The Winston Group’s Caitlin Peartree is out with a new essay, “Why science of reading reforms need definable goals,” published as part of the Fordham Institute’s annual Wonkathon. In it, she argues for definable goals for science of reading reforms, and for accountability to these specific goals. From the piece:
As we have seen with past reform efforts however, a good idea does not guarantee success on the ground. Reforms—grounded in cognitive science as they may be—are only half of the equation. What is needed in equal measure is robust accountability to ensure that these reforms are actually having their intended effect. States and districts need, in the words of one of our focus group participants, “actual metrics,” or definitions of what we are measuring—student performance on state reading tests? Student performance on NAEP?—and how they will measure it.
An essential element of this robust accountability is that states and districts also need to define a goal for where they want student reading levels to be. As another participant put it, “If we don’t get the output of putting dollars into [a reform effort], what is the value? So we’ve got to decide how we determine success. And I don’t think we’re there yet.” Without a definition of success, we have no way to know if and when we achieve our goals. It’s a little like setting out on a journey without a destination. How will we know when we’ve arrived? As the Cheshire Cat famously told Alice, which way you should go “depends a good deal on where you want to get to.” In retrospect, it is no wonder our focus group participants were expressing reform fatigue. Not knowing what success was meant to look like, they saw only an endless parade of reforms—changes for change’s sake rather than actually improving student outcomes. We must ensure this is not the case for the science of reading.
Read the full essay here.
