okay, as long as the Kindergarten is “extremely selective and only the best” 5 year olds are allowed to enter public school Kindergartens.
But I’m not sure whether you are promoting that as a solution or not.
LikeLike
And yet, we still have bad doctors.
LikeLike
Raj–not everybody wants to be a doctor. The smartest often stick with research and science—
LikeLike
Even the bottom 1% will be okay, as long as the Kindergarten is “extremely selective and only the best” 5 year olds are allowed to enter public school Kindergartens.
But the bottom half will always be below average. We all want schools where all the kids are above average.
LikeLike
Clumsy wording, Raj.
LikeLike
42 seconds
LikeLike
Given that they have no data on what other instruction the kids received,, this is a study with very little merit.
LikeLike
This is ridiculous at best…no common sense…!
LikeLike
Snake Oil.
LikeLike
Just about the time it takes the tank on my toilet to refill. Somehow that seems relevant to the credibility of the findings.
LikeLike
GE2L2R~ please don’t suggest the correlation of toilet tank filling time with raising reading scores. These Deformsters will take away bathroom breaks – even more than they have already…or they will mandate every kidlet to read during flushing. After all, every data point must be worshipped. In turn, send $$ to billionaires to support
poli sci majors.
LikeLike
H.A. Hurley, it is too late.
Years ago during the Reading First fiasco we were made to post sight words on the walls and the back of the door in our classroom toilets in my Title I school.
Not a single learming moment, they said, could be wasted. The same crew outlawed coloring and games as time wasteful.
Kids were made to answer questions while walking in line to lunch even.
Those hucksters are gone but their philosophy remains. See Eva the Evil and all the other no excuses abuse factories . . . .
LikeLike
So if the kid retreads Green Eggs and Ham for an extra 4.7 minutes a day, his/her reading score will go up. Given the popularity of the book in my day care program in 1968, all those kids must have gotten scholarships to Harvard.
LikeLike
Rereads not retreads, although….
LikeLike
But if they “retread” for an additional 4.7 minutes a day, surely they will be able to “retire” very early, maybe even after first grade.
so, I’d say “retreading” is even better than rereading.
LikeLike
And yes, define reading.
LikeLike
Why don’t we just get rid of most standardized testing, which wastes enormous amounts of classroom time, and have the students read a bit more?
LikeLike
“Why don’t we just get rid of most standardized testing. . . ?”
Anarchist agitator!
LikeLike
Facepalm. Then SMH.
LikeLike
The people who are really slacking off are the adults. The “sample NYTimes fiction bestseller” is a 6th grade reading level? Is that what “5.7” means?
https://www.learnalytics.com/wkar/
LikeLike
Diane, 0.7 of a minute is 42 seconds. That is calculated by taking the number of seconds in a minute (60) and multiplying it by 70%. Thus, 42 seconds.
Any more questions?
LikeLike
Virginia, I knew what 0.7 of a minute is. It was sarcasm. Who do you think will hold a stopwatch to stop at 4 minutes and 42 seconds?
LikeLike
Diane, computers have these things called “registers” and “MOSFET transistors” that can be used to create a stopwatch inside the computer! Look at what STEM majors can accomplish…
Or put another way, “4.7 minutes” is actually 2 hrs 21 minutes/month. That is calculated by:
1. Multiplying 4.7 * 10 = 47 (30 days/month = 3 * 10 days/month)
2. Multiplying 47 * 3 = 141 minutes/month
3. Using fractions to generate 2 hrs 21 minutes
You see, “4.7 minutes/day” implies that an average has been taken. And it was very likely derived by the total time these students spent reading outside of school in a given month. The first thing a researcher might do is determine whether outside reading actually helps improve academic performance. But an additional step is what we like to call “sensitivity analysis”. In other words, what is the minimum treatment required to generate an effect and how does the magnitude of the treatment change the outcome.
Researchers would typically delve through their data to find the minimum amount of reading/month associated with student gains. This likely resulted in their conclusion of about 4.7 minutes/day. It would be interesting to see the slope of the line (that’s STEM-talk btw) for improved academic performance relative to daily reading. Do the gains fade out as reading increases beyond some threshold? Or is there continuous gains?
Now, some might say that 2 hrs 21 minutes/month can’t possibly make a difference. They would say this without having any clue about other fields of study or the actual data. So let’s look at two examples that show that small amounts of engagement generate large effects.
1. Everyone on this blog encourages parents to read to their kids. But how much difference does a single book in the home make? Quite a bit according to recent research. Thus, the effort to put books in every home. Some might be skeptical that 1-3 books could make a difference (or 4.7 min/day), but they would be wrong.
2. How much exercise is the minimum needed to see tangible benefits? According to recent research, only 3 minutes/week can help! Yes, you read that right but HIT is not merely jogging or even running, it’s intense. Of course, longer periods will help aerobic fitness, but we are not talking about the optimum amount of exercise, only the minimum needed to see tangible benefits.
So Diane, I realize you understood the implications of the statement about 4.7 minutes/day. But it’s also clear that your mostly educator audience took the bait and replied with ignorant attacks as if they were mindless zombies in search of fresh meat. Understanding the implied background for such statements is part of critical thinking, a skill in short supply among too many …. Well, I’ll keep it respectful this time!
LikeLike
Virginia, try to do anything for 4.7 minutes a day–no more, no less. The article said nothing about averages, or about a monthly total. It said precisely 4.7 minutes a day.
LikeLike
The article was not talking about independent reading. It was talking about students involved with an online reading program. The kids who read an average of about 19 min./session(day) got significantly more questions correct on a multiple choice comprehension test than those who only read 14+ min./session. The difference between those two averages is where the 4.7 minutes came from. There is nothing said about reading outside of school. We know nothing about the students reading habits outside of that daily online dose. As far as I can tell, the research is nothing more than a poor marketing attempt. Anyone who would purchase this program on the basis of this study should not be making such decisions.
LikeLike
” As far as I can tell, the research is nothing more than a poor marketing attempt. Anyone who would purchase this program on the basis of this study should not be making such decisions.”
and that is the point….. there is very little “research” that you can trust these days — it is all “messaging” and extreme claims that cannot be verified. I was so angry at Measured Progress because of the role they took in marketing the Pearson products (marketing literature written by Sir Michale Barber etc) and the role they have in the MA State department as “research” advocates and when i look at the publications I see West Ed name on the same “stuff” and politicians are “buying ” it and telling the teachers these marketing claims…..
LikeLike
United Opt Out National has compiled a comprehensive list of the key power brokers, nonprofit institutions and corporations behind CCSS. It is provided here for your edification. grants and other monies are given to states that adopt RTTT which requires them to adopt CCSS, use new high stakes testing such as PARCC or SBAC, and requires these tests to be attached to teacher and school evaluations which in turn foster the agenda of corporate-run education policies. Measured Progress is on their list; it took a while to uncover their name in the Sir Michael Barber marketing literature that was brought forward by the Massachusetts Business Alliance but these groups are quoted in all the Globe headlines that are weighing PARCC against MCAS daily…. It is phony “research” ….. NPR reads it out on the radio as a news release of a “research study”…. and woman at the state department’s name is in the report. some of these firms may have had better reputations in the past…. but it is snake oil they are selling …. does anyone remember the dot.com bubble? that was also built on over-marketed hyped marketing literature (not research).
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
LikeLike
2old2teach, I agree that this was not a tightly controlled study. But guess what, not everything can control for all factors save one. Does that mean it’s definitive? No. Does that mean it’s useless? No.
1. Kids who read 19 min/day (4.7 min more than others) read 33% more than the ones who only read 14.3 min/day.
2. Over a year, that represents 200K more words.
Both are significant. Do we hope that the kids read much more outside school? Yes. But maybe the online reading program helped inspire kids to want to read. If I were a school, am I going to buy the software based on this one claim? Not without a lot more research and a comparison of alternatives. But I can vouch for one product that another parent gave me when my child was 2 yrs old. The Leapfrog “Letter Factory” video is the most efficient phonics program I have ever seen. My child literally learned the letters and sounds within two weeks and watched that silly movie 100’s times. I have given this to other parents who achieved similar results.
There are a lot of effective videos/online learning programs. But I agree one must be a discerning consumer.
jeanjaverhill, such overconfidence. You are parroting myths about big Pharma. Yes, sometimes there benefits aren’t quite as claimed but big Pharma is responsible for the overwhelming improvements in health care. If you have leukemia, big Pharma can often give you effectively a full life. Same with many cancer treatments. And Hepatitis C can be cured with one treatment period. Those are miracles and save $100K’s or even $M’s of $. The fact that doctors cannot stay abreast of the latest advances means that Pharma has to take its messages directly to the public. But I see the liberal talking points are not lost on you despite your ignorance of the field.
Folks are free to critically consider any and all claims made by vendors. Folks appear foolish when they have a basic misunderstanding of the facts in a claim or whether a short treatment (3 min/week or 4 min/day) cannot possibly have positive results. They are simply too lazy or ignorant to conduct their own research.
Diane, I didn’t read it closely the first time either. It was 4.7 more minutes (14.3 -> 19) per day on average.
LikeLike
Virginia, who has the stopwatch that measures .7 of a minute?
LikeLike
2old2teach, I agree that this was not a tightly controlled study. But guess what, not everything can control for all factors save one.
quoting Virginia’s reply to 2old2teach:
when you can’t control for factors that means that you are not able to over-generalize in your claims because the findings will not substantiate your conclusions for the larger scale or the next group or classroom….. over-generalizing with claims that are not substantiated is like selling snake oil and it is fraud. Today , research is stacking cards in education without the benefits of sound research “well aspirin worked and my medicine is just like aspirin so it will work” and they are doing this repeatedly with software programs and computer programs that have not been validated. The What Works Clearinghouse can not do all the work of “Vetting” and every time the administration changes they get a funding cut and the priorities shift again.
In medicine at least they have double blind studies and (hopefully) we have an FDA that can screen out the things that are most likely to cause harm; but even the celebrex was missed in the process until heart doctors found that the pain medicine for arthritis was causing problems in their department… I think it was the doctors in practice who found it (not the researchers) but since this new top down model doesn’t pay attention to the wisdom of teachers then I guess we are just out of luck.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
LikeLike
schools do not run on a caveat emptor basis; that is why we have knowledgable persons (hopefully) who serve in administrative roles, who are in the Commissioner’s chair in the DESE etc…. there are policy decisions that are made in an educational system that are different from the consumer market of buying a chevrolet as opposed to a Buick.
It used to be called a public school system…. and I think the word system at one time had some meaning — systematic. not guess work, not “buyer beware”, not administering the latest concotions out of the woods and calling them herbs.
LikeLike
All that they should be claiming is that students who read around 4 minutes more on their computer reading program do better on their multiple choice test than those who read less.
LikeLike
i don’t like the description you have of the professional educators.
Obviously the nuances of teaching and learning escape you ….. The ways that big Pharma will sell their over-marketed products are obvious ; there is even further room for data rigging and psychometric fudge in the field of education. To accept a corporate review of a product is not good science. It is also a waste of taxpayer money. These are things that we have to consider in reviewing any glowing sales and, in particular, marketing hype that is written by Sir Michael Barber. As I mentioned in comments, every hyped sales report no matter from what institution with what title of “research ” or “think” tank in their headlines has to be viewed with skepticism in today’s market (I made the contrast of research that in the past I could trust from Pat Suppes or from the National Diffusion Network or the “What Works Clearinghouse”. One cannot place any trust in the “research” that is printed today and hyperbole enters into my cynicism when I make a comment. It is not useful to be telling parents that 4 minutes or whatever will produce an “effect” or cause something to happen and on the other extreme tell them it takes 15,000 hours of practice to become an accomplished musician…. If people here are writing out of the frustration of the nonsense of these unsubstantiated claims I commend them all.
LikeLike
Diane… Pearson will be manufacturing just such a “stopwatch” so that every district of every public school in the country will have a watch for every teacher. They probably will sell a gold one too given to each teacher in a district who registers the most clicks on the stopwatch (with data entry to accompany of course)! The data will be linked to a centralized data collection system paid for – by of course – Bill Gates. Charter schools will be offered Tiffany platinum stop watches that have the 4.7 timing device installed. The teacher who “wins” will be offered a prize yet to be determined but surely better than the ordinary public school’s prize in this RTTTT (Race To The Timing Top)!
LikeLike
Virginia ….on this topic? on this blog? did I say something about Big Pharma? I was talking about the research done by Pat Suppes and using it as an example when Henry Levin reported on his math programs (the reading programs took two years before there were any gains in classrooms supervised by adequately trained teachers using a curriculum scope and sequence) and I made a contrast with that research and then the “marketing studies” that are purported to be “research” when cited on NPR and they are only articles that are product sales type written by Sir Michael Barber of Pearson — they are forwarded from a New Hampshire outfit called Measured Progress through the Massachusetts business council (and the local chambers of commerce” as “research.” It is not research… Did any of these comparisons mention Big Pharma? maybe I have missed some elements of the conversation? You might want to see the study from Boston Pioneer Institute that points out flaws in the student growth progress/formulas that you seem to be so enamored of SGP…. but Pioneer says they are only unfair to the charter schools where I believe they are unfair to ALL students.
LikeLike
jeanhaverhill your Nov 18 comment at 5:22am referenced Big Pharma’s marketing techniques.
Are you talking about the Pioneer institute’s study referenced in this article? Here’s a summary.
– Massachusetts only authorized charters in the “bottom” schools
– previously, “bottom” schools were defined by overall achievement which guaranteed poor neighborhoods’ schools were always in the bottom regardless of the effectiveness of the schools or teachers
– Massachusetts changed the definition of bottom schools to incorporate growth via SGPs (a good thing) and suddenly the poor neighborhood schools who were achieving growth were no longer labeled “bad”
– charter schools were upset because they could no longer point to effective schools in poor neighborhoods and claim they were “failing” since the SGPs showed students were achieving growth. They potential numbers were limited.
Now, maybe Massachusetts needs to allow charters anywhere. But correctly labeling which schools are failing (no growth) vs blindly labeling schools in poor neighborhoods (low scores but possibly high growth) as “bad” is a step forward.
LikeLike
This data is from a company I have some experience with — Renaissance Learning. And it’s not good experience. I gave their math software a good trial with some students and found it less than worthless.
I would infer that the reading portion is probably of similarly dubious quality.
As is the reported conclusion.
LikeLike
thank you for the comment; I know nothing of the software programs you describe. The math curriculum that I had referred to was an older one developed by Pat Suppes. My sister-in-law trained with him in graduate school (psychology not education)… and Henry Levin did some studies to illustrate cost-effectiveness as well as academic gains. When the multiple versions of desk tops came along everyone and his brother and sister thought they could create the math programs that would be successful but not many ever measured up to what Pat Suppes had created (I have not been in the field of some time now so I am not up to date). The idea that anyone with a computer can create curriculum is inventive and creative but not always proven to measure up (if I use the Pat Suppes curriculum as an early standard). I do know the Pat Suppes math curriculum proved effective when it was adopted but his reading curriculum did not prove out the first year and there were no funds to continue the evaluation into the second and third years. The national diffusion network did some of this verification and the Grover “russ” whitehurst helped with “what works clearinghouse” but then we also had the fiasco under Spellings evaluation of programs was “left behind”…. Then with Reading First it became chaotic again with “nothing works”…. I had a boss who was president of Mass School Business Officials and he insisted that every curriculum adopted had to meet the requirements of being cost-effective (following the measures as Henry Levin set forth).
LikeLike
“I have for a very long time also been against the idea that you tie teacher evaluation and even teacher pay to test outcomes,” Clinton said. “There’s no evidence. There’s no evidence. Now, there is some evidence that it can help with school performance. If everybody is on the same team and they’re all working together, that’s a different issue, but that’s not the way it’s been presented.”
This is a direct shot at Obama’s education policy. The Education Department pushed states to adopt policies that would link teachers’ professional evaluations in part to their students’ test scores.”
I think VAM was headed to the scrap heap anyway- I think states will dump it in a…quiet way that lets those politicians who backed it save face- but it’s interesting she’s getting ahead of that.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/16/9743818/hillary-clinton-education
LikeLike
I think her husband coached her on this. Does she mean it? What form and shape will her not-like-Obama statements take in practice?
LikeLike
She’s distancing herself from Obama’s policies but has not convinced me that it’s much more than empty rhetoric. We don’t vote for one person in presidential elections. We vote for an entire team selected by the candidate. HRC’s team of advisers are from the Broad- Rahm – Cuomo – DFER camp. She can say all day every day that test scores shouldn’t be tied to teacher evals. But, like Obama, she’ll appoint who her donors want her to appoint.
LikeLike
VAM preceded Obama’s election; Sanders and Rivers (1996) Sanders & Horn (1994) Research from the Tennessee Value Added Assessment System. I know on this blog in the past I have said that Kennedy compromised too much on the NCLB and that is where we got side tracked but then usually someone comes back and says I am wrong (I just took a jab at spellings so I am doing the same thing repeatedly here)….
LikeLike
“Give me the child until he is 7, and I’ll mine his data.”
LikeLike
I think what they really meant was that children who read close to 20 minutes with this online program do better than children who read less than 15 minutes. Doing better appears to be determined by scores on multiple choice comprehension tests. Of course no one appears to have checked to see how that compares to programs that encourage 15-20 minutes of independent reading during school. The Hechinger report title and conclusion are overblown and misleading.
LikeLike
But how many sillly half-paying attention administrators will hear this and decide to have a 4.7 min reading time at the end of the day!! Studies show!! Based on research!!
Like the Mozart Effect all over again.
LikeLike
Gosh, I feel so silly. Here all these years I’ve been reading an hour or more a day!
LikeLike
I turned English closed-captioning on in Amazon Instant Video and increased my daily reading by over 800%.
LikeLike
Well THAT’LL learn ya.
LikeLike
I have never read to improve my performance on a standardized test. Have you? Really? In fact most of my reading has been for enjoyment or to satisfy my curiosity about something. Helping kids find things that they enjoy reading and will read voluntarily trumps any “program” once they have basic skills.
LikeLike
My husband was scolding our eleven-year-old this morning, who had presented a manga series as his “selected” book for independent reading. “That’s not for school reading,” he said. “That’s reading for fun!” As an English teacher, allow me to say, ALL reading can be “for fun.” If it isn’t, you’re doing it wrong.
LikeLike
They’ve clearly been listening to too much John Cage.
LikeLike
If .7 is 33, that is
LikeLike
AR is ghastly and, unfortunately, loved by some teachers.
Kids read a book, either on paper or online, and then take a short multiple choice ‘comprehension’ test. The kids earn points for each test passed and they progress up levels and get a reward of some kind.
A few summers ago I was book shopping for my classroom and I heard a mother scold her son, saying “You can’t read that book, it’s not on your AR list!” He sadly replaced the YA fantasy novel he’d chosen. I threw up in my mouth. AR does not have online tests for all books, you see, so, no testing points, no reading allowed!
I read some studies back then that also showed no longterm improvements from using AR. The children read the book, take the test, earn their points/reward, and promptly forget what they read. No improvement in real reading comprehension at all.
Bogus study, bogus research, bogus software.
Just let kids pick out and read books that interest them and they will be fine.
LikeLike
Just let children have a librarian and library in their school. Let them select books they are interested in. No need for “leveled” reading and tests – it’s all junk.
LikeLike
It took us only 1 sec to realize how bogus, flawed and ridiculous that study is.
LikeLike
Basically, how much can a child read in 7 tenths of one minute—a sentence, two sentences, a paragraph?
And did you read this report out of Stanford? Eva Moskowitz MUST read this, so she’ll stop punishing kindergarten children for being normal five year olds.
“A new study shows starting kindergarten later could give children more self-control as they age. (Image via AP Photo/Don Ryan)
“Holding your child back from kindergarten could be a big boost to his or her mental health for years to come, according to a new study from Stanford University. “We found that delaying kindergarten for one year reduced inattention and hyperactivity by 73% for an average child at age 11,” professor Thomas Dee says in a Stanford press release. “And it virtually eliminated the probability that an average child at that age would have an ‘abnormal’ or higher-than-normal rating for the inattentive-hyperactive behavioral measure.”
“The study—published last month in the National Bureau of Economic Research—looked at thousands of Danish children and found that the kids who started kindergarten later had better self-control as they aged, Quartz reports.”
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/this-one-decision-could-boost-kids-self-control-160145245.html
Does this help explain, in part, why Finland is so successful teaching children to learn—in Finland they wait until the children are seven years old before they start going to school?
LikeLike
According to Common Core math, .7 of a minute is 2 hours or C.
LikeLike
Beware the source, note the content:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/16/does-common-core-hurt-minority-students-most.html
LikeLike
A student in the bottom quartile could be at the 24%ile. A student in the top half could be at the 50%ile. So this magical growth caused by Accelerated Reader could reflect going from the 24th to the 50th percentile. In a class of 24 kids that would be equivalent to going from 6th from the bottom to 13th. That sounds a little less impressive than going from the bottom of the class to the top. Especially when the measure is a score on a curriculum-based multiple choice assessment.
On many of those tests a difference of just a couple of questions changes a scaled score from “Needs lots of help, QUICK!!” to “Not bad” to “Awesome!”.
LikeLike
quote: “The Hechinger report title and conclusion are overblown and misleading.”
Reply
you are correct — and it is common now … we have “measured progress” with major contracts in MA and they bring in marketing literature from Sir Michael Barber to push Pearson and call it “research” and NPR reads their press release. I do not trust any firm that has “research” as their goal any more and I don’t trust any University that is co-opted by the funding (such as University Arkansas & the Walton Foundation). There doesn’t seem to be any research done by a truly independent organization that doesn’t have a stake in the game (usually for profits). Least of all do I trust the Pearson study that showed Lawrence Public Schools making tremendous gains that Arne Duncan took as his “miracle”.
LikeLike
A brilliant young colleague of mine has vastly improved student reading with only 3 minutes extra reading time!! The crowds around her classroom have grown so immense that police had to be called to maintain order. This young colleague insists she can get it down to a mere 2 minutes extra to improve reading scores at least 40%. We eagerly await her next report of results.
LikeLike
JUST LOVE THIS!
LikeLike
Sure, 4.7 minutes (but definitely not 4.6!) of extra reading a day will make a child a three, and I earned $2,000 last month working part time at home on my computer!
Oh, I’m also a Nigerian Prince in temporary dire straits, who needs your bank account number in order to receive the fortune I have coming to me.
LikeLike
One out of six kids in every classroom is dyslexic. NO amount of repetitive reading will lift them from the bottom to the top. However, over fifty years of research and evidence prove that explicit multi sensory instruction can give them a fighting chance. Dyslexia continues to be ignored and marginalized and with the help of NCLB, Common Core, Charter Schools, and standardized testing, these kids lives are being systematically destroyed.
LikeLike
According to my husband, .7 of a minute is 42 seconds. Got a stop watch?
LikeLike
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com
he had the review of A.R. yesterday; I called my friend who is librarian in a charter school and we had a good laugh from the curmudgucation (because she has had to operate that A.R. program and is forced to monitor it). We also joked about the SRA cards that were used in a similar fashion from the 1960s on and were defined as “reading”. I remember taking a full day workshop from SRA in how to institute and monitor the cards in 1962 in Washington DC… I don’t know if I can say there has been any progress in the field when I compare that experience with A.R. and her experience today as a librarian in a charter (it is in Lawrence MA where she has to do this in the charter school as part of her job).
LikeLike
get the 11/17 column “Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Accelerated Reader’s Ridiculous Research
If you are not familiar with Renaissance Learning and their flagship product, Accelerated Reader, count yourself lucky.
LikeLike
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/11/accelerated-reader-research-part-2.html please read his update on calculations
LikeLike
jeanhaverhill, if the company had simply asked the students how long they read, would you have accepted that method? Or would you have criticized it for being “unverified”?
In this case, the company did NOT accept the students’ guesses at how long they read. They verified that the students actually understood the material based on the quizzes taken after they finished reading. Since the quizzes are based on “grade equivalent” (GE) books and quizzes, they can determine how long it took for the student to comprehend the material on the quiz.
This is why the questions must be posed to you critics first. Regardless of the result, you just take the other side. If, on the other hand, we had first asked how to determine whether a student read and it was you who came up with the idea of verified reading using this method, you could not have hypocritically criticized it afterwards. But keep on searching. Next, you’ll be telling me that we have no way to prove Diane reads so much more material then everyone else despite her prolific postings. I guess others could be reading more than Diane but just choose to keep their knowledge to themselves rather than posting 5-10 articles (and reading 100’s of comments ) per day. What do you think about that conclusion Diane? You just didn’t realize there were so many “scholars” out there, did you?
LikeLike
Virginia, you would be amazed at how much information the average teacher has at his or her fingertips. As for me, I have been in this field as a historian–and for a time, as a government official–since the late 1960s, so I can absorb new information rapidly. That is true in any field. When you know a lot about a specific subject, you can learn new information rapidly. If you asked me questions about submarine, I would be a dummy.
LikeLike
virginia: /Brian: most of us here were trained by Don Durrell at BU and Jeanne Chall at Harvard when it comes to teaching reading…. their thoughts are best exemplified today by someone like Keith Stanovich who does research on “listening comprehension” (one of Durrell’s stronger princeles), on language development (cf. Russ Grover Whitehurst) and a broader definition of what is taught as “reading”: quoting Stanovich and Cunningham : “research “studies of printed texts ranging from children’s stories to adult books, from comic books to popular magazines, showing that each type of reading material contains a far greater number of rare words than TV shows or adult speech (even if the adults are college educated)…. furthermore, the student learns more vocabulary from reading juvenile fiction than from watching prime time TV.”
I think I compared the AR experience as similar to the SRA experience of “reading” in the 1960s… Also, I mentioned that Henry (Hank) Levin did thorough research on the cost-effectiveness of teaching with computers and indeed reported that you could raise math test scores given 10 minutes of supplemental instruction in a Chapter I classroom with a qualified teacher as part of the curriculum scope and sequence. He also reported it took two years or more to get gains in “reading” (as described by the Pat Suppes curriculum which we a close approximation of Durrell’s recommendations at that time). I also mentioned that Scott Barry Kaufman and Sternberg and others who study critical and creative and independent reading define broader dimensions to the “teaching of reading”….
AR doesn’t add much to this perspective so it reminds me of psychology labs that have the students count how many times the pigeon can click on the key. These are different perspectives on curriculum and a definition of “reading”. If you find any flaws in Henry Levin’ research please let me know… But none of these reachers who write “marketing studies ” that are hyped by Sir Michael Barber and Measured Progress etc. (that was my reason for using capital Big Pharma because there is research and then there is co-opted “studying” and reporting for purposes of increasing sales …as in medicine, education field has all kinds of studies and reports.
LikeLike
cx. by “here” I of course meant Greater Boston — not on a “blog” place/here
LikeLike