3rd Annual National Reading First Conference

1
The View from Washington, DC The National
Implementation of Reading First
3rd Annual National Reading First Conference July
18-20, 2006
2
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 5,300 schools in 1,600 districts have
  received Reading First subgrants.

3
Reading First Subgrant Awards As of July
2006 1,598 Districts/5,336 Schools
Alaska 3/14
New Hampshire 7/12
Washington 34/70
Maine 24/25
Vermont 7/16
North Dakota 19/25
Montana 24/33
Minnesota 34/52
New York 71/216
Wisconsin 24/56
Massachusetts 46/89
Oregon 21/50
South Dakota 11/21
Idaho 16/30
Michigan 44/168
Rhode Island 3/14
Wyoming 5/12
Pennsylvania 35/160
Connecticut 15/25
Iowa 28/55
Nebraska 12/25
Ohio 29/120
New Jersey 33/77
Nevada 6/30
Illinois 39/225
Indiana 23/56
West Virginia 25/42
Delaware 7/14
Utah 11/23
Virginia 42/73
Colorado 45/82
Kansas 16/34
Missouri 69/113
Kentucky 42/73
Maryland 9/40
California 114/825
North Carolina 39/98
Tennessee 22/74
District of Columbia 5/23
South Carolina 23/51
Oklahoma 42/73
Arkansas 35/63
Arizona 31/72
New Mexico 31/88
Alabama 46/91

Georgia 49/141
Mississippi 33/66

Louisiana 21/102
Texas 194/715
Bureau of Indian Affairs 1/24 (not pictured)
Florida 27/587
Hawaii 3/47
American Samoa 1/20 (not pictured)
State District Awards/School Awards
Virgin Islands 2/6 (not pictured)
4
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 101,000 teachers and
  thats not counting the teachers who participate
  in statewide Reading First professional
  development activities.

5
Reading First Performance DataThrough Spring
2005
6
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyAll Students
7
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyEconomically Disadvantaged Students
8
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyEnglish Language Learners
9
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyStudents with Disabilities
10
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyAfrican-American Students
11
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyHispanic Students
12
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyAll Students
13
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyEconomically
Disadvantaged Students
14
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyEnglish Language Learners
15
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyStudents with Disabilities
16
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyAfrican-American Students
17
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyHispanic Students
18
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyGrade 1
19
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyGrade 2
20
Reading ComprehensionPercentage of Students at
ProficiencyGrade 3
21
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyGrade 1
22
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyGrade 2
23
DIBELS Oral Reading FluencyPercentage of
Students at ProficiencyGrade 3
24
The Reading First Implementation Evaluation
First Year Findings
25
Congressional Requirements for Reading First
Evaluations

• A 5-year, rigorous, scientifically valid,
  quantitative evaluation that requires information
  on
• reading proficiency of students
• State assessments
• State reading standards
• targeted assistance grants
• instructional materials
• screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based
  assessments
• professional development
• teacher preparation
• students' interest in reading
• special education

26
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

27
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

28
Summary of Data Collection, Samples and Schedule
Spring 2005
Spring 2007
29
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 should be released to the public
  this summer.
• Another round of data collection in 2006-07.
• Final report due two years from now.

30
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?

31
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.

32
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.

33
Amount of RF Funds Awarded to Schools in 2004-05

• Key Finding
• The median award across RF schools was 138,000.

34
Amount of RF Funds Awarded in 2004-05 to Schools
35
Non-financial External Assistance for K3 Reading
Program
100
RF Schools



Title I Schools


81

80
71
60
40
20
0
36
Instructional Time
Key Finding More RF schools have scheduled
reading blocks than Title I schools.
98
98
92
88
37
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
38
Instructional Materials

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

39
Instructional Materials






40
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
41
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.

42
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.

43
Interventions for Struggling Readers



44
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

45
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.

46
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

47
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)

48
Use of Assessments
Assessments Teachers Find Useful


49
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)

50
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.

51
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
52
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.

53
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.

54
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

55
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)

56
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
57
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
58
Conclusion

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

59
Next Steps

• A second round of data collection to be conducted
  in 2007, including interviews of state directors.
• Analyses will examine how the implementation of
  RF changes over time, and whether student
  achievement patterns differ across RF and Title I
  schools.

60
http//www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst http//www
.readingfirstsupport.us Reading.First_at_ed.gov (202
) 401-4877