[AAACE-NLA] STAR Struck!

[tsticht@znet.com]

February 6, 2007

The Federal STAR (STudent  Achievement in Reading) Project: Why Now?

Tom Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education

Recently the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult
Education (OVAE), Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL) announced
the STAR web site and professional development activity. The web site
provides information about STAR:

Quote:"What is STAR?
STAR is a comprehensive toolkit and training package to help Adult Basic
Education (ABE) instructors use evidence-based reading instruction in the
classroom. For more information, see About STAR.
What is the National STAR Training Network?
The National STAR Training Network (NSTN) encompasses national and state
experts in reading instruction, state and federal policymakers, and
practitioners. All are working in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Education to use evidence-based reading instruction and the STAR model to
improve adult reading. For more information see Contact the Network.
Why STAR?
STAR delivers the tools and techniques teachers need to help adult learners
read and achieve."

In and of itself, the idea of tools and techniques to help adult learners
read and achieve is not very notable because there are already numerous
tools and techniques , commercial programs, etc. that aim to do the same
thing. But repeatedly the STAR web site says it aims at assisting adult
educators to use "evidence-based" reading instruction.  It describes
"evidence-based" and says: Quote:"Evidence-based reading instruction (EBRI)
integrates findings from the best available reading research with
practitioner wisdom to inform instructional decisions. 
With EBRI, teachers
use diagnostic assessment procedures to gauge the strengths and weaknesses
of each learner and target reading instruction accordingly. 
Teachers that
use EBRI help learners improve their skills in each of the four components
of reading - alphabetics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension - by
explaining new concepts, modeling strategies, and providing feedback when
learners practice."

However, the STAR web site provides no evidence that following its
evidence-based approach will improve adult reading instruction over what is
already being done by adult literacy educators. I have searched for
scientific research indicating that a focus on alphabetics (code emphasis
in Jeanne Chall's terms) with adults with low literacy produced better
learning outcomes than some other, perhaps whole language (meaning emphasis
in Jeanne Chall's  terms) approach. But I have found no  such research. No
such research is cited on the STAR web site, and the report on principles
of adult reading instruction that is mentioned does not include any such
research, either.

The evidence that the STAR web site mentions also includes "professional
wisdom," however no citation of professional wisdom is given. I have looked
at historical approaches to teaching adults to read to find professional
wisdom in using either code or meaning emphases. Cora Wilson Stewart in
1911 and beyond did not like the alphabetics approach and clearly stated
that adults should be taught using the "word" approach. Reports of her work
indicate that more than 180,000 adults learned to read following her "whole
language" approach. But in World War I, J. Duncan Spaeth took a strong
alphabetics (phonics) approach to teaching reading to soldiers. Then in
World War II, Paul Witty took a strong "word", "whole language" approach,
and indeed teachers in Special Training Units got demerits if they
emphasized phonics too much. It is reported that over a quarter million
soldiers learned to read using this meaning emphasis approach.

Septima Poinsette Clark favored a whole language approach in teaching some
10,000 teachers to teach 700,000 adults to read and write to vote in the
early civil rights movement. Frank Laubach strongly favored a code emphasis
while Ruth Colvin, founder of Literacy Volunteers of America  favored a
whole language approach (interestingly, Laubach and Colvin have merged into
one organization, ProLiteracy Worldwide).

This type of variable historical data on professional wisdom, and the lack
of any solid research that I have found on the relative effectiveness with
adults of the code or meaning emphases leaves me without any good data to
help make decisions about the use of these two approaches. I know that
Jeanne Chall favored the code approach in her clinical work but her
reported gains did not seem to be much better, if at all better, than what
other adult literacy programs reported. As I read the STAR web page, it
appears that the STAR approach has been developed in large part by former
students of Jeanne at Harvard.

It seems to me that the evidence base for the effectiveness of the STAR
approach to adult literacy education is lacking, in both professional
wisdom and scientific research. It seems to me that the national
dissemination effort funded by the federal government is premature. I think
that before such an expensive (over $31,400 for 45 adult educators) national
dissemination effort is undertaken there should be research conducted to
show that the STAR approach is more effective than other approaches to
teaching reading with adults.

Too often national efforts by the federal government have been undertaken
and millions of dollars have been spent to disseminate the efforts, only to
see them fade away with little apparent long-lasting improvement to the
Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) of the United States. Will STAR
go this way, too?

Whatever happened to the Adult Performance Level (APL) project?
Whatever happened to the Equipped for the Future (EFF) project?

Are we about to be STAR stuck!

Thomas G. Sticht
International Consultant in Adult Education
2062 Valey View Blvd.
El Cajon, CA 92019-2059
Tel/fax: (619) 444-9133
Email: tsticht at aznet.net