A Voyage to Reading: Will Petersburg Follow Richmond’s Success?

By Christian Braunlich • Mar 17th, 2009 • Category: Education, Feature

Less than half a dozen years ago, the Richmond City Public School system was the poster child for failing schools. Nearly half its third grade black students could not read on grade level, and its overall scores ranked it at or near the bottom of any state-wide list.

Since then, its disadvantaged third and fifth graders have jumped 19 and 13 percentile points, respectively, on state reading tests. Seventy-five percent of today’s at-risk third graders are reading on grade level, as are more than 83 percent of at-risk fifth graders. Reading scores tie or are within a few percentage points of the scores attained in nearby suburban Henrico and Chesterfield counties.

The turn-around came from a determined administrator, fueled by financial support from the private sector, who insisted on a simple rule: Do what works in the classroom.

More than 40 years of research has demonstrated there is a science to teaching reading. In 2000, the National Reading Panel issued a report identifying the five key components to reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Teach all five consistently, and a child will learn to read.

But instead of explicit instructional methodology, too many school systems and classrooms work on the “do your own thing” theory of reading instruction. Programs can vary from school to school – even within the same school division or from classroom to classroom. Programs often have little evidence of effectiveness. And in the schools of education, where those who teach our students are taught, the average graduate receives only a few credit hours of coursework on how to teach reading – coursework that rarely includes the use of phonics.

Richmond City’s schools looked a lot like that in 1999, when Yvonne Brandon first came on board as the director of instruction. She found nearly 30 different reading programs being used in city schools. Few, if any, were research-based systems.

But the Voyager reading series used as a summer school component was having an impact, and when the company expanded to a year-round program for grades K-2, Brandon leapt on it as a solution to Richmond’s early reading challenges.

The decision to focus on Voyager gave her two challenges of her own: money to buy the program and resistance from entrenched teachers used to doing it their own way.

The first was solved when Verizon Communications stepped up in 2002 with a $100,000 two-year grant – one of the largest ever made by the company, which has made literacy a major charitable focus.

The other was more daunting. Some teachers felt the program to be too scripted; others didn’t want to use more options than a single textbook. But hitting bottom on the test score list can have a way of focusing the mind. More importantly, teachers began to discover Voyager was a system that worked. It offers students a daily two-hour literacy block. For part of that time there are large group lessons, for part there are vocabulary and spelling lessons and for part there is time to work on reading skills. All of it is contained in a detailed manual that teachers are required to follow.

Struggling students receive additional daily instruction and there are regular assessments to determine progress. Simply put, teaching children how to read – particularly children from at risk backgrounds — isn’t easy. And it’s not something you make up as you go along.

With the support of Richmond’s then-superintendent, the Voyager reading program is now in 18 of the city’s 28 elementary schools; 10 others use the equally research-based Houghton Mifflin reading texts.

The results have been clear: Richmond is doing a better job of teaching reading to disadvantaged students than more than 60 other school divisions.

Dr. Brandon has since risen to become Richmond’s Superintendent of Schools in large part because of the growing success of her instructional efforts.

Perhaps more importantly, her success is on the verge of being replicated elsewhere. Thirty miles to the south, more than a third of Petersburg City elementary students failed state reading exams last year.

But this year, the school system signed itself up for the Voyager program, and more than 1500 students in grades K-8 (the program has now expanded to middle school) are using the program, including nearly every student in grades K-2.  Petersburg personnel have visited Richmond’s schools to see it in action, and early indications are that the program in Petersburg is starting to have an impact.

There are more than 60,000 Virginia students in grades K-5 at risk of failing state reading exams without strong intervention. But throughout Virginia only about 14,000 of them are using a program like Voyager.

What will happen to the other 46,000?

Christian Braunlich Christian N. Braunlich is vice president of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, Virginia’s premier non-partisan public policy foundation. He served eight years on the Fairfax County School Board, the nation’s 12th largest school system, where he was a strong advocate of educational accountability and research-based reading programs. Mr. Braunlich has served as Chief of Staff to Congressman John LeBoutillier, Assistant Vice President of Public Affairs for the National Association of Manufacturers, president of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, and vice president of the Center for Education Reform. His articles have appeared in dozens of publications, including The Washington Post, The Northern Virginia Journal, The Washington Times, and The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star.
Email this author | All posts by Christian Braunlich

2 Responses »

  1. Thanks for highlighting the value of research-based instructional methods and the need for school systems to employ
    such methods with consistency and fidelity over time to achieve success. Let’s applaud the strong leadership that prompted Richmond to adopt this approach and stick with it long enough to overcome obstacles and achieve results.

    Why isn’t this approach being used in every division struggling with reading achievement? From a “policy adoption” perspective, isn’t this an example of the potential power of “centralized” decision-making in education. I.e., wouldn’t this innovation spread farther and faster and more successfully if the VA DOE mandated this curriculum (or at least mandated that divisions choose from a menu of “approved” reading instruction programs)? Is this a case in which local autonomy and control work to the detriment of students, and especially disadvantaged students who are most in need of and will show the greatest benefit from such research-based instruction? Note that DOE is never mentioned in the article – where does it stand on this issue?

    Also makes me wonder about the controversy of some years ago – phonics vs. whole language? Resolved? Jury still out? If this is still being debated in scientific and pedagogical circles, perhaps that is another barrier to full implementation of “best practices” in reading instruction.

    Regardless, one thing is clear: for school divisions lagging far behind in reading achievement, adoption of a research-based curriculum is a winner.

  2. I feel this article gets to the heart of what’s important – that schools and school systems must better focus on how to make their students successful – even when that means breaking the mold of how things used to be done. Richmond public schools had that vision and did something to reverse its previous course with tremendous results. And while Verizon and the Verizon Foundation were there to help fulfill a need the Richmond public schools had, the real credit goes to Yvonne and a team of other visionaries that made it happen.

    Hopefully, Richmond’s success will inspire other school systems with literacy issues to take action. It already has in Petersburg, and I’m sure a lot of eyes will be watching their progress.

Leave a Reply