Misusing scientifically-based research

I recently read an article, though really it was a conversation between Dick Allington and P. David Pearson, called The Casualties of Policy on Early Literacy Development. Their conversation is very much a continuation of the podcast I listened to last week, also featuring P. David Pearson, which focused on Reading First. In this conversation, Allington and Pearson discuss policy like No Child Left Behind and Reading First, and their effects on instruction and learning literacy.

The section that jumped out at me was the critique of DIBELS, something I mentioned last week. Allington says the What Works Clearinghouse has stated that there are no studies that show DIBELS to improve reading achievement. Pearson, then adds that DIBELS website states that it is not a diagnostic tool, but meant only for progress monitoring.He goes on to point out that since these are the metrics people are monitoring, then that becomes the skills teachers assume ought to be taught. Thus, students will improve at the DIBELS test and progress. However, that is not the way the creators of DIBELS ever intended for it to be used.

I am reminded of a reading I did a few weeks ago, that spoke of the problems associated around leveling books. In that case, a good idea, was often implemented poorly. Here, there is debate whether DIBELS is a good idea to begin with, so implementing it poorly can only be worse. It places the focus on skills and consequently instruction that don't show evidence for improving reading. Time spent there is time taken away from students reading for meaning, something Allington and Pearson say that we know from research to be important for young readers. I suspect that the more time students spend with books, making meaning, and enjoying them, the better they will do at the skills DIBELS tests. However, designing a curriculum to address those skills isn't shown to work, isn't what DIBELS was designed for, and won't engage students in learning.