But Does It Work?
by David Kilpatrick, Ph.D.
A reasonable question about ARL is often asked: What
evidence is there that ARL works? I appreciate this
question very much. It tells me that the person asking the
question is more interested in children than in educational
philosophies. That person wants concrete proof that
something works before using it with children. Too often in
education, great ideas come into vogue without ever
establishing any substantial evidence that these ideas
really help. If they sound good and fit certain educational
philosophies, people rally around them. Then, after a
while, when children are no farther ahead after using the
“great idea,” educators are looking for the next great
idea. But when someone asks “what evidence is there?” they
really are on the right track.
Interestingly, this kind of thinking is what prompted the
creation of ARL in the first place. Dr. Philip McInnis
wanted to know what works with children. Rather than rely
on his own philosophical preferences or personal likes and
dislikes, he went to the research literature looking for
carefully designed experimental research to answer his
question about what works. In the course of Dr. McInnis’
search, he discovered that there was mounting evidence for
the importance of phonemic awareness, basic phonic skills,
and the use of phonograms in helping students learn to
read. In addition, he found evidence for the importance of
using multisensory approaches when new skills were being
developed. But most importantly, he discovered that many
teaching techniques and curricula paid little or no
attention to children’s developmental levels when
introducing various skills and tasks. Dr. McInnis decided
to apply what he learned from the scientific research. He
applied these insights directly to the classrooms in
Hammondsport, NY, where he worked as a school psychologist.
The number of struggling students began to decline very
rapidly. The overall scores of all children started to
climb. Neighboring districts started getting interested.
Others disbelieved the incredible results they were having
in Hammondsport. Dr. McInnis told me how people from
surrounding districts would call him and ask “How are
things in fantasyland?” Even the State of New York sent a
someone to investigate. After interviewing teachers at the
school, the state representative went into the town of
Hammondsport to stop parents on the street to ask if this
was all really true.
That was the 1970s. In the summer of 1999, Dr. McInnis was
doing a seminar at my school district. He stated that in
Hammondsport the previous year, only 9 out of their nearly
900 students in the district required Title I help in
reading, and four of those were new to the district! That’s
quite phenomenal. The national average of students who
qualify for Title I is over 20%, and Hammondsport had only
1%! Unknown to Dr. McInnis was the fact that Marilyn
Dominick, who was then the superintendent of Hammondsport,
had quietly walked into the seminar. She heard this and
immediately raised her hand. I thought “Oh no, this could
get tricky if Dr. McInnis did a little exaggerating.” Mrs.
Dominick said “I feel a little uncomfortable about the
figures Dr. McInnis just quoted.” I swallowed hard and felt
jitters in my stomach as I listened for what she had to
say. “It is true that only nine students qualified for
Title I last year, but I don’t want any of you thinking
that we are packing our resource rooms and special
educational classrooms with children instead of giving
those children Title I services. Our special education rate
is only 5.8%.” I almost fell off my chair. The state
average was 11-12%. Many districts in our area have special
education rates from 16-19%. Hammondsport is evidence that
ARL works. It is true that few schools have ever reached
the amazing (and longstanding) results of Hammondsport, the
birthplace of ARL. However, other schools around the
country have had incredible successes. Since the early
1980s, Dr. McInnis and his dedicated team of teachers have
been conducting seminars to promote ARL. Past issues of Dr.
McInnis’ "Matrix" newsletter have highlighted real schools
using ARL with great results. This represents “real world”
evidence for ARL.
But the real answer to “does ARL work” comes back to my
original comment. Dr. McInnis started ARL by selecting
strategies and approaches that had already been proven by
experimental studies, and reported in the scientific
journals, such as the "Journal of Educational Psychology,"
"Journal of Learning Disabilities," "Reading Research
Quarterly," and others. Thus, to be a component of ARL,
there had to be an established history of effectiveness.
Therefore, the issue isn’t “are the teaching practices
included in ARL effective?” The issue when Dr. McInnis
developed the program was “Is this teaching practice
effective enough to include in ARL.”
With that said, there have been many recent reports
confirming the kinds of practices included in the ARL
program. Most recently, the National Reading Panel,
commissioned by Congress, reported their results in October
2000. When you read their report (cf. www.nichd.nih.gov and
click on “Reading Research”) you will say “this is all that
ARL stuff.” When you watch the National Reading Panel video
and the ARL video, you will want to know who plagiarized
who. In fact, those videos were done independently and both
came out in October 2000. The National Reading Panel told
educators what they need to do, ARL tells you how to do it.
The reason for the similarities is that the National
Reading Panel and Dr. McInnis drew from the same body of
scientific research data. However, Dr. McInnis had been
applying this research to the classroom. He has also been
adjusting the program based upon trial and error
application and more revised and fine-tuned research as it
appeared. The National Research Council’s "Preventing
Reading Difficulties" book from 1997, and the American
Federation for Teachers publication "Teaching Reading IS
Rocket Science" also review the same research body that Dr.
McInnis used to develop ARL. Again, all of these sources
tell educators what they need to do. None of them tell
teachers how to do it. ARL has provided the “how to” for
nearly three decades.
In summary, there are two answers to the question: “Does
ARL work.” The first is that ARL was built from the ground
up by selecting teaching and learning practices that had
already passed the scrutiny of numerous experimental
studies. Thus, in order to be a part of ARL, it had to be
proven ahead of time. Second, there are many real life
schools that have had incredible success using ARL. What
worked in experimental research works in real schools–in
fact, many of the experiments were done in real schools in
the first place. Not all schools have had an equal level of
success with ARL. This is because many schools have
implemented ARL only partially or inconsistently. But the
more of ARL that is used, the more teachers are
establishing their teaching on research-based practice, and
the better students do. ARL is a very adaptable program
which allows teachers to continue using their favorite
books, materials, curricula, etc. But ARL provides the
learning framework and the steps necessary to assure all
children can learn to read, write, and do math.
If anyone is interested further information about the
research basis of ARL, I would recommend that they consult
the resources mentioned in the paragraphs above.
David Kilpatrick, Ph.D. worked with Dr. McInnis from
1996-2001. He is a School Psychologist with the East
Syracuse-Minoa School District and is a Lecturer in
Psychology for the State University of New York, College at
Cortland.
McInnis
ARL
2452
Route 364, Penn Yan, New York, 14527, US
All site content Copyright 2000-2005 McInnis ARL. You must
obtain written permission to use any content on these
pages.