It's a Program That Looks Great on Paper": The Challenge of America Reads

http://jlr.sagepub.com/Journal of Literacy Research

http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/35/3/879The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3503_4

2003 35: 879Journal of Literacy ResearchJo Worthy, Kathryn Prater and Julie Pennington

Reads''It's a Program That Looks Great on Paper'': The Challenge of America

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

Literary Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Literacy ResearchAdditional services and information for    

  http://jlr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jlr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/35/3/879.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Sep 1, 2003Version of Record >>

by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013jlr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 879

“It’s a Program That Looks Great on Paper”: The Challenge of America Reads

This study investigated former President Clinton’s America Reads Challenge (1996), a political initiative aimed at

improving reading achievement through nonprofessional tu-toring. We examined two America Reads programs in light of components that researchers have highlighted as critical for effective tutoring programs. One program reflected Clinton’s original proposal, in which he suggested that an “army of vol-unteer tutors” was the answer to improving children’s read-ing achievement. The other program was tied to a national service organization, Americorps, in keeping with a revised proposal for America Reads (Clinton, 1998). The coordinators and supervisors of the two programs suggested that organiz-ing and implementing a tutoring program using volunteers and work-study students is extremely difficult. Although America Reads provided the salaries of work study tutors, no funds were provided for supervision, materials, or tutor train-ing. The volunteer program dissolved after its first year, while the Americorps program continues on a year-to-year basis, struggling to raise enough money to cover costs that go far beyond the funds provided by America Reads.

Today I propose a national literacy campaign to help our children learn to read by the third grade — a plan that offers thirty thousand reading spe-cialists and volunteer coordinators that are willing to do their part, people who will mobilize a citizen army of volunteer tutors we need, America’s read-ing corps. (Clinton, 1996)

With these words, then-president Bill Clinton launched a new “war” on illiteracy. America Reads wasn’t the first, nor will it be the last, politically driven literacy campaign because, in the United States, literacy seems inextrica-bly linked to the economic and intellectual health of

Jo WorthyThe University of Texas at

Austin

Kathryn PraterThe University of Texas at

Austin

Julie PenningtonThe University of Nevado

at Reno

JLRV. 35 No. 3

2003PP. 879-910

America Reads

Page 880

the nation (e.g., Riley, 1996). Reading and education in general have been hot top-ics in politics for many years. Recall, for example, the national frenzy over Russia’s launch of Sputnik in 1957; many politicians of the day linked our losing status in the space race to the inadequate teaching of reading in American schools. De-pending upon which politician is speaking, which data are used, and how they are interpreted, the state of literacy in the United States is abominable, impressive, or somewhere in between.

Some children have always found learning to read, even at a basic level, a complex challenge that seems almost insurmountable without intensive intervention. Be-cause most schools do not have the resources to meet their instructional needs, many of these students struggle to become independent readers and writers, and some never do. Although more students are now able to read at a basic literacy lev-el, the demands and complexity of literacy and thinking are continually increasing and have made literacy struggles even more acute (Mullis, Campbell, & Farstrup, 1993; Pace, 1993). Recent research, as well as national and state initiatives, have focused the nation on children who experience difficulty, particularly with reading. In the late 1990s, then-president Clinton and his chief policy makers highlighted the concept of volunteer tutoring as a panacea for the challenges of literacy. To a nation concerned about both the declining state of literacy and the high cost of education, a low-cost solution to the problem was a seductive vision.

We examined two America Reads tutoring programs in their early stages of organi-zation in light of research and our own experiences. Two years later, we returned to re-examine the programs, finding that one had dissolved after its initial year. From our examinations, we have learned a great deal about the issues and challenges involved in volunteer tutoring.

The Complexity of Teaching ReadingImplicit in the America Reads Challenge, as well as in other calls for nonprofessional tutors, is the idea that teaching reading requires little more than knowing how to read. Yet, literacy professionals know that the teaching of reading is a complex en-deavor, even when students do not have difficulties (Morris, Ervin, & Conrad, 1996; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). To teach reading effectively requires a thorough grounding in theory, research, and methods of reading instruction; an extended period of directed observation of successful practices; carefully planned and ex-ecuted practicum experiences; mentoring from master teachers and other literacy

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 881

experts; as well as ongoing study and practice (Snow et al., 1998). Effective literacy teachers do not use one single method; rather, they are “methodologically eclectic” (Shanahan & Neuman, 1997). They possess the content and procedural knowledge to integrate various approaches to reading instruction, to know when and how to use what methods, how to assess students’ instructional needs, and how to modify instruction for a variety of classroom situations and individual students (Hoffman, 1991). Effectively teaching students with persistent reading and writing difficulties requires additional expertise that even experienced, effective teachers of reading often do not possess (Broaddus & Bloodgood; 1999; Morris et al., 1996; Snow et al., 1998; Vellutino et al., 1996).

One-to-One TutoringWasik and Slavin’s (1993) review of five tutoring programs concluded that one-to-one tutoring is generally a very effective form of reading intervention when instruction is based on comprehensive, balanced models of reading and delivered by certified teachers who possess “judgment, flexibility, and knowledge of how children learn” (p. 198) and who also have additional experience and education in the unique issues of challenged learners. Others recommend that tutoring should be intensive, coordinated with high-quality classroom instruction and, ideally, pro-vided by a reading specialist (Clay, 1993; Snow et al., 1998).

The America Reads Challenge (United States Department of Education, 1997) high-lighted the potential role of nonprofessionals in providing tutorial assistance for struggling readers. Volunteer tutoring is far from a new concept. Long before the Challenge, volunteer tutorial programs had been organized by community organi-zations, universities, and school districts. Some studies had shown positive ben-efits of tutoring programs employing college students and community volunteers (Invernizzi, Rosemary, & Juel, 1997; Juel, 1994; Morris, Shaw, & Perney, 1990). How-ever, published evaluations of tutoring programs employing nonprofessionals were and still are extremely limited, and systematic evaluation studies are virtually non-existent (Wasik, 1998a). Reviews of volunteer tutoring (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes & Moody, 2000; Reisner, Petry, & Armitage, 1990; Wasik, 1998a) have identified some features common to many programs and seen as likely to increase the potential for effectiveness of interventions (see Table 1).

First, tutors must be carefully screened (Snow et al., 1998) and committed to tutor-ing regularly. Consistency is critical to students’ progress (Reisner et al., 1990). Sec-ond, tutorial instruction must be carefully structured, based on a comprehensive

America Reads

Page 882

Table 1. Components of Potentially Effective Volunteer Tutoring Programs (men-tioned in at least two research reviews)

Tutors Carefully screened and committed to tutoring regularlyInstruction Carefully structured and based on a comprehensive model of literacy Coordinated with classroom instruction Based on assessments of students Supported by high-quality materialsTutor Training Carefully structured Includes preservice training and ongoing trainingTutor Supervision Supervisors who are specialists in reading Regular supervision, support, and feedback by supervisorsEvaluation Documentation that includes lesson plans and reflections for every session Evaluation of students’ progress Evaluation of tutors’ learning

model of literacy, and sensitive to students’ assessed needs. Tutoring should be coordinated with good classroom instruction and supported by high-quality ma-terials (Shanahan, 1998; Snow et al., 1998; Wasik, 1998a). Tutor training is a third integral component (Reisner et al., 1990; Wasik, 1998a). Morris and his colleagues (1990) commented:

Over the years, we have learned … that on the job training for volunteer tutoring is much more efficient than preservice lectures on “how to tutor” (p. 138). Through model teaching, discussion, lesson planning, and consis-tent encouragement, the supervisor gradually educates the volunteer tutors who, in turn, teach their respective students to read. (p. 148)

A fourth critical component is supervision of tutors by a reading specialist (Inter-national Reading Association Responds to Reading Excellence Act, 1998; Wasik, 1998b). Supervisors should be present and readily available during tutoring as a source of learning, support, and feedback for tutors and to assist tutors in assessing students’ progress. In describing their experiences directing a volunteer tutoring program, Morris and his colleagues (1990) commented: “The most crucial piece of the puzzle is the supervisor of tutors. The supervisor is truly the hub around which the tutoring program revolves” (p. 148). Wasik (1998a) added that, “without the

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 883

supervision of a reading specialist, volunteers are unlikely to have the guidance or skills they need to tutor effectively” (p. 565). Finally, tutoring programs must have an evaluation component to gauge effectiveness and pinpoint areas in need of modification. Tutoring programs should be evaluated on a number of levels and dimensions, including individual students’ progress, overall program effectiveness, and knowledge and skills of tutors.

Wasik’s (1998a, 1998b) reviews of tutoring programs employing nonprofessionals found few programs that met these criteria. Two volunteer programs that did were Book Buddies (Invernizzi et al., 1997) and the Howard Street Tutoring Program (Morris et al., 1990). Quite likely, Clinton had programs such as these in mind when he issued the America Reads Challenge. However, as will become clear in the current study, the principles underlying effective tutoring were either not well understood or were not made a priority as the challenge moved forward.

The Reality of America ReadsIn a series of iterations in which both political parties, the International Reading Association, and the National Council of Teachers of English became involved, the community volunteer idea was replaced with a plan for hiring tutors through the federally funded college work-study system. Theoretically, these tutors would be supervised through universities, schools, and community organizations. (For a more detailed description of the chronology of America Reads, see Edmondson, 2000.) National service organizations, such as Americorps and Foster Grandpar-ents, were also encouraged to add America Reads tutors to their existing programs. As Edmondson (2000) explained

Clinton began to describe the America Reads program as “literally thou-sands of college students” (Clinton, 1998, January 27), who were in el-ementary schools to make sure all our 8-year-olds can read rather than as a vague “army of a million tutors” (Clinton, 1997, February 28), who could seemingly come from any walk of life, as it was referred to early in the program. (p. 33)

At first glance, America Reads documentation, published by the Corporation for National Service and available through the America Reads website, was consis-tent with research on volunteer tutoring, highlighting similar goals and compo-nents and adding others, such as family involvement. Initially, then, intentions were good and expectations were high. However, as hundreds of service orga-nizations and universities rushed to put programs into place (over 1,000 within two years of the program’s start, according to the America Reads website at

America Reads

Page 884

http://www.ed.gov/inits/americareads/), and a rash of tutoring manuals and in-structional materials were published in response to the initiative, many of the les-sons learned from previous studies of tutoring seemed to have been forgotten.

Studies of America Reads programs at major universities highlight both the po-tential and the challenges involved in starting and maintaining volunteer tutoring programs. Pennsylvania State University paid for an America Reads coordinator; however, “no additional funds were available for overhead costs to operate the program” (Edmondson, 2000, p. 60). This limited funding made the job of coordi-nating and supervising 150 tutors (the original goal was 400) virtually impossible. Moreover, no funds were available for the coordinator to travel to multiple tutor-ing sites or for tutors to travel to the remote schools that Penn State originally wanted to serve. Program evaluation was not well-addressed since neither America Reads nor the university offered funds to research the program. America Reads also limited training to 20 total hours (McCullough, 1997); not surprisingly, a survey of Penn State tutors found them feeling unconfident and underprepared for their work. The number of tutors and the average number of hours worked decreased steadily throughout the year. Penn State’s dedicated coordinator attempted to fill in the gaps by providing extra training for some tutors, raising funds for materials, and attending America Reads training. According to Edmondson (2000),

In a very real sense, [the coordinator] learned how to operate the program by doing it. There was no precedent or model to follow, and she often ex-perienced a sense of frustration from what she perceived to be a vagueness and lack of information from the federal government. (p. 72)

Teachers and tutors were also uncertain about their program responsibilities. Thus, instruction for students and supervision for tutors was variable across sites, and teachers sometimes used tutors in situations with no connection to literacy (e.g., washing dishes in a day care center).

Other studies of America Reads and volunteer tutoring programs have reported more positive results of tutoring by college students with limited training (El-baum et al., 2000; Fitzgerald, 2001). In a study of an America Reads program at the University of North Carolina, Fitzgerald reported impressive gains in word reading by primary students who were tutored by “minimally trained” college student volunteers. The Penn State and University of North Carolina studies high-light the contradictions in research on volunteer tutoring in general and America Reads specifically.

The literature review leads us to believe that volunteer tutors may be effective in carefully structured programs. However, even when training, supervision, and

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 885

other components of effectiveness are well-considered, program effectiveness is not guaranteed. At stake are matters of great importance to literacy organizations and professionals, who know the importance of expert teaching, as well as to U.S. citizens whose tax dollars pay for such programs. In the research described in this paper, we examined America Reads programs in two universities from the perspective of program coordinators, supervisors, and tutors. We sought not only to compare and contrast these two programs but also to attempt to reconcile the paradoxical findings of previous studies.

Methodology and AnalysisParticipantsInformants from America Reads Programs. Program coordinators, supervisors, and tutors for two America Reads programs at two large public universities in the southwest were the informants for this study. We chose these programs because they were representative of two major but divergent organizational structures for America Reads. All schools served by the two programs were in predominantly low-income, Mexican-American areas of the southwest, although the majority of students served were native English speakers.

Researchers. At the time of the study, we were a professor and two doctoral stu-dents in literacy education. We have all had extensive experience teaching in public elementary classrooms as well as in school and clinical tutoring programs serving struggling readers in grades 1-5. We have each also organized, coordinated, and supervised school-based tutoring programs employing preservice and inservice teachers in reading methods and reading practicum courses as well as volunteers and are well aware of the challenges involved in running such programs (Worthy & Prater, 1998). Frankly, our experiences, coupled with our knowledge of tutoring and research, made us skeptical of the positive press surrounding America Reads. Thus, as we examined the perspectives of participants in the programs, we were careful to set aside our biases. We each kept a research journal in which we wrote notes after interviews and kept track of ideas about the study. We met twice monthly from December 1998 through August 1999 and once monthly until the completion of the paper, in keeping detailed notes about all meetings.

Data Gathering ProceduresOur experience and the information gathered from the literature review gave us an educated starting point for developing interview protocols. To aid in refining our ideas, we began in the fall of 2000 with an open-ended focus group session, which included the coordinator and two supervisors of one of the programs. In the spring of the study year, we conducted individual interviews with each coordinator and

America Reads

Page 886

supervisor. The interviews ranged from 45 to 90 minutes and included questions about program organization, instruction, tutor training, supervision, materials, and evaluation. We also conducted 20- to 30-minute interviews with five tutors in each program during this time, focusing on specifics of instruction, evaluation, documentation, and relationships with students and teachers. Interviews began as conversations during which most of the questions on the protocols (see Appendix A and B) were answered; we also encouraged informants to talk about other top-ics related to the programs. As we conducted and analyzed interviews, further questions about the programs arose. We arranged for follow-up interviews with supervisors from each program to answer these questions. The complete interview set included one focus group interview and 20 individual interviews, including 3 coordinators, 4 supervisors, and 10 tutors, as well as 3 follow-up interviews with supervisors. We also gathered artifacts, including agenda notes from training sessions, handouts, readings, supervisors’ tutoring observations, descriptions of tutor/supervisor meetings, tutor lesson plans, and tutors’ written reflections on their sessions.

Data AnalysisThe first stage of data analysis began with the first focus group interview and continued until the completion of the paper. We started with a priori categories that were suggested by the literature on tutoring, shown in Table 1. Additional categories emerged from examining the data. For both the a priori and emergent categories, we used a form of constant comparative analysis that was based on the work of several methodologists (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). We had each read these sources and others (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994) and made notes about how each source could inform the data analysis procedures. Only at the end of data collection did we have the full data set, yet we were constantly analyzing, discussing, writing analytical memos, and looking for patterns among the data, “giving [ourselves] the freedom to let go and apply those deep structures in improvisatory ways,” to borrow Oldfather and West’s (1994, p. 23) words and their metaphor of qualitative research as jazz.

We began by discussing how the data could be unitized into meaningful segments (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). A unit consisted of a phrase, sentence, or paragraph about one topic. After unitizing several transcripts together, we wrote phrasal summaries for the units and discussed them. We then worked independently to unitize and summarize two more, which we again discussed together. Next, each research team member took a set of interview transcripts and followed the same procedures, listing issues and topics to discuss with the group. Our goal was to represent all of the data within each interview transcript in a shortened form, tak-ing care not to eliminate any ideas or thoughts from the interviewees. If there was

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 887

a question as to how to summarize a respondent’s words, we marked the segment for group discussion.

Next, we began aggregating topics into categories based on the individual analyses and group discussion. These procedures were repeated until all transcripts were analyzed and until every researcher had read every transcript. Since our questions were based on the components of effective tutoring programs, the vast majority of comments fell into the a priori categories. Two additional categories, other roles of supervisors and role of the teacher, also took shape from the data. To provide an example of the data analysis procedures, we trace the development of the emer-gent category we came to call role of the teacher. The following are examples of participant comments focused on teachers:

“The tutors say none of them use it [the reading instruction program they learned in America Reads training] because none of their teachers use it. The teachers want the tutors to use the methods they use.” (supervisor)

“One of the major problems we’ve had with this grant is making the teach-ers understand that it’s a reading grant. I guess the teachers know that [the tutors] are work study, so they assume that means they’re aides.” (coordinator)

“I really didn’t know what to do. I was lucky to have a teacher who gave me books and showed me how to use them with my student.” (tutor)

“Working with America Reads gave me the chance to see a great teacher in action. She was such a good mentor, and I had so much fun. I decided to change my major to education.” (tutor)

“Some of the teachers were not so happy to have the tutors in their class-rooms because it meant they had to find things for them to do. If you’re a teacher and you’re all organized for the day and then you remember that this is Thursday and [the tutor] is supposed to come, it can be a hassle to plan something for them to do.” (supervisor)

After collecting and describing data units related to teachers’ roles in the America Reads programs, we constructed a definition of the category that included the range of ideas in the data. The final categories and descriptions discussed in this paper emerged over a period of more than a year, as we collected and analyzed data, met formally and informally, read and shared research literature, and thought independently. We examined artifacts to provide additional evidence of the con-tent and quantity of instruction, tutor preparation, supervision, and evaluation.

America Reads

Page 888

Results and DiscussionIn the following presentation of results, we compare and contrast two America Reads programs. The first, which we label the Americorps Program, was a new com-ponent of an existing national service program that assisted elementary schools with mathematics and literacy instruction. The second, the Volunteer/Work Study program, was organized in response to the America Reads initiative. We begin with a description of the two sites, including program details, goals for America Reads, and participants. In the second section, we examine how each program addressed the components of effectiveness (Table 1) and issues about tutoring programs that emerged from the data. The third section describes a follow-up for each site two years after the original study. Finally, we address implications of the study.

Program Description and Organization On the surface, many aspects of the original intentions of the two programs were similar. In accordance with the goals of America Reads, both programs placed col-lege students and/or volunteers in elementary schools with the intention of provid-ing one-to-one literacy tutoring. Both programs worked with schools serving high proportions of low-income students. Both program coordinators intended for the tutoring to be connected with classroom instruction. One or more experts in lit-eracy education coordinated the program and/or supervised tutors, and provisions were made for tutor training and ongoing supervision in each program. However, the organization and implementation, goals, and challenges of the two programs differed.

The Americorps Program. America Reads tutors associated with a large public uni-versity joined an already established national service program called Americorps for Community Engagement and Education. Central to the Americorps organization is an ethic of community service. The heart of the program is educational assistance to schools in low-income communities. The Americorps members work three to five days per week, depending on whether they are full or part-time, in one of two elementary schools serving mainly low-income, Latino/a communities. They assist teachers in elementary classrooms and support individual students in kindergarten through third grade through one-to-one literacy intervention. Individual tutoring, while considered important, is not the major focus of the program. Members each work with two to six “focus children” individually for 30 minutes twice per week and also assist in classrooms. Another component of the Americorps program is providing service to the school community through parent meetings and other educational opportunities for families (e.g., adult ESL programs and after-school enrichment classes). Americorps members make a commitment to 12 months of service, after which they receive an education award that can be used for tuition

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 889

and/or loans for college. Each member also receives a small monthly stipend based on hours of work. Beth, a Ph.D. reading specialist with prior experience in organiz-ing tutoring programs, supervised the Americorps members.

The America Reads program allowed Americorps to add 10 people to the existing staff of 25 members at little additional cost to the program. They earned the tuition credit but their stipends were paid through federal work-study instead of through Americorps. The America Reads tutors were considered full-fledged Americorps members who also participated in the classroom and community aspects of the Americorps program and received the same benefits as other members. The tuition credit was a financial incentive for joining America Reads/Americorps since regular work-study jobs paid only for hours worked. As it turned out, tutors’ commitment to the program was variable. As Beth remarked, “Service ethic vs. work-study was a challenge for us. We ask so much more than [the typical work-study] jobs like shelv-ing books at the library. A few of them got it— the ones who are really invested in this and really work to understand it.”

Five of the ten new members showed a strong commitment to tutoring, to educa-tion, and to the service ethic in general. Beth described them as self-starters who proactively sought ways to be better at their jobs. They needed training, supervi-sion, and feedback, but they did not need “hand holding” (Beth) and constantly sought ways to learn more about improving their instruction. They read profes-sional books, spent time talking to the school literacy specialist, found appropriate materials to use in their tutoring sessions, and sought creative ways to provide service to their school and community. Rather than strictly following the required schedule, they spent as much time as necessary to fulfill their commitments. The remaining five tutors did not show as much interest in service or education, ac-cording to Beth. They waited to be told what to do and complained about what they perceived as limited structure and support. Three of these members dropped out of the program before the end of the year to return to more traditional work-study positions, and two left for personal reasons.

The Volunteer/Work-study Program. The Volunteer/Work-study (V/WS) program originated in response to the America Reads Challenge. Unpaid volunteer tutors worked with students; eventually, university work-study students joined the pro-gram as well. The coordinators were two education professors, Joan and David, who secured a small grant to support tutor training and supervision. Originally, the coordinators planned to hire retired teachers to train and supervise tutors, but funds were limited. As Joan said, “We decided we would be paying them so little, and it would be so low on their priorities, that we would have trouble getting

America Reads

Page 890

quality and a steady maintenance of quality.” They decided instead to hire gradu-ate students with no experience as educators to supervise because they would work for lower wages. According to coordinator David, the university president and Dean of Education viewed the program as a way to improve public percep-tions of the university, in addition to providing a public service. David’s goal was to get many tutors in the field working with children, “feel a difference in the kids,” and improve previously strained connections between the university and the local school district. Both coordinators were committed to collaborating with the school district for training of tutors, so they allocated a portion of the grant money for this purpose.

Unlike the Americorps program, the V/WS program included work-study students, university volunteers, and community volunteers. Inspired by Clinton’s vision, the coordinators and supervisors set a goal of recruiting 300 volunteers and began spreading the word about America Reads. They “blanketed the area” with flyers and arranged a “huge media blitz” (quotes from coordinator, Joan) with television and radio spots advertising a volunteer fair for the city and surrounding areas. Other community volunteer organizations were invited to attend the fair and re-cruit volunteers as well. The expectation, according to Joan, was that there would be “plenty of volunteers to go around,” that community volunteers were simply waiting to be asked to do their part to improve education, and that each would be matched with an appropriate organization. Hopes were dashed when a disappoint-ing number of volunteers came, and only six of those signed up for America Reads. Joan commented on the challenges of volunteer recruitment:

When you have a town the size of [this one], people that volunteer are already volunteering. That’s what we found. So we were having to find people from a whole new pool. Like parents that volunteer were already volunteering and the schools didn’t want us to steal those volunteers. And I found that to be kind of interesting, too. When you started talking to other volunteer coordinators it was like, “Well, don’t take my volunteers.”

Recruiting volunteers at the university proved more productive, bringing the total to almost 40. In addition to student and community volunteers, more than 40 work-study students, both education and non-education majors, signed up to tu-tor. However, many work-study students were dismayed at the difficulty of the job. As Joan explained

Work-study students have to be really motivated to do this because other work-study jobs are not as intensive and they are able to study during their work time. But these guys are working hard. You know they’re working for their money.

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 891

Tutors also had to provide their own transportation to the four elementary schools and one middle school, and some had schedule changes in the second semester. From the total of just over 80 volunteers and work-study students who signed up for the program throughout the year, just over 30 were still with the program in March and fewer than half of these had attended all training sessions and were tutoring regularly.

The general feeling among supervisors and coordinators was that there were some positive and negatives about both work-study students and volunteers that influ-enced their degree of commitment. A supervisor commented

Work-study students are committed because they’re getting paid. But they’re young and they’re inexperienced, so they’re less capable as far as employing strategic instruction than your volunteers who are typically older. Because many of the volunteers that we got, they’re mothers, they’ve been in schools already. But the problem with [volunteers] is that they’re not being paid; therefore, if another commitment arises, they just don’t show up. They’ll call, but there’s not the degree of commitment because it’s completely volunteer work.

Instructional Program, Tutor Training, Supervision, and EvaluationThe Americorps Program. Although America Reads provided a web site through which books and other materials could be ordered to develop the intervention and train tutors, neither of the programs used these materials. The general, vague (Edmondson, 2000) nature of the suggestions and materials did not appeal to the coordinator of the Americorps program, who was an expert in literacy instruction. Instead, the Americorps program folded its America Reads tutors into an existing intervention structure, which had been designed several years earlier and was based on well established principles of literacy learning. In light of the cost of the recommended materials, the coordinator did not see them as adding significantly to what was already being used.

Americorps members, including the 10 America Reads tutors, attended an initial seven-day training in August, before the start of school and described by Beth as “a combination of program orientation through Americorps, team building, and literacy training.” Tutor training, which focused on strategies to help emergent and beginning readers, reflected an Americorps/America Reads model designed at The Ohio State University and based on principles of Reading Recovery. It included easy reading, guided reading, and interactive writing. Expert classroom teachers modeled lessons with individual children while tutors watched. Some tutors felt that the training “got them off to a good start” (quote from a first grade tutor), but

America Reads

Page 892

those without prior tutoring or classroom experience found it hard to grasp. As a second grade tutor explained, “We had two weeks of intensive training, but it was really hard to understand everything because I had never worked with children in literacy… and once I got into my classroom, it was totally different.”

In October, all members participated in a two-day training session during a retreat. During this session, procedures were reviewed and tutors were encouraged to ask questions that arose as a result of their tutoring and classroom experience. Several tutors remarked that the second training was more beneficial than the first one be-cause they had been in the classroom working with their students and were more able to use the information effectively.

Supervision was complex in the Americorps program. Beth’s job was part-time (25 hours per week) and was not limited to supervising tutors; she was also respon-sible for managing classroom work and community service. When the 10 America Reads/Americorps members joined the program, they were included in her respon-sibilities. Nevertheless, as a reading specialist, Beth knew the critical importance of supervision, and she attempted to address it in several ways. First, all members were required to attend weekly whole-group meetings, which were intended to provide support for members’ service commitment and expose the tutors to good children’s books that Beth read aloud. However, the meetings evolved into shar-ing sessions for tutors and discussions of logistical issues, leaving little time for tutoring concerns. Recognizing that member/tutors needed frequent support for tutoring, and knowing the limitations of her schedule and the weekly Americorps meetings, Beth set up a system of grade-level meetings headed by experienced Americorps members who would address questions and alert Beth to needs and issues that were affecting the other tutors. Beth envisioned the tutors meeting weekly, supporting each other in their efforts. According to tutor interviews, the effectiveness of the team meetings was varied, due to personality, scheduling con-flicts, and other issues.

Over the course of the school year, Beth observed all but one of the 35 tutors at least twice as they tutored and met with them afterwards to discuss the session. Most tutors found the visits and feedback helpful. Most would have preferred more feedback:

I think they have a lot of trust in us. They see that we did well the first time so they’re like “well, you’re doing the right thing.” But I would like more feedback. I would like for them to come and monitor us some more.

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 893

If a tutor called about a specific problem, Beth would meet with him or her within several days. Even though she worked many extra hours, Beth was not satisfied with the amount of time she was able to spend with tutors:

It was frustrating because it always felt like putting out fires rather than being systematic. What I’m realizing is I really need to run regular grade-level meetings, and there needs to be a way to systematically meet with the members one to one when they’re working with the kids.

Beth came to think about the experience as “too many tutors with too little super-vision.” As a literacy expert, she knew the importance of training and supervision, but as a part-time employee, she was unable to be with the tutors consistently as they worked with their students. Although the initial assumption seemed to be that more tutors meant a more successful program, the limitations of this philoso-phy became clear to all involved in the program.

Despite a combination of assessment procedures gleaned from Reading Recovery (Clay, 1993) and Book Buddies (Invernizzi et al., 1997), there was no systematic analysis of student progress. Beth and most tutors remarked that they had seen progress in the students’ literacy achievement and motivation to read, as well as in tutors’ learning about teaching. Further, in surveys administered by Americorps/America Reads, more than 80% of the teachers clearly found value in the tutors’ work in their classrooms and with the focus students.

The Volunteer/Work-study Program. In the V/WS program, decisions about tutor-ing methods and training were left to the local school district curriculum special-ists, who had be contracted to provide training. They decided to use a program already in place in the district rather than purchase new materials.

There was no systematic lesson plan for the volunteer/work-study program. Vol-unteers who stayed with the program depended mainly on classroom teachers or, in one case, a school librarian, for direction. Thus, tutors provided different kinds of instruction; most worked as instructional aides. They listened to students read, worked with small groups, graded worksheets, read to students, and did clerical work or ran errands.

V/WS tutors had two kinds of training. The first was a four-hour orientation session in September designed to introduce the program and offer general guidelines for working with students, including issues such as motivation, communication, and logistics. However, as tutors trickled in throughout the year, three training sessions were added to accommodate the newcomers. Although this was a hardship on the

America Reads

Page 894

coordinators, who were working without compensation, both felt it was a neces-sity. According to one

What we found was we would try to wait until we had enough to make a training and then we’d wait again until we had another training and so on. And we quit doing that because if you make a volunteer wait a week before the training, they’re gone. They lose interest. They have to get, be involved the day they say, “I’m interested.”

The second training was to have been offered by the local school district to provide information about the literacy approach used in the district, so that tutoring would be coordinated with classroom instruction. Although scheduled to take place im-mediately after the first university training session and before tutors were placed in schools, the school district personnel did not want to offer multiple training sessions for tutors throughout the year. As a result, the training was conducted in February, five months after the start of the program. This was too late for about half of the tutors who had become frustrated with the lack of direction and left the program. Thus, the approximately 80 original tutors had already shrunk to 40 before the training was offered. The remaining tutors worked with no literacy training. A supervisor recalled

And the thing that we said to people when we’d go out and speak to them, “We’re not going to throw you to the wolves. We’re going to train you.” But even so, many of them were in the schools for three or four months before they got trained by [the district].

Further, the schedule of training sessions was inconvenient for many of the tutors. Fewer than 15 of the remaining 40 tutors attended both training sessions.

Another problem with the district training, according to tutors, supervisors, and coordinators, related to the content of instruction. Since the schools in the district used a variety of reading programs, a commercial program was used for tutoring. It did not include the comprehensive balance of components recommended by research, and tutors complained that it was “boring,” “not helpful,” “too compli-cated to learn in such a short time,” and not used by their teachers. Rather than strengthening an already weak school/university partnership, the training fiasco soured relations even further. David complained, “The district had almost no com-mitment to this process at all. How are you going to make a significant difference that late in the year?”

The V/WS study coordinators were professors who took on the responsibility of America Reads as an add-on to their regular teaching and research duties. However,

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 895

because the supervisors had limited knowledge and experience with literacy, they were not comfortable coaching tutors and spent most of their time trying to recruit more volunteers, leaving tutors virtually on their own in the schools. The original plans had called for regular weekly meetings with the tutors and supervisors to touch base and gather tutor concerns. This plan was quickly scrapped because, ac-cording to one supervisor, the tutors “would come in at way different times, and to get people to come to a meeting was almost impossible.” In fact, although phone contacts were made once or twice a month, there was virtually no face-to-face contact between tutors and supervisors during the first semester of the program. One supervisor lamented,

We didn’t provide a lot of support to all those that were out in the schools because we were concentrating on trying to drum up volunteers … . So we never heard anything because we weren’t really talking to the tutors. We should have figured out a way to be more supportive of our tutors rather than doing recruitment.

The coordinators, busy with their university obligations, realized at the end of the fall that the program was floundering and tutors were dropping out due to lack of supervision and training. They asked the supervisors to suspend heavy recruitment efforts and focus on supporting the tutors that were already in the schools. One is-sue that immediately became apparent was that, as in the Penn State (Edmondson, 2000) and Michigan State (Adler, 1999) programs, teachers were asking the tutors to make copies or grade papers instead of working one-on-one with students, as envisioned in the America Reads Challenge.

In defense of teachers, coordinators and supervisors agreed that teachers were given few guidelines for the use of tutors, a situation that was exacerbated by tu-tors’ limited experience and training. A supervisor admitted that “They [the tutors] really didn’t know what they were doing and then the teachers all of a sudden had to find things for them to do.” The coordinators were not surprised that teachers would not want to entrust their struggling learners to college students who had little or no experience or knowledge of teaching. One coordinator remarked

[Teachers are probably thinking], “This is somebody who is not going to be able to do anything in the role of teaching, but can cut and paste, make bul-letin boards, run off copies for me and that sort of thing, but I sure couldn’t have them doing any actual teaching.”

Further, the tutors we interviewed mentioned that they had seen America Reads tutors who worked on homework or took naps while they were supposed to be tutoring, and some who often didn’t show up for their appointed tutoring sessions.

America Reads

Page 896

Not surprisingly, tutors also had challenges and specific questions about how to help their students with reading. However, because the supervisors were not lit-eracy specialists, they were unable to help. According to Joan,

They would have very specific questions. You know, “I’ve got a student here who’s in the first grade and can’t read and I don’t know what to do when they read out loud.” Well, … neither of [the supervisors] were education ma-jors either … So what would happen is [the supervisor] would go out there and talk to this person who had a question and then I would teach [the supervisor] strategies and then she would go out and inform the volunteer.

Although this worked occasionally, the vast majority of tutors relied instead on the teachers they worked with to provide help and support. During their visits, supervisors rarely interacted with tutors because they did not want to interrupt the tutoring sessions. Thus, there was no direct observation or feedback on lessons. Supervision would have made a great deal of difference, according to the tutors interviewed. One remarked

Yea, that probably wouldn’t be a bad idea if somebody came and watched you work with a child or something just maybe so you feel like “Okay, I’m really doing this fine.” I don’t know. It just makes you feel better if you feel that, “Hey, I am on the right track.”

The majority of participants in the study expressed positive feelings about the impact of the programs on students’ self-esteem and tutors’ experiences in work-ing with students. However, there was no plan in place for evaluating the literacy progress of students.

Emergent Issues: High Expectations and Devaluation of Coordinators and Classroom TeachersAs often happens with educational policies, those actually working with children and tutors were given limited consideration in conceptualizing and implementing America Reads. In addition to the components of effectiveness listed in Table 1, our examination of the two programs showed that coordinators and classroom teach-ers played a vital but under appreciated role.

Coordinators. According to Edmondson (2000), and affirmed by our findings, ev-erything except payment of tutors was left up to the universities who decided to join America Reads:

Based on postings to the America Reads listserve, other universities de-cided to add America Reads to the responsibilities of professors, graduate teaching assistants, and federal work-study personnel. There was no uni-

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 897

form or easy way to facilitate the staffing needed for the program. (p. 44)

Universities were expected to fund other components of the initiative, including staff, advertisements, space, travel expenses, and materials. Even though America Reads was added to an existing Americorps program in one case, the extra mem-bers added challenges to the coordinators and supervisor, who vacillated between continuing the program the following year and dropping it. In the end, they de-cided to continue but to accept fewer America Reads members and to lower expec-tations for literacy tutoring.

Although the coordinators of the V/WS program were able to secure funds through a grant for training and supervision, their own work was purely vol-untary, as it is for most program coordinators throughout the country. Public service in an area of expertise, in addition to the regular duties of teaching and research, is an expectation for most academic faculty. It is not surprising, then, that university faculty who have an interest in literacy education would be willing to take on such a project as a public service. However, with little support from the university or school district, the work involved in starting and maintaining a tutoring program proved too burdensome for unpaid coordinators when added to their other responsibilities. One commented

The positive thing about it is that you’re getting people out there to help kids. The problem with it is just that your volunteers aren’t trained, aren’t being used in the way the money was intended for them to be used, and there’s not enough supervision. So I guess I just feel like it’s a program that looks great on paper. It is a lot of work and I’m not sure that I’d want to do it forever. But if I saw that it was really working well, it would be an incen-tive to carry on because it would be like volunteer work on my own. And I think successful volunteer work has its intrinsic rewards. But I guess what I’m seeing is that it’s a lot of work and I’m not sure that I feel —I don’t feel good about it.

The other coordinator’s comments were similar: “In this year, I have learned a lot. You know I guess I can go back to my dean [and tell him], ‘Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity. Nope I don’t want to do it again.’” Indeed, the V/WS program coordinators remarked that they would probably not continue with America Reads. Coordinating a tutoring program is extremely time-consuming. Making it an unpaid position sends the message that the job is not essential to the success of the program.

Classroom Teachers. In the programs we examined, teachers played an important

America Reads

Page 898

if not crucial implementation role. For example, while the V/WS program started with high expectations for the school district to train tutors in literacy, the training was haphazard, insufficiently connected to classroom instruction, and provided too late for tutors to use (according to coordinators). The immediate supervisors were neither knowledgeable nor experienced in education and literacy. They were also each responsible for tutors in four or more schools. Thus, supervisors were unable to give adequate support and feedback or to monitor the work of tutors. The tutors who stayed with the program depended mainly on classroom teachers and other school personnel for direction.

Similarly, Edmondson (2000) remarked on the great influence that teachers had on America Reads at Penn State and other sites. Yet teachers and school personnel were not included in the initial planning stages of America Reads in any of these programs. Teachers were typically not involved until after the fact— after the leg-islation was passed, after coordinators decided how to organize and implement tutoring, after principals and other administrators were consulted, and after tutors arrived in schools. In some cases, tutors arrived to work without teachers know-ing they were coming, as principals made placement decisions without consulting teachers. Yet once tutors were there, teachers were typically expected to direct their work, especially in cases when training and supervision were limited. This chain of events reflects poor forethought and planning and a disregard for the crucial role of teachers:

America Reads legislation ignores the additional responsibilities of train-ing, organization, and supervision that will fall to the classroom teachers, librarians, and various school personnel who will be working with these minimally trained tutors. With little “basic training,” the tutors will enter the classrooms with their own notions of reading and how to teach, or with the expectation that the classroom teacher will tell them what they need to do. … And while these tutors may have great enthusiasm and the best of intentions, the result will most likely entail more work for classroom teachers who will be faced … with educating and training these tutors … . (Edmondson, 1998, p. 158)

Another issue faced by many tutoring programs, including those examined here, is that the tutoring takes place during school hours, so students have to miss class-room instruction in order to participate. Even if tutors are well-trained and super-vised, if instruction does not match what is provided in the classroom, students may be confused or worse, and they will miss valuable instructional time simply by leaving the classroom to travel to another location (Allington, 1983). Teachers who

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 899

lack confidence in tutors’ knowledge and skills would be understandably reluctant to give tutors responsibility for instruction. Indeed, neither of the coordinators of the V/WS program was surprised that teachers would employ the tutors for less specialized activities such as photocopying. As one coordinator remarked

I think one of the basic problems with this program is that we’re acquir-ing money to train people that are not generally in the education field. So they’re the least educated people that we can get to send into schools to work with children who need the best instruction possible. So to me, right off the bat, you know that just doesn’t sound right.

In fact, both of the programs we described had access to funds and structures that went well beyond what America Reads provided. Yet the number of students actu-ally served in the first year of these programs was very small and, in many cases, the quality of instruction and supervision was inadequate.

Two Years Later: Where Are They Now?Two years after the completion of the initial study, we revisited the sites of both America Reads programs. The volunteer/work study program was no longer in ex-istence. One coordinator had moved to a different university, and the other had declined to continue coordinating the program. When no one else stepped in to take over, the program dissolved.

In contrast, the Americorps/America Reads program was not only still in existence, the tutoring had expanded to two more schools. Thus, while this program began small, it continues to grow steadily. The same coordinator, Beth, is in charge, and we interviewed her about what had happened in the intervening years. She organized her remarks around four themes: recruitment, program content and assessment, training and supervision, and funding. Regarding recruitment, she has begun to make more concerted efforts to recruit tutors who understand pro-gram expectations. Even after students sign up, she “almost tries to scare them away” when the training begins. “If they don’t know what they’re getting into,” she explained, “we lose, they lose, and the children lose.” Perhaps surprisingly, these high expectations have led to program expansion. Through word of mouth, as well as through a recently developed brochure, students hear that the program affords an opportunity to do important work while earning tuition credit and stipends, as well as learning about education. Beth is delighted that there are currently 50 tutors, of whom 15 speak Spanish. In the past, recruiting bilingual tutors had been a challenge. Further, only 10% of the tutors entered as education majors, but an additional 20% made the change after having the opportunity to work in schools. In addition, a number of parents and community members have

America Reads

Page 900

joined the Americorps program.

Previously, Beth taught tutors components of both Reading Recovery and Book Buddies and let them decide when and how to use each component. She has now switched to the Book Buddies format, which, although similar in philosophy to Reading Recovery, is geared toward inexperienced tutors rather than teachers. The switch has given tutors more direction and more confidence in their work. The focus continues to be mainly on fluent and guided reading, along with writing and word study components. Book Buddies includes an assessment component that is more transparent for tutors and easier to use and understand.

Regarding training and supervision, Beth has begun to engage new tutors in hands-on experiences early in their training. She believes this makes a huge impact; as tutors try the instructional approaches themselves, they realize what they are ca-pable of doing. In the future, she plans to use some training days to send tutors to schools to observe experienced tutors and teachers before they begin their own work and to provide systematic opportunities for guided critical reflection. With the increased number of tutors, the program has hired additional supervisors, all literacy specialists and all hand-picked by Beth. Each program school has one 20-hour supervisor who observes and/or meets with 10-20 tutors at least once per week. Tutors want to have even more supervision, and Beth wants to provide it if possible. She believes that the strength of the program lies in the expertise of the supervisors and the frequency with which they observe and are available to the tu-tors. Indeed, according to an evaluation of progress for the past year of tutoring, 75% of the tutored students made more progress on an informal reading inventory than students in a comparison group. According to a teacher survey, 250 students served by the program who were reading below grade level are now reading at or above grade level. Importantly, according to Beth, tutors and supervisors are in constant contact with classroom teachers for feedback and support and to ensure integration with classroom instruction.

Beth believes that the program must continue to improve to meet the needs of schools and students. However, Americorps/America Reads is dependent on fund-ing from a variety of sources including the federal government, private grants, and school districts, and government support continues to dwindle. The funds provided by America Reads do not begin to cover the costs the program. Every year they scramble to find funds. In testimony to the program’s value, the faculty of each school involved recently chose to use federal Title 1 funds to help cover program costs.

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 901

Limitations and Implications for PracticeIn addition to studies of the effectiveness of programs like America Reads, we need research that examines the experiences and preparation that will be effective both for tutors and students. The costs and benefits must be weighed carefully to find the most efficient (i.e., effective and not prohibitively expensive) ways of serving the most children. Although our study was focused mainly on organization of pro-grams, instruction, training, and supervision, research about America Reads and other tutoring programs would benefit from studies of the actual tutoring itself. Tutoring is a unique form of instruction, a highly interactive, personal process that goes well beyond tutor knowledge, lesson plans, materials, and other surface fea-tures (Derry & Potts, 1998; Worthy & Patterson, 2001). These areas have not been well considered in the majority of tutoring studies, including studies of America Reads. For example, now that the Americorps program has been in existence for several years and has demonstrated effectiveness through student achievement, a next step would be to examine tutoring sessions and tutor-student interactions. Interviews and surveys with teachers of students served by America Reads would also add valuable information to studies of such programs. Despite these limita-tions, within the scope of this study, we were able to examine the structure of two programs and how America Reads worked in these distinct situations.

Our research leads us to warn that those who want to start tutoring programs should proceed carefully. Although it is tempting to think that volunteers can make a difference in the education of struggling learners, teaching challenged learn-ers requires far more than an able mind and a willing heart. Tutoring programs, whether run by universities, the government, or community or business organiza-tions will probably always exist in schools and will continue to vary in quality and effectiveness. However, few programs will be able to provide the training and sup-port necessary for teaching challenged learners to read without the provision of significant resources and input from other entities. In this light, then, we suggest implications for tutoring programs based on the current study and other research.

Screen Tutors for Interest in Education and TutoringWhen time and money is spent to train potential tutors who then drop out of the program, everyone loses. Our interviews with participants in these programs taught us much about the qualities of a successful tutor. Although there were pos-itive and negative characteristics of work-study and volunteer tutors, the bottom line, according to coordinators and supervisors for both programs, was that com-mitment is an individual issue which is integrally tied to interest in education. Not surprisingly, education majors who wanted experience in schools demonstrated the greatest commitment to the program. Indeed, the vast majority of tutors

America Reads

Page 902

interviewed for this study, who were considered by supervisors to be responsible and committed, were education majors or volunteers with educational experi-ence. The incentive of gaining career experience and/or contributing to education may have motivated these tutors. At a minimum, potential tutors should have an interest in education and working with children.

Allow for Differential Expectations for TutorsVolunteers might be permitted to participate in different ways based on their skills and interests and on the availability and quality of training and supervision. Beth explained

I think that we need to look more at a range of what people can do. There are lots of things a tutor can do to support children’s literacy development. I think there’s real value in making our expectations clear.

Thus, in the future, she planned to have all tutors start by learning activities that support literacy but don’t necessarily fall into the traditional tutoring model. Tu-tors, including most volunteers, who do not have the time or support for extensive and intensive training, should not be permitted to teach students to read and should not take students’ time away from their regular classroom instruction.

These ideas are consistent with the suggestions of Wasik (1999), who remarked that the tutoring guidelines she had previously proposed (1998a) were not always possible to follow and that “resources for supervision, training, and follow-up are often lacking” (p. 653). In their review of remedial reading interventions, Snow et al. (1998) similarly concluded: “Although volunteer tutors can provide valuable practice and motivational support for children learning to read, they should not be expected either to provide primary reading instruction or to instruct children with serious reading problems” (p. 6). Wasik (1999) concurred: “Expecting volunteers to work on teaching reading to children without the necessary support puts all parties at risk” (p. 655). In these cases, Wasik continued, volunteers can be “coaches” who facilitate students’ literacy development rather than playing a more central role in reading diagnosis and instruction as a skilled, knowledgeable tutor or teacher.

Provide More Intensive, Specialized Tutor Training and SupervisionThose tutors who have the interest and aptitude to go beyond coaching to more specialized literacy activities could be offered the opportunity, training, and sup-port to do so. Training would be more gradual; each lesson component would be introduced and demonstrated; tutors would be given supported practice before working independently (Worthy & Prater, 1998; Broaddus & Bloodgood, 1999; Roskos & Walker, 1994) and review would take place regularly. Even these tutors,

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 903

however, should not be expected to work with varied levels of students or to plan their own lessons without intensive guidance. Young emergent or beginning read-ers have distinct needs from older students who have struggled for years with learning to read and write (Morris et al., 1996). Morris et al. (1990) recommend that the scope of tutoring be limited to a small grade range:

By narrowing the reading ability range at which we tutor (initially early to late first grade reading level), we greatly simplify the training of the vol-unteer tutors. It is one thing to provide volunteers with techniques they can use with children who read at a first grade level; it is quite another to provide them with the variety of techniques and the knowledge required to work successfully with children reading anywhere from first to sixth grade level. (p. 136)

In the end, the Americorps coordinator decided to prepare her tutors for more specialized work with students and to offer the majority of tutoring after school, and this appears to have paid off. However, the investment of time and money to properly prepare and supervise these tutors went far beyond the provisions of America Reads.

Specify and Support a Low Tutor-to-Supervisor RatioMost tutors we interviewed were dissatisfied with the amount and type of supervi-sion they received. As Beth commented, “There’s a lot more to a successful tutoring program than just putting together a reader and a nonreader.” She recommended a ratio of 1 supervisor for every 10 tutors, so that the supervisor could observe regularly and offer on-the-job training, support, and feedback. She continued: “If volunteers are going to be effective, they have to be well supported.” Indeed, in her review of volunteer programs, Wasik (1998a) acknowledged that tutors who are not well trained and intensively supervised may “discourage struggling readers and even harm them by their inexperience” (p. 569). With outside funding, the cur-rent Americorps program has been able to come close to the 1 to 10 ratio.

Give Schools and Teachers Leadership RolesTop-down programs do not typically provide schools or teachers with any voice or development funds. Instead, they are simply told what to do. In response, “Educa-tors have variously welcomed, improved, deflected, co-opted, modified, and sabo-taged outside efforts at reform” (Tyack & Cuban, 1995, p. 7). Edmondson (1998) asked an important question: “Should teachers be ready and willing to be the unsung heroes who will work to prevent collateral casualties among their students during this ‘War on Illiteracy,’ as money is being channeled to universities and fed-eral work-study students rather than to children and schools?” (p. 158)

America Reads

Page 904

A volunteer/work-study program coordinator suggested that some of these chal-lenges can be addressed by exploring the employment of teachers with experi-ence in teaching struggling readers: “Why wouldn’t we be taking this government money and putting it into schools, paying qualified teachers to work in after-school programs with the kids who really need it? They already know the kids.” While some districts may find it too expensive for teachers to tutor one-on-one, teachers or curriculum specialists who have literacy expertise could teach small groups of students (Elbaum et al., 2000) and/or take a leadership role in managing and plan-ning tutoring programs within their own schools. They would know the students and teachers in the school, be able to coordinate tutoring with classroom instruc-tion, and be aware of the community and sociocultural issues that may influence program implementation (Barrera, 1992; Henderson, 1998).

Focus Education Funds on Professional Development for Novice and Experienced Teachers According to supervisors and to tutors themselves, the tutors who were planning to become teachers took their work more seriously and sought to learn more so that they could be more successful. According to Snow et al. (1998), “The critical component of the teacher in the prevention of reading difficulties must be recog-nized, and efforts could be made to provide all teachers with adequate knowledge and skills to teach reading or its developmental precursors” (p. 11). Thus, edu-cational funds should provide for the professional development experiences that preservice and inservice teachers need to become expert teachers of literacy for challenged learners. Such intensive experiences foster effective teachers who “are able to craft a special mix of ingredients for every child they work with” (Snow et al., 1998, p. 8). Better preparation will enable them to become better classroom teachers who can prevent reading difficulties, as well as to provide better support for struggling learners.

Implications for Research and PolicyFrom her study of an America Reads program at the University of North Carolina, Fitzgerald (2001) concluded that America Reads was effective and that “minimally trained tutors” could help challenged learners make progress in reading. Edmond-son’s (2000) conclusions about a similar program at Pennsylvania State University were not positive. The current study suggests reasons for these contradictory find-ings. First, funding and support for the University of North Carolina program went well beyond the financial support provided by America Reads. The school district and university contributed both financial and in-kind support for consultation, coordination, training, and materials. Tutors were required to attend more than

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 905

30 hours of carefully planned and executed training, were supervised closely, and were given planning and instructional support, none of which were provided for by America Reads. Penn State provided its program with a paid coordinator, but no other resources were made available beyond the America Reads payment to tutors. Similarly, the Americorps program in the current study supplemented federal funds with an existing infrastructure and funds for supervision, training, materials, and a paid coordinator, but the Volunteer/Work Study program was largely dependent on the America Reads budget. Thus, we suggest that studies of America Reads are not truly studies of that initiative but of individual programs that use the funds to supplement other resources.

Edmondson and Fitzgerald also examined America Reads from vastly different perspectives. In a commentary on Fitzgerald’s findings, Edmondson (2002) argued that Fitzgerald’s (2001) study is an example of functionalist research, which is con-cerned with analyzing methods and programs from the perspective of what works, while avoiding important ideological considerations such as the “complex social and cultural conditions in schools and communities that complicate the work of literacy instruction …” (p. 114). It is important to consider the influence that such policies as America Reads, both through top-down directives and through diversion of funds, exert on education. America Reads is typical of educational initiatives that originate with policy makers who are influenced by advisors with political agendas (Edmondson, 2000). These directives are passed down through legislative channels to state education administrators, school district administrators, principals, and finally to teachers, without their input or agreement. The initiatives also divert money that would otherwise be allotted, with few restrictions, to school districts and other educational support programs.

Researchers who engage in educational policy analysis, then, must carefully con-sider issues such as how such policies will affect other aspects of education, and how and by whom the results of policy evaluation studies will be used. Literacy research has a long, continuing history of examining methods from a “what works” or functionalist perspective (Siegel & Fernandez, 2001). As education becomes increasingly political, it is no longer possible to claim neutrality in research and ig-nore the effects of politics on reading research and instruction (Shannon, 1991). In-deed, in her response to Edmondson’s (2002) commentary, Fitzgerald (2002) noted that although she would most likely continue to engage in research that examines functionalist rather than critical questions, “because of Edmondson’s critique, I believe I will consider those questions and my research around them with a raised consciousness about the political nature of my own work” (p. 120).

America Reads

Page 906

The developers of America Reads ignored both research and educational wisdom in declaring that volunteers and college students with minimal training and with no provision for leadership, supervision, materials, or collaboration with schools and communities could teach children to read. Despite careful research showing that tutors must be trained sufficiently and receive intensive supervision to help challenged readers, a policy that provided only for the payment of nonprofessional tutors was proposed and accepted with few concerns raised. When such policies meet the realities of practice, clashes are inevitable. Yet these clashes occur after the promise is made, the initiative is in place, and the money is spent. The losers are the teachers, students, and families, those most directly affected by policies that raise hope for educational improvement but stop far short of delivering.

Author NoteThis research was funded by an Elva Knight Research Grant from the International Reading Association.

ReferencesAdler, M. A. (1999). The America Reads Challenge: An analysis of college students’ tutoring. Ann

Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA report #3-007).

Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 548-559.

Barrera, R. (1992). The cultural gap in literature-based literacy instruction. Education and Urban Society, 24, 227-243.

Broaddus, K., & Bloodgood, J. W. (1999). “We’re supposed to already know how to teach reading”: Teacher change to support struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 426-451.

Clay, M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clinton, W. J. (1996, August 29). Speech at Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Wash-ington, DC: Democratic Party Press Release.

Clinton, W. J. (1998, January 27). State of the union address. Washington, DC: Democratic Party Press Release.

Derry, S. J., & Potts, M. K. (1998). How tutors model students: A study of personal con-structs in adaptive tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 65-99.

Edmondson, J. (1998). America Reads: Doing battle. Language Arts, 76, 154-162.Edmondson, J. (2000). America Reads: A critical policy analysis. Newark, DE: International

Reading Association.

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 907

Edmondson, J. (2002). Commentary: Asking different questions: Critical analyses and reading research. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 113-119.

Elbaum, B. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 49, 605-619.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained college student volunteers help young at-risk children read better? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 28-47.

Fitzgerald, J. (2002). Response: Edmondson’s “Asking different questions: Critical analy-ses and reading research.” Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 120.

Henderson, S. D. (1998, December). From the perspective of the literacy fi eld: Exploring the curriculum developed by a volunteer service organization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.

Hoffman, J. V. (1991). Teacher and school effects in learning to read. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. II, pp. 911-950). New York: Longman.

International Reading Association Responds to Reading Excellence Act (1998, October 21). Press Release. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org.research.

Invernizzi, M., Rosemary, C., & Juel, C. (1997). A community volunteer tutorial that works. The Reading Teacher, 50, 304-311.

Juel, C. (1994). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 268-289.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. McCullough, H. (1997). Policy bulletin: Student fi nancial assistance programs policy development

division. Washington, DC: Government Printing Offi ce.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage. Morris, D., Ervin, C., & Conrad, K. (1996). A case study of middle school reading disability.

The Reading Teacher, 49, 368-377.Morris, D., Shaw, B., & Perney J. (1990). Helping low readers in grades 2 and 3: An after-

school volunteer tutoring program. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 132-150.Mullis, I. V. S., Campbell, J. R., & Farstrup, A. E. (1993). Executive summary of the NAEP 1992

reading report card for the nation and states: Data from the national and trial state assess-ments. Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics.

Oldfather, P., & West, J. (1994). Qualitative research as jazz. Educational Researcher, 23, 22-26.

Pace, G. (1993). Making decisions about grouping in language arts. Literacy improvement series for elementary educators. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Labora-tories. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354486)

Reisner, E. R., Petry, C. A., & Armitage, M. (1990). A review of programs involving college stu-dents as tutors or mentors in grades K-12. Washington DC: Policy Studies Associates.

America Reads

Page 908

Riley, R. (1996). Third annual state of American education address. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Education.

Roskos, K., & Walker, B. (1994). Learning to teach problem readers: Instructional infl u-ences on preservice teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 279-288.

Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. Review of Research in Education, 23, 217-234.

Shanahan, T., & Neumann, S. (1997). Literacy research that makes a difference. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 202-212.

Shannon, P. (1991). Politics, policy, and literacy research. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. II, pp. 147-168). New York: Longman.

Siegel, M., & Fernandez, S. L. (2001). Critical approaches. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. III, pp. 141-151) . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffi n, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading diffi culties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L., (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

United States Department of Education. (1997). America Reads. Washington, DC: Author.Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M.

(1996). Cognitive profi les of diffi cult to remediate and easily remediated poor read-ers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 601-638.

Wasik, B. A. (1998a). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for effective prac-tices. The Reading Teacher, 51, 562-570.

Wasik, B. A. (1998b). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 266-292.

Wasik, B. A. (1999). Reading coaches: An alternative to reading tutors. The Reading Teacher, 52, 653-656.

Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutor-ing: A review of fi ve programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 178-200.

Worthy, J., & Patterson, E. (2001). “I can’t wait to see Carlos!” Preservice teachers, situ-ated learning, and personal relationships with students. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 303-344.

Worthy, J., & Prater, S. (1998). Learning on the job: Preservice teachers’ perceptions of participating in a reading tutorial. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), 47th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. (pp. 485-495). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Journal of Literacy Research

Page 909

Appendix AInterview Protocol for Coordinators and Supervisors

Background and Organization1. Tell me about your America Reads (AR) program (when it started, how it’s organized,

etc.)

2. Was your program created as a result of the AR initiative or was the AR initiative incor-porated into an existing structure?

3. What are the objectives of your America Reads program?

4. What kind of financial support do you get from AR? What do you use it for (training, supervision, materials, etc.)?

5. Do you have other sources of support?

6. If AR had more money, how would you use it?

Training and Supervision1. How does training and supervision work with your program?

2. Who does the training? What qualifications with respect to literacy does this person have? Do you have a staff person dedicated to training the AR tutors during the school year?

3. Talk about initial training. (How many days of training do AR tutors get before they begin working with students? How is the training developed? What is the focus of this training?)

4. What ongoing training do AR tutors receive during the school year?

Evaluation1. How do you evaluate your program?

2. What do you think your program does well?

3. What are some things you would like to do better?

4. What would you change if you could?

Instruction and Assessment1. Do your tutors use a specific lesson framework while working with students? Where do

tutors get the materials they use?

2. What grade levels do your AR tutors work with?

3. How do the tutors work with the classroom teachers?

4. What assessments are done with the students? Who does these?

5. How do you monitor tutors?

America Reads

Page 910

Appendix BTutor Interview ProtocolWe’re doing a study of America Reads tutoring and we’re interested in the per-spective of tutors.

1. Talk about your experiences as an America Reads tutor (prompts: When did you start? What do you do? What’s your schedule like? How many kids do you tutor? Is there a routine or lesson plan? What kinds of materials do you use?)

2. Do you work with a teacher? How does that work?

3. Tell us about the training and supervision you’ve received.

4. How is it going for you?

5. What kinds of prior experience have you had in teaching or tutoring?

6. What do you feel good about as far as your tutoring? What do you feel kind of shaky about?

7. Is there any aspect of the program you would change?

8. Is there anything that would help you do your work better?

9. Any other comments you want to make?