Special education and English teachers at Oak Park and River Forest High School did not respond kindly to recommendations by some members of the District 200 Board of Education that a popular reading program be singled out for an audit.

At the Aug. 27 board meeting, the board introduced a proposal to look into the relative effectiveness, other research-based alternatives to, and cost of the READ 180 literacy program. 

Reading program coordinator Kristen McKee described READ 180 as a scientifically research-based core program that addresses the reading comprehension, vocabulary, decoding and fluency of the school’s struggling readers. She said it was purchased in 2011 and the school pays a minimum maintenance fee of approximately $3,000 a year.

McKee said the program “is actively narrowing the gap” between struggling readers and higher performing readers in the school and noted that switching to another program would mean high startup costs for new materials, as well as costs related to training new teachers. 

“Racial equity is a term that is often used in educational rhetoric and if Oak Park is going to be at the forefront of this movement, it’s time we showed it with our actions,” said Paul Collins, a special education reading teacher whose class utilizes READ 180.

“Our reading program has shown action in achieving equity. The majority of students in our reading program are students of color … from a variety of backgrounds. These are students who have been historically marginalized. 

We talk about closing the achievement gap and creating more equitable schools. This program epitomizes these visions and goals,” said Collins, describing the experience of a student he taught last year who, in her initial assessment, didn’t even register at a first grade level.

“By the end of the school year [she was at] about a third- or fourth-grade level,” he said. 

Board member Steve Gevinson, who is a retired OPRF English teacher, was perhaps the most vocal board advocate of the audit. He said he was interested in exploring how much the program costs and its effectiveness, actions that align with the board’s strategic vision of measuring classroom instruction and establishing benchmarks.

But most of the pushback from teachers and staff members may have had to do with the proposal’s language, with some board members suggesting that the word “audit” was too threatening and implied that the program was in jeopardy of being cut.

Faculty Senate Chair Sheila Hardin, added to the sense that the program was under undue scrutiny and perhaps in jeopardy by noting that “it is very unusual for the board to audit specific” programs and courses.

“The program isn’t being cut,” said board member Sara Dixon Spivy. 

Supt. Steven Isoye and other faculty members, said that the READ 180 should be considered as part of a broader evaluation of curriculum. 

The board sent the matter back to the instructional committee for the administration to consider the READ 180 material as part of a much larger evaluation of the school’s literacy program.

CONTACT: michael@oakpark.com 

Join the discussion on social media!