Increasing Literacy in Florida Public Schools
Literacy levels in the Florida Public School Systems are not as high as the state would like them to be. After many initiatives and various methods to try and improve the literacy rate, 77% of Florida’s 4th graders are still are reading below proficiency (Youth). The North East Florida Educational Consortium (NEFEC) is currently running an initiative that they created in 2001, to try and overcome this literacy deficiency. In fact, their goal is 100% literacy in the school system.
The educational value of literacy is one that is exponential. Not only is the skill one necessary to the very success of student learning, but it also is a skill that carries much weight in future citizenship for students entering society after school is completed. Studies show that persons with low literacy skills are prone to unemployment or part-time jobs alone, and that training for said persons (to help them obtain better working skills due both directly and indirectly due to their illiteracy) can be very expensive when they do enter the work place. Studies also indicate that persons not proficient in literacy are extremely more likely than their counterparts to participate in costly programs to help assist them with everyday living requirements, such as food stamps or medical assistance programs (Literacy).The costs associated with illiteracy or low literacy is no laughing matter, with $225 billion a year spent from the American economy on lost productivity in direct correlation with these issues (Literacy). All of these are underlying symptoms that motivate and push leaders to form such literacy initiatives as the one being discussed.
Another underlying motivator for the initiative is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). This is an annual standardized test that is given in grades 3-11 in the Florida public school system to assess reading, mathematics, science, and writing ability. The results of the test are in direct correlation with a letter grade that each school is given based on their purported standards of achievement. Schools receiving higher letter grades receive higher funding than do their counterparts with a lesser grade. Scores are based on previous performance ratings and test scores within individual schools (Comprehensive). Schools wish not only to be able to assist students to achieve literacy for their own satisfaction, student progression, and students becoming reliable citizens in their futures within their communities, but they also wish to receive the highest amount of funding available to their schools. Higher literacy scores are a great way to achieve this within the Florida public school system. The problem is that FCAT is not really taking schools in the direction of literacy that they wanted to go, so more focus is being put on trying to improve that than in other initiatives at hand (Education).
NEFEC has created an initiative to help counteract the throes of illiteracy, pushing for a program that is in place to achieve complete literacy within the school system. In 2001, the plan was put together with the intent of creating a school-wide reform based on previous critical research. It defies the previous attempts of teaching literacy by creating an entirely new curriculum and approach and focuses very much on professional development and community support (Florida). At inception there were thirteen schools in the northeastern part of Florida who were members. With the success and hopes of future success the plan was generating, twenty-seven additional NEFEC schools joined during the second year (Florida).
The K-12 initiative is one that turns accountability and leadership regarding literacy over to the teachers, realizing that these are the people who have the power to instill knowledge in the children, as they are the ones working with them on a day-to-day basis. Skills and training are given extensively to the teachers to ensure they are equipped with the best possible tools to obtain the goal of teaching one hundred percent literacy to their students. A two-week summer reading academy is given for the faculty that focuses on research-based material regarding how to effectively teach literacy and curriculum requirements are discussed regularly throughout. Faculty meetings are abundant during this time, and 85% of the staff of participating schools is mandated to attend (Florida). The areas of phonics, connections between reading and writing, development of language, assessment of which students are in most need, and intervention techniques to best assist those students identified as needy are discussed in depth (Florida).
If schools wish to try and become a part of the initiative, the principal or a member of district level staff must attend the annual information orientation. If after attending they wish to be one of the schools chosen to participate, they must fill out an application and meet the specific criteria, which is as follows: “85% of the faculty must agree to attend the two week summer academy, the principal must attend the academy, the school must commit to hiring a reading coach, a commitment to monthly meetings must be made, and documents of previous school reforms must be submitted. Currently there are over 60 schools in 17 districts admitted in Florida and 7-10 schools are selected as additions to the initiative each year.
Follow-up, assessment, and evaluation of the initiative are on-going, as is professional development. Teachers are taught tools to effectively gauge student performance and progress and this is done and discussed frequently throughout intermittent staff meetings. Because this initiative requires the support of all school members, including the principal, every level of staff/management are kept apprise of the situations at hand on a regular basis and ideas for improvement, based on the newfound training skills are discusses and reiterated to help keep everyone on track. The purpose of such instances is to garner support from all involved and provide a network for assistance and additional support for those involved in the teaching process. Monthly meetings are also held for designated reading coaches to further enhance the support networking that occurs in this initiative.
Not only are specific students discussed during these meeting, but also the process of assessment and diagnosis are continuously researched and discussed to monitor what is being done, how it is being received as far as literacy goes, and what still needs to be done to achieve the initiative’s ultimate goal (Florida). Coaches are given the responsibility of working with designated students who require assistance and for providing pedagogical models for the teachers to work from (State).
Evaluation of both “qualitative and quantitative data,” (Florida) are done on a regular basis by an outside, third-party professional evaluator. Instruction techniques and the value of the supporting networks are assessed regularly and feedback is ultimately given to the staff so as they can execute any changes that need be done in a timely manner to better assist the students. There are also annual outside evaluations being done to assess the overall effectiveness and progress of the initiative goals and to assess the role of effectiveness the teachers are having in it (Florida). The program also incorporates a stipulation into this five-year program that recognizes changes will take place over the course of time and allows for components of change that will be necessary in light of new and revised state standards (State).
Funding for the initiative is given in part by legislature, so cost is very minimal to the schools who are responsible only for travel fees, student assessments, and salaries for reading coaches in each school (Florida). Various outside businesses are used for the remaining funding needs of the initiative. When the program began in 2001, $47,296 was set aside by the Florida legislature for the program, and an additional $237,000 was given by area businesses and private support (State). There are also many events that are put on, such as golf tournaments and paper drives (NEFEC) to help aid in funding. Outside funding is recognized by the NEFEC and awards of appreciation are given on an annual basis (Florida).
The values and assumptions that shape this initiative are that old methods and standards of teaching literacy are irrelevant and severely outdated. New ways of teaching are thought needed to increase literacy because previous statistics indicate that the current process just is not doing an effective job. Research also shows that teacher support is not as prevalent as need be to carry forth such plans, so it is assumed that creating a program that generates and requires full teacher support must be put into place. The value and assumption is in place that every teacher wishes to make a positive change in a child’s life and this is a driving force in generating the support needed from them to help make the difference (Florida). Responsibility changes hands from the traditional board and administration and is given to the teachers, therefore accountability for teaching, communication networks, and results are put on teachers like never they have been before, and teachers are clearly living up to these expectations as we see an increase in literacy levels in south Florida are on a slow but steady incline (Herrington, 53).
The theory of the initiative is that with complete cooperation, complete internal support and abundant outside support, networking, curriculum change, professional development, proper training at all levels, community support, ongoing assessment and continuous evaluation, changes can be made that will spawn a literacy level of one hundred percent from the current and future student bodies within the public school system in the state of Florida. The causal proposition is, that by changing the way teachers teach literacy, and giving them the training and skills required to do so will raise the literacy rate within the schools.
The initiative is a good one, with many fine points and aspects, but it does seem to overlook three very important facts for proper implementation. One, it does not, anywhere in it, consider the actions and reactions of the students themselves. Having the support of the staff, administration, and community is imperative to success, but if the methods being taught are not ones that students are, in reality, able to, or want to, respond to it will create large obstacles in obtaining any kind of success for the initiative. Also a must to be taken into consideration, is do all of the students truly have the ability to learn what is being taught so that the goal of one hundred percent literacy can be obtained. Because not all children learn the same, it may very well be safe to say that the goal is absurdly unobtainable.
The second area overlooked is time. Although the plan is purported to be on a five-year schedule, allowing for changes as needed required by state statutes and changes, schools are still graded on an annual basis in regards to their FCAT scores, which measures, in part, student literacy. Without immediate improvement, state funding will not increase for the schools (considering the grade of the school does not increase) which may create situations where teacher retention or morale is low, and if either occurs, the attitudes towards training and the FRI may be lower or non-existent as teachers consider leaving or are new ones are coming in. It could, in part, create a cyclical effect that would be a detriment to the overall plan of the initiative. Another consideration along these lines is that teachers are so busy with the FCAT benchmarks in south Florida that taking so much time out to focus on reading initiatives, while very worthwhile, may truly not be as viable of an option as one would like it to be.
The third area possibly overlooked could be wherein the outside evaluation is stressed so readily. Yes, outside, third-party evaluation seems like a tremendously good idea, and perhaps it is, but there is an alternate side where it could prove to disrupt the plan if the interests and expectations of the evaluator are not on the same level and have the same intent as does the implementer. The evaluator has quite a potent amount of power in FRI: Care must be taken to ensure that outside interests and agendas do not come into play from them, either intentionally or inadvertently, that could alter or fragment the plan at hand.
The intended consequences that occurred are that teachers’ attitudes towards teaching are infectiously upbeat and they emerge from the two-week summer academy with renewed vigor for their job and the differences they can make in it. Also the initiative does get all members of the participating schools and subsequent communities involved akin to the same goal: a goal which throughout educational history has always proven to be a challenge. The unintended consequence by far is that the initiative has had some success and thus spawned alike initiatives at a government level, most notably Governor Jeb Bush’s “Just Read” initiative which is very similar to this one, with the same concepts and support systems in place, only on a much larger scale (8,000 teachers are enrolled, 500 reading coaches are paid for in full, and $300 million in funds is awarded for implementation, including $52 million budgeted for professional development alone) with the ultimate goal of having 100% of the Florida student body able to read at one grade-level higher than they are enrolled in, by the year 2012 (Just).
Multiple testing and assessment in the state of Florida does undeniably show that something must be done to increase the literacy level of the K-12 population. Fortunately almost all are in agreement with this, for so many different reasons, that funding to do so is readily abundant, as is other support, both internally and externally. While many initiatives have proven lacking, the great thing that FRI has going for it is that it is research-based. Past foibles and shortcomings have been researched over and over again to help find the answers as to what really is needed to promote literacy. FRI is coming in prepared with knowledge of times past and motivation, skills, training, and research for improving the future. The numbers of schools wishing to join the initiative are plentiful, and that alone speaks accolades aplenty for the program. With continued support and internal drive, motivation, and skilled teaching, not to mention alike programs such as Bush’s “Just Read” initiative that compliments and fosters such an initiative, this program should go far. And while the program may not meet its overall goal of 100% literacy, it surely will increase the numbers of literate students graduating, as we are witnessing, and that alone is worth its weight in gold. FRI is providing a valuable community service and an invaluable resource to the many of the students who are benefiting from it.
“Comprehensive Assessment Test, Florida.” Wikimedia Encyclopedia.Retrieved August
9, 2005 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCAT
“Education Policy Analysis Archives.” (2004). Edited by Glass, Gene. College of
Education. ArizonaStateUniversity.A peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Retrieved
August 6, 2005 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n39/v12n39.pdf
“FCAT. Florida’s Comprehensive Assessment Test.” (2005). Retrieved August 6, 2005
From http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcat.htm
“Florida Reading Initiative.” (2005). Retrieved August 6, 2005 from
Glass, Gene. College of Education. ArizonaStateUniversity.(2002). A peer-reviewed
scholarly journal. A peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Retrieved August 7, 2005 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n40.html
Herrington, Caroline and Casten, Katherine. “Educational Policy Alternatives.”
Learning Systems Institute. Florida StateUniversity.(2001). Retrieved August 1, 2005 from http://www.unf.edu/dept/fie/downloads/florida2001book.pdf
“Just Read.” Your Florida Department of Education.(2005). Retrieved August 7, 2005
from http://www.justreadflorida.com/
“Literacy and Economics.” (2002). Retrieved August 7, 2005 from
http://www.floridaliteracy.org/2004/pdf-docs/literacy_and_economics.pdf
“State Literacy Programs.” (2002) Retrieved August 6, 2005 from http://www.ecs.org/dbsearches/Search_Info/Literacy_ProgramProfile.asp?ProgID=4
“Youth Education in Florida.” (2003). Retrieved August 7, 2005 from
http://www.floridaliteracy.org/2004/pdf-docs/youth_education_in_florida.pdf
