As a parent whose child has been evaluated multiple times using the STAR
reading program and participating in AR, I question the validity of the
STAR program, because her scores seems to bounce around significantly
from one test session to the next.  It's a nice screening instrument,
but I surely would not make major judgments using only it.  

Donna Hohmann
-----Original Message-----
From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov]
On Behalf Of Marie Cora
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 2:23 PM
To: Assessment at nifl.gov
Subject: [Assessment 663] STAR Struck

Colleagues,

The following is from Tom Sticht, in response to James Austin's post
from earlier today.

Marie Cora
Assessment Discussion List Moderator

******


Colleagues: I am not surprised to find those who have worked on the STAR
project offering testimonials as to how it has benefited them and others
they have worked with. I recall a product called Hooked on Phonics that
had
numerous testimonials on radio and TV about how it worked for them and
others they knew. But  it was eventually driven into bankruptcy by the
federal government's FCC because it did not have solid research to
support
the many testimonials.  This bias in favor of a program frequently
happens
when people participate in some educational endeavor and it is one of
the
reasons that solid research is needed to ferret out what the actual
value
of the endeavor is.

I am a bit more puzzled why there is not more concern about
the fact that the STAR program was not tested in solid research before
going national. For one thing, NCSALL, the organization that had the
primary
role in bringing forth the products being disseminated by the STAR
program
has been at the forefront of those calling for evidence-based adult
literacy education. So to find that the government that funds the NCSALL
thinks it is OK to depend upon K-12 based research rather than
adult-based research in support of the STAR program is troubling.

Also, contrary to what many may think, there is
not universal agreement on how children learn to read. Reports from the
National Reading Panel and elsewhere that have made claims about the
so-called "components" of reading have been challenged by many reading
professionals (see Jim Trelease's web site:
www.trelease-on-reading.com/whatsnu_nrp_ssr.html for instance). So it is
not clear that there is solid knowledge about how children learn to read
to
be applied to adult literacy education.

All this movement to spread STAR across the nation, at a charge of over
$31,000 for 45 teachers, when there is no evidence-base behind it is
also
disconcerting because the so-called 'components" of reading are not
there.
Contrary to what is claimed, comprehension, for instance, is not a
component of reading, it is a product of language processing, prior
knowledge, and thinking. All that can be and is done by oral language
with
no reading. Further, vocabulary is also a component of language, not
reading. And fluency is not a component of reading but rather a quality
of
a reading performance. There is no "fluency" to be taught. Fluency must
develop through extensive practice. It can even be argued that fluency
does
not aid comprehension, but rather that comprehension aids fluency.

So if the federal government is going to insist that all of us in the
field
provide evidence-based instruction, shouldn't the same federal
government
provide the necessary research to support the efficacy of the STAR
program
as a more effective approach to teaching reading with (not TO) adults
before it goes national? As things stand now, the STAR program is not so
much a part of the federal government's evidence-based education
initiatives as it is its faith-based initiatives.
Tom Sticht




-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Assessment mailing list
Assessment at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment