Does READ 180 Work for Struggling Middle School Students Year 1 Results from the Memphis Striving Re

1
Does READ 180 Work forStruggling Middle School
Students?Year 1 Results from theMemphis
Striving Readers Project

• Debra Coffey
• Research for Better Schools
• APPAM November 2008

Research for Better Schools
2
Thanks

• Kelly Feighan and Jill Feldman at RBS
• Elizabeth Heeren at Memphis City Schools
• Allen Schenck at RMC

3
Striving ReadersOverview

• Goals of the Striving Readers program
• Raise student achievement in secondary schools by
  improving the literacy skills of struggling
  readers
• Help build a strong, scientific research base
  around specific strategies that improve
  adolescent literacy skills.
• Eight sites around the country
• 5-Year grant period (20062011), assuming
  continuation funding

4
Motivation behind MSRP
Memphis is one of the cities with thehighest
educational need in the U.S.
5
Motivation behind MSRP

• Memphis City Schools is 21st largest K12
  district in US (gt116,000 students)
• Over 95 of MCS 196 schools are Title 1 schools
• 87 of MCS students are African American 9 are
  white 4 are from other backgrounds
• 71.5 of students in grades 68 scored below the
  50th percentile on the Reading/Language Arts
  portion of the TCAP (Tennessee Comprehensive
  Assessment Program) exam

6
Motivation behind MSRP
7
MSRP Overview

• Targeted intervention READ 180
• Focus of this presentation
• Participants (students) randomly selected from
  pool of eligible students, i.e., struggling
  readers
• Schoolwide intervention Memphis Content Literacy
  Academy
• Four schools (of eight) randomly selected in
  matched-pairs design
• Teachers participate in intensive, two-year
  professional development program and receive
  literacy coaching

8
Overall MSRP Goals to determine

• The effects of MCLA on content area teachers
  knowledge and use of reading strategies/methods
• The separate and combined effects of MCLA and
  READ 180 on studentsespecially struggling
  readersachievement levels in
• overall reading
• core subjects (ELA, math, science, social studies)

9
Study Design

• Student outcomes
• Iowa Test of Basic Skills in reading
• Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP)
  achievement in core content areas
• Evaluation of student outcomes
• Experimental design
• Random assignment of eligible students to
  treatment or control condition within
  participating schools

10
Analytic Approach

• Cross-sectional ITT analyses of reading and core
  content area achievement
• Two-level HLM using spring ITBS and TCAP scores
  as a function of student and school variables

11
Students in READ 180
12
Variables included in impact analysis

• Independent
• READ 180 Participation
• Dependent
• Spring 2007 ITBS Total Reading Comprehension Vo
  cabulary
• Spring 2007 TCAP Reading/Language
  Arts Mathematics Science Social Studies

13
Covariates included in impact analysis

• Fall 06 ITBS (Reading, Comprehension,
  Vocabulary)
• Fall 06 TCAP(Reading/LA, Math, Science, SS)
• Free or Reduced Price Lunch
• Grade (6th, 7th, 8th)
• Gender
• African-American / Hispanic
• English Language Learner

• Percentage Female
• Percentage African American
• Percentage Special Ed
• Percentage FRL
• Percentage ELL
• School Enrollment

14
READ 180 Impacts on Students Year 1
15
Conclusion

• No significant Year 1 student impact

16
What Now?

• Possible reasons for lack of impact
• Late startup
• (Most) students will receive two years of
  intervention
• Variation of implementation
• Future Analyses
• Original ITT design for years 2 through 4
• Exploratory analyses of relationships between
  variation in implementation and student outcomes

17
READ 180 Classroom Model
18
Analyses of Implementation Fidelity

• Variations across sites and classrooms
• Equipment delays and technical problems
• Levels of teacher professional development
• Extent of adherence to rotation framework and
  use of READ 180 materials
• Numbers of students per class
• Participation of special education students in
  READ 180

19
Exploratory Analyses Years 2 through 4

• Classroom-level ratings that capture the
  following
• What did students actually experience?
• How frequently was class on model?
• How frequently were students present?
• Sources of data
• Classroom observations
• 6 annually 3 by RBS, 2 by MCS, 1 by developer
• Data produced by READ 180 software
• District records
• Teacher interviews and surveys (RBS)
• Student surveys (MCSelement of READ 180)
• Inclusion of ratings as covariate in
  exploratory HLM analyses

20
Full impact report availablecoffey_at_rbs.orgFull
implementation report available for download at
http//www.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/perfor
mance.html