the prevention of reading difficulties at scale: outcomes from reading first in florida joseph...

The prevention of reading The prevention of reading difficulties at scale: Outcomes difficulties at scale: Outcomes from Reading First in Floridafrom Reading First in Florida

Joseph TorgesenJoseph Torgesen

Florida Center for Reading ResearchFlorida Center for Reading Research

FCRR Research Symposium, 2007FCRR Research Symposium, 2007

100,000 hits per day

67,945 Unique Visitors

819,397Page Views

The Nation’s Report Card—Reading

2007

Go to Google and type in “The Nation’s Report

Card”

200

210

220

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

250

260

270

1998 2002 2003 2005 2007

Growth in Average Score at 4th Grade by SES group

Growth in Average Score at 8th Grade by SES group

Proficient LevelProficient Level - should be able to demonstrate an overall - should be able to demonstrate an overall understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal information. Should be able to extend the ideas in the text by information. Should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making connections making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making connections to their own experiences. The connection between the text and to their own experiences. The connection between the text and what the student infers should be clearwhat the student infers should be clear

Basic LevelBasic Level - Should demonstrate an understanding of the - Should demonstrate an understanding of the overall meaning of what they read. Should be able to overall meaning of what they read. Should be able to make relatively obvious connections between the text make relatively obvious connections between the text and their own experiences and extend the ideas in the and their own experiences and extend the ideas in the text by making simple inferences.text by making simple inferences.

Description by performance Description by performance levels….levels….

Advanced Level-Advanced Level- should be able to generalize about topics in the should be able to generalize about topics in the reading selection and demonstrate an awareness of how authors reading selection and demonstrate an awareness of how authors compose and use literary devices. Should be able to judge text compose and use literary devices. Should be able to judge text critically and, in general, to give thorough answers that indicate critically and, in general, to give thorough answers that indicate careful thought.careful thought.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp

4th Grade

8th Grade

Improvements at 4th Grade

Improvements at 8th Grade

D.C.

http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/r0001.asp

4th Grade –

8th Grade-

2007 results from National Assessment of 2007 results from National Assessment of Educational Progress at 4Educational Progress at 4thth Grade Grade

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Overall, 34% of 4Overall, 34% of 4thth graders performed graders performed below thebelow the BasicBasic Level Level of Proficiency in 17,600 schools – Florida 30%of Proficiency in 17,600 schools – Florida 30%

PoorPoor

Non-poorNon-poor

WhiteWhite 232319

BlackBlack

HispanicHispanic

545448

515136

505041

212118

Percent Percent belowbelow Basic Basic

Some Reading First Facts Some Reading First Facts and and IssuesIssues1. Largest federal/state initiative every conducted 1. Largest federal/state initiative every conducted

to prevent early reading difficultiesto prevent early reading difficulties

2. Budget of approximately 6 Billion Dollars over 6 2. Budget of approximately 6 Billion Dollars over 6 years, more than 300 million for Floridayears, more than 300 million for Florida

3. To receive funds, States were required to submit 3. To receive funds, States were required to submit applications that met specific requirements with applications that met specific requirements with regard to nature of instruction, assessments, regard to nature of instruction, assessments, professional development, leadership, etc.professional development, leadership, etc.

4. Currently, 5,200 schools in 1550 Districts in 4. Currently, 5,200 schools in 1550 Districts in every state have received awards—based on every state have received awards—based on size of population – 584 schools in Floridasize of population – 584 schools in Florida

8. Reading First money is spent primarily for:8. Reading First money is spent primarily for:Professional DevelopmentProfessional DevelopmentCurriculum MaterialsCurriculum MaterialsEarly assessmentsEarly assessmentsClassroom and school librariesClassroom and school libraries

20% can be used at state level- the rest goes to 20% can be used at state level- the rest goes to schoolsschools

Some Reading First Facts and Some Reading First Facts and IssuesIssues

1. Reading First legislation was written to require 1. Reading First legislation was written to require states to use instruction consistent with states to use instruction consistent with “scientifically based research in reading.”“scientifically based research in reading.”

Some Reading Some Reading First Facts andFirst Facts and IssuesIssues

There is also federal law saying that the feds cannot There is also federal law saying that the feds cannot tell the states what to do in instructiontell the states what to do in instruction

2. 2. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings calls it “the most Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings calls it “the most effective and successful reading initiative in the nation's effective and successful reading initiative in the nation's history”—yet its two leaders have been removed from their history”—yet its two leaders have been removed from their jobs—biggest charge was overstepping their authorityjobs—biggest charge was overstepping their authority

3. Reading First depends on strong leadership from State 3. Reading First depends on strong leadership from State Departments of Education – yet they are continually faced Departments of Education – yet they are continually faced with issues of local control, understaffing, and high turnoverwith issues of local control, understaffing, and high turnover

3. New discoveries from scientific research 3. New discoveries from scientific research about reading can provide the basis for about reading can provide the basis for improved outcomes for all children improved outcomes for all children

Why do we have Reading First?Why do we have Reading First?

2. Prevention of reading problems is far 2. Prevention of reading problems is far more effective and humane than trying to more effective and humane than trying to remediate after children failremediate after children fail

1. Far too many children, particularly poor and 1. Far too many children, particularly poor and minority children, are being “left behind” minority children, are being “left behind” when it comes to growth of proficient when it comes to growth of proficient reading skillsreading skills

The Intervention in Florida: What schools agree The Intervention in Florida: What schools agree to do in their application to participateto do in their application to participate

1. Adopt a common, comprehensive core reading 1. Adopt a common, comprehensive core reading program that is to serve as a program that is to serve as a scaffoldscaffold for explicit and for explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension strategiesstrategies

2. Provide at least 90 minutes of protected reading time 2. Provide at least 90 minutes of protected reading time every dayevery day

3. Administer a common set of progress monitoring 3. Administer a common set of progress monitoring measures 4 times a year, and a common set of outcome measures 4 times a year, and a common set of outcome measures once a year. Submit results to FCRR within a measures once a year. Submit results to FCRR within a specified time schedulespecified time schedule

4. Identify some means to provide more intensive instruction 4. Identify some means to provide more intensive instruction to students lagging behind in reading developmentto students lagging behind in reading development

The Intervention: What schools agree The Intervention: What schools agree to do (cont.)to do (cont.)

5. Pay for a reading coach to serve K-3 teachers in each 5. Pay for a reading coach to serve K-3 teachers in each schoolschool

6. Support attendance of all teachers at a 4-day 6. Support attendance of all teachers at a 4-day Reading Reading First Teacher’s AcademyFirst Teacher’s Academy during the summer during the summer

7. Participate in the state and federal evaluations of 7. Participate in the state and federal evaluations of Reading FirstReading First

FundingFunding: $300 per K-3 student – minimum 40,000/year, : $300 per K-3 student – minimum 40,000/year, maximum 175,000/year- with declining funds over six yearsmaximum 175,000/year- with declining funds over six years

FundingFunding issue: Do you highly fund a small number of schools issue: Do you highly fund a small number of schools to show what can be done with truly extraordinary funding, to show what can be done with truly extraordinary funding, or do you “spread it around” to lots of schools for equity?or do you “spread it around” to lots of schools for equity?

Ongoing support from State Ongoing support from State The work of Regional Reading First Professional The work of Regional Reading First Professional

Development Coordinators is coordinated by the Development Coordinators is coordinated by the University of Central Florida – Currently have 26 University of Central Florida – Currently have 26 coordinators for 590 schools, but began with only 12 coordinators for 590 schools, but began with only 12 for 326 for 326

Have provided summer academies for teachers (4day), Have provided summer academies for teachers (4day), summer conferences for coaches (4 days) and summer conferences for coaches (4 days) and principals (2 days)principals (2 days)

Provide all assessment training and support through Provide all assessment training and support through FCRR, including the Progress Monitoring and FCRR, including the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network for student reportsReporting Network for student reports

Lots of technical assistance about use of data, Lots of technical assistance about use of data, selection of programs, assessments, etc.selection of programs, assessments, etc.

Outcome data from Reading First Outcome data from Reading First Schools in Florida: 2006-2007Schools in Florida: 2006-2007

Three Groups of Schools:Three Groups of Schools:Cohort 1 - 4 years of data – 317 schoolsCohort 1 - 4 years of data – 317 schoolsCohort 2 - 3 years of data - 70 schoolsCohort 2 - 3 years of data - 70 schoolsCohort 3 - 2 year of data -- 197 schoolsCohort 3 - 2 year of data -- 197 schools

Student Demographics for all students grades K-3

7276 77

64

8085

13

2519

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

FR Lunch Minority ELL

Cohort 1Cohort 2Cohort 3

Cohort 1 = 32,000 per gradeCohort 2 = 6,750 per gradeCohort 3 = 18,900 per grade

Student Demographics for all students Grade K-3

8675

97

73

2617

0102030405060708090

100

FR Lunch Minority ELL

MiamiOther Dist.

Miami-Dade = 9,500 per gradeOther Dist. = 9,300 per grade

Miami has the most difficult demographics of any of the groups

Cohort Year of Implementation

03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 58 58 60 62

%HR 23 18 16 16

2 %GL 52 56 57

%HR 22 19 19

3 %GL 59 60

%HR 16 16

Miami %GL 61 62

%HR 13 12

Other C3

%GL 57 58

%HR 19 19

Performance on SAT10 in 1st Grade

+4

-7

+5

-3+1

-0


03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 55 59 61 62

%HR 23 19 16 16

2 %GL 52 55 56

%HR 23 20 20

3 %GL 56 57

%HR 21 21

Miami %GL 56 57

%HR 22 21

Other C3

%GL 58 57

%HR 19 20

Performance on SAT10 in 2nd Grade

+7

-7

+4

-3+1

-0

Cohort

02-03

Year of Implementation

03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 52 57 59 67 60

%HR 30 27 25 19 25

2 %GL 51 55 62 54

%HR 33 29 22 29

3 %GL 52 62 55

%HR 33 23 30

Miami %GL 48 61 52

%HR 35 25 32

Other C3

%GL 55 63 57

%HR 30 22 28

Performance on FCAT in 3rd Grade

+8

-5

+3

-4+3

-3

61 60 57

16 18

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% at Grade level % with SeriousDiff.

1st Grade2nd Grade3rd Grade

Percent of Students at Grade Level and Percent with Serious Difficulties in Reading Comprehension across all cohorts – FCAT (SS level) in third grade

61 60 56

16 18 20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70



Percent of Students at Grade Level and Percent with Serious Difficulties in Reading Comprehension across all cohorts – SAT10 in third grade (FCAT_PRTRNK)


03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 54 66 70 72

%HR 25 18 15 14

2 %GL 62 68 72

%HR 19 16 13

3 %GL 66 72

%HR 17 14

Miami %GL 66 71

%HR 18 14

Other C3

%GL 66 72

%HR 18 13

Performance on DIBELS in Kindergarten

+18

-11

+10

-6+6

-3


03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 53 53 55 61

%HR 21 19 18 15

2 %GL 52 52 59

%HR 21 20 16

3 %GL 53 59

%HR 21 19

Miami %GL 52 58

%HR 23 19

Other C3

%GL 54 60

%HR 20 18

Performance on DIBELS in

1st grade

Best Estimate of year to year increase in % meeting GL = 2.7%/yr. Midyear estimate was 4.3% (50 to 63%)

+8

-6

+7

-5+6

-3


03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 38 49 48 46

%HR 39 28 28 31

2 %GL 47 45 47

%HR 29 31 30

3 %GL 44 44

%HR 33 35

Miami %GL 42 53

%HR 36 36

Other C3

%GL 47 44

%HR 30 33


2nd grade


+8

-8

+0

+1+0

+3


03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 44 40 40 54

%HR 22 22 26 16

2 %GL 38 37 51

%HR 24 28 18

3 %GL 36 51

%HR 29 19

Miami %GL 35 48

%HR 31 21

Other C3

%GL 38 53

%HR 28 17


3rd grade


+10

-6

+13

-6+15

-10

60

45

52

16

32

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70



Percent of Students at Grade Level and Percent with Serious Difficulties in Oral Reading Fluency in Grades 1-3 –DIBELS Benchmarks

56 58

69

2118

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70



Percent of Students at Grade Level and Percent with Serious Difficulties in Oral Reading Fluency in Grades 1-3 –Hasbrouck and Tindal Norms


03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 38 39 38 39

%HR 35 34 35 34

2 %GL 31 31 32

%HR 41 41 40

3 %GL 27 28

%HR 46 44

Miami %GL 17 19

%HR 57 52

Other C3

%GL 36 36

%HR 37 36

Performance on PPVT in Kindergarten

+1

-1

+1

-1+1

-2


03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 41 42 43 44

%HR 38 37 37 36

2 %GL 32 32 37

%HR 47 46 42

3 %GL 30 32

%HR 51 49

Miami %GL 21 22

%HR 61 60

Other C3

%GL 39 39

%HR 41 40

Performance on PPVT in

1st grade

+3

-2

+5

-5+2

-3


03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 44 47 48 48

%HR 34 31 30 31

2 %GL 36 39 40

%HR 40 39 37

3 %GL 34 37

%HR 45 41

Miami %GL 25 29

%HR 54 49

Other C3

%GL 42 44

%HR 38 35


2nd grade

+4

-3

+4

-3+3

-4


03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07

1 %GL 43 47 50 51

%HR 38 35 32 26

2 %GL 39 43 43

%HR 44 40 33

3 %GL 37 40

%HR 46 38

Miami %GL 29 31

%HR 56 46

Other C3

%GL 47 47

%HR 36 31


3rd grade

+8

-8

+4

-11+3

-8

3539

43 46

3841

3531

05

101520253035404550


Kgarten1st Grade2nd Grade3rd Grade

Percent of Students at Grade Level and Percent with Serious Difficulties in Oral Vocabulary across all cohorts

Examination of patterns of performance on Examination of patterns of performance on various progress monitoring and outcome various progress monitoring and outcome

measures -- is an attempt to determine measures -- is an attempt to determine whether areas of concern are improvingwhether areas of concern are improving

Year to Year changes in performance on a combined measure of PA, Letter knowledge, and decoding

38 39 38 3935 34 35 34

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% Grade Level %High Risk

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

54

6670 72

2518

15 14

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-2007

Year to Year changes in measure of oral vocabulary

Kindergarten End of year

Cohort 1


31 31 32

41 41 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

6268 72

19 1613

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2004-05 2005-06 2006-07



Cohort 2


27 28

4644

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


2005-06 2006-07

66 72

17 14

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


2005-06 2006-07



Cohort 3

35

40

45

50

55

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Kinder1st2nd3rd

51

48

44

39

Year to Year improvement in % of students at “grade level” in oral vocabulary in grades Kindergarten through Third

41

38

4344

Cohort 1

30

35

40

45

50

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Kinder1st2nd3rd

43

40

37

32


3231

39

36

Cohort 2

25

30

35

40

45

Year 1 Year 2

Kinder1st2nd3rd

40

37

32

28


3027

37

34

Cohort 3

Progress in teaching phonemic Progress in teaching phonemic decoding skills in First Gradedecoding skills in First Grade

Point in Time Year of Implementation

End 1st Grade 1 2 3 4

%GL 54.7% 62.4% 67.4% 68.0%

%HR 12.5% 9.0% 7.2% 6.7%

Beginning 2nd GR.

%GL 38.3% 53.7% 60.5% 64.7%

%HR 23.9% 13.0% 9.7% 8.3%

Cohort 1 change across four years – NWF at end of first grade and beginning of Second grade

Note: the Grade level standard is for the middle of first grade, and doesn’t change after that.

51% met the NWF benchmark in February of 007


End 1st Grade 1 2 3

%GL 56.5% 64.6% 66.5%

%HR 11.2% 8.5% 7.7%

Beginning 2nd GR.

%GL 40.9% 53.6% 59.1%

%HR 23.5% 13.8% 11.2%

Cohort 2 change across 3 years – NWF at end of first grade and beginning of Second grade






End 1st Grade 1 2 1 2 1 2

%GL 63.7% 66.3% 62.7% 65.0% 66.5% 67.5%

%HR 10.5% 8.5% 12.7% 9.9% 7.6% 7.2%

Beginning 2nd GR.

%GL 48.4% 60.0% 46.8% 58.4% 50.1% 61.6%

%HR 19.4% 12.5% 22.2% 14.9% 16.7% 10.2%

Cohort 3 change across two years – NWF at end of first grade and beginning of Second grade


MiamiRest of

Cohort 3


Rates of improvement in Rates of improvement in outcomes for different outcomes for different

measuresmeasures

Measure Estimated yearly increase in %GL from Yr1 to Yr 4

Estimated yearly decrease in %HR from Yr1 to Yr4

Phonemic Decoding

4.3% 2.0%

Oral Reading Fluency

2.7% 2%

Reading Comprehension.

1.3% 2.3%

Vocabulary 1% .7%

Rates of Yearly Improvement in Cohort 1 schools in First Grade across four measures

Measure Estimated yearly increase in %GL

Estimated yearly decrease in %HR


2.7% 2.7%


2.3% 2.3%

Vocabulary 1.3% 1%

Rates of Yearly Improvement in Cohort 1 schools in Second Grade across three measures

Measure Estimated yearly increase in %GL

Estimated yearly decrease in %HR


3.3% 2%


1% (2.75%) .7% (2.5%)

Vocabulary 2.7% 4%

Rates of Yearly Improvement in Cohort 1 schools in Third Grade across three measures

Variability in Variability in Performance among Performance among

RF schoolsRF schools

Relationship of “school challenge” to student performance

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Level of School Challenge based on % of students qualifying for FR lunch

% o

f 1-3

Stu

dent

s Pe

rfor

min

g A

t Gra

de L

evel

at t

he E

nd o

f Yea

r1 2 3 4 5 6

Increasing ChallengeIncreasing Challenge

72

6158

53 51

66

Decreasing Performance

Decreasing Performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Average % at GL

587 RF schools in Florida

63 75 82 86 91 96

The Adult Learning and Performance Gap 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

75 82 85 91

1 2 3 4 5 6

57

85

53

80

46

72

46

73

40

67

35

64

Low 15% schools

Top 15% Schools

Approx. 27%

63 96

Level of School Challenge based on % of students qualifying for FR lunch

% o

f 1-3

Stu

dent

s Pe

rfor

min

g A

t Gra

de L

evel

at t

he E

nd o

f Yea

r

Approx. 20%

R Squared (% Variance)

MIN, FRL and ELL

Cohort 1 GL_C 53.10%

HR_C 40.16%


HR_C 51.45%


HR_C 31.79%

R Squared (% Variance)

MIN, FRL and ELL

Cohort 1 YYGL_C 5.02%

YYHR_C 4.59%


YYHR_C 8.20%


YYHR_C 0.83%

Relationship of School Level Demographics to Outcomes

At end of year-2007 Improvement across years

Questions/DiscussionQuestions/Discussion

the prevention of reading difficulties at scale: outcomes from reading first in florida joseph...

Documents