Federal

Clearinghouse Finds Evidence Reading Program Works

By Mary Ann Zehr — October 21, 2009 3 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Includes updates and/or revisions.

A review by the federal What Works Clearinghouse of an intervention for adolescent literacy finds that a popular computerized reading program has “potentially positive effects” on student achievement.

The analysis, released yesterday, examines the impact of Read 180, developed by Scholastic Inc.

Out of 101 studies on Read 180 that were reviewed, the clearinghouse found seven that met its standards, although “with reservations.” On the basis of the seven studies, the clearinghouse concluded that evidence for the impact of the curriculum is medium to large for reading comprehension and general literacy achievement.

None of the seven studies examined the effectiveness on alphabetics or reading fluency.

“The What Works Clearinghouse, which has an incredibly high standard, has done independent research and has confirmed what we’ve been saying: that this program can help your kid have success when it is implemented with fidelity,” said Margery Mayer, the president of the education division of Scholastic, based in New York City.

“It’s tough criteria,” said Michael L. Kamil, a reading expert at Stanford University, “but when you look at the numbers, it’s not a big effect.”

He added: “For $30,000 a classroom, we ought to be doing better than that. This is a program where they throw everything at the wall and they get a little bit back.”

Read 180 is a 90-minute instructional model used in about 13,000 classrooms, according to Scholastic.

The clearinghouse explains that Read 180 is composed of 20 minutes of whole-group instruction, followed by 60 minutes of student rotation through three different activities and 10 minutes of wrap-up discussion with the whole class. The three activities in the middle of the 90 minutes are small-group instruction featuring a teacher working with individuals; independent use of a computer program on reading skills; and independent reading of Read 180 books or audiobooks.

‘What Are We Testing?’

The analysis by the clearinghouse is the second federal study released this month that shows an effect on student reading achievement for Read 180. The first was an evaluation of the second year of implementation of Striving Readers, the federal government’s only reading program focused on adolescent literacy.

The Striving Readers evaluation found that Read 180 had an effect on student reading achievement at one of four sites where it was used either as the primary reading curriculum or supplementary curriculum for struggling readers. It found a statistically significant impact of the program on student achievement in juvenile-correction facilities run by the Ohio Department of Youth Services.

Henry M. Levin, a professor of economics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, conducted a cost study of Read 180 in 2005, published by the International Reading Association in the book Informed Choices for Struggling Adolescent Readers.

Mr. Levin said in an interview that Read 180 requires a lot of changes in schools, such as limiting reading classes to no more than 15 students. In interpreting the What Works Clearinghouse analysis, he observed: “If you find a result, is it the curriculum or this dramatic increase in reading time and smaller classes [that produces an effect]?”

The same question, he said, could be asked for evaluations of other reading programs, such as Success for All. Mr. Levin added: “It’s like taking a sponge cake and soaking it with brandy, and people say, ‘You made a delicious cake.’ What are we testing here?”

A spokeswoman for Scholastic said the sum of $30,000 per classroom that Mr. Kamil mentioned is a “ballpark figure” one-time cost of implementing READ 180 which covers 60 students, or four classes of the recommended 15 students per class, for as long as the district uses the program.

Mr. Levin’s study of three sites with Read 180 found that the cost ranged from $285 per student to $1,500 per student in additional costs beyond regular instruction, depending on how the program was implemented.

A version of this article appeared in the October 28, 2009 edition of Education Week as Clearinghouse Finds Evidence Reading Program Works

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
Leadership in Education: Building Collaborative Teams and Driving Innovation
Learn strategies to build strong teams, foster innovation, & drive student success.
Content provided by Follett Learning
School & District Management K-12 Essentials Forum Principals, Lead Stronger in the New School Year
Join this free virtual event for a deep dive on the skills and motivation you need to put your best foot forward in the new year.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Privacy & Security Webinar
Navigating Modern Data Protection & Privacy in Education
Explore the modern landscape of data loss prevention in education and learn actionable strategies to protect sensitive data.
Content provided by  Symantec & Carahsoft

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Federal The Topic That Didn't Get a Single Mention in Biden-Trump Debate
K-12 schools—after animating state and local elections in recent years—got no airtime.
2 min read
President Joe Biden, right, and Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump, left, during a presidential debate hosted by CNN, Thursday, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta.
President Joe Biden, right, and former President Donald Trump, left, face off on stage during a presidential debate hosted by CNN, June 27, 2024, in Atlanta. Not a single question was asked about K-12 education and neither candidate raised the issue.
Gerald Herbert/AP
Federal Social Media Should Come With a Warning, Says U.S. Surgeon General
A surgeon general's warning label would alert users that “social media is associated with significant mental health harms in adolescents.”
4 min read
Image of social media icons and warning label.
iStock + Education Week
Federal Classroom Tech Outpaces Research. Why That's a Problem
Experts call for better alignment between research and the classroom in Capitol Hill discussions.
4 min read
People walk outside the U.S Capitol building in Washington, June 9, 2022.
People walk outside the U.S Capitol building in Washington, June 9, 2022. Experts called for investments in education research and development at a symposium at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 13.
Patrick Semansky/AP
Federal Opinion Federal Education Reform Has Largely Failed. Unfortunately, We Still Need It
Neither NCLB nor ESSA have lived up to their promise, but the problems calling for national action persist.
Jack Jennings
4 min read
Red, Blue, and Purple colors over a fine line etching of the Capitol building. Republicans and Democrats, Partisan Politicians.
Douglas Rissing/iStock