Following the Script

Abstract

Title I schools want desperately to raise student scores on high-stakes tests often have found it hard to resist the lure of scripted literacy programs, especially in the face of pressure from No Child Left Behind to raise test scores. In recent years, many high-poverty elementary schools have adopted such programs in spite of evidence about effective literacy instruction. Darling-Hammond, citing a study by Dreeben (1987), notes that differences in reading outcomes among students were almost entirely explained not by socioeconomic status or race but by the quality of instruction the students received (2007). Teachers using scripted programs often don't have the autonomy to do what good teachers have always done: think and respond to students' progress in a variety of research-based and theoretically driven ways, designing and redesigning literacy instruction to meet students' needs. As a result, both student learning and teacher professionalism suffer. Before adopting a scripted literacy program, teacher leaders and administrators in Title I elementary schools should consider their answers to these four questions. #1. Who conducted the research behind the program, and what did the results of the research really show? Just because the program's developer also conducted the research on its effectiveness does not necessarily mean bias exists. However, this occurrence certainly necessitates a closer look at the research itself, especially if the program developer stands to profit financially from the results of the study. (See Garan 2002, 2004 for compelling discussions on this topic.) Consider the background of the researchers who conducted the study. For example, are the researchers knowledgeable about literacy research and instruction, experienced in working with diverse children, and familiar with teaching in Title I elementary schools? In addition, consider the results of the study. Specifically, did the study demonstrate students receiving instruction from this literacy program performed higher on meaningful assessments, or were they only able to read more isolated words on a list, for example, than students who did not receive this program's instruction (Allington 2002)? What counted as achievement in the research showing the effectiveness of the program, and would you measure literacy achievement in the same way? #2. What is the literacy program? There is not one best program (Allington 2005; Duffy and Hoffman 1999; Duffy-Hester 1999). Shanahan defined research-proven programs as those are tested and proven effective with students similar to the students with which the program will be used (2002). Roller concludes there are still no programs meet (Shanahan's) level of evidence. Although the intent of NCLB--to encourage use of materials and instructional practices based on scientifically based reading research--is laudatory, the intent is way ahead of the existing capacity in the field (2005, p. 446). When the focus is on finding the program to raise high-stakes test scores, the goal is limited to raising test scores. Educators should have higher expectations than just raising student scores. Schools also need to help students become thoughtfully literate (Allington 2001), is, developing students who are confident and motivated, who read and write for their own purposes, who embrace challenges and work collaboratively to accomplish shared goals, and who ask important questions and evaluate what they read. A balanced approach to literacy instruction helps students develop these characteristics. Researchers and theorists have conceptualized balanced literacy differently, yet most have the same fundamental assumption no single instructional method is appropriate for teaching all students to read and write. A truly balanced approach to literacy instruction combines explicit skill and strategy instruction with challenging, authentic opportunities to read and write. …