The Texas Reading Initiative: Continuing Conversations About Early Reading Instruction in Texas

Leslie Patterson, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA,
and Jackie Gerla, University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, Texas, USA


The Texas Reading Initiative is almost two years old. It began with the announcement that one of Texas Governor Bush's goals was to have all third graders reading on grade level by third grade and continuing at grade level throughout their school years. The following report is an unofficial summary of the events and the publications that have introduced the Texas Reading Initiative to educators across the state. This sequence of events prompted the organization of the Critical Balances conference as a vehicle to support the Initiative and to broaden the dialogue about the research base.

Clearly, all of us (educators, parents, the business community, and politicians) are concerned about early reading in Texas. We want all students to learn to read on grade level by third grade, and we want students to continue achieving at or above grade level throughout their school careers. It is difficult to argue with that goal, although we might prefer to state it differently. Those of us who organized and sponsored this conference certainly want to collaborate with others to support early reading and to support the teachers who are ultimately the ones who most dramatically affect how kids learn to read in schools. We assume that the business of the Texas Reading Initiative is to do just that.

The Voice of the Business Community

Following up on Governor Bush's announcements about his Reading Initiative, a well-known politician from Dallas told teachers in a session at the 1996 state reading conference that, much like John F. Kennedy's 1960 challenge to put a man on the moon, Governor Bush's Reading Initiative would be able to achieve a clear, measurable goal that had, before now, been unattainable (Luce, 1996). Several of us in the audience tried to remind the speaker that elementary teachers had, for years, worked toward that goal and that a great deal of progress had been made in the area of early reading. He responded that in this new initiative, there would be no excuses (like students' home and family background) for not reaching the goal. When we pointed out that millions of dollars were invested in wide-ranging efforts to meet President Kennedy's challenge, our concerns were acknowledged, and we were told that funds for education were always limited. When we asked how "reading at the third grade level" would be defined, we were told that the statewide reading assessment, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), would be the way to measure our progress. We were told that the business community, which supported Bush in this initiative, values clear, specific, measurable goals. When we questioned the wisdom of focusing resources on early reading rather than upper elementary and middle school reading, where students tend to fall behind and drop out, he gently informed us that we could not always frame public policy discussions as we would like.

The Governor's Reading Summits

Beginning in April and continuing throughout 1996 and early 1997, the Governor's Business Council sponsored "Reading Summits" around the state. On April 9, 1996, a Pre-Summit Workshop, also funded by the Governor's Business Council, was held at the University of Houston. This meeting provided an overview of the Initiative's agenda, and several of the participants in this workshop became regular participants in the Summits held in major cities around the state: Doug Carnine, National Center for Improving the Tools of Educators; Jean Osborn, Center for Study of Reading; Barbara Foorman, Professor of Educational Psychology, University of Houston; four representatives from elementary schools; three journalists from major magazines and papers in Texas; a number of business people; the Governor's senior advisor; the Commissioner of Education; Texas Education Agency staff; president of the Dallas Independent School District School Board; members of the Governor's Business Council; and two reading consultants in private practice, including one representative from the Neuhaus Center in Houston.

The purpose of this meeting was to "discuss openly how the Governor's goal could be met and to build a record that could be used to encourage discussions across the state" (Picking a Research-Based Program, 1996). The researchers who were invited to participate in this and subsequent meetings were introduced in this way:

Our next three presenters [Carnine, Osborn, and Foorman] have impressive research credentials. They have illustrious academic records. I'm not going to go into that, in the interest of time. I would like to comment, however, that we sought out qualified individuals who were serious about the need to pick reading skill development programs and strategies after careful review of experimental findings. (quoted from Winick, from Picking a Research-Based Program, 1996)

In subsequent months it became increasingly clear that the last sentence was central to the Reading Initiative agenda.

The first Summit was held in Austin on April 26. Another was held in Houston in June. The speakers for the Houston Summit were Barbara Foorman, University of Houston; and Jack Fletcher, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas College of Medicine. The speakers at the Houston Summit, including Governor Bush, made it clear that the body of research on reading conducted by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) was to be the driving force behind curriculum and staff development decisions connected with the Texas Reading Initiative. On that day, and repeatedly throughout the following 18 months, we heard that Texas teachers needed to be "retrained" in order to know how to teach reading. One unambiguous message at that summit, and in speeches and written documents since then, is that teacher education programs are not preparing teachers to teach kids to read. Another is the need for early accountability through testing, prior to third grade.

Individual school districts around the state also held reading summits in an effort to speak to the public about ongoing district efforts to focus on research-based approaches to early reading instruction.

Moves by the Texas Education Agency

During the spring of 1996, we learned that the Texas Goals 2000 money, a block grant from the U.S. federal government to the states, had been earmarked for the Texas Reading Initiative. We learned that an individual from the business/political community, Robin Gilchrist, had been hired as the Assistant Commissioner for the Texas Reading Initiative. We learned that a nationally known consultant had been identified to come into the state to provide technical assistance and advice. We later learned that Jean Osborn had agreed to participate in that role.

During that fall, Mike Moses, the Commissioner of Education, convened representatives from nine professional organizations, two universities, three private consultants/providers, and the Quality English Standards for Texas (QuEST) to develop a statement entitled Good Practice: Implications for Reading Instruction - A Consensus Document of Texas Literacy Professional Organizations (1996). The resulting brochure includes a list of implications for reading instruction, for the delivery of balanced reading instruction, for professional development, and for community involvement. A University of Texas team, led by Nancy Roser, received the grant to establish the Professional Development Center.

During 1996 and 1997, among other activities, the Professional Development Center solicited video vignettes and descriptions of exemplary teaching practices across the state, produced videos about the early literacy assessment instrument to be used statewide, and developed a Web site and a newsletter to facilitate the dissemination of information about early reading instruction. During 1996-97, a series of training sessions provided information for personnel from the Regional Education Service Centers across the state. These sessions focused on phonemic awareness and decoding as the central aspects of beginning reading instruction, although the importance of rich literacy environments and time to read was also acknowledged. Again, the NICHD studies were cited often, with the work of Marilyn Adams, Phil Gough, and others.

In addition, Jean Osborn was a primary consultant in the development of a document entitled Beginning Reading Instruction: Components and Features of a Research-Based Reading Program (1997), the official statement of the principles underlying the Texas Reading Initiative. A copy of this booklet was attached to grant applications as a guide for instructional and staff development decisions to be funded through monies targeted for innovative programs and improved reading instruction. This booklet included a list of references at the end of the document, but it did not include particular citations within the text. It is difficult to interpret and critique the use of these research findings without those citations. The introduction, however, promises the publication of Beginning Reading Instruction: A Review of Research, by the Texas Education Agency in the summer of 1997.

The National Institute for Child Health and Human Development Studies

The NICHD studies were cited (in speeches and in written communication) again and again as the primary, sometimes the only, scientific research on early reading instruction. The study receiving the widest publicity during this time was conducted by Foorman and colleagues in a suburban district near Houston. According to an article published in Learning Disabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal (Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, 1997), preliminary data analysis from this study suggested three main findings:

Results from a kindergarten prevention study of 181 children show that 15 minutes of daily phonological awareness activities accelerated growth in phonological analysis skill relative to a comparison group.

In a study with 113 second and third graders identified with reading disabilities, children who received an Orton-Gillingham, synthetic phonics approach outperformed children receiving a combined synthetic/analytic phonics approach or a sight word approach in the development of literacy-related skills (with comparable gains in all three programs when verbal IQ and ethnicity were included in the model of skill development).

A study of 375 first and second graders eligible for Chapter I tutorials highlights the importance of explicit instruction in the alphabetic code during classroom instruction if reading failure is to be avoided. (pp. 63-71)

Subsequently, that study received national publicity, with summaries of the findings in news releases and on the Internet, but details about the study itself, including descriptions of the interventions, were, at that time, difficult for many Texas educators to obtain. Foorman joined Osborn as a consultant to the Reading Initiative staff at the Texas Education Agency, where she participated in staff development efforts and in the final revision of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (the statewide curriculum framework).

Messages Within the Texas Reading Initiative

In early January, Commissioner Mike Moses invited representatives from universities and school districts across the state to come to Austin for an informational meeting about the Reading Initiative. At that meeting on February 18, Osborn and two NICHD researchers, Foorman and Torgesen, presented to over 500 people their work and its implications for early reading instruction. Again, the primary focus was on phonemic awareness and the alphabetic principle. The meeting ended with a message from the Commissioner that the NICHD studies were the primary scientific research on early reading instruction and that those studies would directly influence decisions about curriculum development, textbook selection, staff development, and preservice teacher training in Texas.

During the spring of 1997, it became clear that the themes that had been clearly articulated at the Pre-Summit Workshop a year before had become the central messages about early reading coming from the Governor's office and from the Texas Education Agency. For example, at the Southwest Regional International Reading Association conference, speeches and informal conversations held with representatives of the Texas Reading Initiative made it clear that reading professionals in Texas would have little or no input into subsequent decisions about state-level decisions about early reading instruction. The Texas Education Agency innovative grant proposals clearly gave priority to campuses and districts choosing to focus more directly on phonemic awareness and word-level skill development than on writing or extensive reading among early readers.

Texas Reading Educators Join the Dialogue

With these moves on the part of the Texas Education Agency, the Governor's Business Council, and certain individuals around the state, it became clear to many of us who have taught reading and reading education in Texas for years that the research base for the Texas Reading Initiative would be much more powerful if it were broader and deeper. Based on what we know about staff development and school change, we knew mandated instruction would not have long-lasting changes at the classroom level. But it was becoming increasingly clear that the policymakers at the state level were linking this rather narrow research base to funding opportunities. The potential influence of those funding decisions at the district and campus levels was obvious. Many of us were increasingly concerned about this high-profile, statewide initiative linked to competitive funding and a range of political agendas.

Our primary concern was that the research base repeatedly cited by the spokespeople for this Initiative focused on one line of research, at the total exclusion of research concerning oral language development, comprehension strategies, writing and invented spelling, and response to literature. We wanted to work with the representatives of the Initiative in this ongoing dialogue about a comprehensive research base for decisions about early reading instruction. Another concern was the clear connection between this narrow research base and particular commercial materials and programs. The February 18 meeting served as a catalyst for teachers, supervisors, and university professors from across the state to join together to organize the Critical Balances conference. It was our attempt to support the Texas Reading Initiative and to broaden dialogue about research on early reading instruction. We decided to target as our audience both educators and policymakers. After an initial meeting and a few phone calls and faxes, 34 individuals, professional organizations, universities, and publishers offered to cosponsor such a conference.

We decided to name of the conference Critical Balances: Early Instruction for Lifelong Reading and to give it a theme of "An institute on research-to-practice connections." The objectives of the conference were

  • to support the Texas Reading Initiative by providing an overview of research to serve as a basis for decisions about early reading instruction and lifelong literacy development.
  • to promote dialogue about early reading among educators and policymakers. As we invited speakers to participate, we asked them to address this question: What do you see as the most critical research on early reading instruction for educators and policymakers to use as they make decisions about early reading instruction?

We invited a number of researchers whose work is nationally and internationally known -- Marilyn Adams, Barbara Foorman, Jean Osborn, and Bill Teale were not able to come. We were pleased that Richard Allington, Phil Gough, David Pearson, Taffy Raphael, and Constance Weaver agreed to come on rather short notice. Almost 600 Texas policymakers and educators attended Critical Balances at the University of Houston Hilton on May 16, 1997. Attendees represented 81 school districts, 31 colleges and universities, 6 regional service centers, 24 other literacy institutions, and 10 publishers. Over 80 people were turned away because of limited space. The conference received the particularly critical support of two board members of the International Reading Association, James Hoffman from the University of Texas-Austin, and Kathleen Jongsma from Northside Independent School District in San Antonio. Not only did Hoffman and Jongsma help in the early planning stages, but they also served as moderators during the conference itself.

Brief remarks were also delivered by a number of people who have played a role in the Texas Reading Initiative: Jack Christie, Chair of the Texas State Board of Education; Alma Allen, Texas State Board of Education; Phyllis Gingiss, Associate Dean of the College of Education, University of Houston; Robin Gilchrist, Assistant Commissioner, Texas Reading Initiative; and Darvin Winick, Governor's Business Council. Afternoon panelists included Sam Gwynne, TIME Magazine Austin Bureau; Phyllis Hunter, Houston Independent School District Reading Manager; Frank Jackson, Houston READ Commission; Connie Newman, Teacher in Clear Creek Independent School District; Michael Sampson, Texas Association for the Improvement of Reading; and John Stevens, Texas Business Education Coalition. Rob Smith, Spring Independent School District, served as moderator for that afternoon panel.

The conference was intended to encourage ongoing dialogue about the issues surrounding early reading instruction. To facilitate that dialogue, conference handouts included information about study groups and a brief annotated bibliography of books and articles that would provide reading materials for those study groups. The focus of the day was on the information and dialogue about the research base for early reading. However, surprising insights came from Darvin Winick, representing the Governor's Business Council, and John Stevens, representing the Texas Business Education Coalition. Each of these men made memorable contributions to the conversation that day by delivering radically different messages from the Texas business community.

And the Next Steps?

In the summer of 1997, the Texas Reading Initiative is alive and well, and our conversations continue. The Legislature voted to support the Initiative with $32 million, less than the Governor asked, but a significant amount earmarked for early reading instruction. A bill mandating an early reading test to screen for reading difficulties at kindergarten and first grade was passed in early summer. The most recent revision of Beginning Reading Instruction: Components and Features of a Research-Based Reading Program, the official statement from the Texas Reading Initiative, offers a more balanced perspective on the role of phonemic awareness and the alphabetic principle than its earlier versions have and than the speeches to the business community have during the last 18 months. The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills curricular framework was approved by the State Board of Education in a divisive 9-6 vote, with the final draft representing a clear compromise with the interest groups supporting explicit instruction for all early readers. The latest scores on the Texas Academic Assessment System (TAAS), released in July, continue to show gradual but significant improvement across the state, even before the effects of the Reading Initiative can be felt at the classroom level. In an effort to contribute to these ongoing conversations, we have mailed transcripts of the Critical Balances conference to all who attended, to members of the Texas House and Senate Education committees, to representatives of professional organizations at the state and national levels, and to State Board Members.

The work goes on. The dialogue continues. We did not come to this discussion naively. We know that these are emotionally charged issues, and we understand that some of us have a significant stake in the answers to all these questions. For some of us, that stake is economic; for some, it's political; for some, it's professional; but, for all of us, it is a very personal stake.

Children are beginning another school year, and teachers will again do their best to support these young people in their journeys toward early reading success and lifelong literacy. We will each work hard in our own worlds as parents, as community volunteers, as publishers, as administrators and supervisors, as politicians, as business people, and as teachers. Together, with children as our focus, we can find ways to continue the dialogue and to continue the work. The difference this year is that we know a bit more about the agendas brought to the process by politicians and business leaders. We no longer assume that the primary decision makers are reading researchers and educators, that we can close our classroom doors and ignore statewide initiatives. We no longer assume that all reading educators necessarily agree on which research is significant. We no longer see top-down mandates as impotent, particularly when they are linked to competitive grant monies and high-stakes testing. We no longer assume that it is enough to know the research. We must also learn the politics and the people.

References

Beginning Reading Instruction: Components and Features of a Research-Based Reading Program. (1997). Austin, TX: Texas State Education Agency.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 8(1), pp. 63-71.

Good Practice: Implications for Reading Instruction - A Consensus Document of Texas Literacy Professional Organizations. (1996). Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Luce, T. (1996). Speech presented at the annual conference of the Texas State Reading Reading Association, Austin, Texas.

Picking a Research-Based Program. (1996). Transcript of the Pre-Summit Workshop sponsored by the Governor's Business Council.

Return to Introduction



Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted October 1997
© 1997-2000 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232