Decoding skill is not sufficient, but it is absolutely necessary. And “whole language” fails miserably at teaching decoding skill.

SRA just started a new website for Direct Instruction teaching programs. They are offering free training webinars, samples, etc… a pretty good (and free) site for Reading Mastery and other direct instruction programs: http://www.sradirectinstruction.com.

Educators (and I are one) would do well to abandon the search for a magic key that, turned once, creates super-learning students. Just as focusing on phonemic awareness is insufficient, so is simply teaching after phonics going to lead to disappointment. We have to keep on teaching, just as Mr. Mazenko noted. And, it’s not just reading instruction that’s required in the higher grades; we also need additional work on general language competence.

For the “fall off” you mentioned, were those students taught reading using direct instruction techniques? Common sense would say that there is more to learn after 3rd grade, I just wonder if a different foundation would have different long term effects.

However, this research should be driving curriculum choice towards RM (from any of the other 5 curricula) for K-3. Resisting this conclusion without providing any significant contradictory data is clear evidence that the curriculum choices are being made on the basis of ideology rather than what would actually benefit children the most.

Or is there data showing that in 4th grade and later, children taught with RM who used to read well suddenly can’t, and children who struggled to read earlier all of a sudden learn to read proficiently but only if they’ve been taught with other curricula?

I don’t mean to criticize the study. The question is: Does the foundation laid before third grade prepare students for success after third grade? All too often, low SES students who do quite well until third grade begin to fall off again afterwards. Some, like E.D. Hirsch, argue that those students have become proficient decoders, but that they lack the content knowledge and vocabulary to read more sophisticated texts.

I do not know RM well enough to comment on its long-term effectiveness. Stacy suggests that it includes important content knowledge in fourth grade. Hirsch and others argue for stronger content- and vocabulary-focus in third grade and earlier–though they do not minimize the critical importance of decoding skills.

It would be interesting to see how RM fares for students who follow it through 6th grade.

Are you thinking that students are already mastering reading through 3rd grade? Is it possible that with a mastery of 3rd grade reading we’d see reading improvements in subsequent grades without any changes? Of course nothing in this study says changes aren’t needed in subsequent grades as well.

The problem is, however, as texts get harder and material becomes more complex, students need assistance in how to tackle the more challenging texts. Especially at the upper levels, all teachers need to teach students how to read for their class. That means all teachers in all content areas. Reading is a learning skill, not an English skill. However, most teachers simply tell students they need to “read it again” or “read it more carefully.”

Thus, the one book people need to read is by a Denver-area teacher and educational researcher named Cris Tovani. The book, based on her efforts to work with struggling readers, is called “I Read It, but I Don’t Get It.” It literally changed my life as a teacher, moving me from assigning reading to teaching it. Additionally, Tovani has written a follow-up about reading in the content areas called “Do I Really Have to Teach Reading?”

The answer is yes.