Texas Superintendents Summit

1
The View from Washington
Texas Superintendents Summit September 6, 2006
2
Reading First is a national effort to support
States, districts and schools to make
EVERY child a proficient reader.
64 At or above Basic
31 At or above Proficient
33
23
36
8
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
2005 NAEP Reading -- Fourth Grade
3
76 At or above Basic
42 At or above Proficient
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Students Not Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch
46 At or above Basic
15 At or above Proficient
Below Basic
Basic
Proficient
Advanced
Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch
4
Significant New Reading Support

• Reading First
• Academic cornerstone of No Child Left Behind Act
• About 6 billion over 6 years
• 900 million for FY2002
• About 1 billion for FY 2003
• 1.02 billion for FY 2004
• 1.041 billion for FY 2005
• 1.029 billion for FY 2006
• 1.029 billion (req.) for FY 2007

5
Purpose of Reading First

• Through Reading First, States and districts
  receive support to apply scientifically based
  reading research and the proven instructional
  and assessment tools consistent with this
  research to ensure that all children can read
  at grade level or above by the end of third grade.

6
Reading First Update

• 54 State educational agencies including all 50
  States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
  the Virgin Islands and the Bureau of Indian
  Affairs are participating in Reading First.
• To date, SEAs have received over 4.8 billion in
  Reading First grants.
• Over 5,600 schools in 1,700 districts have
  received Reading First subgrants.

7
Students and Teachers

• Reading First is currently improving reading
  instruction and raising student achievement for
  more than 1.7 million students.
• Reading First is providing professional
  development to more than 102,000 teachers and
  thats not counting the teachers who participate
  in statewide Reading First professional
  development activities.

8
Basic Premises of Reading First

• All but a very small number of children can be
  taught to be successful readers
• Prevention of reading problems is far more cost
  effective and efficient than remediation
• Reading failure can be prevented by relying on
  the extensive scientific research base in reading

9
Why Scientifically Based Research?
Scientific Research

• prevents the use of unreliable and untested
  methods that can actually impede academic
  progress
• makes teaching more effective, productive, and
  efficient
• can be better generalized and replicated across
  many sites

10
Reading First Priorities

• Improving Reading Instruction
• Professional Development and Technical Assistance
• Evaluation and Accountability

11
What Reading First Supports

• Increased professional development
• Scientifically-based instructional programs,
  materials and instruction
• Valid and reliable screening, diagnostic, and
  on-going classroom assessments
• Statewide accountability and leadership structures

12
Considerations for Successful Implementation

• Far and away the best prize that life offers is
  the chance to work hard at work worth doing.
• Theodore Roosevelt

13

• Reading First is a district-based program. The
  district role in providing leadership and support
  is key.

14

• Whether or not the principal serves as the
  schools instructional leader, principal support
  and involvement are critical to effective
  implementation.

15

• Its not giving the assessments that matters,
  its what you do with the data.

16

• What gets measured gets done.

17

• The five components in and of themselves are not
  scientifically based reading instruction
  explicit and systematic instruction in the five
  components have been proven effective by
  scientific research.

18

• Struggling students are unlikely to reach
  proficiency without additional instruction
  students at benchmark must continue to develop
  their skills in order to stay at benchmark.

19

• Effective coaches sometimes have to tell teachers
  things they would rather not hear.

20

• Professional development should be differentiated
  to meet teachers varying needs, particularly as
  schools get farther into implementation.

21

• We must stay focused on the things that are
  within our control.

22

• The goal is 100 proficiency -- celebrate success
  while continuing to look at what needs to be done
  to get ALL students to the goal.

23
How Are We Doing?
24
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyGrade 1
25
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyGrade 2
26
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyGrade 3
27
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyGrade 1
28
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyGrade 2
29
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyGrade 3
30
Federal Reading First Evaluations

• Reading First Implementation Evaluation
• Analysis of State K-3 Reading Standards and
  Assessments
• Reading First and Special Education Study
• Reading First Impact Study
• Study of Teacher Preparation in Early Reading
  Instruction

31
RF Implementation Evaluation Study Design

• Five year evaluation quasi-experimental design
• Samples Nationally representative samples of
  Reading First and non-RF Title I schools
• 1,100 RF schools
• 550 newly funded schools
• 550 mature schools
• 550 Title I School-wide program schools
• Measures
• Mail surveys of K-3 teachers, principals and
  reading coaches
• Telephone interviews with Reading First state
  coordinators

32
Timeline for the Reading First Implementation
Evaluation

• First round of data collection in 2004-05.
  Response rates were 96 for Reading First school
  respondents and 94 for Title I school
  respondents.
• Interim report has been released.
• Another round of data collection in 2006-07.
• Final report due two years from now.

33
Evaluation Questions

• How is the Reading First program implemented in
  districts and schools?
• How does reading instruction differ between
  Reading First schools and non-RF Title I schools?
  
• How does reading instruction differ between
  Reading First schools and non-RF Title I schools
  as RF schools implementation efforts mature over
  time?
• Does student achievement improve in schools with
  Reading First funds?
• Is there any relationship between how schools
  implement Reading First and changes in reading
  achievement?

34
Limitations

• Not an impact study. Comparison group is for
  illustrative purposes only and does not allow us
  to make causal conclusions.
• Self-reported Data. As is the case with all
  survey research, what people report they do may
  be different from what they actually do.

35
Key Findings

• Reading First schools appear to be implementing
  the major elements of the program as intended by
  the legislation including
• Adequate time for reading instruction,
• Scientifically based reading instruction,
• Interventions for struggling readers,
• The use of assessment data to inform reading
  instruction, and
• Professional development.

36
Non-financial External Assistance for K3 Reading
Program
100
RF Schools



Title I Schools


81

80
71
60
40
20
0
37
Instructional Time
Key Finding More RF schools have scheduled
reading blocks than Title I schools.
98
98
92
88
38
Instructional Time
Key Finding In grades 1-3, teachers in RF
schools reported spending significantly more time
teaching reading than their Title I counterparts
139
123
116
121
39
Instructional Materials

• Key Finding
• RF schools were significantly more likely to
  report changes in reading programs and materials
  than their Title I counterparts.

40
Instructional Materials






41
Instructional Strategies

• Across grades, RF teachers reported that
  strategies that align with SBRR were more central
  to their teaching than Title I teachers.

Mean Percent
100
RF Teachers
Mean Percent
Title I Teachers





79


76
80

77
75
76
72
70
68
60
40
20
Title I Teachers
0
Kindergarten
First Grade
Second Grade
Third Grade
42
Interventions for Struggling Readers

• Key Finding
• RF teachers in 3 grades (K, 2nd, and 3rd) were
  significantly more likely than their counterparts
  in Title I schools to place their struggling
  readers in intervention programs.

43
Interventions for Struggling Readers

• Key Finding
• Across both RF and Title I schools, teachers
  report no time delay between identification and
  provision of services, as reported on surveys.
• RF and Title I schools are also similar with
  respect to coordinating instruction for ELL
  students.

44
Interventions for Struggling Readers



45
Interventions for Struggling Readers

• RF 3rd grade teachers were more likely than Title
  I teachers to provide extra practice in phonemic
  awareness, decoding and fluency.
• RF K and 3rd grade teachers were more likely to
  use materials that supplement the core reading
  program.
• K 70 vs. 62
• 3rd 74 vs. 66
• RF K, 2nd and 3rd grade teachers were more likely
  to place their struggling readers in intervention
  programs.
• K 54 vs. 45
• 2nd 70 vs. 62
• 3rd 68 vs. 60

46
Interventions for Struggling Readers

• Key Finding Meeting the needs of struggling
  readers remains a challenge.
• Significantly more RF teachers in K, 1, and 2
  reported receiving PD in helping struggling
  readers than teachers in non-RF Title I schools
  (78 vs. 64), however 80 of both RF and non-RF
  Title I teachers reported needing more PD in this
  area.

47
Special Education Services to Struggling Readers

• Title I schools were significantly more likely
  than RF schools to have a certified special
  education teacher provide recommendations to plan
  instruction for struggling readers (83 vs. 72).
  
• RF teachers in kindergarten, first, and second
  grades were significantly more likely than Title
  I teachers to report that time is not set aside
  for coordination of the reading instruction
  provided to their special education students
• Kindergarten 51 vs. 44
• First grade 42 vs. 35
• Second grade 37 vs. 30

48
Use of Assessments

• Key Finding The vast majority of teachers in
  both RF and Title I schools named an assessment
  they found useful for each of the three
  assessment purposes.
• Placement or grouping of students (90)
• Determining student mastery of skills (89)
• Identifying core deficits (85)

49
Use of Assessments
Assessments Teachers Find Useful


50
Assessment Data

• Key Finding
• 84 of teachers in RF schools reported that they
  had regularly scheduled, formal time set aside to
  use assessment data to inform instruction than
  Title I teachers, compared with 74 of Title I
  teachers.
• More RF teachers report using assessment data to
• Organize instructional groups (83 vs. 73)
• Determine progress on skills (85 vs. 78)
• Identify students who need reading intervention
  services (75 vs. 65)

51
Reading Coaches

• Key Finding
• By principal report RF schools are more likely to
  have a reading coach than Title I schools (98
  vs. 60).
• Of the Title I schools that reported having
  reading coaches, 88 have a coach that reports
  doing the central activities of a reading coach
  as defined by Reading First
• Coaches in RF schools were more likely to provide
  teachers with various supports for their reading
  instruction than were coaches in Title I schools.

52
Reading Coaches Tasks Central to Reading Coachs
Work
100
RF Teachers

95

92
Title I Teachers
87


95
83
87
92
80

83
67


67
67

47
60
47
47
40
20
0
Providing PD
Coaching Staff
Organizing PD
Facilitating Grade-
Level Meetings
53
Reading Coaches

• Key Finding
• 29 of RF coaches report that providing direct
  instruction to students is absolutely central to
  their work, compared to 53 of reading coaches in
  Title I schools.

54
Professional Development

• Key Finding
• RF staff received more professional development
  than did Title I staff.
• 94 vs. 81 of teachers attended PD related to
  reading.
• On average, RF teachers attended 40 hours whereas
  Title I teachers attended 24 hours of PD per year.

55
Professional Development

• Key Finding
• RF teachers were more likely to have received PD
  in the last year in the five dimensions of
  reading instruction than Title I teachers.
• Phonemic Awareness 85 vs. 62
• Decoding 86 vs. 63
• Vocabulary 74 vs. 52
• Comprehension 87 vs. 75
• Fluency 86 vs. 69

56
Professional Development

• Key Finding
• Activities attended by RF teachers were more
  likely to have attributes conducive to a
  successful PD experience than those attended by
  Title I teachers.
• Included an incentive (e.g., stipend or release
  time) (Corcoran, 1995)
• Conducted by well-established, experienced
  trainers (as reported by teachers) (Reading First
  Guidance)
• Used a team-based approach (Garet, et. al, 1999)

57
Characteristics of Professional Development
Activities
Percent
RF Teachers
100
Title I Teachers

80

74

67
60


40

20
0
Types of Incentives Provided
Types of Incentives Provided
58
Professional Development for Reading Coaches and
Principals
RF
Title I
100



84
83


80


80


72

60


40


20
Title I
Title I
0
Principals
Principals
Principals
Reading Coaches
Reading Coaches
Reading Coaches
59
Conclusion

• Taken together, the findings suggest that Reading
  First schools are carrying out the objectives of
  the Reading First legislation.

60
ALL STUDENTS CAN BECOME PROFICIENT READERS!
61
http//www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst http//www
.readingfirstsupport.us Reading.First_at_ed.gov (202
) 401-4877