why reading by the third grade matters

7/29/2019 Why reading by the third grade matters

1/64

Early Warning!

Why Reading by the End o Third Grade Matters

A KIDS COUNT Special Report rom the Annie E. Casey Foundation


2/64


3/64

Early Warning!

Why Reading by the End o Third Grade Matters

A KIDS COUNT Special Report rom the Annie E. Casey Foundation


4/64

| Early Warning! Wh red b the Ed of Thd gde Mttes

2010 Annie E. Casey Foundation

701 St. Paul Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

www.aec.org

Permission to copy, disseminate, or

otherwise use inormation rom this

Special Reportis granted as long as

appropriate acknowledgment is gien.

Designed by KINETIK

www.kinetikcom.com

State-leel data proided

by Population Reerence

Bureau and Child Trends.

Data compiled by Population

Reerence Bureau.

www.prb.org

Photography Susie Fitzhugh

and Carol Highsmith.

Printed and bound in the United

States o America on recycled paper

using soy-based inks.

The 2010 KIDS COUNT Special Report

can be iewed, downloaded, or ordered

on the Internet at www.kidscount.org.

This report was researched and written by

Leila Fiester in consultation with Ralph Smith,

Executive Vice President o the Annie E. Casey

Foundation. Expert advice on content came rom

many people within and outside the Foundation,including Doug Nelson, Bruno Manno (now

with the Walton Family Foundation), Cindy Guy,

Laura Beavers and Florencia Gutierrez (who also

provided data expertise), Tony Cipollone, Jessy

Donaldson, Simran Noor, Mike Laracy, Lisa

Kane, Lisa Klein, Hedy Chang, Ruby Takanishi,

Fasaha Traylor, Ann Segal, Lisbeth Schorr,

Frank Farrow, Jeanne Jehl, Lisa Roy, Marty

Blank, Kati Haycock, Gina Adams, Terry

Meersman, Charlie Bruner, Jane Quinn,

Elizabeth Burke Bryant, Catherine Walsh, B.J.

Walker, Diane Grigsby Jackson, Erica Okezie-

Phillips, Susan Notkin, Gail Meister, Ron

Haskins, Shelley Waters Boots, Ruth Mayden,

Paula Dressel, Yolie Flores, and Sheila Byrd.

Our colleagues at Casey Family Services also

provided valuable inormation and insights,

including Ray Torres, Joy Duva, Lauren Frey,

Diane Kindler, and Eliot Brenner. Cheryl

McAee and Jan Goudreau tracked down

countless research reports, oten on a moments

notice. Connie Dykstra managed the production

process with grace and patience, while Dana

Vickers Shelley provided leadership on the

communications side.

Acknowledgments


5/64

ecf.o | The ae E. Cse Foudto |

4 Introduction

8 ReadingProficientlybytheEnd

ofThirdGradeMattersaLot

14 SeveralMajorFactorsUndermine

Grade-LevelReadingProficiency

22 AmericaCanSolvetheCrisisin

Grade-LevelReadingProficiency

40 ACalltoAction

42 Indicators

56 Endnotes

60 AbouttheAnnieE.Casey

FoundationandKIDSCOUNT

Contents


6/64


The relatie decline o American education is

untenable or our economy, unsustainable or our

democracy, and unacceptable or our children,

and we cannot aord to let it continue.

President Barack Obama

March 9, 2009


7/64


Oer the past decade, Americans hae

become increasingly concerned about the

high numbersand costso high

school dropouts. In 2007, nearly 6.2 million

young people (16% o the 1624 age group)

were high school dropouts.1 Every student

who does not complete high school costs oursociety an estimated $260,000 in lost

earnings, taxes, and productivity.2 High

school dropouts also are more likely than

those who graduate to be arrested or have a

child while still a teenager,3 both o which

incur additional nancial and social costs.

Behind these statistics, as one military

expert notes, lies a demographic surprise:

The current pool o qualied high school

graduates is neither large enough nor skilled

enough to supply our nations workorce,

higher education, leadership, and national

security needs.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson

supported the Head Start program as an

action taken in the national deense because

too many young Americans could not pass

the militarys basic skills entrance test.

We are at a similar point today: An estimated

75% o Americans aged 17 to 24 cannot

join the U.S. military26 million young

Americansmost oten because they are

poorly educated, involved in crime, or

physically unt, according to a report by

Mission: Readiness.4 In an increasingly

global and technological economy, employ-ers struggle to nd enough educated,

competent, and accountable workers. And

community colleges and other institutions

o higher education spend considerable time

and resources on remedial coursework or

students who simply are not prepared or

post-secondary education despite having a

high school diploma.

Growing awareness o these realities

has produced a common sense consensus

around the need to mobilize around and

invest in dropout prevention. But the

process o dropping out begins long beore a

child gets to high school. It stems rom loss

o interest and motivation in middle school,

oten triggered by retention in grade and the

struggle to keep up academically. A major

cause o retention is ailure to master the

knowledge and content needed to progress

Introduction


8/64


Below proicient Below Basic

Moderate- and Moderate- andall low-incoMe high-incoMe all low-incoMe high-incoMe

geographic area1 students students2 students students students2 students

t 67 83 55 33 49 20

c 71 85 55 39 54 22

sbb 62 81 52 28 47 19

t 71 83 59 35 48 22

r 67 81 58 31 45 21

1 Geographic areas are based on U.S. Census data describing proximity to an urbanized area (a densely

settled core with densely settled surrounding areas), using our categories (City, Suburb, Town, Rural).2 Family income is measured using students eligibility or the National School Lunch Program, a

ederally assisted meal program, sometimes reerred to as the ree/reduced-price lunch program.

Free or reduced-price lunches are oered to students with incomes below 185% o the poverty level.

source Annie E. Casey Foundation analysis o data rom the NAEP Data Explorer, available at

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/


Moderate- and Moderate- andall low-incoMe high-incoMe all low-incoMe high-incoMe

race/ethnicity1 students students2 students students students2 students

t 67 83 55 33 49 20

w 58 76 52 22 38 17

Bk 84 89 74 52 58 38

h 83 87 72 51 56 36

a/pf i 51 70 43 20 35 14

am i 80 85 69 50 59 34

1 Categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown or students whose race/ethnicity was unclassied.2 Family income is measured using students eligibility or the National School Lunch Program, a





taBle 1

Percent o 4th graders scoring below profcient and below basicon NAEP reading test, by geography and amily income: 2009

taBle 2

Percent o 4th graders scoring below profcient and below basicon NAEP reading test, by amily income and race/ethnicity: 2009


9/64


INTRODUCTION

on timeand that, in a great many cases, is

the result o not being able to read pro-

ciently as early as ourth grade. The time is

now to build a similar consensus around

this less-recognized but equally urgent act:

The pool rom which employers, colleges,

and the military draw is too small, and still

shrinking, because millions o American

children get to ourth grade without

learning to read prociently. And that

puts them on the dropout track.The shortall in reading prociency is

especially pronounced among low-income

children: O the ourth-graders who took

the National Assessment o Educational

Progress (NAEP) reading test in 2009, ully

83% o children rom low-income amilies

and 85% o low-income students who attend

high-poverty schoolsailed to reach the

procient level.5 The shortall occurs

similarly or low-income kids attending

schools in cities, suburbs, towns, and rural

areas alike (with 85%, 81%, 83%, and 81%respectively ailing to meet the procient

standard).6 The statistics arent much better

or NAEPs lower achievement level, basic,

which indicates just partial mastery o

prerequisite knowledge and skills. Hal

(49%) o all low-income test takers in ourth

grade, and 53% o those who attend high-

poverty schools, do not reach even NAEPs

basic level.

Moreover, although NAEP scores have

shown incremental increases over the past

15 years within most subpopulations o

students, disparities in reading achievement

persist across racial and ethnic groups. The

share o low-income Black, Hispanic, and

Native American students who score below

procient on the NAEP reading test is catastro-

phically high (89%, 87%, and 85%, respectively)

and much larger than the share o low-

income white or Asian/Pacic Islander

students (76% and 70%). Similar dierences

occur at NAEPs basic achievement level.

These scores are prooundly disappointing

to all o us who see school success and

high school graduation as beacons in the

battle against intergenerational poerty.

The act is that the low-income ourth-

graders who cannot meet NAEPs procient

level in reading today are all too likely to

become our nations lowest-income, least-

skilled, least-productive, and most costly

citizens tomorrow. Simply put, without a

dramatic reversal o the status quo, we arecementing educational ailure and poverty

into the next generation. We know, or

example, that a childs early school success

correlates with his or her mothers level o

education. Kindergartners whose mothers

have more education are more likely to

score in the highest quartile in reading,

mathematics, and general knowledge than all

other children and to have better motor

skills than children whose mothers have less

ormal education, according to a longitudi-

nal study o 3.7 million children who enteredkindergarten in 1998.7 Students whose

mothers have less than a high school

diploma or its equivalent are more likely to

be retained in grade than children whose

mothers have a bachelors or graduate degree

(20% versus 3%).8

The bottom line is that i we dont get

dramatically more children on track as

procient readers, the United States will

lose a growing and essential proportion o

its human capital to poverty, and the price

will be paid not only by individual children

and amilies, but by the entire country. This

special report highlights the causes and

consequences o low reading prociency

and proposes some essential steps toward

closing the gap between those who can and

cannot read prociently, raising the bar or

what we expect all American children to

know and be able to do, and improving the

overall achievement o children rom low-

income amilies.

The marker we use or measur-

ing success is the prociencylevel dened by NAEP.

Although it does not equate

exactly with grade-level pro-

ciency, which varies by state, it

is closest to the level required

by global realities, and that is

the level to which we ought to

aspire. The NAEP test is given

at the beginning o ourth

grade, so it tests what a child

has learned by the end o third

grade (and over the interven-

ing summer). Fourth-grade

students perorming

at NAEPs procient levelshould be able to demonstrate

an overall understanding o

the text, providing inerential

as well as literal inormation.

When reading text appropriate

to ourth grade, they should

be able to extend the ideas in

the text by making inerences,

drawing conclusions, and

making connections to their

own experiences. The connec-

tion between the text and what

the student iners should be

clear. (http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp.)


10/64


All skills begin with the basics o reading and

math, which are supposed to be learned in the

early grades o our schools. Yet or too long, or too

many children, those skills were neer mastered.

President George W. Bush

2003 state o the union address


11/64


Reading prociently by the end o third

grade (as measured by NAEP at the

beginning o ourth grade) can be a make-

or-break benchmark in a childs educational

deelopment. Up until the end o third

grade, most children are learning to read.

Beginning in ourth grade, however, theyare reading to learn, using their skills to gain

more inormation in subjects such as math

and science, to solve problems, to think

critically about what they are learning, and

to act upon and share that knowledge in the

world around them. Up to hal o the printed

ourth-grade curriculum is incomprehen-

sible to students who read below that grade

level, according to the Childrens Reading

Foundation.9 And three quarters o students

who are poor readers in third grade will

remain poor readers in high school, accord-

ing to researchers at Yale University.10 Not

surprisingly, students with relatively low

literacy achievement tend to have more

behavioral and social problems in subse-

quent grades11 and higher rates o retention

in grade. The National Research Council

asserts that academic success, as dened by

high school graduation, can be predicted

Reading Procientlyby the End o ThirdGrade Mattersa Lot

with reasonable accuracy by knowing

someones reading skill at the end o third

grade. A person who is not at least a mod-

estly skilled reader by that time is unlikely

to graduate rom high school.12

Low achieement in reading has importantlong-term consequences in terms o

indiidual earning potential, global competi-

tieness, and general productiity. At an

individual level, the median annual income

o a high school dropout in 2007 was

$23,000, compared with $48,000 or

someone who obtained a bachelors or

higher degree13a considerable dierence

or anyone trying to support a amily and be

economically sel-sucient. Globally, the

United States perorms poorly against our

trading partners and competitors in

comparisons o reading achievement.

Fourth-graders in 10 o 45 educational

jurisdictions around the world who were

tested in 2006 scored signicantly higher in

reading literacy than their counterparts in

the United States, including children in

Russia, Hong Kong, Singapore, parts o

Canada, and Hungary.14 The number o


12/64

10 | Early Warning! Wh red b the Ed of Thd gde Mttes


13/64

ecf.o | The ae E. Cse Foudto | 11

READING PROFICIENTLY BY THE END OF THIRD GRADE MATTERSA LOT

countries that outperorm the United States

in reading is growing.15

The education achievement gap leads

to a productivity gap between the United

States and other countries. McKinsey &

Company estimates that i U.S. students had

met the educational achievement levels o

higher-perorming nations between 1983

and 1998, Americas GDP in 2008 could have

been $1.3 trillion to $2.3 trillion higher.16 In

that sense, the education gap has createdthe equivalent o a permanent, deep reces-

sion in terms o the gap between actual and

potential output in the economy, McKinsey

asserts.17 U.S. Secretary o Education Arne

Duncan puts it this way: We have to

educate our way to a better economy. 18

Demographic realities make the reading gap

too large a problem to ignore. Lets do the

math: There are 7.9 million low-income

children rom birth through age 8one-th

o all kids in this age group.19

I currenttrends hold true, 6.6 million o these children

(83%20) are at increased risk o ailing to

graduate rom high school on time because

they wont be able to meet NAEPs procient

reading level by the end o third grade.

Changes to the United States racial/

ethnic composition also command attention.

By 2023, more than hal o the countrys

student population will be non-white,21 and

by 2042, the majority o the overall U.S.

population will be non-white.22 (In many

states that play a critical role in the U.S.

economy, such as Caliornia, the change has

already arrived.) The astest-growing

subpopulation is Hispanic/Latinoindeed,

by 2050, nearly one in three U.S. residents

will be Hispanic23yet Hispanic children

have some o the poorest educational

outcomes in the country. Simultaneously,

the Baby Boom generation is reaching

retirement age and must be replaced in the

workorce. And so, asNew York Times

editorialist Bob Herbert notes, I America is

to maintain its leadership position in the

world and provide a rst-rate quality o lie

or its citizens here at home, the educational

achievement o American youngsters across

the board[emphasis added] needs to be

ratcheted way up.24

The world economy demands a moreeducated workorce, and grade-leel

reading prociency is the key. Students who

cannot read prociently are especially

unlikely to obtain a post-secondary degree,

which is necessary or the kind o jobs that

make America globally competitive in the

age o inormation and communications

technology. And adult workers who cannot

read well are less able to acquire new skills

and adapt to new needs in a ast-changing

global marketplace.

Analyses o data rom the Organiza-tion or Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) indicate that the

United States will need 60% o its popula-

tion to possess a post-secondary degree or

credential by 2025 to remain globally

competitive.25 Currently, 30% o all adult

workers in the United States hold our-year

degrees, an attainment rate second only to

Norway.26 But i we look at the rate among

the youngest adult workersthose workers

on whom our uture dependsthe United

States ranked sixth among OECD nations in

2006, behind Norway, the Netherlands,

South Korea, Denmark, and Sweden.27 I we

look at two-year degrees, the U.S. attain-

ment rate or all workers is only average and

has allen over time.28 To achieve the OECD

goal or workers with post-secondary

degrees, the United States will need to

produce 16 million more graduates above


14/64


READING PROFICIENTLY BY THE END OF THIRD GRADE MATTERSA LOT

the current rate o production.29 That

cannot happen unless we increase the

number o high school graduates. And that

requires signicantly more children getting

on track to graduation by reading pro-

ciently by the end o third grade.

Our current approach to testing and

standards masks the extent o our nations

problem with reading prociency. In reality,

a large proportion oall ourth-graders whotake the NAEP reading test ail to reach the

procient level, including 55% o all students

rom moderate- to high-income amilies

(regardless o race/ethnicity).30 But many o

these non-procient readers arent identi-

ed by state-level tests. The George W. Bush

administrations No Child Let Behind Act

o 2001 (NCLB) required annual testing and

reporting o reading prociency scores with

the goal that virtually all children will meet

grade-level prociency standards by 2014.

(Proposals or the laws upcoming reautho-rization would remove that deadline but

continue tracking students grade-level

prociency year to year and rewarding

schools or student progress.) NCLB also

required states to disaggregate scores

according to socioeconomic status, race/

ethnicity, gender, disability, and English

prociency. Those requirements helped

ocus long-overdue attention on the gaps

among student subpopulations.

However, NCLBs current provisions,

especially those around annual yearly

progress, also have had the unintended and

perverse eect o contributing to a race to

the bottom on standards. With no consis-

tent, commonly accepted and applied

understanding o what reading pro-

ciency means or how to measure it, many

states have lowered the cut scorethe

number o items a student must answer

correctlyto ensure that a sucient

proportion o students meet NCLBs

requirement or adequate yearly progress.

Each state sets its own standard and uses its

own unique test to measure prociency, and

most set a low (and alling) bar compared

with the NAEP standard.A study by the National Center or

Education Statistics, based on 2007 data,

concluded that no state set its own reading

prociency standard or ourth-graders

at a level that met or exceeded NAEPs

procient standard. Only 16 states set

their prociency standard at a level that

met or exceeded NAEPs lower basic

standard. The remaining states set their

prociency standard at so low a level that

it alls below the NAEP basic reading

level.31

Furthermore, between 2005 and2007, 15 states loweredtheir prociency

standards in ourth- or eighth-grade reading

or math, while only eight states increased

the rigor o standards in one or both

subjects and grades.32

The result: State testing data consis-

tently underreport the true depth and

extent o the decit in reading prociency,

thereby depriving parents, educators,

communities, and policymakers o a

powerul tool or advocating change and

measuring progress. Children in many

states may be nominally procient, but still

lack the skills to actually read at the level

required to learn eciently in the ourth

grade and beyond.33


15/64


state score 150

M 232

M 227

s c 223

M 215

M 214

Vm 214

c 213

ak 213

h 212

pv 211

c 210r i 210

n hm 210

n Mx 210

n yk 209

209

nv 207

Kk 205

wm 204

M 203

w 203

d 202

n J 201

n dk 201

i 200i 199

i 199

o 198

az 198

i 197

l 193

w 193

K 192

V 191

tx1 188

c 187

o 186

M 186

s dk 185

g 185

ak 183

n c 183

w V 182

abm 179

M 178

t 175

okm 172

M 163

d cmb n.a.

nbk n.a.

u n.a.

208

NAEPBasic

238

NAEPProficient

1 Relative error greater than 0.5.

source U.S. Department o Education, National Center or Education Statistics, Institute o

Education Sciences, Mapping State Prociency Standards Onto NAEP Scales. 20052007

N.A. = State assessment data not available

igure 1

NAEP scale equivalent scores or the state grade 4 readingstandards or profcient perormance, by state: 2007


16/64


Now I ask you and I ask all our nations goernors,

I ask parents, teachers, and citizens all acrossAmerica or a new nonpartisan commitment

to education, because education is a critical

national security issue or our uture, and

politics must stop at the schoolhouse door.

President William J. Clinton

1997 state o the union address


17/64


Children must be readyto succeed when

they get to school (cognitiely, socially,

emotionally, and physically) beore they can

learn there. They also need to bepresent at

schoolattending regularlybecause they

cant learn i they arent there. And they

need to have high-quality learning opportu-nities, beginning at birth and continuing in

school and during out-o-school time,

including summers, in order to sustain

learning gains and not lose ground. For

millions o American children, however,

these essential conditions are not met.

For low-income children in particular,

a readiness gap uels much o what has

become known as the achievement gap.

Readiness includes being in good health;

having the support o a strong amily;

eeling sae; and having positive social

interaction skills, language skills, the

motivation to learn, emotional and behav-

ioral sel-control, and physical skills and

capacities. Education and policy leaders on

both sides o the aisle recognized the

importance o readiness in the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act, signed into law in

1994, which called or all children to have

Seeral Maor FactorsUndermine Grade-LeelReading Prociency

access to high-quality, developmentally

appropriate preschool programs and the

nutrition, physical activity experiences, and

health care needed to arrive at school with

healthy minds and bodies and to maintain

the mental alertness necessary to be

prepared to learn.34

Despite that aspiration,however, an acute readiness gap oten

begins at birth, continues growing until

school entry, and leads to an achievement

gap that persists through each subsequent

year o schooling.

The gap begins at birth or children born

low birthweight, prematurely, with congeni-

tal health problems, or aected by prenatal

exposure to toxic substances. Children

arent born with an equal chance at the

American Dream, as Ron Haskins and

Isabel Sawhill point out in Creating an

Opportunity Society,35 and one o the most

basic and early dierences has to do with

health at birth. Low-birthweight babies are

at greater risk than normal-weight babies or

neurodevelopmental problems (e.g., cerebral

palsy, blindness, and mental retardation),

behavioral problems, and attention decit


18/64


SEvERAL MAjOR FACTORS UNDERMINE GRADE-LEvEL READING PROFICIENCY

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)36all o

which can interere with learning and

school success. KIDS COUNT data show

that 8% o all children nationally have low

birthweight,37 but the percentage is higher

or children born to low-income mothers

(10%) than or higher-income children (6%).38

Newborns whose mothers have low levels oeducation are more likely than newborns o

more-educated mothers to have been

exposed prenatally to cigarette smoke,

alcohol, drugs, and olic acid deciencies,

which can cause preterm birth, intrauterine

growth retardation, and long-lasting eects

on the childs cognition and behavior.39

The readiness gap continues between birth

and kindergarten due to dierences in

childrens resources and opportunities or

physical, linguistic, cognitie, social,

emotional, and behaioral deelopment.

Disparities on developmental outcomes

emerge in inancy and widen in toddler-

hood. By the time children rom low-income

amilies enter kindergarten, they are

typically 1214 months below national

norms in language and pre-reading skills.40

Low-income children have a higher

incidence o health problems that interere

with learning, such as chronic asthma, poor

hearing, vision and dental problems, ADHD,41

requent headaches, heart conditions, kidney

disease, epilepsy, digestive problems, and

mental retardation.42 Almost 10% o low-

income children under age 8 have a physical

or mental health condition that limits their

activities, compared with 6% o middle-

income children.43

Children are less likely tobe in excellent or very good health at 9 and

24 months i they come rom low-income

amilies, racial/ethnic minority groups,

homes where English isnt spoken, and/or

mothers with low education levels.44 More-

over, low-income children receive less, and

lower-quality, medical careand are less

well as a resultthan wealthier children who

have the same health problems.45

Too many children rom low-income

amilies lack early interactions that oster

linguistic development, including verbal

interactions with their parents, being read to,

and access to books in their home, compared

with children rom middle-income amilies.46

Vocabulary development by age 3 has been

ound to predict reading achievement by

third grade.47 Preschoolers whose parents

(especially mothers) read to them,48 tell stories,

or sing songs tend to develop larger vocabu-

laries,49 become better readers, and perorm

better in school, while children who lack this

America ows to be the country o hope and opportunity or

all, but it ails to ulll this promise to our youngest citizens.

We celebrate their birth but then wait to see i they succeed

in school beore we pay attention to their strengths and needs.

roM A Quiet Crisis: The Urgent Need to Build Early Childhood Systemsand Quality Programs or Children Birth to Age Five, policy statementby the Council o Chie State School Ofcers (November 2009).

aVailaBle at www.ccsso.o


19/64



stimulation during early childhood tend to

arrive at school with measurably weaker

language, cognitive, and memory skills.50 By

age 3, children rom wealthier amilies

typically have heard 30 million more words

than children rom low-income amilies.51

Some children dont develop the

social and emotional skills needed to

unction in a structured environment like

school beore they reach school age. These

capacities, which are just as essential ascognitive skills or school success, include:

the ability to manage emotions, ollow direc-

tions, take turns, share, take responsibility,

work independently and cooperatively, and

stick with a task; motivation; enjoyment o

learning; and the executive unctionan

ability to control onesel, make plans, learn

rules, act appropriately, and think in abstract

terms. Low-income children who are rated

relatively high on social skills in kindergarten

and rst grade tend to have better literacy

skills than children with low social skillsratings, a trend that continues into third

grade.52 Between 9% and 14% o children ages

birth through 5 experience socio-emotional

problems that negatively impact their unction,

development, and school readiness.53

Low-income children are less likely

than middle-income children to participate

in high-quality early childhood and pre-

kindergarten programs that prepare

children to succeed in school. Nationally,

only about 47% o 3- and 4-year-olds are

enrolled in a preschool program o any

kind.54 State-unded programs, arguably the

type most aordable or low-income amilies,

served only 24% o 4-year-olds in 2008. 55

Although enrollment is growingthe number

o 4-year-olds in state pre-K jumped by 67%

between 2002 and 20095612 states have no

state-wide unded preschool program at all.57

The ederally unded Early Head Start

program serves only 3% o inants and toddlers

rom eligible low-income amilies, nationally.58

The readiness gap becomes an achieement

gap when children enter school, and this

gap persists oer the students school

experience. McKinsey & Company ound a

gap o two to three years o learning between

low-income and higher-income students in

its analysis o average NAEP scores (10 points

on the NAEP test are roughly equal to one

year o education).59 For many low-income

students, the achievement gap is exacer-

bated by low-perorming schools; chronicabsence; summer reading loss; and stressors

like childhood hunger and ood insecurity,

housing insecurity, and amily mobility.

Too many children attend low-

perorming schools or schools that are

not ready to teach to high standards

under-resourced schools that are not

organized to ulll the expectation that they

will serve as portals to equal opportunity. In

low-perorming schools, the curriculum is

shallow, overly broad, [and] ails to teach

students basic skills,60

rather than beingcontent-rich, challenging, developmentally

appropriate, aligned with standards and

assessments, culturally responsive, and built

around a coherent scope and sequence so it

can serve as a road map or learning.

Although the National Reading Panel

identied ve essential components o reading

instruction,61 those elements are not always

made part o schools curriculum or instruc-

tion. Unclear guidelines leave teachers to

gure out or themselves what to teach,

what order to teach it in, how to teach it, and

to what level.62 Assessments oten are

inappropriatemismatched to childrens

ages, developmental stages, and cultures or

languages;63 not designed to measure

higher-order critical-thinking skills;64 too

narrowly ocused65and poorly adminis-

tered. Too many teachers lack the training,

experiences, or knowledge needed to teach

reading eectively66, 67 and opportunities to

collaborate with and learn rom their peers.


20/64



Low-income children ace a double

jeopardy because they are most likely to live

in places where high rates o student

poverty, residential instability, neighbor-

hood crime and distress, aging acilities, and

limited scal capacity all undermine the

perormance o public schools.68 School

districts with relatively ew low-income

students spend about $773 more per student

than districts with a majority o low-income

students.69 The gap is even greater$1,122per studentbetween districts with high

and low levels o minority students.70 Even

apart rom the money gap, many schools are

not equipped with the materials, tools,

strategies, and expertise to deal with large

numbers o struggling readers, especially

children retained in grade who need

remedial assistance. In these places, school

perormance reinorces and perpetuatesa

vicious cycle o poverty concentration, racial

segregation, and neighborhood distress.71

Furthermore, a disconnection otenexists between schools and amilies,

especially when parents have low levels o

education or are recent immigrants. In 1960,

school reorm developer James Comer

indicated that one o the biggest challenges

to improving education was to reduce the

distance between the culture o the school

and that o the community, and his observa-

tion still holds true today. Too oten, schools

have low expectations or low-income

students and children o color. Schools also

may discount the potential to use students

racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds as

levers or learning; parents may not under-

stand or eel comortable with the school

culture; and children may drop out

mentally because o the lack o connection

between school and their own lives.

School district policies oten exacer-

bate the problem by disproportionately

assigning low-income and minority students

to teachers who are inexperienced, academ-

ically weaker, or teaching out o their eld.72

According to The Education Trust, The

percentage o rst-year teachers at high-

minority schools is almost twice as high as

the percentageat low-minority schools.73

Low pay also makes it hard to attract and

retain good educators. With teachers

earning approximately 89 cents on the

dollar compared with workers in similar

occupations,74 its no surprise that new

teachers leave the proession at an alarm-

ing rate50% in the rst ve years oteaching, by some estimates.75

Too many children miss too much

instructional time due to chronic absence.

Chronic absence (missing 10% or more o the

school year, or any reason) is a problem or

1 in 10 kindergartners and rst-graders

nationwide. In some districts, the ratio is as

high as 1 in 4 (1 in 2 at some elementary

schools) or children in grades K3.76 Its

oten hard to gauge the extent o chronic

absence because most schools monitor only

average daily attendance and unexcusedabsences, which can mask the chronic

absence o many individual students.77

Chronic absence matters because

succeeding in school requires beingin

school; a child who isnt present isnt

acquiring what he or she needs to know to

succeed there. Chronic absence in kinder-

garten is associated with lower academic

perormance in rst grade. For low-income

children, chronic early absence predicts the

lowest levels o educational achievement at

the end o th grade.78 By sixth grade,

students who attend school less than 80% o

the time, or ail math or English/reading, or

receive an unsatisactory behavior grade in

a core course, have only a 10% to 20%

chance o graduating on time.79 And by

ninth grade, missing 20% o school can

predict dropping out better than eighth-

grade test scores.80

Chronic early absence can signal

problems within the school or community or

a parents unawareness that regular attendance


21/64


taBle 3

Percent o 4th graders who scored below profcient and basiclevels on NAEP reading test, by race/ethnicity, amily income,and school income: 2009


aMily incoMe3

aMily incoMe3

Moderate to Moderate to

race/ethnicity1 school incoMe2 low incoMe high incoMe low incoMe high incoMe

total

M- -m 76 49 39 16

l-m 85 65 53 28

white

M- -m 72 47 33 14

l-m 77 59 40 22

BlacK

M- -m 83 67 48 30

l-m 90 79 60 44

hispanic

M- -m 82 64 44 29

l-m 88 79 58 45

asian/paciic islander

M- -m 66 39 26 12

l-m 71 55 39 24

1 Categories exclude Hispanic origin. Results are not shown or students whose race/ethnicity

was unclassied.2 School income is measured as those schools with high rates o low-income children that receive

Title I unds to support school-wide programs.3 Family income is measured using students eligibility or the National School Lunch Program, a






22/64



matters. It also may be caused by major

amily stressors, such as a parents physical

or mental health condition, amily violence,

substance abuse, or child abuse or neglect.

Too many children lose ground

during the summer months. Children o all

socioeconomic groups make similar achieve-

ment gains during the school year (relative to

their starting points), but research shows that

low-income children all behind during the

summer by as much as two months o readingachievementwhile their middle-income peers

make slight gains.81 Since it is low-[income]

youth specically whose out-o-school

learning lags behind, this summer shortall

relative to better-o children contributes to

the perpetuation o amily advantage and

disadvantage across generations, a recent

study ound.82 Summer learning experiences

during the early school years also substan-

tially account or higher achievement in

terms o placement in a college preparatory

track, high school completion, and atten-dance at a our-year college.83

Summer learning loss produces a gap

that grows over the years. A study o

Baltimore students ound that by the end o

th grade, low-income students read at a

level almost three grades behind that o

middle-income students. By ninth grade,

summer learning loss over the ve preced-

ing years accounted or more than hal o

the dierence in reading skills.84 To catch

up, youth who have allen behind academi-

cally need to make larger-than-average

gains. That is expecting a great deal,

perhaps too much, o struggling students.85

Researchers attribute the socioeco-

nomic gap in summer learning to dierences

in amilies economic resources (wealthier

amilies can pay or more books, computers,

and alternate learning opportunities when

school is out) and in parents attitudes

toward school and learning (middle-class

parents take an active rolewhile poorer

parents see education as the schools job).86

Summer learning programs help some

children gain reading skills (as well as social

skills and sel-ecacy). However, only 25%

to 36% o children between ages 611 attend

summer learning programs.87 And, para-

doxically, the students who might gain the

most rom summer learning programs are

least likely to participate. An analysis o the

1999 National Survey o Americas Families

ound that 29% o children rom middle-

income households participate in summerlearning programs, compared with only 18%

o children rom low-income households.88

Too many children are distracted by

childhood hunger and ood insecurity,

housing insecurity, and amily mobility.

Nearly 1 in 4 American children16.7 million

altogetherstruggles with hunger and ood

insecurity (not knowing when the next meal

will come).89 Malnourished children have

impaired cognitive development, long-term

emotional and health problems, decreased

educational attainment, and decreasedproductivity.90 In a school setting, hungry

children oten eel sick, tired, cranky, or

bored; ght more with classmates and get

in trouble with teachers; eel anxious or

unable to concentrate; [and] suer rom poor

health, weakened immune systems, and

increased hospitalizations.91 As Bill Shore,

ounder o Share Our Strength, observes,

Childhood hunger steals opportunities and

dims utures.92 In a 2009 survey o 740

teachers nationwide, 62% reported that some

students in their K8 classrooms come to

school hungry every week.93 Although

children rom low-income amilies qualiy

or ree or reduced-price breakast at school,

10 million eligible kids dont get any,94 either

because o the stigma attached to receiving

help or because turbulence in their lives

keeps them rom getting to school on time.

Low-income amilies are more likely

than middle-income amilies to live in

substandard housing, which is associated

with exposure to lead paint, asbestos, mold,


23/64



[C]urrently, most children experience a wide range o

disparate experiences that umble together and end up

requiring our youngest learners to gure them out on their

own. Our children are not ailing to learn. Our schools are

ailing to teach them eectiely. To reerse this trend and

proide children with the skills necessary or lie-long learning,

all Americans must take responsibility or guaranteeing a

high-quality PreK3rd education to this and uture generations.

roM Americas Vanishing Potential: The Case or PreK3rd Education,by the Foundation or Child Development (2008).

aVailaBle at www.fcd-us.o

roaches, and rodents. These conditions can

aect childrens cognitive unctioning and

behavior, and can increase the incidence oasthma, which can cause school absences.

In some locations, the rates o these health

problems are very high. Separate surveys

ound that asthma rates in Boston public

housing (22%) were signicantly higher

than the national average (14%)95 and that

68% o children attending a pediatric clinic

in inner-city Philadelphia had unsae levels

o lead in their blood.96

Low-income amilies also are more

likely than middle-income amilies to move

requently, oten causing their children to

change schools mid-year. Mobility rates are

higher among low-income households and in

distressed neighborhoods than or higher-

income households and homeowners.97 High

levels o student mobility undermine

educational outcomes not only or individ-

ual students but also or the schools they

attend.98 The ranks o transient and

homeless students have grown in the

current economy due to parental job loss

and the destabilizing eects o the oreclo-sure crisis. Students who have changed

schools two or more times in the previous

year are hal as likely as their stable peers to

read well,99 and third-graders who changed

schools requently are 2.5 times more likely

to repeat a grade.100

Too many children nd their prospects

or success in school damaged and disrupted

by other amily-related stressors.Young

children exposed to amily violence, parental

depression, and abuse and neglect are consid-

erably more likely to experience problems

that interere with learning.101, 102 Children in

low-income amilies are disproportionately

more likely to have their amilies disrupted

by entrance into the child welare system and

having to change neighborhoods and schools.

Language decits, hyperactivity, depression,

anxiety, disengagement all are associated with

these sources o chronic or toxic stress.103


24/64


We must challenge not only the methods and

the means that wee used in the past but

also the yardsticks that wee used to measureour progress. Our strategy to meet these

noble national goals is ounded in common

sense and common alues. Its ambitious but,

with hard work, its within our reach.

President George H.W. Bush

at the presentation o the aMerica 2000: national education strategy, april 18, 1991


25/64


Getting more young children to read

prociently is no mission impossible.

Much is already known about the science

o how people learn to read and how

to impart reading skills. The National

Institute or Child Health and Development

has produced extensive research on thetopic or nearly ve decades,104 and the

National Reading Panel identied ve

essential components o reading instruc-

tion.105 Many reading and teaching experts

have urther specied what needs to

happen in the classroom to help children

learn to read.

High-quality reading and enrich-

ment programs based on this knowledge,

as well as eorts to develop childrens

social-emotional skills and to empower

parents as coaches and advocates or

their young readers, already operate in

many classrooms, schools, churches,

libraries, and community centers across

the country. There are many sterling

examples o places where the achievement

gap in reading is being eliminated or low-

income students, and lots o high-prole

organizations and philanthropies have

America Can Sole theCrisis in Grade-LeelReading Prociency

stepped up as champions o grade-level

reading prociency.

Despite this considerable eort,

current policies and unding streams are

too ragmented, programs too segmented

by childrens age and developmental stage,

and key interventions too partial to getwidespread positive results. (A 2008

analysis lists more than 100 ederal pro-

grams and sources or unding childrens

services in eight dierent categories o

intervention.106) Twenty-two years ago,

while analyzing why so little o what is

known to work gets applied in practice,

Lisbeth Schorr wrote o traditions which

segregate bodies o inormation by proes-

sional, academic, political, and bureaucratic

boundaries and a world in which complex

intertwined problems are sliced into

manageable but trivial parts.107 Around

the same time, Sid Gardner wrote that

we end up contributing our money, and

more important, our political and spiritual

energy, to building a ragmented non-

system o well-meaning, specialized

programs.108 Sadly, both observations

are still true today.


26/64


In 1997, Congress asked the Director o

the National Institute o Child Health and

Human Deelopment and the Secretary

o Education to conene a national panel

on reading. The Panel reiewed extensie

research, conducted public hearings, and

consulted with leading education

organizations to gather knowledge on

eectie approaches or teaching children

to read. In 2000, the Panel issued e

essential components o reading instruction,

which are included in the best readinginstruction programs today:

Phonemic awareness: Ability to

manipulate sounds in words

Phonics: Knowledge o relationships

between written letters and sounds

vocabulary: Understanding the meaning

o words in reading and in written and

spoken language

Fluency: Ability to read rapidly

Comprehension: Ability to gain meaning

while reading

These elements also are refected in the

Foundational Skills section o the drat

Common Core State Standards or English

Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social

Studies and Science released in March

2010. The introduction to this section

explains that These standardsare not

an end in and o themseles; rather, they

are necessary and important components

o an eectie, comprehensie reading

program designed to deelop procient

readers with the capacity to comprehendtexts across a range o types and disciplines.

The proposed standards place ocabulary

acquisition and use in a separate strand

because their importance extends beyond

writing and reading. (www.corestandards.org)

sourceTeaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment o the Scientic Research Literatureon Reading and Its Implications or Reading Instruction, National Reading Panel (2000). Available at

www.nichd.nih.gov.

Five Essential Components o Reading Instruction


27/64


AMERICA CAN SOLvE THE CRISIS IN GRADE-LEvEL READING PROFICIENCY

This is the right time to take on the

challenge o dramatically increasing the

number o children, especially rom low-income amilies, who read prociently. Both

Congress and the administration have taken

up the reauthorization o the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (No Child Let

Behind). The administration has published its

Blueprint for Reform, and congressional

hearings have been scheduled. The nations

governors and chie state school ocers,

working through their respective national

organizations, have prepared and published

or comment the preliminary drat o the

Common Core State Standards, whichraise expectations or what American

children need to know and be able to do.

Dozens o meetings and thousands o

comments provide ample evidence o

widespread public interest in ending the

race to the bottom and achieving more

eective alignment across the curriculum

and along the cradle to career continuum.

These major policy opportunities

arm broad bipartisan support or the

initiatives undertaken by Secretary

Duncan and the Department o Education.

This bipartisan support is augmented by

steadast advocacy by the Business Coalition

or Student Achievement; United Ways

long-standing commitment to early success;

the increasingly infuential work o Ameri-

cas Promise Alliance; and Mission:

Readiness, a group o retired military

ocers who believe that our nations

security requires ensuring that children

are ready or and prepared to succeed

in school. Along with the still-to-be-announced Presidential Early Learning

Council, these developments present

unprecedented venues, orums, incentives,

and opportunities to move the needle on

grade-level reading prociency by the end

o third grade.

We oer the ollowing recommenda-

tions with those opportunities in mind, as

well as a two-part caveat. First, i there is

one theme uniting all o the issues involved

in Americas reading crisis, it is the certainty

that no single response oers a totalsolution. It will take both wide-ranging and

careully targeted actions and initiatives to

help more students read prociently by the

end o third grade so they can take on the

learning tasks associated with ourth grade

and beyond. The recommendations that

ollow acknowledge the important roles that

distinct elds, sectors, and constituencies

must play, but it is the collective and

cumulative eect o these actions that will

make the dierence. Second, we dont want

people to stop doing good work within their

sectors. We do want to see those eorts

intensied and accelerated, better aligned,

and better applied in pursuit o a clearly

articulated, measurable, achievable goal:

increasing the number and proportion o

children, especially rom low-income

amilies, who read prociently by the end

o third grade.


28/64



We applaud the Obama Administrations

decision to create a Presidential Early

Learning Council and to extend its scope

rom birth through age 8. We encourage the

Council to pay special attention to the need

or a coherent early care and education

system at the ederal level, as the entry point

to what the President and Secretary Duncancall a cradle-to-career educational pipe-

line, and develop practical suggestions or

how to support, encourage, and incentivize

state and local governments to create

similar systems. The Council can and should

put a stake in the ground at the key destina-

tion o third-grade reading and then map

backward, bridging the divisions that now

exist between proessionals and disciplines

organized around a particular developmen-

tal period or milestone.

We need a more systematic and coordi-

nated approach to early care and education

to ensure that children are born healthy;

develop on track; and have the experiences,

supports, and resources needed to master

the tasks and skills that lead to healthy child

development and school successregardless

o the type o program they attend or their

ethnicity, geographic location, economic

status, language spoken, parental education

level, or special health-care needs. What

currently exists is not a system at all, but a

chaotic assortment o ragmented or

unevenly available public and private

programs supported by categorical unding

streams, many o which would be ar more

eective i intentionally linked as part o acoherent system o early childhood services.

Replacing the ragmented parts with a

true system not only would refect good

science on child development, it makes good

economic sense. Economist James Heckman

has determined that investments in low-

income young childrens healthy

development are more economically

ecient than eorts to address problems as

children age, in part because early skills

make it easier and more ecient to develop

later ones. He has documented a rate o

return on investment or early childhood

programs that serve low-income children o

7% to 10%, [exceeding] the historical rate

o return to equity o around 6%.109 In a

similar review o early childhood develop-

ment studies, Burr and Grunewald ound

return rates o 7% to 20% in the orm o

higher earnings and tax payments by

children and parents, reduced use o

RECOMMENDATION 1Develop a coherent system o early care and education that aligns,integrates, and coordinates what happens rom birth throughthird grade so children are ready to take on the learning tasksassociated with ourth grade and beyond.


29/64



welare, and the creation o a larger, more

qualied workorce.110 The benetcost

ratios o our early childhood enrichment

programs ranged rom $3 to $17 or every

dollar invested, with benets accruing

not only to program participants but also

the non-participating public.111

A more eective system must be

organized to achieve clear, interrelated

results. The system we envision would

promote a widely shared ocus on thesetarget results:

Children born healthy;

Children healthy, thriving, and develop-

ing on track (no untreated health

conditions or avoidable developmental

delays), rom birth through third grade

and beyond;

Children developmentally ready

(cognitively, socially, physically, andemotionally) to succeed in school at

the time o school entry; and

Children prepared to succeed in ourth

grade and beyond by reading pro-

ciently by the end o third grade.

A system must also encompass the capaci-

ties needed to achieve its target results. The

early care and learning system we envision

would develop and promote these basic

capacities, resources, and tools:

Consistent, aligned expectations or

childrens healthy development rom

birth through third grade that link early

childhood, child care, preschool, and

K3 education. This would include a

ocus on childrens healthy social-

emotional development, as well as

cognitive development.

Appropriate, comparable instruments

or measuring results along the contin-

uum rom birth through age 8 that are

based on common standards or early

childhood programs and practitioners.

Content-rich, developmentally appro-

priate curricula linked to standards and

assessments.

The inrastructure, knowledge, incen-tives, and accountability structures

needed to collect and analyze data ,

making it possible to track childrens

progress toward results rom birth

through third grade, individualize

teaching strategies, and intervene

when needed.

An aligned proessional development

system, and sucient compensation, to

ensure a well-trained, competent, and

qualied workorce in birth-to-5services and child care and in pre-K to

third grade, including inant health

specialists, early childhood developmen-

tal specialists, preschool and K3

teachers, principals, health and mental

health proessionals, school social

workers, nurse home visitors, and child

trauma psychotherapists.

Provision o high-quality resources,

networks, services, supports, and

programming to help children develop

on track between birth and third grade.

Seamless transitions between each stage

on the child development and education

continuum so that experiences at each

stage (age birth to 3, birth to 5, pre-

kindergarten, and K3) build on the

previous one and lay essential ground-

work or the one to come.


30/64



Encouragement or reading embedded

in the agencies and institutions that

work and interact with young children

and amilies.

Funding that is linked to compliance

with common quality standards and is

fexible, blendable, and sucient or thecontinuum o services and supports

needed to get children ready or school

and to provide school experiences that

help them become strong readers.

Universal access to, and greater use o,

high-quality programs or child care,

early learning, school readiness, pre-

school, K3, ater-school, and summer

learning experiences.

Access to high-quality, aordable,

comprehensive health care (including

preventive, acute, emergency, and

chronic care) or physical, mental, and

oral health or all amilies with inants

and young children.

Establishment o medical homes and

primary care practices that ocus broadly

on childrens healthy development,

building on exemplary programs such as

Help Me Grow and Reach Out and Read,

and drawing rom Bright Futures.

Some unders and stakeholder groups havealready taken steps to link early childhood,

preschool, and in-school education; other

good work ocuses on a portion o the

continuum. We are encouraged by the

number o people, organizations, and

advocates who recognize the interdepen-

dence among pieces o the continuum and

who embrace the need to ocus on results.

We now need to apply that ocus to

aligning, sequencing, and coordinating

collaborative work across the birth-to-third-

grade spectrum with the goal o increasing

reading prociency by the end o third

grade, within a context that takes ull

account o the social, emotional, and other

non-cognitive actors that are essential to

the healthy development o young children.

The articial diisions between early childhood, elementary

and secondary, and postsecondary systems create gaps and

poor coordination in our education pipeline, wasting much o

our public inestment in human capital. To create a seamless

educational pipeline capable o preparing our nations young

people or success in work and lie, we must bring these disparate

educational systems into greater alignment with one another

across all leels o the education system, and proid[e] a more

consistent educational experience at each o these leels.

roM A Next Social Contract or the Primary Years o Education,by Lisa Guernsey and Sara Mead (March 2010).

aVailaBle at new amec Foudto, www.ewmec.et


31/64



32/64



RECOMMENDATION 2Encourage and enable parents, amilies, and caregivers to play theirindispensable roles as co-producers o good outcomes or their children.

The challenge o helping amilies improe

childrens reading prociency alls to all o

us: policymakers, unders, system leaders,rontline practitioners, child advocates,

community activists, neighbors, and amily

members alike.

There is no substitute or the parent or

primary caregiers role as a childs rst

teacher, best coach, and most concerned

adocate.Yet we oten take or granted that

parents will acquire the awareness, skills,

and supports they need to ulll the

obligations inherent in these essential roles.

Low-income and less-educated parentswant their children to succeed in school, but

they are less likely to have positive experi-

ences to draw upon in helping their children

succeed or eel respected and supported by

the school system. We pretend not to notice

that ractured social networks, disrupted

communities, lack o community resources,

and other actors outside the home impede

parents ability to ulll their roleand then

we blame amilies or childrens educational

ailures. We are even less likely to notice

when parents are simply unaware o how

important early literacy and third-grade

reading prociency are to their childrens

utures or are unsure o how to help their

children become procient.

The parents role begins early and

covers a lot o ground. Parents should read

to and converse with their very young

children to instill the language and vocabu-

lary skills that lead to procient reading

later on. They should cultivate a joy o

learning, a sense that reading is pleasurable,

and a desire or educationand then make

sure their children show up or school every

day. Parents should understand why itsimportant to read prociently by the end o

third grade and then proactively monitor

their childs progress toward that goal. They

should encourage their children to choose

reading as a ree-time activity. I a child

struggles to read, the parent has to be able

to nd and mobilize the necessary help rom

teachers, schools, education specialists,

and/or medical proessionalssomething

that low-income parents with low levels o

education, and recent immigrants, may be

uncomortable doing. Parents should ndater-school activities or their children that

provide literacy enrichment and summer

learning activities that protect against

summer learning loss. Parents who cant

read should develop their own literacy skills

and, when necessary, English language

skills so they can help their children

succeed in school.

In summary, we need to help parents

and caregivers succeed in ensuring that

their children attend every day, achieve

every year, and attain over time. We also

need to encourage and help parents to

complete their own education, both as a

way to improve amilies economic sel-

suciency and because o the positive

impact it has on childrens school success.

Across the country, many organizations

already are engaged in dicult and impor-

tant eorts to promote successul parenting,

generally, and parental support or early

literacy and reading, in particular. We

acknowledge and applaud this work.


33/64


Community Schools Engage Parents as Partners

This report does not explore the many

strategies or engaging parents in their

childrens education. Howeer, the

community schools strategy bears

mentioning as one o the most prealent

and successul approaches. Community

schools operate as community hubs,

bringing together many partners to oer

education, health and social serices, and

youth and community deelopment or

children, young people, parents, and othercommunity members during extended

hours and weekends.

Secretary o Education Arne Duncan,

who, as Superintendent o Chicago Public

Schools, oersaw the deelopment o a

thriing community-schools program, has

said, Where the school becomes a center

o community lie, great things are going to

happen.The more we open our school

buildings to the community, the more we

work together, not ust with our children

but the amilies, the more we create an

enironment where the students canmaximize their academic potential.

source Secretary o Education Arne Duncan, speaking on PBSs Charlie Rose program, March 13, 2009.

The Fostering Connections to Success

and Increasing Adoptions Act o 2008

(PL 110-351) requires that case plans

or children in oster care ensure

educational stability. The new proisions

are an important step toward helping

oster children attend school more

regularly, achiee more eery year, and

attain more oer time.

The law requires state child welare

agencies to coordinate with schools to

ensure that a child does not change schools

when entering oster care (unless remaining

in the original school is contrary to the

childs best interests). I it is in the childs

best interests to change schools, then

the law requires immediate enrollment

and transer o educational records.

It also permits states to claim the cost

o transporting a student who is in oster

care back to his or her original school,

as part o the oster care maintenance

payment. The law supports regular

attendance and high school graduation by

requiring states to ensure that all children

who receie Title Iv-E oster care, kinship

guardianship, or adoption assistance

payments be ull-time students or hae

completed a secondary school.

sourceFostering Connections Resource Center. Available at www.osteringconnections.org.

Education Support or Children in Foster Care


34/64



RECOMMENDATION 3Prioritize, support, and invest in results-driven initiatives to transormlow-perorming schools into high-quality teaching and learningenvironments in which all children, including those rom low-incomeamilies and high-poverty neighborhoods, are present, engaged, andeducated to high standards.

way to monitor progress and improve

classroom instruction. This more muscular

approach by the ederal government may be

controversial in some quarters, but

it is aligned with the best and most promis-

ing proposals and initiatives supported by

leading research and advocacy organiza-tions, education coalitions, and private

unders. We applaud these steps and

encourage ongoing eorts to align strong

curricula, instruction, teachers, and

assessments between early care and

education and K3 education.

The continuing challenge is or all o us to

become more explicit, consistent, and

insistent about the importance o achieing

measurable results, in the orm o improed

student outcomes and educator eectieness.

The rigorous pursuit o results is a ormi-

dable and sustainable orce or change. It

allows diverse stakeholders to ocus on

common goals and aspirations, collaborate

across proessional and political boundaries,

mobilize joint action, and sustain eort. It

encourages comparisons o progress across

interventions and over time, making it

The U.S. Department o Education is

proiding an unprecedented leel o support

and leadership or school reorm, including

the competitive programs Race to the Top

Fund, Investing in Innovation Fund, and

Promise Neighborhoods Initiative. The

requirements or those unding streams,and or the American Recovery and Rein-

vestment Act (ARRA) o 2009, incentivize

some key elements necessary or school

transormation, including demanding,

content-rich curricula; powerul instruc-

tion; meaningul assessments; and

well-trained teachers.

To close achievement gaps, increase

graduation rates, and retain high-quality

educators, Secretary Duncan has placed a

priority on approaches that improve

teaching practices, put the best teachers in

schools where theyre needed most, and

turn around chronically low-perorming

schools. To move more students toward

prociency and world-class competitive-

ness, he has taken steps to promote

top-quality assessments and to create data

systems that track students rom the cradle

to college, linking students to teachers as a


35/64


Although this KIDS COUNT Special Reportdoes not respond to the special concerns

and challenges o children who are English

Language Learners (ELL), we recognize that

this is an important and increasingly urgent

issue. We intend to support state and local

work to ensure that English Language

Learners are not let behind in the eort to

dramatically improe reading prociency by

the end o third grade.

All young children are capable o

learning two languages. Becomingbilingual has long-term cognitive,

academic, social, cultural, and economic

benets. Bilingualism is an asset.

Young ELL students require systematic

support or the continued development

o their home language.

Loss o the home language has potential

negative long-term consequences or the

ELL childs academic, social, and

emotional development, as well as or the

amily dynamics.

Teachers and programs can adopteective strategies to support home

language development even when

the teachers are monolingual English

speakers.

Dual-language programs are an eective

approach to improving academic achieve-

ment or ELL children, while providing

benets to native English speakers.

Spanish-speaking children enter

kindergarten with many social strengthsthat are the result o positive parenting

practices that need to be acknowledged

and enhanced.

Hispanic parents value high-quality

early education and will enroll their

young children i programs are

aordable and accessible.

source Challenging Common Myths About Young English Language Learners. Linda Espinoza (2008).

Available rom the Foundation or Child Development, www.cd-us.org.

Findings About Young English Language Learners


36/64



possible to select the strategies most likely

to produce positive results in a specic

context. It pushes local systems and

practitioners to identiy the populations that

need to be reached and served in order to

achieve population-level and community-

wide changes or children. A results-

driven approach requires back-mapping

rom the goal to the setting o ambitious but

achievable targets and timelines, using data

to set baselines and track progress, makingreasonable adjustments in both targets and

strategies as the situation demands, and

holding everyone accountable or the

results, not just their eort.

A clear articulation o targets,

milestones, and timelines would be an

immeasurably valuable contribution to the

already unprecedented eorts underway to

achieve the goal set out inA Blueprint for

Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elemen-

tary and Secondary Education Act, which

calls on states, districts, and schools to aimor the ambitious goal o all students graduat-

ing or on track to graduate rom high school

ready or college and a career by 2020.112

The business community is not alone in its

adocacy o world-class standards or

student achieement. Secretary Duncans

Department o Education is well aligned

with those who call or higher, clearer, and

more rigorous state standards or reading

prociency in order to counteract the race to

the bottom and return the United States to

global competitiveness. One o the our

assurances states must make when applying

or ARRA school improvement unds is that

they are making progress toward adopting

rigorous standards that prepare students

or success in college and the workorce.

The state-driven Common Core State

Standards Initiative oers a promising

alternative to mandated national standards.

The Initiative is a partnership o the

National Governors Association, the

Council o Chie State School Ocers, ACT,

the College Board, and Achieve, Inc., with

nancial support rom several oundations.

Initiative leaders aspire to produce clear,

understandable standards with rigorous

content and application o knowledge

through high-order skills; that are

inormed by other top-perorming coun-

tries, so that all students are prepared tosucceed in our global economy and society;

and are evidence- and research-based.113

The K12 standards are intended to dene

the knowledge and skills students should

have in order to graduate rom high school

able to succeed in entry-level, credit-

bearing academic college courses and in

workorce training programs.114

To date, 48 states and the District

o Columbia have joined this voluntary

eort to develop and adopt internationally

benchmarked, evidence- or research-basedstandards or K12 English-language arts

and mathematics. We applaud this eort

and the remarkable progress made to date.

The drat Common Core State Standards

or English Language Arts and Literacy in

History/Social Studies and Science set

requirements not only or English language

arts, but also or reading, writing, speaking,

listening, and language in the social and

natural sciences, which underscores a

comprehensive and integrated approach to

teaching and learning. However, the move

to more rigorous standards should also

complement and reinorce the aspirations o

a more coherent, aligned, and integrated

birth-through-third-grade system. Thats

why we urge partners in the Common Core

State Standards Initiative to accelerate

eorts to link K12 standards to standards

or early care and education rom birth

through kindergarten entry.


37/64



38/64



We cannot hae equity without quality. And we cannot hae

true quality without real equity. All children, regardless o skin

color, ethnicity or socioeconomic status, desere access to

high-quality education and a air and substantie Opportunity

to Learn.As a nation, we must recognize that the strength

o our public schools is directly and unbreakably bound to

our social, ciic and economic strength. Access to a high-

quality public education should be a guaranteed right that

eery American enoys, regardless o his or her race, ethnicity,

socio-economic status, or zip code.

roM Lost Opportunity: A 50 State Report on the Opportunity to Learn inAmerica, by the Schott Foundation or Public Education (2009).

aVailaBle at www.otstteepot.o

To protect against additional unintended

and pererse consequences o raising

standards, we also need to commit explic-

itly to making sure that all children hae

access to high-quality learning eniron-

ments, resources, and supports. Raising

standards or content and perormance doesnot, by itsel, close the achievement gap. In

act, the gaps are widest in some states that

have the highest standards, because low-

income children have ewer opportunities

(and more obstacles) to obtain the resources

and learning environments needed to meet

the standards. While holding students,

teachers, and schools to higher standards o

achievement, wethe ederal, state, and

local education systems; partners in the

standards movement; schools, nonprot

organizations, and private-sector partners;

and private undersalso need to ensure

access to the resources that aord every

child the opportunity to learn:

Adequate school unding;

Qualied, experienced teachers or all

students, especially the students who

need them most;

Extra support or English language

learners to help them master the

language and content, including extra

time or individualized instruction and

materials that are relevant;

Facilities that are sae, healthy, inviting,welcoming, and conducive to teaching

and learning;

Technologyto support learning and

assessment in the classroom and

online; and

Hands-on, literacy-rich activities

that make learning in and outside

school engaging and un.

We applaud those who are addressing this

issue and urge more widespread attention

to the critically important task o linking

rigorous standards with equitable opportu-

nities to learn.


39/64


Prepare children or entry into schoolthrough high-quality early care and

education experiences, characterized by

well-trained sta; low student/sta

ratios; sae acilities; and culturally,

linguistically, and developmentally

appropriate curricula.

Ensure access to preventive health

care, especially as children enter school.

This may include not only expanding

enrollment in childrens health

insurance, but also providing childrenwith immunizations and comprehensive

screenings (vision, dental, hearing, and

developmental delays).

Oer a high-quality education that

responds to the diverse learning styles

and needs o students. When the

educational experience engages

childrens interest and meets their

learning needs, amilies are much

more likely to eel that going to school

is worthwhile.

Engage amilies o all backgrounds in theirchildrens education. Attendance improves

when schools create a wide variety o

opportunities or amilies rom all back-

grounds to support their childs learning.

Educate parents about the importance

o attendance.

Encourage amilies to help each other

attend school.

Oer incentives or excellent attendanceto all children, such as materials (pencils

or toys), acknowledgment in class or at

morning assembly, extra recess time,

opportunities to dress casually i

uniorms are required.

Conduct early outreach to amilies with

poor attendance and, i appropriate, case

management to address social, medical,

economic, and academic needs.

Coordinate public-agency and, i needed,

legal response or amilies in crisis.

sourcePresent, Engaged, and Accounted For: The Critical Importance o Addressing Chronic Absence inthe Early Grades, by Hedy N. Chang and Mariajos Romero (2008). Available at www.nccp.org.

A Proposed Comprehensive Responseto Chronic Absence From School


40/64



RECOMMENDATION 4Find, develop, and deploy practical and scalable solutions to two o the mostsignifcant contributors to the under-achievement o children rom low-income amilieschronic absence rom school and summer learning loss.

Content-rich, demanding curricula and

powerul instruction by well-trained teach-

ers may not matt

why reading by the third grade matters

Documents