By Matthew E. Milliken

mmilliken@heraldsun.com; 419-6684

DURHAM -- So what will become of Durham's reading program?

When asked what he would like to see happen, Rodrigo Dorfman, a Web designer and the parent of two E.K. Powe Elementary students, has a comprehensive vision: Free teachers in most Durham schools to approach literacy the way they want. Implement the framework and Reading Street only in those schools where reading scores are lowest. Reduce class sizes. Extend the school day, and perhaps the school year, to help those youngsters whose home lives are least conducive to learning and retaining knowledge.

"We need to acknowledge that there are children who need more help than others, that there are schools that are in trouble, and instead of spending ... all this effort to just like -- boom, come in and reshuffle everything on a grand scale in Durham, I think what we need is a curriculum that is tailored for very different schools, for very different needs," Dorfman said.

Steve Martin, a Durham school board member, said that administrators and board members have heard and understand the concerns of Dorfman and others who have criticized the reading program. But, he said, "I don't believe that [our] response will include changing the curriculum in the middle of the school year."

Which leaves the question of how teachers and students will perform using the new curriculum.

Dorothy Singleton, the head of curriculum, instruction and professional studies department at NCCU's School of Education, is not a big fan of Reading Street. But she is optimistic about what can be accomplished this year.

"They're going to make it work," the NCCU educator said, referring to her conversations with Durham teachers.

She characterized their attitude as: "We have it. We're going to work toward making sure that we accomplish what we need with our children so they can do well on their tests."

When asked about assessments, the Durham school system's chief academic officer sounded a cautiously optimistic note. There are some positive early signs from internal district assessments, Terri Mozingo said, although she acknowledged that they are not necessarily attributable to curriculum changes.

"Are we where we need to be as a district? Absolutely not," Mozingo said. "But do we think that -- do we think that we're on a better trajectory with our elementary schools by having an organized literacy framework? We think so."

Leigh Hall, an assistant professor of literacy studies at the UNC Chapel Hill School of Education, said it will be hard to distinguish expected improvements from those created by the new program.

"I think some of these kids are going to show growth because they're going to show growth no matter what," she said.

Hall believes that the school system will need to compare its test scores to those of similar districts to be able to judge the effect of Durham's 2009-10 literacy program implementation.

Dorfman is also skeptical about the district's ability to distinguish improvement produced by Reading Street from improvement produced by other methods. He said that the flexibility guidelines distributed after the negative response to the reading program's introduction are being interpreted differently by different schools.

"I have no idea how they're going to gauge any data of the success of the program," he said, "because there is no basis from which to judge it ... because everybody's doing it differently."