U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–373 PDF 2010

IMPROVING THE LITERARY SKILLS OF 

CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Serial No. 111–41 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 
(II) 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Paul Tonko, New York 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

Judy Chu, California 

John Kline, Minnesota, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Tom McClintock, California 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Barrett Karr, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Mariana Islands 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

Judy Chu, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Tom McClintock, California 

Duncan Hunter, California 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 19, 2009 ...................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .......................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Michigan: 

Statement of the American Library Association ..................................... 52 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona: 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 71 

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas: 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 74 

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado: 

Statement of the Colorado Department of Education ............................ 63 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby,’’ a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 65 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Berger, Larry, co-founder and CEO, Wireless Generation ............................ 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 65 

Dore ́, Mary Kay, district student support services manager, Summit 

School District, Frisco, CO ........................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 66 

‘‘Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent 

Center Program’’ .................................................................................... 67 

Go ́mez, Leo, Ph.D., professor, the University of Texas Pan American; 

officer, the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) ........... 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 70 

Henrı ́quez, Andre ́s, program officer, Carnegie Corporation of New York ... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 75 

Meyers, Sandra D., Ed.D., education associate, Delaware Department 

of Education ................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 79 

Strickland, Dorothy S., professor emeritas, Rutgers, the State University 

of New Jersey ................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

(1) 

IMPROVING THE LITERARY SKILLS OF 

CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS 

Thursday, November 19, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kildee, Payne, Scott, Holt, Davis, 

Loebsack, Hirono, Polis, Pierluisi, Hinojosa, Kucinich, Altmire, 

Chu, Castle, Petri, Ehlers, and Biggert. 

Also present: Representative Yarmuth. 

Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Calla Brown, Staff Assistant, Education; Adrienne Dunbar, Education Policy Advisor; 

Ruth Friedman, Senior Education Policy Advisor (Early Childhood); 

David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Fred Jones, Staff Assistant, Education; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on 

Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness; Joe 

Novotny, Chief Clerk; Lillian Pace, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee 

on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Alexandria Ruiz, Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy; 

Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Stephanie Arras, Minority 

Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of 

Education and Human Services Policy; Kirk Boyle, Minority General Counsel; Allison Dembeck, Minority Professional Staff Member; Ryan Murphy, Minority Press Secretary; Susan Ross, Minority 

Director of Education and Human Services Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Chairman KILDEE. Good morning. A quorum being present the 

committee will come to order. Pursuant to committee rule 12a, all 

members may submit an opening statement in writing, which will 

be made part of the permanent record. Governor, how are you 

doing? 

Mr. CASTLE. Good. 

Chairman KILDEE. Before we begin, we expect our colleague, 

Representative John Yarmuth, a former member of this committee, 

and welcome back, John. You were a good member then, and you 

moved on to another responsibility, but your interest in this is undying, and I appreciate you being here this morning. 
2 

We welcome him to attend today’s hearing, and I ask unanimous 

consent for him to sit on the dais to listen to testimony and to ask 

questions. Without objection, I now recognize myself for an opening 

statement. 

I am pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, the 

public and our witnesses to this hearing on improving the literacy 

skills of children and young adults. 

Only 30 percent of our fourth and eighth grade students tested 

at proficient or higher in reading on the most recent national assessment of educational progress. These scores do not reflect students failing a test, so much, but an education system that is failing students. 

Many of these struggling readers face a grim future without our 

help and certainly your help. You bring an expertise to this committee that we certainly are hungry for. Some are likely to become 

discouraged and drop out of school, while others will graduate unprepared for what lies ahead. 

For those who do graduate high school, about 40 percent will 

lack the literacy skills employers seek. This creates a serious dilemma in an economy, where the 25 fastest growing professions require greater than average literacy skills. We have taken steps to 

address this problem at the federal level investing in a handful of 

programs to provide intensive reading support for students. 

While many elements of these programs provide promise, we 

clearly have more to do. As a strong supporter of early childhood 

education, I believe we must start early. We know that literacy development begins early in life and is a strong indicator of student 

achievement. 

By investing in our youngest learners, we can prevent students 

from falling behind at a critical point in their education. We must 

also strengthen existing programs targeted at our pre-k and elementary age children to ensure they benefit from the most effective 

practices. Challenges are not always solved by more money. Sometimes we need to realign resources, and empower our educators 

with the skills to maximize their impact on student learning. 

And finally we need to pay attention to the needs of our adolescent readers. Researchers have documented a fourth grade reading 

slump for years. Yet federal investment in reading programs for 

grades 4 through 12 remains minimal. In order to reverse the high 

school dropout crisis, and prepare all students for post-secondary 

opportunities, we need to provide reading support far beyond the 

fourth grade. 

During today’s discussion, we will hear from a panel of literacy 

experts. Some who have devoted their entire careers to identifying 

effective reading practices and others who have worked on the 

front lines turning these practices into results for children. 

Their perspectives are unique and cover the broad range of needs 

facing today’s learners from birth through high school. I look forward to today’s testimony and hope it provides this subcommittee 

with new perspectives as we work to reevaluate the federal role in 

literacy development. 

I now yield to the ranking member of this committee, Governor 

Castle, for his opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Kildee follows:] 
3 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education 

I’m pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, the public, and our witnesses to this hearing on ‘‘improving the literacy skills of children and young 

adults.’’ 

Only 30 percent of our 4th and 8th grade students tested at proficient or higher 

in reading on the most recent national assessment of educational progress. These 

scores do not reflect students failing a test, but an education system that is failing 

its students. 

Many of these struggling readers face a grim future without our help. Some are 

likely to become discouraged and dropout of school, while others will graduate unprepared for what lies ahead. For those who do graduate high school, about 40 percent will lack the literacy skills employers seek. This creates a serious dilemma in 

an economy where the 25 fastest-growing professions require greater than average 

literacy skills. 

We have taken steps to address this problem at the federal level, investing in a 

handful of programs to provide intensive reading support for students. While many 

elements of these programs provide promise, we clearly have more to do. 

As a strong supporter of early childhood education, i believe we must start early. 

We know that literacy development begins early in life and is a strong indicator of 

student achievement. By investing in our youngest learners, we can prevent students from failing behind at a critical point in their education. 

We must also strengthen existing programs targeted at our pre-k and elementary 

age children to ensure they benefit from the most effective practices. Challenges are 

not always solved by more money. Sometimes we need to realign resources and empower our educators with the skills to maximize their impact on student learning. 

And finally, we need to pay attention to the needs of our adolescent readers. Researchers have documented a fourth grade reading slump for years, yet federal investment in reading programs for grades 4 through 12 remains minimal. In order 

to reverse the high school dropout crisis and prepare all students for postsecondary 

opportunities, we need to provide reading support far beyond the 4th grade. 

During today’s discussion, we will hear from a panel of literacy experts—some 

who have devoted their entire careers to identifying effective reading practices and 

others who have worked on the front lines turning these practices into results for 

children. Their perspectives are unique, and cover the broad range of needs facing 

today’s learners from birth through high school. I look forward to today’s testimony 

and hope it provides this subcommittee with new perspective as we work to reevaluate the federal role in literacy development. 

I now yield to ranking member castle for his opening statement. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much for this hearing on what I consider to be a very important 

subject. And I thank all the witnesses and all the other individuals 

who attended here today. I think hopefully we can learn a lot. 

I am pleased that the committee is examining current federal literacy initiatives and ways to improve the comprehensive skills of 

all children from birth through high school. Today, 14 percent of 

Americans over the age of 16, about 30 million people, have trouble 

with basic reading and writing skills and cannot read well enough 

to fill out a job application, follow a prescription or even read a 

simple children’s story. 

Too many adults do not have the skills to find and keep a job, 

support their child’s education or participate actively in civic life. 

Reading is a fundamental skill, and many of us take it for granted. 

Yet we know that reading is a skill that does not come naturally. 

For children who do not learn to read in early educational settings can easily translate into a lifelong learning disability. Fortunately, children who are at risk for reading failure can learn to 

read at average levels or above if they are identified early and provided with intensive instruction. 
4 

In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law. The 

act sought to address some of these literacy issues for children in 

pre-K through the third grade by authorizing the Early Reading 

First and Reading First programs. 

In 2005, Congress created the Striving Readers program, which 

focuses on middle and high school students as part of the fiscal 

year 2005 Labor HHS Education Appropriations Act within No 

Child Left Behind. 

The success in the first 7 years of the scientifically based Reading First program in particular has been astounding. Nationally, 

the percentage of third graders scoring proficient on state reading 

assessments has grown nearly 8 percent, much faster than overall 

growth. 

In addition, state-reported performance data released last year 

indicates impressive gains in reading comprehension with improvements seen by nearly every grade and subgroup of students. 

Despite the clear success of the Reading First program, however, 

Congress has cut funding for this important program over the last 

2 years and recently eliminated funding for the program. I am 

hopeful that we will reconsider this elimination and restore funding for this program, which continues to produce strong results for 

children. 

In a few moments, Dr. Sandra Meyers from the Delaware Department of Education will discuss the work my home state is 

doing in the area of literacy, particularly within the Early Reading 

First and Reading First programs. 

Delaware has long recognized that what children experience 

early in life has a direct impact on their future success in school 

and life, and I am pleased that the state is addressing literacy 

skills with several early literacy programs, such as Reach Out and 

Reading is Fundamental, Delaware Read Aloud and Growing Together portfolios, as well as various adult literacy services. 

Each of these literacy programs have demonstrated success in 

helping students develop their literacy skills. However, as we all 

know, education is not just the responsibility of our federal, state 

and local governments. It is our collective responsibility whether it 

is a parent reading to a child or a business reaching out to those 

in need in their community. 

We all have a role to play in helping people who lack literacy 

skills to overcome their difficulties. And I want to thank all of you 

here today and our witnesses in particular, of course, for your interest and efforts in drawing the public’s attention to the problem 

of illiteracy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Castle follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education 

Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Kildee for holding today’s hearing. 

I am pleased the Committee is examining current federal literacy initiatives and 

ways to improve the reading comprehension skills of all children from birth through 

high school. 

Today, 14 percent of Americans over the age of 16—about 30 million people—have 

trouble with basic reading and writing skills (IES: National Assessment of Adult 

Literacy) and cannot read well enough to fill out a job application, follow a prescription, or even read a simple children’s story. Too many adults do not have the skills 
5 

to find and keep a job, support their child’s education, or participate actively in civic 

life. 

Reading is a fundamental skill and many of us take it for granted. Yet, we know 

that reading is a skill that does not come naturally. For children who do not learn 

to read, an early educational stumble can easily translate into a lifelong learning 

disability. 

Fortunately, children who are at-risk for reading failure can learn to read at average levels, or above if they are indentified early and provided with intensive instruction. 

In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law. The Act sought to 

address some of these literacy issues for children in pre-K through the third grade 

by authorizing the Early Reading First and Reading First Programs. In 2005, Congress created the Striving Readers programs, which focuses on middle and high 

school students as part of the FY2005 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act 

within NCLB. 

The success in the first seven years of the scientifically-based Reading First program in particular has been astounding. Nationally, the percentage of third graders 

scoring proficient on state reading assessments has grown nearly eight percent, 

much faster than overall growth. In addition, state-reported performance data released last year indicates impressive gains in reading comprehension, with improvements seen by nearly every grade and subgroup of students. 

Despite the clear success of the Reading First program, however, Congress has 

cut funding for this important program over the last two years and recently eliminated funding for the program. I am hopeful that we will reconsider this elimination 

and restore funding for this program which continues to produce strong results for 

students. 

In a few moments, Dr. Sandra Meyers from the Delaware Department of Education will discuss the work my home state is doing in the area of literacy, particularly within the Early Reading First and Reading First programs. Delaware has 

long recognized that what children experience early in life has a direct impact on 

their future success in school and life and I am pleased that the State is addressing 

literacy skills with several early literacy programs, such as Reach out and Read, 

Reading is Fundamental, Delaware Read ALOUD, and Growing Together portfolios, 

as well as various adult literacy services. 

Each of these literacy programs have demonstrated success in helping students 

develop their literacy skills; however, as we all know, education is not just a responsibility of our federal, state, and local governments; it is our collective responsibility, 

whether it is a parent reading to a child or a business reaching out to those in need 

in their community. We all have a role to play in helping people who lack literacy 

skills overcome their difficulties, and I want to thank all of you here today and our 

witnesses in particular for your interest and efforts in drawing the public’s attention 

to the problem of illiteracy. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Governor. Without objection, all 

members will have 14 calendar days to submit additional materials 

or questions for the hearing record. Now, I would like to introduce 

our very distinguished panel of witnesses here this afternoon. 

I would hope that in the history of literacy progress in this country that someday someone may cite to what we hear here today as 

something that was instrumental in improving our literacy. So I 

don’t want to put you on the spot and make you nervous, but this 

is a very, very important hearing. 

This is a very, very important issue, and we have asked the people around the country who really are expert in that. So your role 

is important, and these hearings do have effects and, therefore, you 

have a very important responsibility, and I appreciate you being 

here. 

I would like to introduce our very first witness this afternoon. 

Our first witness, Dr. Dorothy S. Strickland is the Samuel Dewitt 

Proctor Professor of Education and the state of New Jersey Professor of Reading at Rutgers University. 
6 

She was formerly the Arthur I. Gates Professor of Education at 

Teachers College Columbia University. A former classroom teacher 

and learning disabilities specialist, Dr. Strickland is past president 

of both the International Reading Association and the Reading Hall 

of Fame. 

She currently serves on two National Academy of Science panels, 

one on teacher preparation and the other on recommendations to 

the administration for educational policy. Dr. Strickland was also 

appointed to the New Jersey State Board of Education in 2008. She 

received her bachelor’s degree from Newark State College and her 

master’s degree and doctoral degrees from New York University. 

I will now yield to Congressman Polis to introduce our next witness. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor 

to introduce Mary Kay Dore ́ who is a native daughter of your home 

state, Mr. Chairman. She is from Redford, Michigan, a suburb of 

Detroit. 

She graduated from DePaul University in Indiana with a bachelor’s degree in sociology and a minor in education. She has been 

involved with special education since she was in high school when 

she worked at a summer camp for children with special needs. 

She then attended graduate school at Michigan State University 

where in 4 years she got a bachelor’s degree in elementary education and a master’s degree in special education. After finishing 

her graduate program, she moved to Breckenridge, Colorado and 

began her work as a special education teacher in Summit County 

School District. 

During her 13-year tenure with Summit Schools, she has worked 

at the elementary, middle and high school levels and now at the 

administrative level. Her positions have included resource special 

education teacher, severe needs special education teacher, district 

special education coordinator and now as a district student support 

services manager. 

During her time in Breckenridge, Summit County has become an 

increasingly diverse school district. Around the time she started 

Summit County was about 3 percent ELL students, and it’s now 

about 22 percent ELL students, adding a new dimension to the literacy challenges in the district. 

She has played a significant role at curriculum development and 

response to instruction system planning and implementation and 

all other district initiatives, as well as working cooperatively with 

the Mountain Board of Cooperative Educational Services. 

BOCES is a cooperative agency that delivers educational special 

ed services in our state and the Colorado Department of Education, 

as well, during which time I happened to be on the Colorado State 

Board of Education while our staff there spoke very highly of her 

efforts. Yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. You mentioned 

Redford. I lived on Grand River Avenue when I taught at University of Detroit High School many, many years ago. 

Our third witness, Andre ́s Henriquez, is a program officer in the 

national program of Carnegie Corporation of New York where he 

leads the corporation’s advancing literacy initiative. Prior to joining 

the corporation, Mr. Henriquez served as the Assistant Director for 
7 

Strategic Planning Center for Children and Technology at the New 

York Offices of the Education Development Center, Incorporated. 

He has also worked at the National Science Foundation as an associate programming director responsible for the network infrastructure for education and assistant with the Research and Education Policy and Practice program. 

He was a researcher at Sesame Workshop and a senior researcher at MTV Networks. Mr. Henriquez taught for 5 years with 

the New York City Public Schools. He received his undergraduate 

degree in psychology from Hamilton College and an masters of education from Futures College Columbia University. 

I will now yield to Congressman Hinojosa to introduce the next 

witness. Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to 

introduce Dr. Leo Gome ́z. He is a professor of bilingual, bicultural 

education at the University of Texas Pan American University 

UTPA, an outstanding Hispanic-Serving Institution we call HSI in 

my congressional district that serves over 17,500 students. 

Dr. Gome ́z’s research has focused on instructional practices affecting language minority students. He has been involved extensively in the development, the implementation and assessment of 

two-way dual language programs. 

Dr. Gome ́z is the co-author of a dual language enrichment model 

that is being successfully implemented in over 60 school districts 

representing over 440 elementary schools across four states, which 

include Texas, Washington state, Nevada and Kansas. In Texas 

alone, this model is being implemented in 417 elementary schools. 

As a nationally recognized scholar in this area, Dr. Gome ́z has 

an extensive list of publications. They include books, articles and 

monographs. Dr. Gome ́z has also made hundreds of conference 

presentations in Texas and across our nation. 

As a prominent educator, Dr. Gome ́z has taught in public schools 

and continues his teaching assignments at the university while 

serving as the Assistant Dean for the College of Education at 

UTPA. His entire career has been devoted to literacy issues, particularly for the art of teaching and learning in both English and 

Spanish. 

Dr. Gome ́z holds a B.A. in secondary education, as well as an 

M.A. in interdisciplinary studies from UTPA. Dr. Gome ́z also 

earned a PhD in curriculum and instruction from Texas A&M University at College Station. 

Dr. Gome ́z, we are fortunate that you found time in your busy 

schedule to be with us today. We welcome you to this very important hearing. And I yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Hinojosa. 

I will now yield to our committee’s ranking member, Governor 

Castle, to introduce the final two witnesses. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will introduce first Dr. 

Sandra Meyers who currently serves as the Education Associate of 

Elementary Reading for the Delaware Department of Education 

where she oversees programs, such as Reading First for the state. 

Prior to working at the department, Dr. Meyers worked in Delaware’s Colonial School District from 1991 to 2003. 
8 

During her 12-year tenure with the Colonial School District, Dr. 

Meyers served as the program coordinator for the extended summertime program, a Title I reading teacher and reading resource 

teacher, a University of Delaware instructor of the graduate level 

course preventing reading failure and a coach for Colonial teachers 

being trained in reading success from the start. 

Dr. Meyers is a member of the Association for Supervision, the 

International Reading Association and the Diamond State Reading 

Association. Dr. Meyers graduated from Westchester University 

with a bachelor’s degree in elementary education. 

She then attended graduate school at Temple University where 

she received her master’s in psychology of reading. And in 2006, 

Dr. Meyers received her doctoral degree from University of Delaware in educational leadership. And we welcome Dr. Meyers here 

today. 

And Larry Berger is the CEO and co-founder of Wireless Generation, an education company that has pioneered the adaptation of 

emerging technologies to improve pre-K through 12 teaching and 

learning. Prior to launching Wireless Generation, Mr. Berger was 

president of Interdimensions, a Web solutions company. 

He also served as the educational technology specialist at the 

Children’s Aid Society. Mr. Berger serves on the Carnegie Institute 

for Advanced Study Joint Commission on Mathematics and Science 

Education and of the Board of Trustees to the Carnegie Foundation 

for the Advancement of Teaching. And we welcome you here, also, 

Mr. Berger. Thank you for being here. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Governor. Before we begin, let me 

briefly explain our lighting system here and the 5-minute rule. Everyone, including members of Congress, is limited to 5 minutes of 

presentation or questioning. The light is green when you begin to 

speak. When you see the yellow light it means you have 1 minute 

remaining. When the light turns red your time has expired, and 

you need to conclude your testimony. 

Now, there are no ejection seats there, so you could certainly finish a reasonable paragraph to conclude your remarks. But please 

be certain as you testify to turn on, and speak into the microphones 

in front of you. 

And we will now hear from our first witness, Dr. Strickland. Welcome, Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY STRICKLAND, PROFESSOR EMERITAS, RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY 

Ms. STRICKLAND. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to share some of the current thinking about literacy learning 

during the early childhood years. I have done a fair amount of research over the years. My primary contribution to the field has 

been as translator of research and practice. I have been a classroom teacher, learning disability specialist and teacher educator. I 

am also a mother and a grandmother, so I bring many perspectives 

to the table 

Before I begin, however, I would like to state that, although I believe that greater attention to literacy is extremely important, I 

also believe that early literacy should never be stressed at the ex-
9 

pense of or in isolation from the other domains of child development. 

In fact, all of the domains of early childhood development, physical, social, emotional, cognitive, language and literacy are interrelated and interdependent. I have organized my comments around 

four questions. The first two provides the research and background 

information, and the last two deal with recommendations, 

Question one, what is known about the importance of early literacy development? And you have already expressed some of these 

ahead of me so I am glad to hear them. Early literacy plays a key 

role in enabling the kind of early experiences that research shows 

are linked with academic achievement, reduced grade retention, 

higher graduation rates and enhanced productivity in adult life. 

We know that literacy learning starts early and persists throughout life. From the earliest years, everything that adults do to support children’s language and literacy really, really counts. We know 

that all language and literacy develop concurrently. What children 

learn from listening and talking contributes to their ability to read 

and write and vice versa. 

We know that children’s experiences with the world and with 

print greatly influence their ability to comprehend what they read. 

True reading involves understanding. What children bring to a text 

whether it is oral or a written text influences the understandings 

they takeaway. 

My second question is what is needed to support young children’s 

language and literacy development? And I want to offer just a few 

examples so that you will see that these are not extraordinary experiences, certainly not skill drill, but the kind of experiences found 

in most middle class homes. 

For example, young children need parents, caregivers and teachers who know that a child’s capacity for learning is not determined 

at birth, who involve children’s interests to local points of interest, 

and talk with them about what they see and do, who provide time 

for reading to children and talking with them about what is read. 

Ordinary, maybe, but too many children are denied these opportunities. 

My third question is, how can we improve existing early childhood programs to better support early literacy development? Both 

my knowledge of the research, and my experience suggests that we 

have come a long way in providing quality zero to five education 

in the United States, but there is much more to be done. 

Following are some ideas for your consideration and recommendations for policy and practice. First, we do need well-conceived standards for child outcomes, for curriculum content, and for 

teacher-caregiver preparation to establish a clarity of purpose and 

a shared vision for early literacy education. 

Second, comprehensive support for all children with clear adaptations for children with special needs. Third, support for early literacy development in the English language learner must be specified. Fourth, early literacy assessment should be age appropriate, 

and employ multiple means of collecting, synthesizing and making 

use of information. 

Fifth, program outreach should reflect respect for the diversity of 

cultures and linguistic backgrounds of children and their families, 
10 

and include parent involvement programs with a strong early literacy component. 

And perhaps most important, highly capable early childhood professionals are needed to implement today’s more challenging early 

literacy expectations. This involves knowledge of how young children learn and how they are best taught, knowledge and respect 

for diversity of children and their families, ability to foster all the 

domains of development and to work collaboratively with a variety 

of professionals, an effective use of technologies. 

All of these are important, and we need to keep in mind the context in which this would be done. For example, many early literacy 

professionals have implications for their own literacy development 

as well. And this is a fact that we have come to grips with. 

My final point has to do with my work as an evaluator of Early 

Reading First and the implications for federal efforts. That work 

largely confirms the recommendations already offered. For the 

most part, I saw exceptionally effective preschool programs with a 

high degree of emphasis on early literacy. 

My hope is that we might learn from the past, learn from Early 

Reading First, especially in the areas of assessment, family literacy 

and professional development, including attention to coaching. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Strickland follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Dorothy S. Strickland, Professor Emeritas, 

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey 

Thank you for the opportunity to share some of the current thinking about literacy learning during the early childhood years. Though I have done a fair amount 

of research over the years, my primary contribution to the field has been as translator of research to practice. I have been a classroom teacher, learning disabilities 

specialist, and teacher educator. I am also a mother and grandmother. So, I bring 

many perspectives to the table. Before I begin, however, I would like to state that 

although I believe that greater attention to literacy is extremely important, I also 

believe that early literacy should never be stressed at the expense of or in isolation 

from the other domains of child development. In fact, all of the domains of early 

childhood development—physical, social-emotional, cognitive, language, and literacy—are interrelated and interdependent. I have organized my comments around 

four questions. 

Question #1. What is known about the importance of early literacy development? 

Early childhood professionals have long recognized the importance of language 

and literacy in preparing children to succeed in school. Early literacy plays a key 

role in enabling the kind of early learning experiences that research shows are 

linked with academic achievement, reduced grade retention, higher graduation 

rates, and enhanced productivity in adult life. 

Literacy learning starts early and persists throughout life. 

In the past, our field has talked about early literacy in terms of what was called 

reading readiness, the necessary level of preparation children should attain before 

beginning formal reading instruction. Key factors or predictors include oral language, alphabet knowledge, knowledge of how the sounds of our language link to 

the alphabet, and knowledge about print. Reading readiness largely focused on targeted instruction in kindergarten and early first grade. While the notion of certain 

predictors has been maintained, the way we look at their development has changed. 

Today’s research suggests that learning to read and write is an ongoing and emerging process from infancy. This is consistent with what has been learned from 

neurocognitive research about young learners and learning. From the earliest years, 

everything that adults do to support children’s language and literacy really counts. 

Oral language and literacy develop concurrently. 

Although oral language is foundational to literacy development, the two also develop concurrently. What children learn from listening and talking contributes to 

their ability to read and write and vice versa. For example, young children’s phonological awareness (ability to identify and make oral rhymes and manipulate the in-
11 

dividual sounds—phonemes- in spoken words) is an important indicator of their potential success in learning to read. Phonological awareness begins early with rhyming games and chants, often on a parent’s knee. • Children who fall behind in oral language and literacy development are less 

likely to be successful beginning readers; and their achievement lag is likely to persist throughout the primary grades and beyond. • It is not enough to simply teach early literacy skills in isolation. Teaching children to apply the skills they learn has a significantly greater effect on their ability 

to read and write 

Children’s experiences with the world and with print greatly influence their ability to comprehend what they read. 

True reading involves understanding. What children bring to a text, whether oral 

or written, influences the understandings they take away. 

The more limited a child’s experiences the more likely he or she will have difficulty with reading. There are two kinds of experiences that are highly influential 

to literacy development: background knowledge about the world and background 

knowledge about print and books. 

Question #2. What is needed to support young children’s language and literacy development? 

Young children need parents, caregivers, and teachers who: 

• Know that a child’s capacity for learning is not determined at birth and there 

is a great deal they can do about it. • Respect and build upon the home language and culture of the child • Are aware that there are many informal and enjoyable ways that language and 

literacy skills can be developed at home and in pre-school settings • Provide opportunities for children to use what they know about language and 

literacy in order to help them transfer what they know to new situations. • Take time to listen and respond to children. • Talk to and with children not at them. • Engage children in extended conversations about events, storybooks, and a variety of other print media. • Explain things to children. • Use sophisticated and unusual words in their everyday talk with children, when 

it is appropriate to the conversation. • Recognize that interesting concepts and vocabulary do not emerge from a vacuum and, thus, make sure to provide interesting content to think and talk about. • Involve children in trips to local points of interest and talk with them about 

what they see and do. • Establish a habit of raising and responding to children’s questions about things 

that occur in the home environment or at trips to local points of interest. • Provide time for reading to children and talking with them about what is read. 

• Share a variety of types of literature, including lots of informational books to 

stimulate conversations about ideas and concepts beyond everyday experiences. 

• Make books accessible for children to return to on their own to ‘‘pretend read’’— 

a child’s personal reenactment of the read-aloud experience. 

Question #3. How can we improve existing early childhood programs to better support early literacy development? 

Both my knowledge of research and my experience suggest that we have come a 

very long way in providing quality 0-5 education in the United States, but there is 

much to be done. Following are some ideas for your consideration with recommendations for policy and practice. 

1. Well-conceived standards for child outcomes, curriculum content, and teacher/ 

care giver preparation help establish clarity of purpose and a shared vision for early 

literacy education. 

• States and districts should establish standards for early literacy that are articulated with K-12 programs and reflect consistency and continuity with overall program goals. 

• Early literacy curricula, teaching and care-giving practices should be evidencebased, integrated with all domains of learning and understandable to staff members. 

2. Early literacy programs should be designed to provide comprehensive support 

for all children with clear adaptations for children with special needs. 

3. Support for the early literacy development of English language learners must 

be specified with language learning opportunities in both the home language and 

English provided where feasible. 

4. Early literacy assessment should be age-appropriate and employ multiple 

means of collecting, synthesizing, and making use of information to support chil-
12 

dren’s overall development, improve the quality of care giving/teaching, and the 

total program. 

5. Program outreach should reflect respect for the diversity of cultures, and linguistic backgrounds of children and their families as well as support for families as 

children’s first teachers. 

• Parent involvement programs should have a strong early literacy component 

that guides parents and care givers in providing appropriate early literacy experiences at home. 

6. Highly capable early childhood professionals are needed to implement today’s 

more challenging early literacy expectations. 

• Standards for early childhood professionals—administrators, teachers, caregivers, educational support professionals—should require that staff members be 

qualified to meet early literacy standards according to their roles and responsibilities. 

• Improved pre-service education and professional development to prepare and 

support professionals to meet increased demands and challenges associated with 

high quality early literacy education. Includes— 

• Knowledge of how young children learn, (including brain research) and how 

they are best taught. 

• Knowledge, respect, and support for the diversity of children’s families, cultures, 

and linguistic backgrounds are important to early literacy Know: 

• The ability to integrate and build on all of the domains of a child’s development—physical, social-emotional, cognitive, language—to foster literacy development. 

• The ability to work collaboratively with a variety of professionals and social 

agencies to meet children’s needs 

• Effective and prudent use of television, digital media at home and in school settings—area that many are still struggling to understand 

• Effective use of technologies in professional development 

Note: The above must be considered in terms of the context in which many early 

childhood educators work. Low wages, stress, and the need to support the literacy 

levels of some early childhood educators have implications for the success of professional development. 

Question #4. What did my work, as an evaluator of Early Reading First, reveal 

about what needs to be done to improve federal efforts? 

My work with Early Reading First largely confirmed the recommendations already offered. For the most part, I saw exceptionally effective early childhood programs with a high degree of emphasis on early literacy. Clearly, the quality of instruction was grounded in high quality professional development, effective use of literacy coaches, and the collaborative efforts of all staff members. My hope is that 

we might learn from ERF in the following areas: 

Assessment, used wisely, can be a catalyst for positive change. Because ERF is 

a federally funded project, assessment received major attention. My hope is that we 

can distill what was learned from ERF to determine more effective and efficient 

ways to monitor children’s ongoing progress. Particular emphasis should be placed 

on authentic types of assessment that help teachers and caregivers make use of 

what they learn and offer guidance for professional development. 

Family literacy remains an area in need of more inquiry and application of what 

is known to be effective. What families know and do has direct impact on young 

children’s language and literacy development. The need is particularly critical in 

areas where children have the greatest need. 

Professional development (includes all personnel and the selection and training of 

literacy coaches)—Quality support for children’s development rests in the hands of 

the adults that care for them. Effective professional development that is informed 

by evidence, a shared vision of expectations, and supported by sufficient resources, 

will produce the quality of early education that all children deserve. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Dore ́? 

STATEMENT OF MARY KAY DORE ́ , DIRECTOR OF STUDENT 

SUPPORT SERVICES, SUMMIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Ms. DORE ́. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member 

Castle, Representative Polis and members of the subcommittee. 
13 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. First time 

doing this. 

I am Mary Kay Dore ́, District Student Support Services Manager 

in Summit School District located in Frisco, Colorado. I am honored 

to share some of the work that we have done in Summit School 

District over the past 3 years in regards to improving instructional 

practices and achieving positive gains for students in literacy and 

learning. 

Summit County is a rural resort district located 70 miles west 

of Denver in the 10-mile range of the Rocky Mountains. Our yearround population is approximately 25,000 residents, but during 

high tourist season the county’s population can swell upwards of 

100,000. The county has experienced growth in the past decade and 

an increase in diversity of our resident families. 

In 1995, there were 40 students whose native language was not 

English. In 2009, we have 864 students who speak 24 different languages. The predominant first language for these students is Spanish. Poverty has also increased. In 2000, 354 students qualified for 

either free or reduced lunch. In 2009, 949 students qualified for the 

assistance. 

As we experienced growth in our community and diversification, 

our district saw a decline in its standardized test scores. As school 

district officials examine new student data, they realized the need 

for change in some of their long-held practices. 

They refused to attribute lower test scores to students who didn’t 

speak English well enough or whose parents were struggling financially. It wasn’t the child’s fault; it was the school’s practices that 

needed to improve. 

In 2001, we formed a district instructional team or I-team, which 

included the district staff in areas of literacy, ELA, gifted and talented, IB, special education and technology to focus on students 

who continue to struggle academically even with parent involvement and school support services. We were inspired to challenge 

our own status quo and develop a Summit County system of multitiered supports for students. 

Following several years of internal fine-tuning and cross-departmental process planning, we established a new system with four 

components we believe hold the key to improved instruction in student achievement. 

Number one, using formative and summative assessment data to 

drive instruction and interventions. Number two, focused collaborative time for teachers to discuss data, instruction and students. 

Number three, discrete progress monitoring of student achievement. And number four, professional development that is linked to 

that identified student need. 

This system, called response to instruction, instead of response 

to intervention, emphasized the importance of instruction. The 

team worked with the school’s teachers to create a framework and 

mechanism for responding to student needs. 

Once every quarter the staff reviewed a body of evidence on each 

student regarding their academics and assessed who was at grade 

level and who needed further conversation. The principal carved 

out time during the school day for grade levels of teachers to work 

with their building specialists for an hour a week rotating through 
14 

all grade levels, preschool through fifth grade in a 3-week rotation 

cycle. 

During this grade level collaborative time, universal screening 

data was reviewed and the results from formative and summative 

assessments. This gave the team the opportunity to look at students beyond their label and flexibly group students by need, even 

across grade level. 

This cross-departmental approach matched the professional with 

the best skills for addressing each student’s needs. Data from 

benchmark assessments were critical elements of this process. 

Teachers learned how to use the data with confidence when discussing a student’s progress with their parents. 

It helped parents better understand their child’s literacy skills 

and what parents could do at home to help. Teachers use the data 

with their student to share their progress and buy into their learning. Literacy resource teachers also developed a document that 

housed all literacy data for a class that was easy to reference as 

shown in Appendix F. 

The school shifted to a culture of problem solving. Teachers 

began to load their toolboxes with research-based literacy strategies and supplemental programs for the direct student needs for 

universal, targeted and intensive levels of instruction. Student results were continually monitored determining if progress had been 

sufficient and if interventions needed to be continued or altered. 

This collaborative time and multi-tiered system of support structure has helped the staff continue the educational practices that 

were effective and allowed them to let go of programs that didn’t 

produce results. As shown in Appendix D, since RTI began at 

Upper Blue Elementary in 2007, the school has consistently seen 

results on the Colorado reading assessment that outpace the district and state averages. 

As we continue today’s discussion on literacy of children, I want 

to leave you with a few reflections based off my work in the field. 

First, I want to applaud you, and thank you for your focus on literacy and literacy instruction. 

Second, I know that we need to work with teachers in preparatory programs. Teachers new to the field need to understand 

systems of multi-tiered support, principles of the problem-solving 

process and be well-versed in the five components of literacy, including oral language development and its effective instruction. 

Third, schools need to shift to a systems way of thinking beginning with a strong universal tier of instruction that is linked to 

state standards and district curriculum. Teachers need time to look 

at data, discuss students and plan interventions or extensions to 

track their effectiveness in a continuous improvement cycle. This 

system must be able to discuss many computing topics. Teachers 

have more to complete with less time. We need to make the time 

they have more effective. 

Finally I have also learned that just having three-ringed binders 

on how to do something does not change a system. Leadership that 

supports cultural changes and a strong instructional focus are essential for continuous improvement. 

With looming budget cuts in the state of Colorado the already 

limited amount of time we have currently for teacher professional 
15 

development and collaborative work time will become an increasingly difficult practice to support. 

We need to provide a setting that works for children, one for time 

and support to schools and districts so that they can focus on instruction, particularly in the area of literacy. We need to make 

changes if we are going to impact our children. And after all, isn’t 

that our purpose? Thank you for the opportunity to share some of 

our successes. 

[The statement of Ms. Dore ́ follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Mary Kay Dore ́, District Student Support Services 

Manager, Summit School District, Frisco, CO 

Good morning. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, Representative Polis 

and members of the subcommittee thank you for this opportunity to speak to you 

today. I am Mary Kay Dore ́, District Student Support Services Manager in Summit 

School District located in Frisco, Colorado. I am honored to share some of the work 

we’ve done in Summit School District over the past few years in regards to improving instructional practices and achieving positive gains for students in literacy and 

learning. 

Background of Summit School District 

Summit County is a rural resort district that is located 70 miles west of Denver 

in the Ten Mile Range of the Rocky Mountains. The county sits high in the Rockies 

at about 9,000 feet. We are home to 4 world class ski resorts and many other outdoor activities that attract year round visitors. Our year round population is approximately 25,000 residents, but during high tourist season the county’s population 

can swell upwards of 100,000. The county has also experienced a great deal of 

growth in the past several decades, and with that has come an increase in the diversity of our resident families. In 1995, the district had a total of 40 students whose 

native language was other than English. Fourteen years later, in 2009, we have 864 

students who speak 24 different languages. The predominant first language for 

these students is Spanish. The changes in poverty echo the same trend—in 2000, 

354 students qualified for either free or reduced lunch; in 2009, 949 students qualified for the assistance. 

Summit School District serves six towns and a little over three thousand students 

at our nine preschool programs, six elementary schools, one middle school, one high 

school, and three alternative programs which include diploma outreach and programming for students who are at risk of being expelled. Within our six elementary 

schools we have two schools that qualify for Title I Program assistance, one of which 

is a dual language school. The district is working toward full district authorization 

in the International Baccalaureate Programme. Summit County Schools has also 

been chosen as one of six districts statewide to participate in the Colorado Department of Education’s CTAG, or Closing the Achievement Gap program, to address 

our higher than-state-average gap of English and non-English speaking student 

achievement. 

Changes in instructional practice 

As we experienced growth in our community and an increase in our diversity, our 

district saw a decline in its standardized test scores. As school district officials examined new student data, they realized a need to change some of their long held 

practices. They refused to attribute lower test scores to students who didn’t speak 

English well enough, or whose parents were struggling financially. It wasn’t the 

children’s fault; it was the schools’ practices that needed to improve. 

The district first adopted a core literacy program K-6 and empowered literacy resource teachers to examine student performance on common literacy assessments. 

Two key questions surfaced: 

Why were some students making progress in the area of literacy while others 

were not? 

What could we change for the students not making the progress we would expect? 

In 2001, we formed a district Instructional Team, or Iteam, which included the 

district staff in the areas of literacy, ELA, gifted and talented, IB, special education 

and technology to focus on students who continued to struggle academically even 

with parent involvement and school support services. After listening to national 

leaders and speakers in literacy and language development, early intervention for 

at-risk students, and Response to Intervention, we were inspired to challenge our 
16 

own status quo and develop a Summit County system of multi-tiered supports for 

students. 

Following several years of internal fine tuning and cross departmental process 

planning, we established a new system with four components we believe hold the 

key to improved instruction and student achievement: 

• Using formative and summative assessment data to driven instruction and 

interventions 

• Focused collaborative time for teachers to discuss data, instruction, and students 

• Discrete progress monitoring of student achievement 

• Professional development linked to identified student need 

This system, which we called Response to Instruction instead of Response to 

Intervention to emphasize the importance of instruction, began its implementation 

at Upper Blue Elementary. The team worked with the school’s teachers to create 

a framework and mechanism for responding to student needs. Once every quarter 

the staff reviewed a body of evidence on each student regarding their academics. 

Teachers looked at students who were at grade level and those who needed further 

conversation. The principal carved out time during the school day for grade levels 

of teachers to work with their building specialists; literacy, English language acquisition, special education, counselors and their building principal for an hour week, 

rotating through all of the grade levels preschool through fifth grade in a three 

week rotation cycle. 

During this grade-level collaborative time the team would review the universal 

screening data and results from formative and summative assessments. This gave 

the team the opportunity to look at students beyond their ‘‘label (special ed, ELL, 

ILP)’’ and flexibly group students by their individual needs, even across grade levels. This cross departmental approach matched the professional with the best skills 

for addressing each student’s need. 

Data from benchmark assessments were critical elements of this process. Teachers learned how to use the data with confidence when discussing a student’s 

progress with their parents. It helped parents understand their child’s current literacy skills and what parents could do at home to help. Teachers were even using 

data with their students so students could see their progress and buy-in to their 

own learning. Literacy resource teachers developed a document that housed all literacy data for a class that was easy to reference. See Appendix A. 

The teachers at Upper Blue also shifted to a ‘‘culture of problem solving.’’ One 

teacher reflected that it allowed her to look at all students in her classroom which 

impacted her daily instruction and made her differentiate and use a variety of literacy strategies, including small groups, centers, read aloud, writers workshop and 

other strategies based on the needs of her students. The problem solving process 

also held her accountable for the fidelity of interventions and student results. This 

contributed an increased awareness of the need for differentiated instruction based 

on a guaranteed and viable curriculum that was grounded in sound instructional 

practice. As teachers worked together they strengthened their understanding of essential learning outcomes, linked to the state standards and curriculum, and most 

importantly how they could support all students. 

An important change that we observed was that fewer students were being referred for a special education evaluation. As the teams worked together, looking at 

student data, intentional interventions and their results, referrals became more focused; evaluations for learning and other disabilities now included a discussion 

about the need for the sustained intensity and duration of the interventions that 

were currently occurring with students. 

Teachers began to load their ‘‘tool boxes’’ with research-based literacy strategies 

and supplemental programs that addressed students’ needs through universal, targeted, and intensive levels of instruction. Student results were continually monitored, determining if progress had been sufficient, and if interventions needed to 

be continued or altered. This collaborative time and multi-tiered system of support 

structure has helped the staff continue the educational practices that were effective 

and allowed them to let go of the program that didn’t produce results. 

As shown in Appendix B, since RTI began at Upper Blue Elementary in 2007, the 

school has consistently seen results on the Colorado reading assessment that outpace the district and state averages. At present, reading scores are higher than the 

writing scores; however, the building staff has been working on common writing 

benchmark assessments and writing samples that will better assess student’s writing needs. 
17 

District wide work 

The district has also seen a great deal of success in implementing this systemic 

reform. For many buildings this is the first year they are formally beginning the 

school wide initiative. The Middle School has started to track trends, allowing it to 

enact innovative programs such as a group that engages Latino boys with the 

school, increasing their engagement and achievement. Teachers are experiencing a 

paradigm shift of moving from the ‘‘I taught it’’ point of view to the ‘‘They learned 

it’’ philosophy. At administrative team meetings principals are beginning to share 

their school data to help build professional development offerings for all staff members in the district. Dillon Valley, our dual language elementary school, is using its 

data in both English and Spanish to build appropriate interventions to increase student achievement. Also, our two Title I program assistance schools have implemented before and after school intervention groups, summer programming, and literacy and math nights for parents to help impact student achievement. The increase 

of systems thinking has altered the way we look at our students, our expectations 

for them and how we can make the difference. 

Reflections 

As we continue today’s discussion on the literacy skills of children, I want to leave 

you with a few reflections based on my work in the field. 

First, I want to applaud my own Congressman Jared Polis and Congressman Yarmuth for introducing H.R. 4037, the LEARN Act, which will hopefully give districts 

across the nation the much-needed resources to implement intensive, multi-tiered 

support systems for literacy just like the one we have implemented at Upper Blue 

Elementary School and in other Summit County schools. 

Second, I know that we need to work with teachers in higher education. Teachers 

new to the field need to understand systems of multi-tiered support. They need to 

understand the principles of the problem solving process when it comes to students. 

They need to be well versed in the five components of literacy, including oral language development and its effective instruction. 

Third, schools need to shift to systems thinking to make any sustainable change. 

This process begins with a strong universal tier of instruction that is linked to state 

standards and district curriculum. Additionally there needs to be systems in place 

that allow teachers time to look at data, discuss students, and plan for interventions 

or extensions and track their effectiveness in a continuous improvement cycle. Even 

though we have placed a priority on literacy, the system must be able to discuss 

many competing topics: math, behavior, science, bullying, and inquiry based instruction, wellness, and 21st century skills, just to name a few. Teachers have more to 

accomplish with less time. We need to make the time they have effective. 

And finally, I also have learned that just having binders on how to do something 

does not change a system. Leadership at the school building level that supports cultural changes and a strong instructional focus are the essential components to guide 

this difficult process of continuous improvement. With looming budget cuts in the 

State of Colorado, the already limited amount of time that we have currently for 

teacher professional development and collaborative work time will become an increasingly difficult practice to support. We need to provide the setting that works 

for children—one of time and support—to schools and districts so that they can 

focus on instruction, particularly in the area of literacy. We need to make changes 

if we are going impact our children and after all, isn’t that our true purpose? 

Thank you for the opportunity to share some of our successes 

Chairman KILDEE. Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Dore ́. Mr. Henriquez? 

STATEMENT OF ANDRE ́ S HENRIQUEZ, PROGRAM OFFICER, 

CARNEGIE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK 

Mr. HENRIQUEZ. Good morning. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Mike Castle and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

inviting me to speak today. My name is Andre ́s Henriquez, and I 

serve as Program Officer at Carnegie Corporation of New York 

which is a philanthropic organization established in 1911 by Andrew Carnegie to deal with real and permanent good in this world. 

I am particularly proud to be serving at Carnegie Corporation as 

the foundation nears its 100th year as a philanthropy. Carnegie 
18 

Corporation’s name has been practically synonymous with literacy 

for close to a century. The foundation’s legacy includes over 2,000 

free public libraries established by Andrew Carnegie. 

We also funded the development and initial production of the 

PBS television series ‘‘Sesame Street,’’ now celebrating its 40th anniversary. Today I will speak to you about our recent initiative 

called Advancing Literacy which is working to expand knowledge 

and practices in literacy beyond third grade. 

Our work has shown that strong literacy skills beyond grade 

three is the cornerstone for success in high school and for college 

readiness and beyond. This insight grows out of an earlier initiative to reform high schools which we funded with the Bill and 

Melinda Gates Foundation. 

The high school reform work which was aimed at promoting systemic and district-wide reform in seven urban communities produced a critical, if unexpected, finding. Almost half of the entering 

ninth graders were reading several years below grade level. 

It became clear that the kinds of outcomes we wanted to achieve 

from this initiative, higher graduation rates, more students going 

on to college, more students taking advanced placement courses, 

were going to be difficult to achieve because of students’ low literacy levels. 

The problem was not limited to these seven districts. In fact, I 

learned that eighth-grade reading scores had not improved in more 

than 30 years, and 70 percent of entering ninth graders were reading below grade level. 

Simply put, these high school students were not understanding 

or engaging with text. We discovered that struggling readers represent a substantial proportion of students who are dropping out 

of our high schools. As fourth graders, their scores are among the 

best in the world. By eighth grade, their scores are much, much 

lower. By the time they get to tenth grade, U.S. students’ score are 

among the lowest in the world. 

The surprising conclusion from this work was that good literacy, 

early literacy especially instruction does not inoculate students 

against struggle or failure later on. And let me just say, while the 

issue is exacerbated by poverty and is particularly prevalent in 

poorer urban districts, the comprehension problem is also common 

in middle class suburbs, exurbs and rural areas throughout our 

country. 

This is a problem in every single one of your districts. It is clear 

from our nation’s report card that too few students are reading at 

the most advanced level. And many students who do graduate from 

high school are not prepared for college coursework. 

This lack of strong literacy skills is so widespread that many colleges and universities have introduced remedial reading programs 

for the large numbers of freshmen unable to cope with the quantity 

and complexity of college level work. 

Seventy percent of students who take one or more college remedial reading course do not attain a degree or certificate within 8 

years of enrollment. 

And this handicap extends into our workforce. Private industry estimates that it now spends as much as $3.1 billion per year to 

bolster the writing skills of entry-level workers. President Obama 
19 

has pledged that by the year 2020, we will have the highest percentage of college graduates in the world. 

We have done a great job convincing nearly every high school 

student in the land that with a college degree comes the promise 

of career success. But it is all meaningless if those high school 

graduates don’t have the fundamental literacy skills to succeed. 

So where does this leave us? We had thought, or hoped, that if 

you work to get a student to read with proficiency by fourth grade, 

you could call it success, and move on. If they weren’t proficient by 

fourth grade, you would prevail upon that hope and that they 

would catch up in later grades. 

Yet, it is after the fourth grade that far greater demands are 

placed on student’s literacy skills, and far less time is spent teaching literacy proficiency. At this point, students are no longer learning to read, but they are reading to learn. And that is what led us 

to create the Advancing Literacy initiative. 

The goal has been to target reading for young people in grades 

4 through 12. Since then we have established and built research, 

policy and practice specifically in adolescent literacy. Our reports 

and our studies have created a body of work to better understand 

the literacy needs of our students. 

So why do we have this problem of adolescent literacy to begin 

with? Middle and high school students must decipher much more 

complex passages, and synthesize information at high level and 

learn to form independent conclusions based on evidence. They 

must develop special skills and strategies for reading text in each 

of the different content areas including science, math and history. 

The demands of literacy change and intensify quickly after fourth 

grade, text is longer and more complicated and vocabulary is more 

specialized. Additionally, students must grapple with the increasing importance of comprehending graphic representations, particularly in science and mathematics. 

There is also infrastructural issues. There is a shortage of qualified literacy experts to coach and teach students and teachers in 

middle grades and high schools. Teachers will argue that they are 

not literacy teachers, but teachers of content. So it is difficult for 

content area literacy instruction to take place. 

There is a decrease in student motivation to read as children 

progress from fourth grade through 12th grade. And middle and 

high schools are not accustomed to using assessments to identify, 

and target students who need literacy assistance. 

So what can we do? Over the last 40 years, our nation’s adolescent literacy rates have been stagnant. Recent success in improving 

early literacy is a very good start, but good early literacy is only 

a foundation, not the whole structure. We must re-engineer our nation’s schools to support adolescent learning and ambitious goals 

for literacy for all. And this is how we can get there. 

First, increase Title 1 support for middle schools and high 

schools. At the moment, only 5 percent of federal Title 1 funds go 

to middle and high schools. If the nation is to remain competitive, 

we must increase our high school graduation and college going 

rates among our most disadvantaged students. An infusion of resources at the secondary level focused on higher levels of literacy 

is critical to making this happen. 
20 

Second, establish fewer clearer higher common standards. This 

will help to increase attention to reading and writing especially 

focus on comprehension that can be embedded in other content 

areas. 

Third, fully fund and expand a comprehensive pre-K through 12 

literacy continuum with specific support allocated for grades 4 

through 12. Last week, the LEARN Act was introduced and was 

the first critical step to meet recommendations at the federal level. 

We acknowledge the work of Chairman Miller, Representatives 

Polis and Yarmuth for introducing this promising piece of legislation. 

Fourth, investigate the cost and benefits of linking the nation’s 

report card to international literacy tests. While NAEP has been 

indispensible in tracking America s educational progress, it provides no sense of how America stands in relation to other nations. 

Funding and efforts to equate long-term NAEP trends with international literacy tests such as PISA and PROSE would allow us to 

get an instant snapshot of how our young people are performing 

vis-a-vis the rest of the world. And finally, increase federal funding 

for evidence-based research for adolescent literacy. 

We need to intervene and individualize instruction with students 

as soon as they have begun to lose ground. We need increased government-funded research at NICHD and IES that could demonstrate how best to assess adolescents in order to determine their 

need for intervention and support. 

In conclusion, the status quo in middle school and high schools 

in America is no longer acceptable. It is based on a 20th century 

vision of the literacy skills which no longer guarantee success after 

high school. 

High school graduates today face higher expectations in the new 

global economy than ever before. I thank you for your time. 

[The statement of Mr. Henriquez follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Andre ́s Henrı ́quez, Program Officer, 

Carnegie Corporation of New York 

‘‘The generation that is in school now, and those who will follow them are the people who will envision the future of our nation and chart our course through the 21st 

century and beyond. We owe it to them and to ourselves to ensure that they can read, 

write and learn at a high level in every classroom and every school, college and university throughout the United States.’’ 

VARTAN GREGORIAN, President, 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

Overview 

Throughout the history of Carnegie Corporation, its presidents have been engaged 

with literacy. Andrew Carnegie’s legacy includes over 2000 free public libraries that 

he saw as a link ‘‘bridging ignorance and education.’’ Access to books and the explicit teaching of reading are two ways in which literacy is fostered. From the 1930’s 

to the 1960s reading was increasingly taught through methods that concentrated on 

‘‘whole words’’ (or whole language), using sentences and stories that were closely 

geared to children’s interests. Surprisingly, the teaching of reading became an intensely debated national issue in 1955, when Rudolf Flesch’s Why Johnny Can’t 

Read And What You Can Do about It (Harper) moved onto a national best-seller 

list. Flesch charged that the neglect of phonics instruction had caused a national 

crisis in literacy and that ‘‘whole language’’ was based on a flawed theory that required children to memorize words and guess how to pronounce a word they did not 

know, instead of sounding out the word. The ‘‘look-say’’ or whole-word method had 

swept the textbook market, despite the fact, Flesch alleged, that it had no support 

in research. 
21 

Carnegie Corporation President John Gardner (1955-1967) saw the debate about 

reading as central to the foundation’s interests, writing in a 1959 Annual Report, 

‘‘The question of whether Johnny can or cannot read-if so why, if not why not-has 

probably given rise to more hue and cry throughout the land than any other single 

educational issue. There are those who claim that today’s youngsters cannot read 

as well as their parents did at their age; others state the situation is actually reversed. Proponents of one or another method of reading argue vociferously for their 

method and heap scorn upon other methods. Wherever the truth lies, it’s not yet 

obvious, and any research which may shed light on this complicated problem will 

be to the good.’’ Following this logic, the Corporation soon funded a key grantee, 

Jeanne Chall of the City College of New York, to help ‘‘settle’’ the reading debate. 

Chall spent three years visiting classrooms, analyzing research studies, examining 

textbooks and interviewing authors, reading specialists and teachers. She found substantial and consistent advantages for programs that included systematic phonics, 

finding that this approach was particularly advantageous for children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In 1967, Chall collected her Corporation-supported research and published Learning to Read: the Great Debate (Chall, 1967), which became a classic. Later, after moving to Harvard University, Chall developed a conceptual framework for developmental reading stages that extended from the pre-reading stage of very young children to the highly sophisticated interpretations of educated adults. Chall’s reading stages clearly distinguished ‘‘learning to read’’ from 

‘‘reading to learn;’’ she also identified and named the ‘‘fourth grade slump.’’ 

Advancing Literacy Initiative 

The Corporation’s distinguished history in support of literacy—some of which is 

described above—has recently extended from pivotal initial support for the Emmy 

award-winning PBS series Between the Lions, to the work of the International Development Division in strengthening libraries in sub-Saharan countries in Africa. As 

always, our work in this area includes a concern with access to books, the search 

for better methods of teaching reading, and building a body of knowledge about the 

developmental issues associated with early childhood and adolescence. Taking all 

these factors into account, Carnegie Corporation came to its current focus on literacy with enormous comparative advantage. Indeed, to many people, the name 

Carnegie Corporation is associated with the very foundations of literacy going all 

the way back to the philanthropy of Andrew Carnegie himself and of the Corporation in its early years; both were instrumental in helping to create the nation’s network of free public libraries. 

The Corporation’s Advancing Literacy Initiative was developed after an extensive 

two-year review that included consultations with the nation’s leading practitioners 

and researchers. We learned that the teaching of reading in K-3 is well supported 

with research, practice and policy, but that these are lacking for grades beyond this 

point. In 2002, Carnegie Corporation commissioned RAND to convene a small group 

of scholars and policy analysts to discuss the then-current state of research on adolescent literacy and help lay the groundwork for a long-term effort directed toward 

supporting and improving the literacy skills of adolescent students in our nation’s 

schools. The resulting task force on adolescent literacy produced a ‘‘briefing book’’ 

that identified and examined several topics relevant to adolescent literacy about 

which more thinking was needed. 

Despite the recognized importance of specialized literacy skills for adolescents, the 

knowledge base on this issue was at that time relatively small, with school instruction relying more on intuition than solid evidence and the institutional dissemination of best practices. Notable earlier reports, including Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998) and the Report of the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel Report, 2000), had offered strong arguments and recommendations for systematic literacy instruction in the primary 

grades even though international comparisons suggested that the performance of 

American children in the primary grades had long been comparable to that in other 

developed nations (Martin, Mullis, Gonzalez, & Kennedy, 2003). The specific challenges of adolescent literacy and learning had been comparatively ignored in favor 

of the ‘‘inoculation’’ model of literacy instruction, wherein later problems are avoided 

through early efforts at prevention. 

The RAND Task Force delivered its briefing book to the Advisory Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy (ACAAL), an enlarged group established by the Corporation, in 2004. ACAAL members then took on the task of working out how to 

expand knowledge about the topics identified in the briefing book by overseeing (and 

in some cases themselves producing) synthetic reports and white papers. Some of 

these early reports were widely distributed and have received considerable enthusiasm. ACAAL commissioned a substantial list of reports and small studies focused 
22 

on issues as varied as comprehension assessment, out-of-school learning, second language learners’ instructional needs, writing in adolescence, literacy in the content 

areas, and standards for adolescent literacy coaching (see Appendix A for a complete 

listing of books and reports from the initiative). Members of ACAAL also contributed to teams that produced a variety of guides for policy makers including governors, state school boards, principals, superintendents, district school boards, and 

curriculum developers, and participated in adolescent literacy summits organized 

and promoted by the Alliance for Excellent Education. 

Therefore, we have chosen to focus our efforts on intermediate and adolescent literacy, to build research, practice and policy for literacy in students in grades 4 

through 12. Our decision is informed by our grantmaking, which has helped us and 

the nation learn a great deal about children in their early, middle and adolescent 

years of development, as well as about teaching and learning and the complexity 

of school reform. What has become evident is that good school reform and knowledge 

of adolescent development are not mutually exclusive: they go together. 

During the last twenty years our nation’s educational system has scored some extraordinary successes, especially in improving the reading and writing skills of 

young children in grades K-3. Yet the pace of literacy improvement has not kept 

up with the pace of growth in the global economy, and literacy gains have not been 

extended to adolescents in the secondary grades. 

Overall, we are failing to create highly literate, college-ready adults with the literacy skill sets that qualify them for employment in the new global knowledge economy. The most recent data shows poor performance by U.S. students compared to 

many other nations (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2007). Although U.S. students 

in grade four score among the best in the world, those in grade eight score much 

lower. By grade ten, U.S. students score among the lowest in the world. 

In addition, many of our high school graduates are not prepared for college-level 

coursework, a widespread problem that has impelled most colleges and universities 

to introduce remedial reading programs for the large numbers of freshmen unable 

to cope with the quantity of reading assigned to them college classrooms (NCES, 

2001, 2003). Likewise, estimates indicate that private industry now spends up to 3.1 

billion USD (National Commission on Writing, 2004) per year to bolster the writing 

skills of entry level workers. Part of the problem is that societal demands for high 

levels of literacy have increased dramatically: ‘‘The skills required to earn a decent 

income have changed radically. The skills taught in most U.S. Schools have not’’ 

(Murnane & Levy, 1996) 

In other words, our adolescents are not being adequately prepared for the demands of higher education, employment and citizenship in the 21st Century (American Diploma Project, 2004; Center on Education Policy, 2007; Lee, Grigg, & 

Donahue, 2007; Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005). It is a well-publicized fact that 

young people who fail or under-perform in school are increasingly likely to suffer 

from unemployment or drastically lower income levels throughout their lives (e.g., 

OECD, 2007). 

The Corporation is by helping to build the nation’s capacity to teach and strengthen reading comprehension skills, with a special focus on grades 4 through 12, i.e., 

ages 9 through 17. Therefore, we refer to this effort as intermediate and adolescent 

literacy. The Corporation begins from a position of comparative advantage, having 

established a knowledge base of theory and effective practice in early learning and 

education systems reform. 

The marketplace for employment is governed by a new knowledge-based economy, 

requiring better educated, highly literate and technologically fluent high school 

graduates. The causes of the weakness in intermediate and adolescent literacy are 

poorly understood, but current research suggest several reasons why students do not 

maintain the gains they make in earlier grades: 

• A shortage of qualified literacy experts who can coach and teach literacy for students and teachers in the middle grades; 

• A lack of capacity, time and will for middle and high school teachers to teach 

literacy within their content areas; 

• A lack of reinforcement of comprehension of ‘‘informational text’’ in early reading; 

• A lack of strategies at the end of the third grade for pupils to deal with a rapid 

shift from narrative text to expository text; 

• A lack of systemic thinking in schools about literacy beyond age eight; 

• Decrease in student motivation to read as children progress from fourth grade 

through twelfth grade; 

• Middle and high school designs that lack the capacity to identify and target students that need literacy assistance; 
23 

• Little awareness by parents and community groups that literacy instruction 

needs to continue after children have learned the basic skills of decoding words and 

following a simple narrative. 

We believe there is strong evidence that schools with a focus on literacy (reading 

and writing) are associated with improved academic performance and successful 

academic outcomes for students. At the Corporation, we are making grants aimed 

at having a profound influence on adolescent literacy by directing national attention 

to the issue, bringing together the best talent in the field to address the issue, and 

supporting needed research and innovative practices (See Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy Time to Act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career readiness and other corresponding reports at: http:// 

www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta). 

Good early literacy instruction does not inoculate students against struggle or failure later on. Beyond grade 3, adolescent learners in our schools must decipher more 

complex passages, synthesize information at a higher level, and learn to form independent conclusions based on evidence. They must also develop special skills and 

strategies for reading text in each of the differing content areas (such as English, 

Science, Mathematics and History)—meaning that a student who ‘‘naturally’’ does 

well in one area may struggle in another. 

We have a strong knowledge base of reading instruction for grades K-3. However, 

literacy supports for adolescents present greater instructional challenges and demand a range of strategies. Middle and high school learners must learn from texts 

which, compared to those in the earlier grades are significantly longer and more 

complex at the word, sentence and structural levels, present greater conceptual 

challenges and obstacles to reading fluency, contain more detailed graphic representations (as well as tables, charts and equations linked to text) and demand a much 

greater ability to synthesize information. 

Also, each content-area has its own set of literacy skills that students are required 

to master before they can move fully from ‘‘learning to read’’ to ‘‘reading to learn.’’ 

Adolescents who fail to master these more complex tasks in their learning process 

are likely to become unskilled workers in a world where literacy is an absolute precondition for success. 

This is particularly true in mathematics and science. The Carnegie Corporation 

of New York—Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and 

Science Education report, The Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics 

and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy 

(www.OpportunityEquation.org), advocates for expanding Science Technology Education and Mathematics (STEM) education by educating significantly more students 

to be STEM-capable for college readiness rather than viewing STEM as subjects offered only to the highest achievers. The Commission also recommended reframing 

STEM to be a catalyst for the kinds of education reform that is needed to accelerate 

the development of rigorous curricula, improved teaching practices, and high quality 

assessment and accountability measures. 

However, reading scientific texts pose specialized challenges to inexperienced and 

struggling readers. For example, scientific research reports include abstracts, section headings, figures, tables, diagrams, maps, drawings, photographs, reference 

lists and endnotes. Science textbooks usually include similar elements. Each of 

these elements serves as a signal as to the function of a given stretch of text and 

can be used by skilled readers to make predictions about what to look for as they 

read, but consider the situation of an adolescent reader confronted for the first time 

by such texts and trying to make sense of them using the basic decoding tools acquired in ‘‘learning to read.’’ 

Comprehension of scientific texts also often requires mathematical literacy, or an 

ability to understand what mathematical tables and figures convey. It is not uncommon for such figures and tables to invite multiple points of view or to open up questions that are not posed directly in the text (Lemke, 1998). Many scientific texts also 

require visual literacy, using diagrams, drawings, photographs and maps to convey 

meanings. 

Similarly, mathematics textbooks can serve as a significant barrier for students 

who are struggling readers. ‘‘It is a myth that mathematics and math-dependent 

majors in college do not require strong reading and writing skills. Students have 

to be able to comprehend complex informational text so they can identify which 

mathematical operations and concepts to apply to solve a particular problem’’ (Lee 

& Spratley, 2010). In order to integrate reading and writing instruction successfully 

into the academic disciplines, district, state and federal policymakers must: 

1. Define the roles and responsibilities of content area teachers clearly and consistently, stating explicitly that it is not those teachers’ job to provide basic reading 

instruction; 
24 

2. Members of every academic discipline define the literacy skills that are essential to their content area and which they should be responsible for teaching; 

3. All secondary school teachers receive initial ongoing professional development 

in teaching the reading and writing skills that are essential to their own content 

area; 

4. School and district rules and regulations, education funding mechanisms, and 

states and accountability systems combine to give content area teacher positive incentives and appropriate tools with which to provide reading and writing instruction. 

The challenge is to connect reading and writing instruction to the rest of the secondary improvement agenda, treating literacy instruction as a key part of the broader effect to ensure that all students develop the knowledge and skills they need to 

succeed in college and careers (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). 

Re-Engineering Schools for Literacy 

After the investment of millions of dollars and the talents of the best and brightest reformers over decades of educational reform, it is now clear that urban schools 

cannot be successfully reformed without substantially changing the way school districts operate. The Corporation considers the redesigning of urban high schools to 

be a daunting challenge but also a promising target of opportunity for accelerating 

the pace of school district reform. This requires treating urban schools as a complex 

system rather than an aggregation of individual schools. School districts are embedded within communities that strongly influence their mode of operation. Therefore, 

school districts cannot succeed in addressing the problems of educating all students 

to high standards in isolation and must also employ community and organizational 

resources. 

Carnegie Corporation seeks to increase the number of promising school designs 

demonstrating substantial gains in student achievement and to build on those, in 

particular, that are addressing systemic barriers and demonstrating effectiveness at 

scale. New models of small, academically rigorous high schools developed with support from Carnegie Corporation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which 

have significantly improved graduation rates of the schools they replaced, are outstanding examples of such designs. These schools, all of which have been developed 

with partnering higher education, cultural or community organizations and school 

development organizations, also include leadership and teacher recruitment and 

professional development components. 

New school designs aim to overcome the inherent weaknesses in urban schools 

and systems, which include low expectations, weak curricula, incoherent management approaches, limited talent pools and capacity-building strategies, entrenched 

school models that prevent innovation, poor instructional practices and systems of 

support, and isolation and failure to benefit from external resources. To reinforce 

the development and sustainability of these new designs, it’s essential to build up 

a sector of intermediary organizations, university centers, non-profit school and design developers, and research and demonstration organizations—some of which specialize in content areas like adolescent literacy or mathematics while others focus 

on leadership development and turning around low-performing schools. 

Without question, literacy is a critical component of learning and therefore of all 

new, improved school designs. In order to have ‘‘literacy for all’’ we must also have 

a comprehensive agenda for re-engineering America’s schools that will support adolescent learners. Re-engineering for change at the school level must achieve the following: 

1. The school culture is organized for learning: Quality instruction is the central 

task that organizes everyone’s work. Thus, teachers feel personally responsibility for 

student learning, and trust one another and the principal to support them in their 

work. Because there is a sense of participation in a professional community, decisions are made collaboratively and are based upon data. The staff strives for continuous, incremental improvement of student performance over time. The school provides optimal learning conditions characterized by a warm, inviting, and low-threat 

learning environment for students and for teachers. Students and teachers are wellknown to and by each other. 

2. Information drives decisions: Student achievement data is that it drives decisions about instruction, scheduling, and interventions. District- and state-provided 

test data are used as appropriate for these decisions. In addition, the staff receives 

support in efforts to gather and analyze real-time data from team-developed formative assessments and uses that information to inform instruction and to target remediation. As a result, teaching and learning become a dynamic process based upon 

the current needs of all learners. Additionally, data are systematically archived so 
25 

knowledge is accumulated over time regarding the effectiveness of programs and 

other innovations. 

3. Resources are allocated wisely: Time, energy, and materials are focused on 

areas deemed critical for raising student achievement. Scarce resources are distributed wisely according to student needs. The schedule allows time for teacher professional development and collaborative data analysis as part of regular work. There 

is also time in the schedule for supplementary instruction in smaller classes to bring 

struggling students up to grade level. Professional support (coaches, mentors) for 

promoting literacy skills is available to all content-area teachers. 

4. Instructional leadership is strong: The school’s leadership works tirelessly to 

keep student learning the primary goal. Time and attention are distributed according to consensual importance. Leaders work in partnership with subject area specialists, literacy coaches and other skilled experts to ensure successful implementation of critical programs. The principal understands assessment data, knows struggling students and their teachers by name, creates effective internal accountability 

mechanisms, and manages both the instructional (i.e., curriculum, assessment, professional development) and the infrastructural (i.e., scheduling, budgeting) literacy 

needs of the school. A literacy leadership team is centrally engaged in designing, 

supporting, and overseeing the school’s literacy work. 

5. Professional faculty is committed to student success: Teachers subordinate their 

preferences to student needs, participate willingly in professional development because it is focused on the challenges they are facing and is designed to improve their 

work, recognize the importance of literacy skills to content area learning, participate 

in vertical and grade-level teams, and work with colleagues and coaches in observing, describing, and analyzing instructional practice. Coaches participate in the professional community as colleagues rather than as evaluators or as administrators. 

6. Targeted interventions are provided for struggling readers and writers: Multitiered, scaffolded instruction helps students to build the skills and strategies they 

need for success. A logical progression of interventions is available, to which learners are assigned based on their differential needs. Those students lagging furthest 

behind receive intensive courses that provide explicit instruction on critical reading 

and writing skills and strategies with ample opportunities for scaffolded practice. 

Such scaffolding allows for acceleration and helps struggling students to tackle rigorous work. Courses aimed at overcoming specific reading difficulties, whether decoding, fluency, or comprehension are taught by teachers with specific expertise in 

reading. These courses do not replace instruction in English Language Arts or other 

content area classes, and whenever possible carry credits toward graduation. 

7. All content area classes are permeated by a strong literacy focus: Teachers naturally address literacy instruction as a normal part of the teaching and learning 

process. Core classes (math, science, language arts, social studies) have reading and 

writing (instruction and application) woven in throughout. Content-area teachers 

have a strong background in their content areas and a metacognitive understanding 

of the specific types of literacy skills these areas require. Teachers have strategies 

for teaching challenging content both to advanced readers and to struggling readers, 

by identifying critical course content, focusing on the big ideas, and delivering content in an explicit, learner-friendly way. The skills struggling readers learn in reading class are explicitly reinforced in content-area classrooms, and reading teachers 

use content area materials as a basis for practicing the reading skills they are 

teaching. 

Recommendations 

While federal legislation historically has had a ‘‘hands off approach to schoolschool based practices in the past, we have seen that a more active role, particularly 

around policies that have the potential to impact classroom practices based on sound 

research, can have indelible impact on teachers and a nation of readers (i.e. Reading 

First). Strong federal legislation, such as the LEARN Act, that support middle and 

high school to ensure many more of our young people graduate high schools and are 

well prepared for postsecondary education and the workforce are critical. A funding 

stream focused on middle and high schools should include the following: 

• Increasing Title I support for middle and high schools or creating a new funding 

stream. At the moment only 5 percent of federal Title I funds go to middle and high 

schools. If the nation is to remain competitive we must in increase high school graduation and college-going rates among our most disadvantaged students. An infusion 

of resources at the secondary level focused on higher levels of literacy is critical to 

making this happen. As we have mentioned, an ‘‘inoculation’’ in primary grades does 

not presume students will do well in secondary schools. 

• In a globalized economy we need world-class common standards and assessments. Common standards in English language arts will help to increase attention 
26 

to reading and writing and especially focus on comprehension that can be embedded 

in other content areas. Common standards discussion will also accelerate the development of high quality assessments for secondary school students. • Fully fund and expand a comprehensive preK-12 continuum with specific support set aside for grades 4-12 adolescent literacy so that more students and their 

teachers have access to federal support. The ‘‘Literacy Education for All, Results for 

the Nation Act’’ or LEARN Act, specifically addresses this call to action. • Investigate the costs and benefits of linking the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to international literacy tests, such as PISA and PIRLS. 

While NAEP has been an indispensable measure for tracking America’s educational 

progress, it provides no sense of how America stands in relation to other nations. 

Funding an effort to equate long-term trend NAEP test with PISA and PIRLS would 

allow us to get an instant snapshot not only of how today’s youth perform in relation 

to yesterday’s youth, but also how America’s youth perform in relation to the larger 

world’s youth. With the rapidly changing face of the 21st century economy, we need 

accurate and timely information on America’s educational standing • Literacy demonstration sites in high poverty areas that can implement best 

practices and proven strategies for what works in middle and high schools. This is 

particularly important for districts that need to coordinate their professional development efforts to effectively work with content area teachers to embed literacy into 

their domain areas. 

• Support states to build comprehensive preK-12 literacy plans. While almost all 

states have made K-3 literacy plans, we need to ensure the all states have strategic 

literacy plans for grades 4-12 in reading and writing and are working systemically 

work with school districts to ensure all schools have a way of embedding literacy 

with their designs. Literacy extends well beyond 3rd grade with states. Federal resources can help to establish efforts similar to those run by the National Governors 

Association’s Reading to Achieve: State Policies to Support Adolescent Literacy and 

High School Honor States—to help states develop adolescent literacy plans (Snow, 

Martin and Berman, 2008). 

• Additional support to improve the education of middle grade students in lowperforming schools by developing and utilizing early warning data systems to identify those students most at-risk of dropping out, assisting schools in implementing 

proven literacy interventions, and providing the necessary professional development 

and coaching to school leaders and teachers. 

• Increase support for the National Writing Project (NWP). NWP has been one 

of the most coherent literacy professional development efforts in the nation for over 

30 years. The NWP’s substantial network of 175 sites and in Washington DC, Puerto Rico and Guam. NWP has also begun a National Adolescent Reading Initiative 

to complement its work in writing. Increased support for NWP will ensure that the 

research-based methods used in reading and writing in secondary schools are infused in a large number of school districts across the country. 

• Increase federal funding for evidenced-based research for adolescent literacy. 

There are a number of questions to which a robust and well-funded research effort 

could provide answers, with the prospect of immediate improvement in adolescent 

literacy outcomes. We know we need to intervene and individualize instruction with 

students as soon as they begin to fail. We don’t know what the best strategies are 

for the particular levels of failure. It is critical that funding for research in middle 

and high schools be increased to fund research at NICHD and IES that could demonstrate how best to assess adolescents quickly and efficiently in order to determine 

their need for intervention and/or support, what works for older readers, and what 

some of the most productive strategies are for struggling readers. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is an exciting opportunity for much of education but 

there is little reference to English-language learners. ELLs deserve more research 

attention particularly the issue of language proficiency and academic content needs. 

Research into the impact of different approaches to teacher education and professional development, and the best design of vocabulary and comprehension instruction for ELLs and other struggling readers is critical. 

Conclusion 

The Corporation’s rich history in literacy has, at its core, Andrew Carnegie’s belief 

that, ‘‘Only in popular education can man erect the structure of an enduring civilization.’’ This belief has guided the Corporation as it has moved from helping to establish public libraries, to laying the groundwork for what we know as Head Start, to 

its groundbreaking efforts to improve middle schools and high schools. At a the recent launch of the Time to Act report, Corporation president Vartan Gregorian encouraged us all to take action: ‘‘Today, let us set ourselves the task of helping all 

American students to become wealthy in knowledge and understanding by improv-
27 

ing their literacy skills. As Andrew Carnegie said, one of the jobs of a patriot is 

‘‘* * * the dispelling of ignorance and the fostering of education.’’ Hence, as patriots 

and as parents, teachers, leaders of business and government—and as Americans— 

let us commit ourselves to being good ancestors to the generations who follow by 

ensuring that each and every student can ‘‘read to learn.’’ 

REFERENCES

American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma 

that counts. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. 

Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An Agenda 

for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York, NY: 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1959). Carnegie Corporation of New York: Year 

in Review. New York: Author. 

Carnegie Corporation of New York & Institute for Advanced Study. (2009). The opportunity equation: Transforming mathematics and science education for citizenship and the global economy. New York: Author. 

Center on Educational Policy (2007). Answering the question that matter most: Has 

student achievement increased since No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: 

Author 

Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read: And what you can do about it. New York: 

Harper & Row. 

Heller, R. & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting 

to the heart of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance 

for Excellent Education. 

Lee, C. D., and Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the Disciplines: The Challenges of 

Adolescent Literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2007 

(NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific 

text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional 

perspectives on discourse of science (pp. 87-113). NY: Routledge. 

Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Kennedy, A. M. (2003). Trends 

in children’s reading literacy achievement 1991—2001: IEA’s study of trends in 

reading literacy achievement in primary school in nine countries. Chestnut Hill, 

MA: Boston College, Lynch School of Education, PIRLS International Study 

Center. 

Murnane, Richard J. & Levy, Frank (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: principles 

for educating children to thrive in a changing economy. NY: Free Press. 

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2001). The condition of education, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2003).The condition of education, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work * * * or a ticket 

out: A survey of business leaders. New York: College Board. 

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implication for 

reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

Organisation Education for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: Author 

Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2005. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties 

among Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Snow, C. E., Martin, T., and Berman, I. (2008). State literacy plans: Incorporating 

adolescent literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 1, 211-230. 

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2007). Global education digest: Comparing education statistics across the world. Montreal: Author. 

APPENDIX A

Carnegie Corporation of New York’s Advancing Literacy Initiative: Works and 

Commissioned Papers. Most posted on www.carnegie.org/literacy 
28 

2009 

Haynes, Mariana (2009). Issues in Brief: State Actions to Improve Adolescent Literacy, Results from NASBE’s State Adolescent Literacy Network. Arlington, VA: 

National Association of State Boards of Education. http://nasbe.org. 

Irvin, Judith L. Meltzer, Julie, Mickler, Martha J., Phillips, Melvina P., & Dean, 

Nancy. (2009). Meeting the Challenges of Adolescent Literacy: Action Sops for 

Literacy Leaders. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. http// 

www.reading.org 

2008 

Cobb, Velma, Meltzer, Julie, William, Martha (2008). Mobilizing Communities to 

Support the Literacy Development of Urban Youth: A Conceptual Framework 

and Strategic Planning Model. New York, NY: National Urban League and Center for Resource Management. www.nul.org. 

Guglielmi, R. Sergio (2008). Native Language Proficiency, English Literacy, Academic Achievement, and Occupational Attainment in Limited-English-Proficient 

Students: A Latent Growth Modeling Perspective, Journal of Educational Psychology, American Psychological Association, 100:2, 322-342. 

Harvard University (2008). Adolescent Literacy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review, 78:1, Spring 2008. www.hepg.org. 

Marsh, Julie A., Sloan McCombs, Jennifer, Lockwood, J.R., Martorell, Francisco, 

Gershwin, Daniel, Naftel, Scott, Le, Vi-Nhuan, Shea, Molly, Barney, Heather, 

Crego, Al (2008). Supporting Literacy Across the Sunshine State: A Study of 

Florida Middle School Reading Coaches. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. 

www.rand.org. 

2007 

Batalova, Jeanne, Fix, Michael and Murray, Julie (2007). Measures for Change: The 

Demography and Literacy of Adolescent English Learners. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute. www.migrationpolicy.org. 

Caldero ́n, Margarita (2007). Teaching Reading to English Language Learners, 

Grades 6-12: A Framework for Improving Achievement in the Content Areas. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press 

Deshler, Donald D., Palincsar, Annemarie Sullivan, Biancarosa, Gina, and Marnie 

Nair (2007) Informed Choices for Struggling Adolescent Readers: A Researchbased Guide to Instructional Programs and Practices, Commissioned by Carnegie Corporation of New York. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 

www.reading.org. 

Graham, Steve and Perin, Dolores (2007). A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction 

for Adolescent Students, Journal of Educational Psychology, 99:3, 445-476. 

Graham, Steven and Perrin, Dolores (2007). Writing Next: Effective Strategies to 

Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools. Washington, DC: 

Alliance for Excellent Education. www.all4ed.org. 

Heller, Rafael, Greenleaf, Cynthia L. (2007). Literacy Instruction in the Content 

Areas: Getting to the Core of Middle and High School Improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. www.all4ed.org. 

Irvin, Judith L., Meltzer, Julie and Dukes, Melinda, Taking Action on Adolescent 

Literacy: An Implementation Guide for School Leaders, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. www.ascd.org. 

2006 

Henrı ́quez, Andre ́s. ‘‘Principals Can Help Improve Literacy for English Learners,’’ 

National Association of Secondary School Principals, NewsLeader, December 

2006. www.nassp.org 

Guensberg, Carol. ‘‘Why Johnny (Still) Can’t Read: Creative Educators Push to 

Boost Adolescent Literacy,’’ Edutopia. February 2006. Volume 2, Issue 1. San 

Francisco, CA: The George Lucas Educational Foundation. www.edutopia.org 

International Reading Association.(2006). Standards for Middle and High School Literacy Coaches. International Reading Association in Collaboration with National Council of Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, National Council for the Social 

Studies. Newark, DE: Author. www.reading.org 

Salinger, Terry, Bacevich, Amy (2006). Lessons & Recommendations from the Alabama Reading Initiative: Sustaining Focus on Secondary Reading. Washington, 

DC: American Institutes for Research. www.air.org. 

Short, Deborah and Fitzgerald, Shannon (2006). Double the Work: Language Acquisition and Academic Literacy for Adolescent English Language Learners. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. www.cal.org. 
29 

National Association of State Boards of Education.(2006). Reading at Risk: The 

State Response to the Crisis in Adolescent Literacy. Alexandria, VA: Author. 

www.nasbe.org 

National School Board Association. (2006). The Next Chapter: A School Board Guide 

to Improving Adolescent Literacy. Alexandria, VA: Author. www.nsba.org. 

2005 

Berman, Ilene and Biancarosa, Gina (2005). Reading to Achieve: A Governor’s Guide 

to Adolescent Literacy. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. 

www.nga.org 

Grosso de Leθn, Anne ‘‘America’s Literacy Challenge: Teaching Adolescents to Read 

to Learn,’’ Summer 2005. Carnegie Results. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. www.carnegie.org 

Henrı ́quez, Andre ́s (2005). The Evolution of an Adolescent Literacy Program: A 

Foundation’s Journey. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 376-380. 

McCombs, Jennifer Sloan, Nataraj Kirby, Sheila, Barney Heather, Darilek, Hilary 

and Magee, Scarlett, Achieving State and National Literacy Goals: A Long Uphill Road: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2005). Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND. www.rand.org 

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005). Creating a Culture of 

Literacy: A Guide for Middle and High School Principals. Reston, VA: Author. 

www.nassp.org. 

2004 

Biancarosa, Gina and Snow, Catherine, E. (2004). Reading Next: A Vision for Action 

and Research in Middle and High School Literacy, A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. 

www.all4ed.org 

Snow, Catherine, Foorman, Barbara, Kamil Michael, Roderick, Melissa, Schwartz, 

Robert (2004). Project Memorandum: Issues in the Field of Adolescent Literacy: 

Information and Recommendations for the Carnegie Advisory Council on Reading to Learn, Santa Monica, CA: RAND. www.rand.org 

2003 

Kamil, Michael L. (2003). Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Century. 

Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. www.all4ed.org 

Sturtevant, Elizabeth (2003). The Literacy Coach: A Key to Improving Teaching and 

Learning in Secondary Schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. www.all4ed.org 

2002 

Grosse de Leo ́n, Anne (2002). ‘‘The Urban High School’s Challenge: Ensuring Literacy for Every Child,’’ New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York 

www.carnegie.org 

Grosse de Leo ́n, Anne (2002). ‘‘Moving Beyond Storybooks: Teaching Our Children 

to Read to Learn,’’ Carnegie Reporter, Vol. 2/No. 1, New York, NY: Carnegie 

Corporation of New York. www.carnegie.org 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman’s time has just expired. I am 

in a very good mood today, so. 

Dr. Gome ́z? 

STATEMENT OF LEO GOME ́ Z, PROFESSOR OF BILINGUAL– 

BICULTURAL EDUCATION, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PAN 

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 

Mr. GOME ́ Z. Thank you, and good morning Chairman Kildee and 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this invitation and 

this opportunity to discuss this very important issue of literacy. As 

we strive to achieve equity in our schools, it is more important 

than ever that our educators are well informed and understand the 

diversity they face. 

I have seen firsthand how quality instructional programs have 

made a difference for children and how they have achieved K-12 

and how the dropout rate has been reduced. I am going to speak 
30 

specifically to the issue of limited English proficient children, or 

often referred to as English language learners. And personally I am 

also going to share that I think we need to change that label. 

Research steadily demonstrates that literacy development in the 

child’s first language facilitates development in the second language. Bilingual learners are more academically successful in 

schools that they receive for the most formal schooling in their first 

language. As discussed by Mr. Henriquez, our problems in high 

school stem from our challenges with literacy at the elementary 

level. 

Kids are not always leaving elementary more or less okay, but 

the gap begins to widen as they leave elementary school, and that 

is very consistent across most minority children. So it is rooted at 

the elementary level. 

I would like to demystify to the committee this issue of this controversy of native language instruction and how native language 

literacy leads to English literacy. It seems counterintuitive to think 

that a child learning to read in his first language will learn to read 

in a second language, but this is exactly what happens. And I am 

going to share five points to present this point. 

First of all, literacy comes in many languages. Kids are literate 

across the world in many different languages, and they learn to 

read, of course, in their native languages. Our English dominant 

children learn to read in English, and therefore, that is their native 

language, and it is a very natural progression. 

So kids that come to school speaking a language other than 

English need to have the same opportunity because you learn to 

read only once, and you want to learn to read at a high level as 

possible. 

Simply put, my first point, literacy transfers. Reading and writing is a skill that is common across the world and especially in the 

majority of minority children who are Spanish speaking. Those two 

languages are very similar. 

So literacy transfers. Reading skills, comprehension skills are 

transferrable both from one language to another, mathematics, 

science, the water cycle, multiplication, all that transfers. The important thing is for kids to receive that content at grade level, 

learning and at the same time developing their second language, 

English. 

The second point is that we change the term of limited English 

proficient to bilingual learners because LEP does not reflect what 

children are doing. It continues to promote, erroneously, that 

English is the purpose for these children. And therefore we abandon academic instruction and focus on the language. Kids learn the 

language at the set up—after sacrificing academic content. A lot of 

it was shared just previously. 

So how do we do this? I propose dual language programs. We 

have seen dual language education across the country beginning to 

explode. It is beginning to grow exponentially because of the success of closing the academic gap because of the reduction of the 

dropout rate among many, many of these children, as they are educated in their first language and English, they are at an elementary education. 
31 

So these children essentially become bi-literate children by the 

end of fifth grade. Dual language programs serve both English and 

Spanish or English and dominant children and children from another language together or they can also serve as the instructional 

model for bilingual learners by themselves. 

And that is what has been happening across the country and certainly in Texas, where one out of four schools in Texas is now a 

dual language school serving a lot of our children. 

The fourth point I want to share is native language assessments. 

Since we predominately have English assessments in most of our 

states, it is really derailing native language programs. 

English assessments, of course, are part of our accountability 

system, and they are affecting the move toward more first language 

learning or dual language type of education. We recommend the 

federal level to provide incentives to states for the development of 

native language assessments. 

My last point is teacher education. It is really important that all 

our teachers have an understanding of the diversity that they will 

inherit in the schools as they become teachers and, therefore, that 

every teacher education and teacher preparation program provide 

teachers with course work or preparation on second language acquisition on understanding the benefits and advocacy for dual language education as a global opportunity for all children. 

And that we begin to focus on an extensive recruitment of certified teachers and bilingual education and an ESL education that 

understands how to address a language difference as they come to 

our schools. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Gome ́z follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Leo Go ́mez, Ph.D., Professor, the University of 

Texas Pan American; Officer, the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I want to thank 

the subcommittee for this invitation to testify on this very important issue of literacy for children and young adults. I want to especially thank Congressman Rube ́n 

Hinojosa for this opportunity to come before you and speak to the issue of literacy 

development for Bilingual Learners (BL). 

As we strive to achieve equity in the education of all students, the need for wellinformed educators is more critical than ever. Schools across the country are facing 

growing enrollment of BL students and many schools lack the necessary preparation 

for effectively educating this group. Historically, an academic achievement gap has 

persisted between native English speakers and BL students resulting in a persistent 

dropout rate in many cases greater than fifty percent (50%) for this population. 

Positive change requires a comprehensive understanding of the issues affecting this 

population. 

There is over 40 years of research in second language acquisition in this country 

that affirms the effectiveness of utilizing a child’s native language to learn academic 

concepts while learning the English language. My testimony today is based on this 

research as well as over 16 years of my own research and study of this subject, together with practical experiences in the development and implementation of successful programs and practices. I have seen first-hand how quality bilingual education programs provide long-term achievement of BL students and help close the 

academic gap based on standardized assessments as compared to native English 

speakers. 

BL students are achieving in schools across the country when provided an appropriate education through a sound quality bilingual program. The list below shares 

examples of BL students’ long-term academic success through quality bilingual programs: 

• The Pharr-San Juan Alamo ISD located in South Texas has been successfully 

educating BL students over 10 years implementing successful dual language pro-
32 

grams at the elementary and secondary level to over 10,000 BL students & non-BL 

students. At this district, an unprecedented 1,000 LEP students participate in a 

dual language education program at the middle and high school level boasting a 

zero dropout rate among this group. 

• The Dallas ISD located in North Texas is implementing successful dual language programs at the elementary level (143 schools) to more than 30,000 BL students (PreK-3rd) and 3rd grade results (2009) showed an amazing 92.4% passed the 

state reading exam. 

• The Fort Worth ISD in North Texas is also implementing successful dual language programs at the elementary level (49 schools) to more than 10,000 BL students and is currently at the 2nd grade level. 

• The Spring Branch ISD located in Houston, Texas is also implementing successful dual language programs at the elementary level (21 schools) to more than 4,000 

BL students and is currently at the 2nd grade level. 

These are many more examples in Texas—programs I have personally worked 

with and studied- and hundreds more success stories across the country. In Texas 

alone, over 75 school districts are today implementing a form of dual language and 

more effectively serving BL students and non- BL students. It is projected that 

there are approximately 1,000 dual language programs nationwide. 

Research steadily demonstrates that literacy development in a child’s first language facilitates literacy development in the second language. There is overwhelming research that tells us that BL students are more academically successful 

in our schools if they receive formal schooling in their native language, while they 

learn English (Cummins, 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1998). As clearly described in gap 

closure program effectiveness studies by Thomas & Collier’s (2002), only enrichment 

forms of bilingual education, that provide instruction in both the native language 

and English throughout elementary, close the English academic achievement gap 

between BLs and native English speakers as they continue their schooling (see figure 1, page 5). 

The education of BL students is a K-12 issue and therefore must be viewed and 

addressed as a part of K-12 education. Still, a K-5 elementary education is the foundation for a successful secondary education. The permanent solution to high schools 

in academic trouble with this population is rooted in their elementary schools. It 

makes sense that the learning of ‘‘on-grade level’’ content, knowledge and skills in 

a K-12 education largely depends on the clear ‘‘understanding’’ of classroom instruction. Academic gaps occur when children do not learn ‘‘on-grade level’’ certain concepts or skills (academic literacy) well or at all. If an English dominant child falls 

behind academically for whatever reason, the child speaks English well but is not 

‘‘academically on-grade level in English.’’ 

These two points apply to BL students as well. It is critical that BL students 

learn ‘‘on-grade level’’ academic knowledge and skills, which includes literacy, at the 

elementary and secondary levels in order to receive an equal and successful academic and linguistic education eventually becoming ‘‘English proficient’’ and academically on grade level. 

So how do we ensure that LEP students receive ‘‘on-grade level’’ (literacy) education and learn English at the same time? 

The five (5) major points that follow, based on my experience, if supported in policy and carried out in practice on a national scale, would have a significant impact 

on the academic and literacy attainment of BL students at both the elementary, 

middle and high school level, based on standardized English assessments. 

Point #1: Understand that knowledge and skills are transferable from one language 

to another 

First, we must recognize that content, knowledge, and skills are not specific to 

any language and therefore are ‘‘transferable’’ from one language to another. In 

other words, the skill of writing, reading and addition is learned only once and once 

learned will transfer to a second language. For example five times five is twentyfive in the USA, and in China, and in Mexico, and everywhere else in the world. 

The key is to ensure that these skills are learned ‘‘on-grade level’’ as the BL child 

progresses in school while continuously developing the second language, English. If 

a child learns new knowledge and skills, etc. in a language he/she fully understands, 

the probability of learning this greatly increases. This is central to understanding 

literacy development for LEP students. 

Point #2: Change Limited English Proficient (LEP) Label to Bilingual Learner (BL) 

Over the last 40 years, non-English speaking students have commonly been labeled as Limited English Proficient (LEP), English Language Learners (ELLs), Language Minority Students (LMS), English Learners, and other terms that do not re-
33 

spect these students as academic learners, but rather emphasize a limitation and 

English as the sole purpose of their education. The continued use of these inaccurate terms, not only stigmatizes these students, but also perpetuates an erroneous 

emphasis on English as the sole purpose for schooling. A more fitting term better 

suited to describe the academic and linguistic behaviors of these students in any instructional model is Bilingual Learner. After all, appropriately educated, bilingual 

learners are at all times engaged in and/or learning in both their native language 

and English regardless of instructional program. 

Point #3: Schooling through Dual Language Programs 

Dual language programs represent an increasingly effective strategy for educating 

bilingual learners. In 2001, Texas passed a state law encouraging school districts 

to develop and implement dual language programs for BLs and native English 

speakers. In 2007, the state developed clear guidelines for development, implementation and evaluation of dual language programs. Today, there are over 700 dual 

language schools in Texas. Dual language is increasingly the go-to program for literacy development of BLs in most southern states serving the highest and concentrated numbers of BLs. 

Dual language programs are designed to educate students through two languages; 

English and the native language. In dual language programs, students develop literacy and learn academic content (math, science, social studies) in two languages 

throughout their elementary years and the goal is to produce a full biliterate child 

by the end of 5th grade. Dual language is a quality program for all students. For 

BLs, it is the ONLY bilingual education model that fully closes the academic 

achievement gap between native English speakers and BLs. For native English 

speakers, it provides tremendous opportunities for bilingualism and biliteracy. Research evidence demonstrates that for all participating students, dual language 

yields ‘‘cognitive advantages’’ and higher academic achievement. Inherent in dual 

language programs is an enriched, challenging, and engaging instructional paradigm (gifted and talented (GT) type of learning environment) which benefits all 

learners 

Types of Dual Language Programs 

There are two fundamental types of dual language education programs: 

• Two-Way: both language groups in the classroom learn together through two 

languages (BLs & non-BLs) • One-Way: one language group (BLs only) learn together through two languages 

(this is the recommended program for BLs) 

One-Way Dual Language is increasingly being adopted by school districts and 

schools as THE bilingual education program serving BLs, thereby achieving stronger long-term academic literacy in English, closing the academic gap, and lowering 

the dropout rate. 

Dallas ISD is a good example of how a literacy initiative for BLs must include 

dual language as the instructional model. In 2006 the district adopted One-Way 

Dual Language as the required bilingual program serving all Spanish speaking BLs 

(largest group) district-wide. This decision was based their research and visiting 

other successful districts, as well as the need to do something different for this 

group. For over 30 years, their BL population continued to perform poorly at the 

high school level. Although the district used many strategies to address this, years 

later they came to the realization that it was not the high school program that was 

broken for these students, but the elementary program. They brought in experts and 

connected the K-12 dots. A successful middle and high school student is largely 

based on the child’s elementary educational foundation. If students leave elementary school below grade level, they are bound to achieve poorly in high school. The 

district realized that the emphasis had been on English language development for 

BLs at the expense of academic literacy. BLs at high school level spoke English well, 

but could not function academically on grade level in English. The academic literacy 

gap began in elementary and widened in middle and high school as the curriculum 

became more demanding and abstract. Today, after 31⁄2 years of dual language implementation, preliminary results are extremely positive. This spring 2009, the district recorded the highest literacy and math achievement for over 5000 BLs based 

on state assessments. 

Dual Language High School Programs 

Literacy development and second language development at the middle and high 

school level (6th-12th) for BLs can also be improved by providing opportunities for 

BLs to learn in their native language. Recent arrivals that come well educated from 

their home country can continue learning academic content (e. g. math, science) 

while they learn English. This simultaneous goal improves overall literacy and can 
34 

be accomplished through some coursework utilizing the native language for contentarea instruction if available. 

FIGURE 1.—LONG-TERM ACADEMIC ENGLISH LITERACY DEVELOPMENT OF BLS SERVED

THROUGH DIFFERENT TYPES OF BILINGUAL & ESL PROGRAMS

Data consisted of 210,000 BLs (96% Spanish) from 23 school districts and 15 states 

• In remedial programs, BLs do not close the literacy gap after reclassification. 

For most students, only dual language programs fully close the academic literacy 

gap between BLs and native English speakers 

• For BLs schooled in the U. S. at the K-5 level, dual language models are the 

most successful (based on standardized tests across all subject areas) 

• When students are schooled bilingually (first and second language), rather than 

focus on English, there is greater academic achievement. 

• As depicted in figure above, ESL and Transitional (Early-Exit) bilingual education (TBE) programs are NOT successful literacy models for BLs 

Point #4: Bilingual Learner Literacy Assessments 

Successful literacy development requires appropriate literacy assessments. For 

BLs, lack of native language literacy assessments is in conflict with best practices 

for BLs. Even when there is understanding of and commitment to native language 

literacy through dual language, states and districts are faced with lack of congruency regarding literacy assessments. There are overwhelming costs to develop native language tests, at a minimum, at the elementary level. 

Literacy assessments in languages other than English may be an area of consideration as the federal role is re-designed related to literacy assessments. For instance, 

the U. S. DOE could fund literacy assessments, in as many languages as the department deems appropriate, to support strong literacy attainment of BLs. 

This would provide incentives for states to move toward more native language literacy, as well as promote bilingualism and biliteracy opportunities for all students, 

a vision for America by President Obama. Literacy assessments in languages other 

than English will also assist states to more accurately measure the true academic 

skills of BLs rather than have these skills obscured by the language of the tests. 

Point #5: Support BLs through Teacher Education Programs 

Providing a quality education for all students, including BLs, is the responsibility 

of ALL educators these children come in contact with. It is therefore imperative that 

ALL educators be well informed on the best practices for educating this population. 

To this end, all teacher education programs should provide pre-service teachers 
35 

coursework on second language acquisition (SLA) methodology and an understanding of bilingual/dual language education. 

Teacher education programs would also benefit from incentives to recruit and educate more bilingual and ESL certified teachers. Increasing numbers of BLs across 

the country require that this area be addressed. Lack of bilingual education teachers 

is harmful to the successful literacy development of BLs since they will be served 

through English-only programs (ESL). This continues to perpetuate poor literacy 

achievement of BLs and inadvertently the cycle of poverty. 

Another strategy to support the literacy development of BLs is to increase university-based teacher education programs collaboration with public schools, particularly 

high-need school districts serving concentrated numbers of BLs. As an example, the 

Teacher Education Program at the University of Texas Pan American in South 

Texas has established strong ties with local school districts that have resulted in 

the collaborative development and implementation of successful dual programs serving BLs. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Meyers? 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA D. MEYERS, ED.D, EDUCATION ASSOCIATE OF ELEMENTARY READING, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Ms. MEYERS. Good morning. As Delaware’s Department of Education’s Director of Reading First, I am honored to present testimony about the work we are doing to create a seamless, comprehensive literacy program for all children in Delaware. 

We have benefited from federal support especially for Early 

Reading First and Reading First. Our Early Reading First Projects 

have made a difference for very young children who experience 

high levels of risk of literacy failure. 

The University of Delaware was awarded two Early Reading 

First grants, and data for their first cohort of students indicated 

that these children performed as well or better than the general 

population of children their age in language and early reading and 

kindergarten. 

These children were at risk when they began preschool. Many 

were not only low income, but also came from homes that English 

was not the primary language spoken. Thus, systematic explicit instruction in oral language, and beginning reading skills allowed 

these children to enter school prepared to succeed in the Reading 

First curriculum. 

Reading First in Delaware has not been just a paradigm change 

in teaching reading, but is a model that requires systemic changes 

at the school and district level. For Delaware, these have included 

increased daily instructional time for the teaching of reading, design of assessment systems that include screening, progress monitoring, diagnostic assessment and evaluation of outcomes, differentiated instruction based on these data, additional intensive intervention for students at high levels of risk, common planning time 

for teachers to review data and plan instruction, full-time literacy 

coaches who support teachers to improve their instruction. 

Enacting these components in Reading First required extensive 

professional development for the teachers, coaches and principals, 

as well as continuous monitoring and reflection. Our literacy coaches are comfortable and competent working in classrooms alongside 

teachers providing formative feedback. 
36 

They also have strong partnerships with building principals as 

instructional leaders. Our accomplishments in this area are extensive, but they have been hard won. Our professional development 

has evolved each year. We began with letters trainings for all the 

teachers which is a professional program developed by Dr. Louisa 

Motz. We moved to book studies and formal trainings for coaches 

which were then redelivered to teachers. 

We then brought teachers and coaches together in teams for intense study of differentiated instruction. Along the way, we evaluated our efforts. Our state team worked school by school each year 

with Dr. Sharon Walpole, a University of Delaware professor who 

has had extensive experience in Reading First. 

We learned together to analyze data, set goals and design ongoing professional support for teachers. We now have 13 schools from 

six districts in the program. Unfortunately, this is the last year of 

funding, but we have made good use of these federal dollars. 

Evidence-based instruction became the catalyst for ongoing 

change in Delaware. We have preschool grade level expectations, 

the early learning guidelines, that have been nationally recognized 

and that are aligned with our kindergarten grade level expectations. 

We revised our K-3 literacy standards so that they were consistent with the research that underlies Reading First. Many districts increased their attention to coherent professional development in early reading. 

In 2007, the state chose to require a response to intervention 

model and based the state regulations on lessons we learned from 

the Reading First program. Implementation of the RTI model is 

now occurring in every elementary building. 

The Reading First team was instrumental in the planning of 

much of this professional development. Reading First administrators and coaches presented at these trainings, sharing their expertise in areas such as scheduling and staffing. 

This year the training is available on DVDs to reach more 

schools and teachers. We are offering technology-based support so 

that a broader group of teachers can ask questions and have their 

concerns addressed. We are now working to include middle and 

high school teachers and administrators. 

We are offering trainings in an instructional framework which 

incorporates the strategies that most impact learning extended 

thinking, vocabulary, summarizing, non-digital representation and 

advance organizers. This model full of learning focus ensures that 

comprehension strategies, vocabulary instruction and writing to inform are part of all lessons. 

Delaware is a small state, but the challenges of bringing teaching 

in line with current research and of evaluating the effects of teaching on student learning are large. Early Reading First and Reading 

First have provided us opportunities to design and provide professional support for teachers and administrators that is coherent and 

ongoing. We have leveraged federal dollars well. 

Our current focus on professional support for all classroom teachers in Delaware to have the knowledge and skills to use data to 

design and evaluate differentiated instruction is the direct result of 

opportunities that federal support for high quality research-based 
37 

professional development has provided. We hope that you will consider ways to continue to support our professional development efforts. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Meyers follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Sandra D. Meyers, Ed.D., Education Associate, 

Delaware Department of Education 

Delaware’s Comprehensive Approach to Literacy 

As Delaware’s Department of Education’s Director of Reading First, I am honored 

to present testimony about the work we are doing to create a seamless, comprehensive literacy program for all children in Delaware. We have benefited from federal 

support, especially for Early Reading First and Reading First. 

Our Early Reading First projects have made a difference for very young children 

who experience high levels of risk of literacy failure. The University of Delaware 

was awarded two Early Reading First grants and data for their first cohort of students indicated that these children performed as well or better than the general 

population of children their age in language and early reading in kindergarten. 

These children were ‘‘at risk’’ when they began preschool. Many were not only low 

income, but also came from homes where English was not the primary language 

spoken. Thus, systematic, explicit instruction in oral language and beginning reading skills allowed these children to enter school prepared to succeed in the Reading 

First curriculum. 

Reading First in Delaware has not been just a paradigm change in teaching reading, but is a model that requires systemic changes at the school and district level. 

For Delaware these have included • Increased daily instructional time for the teaching of reading • Design of assessment systems that include screening, progress monitoring, diagnostic assessment, and evaluation of outcomes • Differentiated instruction based on these data • Additional intensive intervention for students at high levels of risk • Common planning time for teachers to review data and plan instruction • Full-time literacy coaches who support teachers to improve their instruction 

Enacting these components of Reading First required extensive professional development for the teachers, coaches, and principals as well as continuous monitoring 

and reflection. Our literacy coaches are comfortable and competent working in classrooms alongside teachers, providing formative feedback. They also have strong partnerships with building principals as instructional leaders. Our accomplishments in 

this area are extensive, but they have been hard won. 

Our professional development has evolved each year. We began with LETRS 

trainings for all teachers, which is a professional development program developed 

by Dr. Louisa Moats. We moved to book studies and formal trainings for coaches 

which were then redelivered to teachers. We then brought teachers and coaches together in teams for intense study of differentiated instruction. 

Along the way, we evaluated our efforts. Our state team worked school by school 

each year with Dr. Sharon Walpole, a University of Delaware professor who has had 

extensive experience in Reading First. We learned together to analyze data, set 

goals, and design ongoing professional support for teachers. We now have fourteen 

schools from six districts in the program. Unfortunately, this is the last year of 

funding, but we have made good use of these federal dollars. 

Evidence-based instruction became the catalyst for ongoing change in Delaware. 

We have preschool-grade-level expectations, the Early Learning Guidelines, that 

have been nationally recognized and that are aligned with our kindergarten gradelevel expectations. We revised our K-3 literacy standards so that they were consistent with the research that underlies Reading First. Many districts increased 

their attention to coherent professional development in early reading. 

In 2007 the state chose to require a Response to Intervention Model and based 

the state regulations on lessons we learned from the Reading First program. Implementation of the RTI model is now occurring in every elementary building. The 

Reading First team was instrumental in the planning of much of this professional 

development. Reading First administrators and coaches presented at these 

trainings, sharing their expertise in areas such as scheduling and staffing. This year 

the training is available on DVDs to reach more schools and teachers. We are offering technology-based support so that a broader group of teachers can ask questions 

and have their concerns addressed. 

We are working now to include middle and high school teachers and administrators. We are offering trainings in an instructional framework which incorporate the 
38 

strategies that most impact learning: extended thinking, vocabulary, summarizing, 

non-visual representations, and advance organizers. This model called ‘‘Learning Focused’’ ensures that comprehension strategies, vocabulary instruction, and writing 

to inform are part of all lessons. 

Delaware is a small state, but the challenges of bringing teaching in line with current research and of evaluating the effects of teaching on student learning are large. 

Early Reading First and Reading First have provided us opportunities to design and 

provide professional support for teachers and administrators that is coherent and 

ongoing. We have leveraged federal dollars well. Our current focus on professional 

support for all classroom teachers in Delaware to have the knowledge and skills to 

use data to design and evaluate differentiated instruction is the direct result of opportunities that federal support for high-quality, research-based professional development have provided. We hope that you will consider ways to continue to support 

our professional development efforts. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Berger? 

STATEMENT OF LARRY BERGER, CEO AND CO–FOUNDER, 

WIRELESS GENERATION 

Mr. BERGER. Chairman Kildee, Congressman Castle and members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for your leadership on this important issue and for the opportunity to speak with 

you. My name is Larry Berger, and I am the CEO and co-founder 

of Wireless Generation. 

We are an educational technology company that is helping to invent the future of literacy instruction. More than 200,000 teachers 

are teaching 3 million children to read with the help of our software. I would like to share three ideas about where the breakthroughs are in reading instruction and how enlightened public 

policy can accelerate them. 

All over the country right now, elementary teachers are using 

mobile computers like this or like this to conduct scientifically 

valid, formative and progress monitoring assessments and to record 

precise data about how each of their students are learning to read. 

This technology is much more efficient than the paper records 

teachers used to keep, and teachers like it because it cuts out the 

paperwork and lets them focus on teaching. 

The breakthrough that my company and others are working on 

is that the data the teacher collects using this technology can now 

be put to use instantaneously to personalize teaching and learning 

to the needs of each student. 

The software that we build punches through all the diagnostic 

data about a given student or a class and all that researchers know 

about reading instruction and then immediately shows exactly 

where the kids are in the process of learning to read, what the 

teacher needs to know to reach them, and then it sends the teacher 

what we call a Burst. 

A Burst is a 10-day mini-curriculum that is assembled automatically to differentiate instruction for what a group of students need 

to learn next. 

So instead of teaching from a big textbook that was written with 

no knowledge of my particular class, I am now using a personalized 

packet of lessons. At the end of 10 days, the system will send me 

a new Burst for each group in my class. 
39 

So we still have the magic of a human teacher working with 

young children. The computer isn’t doing the teaching. But computers in the background have done all of the paperwork and all 

of the analysis that makes teaching more precise and more fun. 

With tools like this, the prior debates about reading practice fall 

by the wayside. It is no longer a matter of basic skills versus comprehension. Now, children who are struggling with basic skills will 

get them along with bridges to comprehension that are personalized to how that child learns. Children who are already reading on 

level will be challenged and accelerated. 

So my three points are, we have entered the age of technologydriven personalization in every other sector of society. It is now 

time for our reading assessment and instruction to get there, too. 

I have attached to my written testimony several quantitative examples of the breakthroughs in student outcomes that this sort of personalization enables. 

Two, this personalized instruction model could pay for itself by 

preventing unnecessary referrals into special education. Instead of 

falling through the cracks in the instructional cracks in the early 

years and eventually being classified with a specific learning disability, many children can thrive in general education if they receive early interventions that respond to their progress and their 

needs. This could save the system billions in special ed costs and 

has enormous implications for the long term success of students. 

Three, tools like this mean we can raise the evidence standards 

in education. The new technologies have in common that they capture a steady stream of data about how students, teachers, schools, 

systems and instructional programs are doing. Instead of data from 

one test at the end of the year, these tools capture potentially thousands of data points per year about how each student is progressing. 

Interventions should therefore demonstrate that they are based 

on scientifically valid research, that their foundations are sound 

and should be able to demonstrate significant outcomes in student 

learning. 

This virtuous cycle of using the data to do more of what works, 

but also to remove invalid assessment and ineffective curriculum, 

creates continuous improvement in the products we build as an 

education company, and in the school systems and classrooms that 

we work with. 

The next generation of reading policy can exist on a high standard of scientific evidence of effectiveness, but also on a process of 

continuous improvement that means products and practices that 

may be experimental have a chance to keep getting better. 

Members of the committee, literacy is the foundation for all academic success and innovations of this sort I have been talking 

about are our great hope that all children can become readers. 

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. 

[The statement of Mr. Berger follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Larry Berger, Co-Founder and CEO, 

Wireless Generation 

Chairman Kildee, Congressman Castle, Members of the Committee, good morning. 

Thank you for your leadership on the important issue of literacy and for the opportunity to speak with you. 
40 

My name is Larry Berger and I am the CEO and co-founder of Wireless Generation. We have been working with teachers, principals, and school superintendents 

on K-5 literacy instruction for the past eight years. 

Today, more than 200,000 teachers are teaching 3 million children to read using 

new technology. We provide mobile and web software, data systems, and professional services that help teachers to use data and deliver individualized instruction. 

Our partner states, districts, and schools are seeing results in every state in the 

union—in places like Oklahoma, Montgomery County Maryland, Indiana, Washington DC, and more. 

Today I would like to share with you the new model of instruction that has 

emerged in the classrooms with which we work. Teachers are using mobile devices 

like this handheld computer or this netbook to collect real-time data about their students’ progress and learning needs. They use this data to customize lesson planning 

for each child—for instance, one small group of children might work on sounding 

out words while another group plays a vocabulary game. We have an algorithm that 

can generate custom curriculum units for ten-day ‘‘Bursts’’ of instruction, which adjust and adapt as teachers monitor students’ progress. 

We find that schools and districts using these technology tools reorganize themselves around the data. Teachers and coaches run regular grade level meetings in 

which they strategize around student strengths and weaknesses and share ‘‘what 

works’’ with one another. Principals and district staff engage on the teaching and 

learning. Professional development refocuses from ‘‘stand and deliver’’ presentations 

to active planning based on real student data. And parents find out, mid-year, 

whether their children are on track to read at grade level. 

When teachers use this technology toolset and are able to identify and address 

the needs of each student, the prior debates about reading practice fall by the wayside. Children who are struggling with the foundational skills of reading get relevant lessons, along with bridges to comprehension. Children who are reading on 

level are appropriately challenged and accelerated. 

In addition, this instructional model will likely pay for itself by preventing unnecessary referrals into special education. Instead of struggling with reading and eventually being classified with a ‘‘specific learning disability,’’ thousands and thousands 

of children (a full two percent of the student population) can get back on track with 

the right early interventions. This is the ‘‘Response to Intervention’’ model, which 

has enormous implications for long-term student success and for cost savings in 

service delivery. 

This instructional model depends on a high degree of confidence in the quality of 

the screening and diagnostic assessments used in classrooms. They must be reliable 

and valid, so that every stakeholder can count on the resulting information to effectively guide classroom practice. High-quality research has established the key 

benchmarks that we should expect assessments to meet. 

When good assessment data is collected, in turn we can demand a higher standard of evidence for our instructional programs. Interventions should demonstrate 

that they are based on scientifically valid research—that their foundations are 

sound—and at the same time should be able to demonstrate valid outcomes in student learning. This virtuous cycle has already led to continuous improvement in our 

own toolset. 

Members of the committee, literacy is the foundation for all academic success. We 

respect the committee’s leadership on this important issue and are proud to work 

with thousands of schools and districts across the country, helping more children 

learn to read. 

About Wireless Generation 

Founded in 2001, Wireless Generation creates innovative tools, systems, and services that help educators teach smarter. Wireless Generation currently serves more 

than 200,000 educators and 3 million students. 

With its mobile assessment software, the company invented a better way to give 

classroom assessments and make data-based instructional decisions. Wireless Generation has since broken new ground with technology that analyzes student data 

and produces curriculum customized to individual learning needs. 

Wireless Generation also builds large-scale data systems that centralize student 

data, give educators and parents unprecedented visibility into learning, and foster 

professional communities of educators with social networking tools. As a key partner 

to New York City on its ARIS data system, Wireless Generation led development, 

including data integration, permissioning, usability and reporting, and Web 2.0 collaboration tools, and helped New York City roll out the system to more than 90,000 

educators serving 1.1 million students. In spring 2009, ARIS Parent Link online 

walkthroughs were launched in 9 languages to give parents unprecedented ability 
41 

to engage in their children’s education with easy-to-understand access to their children’s data. Wireless Generation is also a lead partner on New York City’s School 

of One initiative, named by TIME Magazine as one of the Best Inventions of 2009. 

The genesis of the Mobile Classroom Assessment (mCLASS) solution was Wireless 

Generation’s realization that educators could benefit greatly from an easy-to-use 

technology solution for conducting observational assessments, collecting and analyzing assessment data, and linking assessment results to appropriate instructional 

supports and intervention strategies. Studies have shown that Wireless Generation’s 

mCLASS system cuts assessment administration time in half and in a year returns 

approximately 3—5 instructional days per teacher. 

With the launch and widespread adoption of mCLASS for K-6 literacy assessment 

and instruction, Wireless Generation committed itself to developing tools that help 

educators answer the critical questions that should be central when assessment 

data is presented—‘‘So what?’’ and ‘‘Now What?’’ Helping educators answer these 

questions, the heart of the assessment-to-instruction connection, has since become 

the focus of Wireless Generation’s efforts. mCLASS ACT and Now What Tools were 

Wireless Generation’s first offerings to embody what we’ve come to term ‘‘SoNos,’’ 

now hallmarks of every system, tool, and service we develop and bring to market. 

The significance of these tools is that they make the connection between assessment and instruction seamless by placing customized instructional routines directly 

in the teacher’s workflow. For example, upon completion of an assessment, mCLASS 

ACT immediately suggests a set of targeted skill-reinforcement activities based on 

individual student results and response patterns. The teacher is guided in implementing the activities by a scaffolded sequence of objectives, prompts, and detailed 

instructions on both the handheld device and the web. The Burst curriculum products take this even further by grouping students who share similar skill needs 

based upon the assessment data, and producing 10-day lesson sequences that match 

those needs. The teacher receives the lessons, delivers them, and then assesses 

again to monitor students’ progress. The Burst cycle then repeats. Even the best 

teachers can find it challenging to find the time to differentiate instruction each 

day. The Burst technology is their partner in this effort. 

Partner Results 

Our partner districts and state are seeing tremendous results. Examples include: 

Montgomery County Public Schools 

Results of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Assessment Program 

show that the percentages of students in kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2 who 

have achieved grade level benchmarks have reached and maintained historic highs. 

MCPS has worked with Wireless Generation since 2004. 
42 

District of Columbia Public Schools 

DCPS selected Burst:Reading Early Literacy Intervention to assist the 37 lowest 

performing elementary schools in boosting student achievement. The district was 

undergoing major instructional reform efforts. Implementation began in February 

2009 for their kindergarten and Grade 1 students. The district saw strong gains in 

these schools with less than one semester of Burst:Reading ELI instruction. Burst 

students in Burst schools regularly outperformed students in the same instructional 

recommendation category as students in the better performing non-Burst schools, 

even though Burst students had lower initial scores. 

In kindergarten and Grade 1, Burst students in schools with strong fidelity of implementation gained more than non-Burst students on PSF (phonemic awareness) 

and NWF (phonics) across all risk levels, despite lower initial scores. In kindergarten, Burst students in the Intensive instructional recommendation category in 

schools with strong fidelity of implementation gained 25 points on PSF (phonemic 

awareness) versus gains of 17 points for non-Burst students. In kindergarten, Burst 

students at Intensive instructional recommendation category in schools with strong 

fidelity of implementation gained 20 points on NWF (phonics) as opposed to gains 

of 12 points for non-Burst students. In first grade, Burst students at Intensive instructional recommendation category in schools with strong fidelity of implementation gained 19 points on PSF (phonemic awareness) while non-Burst students realized gains of only 12 points. In first grade, Burst students at Intensive instructional 

recommendation category in schools with strong fidelity of implementation gained 

24 points on NWF (phonics) whereas non-Burst students had gains of 19 points. 

Oklahoma 

Most schools in the Oklahoma Department of Education’s Reading First program 

achieved significant student growth, and while the Department of Education was 

pleased, it was not yet satisfied, believing that all schools could perform at high levels. The Department identified a subset of 15 schools in need of additional support, 

and collaborated with Wireless Generation on delivering targeted, ongoing professional development at these sites during the 2007-2008 year. Teachers, principals, 

and reading coaches at each school received up to six monthly visits from a Wireless 

Generation consultant who provided customized professional development on various topics according to each school’s needs. 

Results: 

• Based on an analysis of student data collected during the 2007-2008 school 

year, the 15 schools made substantial achievement gains and produced more student 

movement toward benchmark (grade level) than in previous school years. By the end 

of the year, 61% of K-3 students in these schools were reading at proficiency, compared to these schools’ first year in Reading First, when only 38% reached benchmark. By comparing beginning of year 2007-2008 formative assessment scores to 

end of year scores, the data reveal that the customized professional development 

contributed to the biggest increase in students at grade level over the past four 

school years, a 19% increase. 

• The 15 schools receiving customized professional development made significant 

progress toward closing the achievement gap with high performing schools in Oklahoma. Prior to receiving customized professional development, the 15 schools ended 

each year with 20% fewer students at grade level than the high performing schools. 

At the end of the 2007-2008 school year, the 15 schools finished only 13% below 

their peers, which represents a 35% reduction in the gap between the two groups. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Berger. 

I thank all of our witness for their testimony, and we will now 

proceed with the question and answer portion of this hearing. And 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Language is basically an oral and aural development. Writing 

came rather late in mankind’s development. And I lived in Peshawar, Pakistan, for a year studying at the University of Peshawar, 

and my bearer, who prepared my tea, spoke three languages fluently. He spoke very good English, Pashtu, and Urdu. He was totally illiterate. 

That seems strange here, but language basically as it develops 

with mankind is oral and aural and then writing and symbols came 

in later. What can we do to maybe accelerate or help in that period 
43 

when the person, the child, is still in an oral-aural part of language, but have not yet made a transition to the symbol part? 

Anyone have any comments on that. Yes? 

Ms. STRICKLAND. Well, you are absolutely right, the oral language, oral-aural it is foundational. There is no question about 

that. But while children are developing their listening and speaking capacities, there is every opportunity to begin to introduce 

print, and they learn about the functions of print. 

Mommy writes down a list to go to the grocery story, on the stop 

sign—all those kinds of things. Print is very much a part of our 

consciousness, and what we do. 

So what they learn about through speaking and listening, they 

apply to reading and writing and vice versa. And then there comes 

a time when the reading vocabulary and writing vocabulary really 

are larger than our everyday speech. 

We can write more, especially when we do draft things, and convey information to others far better and with a greater deal of flexibility and coherence than we do in our regular speech. So that is 

why introducing print early in informal ways is so important. And 

those kids that have those opportunities just go a long, long way. 

Chairman KILDEE. That is interesting because I have seven 

grandchildren from 19 months to 11 years and all of them—we 

have always had books for them from the very beginning, and 

sometimes they are only picture books but some, little by little, 

some print in there. 

Ms. STRICKLAND. Sure. 

Chairman KILDEE. And I have always felt that that was helpful 

in them making that transition and whether we can even research 

more how we can enhance that helpfulness when they are very, 

very young. 

All my grandchildren were able to read some before they ever got 

to kindergarten. But we did use books a lot. But if we can maybe 

study and see how we can enhance that transition from the oralaural to the recognizing symbols or signs that might be more helpful. 

Yes, Dr. Gome ́z? 

Mr. GOME ́ Z. If I could add a point to Dr. Strickland. There is a 

natural progression as you have stated from oral to written and 

reading skills which means that you go from language you have developed that you speak, that you understand. Then you begin to see 

that language in print, and that is where the reading and then, of 

course, in writing. 

And that is why it is so important when we think about this 

process, and of course we know that children are reading at the age 

of two when they see the McDonalds sign. The M is reading. So 

they know it means something when they see symbols like that. 

But actual school reading or beginning to read with phonics type 

of, you know, of understanding and decoding, there is a natural 

progression to do it from the oral into print. But if you do it in a 

language you have not developed yet, you don’t have the aural 

skills, you don’t have those receptive and expressive skills and then 

it is very difficult to move toward the print. 
44 

And that is the, well, the point I guess from the value of literacy 

in the child’s first language because that is a natural progression 

for all children. 

Chairman KILDEE. Well, I appreciate you reflecting on that because I think it is something that we can learn from, you know, 

interesting. I will just conclude with this. I could read Urdu and 

still can read Urdu better than I can speak it. 

So it was the opposite with me. And I had already went through 

that process so it was more I had to have more active memory 

when I was speaking it or my passive memory would generally 

jump into play when I would see the word. 

But it is interesting the relationship between oral-aural and the 

reading symbols and just—you reflect upon it as you go through 

your professional growth because we are all still growing. Thank 

you very much. 

Governor? 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am afraid the chairman is going to start having these hearings in foreign languages 

I don’t speak if this continues. I would like to ask Mr. Henriquez 

a question, and then a follow-up to Mr. Berger on that. 

In your testimony, you mentioned that our fourth grade students 

score very well as far as reading is concerned. And by tenth grade 

they score at a much lesser rate, perhaps among the lowest in the 

world. 

And usually we hear that students have problems because of not 

having early preparation or whatever. You don’t often hear that 

there is a fall down between, say, fourth grade and tenth grade. 

And I am just wondering how those results coexist, and what we 

could be doing—what we are not doing now, and what we could be 

doing to make sure that we continue literacy programs perhaps between fourth and tenth grades or whatever in this country? 

Mr. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, yes, and I—yes, Congressman. The issue 

becomes very clear that data from UNESCO is quite shocking as 

it is in our nation’s report card where we see our kids progressively 

do very well in fourth grade, and we see those very frustrating 

stagnant scores at the eighth grade and even worse at twelfth 

grade. 

What is happening is that nothing is happening between grades 

four through twelve in terms of literacy. I think we have managed 

to think as a nation that once you teach children to read, they are 

readers for life. 

But in fact, we see that youngsters are struggling with difficult 

academic texts in middle schools and in high schools and different 

than elementary schools where you have one single teacher teaching to a class of students. 

You can imagine middle school, high school students that have 

four or five teachers. And these teachers want to teach their students their content and want to teach those students how to comprehend their content, but they lack the sort of the skills around 

how to imbed strategies around literacy that would allow those students to enrich their experiences with that text. 

In addition, there seems to be, given the structures of middle 

schools and high schools, it is very, very difficult to know if a kid 
45 

is having difficulty with the content or if they are having difficulty 

with the language, of reading within that language. 

So there is no making sense for, say, a science teacher whether 

that student is having difficulty with the biology of the subject or 

whether he or she, or the student, is having difficulty with basic 

vocabulary within that text or whether they are having fluency 

problems or much more serious problems. 

Some of the strategies that I believe are suggested by the comprehensive literacy bill that was introduced last week get at some 

of these issues. We started doing some of that work in the Striving 

Readers Act where we are beginning to imbed literacy coaches that 

are helping content area teachers to try, and train them to imbed 

literacy instruction within domains. 

As well as really looking at youngsters who are in the ninth 

grade who are way behind and doing something for them during 

ninth grade and doing some kind of boot camps, in a sense, that 

would allow those students to do the kind of catch-up that is really, 

really necessary. 

And there are a number of models around the country that we 

need to learn from that are currently taking place that I think are 

excellent examples that we need more research on them so that we 

can make those kinds of choices. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. Mr. Berger, in your testimony about the 

Wireless Generation, seems to focus, as I understood, on the early 

in elementary education. We have heard this discrepancy of the 

problems later. Is anything that you are doing applicable to that 

or less applicable to it? How would you so help in that circumstance? 

Mr. BERGER. So I think that it is helpful to think of the issue 

that Andre ́s is discussing as a compound interest problem which is 

to say that we are already—that we do see a gap. It is not as dramatic at fourth grade. 

And then some of those children who are in fourth grade seem 

proficient are falling off by eighth grade. The question is, is that 

only because of instruction that they are not having between fourth 

and eighth grade, or are there in fact characteristics that we could 

tease out that would begin to predict that this is a kid who is at 

risk despite meeting the standards of proficiency at fourth grade. 

And I think there is evidence on both sides. There is exactly the 

phenomenon that Andre ́s has discussed in which the falling off in 

the focus on literacy in the upper grades means that kids who 

haven’t become readers don’t get the support they need. 

But I do think that there are characteristics that we can see all 

the way in the early grades that would begin to show that and that 

just worsen when that falling off of attention happens. 

And so I think that the same idea of personalization that we 

have been able to do in the early grades because the science of 

what are the precise things that are going wrong are quite well developed, that that is beginning to happen now in the upper elementary and middle school grades as well, so we need to keep pushing 

on that. 

The one other thing that is not a silver bullet but I think it is 

probably the most promising area of new research is the close con-
46 

nection between writing and the development of more advanced literacy skills in upper elementary and middle schools 

And so I think that what we are finding is that upper elementary 

and adolescent kids want to be able to express themselves and see 

language as as much a tool for expressing themselves as a tool for 

taking information in. 

And developing those writing skills is almost synonymous with 

developing the skills they need to become better readers. And I 

think we are starting to tap into deeper motivations that young 

kids have. And so I think—I have been happy to see that policy 

recommendations recently have seen reading and writing in those 

upper grades as mutually supportive, and I think that is a big opportunity. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. My time is up so I can ask no more 

questions. I was going to ask Dr. Meyers about that but I don’t 

want to get hit with the gavel from the chairman, so I will hold 

back. 

Chairman KILDEE. I would never hammer a governor out of a— 

however, we are expecting a vote in about 15 to 20 minutes, so we 

will try to go through and—because if we go before a vote, it might 

be a half hour, 45 minutes before we come back, and I hate to hold 

you. So we will try to move along but we certainly want to hear 

from you and, of course, any testimony and questions can be asked 

or answered within 14 days. 

I will call upon Mr. Polis. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Ms. 

Dore ́ for sharing with us the success story at Upper Blue Elementary. It is wonderful to hear that this year many at Summit School, 

Summit District schools are implementing the school-wide systemic 

reform that has produced such great results, and holds such promise. 

The improvements in student reading performance on the Colorado Student Assessment Program after the implementation of 

your response to instruction approach is really impressive, but as 

you pointed out, the writing scores—and I will point out to my colleagues the Colorado test writing is a category even though it is 

not required under No Child Left Behind—the writing scores are, 

while higher in the district and state averages, could be higher, 

and you mentioned that the district has focused its attention on 

this area. 

As you are aware, Representative Yarmuth and I recently introduced the LEARN Act which will support comprehensive state and 

local literacy initiatives to ensure that children from birth through 

twelfth grade have the reading and writing skills necessary for success and schooling beyond. 

And the LEARN Act includes all language and, as Chairman Kildee mentioned, also writing as part of developing literacy competence and seeks to ensure a systemic approach to providing high 

quality instruction in both reading and writing from early childhood through grade 12. 

Can you please describe how the legislation, if enacted, would 

help you and educators across the country implement and scale up 

effective practices that raise student achievement in both reading 

and writing? 
47 

Ms. DORE ́. It is all connected. So that is what helps when you 

are talking about the LEARN Act is how it starts to describe the 

picture of all of those oral language and reading and writing all 

being connected. 

When I talked about our results, it is easy, as you see on this 

sheet, we have all sorts of different oral language with the CELA 

test and then all of the reading benchmarks. What we don’t have 

a lot in writing are those same benchmark assessments. 

We have the CSAP scores, and then we have what we are trying 

to develop at schools are some common assessments and some common benchmarking to see how students’ writing progresses. But it 

hasn’t been as well tuned as literacy and as reading. 

So those are the pieces that we are trying to create some ourselves to try and make sure that teachers know what benchmarks 

students should be hitting during their writing and how that progresses. 

It is also practice. As Dr. Strickland was talking I just kept 

thinking, students need to practice, practice, practice. Practice that 

writing for different purposes. So I applaud you for looking at literacy in that whole perspective. Oral language, reading and writing, that is what is going to help folks understand how those are 

all interconnected. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, and I would also point out we approach 

reading in the whole age perspective as well from early childhood 

all the way through high school where the needs are. This question 

is for whoever would care to address it. 

You have all described how professional development is a critical 

component of successful literacy programs and initiatives from 

early childhood through elementary and secondary. But I often 

hear from educators in my district and across the country that 

there is not enough time and resources available for meaningful 

professional development and collaborative teamwork. 

So recognizing this, the LEARN Act focuses on providing high 

quality professional development for staff including literacy coaches 

and teachers of students with disabilities and English language 

learners that is job embedded, ongoing, research-based and data 

driven. 

Can you please discuss, if any of you have any comments on the 

significance of effective professional developments programs for improving literacy instruction and outcomes and how the LEARN Act 

will enable districts to implement effective models? 

Ms. DORE ́. I think having that support for the professional development is crucial. The time that teachers need—we talked about 

it a little bit—that when they are working from 7 am to 4 o’clock 

and then having teacher meetings after school, it is hard to do that 

professional development on top of a day that they have already 

spent with children. 

Even though literacy is a cornerstone, we are also having a lot 

of competing 21st century skills, science, math, all those things are 

still—teachers need to focus on those, too. So the idea of having a 

job embedded in literacy coaches is crucial, without that support, 

it doesn’t work. 
48 

Mr. POLIS. I know you shared this with me earlier, but tell me 

how some would count as literacy coaches, and I think you called 

them a different thing but tell me how that works? 

Ms. DORE ́. We call them literacy resource teachers, and we have 

one in each elementary school, in the middle school and the high 

school as well as some Title 1 support. So those teachers not only 

do direct intervention but they also support teachers in the way of 

coaching, gathering data, synthesizing data, looking at big trends. 

Then linking those trends to professional development needs that 

we have not only in the school but across the district, so they have 

been really crucial at that synthesizing, crunching the data that 

sometimes classroom teachers don’t have the time to take and then 

don’t have the time to do with that. 

And then they also get the big perspective that helps them look 

at big district trends and what is happening with separate demographic groups and subpopulations. So they have been essential in 

moving us forward with literacy instruction. 

Chairman KILDEE. Yes, Mr. Henriquez? 

Mr. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, one of the things we were very interested 

in noting was the impact of literacy coaches not only on teachers 

but how those teachers impacted student learning. One of the 

things we funded was the RAND Corporation to do a study of literacy coaches in the state of Florida, which at that time, had the 

largest number of literacy coaches statewide. 

And what they found was that the literacy coaches who used 

data to instruct their teachers were the ones who were able to best 

have the kind of results that we want for our students. So it is absolutely essential that we not just have blind literacy coaches but 

that they have the tools necessary to understand that data systems 

and also that they are using that data as a way of giving instruction. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. I think it is very timely and interesting. 

Mr. Berger, you know, coming from a generation where we didn’t 

have computers and all the software and all of these things and I 

can remember going to the library, riding my bike and filling up 

the basket with books and riding home to read them for the week. 

And then this process continued on and on. 

Is there—with your software, were books involved in this as well 

as—I know I have seen some of the programs, and they are great 

because they really do customize, you know, when a child doesn’t 

get something, it goes back so many times and gives them the tools 

to move ahead. But how do books fit into the picture as we have, 

you know, such a change in technology? 

Mr. BERGER. It is a really important question. I think part of the 

reason why we have focused on small devices like this is that 

whereas in the early enthusiasm about the role that computers 

could play in technology, a lot of what people did was to insert the 

computer between the teacher and the student, and sometimes 

spend too much time leaving kids alone with computers. 
49 

And I think the philosophy in classrooms that really work is that 

kids need a lot of time alone with books. I don’t know how much 

time they need alone with computers. 

And the other thing that we need to think about is what are the 

ways that we can design a classroom where technology is humming 

behind the scenes to extend the reach of a human teacher, to extend the different kinds of interactions kids have with each other 

in the classroom but maybe not so central to how teaching happens, or let the computer teaching happen in after school or in special class times that allow freeing up teachers for professional development. But to see teaching as a really human process that 

technologies that support. 

And we have made a point of in every one of the intervention 

programs that we have done, having the program come with a basket of additional books on top of whatever else teachers have to 

just keep reminding teachers, that even when you are teaching 

very basic skills, like what are the letters, that one of the most important ways to do that is to find the letters in a book so that you 

keep connecting to kids. 

The reason we are teaching you these basic phonic skills is because some day you are going to be able to read a book in your 

backyard. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, what about the older, you know, there seems 

like there is such a drop off as we get in the middle school and 

then to the high school. And of course now research has done so 

much on the computer that, you know, there isn’t—well, it is a lot 

of ease to find what they are looking for that we didn’t have. But 

could this be a negative? That—not using books for a lot of these 

things? 

Mr. BERGER. I think the question of whether the medium is 

paper or a computer is less important than our kids struggling 

with difficult texts that are at their reading level and starting to 

push beyond their reading level. 

And are they having to have situations where in addition to 

struggling individually, they are forced to talk with teachers and 

with fellow students about big ideas that they are pulling out of 

text. And there is precious little of that happening in classrooms 

and the question of what we can do to focus teacher time and student time on what it takes to grapple with the difficult text. 

And technology there can support, student attention can support 

student focus, can help explain difficult vocabulary words. But it 

still is a matter of the text, whether it is on a screen or in a book. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. And then, Dr. Meyers, I assume that 

you have a grant for the program that you have, the Reading First. 

And it is going to expire, or the program is going to expire. 

Ms. MEYERS. Yes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. So you have had the coaches, and are you going 

to—let us assume that you won’t have one, which we hope you will 

continue in the program. But if not, what would you do you know 

to keep the teachers, you know, the professional development, will 

you be able to—are there other teachers then that can take that 

role and help new teachers as they come in to the district? 

Ms. MEYERS. I think from what I have seen in just the Reading 

First school, the districts will take on that responsibility, and they 
50 

will use other funding. For instance in one of our districts, they use 

their ELL funding to provide additional coaches in schools that 

they put in the Reading First Program so that each one of their 

buildings had a reading or a literacy coach. 

The state does not have a plan at this point to take care of any 

kind of funding. We are certainly struggling with cutbacks ourselves, so it will be up to the individual school. But as we go along 

and put in RTI in all our schools as required in the regulation, I 

personally don’t see how it will happen without these literacy 

coaches because that is the type of professional development you 

need. 

You cannot have these one shot deals, you have got to sustain, 

keep it moving, build your capacity up, and you have got to go in 

those classrooms, and give them feedback, team—plan with the 

teachers. 

But they are—I think those coaches are essential. They have 

been essential to our programs, and they are your instructional 

leaders as we bring on our principals to be instructional leaders. 

And those principals are a big piece of making these things work. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert. 

Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. And I don’t know whether the 

chairman thought I needed help in literacy. I wanted to introduce 

Dr. Strickland but as you know, she is from New Jersey and has 

served in Newark, and we co-chaired a literacy group back in the 

early 1990s. But I will forgive you this time, Mr. Chairman. 

However, it is great to see Dr. Strickland and all the work that 

you have done for so many years with former Governor Florio and 

Senator Florio in the setting up in the 1970s or I guess it was in 

the 1990s the literacy centers in New Jersey, which after the National Literacy Act was passed in the early 1990s. 

So it is really great to see you. I just would like to ask you about 

the fact that research as you have mentioned, demonstrates that 

substantial achievement gaps in literacy develop early in childhood. 

And that early life experiences influence reading ability. 

We know that youngsters who are in more affluent communities 

tend to hear more words and the number in their vocabulary has 

increased, and therefore it helps with literacy in general. I just 

wonder if, you know, in your opinion how can early literacy programs successfully address this reality? 

What is it that we can do, and are there promising early education models that provide the appropriate levels of family involvement and focus on family literacy because as we know that is 

where it begins. 

Ms. STRICKLAND. Well, the final thing that you have mentioned 

is something that I don’t think we have stressed enough here 

today. And that is family literacy and family involvement, both at 

the early childhood years and those middle school years, where 

very often we find very little family involvement. 

They come for the assembly programs and not much of anything 

else. So many of us were pleased to see that as a part of the 

LEARN legislation. One piece of research that is astounding to me 

and is very important for this comprehensive look that we are ad-
51 

dressing today, is the fact that about 50 percent of the gap at the 

end of high school already exists when children enter first grade. 

Now, this has been done by analyses of the data across grade levels. That is profound. So it is very hard to catch up once you have 

had problems during those initial years. The benefit of what I believe is being proposed here is this notion of a comprehensive approach that truly addresses young children and their families and 

all of the things that are attendant. 

The need to address children’s well-being, children who aren’t 

well-fed, who don’t have a good social, emotional status, these kids 

aren’t going to learn. It is very hard to teach them. They are not 

going to be able to take advantage of the teaching. 

But we have got to continue that throughout. And I think that 

we have come to grips with that. And we have learned a lot from 

both Early Reading First and Reading First with the flaws, with 

the problems, with the issues that we have had, we need to use 

what we have learned, and use that to make this legislation really 

as good as it can be. 

And I am very excited because I have been working for so long 

with so many different administrations. I was kidding with Andre ́s 

that I worked with every president since Abraham Lincoln but it 

is not quite that bad, but sometimes I feel that way. 

We have learned a great deal. Our children deserve a lot better 

than we are giving them right now but I am so hopeful for everything that you are doing and which the Senate is doing at this 

point in time. And the notion of coaches has been addressed beautifully here. 

One of the things we do with coaches is differentiate coaching, 

you know, for different teachers. We have never done that before. 

This is a new time, a new day, and I am extremely hopeful. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. It seems like resources would 

also help there. Thank you. 

Ms. STRICKLAND. Glad you said it. 

Ms. MEYERS [continuing]. In reading the data on our Early Reading First, it was amazing to me to see that the majority of children 

were of ELL, and the majority of them did succeed and perform in 

K and first grade as well as children who did not come from the 

low income families or families where English was not the primary 

language. 

And their scores actually increased in first grade as they got 

good instruction in Reading First schools, where we were doing the 

essentials and doing the coaching. 

So it is to me, and then when I look at the Reading First schools 

who do not have that type of preschool experiences coming to them 

and do not have full day kindergarten, those children start in kindergarten with approximately 20 percent at benchmark as opposed 

to in our high poverty schools—as opposed to the children who 

would come out of an Early Reading First Program. 

So I support this comprehensive idea because I know that we are 

in bad shape as far as our adolescent literacy. But it does start in 

the preschool, and we have got to—and even in infancy—but we 

have got to work it up but it is amazing what that can do. 

And the technology piece I would like to add is crucial to our 

children who have lacking in background experiences. We have got 
52 

to have ways in the classrooms that we can build that background 

knowledge to go along with that oral language. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. We have three votes pending. The first vote 

is called for 15 minutes, and then there are two 5-minute votes 

after that. There is a little there in between, but I think we are 

going to have to come back. 

And but I will—Mr. Ehlers is next in line. I will call upon him. 

We can take the first 15 minutes they usually stretch out a little 

bit. So we will take Mr. Ehlers. 

You are recognized, gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try not to use 

all 15 minutes. 

Chairman KILDEE. Did I say 15? 

Mr. EHLERS. But at any rate, I appreciate you very much for 

holding the hearing. Literacy is extremely important as we all 

know. And I do want to note that I think libraries are an extremely 

important part of this. And I see Mr. Henriquez smiling because 

Mr. Carnegie was influential in getting a great many libraries 

started across this land. 

I personally learned to read because as a sickly child, I was not 

able to go to school. And I learned to read primarily with library 

books and read voraciously, starting with very simple Dick and 

Jane stories and going on up. 

I would—there is a letter that was submitted to you, Mr. Chairman and to Mr. Castle, from the American Library Association regarding this issue in connection with this hearing. And if that has 

not already been entered into the record, I would like to see this 

placed in the record. 

Chairman KILDEE. We will make sure that is in the record. 

Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

November 19, 2009. 

Hon. DALE KILDEE, Chairman; Hon. MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, Committee on Education and Labor, 2181 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR REPRESENTATIVES KILDEE AND CASTLE: On behalf of the American Library 

Association (ALA), I am writing in support of your efforts to improve literacy skills 

and respectfully ask that you include this letter as part of the official record for the 

Subcommittee’s November 19, 2009, hearing to highlight the contributions of librarians and library programs in improving the literacy skills of children and young 

adults. 

In general, librarians are professionally trained information experts who help improve the literacy skills of children and young adults. They regularly aid teachers 

in building students’ research and information literacy skills; they possess deep 

knowledge of adolescent literacy development; and they are the absolute best resource for ensuring that schools have a wide variety of reading materials that students both need and want to read. 

The public library is the community’s center for early literacy coaching for parents 

and child-care providers. As you know, a child’s brain develops at an incredible rate 

during the first three years of life. A child’s early experiences with language contribute to healthy brain development. 

The 1998 publication Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children was a 

landmark report that clearly established the link between providing a rich early literacy environment in the preschool years and later success in school. After this publication, public librarians developed a program to develop children’s reading skills 

based on six key pre-reading skills that children must have before they can learn 

to read: narrative skills, print motivation, vocabulary, phonological awareness, letter 

knowledge and print awareness. This model of service focuses on teaching the par-
53 

ents and caregivers how to foster early learning skills. This model of library service 

should be available to every community in a public library with a comprehensive 

materials collection. 

Public librarians provide many other types of resources that support early childhood literacy: children’s books that are suited to various ages and interests, storytime, parenting books that provide specific information and techniques for effective 

parenting skills, the latest research about brain development and learning; and 

trained librarians who can teach parents and caregivers the most effective ways to 

read to children. 

Public librarians have embraced their responsibility to be the first literacy coach 

for parents and caregivers of all children, especially children in low-income families. 

Some services provided to these families include bookmobile and storytelling mobiles, story-time kits, early literacy classes for childcare providers, Head Start staff 

and parents. Bringing books to neighborhoods in communities without many books 

available is an important task for bookmobiles. 

School librarians are the central teachers who know the school’s curriculum and 

effective techniques necessary to cross disciplines and integrate information and 

technology literacy. They have collaboration skills for effective participation in the 

school improvement process through involvement in curriculum development, implementation and evaluation with individual educators and departmental committees, 

and are well-positioned to participate in the improvement of data-based assessment 

systems. Every school that hires a state-certified school library media specialist employs a staff member who possesses an advanced degree or state-level certification 

and experience in both reading and literacy, which is ideal for complementing the 

learning taking place in classrooms. 

In schools, libraries are both the physical and virtual hubs of learning. They provide access to a wide variety of reading materials, as well as a real and virtual 

space for learning and exploration, to every student and faculty member in the 

building. Libraries are cost effective in that they are the single place that maintains 

a collection of a broad-range of reading material and learning resources. We know 

that children will learn to love reading if they have a wide selection of materials 

to choose from. 

It’s no wonder that research repeatedly shows that a well-funded and fully staffed 

school library with a state-licensed school librarian is an integral component of a 

student’s education. Across the United States, studies have demonstrated that students in schools with good school libraries learn more, get better grades, and score 

higher on standardized tests than their peers in schools without such resources. 

Accordingly, ALA is pleased that both the House and Senate versions of the 

LEARN Act (Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation) contain various provisions to support libraries in the development and implementation of early learning 

through grade 12 literacy programs. 

Specifically, we applaud provisions included in both bills that would: 

• Improve reading, writing, and academic achievement for children and students 

by strengthening coordination among various programs and entities including public 

libraries; 

• Authorize funds to be used to promote reading, library, and writing programs 

that provide access to engaging reading material in school and at home; 

• Define an eligible entity to include a public library program; 

• Define instructional staff to include librarians and library school media specialists; and 

• Include a library media specialist on the State Literacy Team. 

As the Congress moves forward in advocating for improved literacy among our 

children and young adults, ALA asks that you continue to recognize the integral role 

libraries and librarians play in achieving this goal. 

Again, thank you for your focus on improving literacy skills, we look forward to 

working with you in completing this effort and successfully implementing the 

LEARN Act. 

Sincerely, 

EMILY SHEKETOFF, 

Executive Director, ALA Washington Office. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. The librarians are professionally trained 

information experts, and I have had a lot to do with them. I served 

on a city library board, a county library board, state library board 

also at the Library of Congress. 
54 

And librarians are incredibly well-trained to deal with the literacy problems in my hometown. They are the leaders in helping 

people who are illiterate and helping them learn how to read. And 

I am talking about adults. 

They regularly aid teachers in building students’ research and 

information literacy skills, they possess deep knowledge of adolescent literacy development, and they ensure children have a wide 

variety of reading materials that they both need and want to read. 

And I would just like reaction from the panel on this. Do you believe it is appropriate to include library programs and librarians in 

our efforts to improve the literacy skills of children and adults, and 

how do you think they can best be incorporated? It is open to anyone. 

Ms. DORE ́. We have a great interface in our community with our 

libraries. They come and do presentations to the elementary school 

students, they hold book hours and book shares, and so it is a really—I know we are a small community but it is a nice way for the 

libraries to really connect with schools and then support parents 

and children. So we see it as a huge community resource piece in 

our area. 

Mr. EHLERS. Any others? 

Mr. Henriquez? 

Mr. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, I appreciate you bringing up the library 

issue. I am a big fan obviously. It is a required part of the job. The 

librarians are oftentimes the individuals within schools, particularly in middle schools and high schools that can really reach out 

to the youngster, and engage them in a whole other world of books 

and in reading that sometimes doesn’t exist in the school building. 

So when there is a lack of professional expertise around adolescent 

literacy, a librarian can be a real anchor within that community. 

That said there are also other issues that librarians could be 

trained to do particularly around how to work with youngsters 

around very difficult expository text that a lot of our youngsters are 

struggling with. And that is something that we really need to get 

under. 

Mr. EHLERS. What can you recommend? What do you think Congress should do to help ensure that all students have greater access 

to certified library media specialists? So is there anything specific 

you can recommend for the Congress to do? And that is open for 

anyone, too. 

Dr. Strickland? 

Ms. STRICKLAND. Love that question. I would love to see library 

media specialists in every school. They really help coordinate literacy programs. Again, Andre ́s mentioned earlier on about the 

need to have the content area teachers take more responsibility for 

literacy. 

Well, this means schematic kinds of opportunities where they are 

learning content but it is in the best interest of the content area 

teachers, too, because after all if children can access the text that 

they are reading in biology or physics or anything else that they 

happen to be studying, then they are going to learn it better and 

act on it more responsibly and better. 

So in many places where they have these kinds of people working 

together with teachers to get the kinds of materials they need and 
55 

technology, print and media of all sorts because kids today read 

across media. 

And they need to separate fact from fiction. It is really much 

harder to be a competent reader today because there is so much 

out there. Select what you need, make good decisions about what 

is useful to your endeavor, and then use it in some way. So I would 

love to see one in every single school. 

Mr. EHLERS. Any other comments? Yes? 

Mr. GOME ́ Z. May I add that there is a direct correlation with 

number or volume of children’s books, reading books at all grade 

levels and reading performance in schools. And the more kids that 

have access to reading books via library, in the classrooms, there 

are numerous studies that point to the more books that are accessible, the higher the reading scores of that particular campus. 

Mr. EHLERS. I was not aware of that. 

Dr. Meyers? 

Ms. MEYERS. Yes, I would like to just support that statement as 

well, and we have seen that in our schools as we have struggled 

to raise the scores, especially in our first grade. We have seen the 

improvement, and the improvement has come when we have gotten 

more text into the classrooms both—and especially the expository 

text. 

And children have had many opportunities to practice and read 

and practice reading connected text. Too much time is spent sometimes on isolated skills but not only do we broaden their background and knowledge but we give them a lot of practice. 

And practice is a key piece of this. So the more that we can introduce and more books we can get in classrooms, and get teachers 

to use those books so that their children can read and have those 

opportunities, the better our scores seem to be. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Berger? 

Mr. BERGER. This may seem like a somewhat technical point but 

I think it is an important one about the collaboration between libraries and schools. As I said in my testimony, the process of education in the classroom is now generating a very detailed web of 

data about each child, what level they read at, what they are interested in, what things they find challenging. 

Because of the nature of laws around privacy in our country, the 

transfer of that information to a librarian who is not a school librarian but to a municipal librarian is quite difficult and almost 

never happens. And the power of that data set for a certified librarian could be really effective in their ability to match kids with 

books, which is a fundamental task that they do. 

And so whatever we can do as we look not only at reading legislation but at online privacy legislation to clear that path for certified librarians would be most helpful. 

Mr. EHLERS. Are you referring to the Patriot Act or something 

else? 

Mr. BERGER. I think the main one that applies is actually the 

FERPA registry laws. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay, thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
56 

Mr. HINOJOSA [presiding]. You are welcome. I believe we only 

have time for one more member to ask questions. And I am next 

on the line. So after I ask my questions we will adjourn but come 

right back after the votes. My question is going to be—the first one 

to Dr. Gome ́z, but before I ask that question I wanted to reiterate 

my great interest in early reading and writing programs that we 

are discussing here today. 

And say that in my area of Deep South Texas, we have literacy 

programs that have been started in the last 2 or 3 years by bringing a coalition of three members of Congress with adjoining districts to carry out this initiative, and it is working. 

And so I want to say that I heard early in the panel’s discussion 

that the art of learning can be learned in so many different languages. And I served 10 years on the Texas State Board of Education, and our commissioner of education told us, this is between 

1970 and 1980, that the art of learning can be learned in any language and then transcend or transfer onto the English language. 

But we didn’t learn that lesson in Texas, and we certainly didn’t 

learn it in Washington. And so if we look at the number of children 

who are in need of this literacy program it is greater than 50 percent, just count the Hispanic, the Asian American, the Native 

American and the immigrant children, and you will see that it is 

way over 50 percent of the children who need this literacy program. 

All children need it but especially those who come from families 

where English is not the first language. So I ask you, Dr. Gome ́z, 

what do you recommend that we in Congress and the federal government do to increase the number of highly qualified bilingual 

teachers and educators in our nation’s classrooms? 

Mr. GOME ́ Z. Well, I think that it is really important that there 

be incentives supporting states for the recruitment of bilingual ESL 

certified teachers that understand educating children whose primary language is not English all the way through high school because these kids although we know that we have been talking 

about early literacy, there were some discussions about secondary, 

middle school, high school literacy. 

And of course literacy is relative to grade level, so when we are 

talking kindergarten literacy, then we are talking high school literacy. Those are two very different levels of literacy. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Be specific on what you think would help to move 

the ball forward and score. 

Mr. GOME ́ Z. If we provide, if we require in essence teacher preparation programs that every teacher, every public school teacher 

that is certified in every state somehow has the preparation 

coursework, one or two courses where they understand second language acquisition. 

They understand the academic value of first language literacy 

and how that benefits second language literacy, and they become 

advocates. Right now we have rifts in our schools from bilingual 

certified teachers and non-bilingual certified teachers that don’t understand what these folks are all about and why they are doing 

what they are doing. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Would you give me something in writing so that 

you are very specific on what we in this committee can try—— 

Mr. GOME ́ Z. Yes, most definitely, most definitely. 
57 

Mr. HINOJOSA [continuing]. In the No Child Left Behind reauthorization. And my next question and last point is to Andre ́s 

Henriquez. Can you highlight the strategies that are critical and 

necessary to improving adolescent literacy for African American, 

Latino, Native American and Asian American students? 

Mr. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, as I said in my testimony is that while kids 

of color are certainly affected by this the most, it is not only an 

issue of children of color. It is many, many students. However it 

is exacerbated in the issues around English language learners in 

particular. 

One of the things that we see, especially in middle schools is 

what we called double the work, meaning that our youngsters are 

acquiring their first language, in a sense, which would be English, 

and at the same time, acquiring another language, which is academic language. So all of the work that they are doing in middle 

schools and high schools in terms of acquiring knowledge around 

chemistry and biology that is not written in their language, so we 

call that double the work, they have to do twice as much work as 

the average student. 

And in my extended testimony that I gave this morning, the report, which is called ‘‘Double the Work: Actions to Do with English 

Language Learners for Adolescent Literacy,’’ outlines a whole host 

of recommendations that we can do for those youngsters who are 

way behind in reading in more English language learners. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. The presentations that you all made were extremely interesting and informative. And I am looking forward to 

the second part of the dialogue that we are going to have with all 

of you. 

I personally want to thank you because this is one of the most 

important initiatives and things that I work on on my Education 

Committee. And I thank you for that. I now say that we are recessed for a few minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman KILDEE [presiding]. Again, I apologize for the break 

but this is the process of legislation down here. We have—Woodrow 

Wilson said that ‘‘Congress at work is Congress in committee,’’ and 

this is really where we do our—we go over there and vote once in 

a while, but we learn so much in committee, and we appreciate 

your understanding of our process here of running over to vote on 

naming post offices and things like that. I am not sure I would. 

And at that I think I have the governor’s permission to go ahead. 

Have I? We were riding in the same car over here, so we will now 

recognize Mr. Yarmuth, the co-sponsor of the bill for questions. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you and Ranking Member Castle for extending the courtesies of the 

subcommittee to me, but on the other hand you owe me having 

lured Lillian Pace away from my staff. 

Chairman KILDEE. Yes, sure. 

Mr. YARMUTH. And but I—— 

Chairman KILDEE. You know that was grand theft. 

Mr. YARMUTH. I know she is doing as phenomenal a job for you 

as she did—— 

Chairman KILDEE. She is doing a great job. 
58 

Mr. YARMUTH [continuing]. As she did in my office. Thank you 

all for your work and for your testimony. I was just home last week 

and sat in on an educational forum and one of the things that was 

talked about more than anything else was literacy and particularly 

Dr. Strickland, with regard to the sociological context of early 

childhood and doing what we could to see that everybody started 

off on a sound footing. 

And a lot has been talked about today in that regard. In my community we have an organization called the Seven Counties which 

does a lot of the social service work, particularly with regard to 

Medicaid families, and they have a program that they have instituted in conjunction with hospitals and actually a bank, that 

helped fund them, to counsel young mothers about reading and literacy and talking to their children, actually give them the books 

that Chairman Kildee was talking about. 

But from a governmental perspective, what in your opinion can 

we do to try and to give parents that input and help to establish 

that that environment that is conducive to early childhood learning. Is that a government role, and what can we do? 

Ms. STRICKLAND. It is very much a part of what early childhood 

professionals should be involved in, certainly zero to five and beyond as I indicated earlier on. Two very important programs that 

were mentioned earlier on, Reach Out and Read, which is really an 

initiative of pediatricians and—who do give books to parents and 

explain the role of early literacy and their role in it early on and 

then, of course, Reading Is Fundamental. 

They were both mentioned early on. But parents are indeed the 

child’s first and most important teachers. There is just no question 

about it. So what we do, and what they do should be reinforced. 

Good family literacy programs, parent involvement, can go a long 

way, and they also reach out to the other services which you indicated, the social services and so on, to help support families. 

When families are supported they are more likely to do the kinds 

of things that we ask them to do. I am one who is always saying 

read to your child every night, talk with them, and yet I know that 

a lot of parents from certain communities are under such stress 

and have so many difficulties on their own that this may be the 

last thing they think of. 

So it will need a comprehensive approach at that point as well. 

But I think it is worth it. It is worth every cent of it to get that 

foundation and have the whole family involved. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Mr. Berger, one of the things that we, I think, all generally assume is technology is going to continue to play an increasing role 

in education, and I appreciate the work you are doing. I am a big 

fan of ‘‘Disrupting Class’’ by Clayton Christensen, so I kind of become a disciple of that as well. 

But the question I have is, because there have been controversies 

in the past with Reading First about the proprietary systems, and 

it is great that you are doing the work that you are doing. Does 

government have a role here in supporting research into whether 

it is technology related to education or just basic research as to 

how kids learn and all of the techniques that we are talking about 

here? 
59 

Mr. BERGER. Absolutely. I think one of the statistics that I believe is in ‘‘Disrupting Class’’ is the interesting comparison between 

the amount of funding we do for basic research through the NIH 

and the amount of funding we do for basic research through IES, 

and it is a 100 to 1 ratio. And so the question of why we don’t have 

the basic research foundation for some of the kind of things we 

want to get going in literacy, may be findable in that 100 to 1. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Yes. 

Mr. BERGER. I think that the connection between the tools of 

technology and the kind of data that they can gather about student 

performance, and that research agenda may be the place where 

there is a bit of a disruption in the way things work. It used to be 

that an efficacy study was a 3 to 5-year endeavor with graduate 

students running around to try to get data out of a classroom that 

was otherwise hermetic. 

What we have now are steady streams of data about how kids 

are progressing, down to individual samples of work, down to particular developmental skills and the exact day they show up in a 

child’s development, and I think that becomes a really fascinating 

foundation for new research. 

And so as money is made available for research, and the key 

thing to understand about this sort of legislation is the level at 

which you set the standard of what counts as valid research drives 

a whole marketplace of investment in serious R&D. If there isn’t 

a standard of research, then it is easy for the publishing industry 

to just use marketing as their way to decide which one to sell. 

As soon as there is a standard of what efficacy is and the higher 

it is, the more pressure you put on the forces of supply and demand, which have more money than the research agenda ever will 

to invest in real gold standard research to prove what works and 

doesn’t work. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up. I would 

just like to make another observation that occurred to me in listening to some of the testimony earlier and that is the observation we 

may have made a mistake all these years in telling school kids to 

shut up? Maybe we should have been encouraging them to talk 

more in class and to each other. It might have helped. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, and it is always to 

have you back here, and you are always welcome here. And again, 

I am glad that I have Lillian on my staff, and I know you miss her, 

but by the way, while I am mentioning that I want to thank both 

Lillian Pace and Allison Dembeck for their great work, you know, 

to assemble a panel like this requires some input from us. 

We know something is going on, but to assemble the panel and 

get people who really know this in depth and various aspects of it, 

requires great staffing, and I want to thank Allison and Lillian for 

having really assembled—while I was over on the floor many of the 

members were saying, ‘‘That is a great hearing,’’ and sometimes we 

have other dull hearings. 

This was not dull. This was very, very informative. This was— 

every one of you, individually and collectively, have contributed to 

the knowledge we need to do what this country needs very, very 

badly. 
60 

So let me just ask one final question. You know, we have about 

four basic programs running through ESEA or through the appropriations committee. One never was authorized but it is through 

the appropriations committee. How do we move forward to perhaps 

a more comprehensive program, taking the best parts of the existing literacy programs? Anyone want to just start down? 

Ms. DORE ́. The way that we have looked at it on the ground in 

the school district is really that multi-tiered level support, having 

that good universal tier of instruction and as you heard Mr. Berger 

talk about research, is so that schools have that menu of things to 

choose from that works in their school and works in their district. 

But they are still using a good universal tier of instruction where 

at least 80 percent of the kids are proficient or above. 

And then when students struggle how do you support them? Or 

how do you extend them if they already have those skills? So it 

really is helping schools change so that everybody gets the same 

thing so that kids what they need. And we support them through 

that, and we bring their families in, and we work with their families as to how they can support children at home. 

It really is changing—I keep calling it changing how we do business. We need to do different work for the consumers that we have 

now, our kids and our families. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment? 

Mr. HENRIQUEZ. Yes, I would just like to say that if this becomes 

part of the ESEA in the future, and as I said in my testimony that 

there is only 5 percent of resources going into middle schools and 

high schools in terms of literacy for middle schoolers and high 

schoolers. And so we hope that we can shift some resources to go 

to the older grades so that we can actually have a knowledge basis 

as to what we need to do. 

We have some evidence that IES and others are doing in terms 

of researching this, but we need much more, and we need a lot 

more doing the research while we are doing the practice. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

Yes, Mr. Gome ́z? 

Mr. GOME ́ Z. Well, we really need to emphasize more on the strategies to eliminate the need for interventions. There seems to be 

quite a bit of emphasis on interventions in the upper elementary 

grades and even middle school grades and by that time it is a little 

too late. We have dropped the ball for these kids. 

So the idea of doing this early literacy, identifying these strategies that work for these kids early, working with families, is—and 

understanding that literacy come in different languages, will allow 

for making sure that no gap begins early, which is where the gaps 

really begin. 

We fix high schools and middle schools and elementary. For the 

most part studies continue to show longitudinal studies that follow 

kids over time, show that the kids are somewhat okay in elementary but they are not okay, the same kids, in middle school and 

high school. 

And of course for many, many kids, either from poverty issues 

or language differences, cultural differences and so on, so it is really an elementary discussion that we need to really focus on so that 

we eliminate the need to focus on the intervention which means it 
61 

is already—the problem is already there. We need to go to the root 

of the problem. 

Chairman KILDEE. Ms. Chu? 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Dr. Leo 

Gome ́z. First of all I want to commend you for your recommendation to change the name of limited English proficient students to— 

or English language learner students, to bilingual learners. In California we call them English language learner students, but to use 

such terminology only points to the limitations and not to just a 

state of being. 

Now, in California we have had a really stormy history with bilingual education, including an initiative to end it totally. In addition we have had a state board of education that is in essence implementing a one-size-fits-all curriculum, focused just on the basics. 

However, there are many, including me that have advocated for a 

curriculum with alternatives for bilingual learners. 

Do you believe that there are consequences to a one-size-fits-all 

type of curriculum and if so, what are they? 

Mr. GOME ́ Z. Yes. I think we need to look at education or what 

we many times refer to as mainstream education a little differently 

than we have 20, 30 years ago because the mainstream has 

changed. The type of children and what children bring to school in 

the past, and we still continue to some extent, we look at their differences, whether it be language, cultural as deficits, as problems 

we need to overcome so that they can become like the mainstream. 

And I think we are at a point now in our history where we are 

a diverse group, a diverse America, and we need to rethink how we 

address these differences and look at children’s assets as opportunities to enrich other children. And then, of course, properly educate 

them. 

I believe, just to try to answer your question more directly, there 

is no one-size-fits-all, but there are some basic tenets that we must 

follow when educating children regardless of the situation. There 

are some fundamental pieces that we must not veer away from and 

one of those, as we talked about is, of course, children learn more 

effectively if they understand the lesson. 

They learn their skills. They learn to read more effectively if they 

are understanding what is going on in the classrooms while they 

learn and develop that second language. It is not a coincidence that 

for over 40 years now our English speaking population outperforms 

our non-English speaking population. 

It is because we are treating our non-English speaking population like our English-speaking population, and we have to look at 

this issue and say, okay, this is not the same so we can’t change 

them. 

We cannot make them something they are not. Let us look at 

what they bring. Let us look at that as a resource, as a tool for 

learning, and let us close achievement gaps by addressing our diversity versus kind of sweeping it under the rug and saying, you 

know, just learn English, and everything will be fine. 

That has been our approach and every strategy shared here 

today is an excellent strategy, excellent ideas for literacy development, but until we understand that literacy development, literacy 

is literacy and literacy in Vietnamese, in Spanish, in Chinese is lit-
62 

eracy, and that literacy transfers, then we are not going to get very 

far, and we are going to continue to see the underachievement of 

our children, especially in the middle school grades. 

As I was pointing out to Mr. Henriquez, that I shared in my testimony, a huge study that was conducted, looking at the same results that they found in the Carnegie results that the kids look— 

all these minority children they look fine in elementary, but the 

gap widens in secondary, in middle school and high school because 

they really were not literate. 

They were English-speaking. You know, they learned the language, but they really were not literate. If you look at our high 

school dropout rates there are studies out there that look at children that are dropping out, and 92 percent are English proficient. 

They speak English. What they are not is academically proficient 

on grade level in that language, so their academics suffered along 

the way and of course, as we have said, it started early. So it is 

about getting that academic and English development at the same 

time to reach that goal for these kids. 

Ms. CHU. And a quick question, how did Texas fund the dual language? Were federal funds used, and should literacy reauthorization include funding to address bilingual learners? 

Mr. GOME ́ Z. We are very fortunate in Texas that we have got, 

you know, our legislators are very visionary and progressive and 

we have a dual language law in Texas now that allows and actually 

encourages school districts to move toward dual language as the 

program, the go-to program or the program of choice for educating 

our non-English speaking population, but also for educating our 

English speaking population because dual language consistently 

shows that these kids that are educated through two languages develop cognitive advantages in their learning. 

And are actually outperforming monolingual English children 

when they are educated through two languages, and of course other 

countries in the world have known this for years because they have 

been educating children through two or more languages for many, 

many years. 

A lot of the funding is really funding from traditional bilingual 

funds from the state and federal government. The state is just now 

beginning to provide some specific funding for dual language or for 

dual language schools. 

Right now huge school districts like the Dallas Independent 

School District, the Fort Worth Independent School District, are 

implementing dual language district-wide for all of their nonEnglish speaking children, specifically their Spanish speaking children. 

And as one way dual language, but at the same time they are 

offering to something over 3,000 English dominant children dual 

language. But what is really interesting in Dallas is, our African 

American population, which are being underserved in our school 

systems due to cultural reasons in particular, are participating in 

dual language in high numbers, and we are seeing some tremendous results with that group as well, which we hoped would happen in Dallas. 
63 

So it is this kind of forward thinking, you know, and moving 

away from traditional approaches and looking at our diversity as 

assets that we should be embracing as opportunities for all kids. 

Chairman KILDEE. I understand that Mr. Payne has no further 

questions? Is that correct? 

Mr. PAYNE. That is correct. 

Chairman KILDEE. Again, I want to thank all of you for this 

hearing. It will go down as part of the history I think of really 

making some quantum leaps forward. You know, everything begins 

with baby steps, but ultimately we need a quantum leap some 

time. 

And this has always been a bipartisan interest in this Congress 

and in this committee. Matter of fact, one of the bills, Even Start, 

is named officially after Bill Goodling when he was a minority 

member of this committee. Then he became chairman later on, and 

I have seen the program in operation in Saginaw. So it has always 

been bipartisan. Education generally is bipartisan. This particularly, literacy, is so basic. 

So we thank you for all you do in it. We thank you for your testimony today and as previously ordered, members will have 14 calendar days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. 

And any member who wishes to submit follow-up questions, so you 

may get some follow-up questions, in writing to the witnesses, 

should coordinate with the majority staff within the requisite staff. 

And without objection and with my thanks, this hearing is adjourned. 

[A submission of Mr. Polis follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Colorado Department of Education 

A BILL: H.R. 4037 (THE ‘‘LEARN ACT’’)

Currently Being Presented to the United States House of Representatives 

The Colorado Department of Education wishes to express its support for the landmark federal literacy bill, the LEARN Act, as well as appreciation for the leadership 

of Rep. Polis in introducing this major legislation to fund comprehensive literacy 

programs spanning early childhood through grade twelve. The opportunities this 

legislation will afford the states in supporting the development of a comprehensive 

state literacy plan will be substantial and ensure a systemic approach to providing 

high quality instruction in reading and writing from early childhood through grade 

twelve. 

Colorado congratulates the sponsors of the bill for proposing legislation that: (1) 

provides a means for scaling up pilot literacy programs that have shown promise 

in raising student achievement in literacy, (2) is comprehensive, thus expanding 

support for literacy from preschool through high school, (3) prompts states to accelerate and expand their implementation of evidence-based practices for all students, 

(4) proposes a multi-tier system of support to address the needs of all students, (5) 

includes oral language and writing as a part of developing literacy competence, (6) 

includes meaningful family engagement in its focus, (7) builds in safe-guards 

against potential conflicts of interest, and (8) has the potential of increasing high 

school graduation rates. 

Representatives John Yarmuth (D-KY3), Jared Polis (D-CO2), and George Miller 

(D-CA7) might consider the following for inclusion in the LEARN Act : 

• Additional criteria for the definition of ‘‘scientifically valid research’’ using the 

definition of ‘‘scientifically based reading research’’ found within the Title I, Part B 

(Reading First) legislation: ‘‘(6) SCIENTIFICALLY BASED READING RESEARCHThe term ‘scientifically based reading research’ means research that—— 

(A) applies rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties; 

and 

(B) includes research that—— 
64 

(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; 

(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses 

and justify the general conclusions drawn; 

(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data 

across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations; and 

(iv) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.’’ 

(See also Stanovich outlining the importance of scientific thinking and scientific 

research in educational decision-making: http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ 

ScientificallyBasedResearch.pdf 

http://www.nifl.gov/publications/html/stanovich/index.html) 

• State Education Agency (SEA) ‘‘allowable use’’ of funds targeted at SEA development of partnerships with institutions of higher education for the purpose of conducting research on teacher effectiveness as measured by student achievement and 

for the development of pre-service literacy related courses for educators. These funds 

could be used for course review and reporting of review results to the public. Aligning pre-service literacy related coursework to evidence/standards-based practices is 

a major leverage point that has a direct influence on teacher effectiveness. In addition, this activity will help states meet the charge of Sec. Duncan’s call to improve 

teacher preparation to better impact student achievement. 

Sec. Duncan’s Speech to Schools of Education: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

pressreleases/2009/10/10222009a.html 

• SEA ‘‘allowable use’’ of funds targeted at providing professional development to 

SEA staff in order to ensure SEA staff can effectively carry out the activities outlined in: 

(Page 27, LEARN Act) Sec.6.(b)(2)(C)(ii): ‘‘ensure that eligible entities in the State 

have leveraged and are effectively leveraging the resources to implement high-quality literacy instruction, and have the capacity to implement high-quality literacy initiatives effectively;’’ 

• Increase the SEA ‘‘Use of Funds’’ allocation of ‘‘State Activities’’ (see page 25, 

Learn Act) from 5 percent to 10 percent. Increasing the SEA state activity use of 

funds from 5 percent to 10 percent will provide necessary resources to support (1) 

SEA administration/facilitation of effective K-12 literacy programs, (2) SEA administration capacity to carry out activities required in the LEARN Act, including the review and development of improved state licensure and certification standards, (3) 

professional development of SEA staff, and (4) robust research studies to study the 

effectiveness of school-wide and state-wide literacy programs. 

Note that the Title I, Part B (Reading First) SEA funds were 20%. Colorado used 

these funds to provide professional development, technical assistance, including onsite coaching to LEA’s from experts outside of the district and have received feedback that these state level supports made the most significant difference in improving instructional practices and ensuring fidelity of implementation at the school 

level. Finally, these funds were essential for related administrative tasks including 

professional development for staff, and data collection, analysis and reporting. 

• Include language in the Act that recognizes the importance of SEAs in providing LEAs guidance on how to identify effective instructional materials and programs supported by scientifically valid research. 

• Include language in the Act that recognizes the importance of SEAs in providing LEAs guidance on how to identify valid and reliable formative assessments 

that have a high likelihood of predicting performance on summative assessments. 

• Include a definition of ‘‘extended learning time’’ based on scientifically valid research for accelerating the literacy skills of struggling students 

• Include a definition of ‘‘developmentally appropriate’’ (pg. 68, lines 17-18) 

(http://www.nifl.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf) 

• Extend implementation of a multi-tier system of support from pre-K through 

high school (http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ 

Conversations%20with%20Practitioners%20Corr.pdf) 

• Include phonic decoding instruction and fluency beyond grades K-3, as needed 

(http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Academic%20Literacy.pdf; http:// 

www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Adol%20Struggling%20Readers%20Meta-analysis.pdf) 

Thank you again for the opportunity for the Colorado Department of Education 

to enter a statement in the Congressional Record expressing support for the LEARN 

Act and to commend Rep. Polis and his colleagues for their leadership in educational reform and proposing comprehensive federal literacy legislation. We look 
65 

forward to this new initiative and the support it will give to the students of Colorado and our nation’s youth. 

[Questions for the record, their responses, and additional submissions from the witnesses follow:] 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, December 1, 2009. 

Mr. LARRY BERGER, 

CEO and Co-Founder, Wireless Generation, 500 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR MR. BERGER: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on Education and 

Labor’s hearing on, ‘‘Improving the Literacy Skills of Children and Young Adults,’’ 

on November 19, 2009. 

Representative Robert ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA) has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs was discussed 

by all of the witnesses. My questions are as follows: 

1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with? 

2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of programs that increase 

literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc? 

3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have any questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

December 8, 2009. 

Hon. ROBERT C. SCOTT, 

Committee on Education and Labor, 2181 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SCOTT: Thank you and the Committee again for the opportunity to testify at the November 19, 2009 hearing on ‘‘Improving the Literacy Skills 

of Children and Young Adults.’’ Thank you also for your follow up questions regarding the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs. My responses follow immediately below. 

Early literacy programs reduce the need to refer students to special education programs, which can lead to substantial cost savings. 

As of 2006-07, about 13.6% of students received special education services—up 

from 8.3% in 1976-77. (See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/pdf/9— 

2009.pdf, at Table A-9-1.) Yet, as research presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities RTI Symposium showed, some 35% to 40% of children 

referred to special education due to a Specific Learning Disability were in fact referred incorrectly. (For a complete listing of research presented at the Symposium, 

see the following website: http://www.rti4success.org/index.php?option=com— 

content&task=view&id=841.) These unnecessary referrals come at a substantial cost: 

a 2003 study found that the cost to educate special education students with learning 

disabilities is 1.6 times that of educating general education students. (See http:// 

www.csef-air.org/publications/seep/national/Final—SEEP—Report—5.PDF, at v.) 

Thus, if we could eliminate a substantial portion of the 35%—40% of unnecessary 

special education referrals, the cost savings would almost certainly be dramatic. 

Early literacy programs, as part of a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach, reduce these unnecessary referrals. RTI works by identifying at-risk students early 

and providing appropriate reading ‘‘interventions’’ to help them. In our many years 

of working with teachers, principals, and school superintendents on Kindergartenthrough-5th Grade literacy instruction, we have found that many students will get 

‘‘back on track’’ toward reading proficiency if given appropriate support through RTI 

programs. I am attaching as an appendix to this testimony a white paper authored 

by two of my colleagues last year that demonstrates the effectiveness of the RTI approach. 
66 

By identifying students before they are referred to special education, effective 

early literacy programs that include RTI save money for schools, districts, and 

states. In addition to reducing unnecessary referrals, these programs free up special 

education services and dollars for the children who truly need them. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to supplement my testimony by responding 

to Representative Scott’s questions, and please do not hesitate to contact me if I 

may be of further service to the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

LARRY BERGER. 

[The information referred to may be accessed at the following 

Internet address:] 

http://wirelessgeneration.com/media/rti-white-paper.pdf 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, December 1, 2009. 

Ms. MARY KAY DORE ́, Director of Student Support Services, 

Summit School District, 150 School Road, Frisco, CO. 

DEAR MS. DORE ́: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on Education and Labor’s hearing on, ‘‘Improving the Literacy Skills of Children and Young Adults,’’ on 

November 19, 2009. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA) has asked that you respond in 

writing to the following questions: • During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs was discussed by all of the witnesses. My questions are as follows: 

1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with? 

2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of programs that increase 

literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc? 

3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have any questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

Response to Mr. Scott’s Questions From Ms. Dore ́

There are many observations as a professional that I have witnessed that tell me 

early intervention works and therefore is a cost savings to society. I have had the 

fortune to work in one school district long enough to see students enter kindergarten and then watch the same students exit high school. Anecdotally, I can recount stories of students who can in with little foundation in the early years and 

their struggles to finish high school, some of whom didn’t make it. I come from a 

small district of just over 3,000 students, in this size community we are able to try 

to leverage community supports to help students who are struggling. Sometimes 

that worked and other times the support was not enough to overcome their family 

situation, or the pull of drugs and alcohol. Discussions at school often debate the 

epicenter of the student’s struggles; is the behavior choices of the student that is 

causing the issues or is the inability to read which has led to student to act out 

and try to mask their struggles? I know in my heart and professional experience 

that catching children early is the key into to starting them on the oath the life 

long learning. 

What you wanted were numbers, which I understand and applaud. Referenced are 

the results of the Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent 

Center Program, which I have also attached for your reference. 

Results of the cost-benefit analysis indicated that each component of CPC program had economic benefits that exceeded costs. With an average cost per child of 

$6,730 (1998 dollars) for 1.5 years of participation, the preschool program generated 

a total return to society at large of $47,759 per participant. The largest benefit was 
67 

1Waisman Center and School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

2Department of Economics, Northern Illinois University. 

Reynolds and Temple also are affiliated with the Institute for Research on Poverty, University 

of Wisconsin-Madison. 

program participants’ increased earnings capacity projected from higher educational 

attainment. Economic benefits of the preschool program to the general public (taxpayers and crime victims), exclusive of increased earnings capacity, were $25,771 

per participant. The largest categories of public benefits were increased tax revenues associated with higher expected earnings capacity (28%), criminal justice system savings due to lower rates of arrest (28%), savings on tangible costs for crime 

victims (24%), and savings on school remedial services (18%). Overall, $7.10 dollars 

were returned to society at large for every dollar invested in preschool. Excluding 

benefits to participants, the ratio of program benefits to costs for the general public 

was $3.83 for every dollar invested. The ratio of benefits to costs for government 

savings alone was $2.88 per dollar invested. 

The present value of benefits for preschool participation was substantially higher 

than the benefits for school-age participation. The school-age component provided a 

societal return of $4,944 per participant. Given a cost of $2,981 per child for 2 years 

of participation, benefits modestly exceeded the investment in the program. The 

benefit-cost ratio for society at large was $1.66 per dollar invested ($1.42 public benefit per dollar invested). The main benefit was savings on school remedial services. 

This is a short excerpt of some of the studies that have been conducted in regards 

to the effectiveness of early intervention with children. There are many studies that 

reveal the different readiness levels that children come to school with and the ways 

that systems need to support children. It is important for us as an educational system to discover how we can best support students and at the earliest time possible. 

It is the foundation that crucial to their success in later life. 

Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I 

Chicago Child-Parent Center Program 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (JUNE 2001)

Arthur J. Reynolds,1 Judy A. Temple,2 Dylan L. Robertson,1 and Emily A. Mann1

Introduction 

In this study, we conducted the first cost-benefit analysis of the federally financed 

Title I Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC) Program. The major question addressed 

was: Do program benefits exceed costs? The CPC program is a school-based preschool and early school-age intervention for low-income children that emphasizes 

parent involvement and the development of literacy skills. Previous studies have indicated that program participation beginning in preschool is independently associated with higher school achievement, higher rates of school completion through age 

20, lower rates of school dropout, lower rates of juvenile arrest for violent and nonviolent charges, and with less need for school remedial services (see Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2001, and Reynolds, 2000). 

Sample and Methods 

The main study sample includes 1,286 youth of the original sample of 1,539 in 

the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Data in this on-going, prospective study were collected from family surveys, educational records, and justice system records up to age 

21 (March 2001). An alternative-program, quasi-experimental design was used in 

which the behavioral adjustment of the entire cohort of 989 children who attended 

20 CPCs in preschool and kindergarten from 1983-86 was compared to a random 

sample of 550 eligible children who did not participate in the program but enrolled 

in an all-day kindergarten program. Less than one-fourth of the comparison group 

attended a preschool program. Sample recovery rates were 85% and 81%, respectively, with no evidence of selective attrition. At the beginning of the study, groups 

were comparable on many family background measures. 

Opened in 1967 with funding from Title I of the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the CPC program provides comprehensive educational and family support services from ages 3 to 9 in neighborhood schools. The 

philosophy of the program is to help children develop skills in reading, math, and 

communication through a broad spectrum of classroom and parent activities, and 

field trips. Each Child-Parent Center is run by a head teacher and includes a staffed 

parent resource room, school-community outreach activities, and health services. 

After preschool and kindergarten, the school-age program in the elementary school 

provides reduced class sizes, teacher aides for each class, continued parent involve-
68 

ment activities, and an enriched classroom environment for developing reading and 

math skills. 

Following standard economic procedures, we estimated the present value of program benefits and costs in 1998 dollars for five main categories of benefits: (1) reductions in expenditures for the school remedial services of grade retention and special education, (2) reductions in criminal justice system expenditures for both juvenile and adult arrest and treatment, (3) reductions in child welfare system expenditures associated with child abuse and neglect, (4) averted tangible costs to crime victims, and (5) increases in adult earnings and tax revenues projected for increases 

in educational attainment. The present value of program benefits was estimated 

based on a 3% annual discount rate evaluated at the beginning of preschool participation. The distribution of benefits were calculated separately for society at large 

(program participants and the general public), the general public, and government 

savings. 

Results 

Relative to comparison groups and controlling for family economic disadvantage, 

participation in the CPC preschool, school-age, and extended intervention (4 to 6 

years) components was associated, in the expected direction, with two or more of 

the following outcomes: school achievement at age 14, special education placement 

and grade retention, juvenile arrest by age 18, child maltreatment, and high school 

completion by ages 20/21. Relative to the comparison group, preschool participants 

had a 29% higher rate of high school completion, a 33% lower rate of juvenile arrest, 

a 42% reduction in arrest for a violent offense, a 41% reduction in special education 

placement, a 40% reduction in the rate of grade retention, and a 51% reduction in 

child maltreatment. School-age participation and extended program participation for 

4 to 6 years were associated with 30 to 40% lower rates of grade retention and special education placement. Compared to children with 1 to 3 years of participation, 

extended program participants also had higher achievement test scores in adolescence and lower rates of child maltreatment by age 17. 

Results of the cost-benefit analysis indicated that each component of CPC program had economic benefits that exceeded costs. With an average cost per child of 

$6,730 (1998 dollars) for 1.5 years of participation, the preschool program generated 

a total return to society at large of $47,759 per participant. The largest benefit was 

program participants’ increased earnings capacity projected from higher educational 

attainment. Economic benefits of the preschool program to the general public (taxpayers and crime victims), exclusive of increased earnings capacity, were $25,771 

per participant. The largest categories of public benefits were increased tax revenues associated with higher expected earnings capacity (28%), criminal justice system savings due to lower rates of arrest (28%), savings on tangible costs for crime 

victims (24%), and savings on school remedial services (18%). Overall, $7.10 dollars 

were returned to society at large for every dollar invested in preschool. Excluding 

benefits to participants, the ratio of program benefits to costs for the general public 

was $3.83 for every dollar invested. The ratio of benefits to costs for government 

savings alone was $2.88 per dollar invested. 

The present value of benefits for preschool participation was substantially higher 

than the benefits for school-age participation. The school-age component provided a 

societal return of $4,944 per participant. Given a cost of $2,981 per child for 2 years 

of participation, benefits modestly exceeded the investment in the program. The 

benefit-cost ratio for society at large was $1.66 per dollar invested ($1.42 public benefit per dollar invested). The main benefit was savings on school remedial services. 

Relative to participation for 1 to 3 years, participation in the program for 4 to 6 

years (preschool to second or third grade) also was associated with economic benefits 

that exceeded costs. The present value of benefits to society at large was $24,772 

per participant. Given an average cost of $4,068 per participant (above and beyond 

less extensive participation), the extended intervention program provided a substantial return to society at large. The benefit-cost ratio for society at large was $6.09 

per dollar invested ($3.59 public benefit per dollar invested). The greatest benefits 

were savings on school remedial services, increased tax revenues, and averted crime 

victim costs. Extended program participants typically had the highest levels of adjustment in the study. Overall, our findings of cost-effectiveness were robust to different discount rates and alternative procedures for estimating projected earnings 

and criminal justice system expenditures. 

Conclusion 

As the first cost-benefit analysis of a federally-financed, comprehensive early 

childhood intervention, findings indicate that participation in each component of the 

program was associated with economic benefits that exceeded costs. This was accom-
69 

plished by increasing economic well being and reducing educational and social expenditures for remediation and treatment. Similar to Head Start, the CPC preschool 

program is the most intensive and comprehensive component and yielded the greatest benefits by age 21. Findings for school-age and extended intervention demonstrate the benefits of reduced class sizes and enriched school environments in the 

early grades. Thus, contemporary, large-scale child-development programs can provide substantial long-term benefits to society. 

Given limited financial and human resources for health and educational interventions, greater levels of public investments in programs with demonstrated cost-effectiveness are warranted. Unlike most other social programs, the Child-Parent Center 

Program provides benefits to society that far exceed costs and is routinely implemented through a large urban school district. The present value of public benefits 

of the preschool program for the 1,000 study children totaled $26 million. Since 

100,000 children have been served by the program to date, these benefits translate 

to as much as $2.6 billion in public savings since the program opened (1998 dollars). 

As states and localities increase access to early childhood care and education programs, public schools appear to be the location of choice for these initiatives. The 

findings of this study show the long-term payoffs that these public programs can 

provide. 

AFFILIATIONS AND FUNDING

Preparation of this report was supported by funding from the National Institute 

of Child Health and Human Development (No. R01HD34294-06), and the Office of 

Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education (No. 

R305T990477). This report was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for 

Prevention Research in Washington, DC on June 1, 2001. 

Address correspondence to Arthur Reynolds, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1500 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53705. Electronic mail: 

ajr@umn.edu. Voice: 612-625-4321. Fax: 612-625-6472. Web site: education.umn.edu/ICD/ReynoldsLab/. 

REFERENCES

Reynolds AJ. Success in Early Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press; 2000. 

Reynolds, AJ, Temple JA, Robertson, DL, & Mann, EA. Long-term effects of an early 

childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15- 

year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. JAMA. 2001; 285:2339- 

2346. 

ADDITIONAL READINGS

1. Reynolds, AJ. The state of early intervention. In Success in Early Intervention: 

The Chicago Child-Parent Centers (Ch. 1, pp. 1-21). Lincoln, NE: University of 

Nebraska Press; 2000. 

2. Reynolds, AJ. The Child-Parent Center Program and Study. In Success in Early 

Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers (Ch. 2, pp. 22-63). Lincoln, NE: 

University of Nebraska Press; 2000. 

3. Temple, JA., Reynolds, AJ., & Miedel, WT. Can early childhood intervention prevent high school dropout? Evidence from the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. 

Urban Education. 2001; 35:31-56. 

4. Reynolds, AJ., Miedel, WT., & Mann, EA. Innovation in early intervention for 

children in families with low incomes: Lessons from the Chicago Child-Parent 

Centers. Young Children. 2000; 55:84-88. 

5. Reynolds, A J. (Ed.) Educational success in high-risk settings: Contributions of 

the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Journal of School Psychology (Special issue). 

1999; 37(4). 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, December 1, 2009. 

Mr. LEO GO ́ MEZ, PH.D., Professor of Bilingual-Bicultural Education, 

The University of Texas Pan American, College of Education, 1201 W University 

Drive, Edinburg, TX. 

DEAR DR. GO ́ MEZ: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on Education and 

Labor’s hearing on, ‘‘Improving the Literacy Skills of Children and Young Adults,’’ 

on November 19, 2009. 
70 

Representative Robert ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA) has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs was discussed 

by all of the witnesses. My questions are as follows: 

1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with? 

2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of programs that increase 

literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc? 

3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have any questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

Response to Mr. Scott’s Questions From Mr. Go ́mez 

During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs was discussed 

by all of the witnesses. My questions are as follows: 

1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with? 

2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of programs that increase 

literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc? 

3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy programs? 

I did not provide any testimony related to cost effectiveness of early literacy programs. And I have no first-hand knowledge of this. However, I can comment that 

studies do indicate that early literacy development is crucial to grade-level achievement. Children that enter school with limited vocabulary and experiential knowledge need intensive early literacy preparedness to succeed with ‘‘on grade level’’ academic instruction. 

I would like to respond to your second question as this relates to LEP students. 

As shared in my testimony, lack of knowledge regarding the ‘‘academic learning 

value of native language instruction,’’ particularly among decision-makers in leadership roles, continues to negatively impact policy for quality programs for nonEnglish speaking students. An emphasis on English (language) versus both academic content learning (schooling) in native language and English language development continues to short change the education of BLs. It is critical that leadership 

at the state, federal, university and public school level be advocates for BLs and 

knowledgeable of research-based best practices for successful long-term literacy development for these students. The following is a direct response to your first two 

questions: 

The evidence is overwhelming against English-only (immersion) programs for bilingual learners. It is quite unfortunate that the state of Arizona adopted this approach for the education of BLs in their state. Arizona went completely in the opposite direction of research-based practices and instead adopted ‘‘opinion-based policy.’’ 

The efficacy of English immersion approaches is well documented: English-only 

methods do not yield strong long-term academic outcomes for BLs. Students in these 

programs learn English, but fall behind miserably in grade level content and skills 

(schooling) since they essentially receive their initial education in a second language. In other words, BLs acquire the English language, but do not learn well (on 

grade level) the content and skills being taught in that language, therefore creating 

an ‘‘academic gap’’ (not a language gap) early on that continues and widens in middle school and high school (as curriculum becomes more demanding) leading many 

to eventually drop out. I should note that most high school drop-outs speak English 

well, but drop out due to lack of grade-level literacy (read 2-3 grade levels below). 

The ineffectiveness of such English-only practices manifests itself in the upper 

grades (4th-12th) based on English achievement tests. 

Proponents of English-only programs typically share ‘‘English language data’’ to 

support their position. Do not be fooled with English language gains data. There is 

no doubt that BLs will learn English and make significant English gains, since they 

are receiving English-only lessons. What English-only proponents cannot produce is 

positive long-term English academic achievement data (standardized English reading & writing tests assessing grade-level literacy) comparable to native English 

speakers because it does not exist. 
71 

To my knowledge, there is not one long-term effectiveness study (middle school 

& high school performance) that demonstrates grade-level academic achievement 

(literacy) in English for BLs served through English-only programs. On the other 

hand, there are countless long-term effectiveness studies (middle school & high 

school performance) that demonstrate grade-level academic achievement (literacy) in 

English for BLs served through dual language programs. 

This is the very essence of understanding the literacy issue for BLs, both short 

and long-term. Policy-makers must recognize that a quality education for BLs is 

grade-level literacy or schooling (reading, math, science and cognitive development 

in native language) and simultaneously developing the English language throughout 

their elementary years. When both of these happen for at least 5-7 years, BLs are 

academically and linguistically successful both short and long-term (MS & HS) 

based on English academic assessments because simply put, literacy transfers! 

Reading, writing, math, and thinking skills transfer from one language to another. 

Therefore, native language instruction and English language instruction at least 

throughout elementary (dual language) yields higher academic achievement. This is 

why Dual Language Enrichment (DLE) programs are so successful for BLs. DLE 

programs adhere to fundamental learning principles. If native English speaking 

children learned only in Spanish when they entered school, they would also fail. 

Thank you for your attention. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, December 1, 2009. 

Mr. LEO GO ́ MEZ, PH.D., Professor of Bilingual-Bicultural Education, 

The University of Texas Pan American, College of Education, 1201 W University 

Drive, Edinburg, TX. 

DEAR DR. GO ́ MEZ: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on Education and 

Labor’s hearing on, ‘‘Improving the Literacy Skills of Children and Young Adults,’’ 

on November 19, 2009. 

Representative Rau ́l Grijalva has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

1. Some states have very different policies with regard to students who do not currently speak English. For example, in Arizona we have four hour English emersion 

in segregated classes. Can you comment on the efficacy of some of these programs? 

2. What do you think the federal government should do to give more guidance to 

states so that we can address states that are failing to provide an adequate education for students who do not speak English? 

3. Can you give some insights into effective policies to address older students, say 

those in middle school and high school, who do not speak English? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have any questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

Response to Mr. Grijalva’s Questions From Mr. Go ́mez 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on November 

19, 2009, regarding the literacy skills of young children and youth. My testimony 

focused specifically on appropriate literacy development of Bilingual Learners (BLs), 

inappropriately referred to as Limited English Proficient (LEP) or English Language 

Learner (ELL). This memo is a response to follow-up questions submitted by Representative Rau ́l Grijalva (D-AZ): 

1. Some states have very different policies with regard to students who do not currently speak English. For example, in Arizona we have four hour English emersion 

in segregated classes. Can you comment on the efficacy of some of these programs? 

2. What do you think the federal government should do to give more guidance to 

states so that we can address states that are failing to provide an adequate education 

for students who do not speak English? 

3. Can you give some insights into effective policies to address older students, say 

those in middle school and high school, who do not speak English? 

As shared in my testimony, lack of knowledge regarding the ‘‘academic learning 

value of native language instruction,’’ particularly among decision-makers in leader-
72 

ship roles, continues to negatively impact policy for quality programs for nonEnglish speaking students. An emphasis on English (language) versus both academic content learning (schooling) in native language and English language development continues to short change the education of BLs. It is critical that leadership 

at the state, federal, university and public school level be advocates for BLs and 

knowledgeable of research-based best practices for successful long-term literacy development for these students. The following is a direct response to your first two 

questions: 

1. Some states have very different policies with regard to students who do not currently speak English. For example, in Arizona we have four hour English emersion 

in segregated classes. Can you comment on the efficacy of some of these programs? 

2. What do you think the federal government should do to give more guidance to 

states so that we can address states that are failing to provide an adequate education 

for students who do not speak English? 

The evidence is overwhelming against English-only (immersion) programs for bilingual learners. It is quite unfortunate that the state of Arizona adopted this approach for the education of BLs in their state. Arizona went completely in the opposite direction of research-based practices and instead adopted ‘‘opinion-based policy.’’ 

The efficacy of English immersion approaches is well documented: English-only 

methods do not yield strong long-term academic outcomes for BLs. Students in these 

programs learn English, but fall behind miserably in grade level content and skills 

(schooling) since they essentially receive their initial education in a second language. In other words, BLs acquire the English language, but do not learn well (on 

grade level) the content and skills being taught in that language, therefore creating 

an ‘‘academic gap’’ (not a language gap) early on that continues and widens in middle school and high school (as curriculum becomes more demanding) leading many 

to eventually drop out. I should note that most high school drop-outs speak English 

well, but drop out due to lack of grade-level literacy (read 2-3 grade levels below). 

The ineffectiveness of such English-only practices manifests itself in the upper 

grades (4th-12th) based on English achievement tests. 

Proponents of English-only programs typically share ‘‘English language data’’ to 

support their position. Do not be fooled with English language gains data. There is 

no doubt that BLs will learn English and make significant English gains, since they 

are receiving English-only lessons. What English-only proponents cannot produce is 

positive long-term English academic achievement data (standardized English reading & writing tests assessing grade-level literacy) comparable to native English 

speakers because it does not exist. 

To my knowledge, there is not one long-term effectiveness study (middle school 

& high school performance) that demonstrates grade-level academic achievement 

(literacy) in English for BLs served through English-only programs. On the other 

hand, there are countless long-term effectiveness studies (middle school & high 

school performance) that demonstrate grade-level academic achievement (literacy) in 

English for BLs served through dual language programs. 

This is the very essence of understanding the literacy issue for BLs, both short 

and long-term. Policy-makers must recognize that a quality education for BLs is 

grade-level literacy or schooling (reading, math, science and cognitive development 

in native language) and simultaneously developing the English language throughout 

their elementary years. When both of these happen for at least 5-7 years, BLs are 

academically and linguistically successful both short and long-term (MS & HS) 

based on English academic assessments because simply put, literacy transfers! 

Reading, writing, math, and thinking skills transfer from one language to another. 

Therefore, native language instruction and English language instruction at least 

throughout elementary (dual language) yields higher academic achievement. This is 

why Dual Language Enrichment (DLE) programs are so successful for BLs. DLE 

programs adhere to fundamental learning principles. If native English speaking 

children learned only in Spanish when they entered school, they would also fail. 

To respond to your second question, the federal government can: 

• take a position that encourages the use of native language instruction for gradelevel literacy achievement and English development. 

• revise current ESEA policy that emphasizes ‘‘English-only’’ so that bilingualism 

or English Plus is encouraged through Dual Language Enrichment (DLE) programs. 

• revise current ESEA policy and re-instate the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), 

the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs (OBEMLA), and 

the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) with an emphasis on 

dual language enrichment. For the last 8 years, (NCLB, 2001), quality educational 

programs for BLs have dropped to an all-time low across the nation. Federal policy 

has focused on English only and academic gaps have widened. 
73 

• target funds for DLE program development and implementation and where bilingual education (dual language) is not available, support ‘‘content-based ESL’’ 

models (self-contained classroom with ESL certified teacher) and discourage 

English-only or ESL Pullout models (least effective approaches) 

• target funds for the development of literacy assessments in languages other 

than English. Successful literacy achievement of BLs requires appropriate literacy 

assessments. This would also encourage bilingualism and biliteracy opportunities for 

ALL students, a vision for America by President Obama. 

• target funds for higher education and other teacher preparation programs designed recruit and train highly qualified bilingual and ESL teachers 

• target funds for higher education ‘‘Public School Administrator Preparation Programs’’ (principals, superintendents) designed to prepare highly qualified Bilingual/ 

ESL administrative leaders (critical need in public schools) 

• target funds for ‘‘rehiring’’ of highly qualified Bilingual/ESL certified teachers 

that have recently left the teaching profession due to frustration with poorly implemented or supported bilingual/ESL programs 

• establish Graduate Bilingual Education Fellowships in higher education to increase highly qualified Bilingual Education leaders at the Masters and Doctoral 

level 

3. Can you give some insights into effective policies to address older students, say 

those in middle school and high school, who do not speak English? 

Fundamentally, the same principles apply as discussed earlier. A student will 

learn more grade-level content the more they understand the lesson. Therefore, 

practices for learning at the secondary level are no different than elementary. 

Learning academic content and developing or learning a second language (English) 

are two separate but interrelated goals and must be mutually addressed. One is not 

exclusive of the other. 

First, policy for educating BLs at the secondary level (6th—12th) must recognize 

that there are different types of BLs: 

1. Recent Arrivals (first time in a U. S. school coming with schooling) 

2. Recent Arrivals (first time in a U. S. school coming with limited or no schooling) 

3. Long-term BLs (students that have been in U. S. school(s) for 3 or more years 

and are still considered LEP because they are not academically on grade level in 

English. Served through a poor ESL or bilingual elementary program) 

4. Native-born Long-term BLs (students that have been in U. S. school(s) since 

kindergarten and are still considered LEP because they are not academically on 

grade level in English. Served through a poor ESL or bilingual elementary program) 

Obviously, policy to address the education of these students would differ. However, most school districts do not. It is common for schools to ‘‘lump’’ these students 

together simply based on their LEP status. Ultimately, the goal is to eliminate 

‘‘long-term LEPs’’ commonly produced by poor ESL or bilingual programs at the elementary level. For groups 3 and 4, we fix the middle and high school poor LEP 

achievement at the elementary level. Very briefly, here are some recommended policies for each group: 

1. Recent Arrivals (first time in a U. S. school coming with schooling) 

a. Provide some academic content learning in native language if possible so that 

they continue learning grade-level content while learning English 

b. Provide ESL classroom for language development with no translation 

c. Delay English intense content coursework (e.g. SS, science) for at least one year 

through student scheduling 

2. Recent Arrivals (first time in a U. S. school coming with limited or no schooling) 

a. Provide 1⁄2 day of native language literacy for one year 

b. Provide some academic content learning in native language if possible so that 

they learn more grade-level content while learning English 

c. Provide ESL classroom for language development with no translation 

d. Delay English intense content coursework (e.g. SS, science) for at least two 

years through student scheduling 

3. Long-term BLs (students that have been in U. S. school(s) for 3 or more years 

and are still considered LEP because they are not academically on grade level in 

English. Served through a poor ESL or bilingual elementary program) 

a. Provide in-class academic content learning support with additional school staff 

(use native language if needed or appropriate) 

b. Provide English language development through additional reading course 
74 

4. Native-born Long-term BLs (students that have been in U. S. school(s) since 

kindergarten and are still considered LEP because they are not academically on 

grade level in English. Served through a poor ESL or bilingual elementary program) 

a. Provide in-class academic content learning support with additional school staff 

b. Provide English language development through additional reading course 

Thank you for your attention. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, December 1, 2009. 

Mr. LEO GO ́ MEZ, PH.D., Professor of Bilingual-Bicultural Education, 

The University of Texas Pan American, College of Education, 1201 W University 

Drive, Edinburg, TX. 

DEAR DR. GO ́ MEZ: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on Education and 

Labor’s hearing on, ‘‘Improving the Literacy Skills of Children and Young Adults,’’ 

on November 19, 2009. 

Representative Rube ́n Hinojosa (D-TX) has asked that you respond in writing to 

the following questions: 

What do you recommend Congress and the federal government do to increase the 

number of highly qualified bilingual teachers and educators in our nation’s classrooms? Can you send us some specific recommendations as to what the federal government can do in ESEA reauthorization to support the training of bilingual teachers? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have any questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

Response to Mr. Hinojosa’s Questions From Mr. Go ́mez 

What do you recommend Congress and the federal government do to increase the 

number of highly qualified bilingual teachers and educators in our nation’s classrooms? Can you send us some specific recommendations as to what the federal government can do in ESEA reauthorization to support the training of bilingual teachers? 

In the interest of bilingual learners receiving an equal educational opportunity, 

it is imperative that they are all served by highly qualified bilingual education and 

ESL teachers and that ALL teachers are prepared with a significant understanding 

of second language acquisition and sheltered instruction strategies and knowledge 

of bilingual education. It is also critical that leadership at the state, federal, university and public school level be advocates for BLs and knowledgeable of best practices 

for successful literacy development for these students. To this end, the federal government can: 

• revise current ESEA policy that emphasizes ‘‘English-only’’ so that bilingualism 

and bilingual education is encouraged thus increasing the number of highly qualified bilingual preparation programs and teachers 

• target funds for teacher preparation programs to prepare highly qualified teachers for ‘‘enrichment models’’ of bilingual education programs (dual language) and 

where bilingual education is not available, support ‘‘content-based ESL’’ models (deemphasize ESL Pullout programs that are not serving BLs well) 

• target funds for teacher preparation programs to ‘‘initially’’ prepare K-12 content-area teachers (mainstream-non-bilingual teachers) with second language acquisition pedagogy (ESL, sheltered instruction: how to best teach content in a second 

language) 

• target funds for professional development of ‘‘in-service’’ K-12 content-area 

teachers (mainstream-non-bilingual teachers) with second language acquisition pedagogy (ESL, sheltered instruction: how to best teach content in a second language) 

• target funds for higher education and other teacher preparation programs designed recruit and train highly qualified bilingual and ESL teachers 

• target funds for higher education ‘‘Public School Administrator Preparation Programs’’ (principals, superintendents) designed to prepare highly qualified Bilingual/ 

ESL administrative leaders (critical need in public schools) 
75 

• target funds for ‘‘rehiring’’ of highly qualified Bilingual/ESL certified teachers 

that have recently left the teaching profession due to frustration with poorly implemented or supported bilingual/ESL programs • establish Graduate Bilingual Education Fellowships in higher education to increase highly qualified Bilingual Education leaders at the Masters and Doctoral 

level • target funds to be used by public schools as ‘‘incentives’’ or ‘‘stipends’’ to support 

highly qualified bilingual and ESL teachers and reduce the attrition rate 

Thank you for your attention. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, December 1, 2009. 

Mr. ANDRE ́S HENRIQUEZ, Program Officer, 

National Program, Carnegie Corporation of New York, 437 Madison Avenue, New 

York, NY. 

DEAR MR. HENRIQUEZ: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on Education 

and Labor’s hearing on, ‘‘Improving the Literacy Skills of Children and Young 

Adults,’’ on November 19, 2009. 

Representative Robert ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA) has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

You indicated at the hearing that increasing Title I support for middle and high 

schools or creating a new funding stream. At the moment only 5 percent of federal 

Title I funds go to middle and high schools. An infusion of resources at the secondary level focused on higher levels of literacy is critical. You also indicated that 

investments in elementary grades do not ensure students will do well later on in 

high school. 

1. Should we be spending more on literacy programs in middle and high schools 

to increase educational outcomes such as graduation rates, college completion and 

literacy? 

During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs was discussed 

by all of the witnesses. My questions are as follows: 

1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with? 

2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of programs that increase 

literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc? 

3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have any questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

Response to Mr. Scott’s Questions From Mr. Henrı ́quez 

Thanks for your follow-up questions. Answers to each of you questions are below: 

Q. Should we be spending more on literacy programs in middle and high school 

to increase educational outcomes such as graduation rates, college completion and 

literacy? 

A. Yes, there is a need to invest in literacy across the educational continuum. 

While investments in early literacy are necessary, the research shows that we also 

need to continue literacy instruction in the middle and high school years so that all 

students have higher-level literacy skills, such as writing using critical thinking and 

the ability to analyze diverse texts. Mastery of this type of literacy skill is associated 

with increased graduation rates and postsecondary success (Appendices A & B of 

my oral testimony: http://carnegie.org/sub/news/2009—testimony.html). 

However, currently less than a third of eighth grade students are considered proficient in reading according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. For 

too many low-performing students, difficulty reading high-school level content leads 

to the decision to drop out. These dropouts cost the nation $335 billion annually in 

lost lifetime income. Even many high school graduates lack the literacy skills they 

were supposed to obtain during middle and high school: each year the nation loses 

over $1.4 billion providing remedial literacy education to 42 percent of community 

college freshmen and 20 percent of freshmen in four-year institutions. In other 
76 

words, our adolescents are not being adequately prepared for the demands of higher 

education, employment and citizenship for the 21st Century. It is a well-publicized 

fact that young people who fail or under-perform in school are increasingly likely 

to suffer from unemployment or drastically lower income levels throughout their 

lives (Please also see Time to Act: An Agenda for Advancing Adolescent Literacy for 

Career and College Readiness: http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/). 

Q. During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs was discussed by all of the witnesses. Compared to what? What was the cost effectiveness 

of early literacy compared with? Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness 

of programs that increase literacy, reduce D/O, and crime etc? What are the cost savings? 

A. While I am not an early literacy expert, Dorothy Strickland, co-testifier, has 

pointed me toward the seminal work of Nobel Laureate James Heckman’s The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children as well as Steve Barnett at 

Rutgers University who recently published Lives in the Balance. Both authors are 

economists and argue strongly about the cost-benefit analysis of preschool education 

based on a 25 year studies. Both show the long-term cognitive effects of early intervention in early childhood education. Literacy, and language development specifically in the early years, are part crucial to early childhood development and longterm success. 

In addition, I would like to cite the work of Henry Levin at Teachers College who 

has done two studies. The first is a study of Adolescent Literacy Programs: Cost of 

Implementation (http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta—Levin.pdf). That 

looks at the cost of implementing three separate programs in middle and high 

schools and the cost associated with implementing each of the programs. The second 

is analysis that Hank did on NELS 88 data that showed the power of graduating 

for students. His analysis shows that if you increased students reading scores by 

one standard deviation they are much less likely to drop out (as powerful predictor 

if mathematics scores were improved for these young people as well). With Hank’s 

permission, I’ve attached this study for your perusal. 

Bottom line, interventions at any developmental stage in a child’s life, is necessary to keep young people on track which could make it less likely for them to 

drop out and increase the likelihood that they will be better prepared for college. 

It should be noted that none of these studies are ‘‘cost effect’’ studies per se since 

little research has been done looking at the cost of a program and long-term effect 

of particular programs on individual student learning. These are cost analysis studies, as opposed to cost effect studies. An important distinction. A future research 

agenda that calls for such analysis could, however, be enormously interesting for our 

country. 

APPENDIX B

Resources for Teachers and Principals: 

Biancarosa, Gina and Snow, Catherine. (2004). Reading Next—A Vision for Action 

and Research in Middle and High School Literacy: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ReadingNext.pdf 

Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda 

for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York, NY: 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta—Main.pdf 

Graham, Graham and Perin Dolores. (2007). Writing Next: Effective Strategies to 

Improve Writing of Adolescents in Middle and High Schools. Washington, DC: 

Alliance for Excellent Education. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/writingnext.pdf 

Grosso de Leo ́n Anne. (2005) America’s Literacy Challenge: Teaching Adolescents to 

Read to Learn Carnegie Results. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

http://www.carnegie.org/results/10/index.html 

Heller Rafael and Greenleaf, Cynthia. (2007). Literacy Instruction in the Content 

Areas: Getting to the Core of Middle and High School Improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Content—Areas—report.pdf 

Lee, Carol and Spratley, Anika (2010). Reading in the Disciplines: The Challenges 

of Adolescent. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta—Lee.pdf 
77 

Morsey, Leila, Kieffer, Michael and Snow, Catherine. (2010). Measure for Measure: 

A Critical Consumer’s Guide to Reading Comprehension Assessments for Adolescents. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta—Morsy.pdf 

Moje, Elizabeth and Tysvaer, Nicole. (2010). Adolescent Literacy Development in 

Out of School Time: A Practitioner’s Guide. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta—Moje.pdf 

National Association for Secondary School Principals. (2005). Creating a Culture of 

Literacy: A Guide for Middle and High School Principals. Reston VA: Author. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Culture—of—Literacy.pdf 

English Language Learners: 

Fix, Michael and Batalova, Jeanne. (2007). Measures of Change: The Demography 

and Literacy of Adolescent English Learners. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Measures—of—Change.pdf 

Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical 

Guidelines for the Educations of English Language Learners: Research-based 

Recommendations for Instruction and Academic Intervention. Book 1. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ELL1-Interventions.pdf 

Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Guidelines for 

the Educations of English Language Learners: Research-based Recommendations for Serving Adolescent Newcomers. Book 2. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ELL2-Newcomers.pdf 

Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical 

Guidelines for the Educations of English Language Learners: Research-based 

Recommendations for the Use of Accommodations in Large-Scale Assessments. 

Book 3. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ELL3-Assessments.pdf 

Henrı ́quez Andre ́s. (2006) Principals Can Help Improve Literacy for English Learners. National Association of Secondary School Principals, NewsLeader. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NewsLeader—AHenriquez.pdf 

Short, Deborah J. and Shannon Fitzsimmons. (2007). Double the Work: Challenges 

and Solutions to Acquiring Language and Academic Literacy for Adolescent 

English Language Learners. Washington DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/DoubletheWork.pdf 

Literacy Coaching: 

Hall Barbara. (2004). ‘‘Literacy Coaches: An Evolving Role.’’ Carnegie Reporter: New 

York. Carnegie Corporation of New York, Fall 2004. 

http://www.carnegie.org/reporter/09/literacy/index.html 

International Reading Association, National Council of Teachers of English, National Council of the Social Studies, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Standards for Middle and High School Literacy Coaches. Newark: International Reading Association.. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/IRA—NCTE—NCSS—NCTM—literacy— 

coaching—standards.pdf 

Marsh, J. A., et al., (2008). Supporting Literacy Across the Sunshine State: A Study 

of Florida Middle School Reading. 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND—MG762.pdf 

Sturtevant, E. (2003). The Literacy Coach: A Key to Improving Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. 

http://www.all4ed.org/files/LiteracyCoach.pdf 

Resources for State Policymakers: 

Bates, L., Breslow, N., and Hupert, N. (2009). Five states’ efforts to improve adolescent literacy (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2009—No. 067). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center 

for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands. 

Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/IES.Stateadlit—report—2009067.pdf 

Berman, Ilene and Biancarosa, Gina. (2005). Reading to Achieve: A Governor’s 

Guide to Adolescent Literacy. National Governors Association Center for Best 

Practices. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. 

http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0510GOVGUIDELITERACY.PDF 

Berman, Ilene. (2009). Issue Brief: Supporting Adolescent Literacy. Washington, DC: 

National Governors Association. 

http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0902ADOLESCENTLITERACY.PDF#TopOfPage 
78 

Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda 

for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York, NY: 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta—Main.pdf 

Levin, Henry, Catlin, Doran and Elson, Alex. (2010). Adolescent Literacy Programs: 

Costs of Implementation. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/tta/pdf/tta—Levin.pdf 

National Association of State Boards of Education. (2006). Reading at Risk: The 

State Response to the Crisis in Adolescent Literacy. Author. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Reading—at—Risk—report.pdf 

National Association of State Board of Education. (2009). Issues in Brief: State Actions to Improve Adolescent Literacy. Author. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NASBE.Adol—Lit.pdf 

National School Board Association. (2006). The Next Chapter: A School Board Guide 

to Improving Adolescent Literacy. Arlington, VA: National School Board Association. 

http://www.carnegie.org/pdf/literacy/NSBATheNextChapter.pdf 

Salinger, Terry and Bacevich, Amy. (2006). Lessons and Recommendations from the 

Alabama Reading Initiative: Sustaining Focus on Secondary Reading. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. 

http://www.air.org/publications/documents/ARI%20Popular%20Report—final.pdf 

Sloan McCombs, Jennifer, et al. (2005). Achieving State and National Literacy 

Goals, A Long Uphill Road: A Report to the Carnegie Corporation. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical—reports/2005/RAND—TR180-1.pdf 

The Southern Regional Education Board. (2009). A Critical Mission: Making Adolescent Reading an Immediate Priority in SREB States. Atlanta, GA: SREB. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/SREB—Critical—Mission—Reading—.pdf 

Resources for Researchers: 

ACT inc. (2006). Reading Between the Lines: What the ACT Reveals About College 

Readiness in Reading. Cedar Rapids, IA. Author. 

http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/reading—report.pdf 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2003). Adolescent Literacy and the Achievement Gap: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? Carnegie Corporation of New York Adolescent Literacy Funders Meeting Report. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/ALFF1.pdf 

Kamil, M.L. Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21st Century. Washington, 

DC: Alliance for Excellent Education, 2003. 

http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/AdolescentsAndLiteracy.pdf 

Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, 

S., Wexler, J. Francis, D. J, Rivera, M. O., Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic literacy 

instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/Academic—Literarcy—Inst—Adolescents.pdf 

Parents and Communities: 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2005). Reengaging Families with Their Adolescent Children. Great Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century. 

New York, NY: Author 

http://www.carnegie.org/sub/pubs/reports/great—transitions/gr—chpt3.html 

Cobb, Velma, Meltzer, Julie, and William, Martha. (2008). Mobilizing Communities 

to Support the Literacy Development of Urban Youth: A Conceptual Framework 

and Strategic Planning Model. New York, NY: National Urban League and Center for Resource Management. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NUL—Literacy—WhitePaper.pdf 

Cobb, Velma, Meltzer, Julie, and William, Martha. (2008). Parent/Guardian 

Engagment in Adolescent Literacy. New York, NY: National Urban League and 

Center for Resource Management. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NUL—Component2—Parent.pdf 

Cobb, Velma, Meltzer, Julie, and William, Martha. (2008). Youth/Adolescent Growth 

in Adolescent Literacy. New York, NY: National Urban League and Center for 

Resource Management. 

http://www.carnegie.org/literacy/pdf/NUL—Component3—Student.pdf 

Grosso de Leon, Anne. (2002). Moving Beyond Storybooks: Teaching Our Children 

to Read to Learn. Carnegie Reporter. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New 

York. 

http://www.carnegie.org/reporter/05/learning/index.html 
79 

Guensberg, Carol. (2006). Why Johnny (Still) Can’t Read: Creative Educators Push 

to Boast Adolescent Literacy. Edutopia. San Francisco, CA: The George Lucas 

Educational Foundation 

http://www.edutopia.org/files/existing/pdfs/feb—06/readingskills.pdf 

McGrath, Anne. (2005). A New Read on Teen Literacy. US News and World Report. 

February 28, 2005. 

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050228/28literacy.htm 

[Additional information referred to by Mr. Henrı ́quez may be 

accessed at the following Internet address:] 

https://sites.google.com/site/andreshenriqueznet/testimony 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

Washington, DC, December 1, 2009. 

Ms. SANDRA D. MEYERS, ED.D., Education Associate of Elementary Reading, 

Delaware Department of Education, 401 Federal Street, Dover, DE. 

DEAR DR. MEYERS: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on Education and 

Labor’s hearing on, ‘‘Improving the Literacy Skills of Children and Young Adults,’’ 

on November 19th, 2009. 

Representative Robert ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA) has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

During the hearing the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs was discussed 

by all of the witnesses. My questions are as follows: 

1. Compared to what? In other words, what was the cost effectiveness of early literacy programs compared with? 

2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of programs that increase 

literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc? 

3. What are the cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy programs? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee by close of business on 12/8/09. If you have any questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

Response to Mr. Scott’s Questions From Ms. Meyers 

I am responding below to the questions that Representative Robert ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott 

requested in your December 1, 2009 letter to me: 

1. To determine the cost of early literacy programs, it is necessary to look at the 

results of these programs and compare these results with research on students who 

enter school with low literacy skills. In fact, a number of research studies and reviews reflect significant correlations between children’s language competencies on 

entry to kindergarten and success in learning to read during the primary grades 

(Pressley, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). Scarborough (2001), in a meta analysis of sixty-one kindergarten predictive studies for reading achievement, determined that the cognitive-linguistic strands are very stable by the age of four and, 

consequently, children who arrive at school with weaker verbal abilities and literacy 

knowledge are much more likely than their classmates to experience difficulties in 

learning to read during the primary grades. In fact, Dickinson and Sprague (2001) 

found that the receptive vocabulary scores of children at the end of kindergarten 

are strongly related to end of seventh grade vocabulary and reading comprehension 

scores. Children with larger vocabularies often have more developed phonological 

sensitivity, and this relationship has been found to begin early in the preschool period (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). Vocabulary development thus becomes a crucial 

element in the designing of early interventions (NICHD, 2000). 

Fernandez-Fein and Baker (1997) discovered that children who come from homes 

where they have been exposed to singing, language play, and reading activities have 

a higher degree of sensitivity to discrete sounds than those who have not had such 

experiences. Children must identify these discrete sounds in order to decode words. 
80 

Preschools, thus, need to emphasize these aspects of literacy in developing children’s 

oral language abilities. 

Language games and nursery rhymes help the child to identify key aspects of the 

sound patterns of English more explicitly. Fernandez-Fein and Baker further found 

that children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and/or students whose mothers 

have less education tend to have lower levels of rhyme sensitivity skills than middle 

class students. They further concluded that these low-income students less frequently participated in word games or book interactions. 

Moats (as cited in Lehr, Osborn, & Hiebert, 2004) also found this ‘‘word poverty’’ 

distinguished advantaged from disadvantaged children in her study of kindergarten 

students in a large city district. Many such children were unable to name pictures 

that showed the meanings of words such as sewing or parachute. This lack of vocabulary knowledge is important if that knowledge is assumed in the instructional programs that teachers are using to develop literacy skills. 

Hart and Risley (1995) vividly portrayed the differences in language experienced 

by preschoolers from homes of different economic levels. They found that on average, professional parents spoke more than 2,000 words per hour to their children, 

working-class parents spoke about 1,333 words, and welfare mothers spoke about 

600. At the age of four, children of professionals had vocabularies that were nearly 

50% larger than those of working-class children and twice as large as those of welfare children. Children in higher SES homes engaged in many interactive discussions with their parents. There was a significant difference between the vocabulary 

richness and cumulative vocabulary growth of these children and their peers from 

the lower SES families of welfare parents. The parents of children from the higher 

SES homes helped build the children’s language use and knowledge through extensive repetitive and interactive talk. Thus, this parent-child dialogue along with the 

quantity of language resulting in an increase in the quality of their children’s language as demonstrated by an increased use of nouns, verbs, modifiers, and complex 

clauses. In contrast, Hart and Risley found that children in lower-SES families had 

many fewer such experiences. Consequently, the amount of language that children 

experienced at home affected the quantity of their oral language growth. 

Socioeconomic backgrounds and a mother’s educational level thus are very often 

predictors of a child’s future success in reading. Children from families of lower socioeconomic or minority status often enter school strikingly delayed in a much 

broader range of prereading skills—including oral vocabulary knowledge (Whitehurst and Lonigan, 2001). Because these children are delayed not only in phonological knowledge, but also general oral language skills, they are deficient in both 

of the critical kinds of knowledge and skill required for good reading comprehension, 

identifying words and constructing meaning after identifying the words in print 

(Torgesen, 2000). In essence the majority of reading problems could be prevented 

by, among other things, increasing children’s oral language skills (Snow et al., 

1998). 

The National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) declared vocabulary to be critically 

important in oral reading instruction. Oral vocabulary holds an important place in 

the road to learning to read; it enables the reader to make a transition from oral 

to written forms. As a learner begins to read, reading vocabulary is mapped on the 

oral vocabulary the learner brings to the task. The benefit in understanding text 

by applying letter-sound correspondences to printed material only results if the decoded oral representation is a known word in the learner’s oral vocabulary. If the 

resultant oral vocabulary word is not in the learner’s vocabulary, it will not be better understood than it was in print (NICHD, 2000). 

It is difficult to comprehend the meaning of a passage when many of the words 

are neither accurately identified nor understood. In addition, limited knowledge of 

a subject or lack of understanding of many of the words in a text will limit an individual’s comprehension no matter how accurately the words are identified. Consequently, children with general oral language weaknesses will require additional 

instruction in a broader range of knowledge and skills if they are to adequately comprehend text at their instructional level (Torgesen, 2000; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 

2001). Children who have larger vocabularies and greater understanding of spoken 

language have higher reading scores. 

Quality preschools for students from low SES homes and homes where English 

is not the primary language must design their programs to incorporate the latest 

research so that their students do not enter school with a literacy and oral language 

deficit that has a strong possibility of affecting their school performance throughout 

the grades. Delaware’s Early Reading First data has demonstrated that a student 

from a low SES family can enter school performing as well or better than the general population of children their age in language and early reading. In addition this 

performance was maintained in first grade. Unlike these students who had the op-
81 

portunity to benefit from preschool, Reading First students in Delaware who do not 

have preschool experiences enter kindergarten with approximately 30% performing 

at the benchmark expectation. The odds of these students closing the gap and being 

successful in learning to read are limited. 

2. Are there specific studies that quantify effectiveness of programs that increase 

literacy, reduce D/O, and crime, etc? 

Children who do not succeed in first grade have almost a 90% probability of remaining a poor reader at the end of grade 4 (Juel, 1988). Juel’s longitudinal study 

of children from a low socioeconomic population revealed how imperative it is to 

begin the intervention process early in a child’s school career. These same students 

who do not read moderately well by the end of third grade will be unlikely to graduate from high school (Snow et al., 1998). Students who have difficulty in learning 

how to read very often are retained or placed in special education programs, both 

of which are also highly correlated with a lower possibility of graduation. Lack of 

graduation from high school also carries a greater risk of unemployment and imprisonment. Finding an effective method of accelerating the progress of struggling students thus becomes a top educational priority. 

The window of opportunity to work successfully with these high-risk children obviously does not remain open very long. We know that most students experiencing 

little success and continual frustration tend to shut down early in the learning process. Reading is a difficult process for them and so they avoid it. They thus lose the 

opportunity to practice and to develop their proficiency in decoding, the automatic 

recognition of sight words, and development of vocabulary and concepts about the 

world. They have no intrinsic motivation to read. These struggling readers fall farther and farther behind their peers; the poor do indeed become poorer (Stanovich, 

1986). Unless early, strategic interventions in reading are provided for them, poor 

readers lose more and more ground as they progress through the grades. The gap 

grows wider if we wait to help the struggling student (Hiebert & Taylor, 1994) 

The Carnegie Corporation’s report Adolescent Literacy Development in Out-ofSchool Time: A Practioner’s Guidebook points out that information on graduation 

rates is not consistent due to the lack of accurate reporting by most school districts 

and report a graduation rate as low as 50% or less for schools serving the urban 

poor (Swanson, 2001). This report also acknowledges the correlation between low 

reading and writing abilities and drop-out rates (Raudenbush & KIasim, 1998) 

Delaware also conducted its own longitudinal study on its state-funded Early 

Childhood Assistance program (ECAP) which adds to the capacity of federally-funded Head Start to guarantee a quality preschool program for every four year old in 

poverty and its preschool special education (PSE) program that supports children 

with disabilities from birth to five. This study begun in 1997 as the children entered 

kindergarten, compared children in poverty who had participated in the ECAP /PSE 

program with a like sample of poor children who had not participated and children 

with disabilities who were identified during early childhood and received early intervention services with children identified as special education students after entering 

the public school system. 

In this longitudinal study, three points of measurement (3rd, 5th, and 8th grades) 

were analyzed for students’ academic outcomes. As measured over time at all three 

grade levels, the students who had received early intervention services (ECAP/PSE 

interventions) have shown markedly better outcomes than students who did not receive those interventions. Students in the intervention groups significantly outperformed students who did not receive intervention. From the most recent analysis 

at 8th grade, the following results are examples of the success rates: 

• 73% of the students in poverty who participated in ECAP/PSE performed at or 

above the standard in reading compared to 51% who had not participated in ECAP/ 

PSE. 

• 43% of the students 2ho received preschool special education performed at or 

above the standard in reading compared to 31% who had not received such services. 

3. I am unaware of specific cost savings (specific numbers) of early literacy programs. It would seem that if an early childhood program for students from low SES 

families and students from homes where English is not the primary language, such 

as populated Delaware’s Early Reading First program, can reduce the drop-out rate 

and increase graduation rates, the result is a huge benefit for our growth and stability as a democratic society. However, these programs must be based on the latest 

scientifically based research to successfully address the gaps of children coming 

from low SES homes. All children should have the opportunity to begin their education on a level playing field. 

I hope that this information is helpful to you. I am also enclosing the data from 

the Delaware’s Early Reading Research first cohort. 
82 

November 10, 2009. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FY 2007 Delaware Early Reading First Supplemental Award 

The Achievement of Project Alumni 

Project Directors: Martha J. Buell, Myae Han, and Carol Vukelich 

One hundred twenty nine children ‘graduated’ from the Delaware Early Reading 

First (DERF) project in spring 2007 and entered kindergarten in August 2007. Of 

these 129, 103 children entered kindergarten in the project’s partnering district and 

were available for testing in the spring of their kindergarten year. Of the 103 children, 97 had experienced at least one year of the Delaware Early Reading First 

project prior to their entry into kindergarten. These 97 children were tested in May 

of their kindergarten year (May 2008) to assess their language and early reading 

proficiency. The project directors employed two retired elementary teachers, trained 

in the administration of the selected tests, to administer the tests to the children. 

Both had extensive prior experience administering tests to young children. In addition to the standardized tests, the project directors asked the children’s teachers to 

report their judgment of these children’s skill development and readiness for first 

grade. The teachers provided the requested information on 96 of the 97 children. 

Of the 97 children tested in the spring of their kindergarten year (May 2008) 69 

remained in the project’s partnering district and were available for testing in the 

spring of their first grade year. These 69 children were tested in May 2009 to assess 

their language and reading proficiency by the same retired elementary teachers who 

had tested them at the end of their kindergarten year. Again, in addition to the 

standardized tests, the children’s teachers were asked to report their judgment of 

the children’s school-specific and social development, and readiness for first grade. 

The teachers provided this information on 28 of the 69 children. 

The Children 

Table 1 provides demographic information on the children at the end-of-kindergarten and at the end-of-first-grade, all of whom were from low-income families and 

all had experienced at least one year of Head Start prior to their kindergarten experience. These data were gathered by parent self-report at the time of the children’s 

entry into the Head Start/DERF project. 

TABLE 1.—DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ON THE 97 DERF 2006–2007 ALUMNI 

Number End-ofKindergarten Percentage Endof-Kindergarten Number End-ofFirst-Grade Percentage Endof-First-Grade 

Gender: 

Male ....................................................................... 49 50.52% 33 47.82% 

Female ................................................................... 48 48.48% 36 52.17% 

Home Language: 

English .................................................................. 24 24.74% 35 50.72% 

Spanish ................................................................. 68 70.10% 34 49.28% 

Other ...................................................................... 5 5.15% 0 0% 

Race: 

White ..................................................................... 6 6.19% 4 5.80% 

African American ................................................... 45 46.39% 30 43.48% 

Latino .................................................................... 39 40.21% 30 43.48% 

More than one race ............................................... 3 3.09% 1 1.45% 

Not reported .......................................................... 4 4.12% 4 5.80% 

The Data Collection Tools 

The following language and early reading measures were used. 

GPRA measures: 

• Woodcock-Johnson III, Letter-Word Identification subtest is a standardized assessment. On this subtest, the tester asks the child to identify letters and read 

words. This subtest is a measure of children’s word recognition skills. 

• Woodcock-Johnson III Story Recall subtest is a standardized assessment. On 

this subtest, the tester asks the child to listen to short stories and repeat them 

back. This subtest is a measure of children’s expressive oral language skills. 

• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—IV is a standardized assessment. The tester 

presents the child with four pictures and asks the child to point to the picture depicting the target word. This is a measure of children’s receptive vocabulary skills. 
83 

Project selected additional measures: 

• Woodcock-Johnson III Understanding Directions subtest is a standardized assessment. This subtest asks the child to listen to and then follow a set of directions. 

This is a measure of children’s receptive vocabulary and short-term memory. 

• Woodcock-Johnson III Word Attack subtest is a standardized assessment. This 

subtest asks the child to read non-words. This is a measure of children’s decoding 

skills. 

• Woodcock-Johnson III Reading Fluency subtest is a standardized assessment. 

This subtest measures the speed of reading sentences and answering ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ 

to each. This is a measure of children’s comprehension skills. 

The project used these measures in addition to the teacher questionnaire which 

asked the teachers to judge the children’s preparedness for kindergarten and for 

first grade. 

The Findings 

The project asked and answered the following questions: 

1. What percentage of the children achieved a standard score above the ‘‘at risk’’ 

range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III, Letter-Word Identification (Test 

1) subtest, a test of children’s word identification skills? 

At the end-of-kindergarten, 87.63% (n=85) of the children achieved standard 

scores of 90 or above on this measure. Consequently, with the standard score of 90, 

12.37% (n=12) were identified as ‘at risk’. Using the typical 85–115 standard score 

spread as the definition of ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age-appropriate development,’’ 90.72% 

(n=88) scored in the 85–115 range, 6.19% (n=6) scored 116 or above (+1 standard 

deviation), and only 3.09% (n=3) of the children were identified as ‘‘at risk’’ (¥1 

standard deviation), with one of these 3 children earning a standard score of 84. 

At the end-of-first-grade, 86.96% (n=60) of the children achieved standard scores 

of 90 or above on this measure. Consequently, with the standard score of 90, 13.04% 

(n=9) were identified as ‘at risk’. Using the typical 85–115 standard score as the definition of ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age appropriate development,’’ 78.26% (n=54) scored in the 

85–115 range, 13.04% (n=9) scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and 8.69% 

(n=6) of the children scored below 85 (¥1 standard deviation). 

2. What percentage of the children ranked in the 50th percentile or above as 

measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Letter-Word Identification (Test 1) subtest? 

At the end-of-kindergarten, more than one-half of the children, 57.73% (n=56), 

achieved the criterion of performance at or above the 50th percentile on this subtest. 

At the end-of-first-grade, 71.01% (n=49) of the children achieved the criterion of 

performance at or above the 50th percentile on this subtest. 

3. What percentage of the children achieved a standard score above the ‘‘at risk’’ 

range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III, Story Recall (Test 3) subtest, a 

test of aspects of oral language, including language development and meaningful 

memory? 

At the end-of-kindergarten, 94.85% (n=92) of the 97 children achieved standard 

scores of 90 or above. 

Consequently, with the standard score of 90, 5.15% (n=5) of the children were 

identified as ‘at risk’. Using the typical 85–115 standard score spread as the definition of ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age-appropriate development,’’ 96.90% (n=87) scored in the 85– 

115 range, 8.25% (n=6) scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and 4.12% 

(n=4) of the children were identified as ‘‘at risk’’(¥1 standard deviation). 

At the end-of-first-grade, 98.55% (n=68) of the 69 children achieved standard 

scores of 90 or above. Consequently, with the standard score of 90, only 1 child 

(1.45%) was identified as ‘at risk.’ Using the typical 85–115 standard score spread 

as the definition of ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age-appropriate development,’’ 81.16% (n=56) 

scored in the 85–115 range, 18.84% (n=13) scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and no children were identified as ‘‘at risk’’ (¥1 standard deviation). 

4. What percentage of the children ranked in the 50th percentile or above as 

measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Story Recall (Test 3) subtest? 

At the end-of-kindergarten, considerably more than one-half of the children, 

72.16% (n=70), achieved the criterion of performance at or above the 50th percentile 

on this subtest. 

At the end-of-first-grade, 81.16% (n=56) of the children achieved the criterion of 

performance at or above the 50th percentile on this subtest. 

5. What percentage of the children demonstrated age-appropriate oral language 

skills as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV? 

At the end-of-kindergarten, 84.54% (n=82) of the 97 children achieved a standard 

score of 85 or above. Of the 97 children, 74 (76.28%) achieved a standard score in 

spread typically defined as ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age-appropriate development,’’ 8.25% (n=8) 
84 

scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and 15.46% (n=15) of the children were 

identified as ‘‘at risk’’ (¥1 standard deviation). 

Given that 70.10% of the children came from families who described their home 

language as Spanish, these data show that these children made considerable gains 

in their acquisition of 

English vocabulary 

At the end-of-first-grade, 86.95% (n=60) of the 69 children achieved a standard 

score of 85 or above. Of the 69 children, 54 (78.26%) achieved a standard score in 

a spread typically defined as ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age-appropriate development,’’ 8.69% 

(n=6) scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and 8.69% (n=9) of the children 

were identified as ‘‘at risk’’ (¥1 standard deviation). 

6. What percentage of the children made significant gains (defined by the Department of Education as a standard score increase of 4 or more points) on the PPVTIV between May 2007 and May 2008? 

At the end-of-kindergarten, the percentage of children who made significant gains 

(standard score increase of 4 or more points) on the PPVT-IV between May 2007 

and May 2008 was 60.82% (59 of the 97 children). 

At the end-of-first-grade, the percentage of children who made significant gains 

(standard score increase of 4 or more points) on the PPVT-IV between May 2008 

and May 2009 was 62.32% (43 of the 69 children). 

7. What percentage of the children achieved a standard score above the ‘‘at risk’’ 

range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III, Understanding Directions (Test 4) 

subtest, a test which required the children to listen to a sequence of audio-recorded 

instructions and then follow the directions by pointing to various objects in a picture? 

At the end-of-kindergarten, 68.04% (n=66) of the 97 children achieved standard 

scores of 90 or above. 

Therefore, using the standard score of 90, 31.96% (n=31) were identified as ‘at 

risk’. 

Using the typical 85–115 standard score spread as the definition of ‘‘average’’ or 

‘‘age-appropriate development,’’ 75.26% (n=73) scored in the 85–115 range, 3.09% 

(n=3) scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and 21.65% (n=21) of the children 

were identified as ‘‘at risk’’ (¥1 standard deviation). 

At the end-of-first-grade, 55.07% (n=38) of the 69 children achieved standard 

scores of 90 or above. Consequently, using the standard score of 90, 42.03% (n=29) 

were identified as ‘at risk’. Using the typical 85–115 standard score range as the 

definition of ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age-appropriate development,’’ 68.11% (n=47) scored in 

the 85–115 range, 1.45% (n=1) scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and 

27.54% (n=19) were identified as ‘‘at risk’’ (¥1 standard deviation), with three of 

these 19 earning a score of 84. This subtest was not administered to two children. 

8. What percentage of the children ranked in the 50th percentile or above as 

measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Understanding Directions (Test 4) subtest? 

At the end-of-kindergarten, less than half of the children, 40.21% (n=39), achieved 

the criterion of performance at or above the 50th percentile on this subtest. 

At the end-of-first-grade, 31.88% (n=22), achieved the criterion of performance at 

or above the 50th percentile on this subtest. 

9. What percentage of the children achieved a standard score above the ‘‘at risk’’ 

range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III, Word Attack (Test 13) subtest, a 

test that measures the children’s skill in apply phonic and structural analyses skills 

to the pronunciation of unfamiliar printed words? 

At the end-of-kindergarten, 86 of the 97 children (88.66%) achieved standard 

scores of 90 or above. Therefore, using the standard score of 90 as the cut score, 

11.34% (n=11) were identified as ‘at risk’. Using the typical 85–115 standard score 

spread as the definition of ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age-appropriate development,’’ 76.29% 

(n=74) scored in the 85–115 range, 19.59% (n=19) scored 116 or above (+1 standard 

deviation), and 4.12% (n=4) of the children were identified as ‘‘at risk’’ (¥1 standard 

deviation). 

At the end-of-first-grade, 92.75% (n=64) of the 69 children achieved standard 

scores of 90 or above. Consequently, using the standard score of 90 as the cut score, 

7.25% (n=5) were identified as ‘at risk’. Using the typical 85–115 standard score 

spread as the definition of ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age-appropriate development,’’ 88.40% 

(n=61) scored in the 85–115 range, 4.35% (n=3) scored 116 or above (+1 standard 

deviation), and 7.25% (n=5) of the children were identified as ‘‘at risk’’ (¥1 standard 

deviation), with one child earning a score of 84. 

10. What percentage of the children ranked in the 50th percentile or above as 

measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Word Attack (Test 13) subtest? 
85 

At the end-of-kindergarten, 71.13% (n=69) of the children obtained scores at or 

above the 50th percentile as measured by this subtest. 

At the end-of-first-grade, 65.22% (n=45) of the children obtained scores at or above 

the 50th percentile as measured by this subtest. 

11. What percentage of the Grade 1 children achieved a standard score above the 

‘‘at risk’’ range as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson III, Reading Fluency (Test 

2) subtest? 

At the end-of-first-grade, 76.81% (n=53) of the children achieved standard scores 

of 90 or above on this measure. Consequently, with the standard score of 90, 23.19% 

(n=16) were identified as ‘at risk’. Using the typical 85–115 standard score spread 

as the definition of ‘‘average’’ or ‘‘age- appropriate development,’’ 68.11% (n=47) 

scored in the 85–115 range, 13.04% (n=9) scored 116 or above (+1 standard deviation), and 18.84% (n=13) of the children were identified as ‘‘at risk’’ (¥1 standard 

deviation). 

12. What percentage of the Grade 1 children ranked in the 50th percentile or 

above as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson, Reading Fluency (Test 2) subtest? 

At the end-of-first-grade, more than one-half of the children, 56.52% (n=39), 

achieved the criterion of performance at or above the 50th percentile on this subtest. 

13. How did the teachers assess the children’s preparedness for kindergarten? 

The project asked the DERF graduates’ kindergarten teachers to rate the children’s preparedness for kindergarten in the domains of social development, schoolspecific instrumental development, reading and writing, logical thinking and the use 

of numbers, and perceptual-motor development. Teachers provided descriptions of 

their perceptions of 96 of the 97 children’s development. Teachers rated children’s 

readiness on questions in each domain using a 4-point rating scales, with 1 being 

not apparent and 4 being proficient. Table 2 provides the mean ratings for each of 

the domains noted above. Table 3 describes the teachers’ responses to the checklist’s 

items regarding readiness for and adjustment to kindergarten. 

How did the teachers assess the children’s preparedness for Grade 1? 

The project asked the DERF graduates’ Grade 1 teachers to rate the children’s 

preparedness for Grade 1 in the domains of social development, school-specific instrumental development, reading and writing, logical thinking and the use of numbers, and perceptual-motor development. Teachers provided descriptions of their 

perceptions of 28 of the 69 (40.58%) children’s development. Teachers rated children’s readiness on questions in each domain using a 4-point rating scales, with 1 

being not apparent and 4 being proficient. Table 2 provides the mean ratings for 

Grade 1 for each of the domains noted above. Table 4 describes the teachers’ responses to the checklist’s items regarding readiness for and adjustment to Grade 1. 

TABLE 2.—TEACHERS’ DESCRIPTION OF DERF GRADUATES—DEVELOPMENTAL DOMAIN ITEMS 

Domain Description 

Mean Kindergarten (Maximum Rating=4) Mean Grade 1 

(Maximum 

Rating=4) 

Social Development: uses appropriate strategies to initiate interactions with peers and 

uses alternate strategies when initial attempts fail; responds appropriately to other’s 

expressed emotions and intentions; overall emotional tone is positive when interacting 

with peers and adults; displays age-appropriate impulse control and regulation during 

challenging situations; peer relationships are generally positive and satisfying; effectively uses adults as sources of support, comfort, and assistance 3.24 2.96 

School-Specific Instrumental Development: focuses attention during large group teacher-directed activities; can work independently; demonstrates willingness to try new 

things; generally completes tasks in allotted time; understands and generally follows 

playground and classroom rules; enjoys being in school; can work effectively in a 

group; actively participates in class activities 3.32 3.16 

Reading and Writing: chooses books and stories during free-choice activities; recognizes 

most upper and lower case letters and knows most of their sounds; uses some initial 

letter-sound associations to predict meaning; uses context clues to predict meaning; 

recognizes some common words; draws and paints pictures; writes name; writes using 

upper and lower case letters with few or no reversals; writes numerals with few or no 

reversals; can describe what an author does; can describe what an illustrator does; 

can answer questions about a story’s plot such as main character and ending; can 

answer questions about what a storybook character might be thinking; can identify 

the beginning letter of a word; can identify rhyming words; can blend phonemes to 

make words; can delete phonemes to make new words; adds writing to art work or 

projects; writes words phonetically when does not know conventional spelling 3.43 3.55 
86 

TABLE 2.—TEACHERS’ DESCRIPTION OF DERF GRADUATES—DEVELOPMENTAL DOMAIN ITEMS— 

Continued 

Domain Description 

Mean Kindergarten (Maximum Rating=4) Mean Grade 1 

(Maximum 

Rating=4) 

Logical Thinking and Use of Numbers: actively uses all senses to examine and explore 

familiar and unfamiliar objects; shows interest in and understanding of the concept of 

comparing; uses elaborate language to describe objects and events; uses language to 

initiate and maintain interactions with adults and peers; uses language to gather information and solve problems; understand and uses such concepts as many, more, 

less, etc.; uses appropriate labels (one, two, etc.) when counting objects; uses counting reliably to quantify perceptual numbers; uses counting reliably to quantify elementary (5–12) numbers; uses counting to quantify larger numbers (20+) objects 3.35 3.08 

Perceptual-Motor Development: demonstrates a positive disposition toward movement 

activities, enjoys, and feels confident during physical activities; demonstrates age-appropriate static and dynamic balance; demonstrates age-appropriate locomotors patterns; demonstrates age-appropriate fine motor movement differentiations; demonstrates age-appropriate eye-hand coordination 3.71 3.55 

TABLE 3.—TEACHERS’ DESCRIPTIONS OF DERF GRADUATES—KINDERGARTEN READINESS 

Items 

Ratings 

Far below 

average 

Below 

average Average Above average 

Far above 

average 

Overall, how would you rate this child’s academic skills? 1 (1%) 14 (15%) 47 (49%) 30 (32%) 3 (3%) 

Some children have an easy time adjusting to kindergarten. 

In contrast, other children have difficulty. Based on your 

experience, how easy or difficult will this adjustment be 

for this child? 0 11 (12%) 51 (54%) 27 (28%) 6 (6%) 

Based on your experience, how intellectually ready is this 

child for first grade? 4 (4%) 10 (10%) 50 (53%) 25 (26%) 6 (6%) 

Based on your experience, how socially ready is this child for 

first grade? 0 12 (13%) 54 (57%) 24 (25%) 5 (5) 

TABLE 4.—TEACHERS’ DESCRIPTIONS OF DERF GRADUATES—FIRST GRADE READINESS 

Items 

Ratings 

Far below 

average 

Below 

average Average Above average 

Far above 

average 

Overall, how would you rate this child’s academic skills? 3 (11%) 7 (25%) 11 (39%) 6 (21%) 1 (4%) 

Some children have an easy time adjusting to first grade. In 

contrast, other children have difficulty. Based on your experience, how easy or difficult will this adjustment be for 

this child? 1 (4%) 4 (14%) 18 (64%) 4 (14%) 1 (4%) 

Based on your experience, how intellectually ready is this 

child for second grade? 2 (7%) 7 (25%) 12 (43%) 6 (21%) 1 (4%) 

Based on your experience, how socially ready is this child for 

second grade? 0 (0%) 6 (21%) 17 (61%) 4 (14%) 1 (4%) 

TABLE 5.—TEACHERS’ DESCRIPTIONS OF DERF GRADUATES—ACADEMIC RATING SCALE 

Academic Rating Scale Mean Grade 1 (Maximum 

Rating=5) 

Language and Literacy: uses complex sentence structures; understands and interprets a story or other 

texts read to him/her; easily and quickly names all upper- and lower-case letters of the alphabet; produces rhyming words; reads simple books independently; uses different strategies to read unfamiliar 

words; composes simple stories; demonstrates an understanding of some of the conventions of print; 

uses the computer for a variety of purposes. 3.54 
87 

TABLE 5.—TEACHERS’ DESCRIPTIONS OF DERF GRADUATES—ACADEMIC RATING SCALE— 

Continued 

Academic Rating Scale 

Mean Grade 1 

(Maximum 

Rating=5) 

General Knowledge: recognizes distinct differences in habits and living patterns between him/herself and 

other groups of people he/she knows; recognizes some ways people rely on each other for goods and 

services; uses his/her senses to explore and observe; forms explanations bases on observations and explorations; classifies and compares living and non-living things in different ways. 3.61 

Mathematical Thinking: sorts, classifies, and compares math materials by various rules and attributes; orders a group of objects; shows an understanding of the relationship between quantities; solves problems involving numbers using concrete objects; demonstrates an understanding of graphing activities; 

uses instruments accurately for measuring; uses a variety of strategies to solve math problems. 3.65 

TABLE 6.—DERF GRADUATES’ ATTITUDES TOWARD READING AND WRITING 

Elementary Reading and Writing Attitude Survey 

Mean Grade 1 

Full Scale 

(Maximum 

Rating=112) 

Reading Attitude: 60 

Writing Attitude: 84 

Conclusions 

As indicated in the demographic table, between kindergarten and first grade, a 

much higher percentage of children whose home language is Spanish left the 

partnering school district. Where at the end-of-kindergarten, children from Englishspeaking homes represented only about a quarter of the sample, by the end-of-first 

grade, 50% of the sample came from English-speaking homes. However, examination of the data reveals few differences in the percentages of children performing 

in the normal and above normal ranges on the various assessments or in the percentage of children performing above the 50th percentile. In other words, it appears 

that the children who have departed from the sample represent a range of performances; not all are the lowest performing or the highest performing children. 

Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998) conceptualize children’s emergent literacy development as encompassing two separate domains: inside-out skills (e.g., code-based 

skills like print knowledge, phonological awareness, and alphabet knowledge) and 

outside-in skills (e.g., comprehension-related and meaning-based skills). At the endof-kindergarten, the children did well on all inside-out skills, and they continued 

their high performance on the code-based skill tests (e.g., Letter-Word Identification, 

Word Attack,)as illustrated by the high percentage of children performing in the 

normal and above range and above the 50th percentile. The findings were only 

slightly more mixed on the outside-in skills. The children performed well to very 

well on most Woodcock-Johnson III meaning-based subtests (e.g., Story Recall, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV, Reading Fluency), but not as well as expected on 

only one assessment, Understanding Directions. 

Overall, based on the testing data, we conclude that the children who graduated 

from the Delaware Early Reading First project and experienced kindergarten and 

first-grade in our Reading First partner district continue to perform as well or better than the general population of children their age in language and early reading. 

Their kindergarten teachers thought they were well-prepared for kindergarten, and 

the first-grade teachers who responded similarly viewed the children as well-prepared in language and reading for first grade. The children’s performance is particularly impressive when one remembers that these children, by definition, as children 

from low-income families, were eligible for Head Start because they were ‘‘at risk’’ 

for academic challenges and failure. Challenges to school success and performance 

in language arts are further possible when one considers that in kindergarten the 

majority of the kindergarten sample and half of the first-grade sample were not only 

low-income but also came from homes where English was not the primary language 

spoken. 

In short, at least a year of Head Start programming that implemented systematic, 

explicit instruction in language and reading skills resulted in the vast majority of 

children arriving in kindergarten prepared for the developmental and academic 

challenges of the Reading First school’s language arts curriculum. Likewise the 

Head Start DERF experience, plus a year of kindergarten and first-grade instruc-
88 

tion in a Reading First school’s curriculum, appears to have had a positive effect 

on the majority of the children’s language and reading skill development. 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ