Lagging and Uneven Student Performance
Wisconsin Doesn't Measure Up
Wisconsin's National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores have remained flat while other states have improved (pictured in comparison with other states).
As a result, our national ranking has slipped from 3rd to 25th in the past decade.
Only 7% of Wisconsin 4th graders scored in the advanced category on the reading portion of the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Fully 66% of Wisconsin students score below the proficient level, and 32% do not achieve even at the basic level.
White Students
Wisconsin white students score three points below their national average, with 26% below basic. Just as disturbing, we have a huge drop-off in performance for children who qualify for free/reduced lunch.
African
American Students
Our African-American students have some of the lowest scores in the nation, with 61% in the below basic category. This is equivalent to the scores of children who are English language learners.
Students with Disabilities
We are failing students with neurological reading disabilities (RD) such as dyslexia. Despite solid research demonstrating the specific hallmarks of RD, ways to screen for risk factors, proven intervention methods, and an agreement on the importance of early intervention, little of value is being done here for these students. 75% of our disabled students are at a below basic level. Disabled students in Massachusetts are three grade levels ahead of our students. - 20 % (1 in 5) of people have some degree of RD
- ~12,000 new students with RD enter Wisconsin schools each year
- 74% of struggling 1st grade readers will still be non-proficient in 9th grade without appropriate intervention; RD does not go away with time.
Lost Individual Potential and Societal CostsNon-functional readers face many personal hardships in both academics and life. Reading failure is a prime factor in behavioral problems, delinquency, diagnosis of depression, dropout rates, unemployment, underemployment, and incarceration.
Poor readers also impact Wisconsin at large. 49% of prison inmates read below a 9th grade level, and 47% are dropouts. State health care costs increase by $1 billion a year due to poor literacy, and we spend $10.5 annually on adult basic literacy. Especially in these tough times, we need citizens who are equipped to contribute to our economy.
A History of Low State StandardsUnderlying classroom instruction, teacher training, licensure requirements, and professional development are the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards. Written in 1998, our most recent standards were criticized from the start by a minority report of the drafting team. They continued to draw unfavorable national attention from organizations such as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute as vague, lacking rigor, and failing to effectively incorporate the five essential components of beginning reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension strategies. A draft of new standards was issued in 2009, focusing on desirable secondary school outcomes as outlined by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills and the American Diploma Project. However, there was no enhancement to the standards in the area of beginning reading. A draft of the nationally-developed Common Core standards was released in March, 2010, and Wisconsin adopted the Common Core on June 2, 2010. This will be a positive step forward for early reading instruction, but, as stated by DPI, "The process to implement the Common Core State Standards so they improve student achievement requires understanding the content of the standards, developing curriculum that reflects the standards, and then providing resources for teachers to develop lesson plans to teach those standards. Click here for a side-by-side comparison of beginning reading standards in Wisconsin, Milwaukee Public Schools, the Common Core, and Florida.Click here to read more about the Common Core and some concerns about its faithful implementation.
Inadequate Teacher Training
Wisconsin's colleges of education, as rated by organizations like the National Council of Teacher Quality in 2006, 2007, and 2009, receive low scores for preparing future teachers of reading. One major state program was found to cover only two of the five essential components of reading. Further, DPI was criticized for failing to hold preparation programs accountable for the quality of teachers they produce, yet retaining full authority over the program approval process. As a result, many teachers indicate they find themselves in the classroom without the necessary tools to produce competent readers.
Professional development for practicing teachers is dominated by districts and professional organizations that often ignore the vast body of science while frequently promoting disproven methods and focusing on more tangential issues of classroom control, teacher leadership skills, and motivational techniques. Examples from a typical state reading conference include promotion of unscientific instruction based on guessing strategies, as well as a fundamentally flawed revisioning of Joseph Torgesen's seminal article on early intervention, “Catch Them Before They Fall.”
Click here to read more about teacher training.
Weak Teacher Licensure ExaminationWisconsin's licensure examination for elementary and special education teachers and reading specialists requires little or no knowledge of beginning reading acquisition or instruction. Only one quarter of the questions concern reading at all, critical knowledge of beginning reading is largely untested, and a candidate could miss all the questions on reading and still pass. Even reading specialists in Wisconsin are not required to take a stand-alone exam in reading. In The State Teacher Policy Yearbook 2007, Wisconsin was the only state to receive a grade of F in teacher licensure.
Lack of Awareness, Expertise, and Action
As other states have found, a problem this entrenched can only be corrected by action at the state level. Special interests have opposed change, and the Wisconsin legislature has failed to take action in this critical area.
Promising legislation ( AB 583 and AB 584) was introduced in the fall of 2009, and sent to the Assembly Education Committee, but no public hearings were scheduled. The Wisconsin State Reading Association opposed both AB 583 and AB 584, and WEAC and DPI declined to support either bill. The Wisconsin Branch of the International Dyslexia Association responded to WRSA’s position and indicated its support of both AB 583 and AB 584, but this did not change the fate of the bills. The offices of the Governor and the Superintendent of Public Instruction have spent much time debating how much control mayors and DPI should have over school districts, but, deferring to the tradition of local control, have avoided the critical question of what would be taught in the classroom. Recent legislation giving the State Superintendent more control over Milwaukee Public Schools may begin to change the status quo. |
|
