Read to Lead Recommendations

The Wisconsin reading task force (now called Read to Lead), chaired by Governor Walker and Superintendent Evers, has just issued it recommendations (Journal-Sentinel article here, task force report (pdf) here). Although we will have to see how things develop, some of its recommendations could prove quite important. It is particularly reassuring that the task force prominently refers to the five elements identified by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehensive. I was on the Milwaukee school board when it adopted its reading curriculum and I was struck by how little mention was made of these, either by the administration or the publisher.

One is that new teachers would have to pass the Massachusetts test for reading instruction. Compared to Wisconsin, Massachusetts has been one of the leaders in improving reading scores and its reading test could be instrumental in identifying weaknesses in teachers' knowledge of teaching reading and in education schools' curricula. It is also refreshing that the task force avoided the widespread practice of inventing everything new (click here for a pdf copy of the Massachusetts practice booklet).

A second interesting proposal is that children be screened at age 4 or 5. It is not clear why the task force did not follow its own lead on the teacher test and pick an already-available screener. Doing so would seem to have the twin advantages of economy and timeliness, as well as taking advantage of others' experiences. The report doesn't comment on whether the task force looked at presently used screeners and found them wanting.

A Read Wisconsin website has also been established with links to many reading resources. Maybe too many: I think many teachers will be uncertain as to where to start.

Perhaps one approach for existing teachers would be to offer a interactive version of the Massachusetts test that would identify the holes in their knowledge of reading instruction--or offer assurance that they are using current research--and make suggestions as to how to fill in the gaps.

(Click here for a discussion and links to reading research that I prepared.)

Update ( 1-8-12): Alan Borsuk has a post on the subject in today's Journal Sentinel.