1. National Research Center on Rural Education Support The Rural Early Literacy Initiative

2. NRCRES: Early School Transition Collaborative Lynne Vernon-Feagans, PI Kirsten Kainz Kate Gallagher Steve Knotek Marnie Ginsberg Pledger Fedora Steve Amendum Kelley Mayer Jason Rose Andrea Sauer Tim Wood Heather Ward Megan Livengood

3. Purpose The purpose of this study is to improve the teaching strategies of rural kindergarten and first grade teachers in literacy, with a specific focus on strategies that are effective with struggling readers who do not make reading gains using traditional reading instruction.

4. Why focus on teacher training in kindergarten and first grade? Research has shown that the first few years of school are critical for children’s later school success, especially in the area of reading (Alexander& Entwisle, 1992; Juel, 1988; Vernon-Feagans, Odom, Pancsofar & Kainz, in press; Vernon-Feagans, Gallagher & Kainz, in press;) Teachers in rural areas have more experience in teaching and knowledge about the background of their students but teachers have less access to professional development opportunities (GAO report, 2004; Lee & Burkham, 2003) Teachers and parents are more satisfied with their schools in rural areas but children come to school with less formal and high quality preschool experiences (Israel, 2004; Vernon-Feagans et al., in press).

5. Why focus on struggling learners? Struggling learners are usually the ones that do not make expected progress (Pianta, 2001; Meisels, 2001) This emphasis on struggling learners has been highlighted through disaggregated data mandated by NCLB Teachers report these struggling learners are the children who have the least success in learning and behavior. Teachers often attribute poor learning by students on the children’s behavior and/or their home situation.

6. Why focus on literacy? Reading becomes the foundation for subsequent academic learning (Lyon et al., Snow, Burns & Griffin; 1998; Vernon- Feagans, 1996) Children’s ability to decode words at the end of first grade accounts for 40% of their reading comprehension during secondary school (Foorman et al., 1997)

7. The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) Based on research based evidence Based on the 5 early reading constructs identified as most important by Reading First and the National Reading Panel Based on research in special education that emphasizes individualized diagnostic teaching Specifically geared to children considered struggling readers because they do not make progress with traditional reading approaches. Teaching literacy that is always geared to the context of the word and text. Teaching conducted in one on one teaching sessions between the teacher and child at least 4 times a week at the beginning of intensive intervention

8. The TRI Model of Reading

9. Word Work

11. Change One Sound

13. Guided Oral Reading

15. Collaborative Consultation Model for Rural Teachers 3 Day Summer Institute for all teachers, aides, and the principal to learn the TRI strategies Help teachers identify 5 struggling readers in their classrooms Biweekly visits from UNC Literacy Consultant to meet with individual teachers to model strategies and problem solve about individual children. Attend grade level meetings to discuss strategies and problem solve. Daily consultation from the on-site literacy consultant identified by the principal as someone who can spend 10 hours a week helping teachers Bimonthly workshops on topics teachers choose.

16. Effective Collaborative Strategies in the LEEP Consultation Model

17. Research Design (2005-2006) Chose a poor rural county with limited access to teacher professional development. (We have added an additional county to the study in the 2006-2007 year). Select 4 elementary schools in the county who were willing to participate. Randomly assign 2 schools to the intervention and 2 schools to the control group. Target all kindergarten and first grade classrooms to be part of the study. (One intervention school withdrew after a new principal was appointed). –5 children in each classroom are randomly selected from those children identified by the teacher as struggling learners –5 children in each classroom are randomly selected from those children identified by the teacher as not struggling learners

18. 21 high risk (4 teachers) 20 high risk (4 teachers) 30 high risk (6 teachers) 30 high risk (6 teachers) 22 low risk 19 low risk30 low risk 24 high risk (5 teachers) 25 high risk (6 teachers) 30 high risk (6 teachers) 30 high risk (6 teachers) 30 low risk Year 1 24 teachers (n = 240) Year 2 24 teachers (n = 240) Kindergarten1 st GradeKindergarten1 st Grade Experimental Control

19. Child Characteristics Race Black White Other 61% 32% 7% 33% 37% 31% Gender Male Female 73% 27% 63% 37% Parents Married46%54% Maternal Education M = 11.8 yrs M = 13.3 years EXPCON

20. Teacher Characteristics # of years teachingM = 18 yrs Teacher AgeM = 43 yrs Teacher Race White Black Other 65% 30% 5% National Board Certification 5% Certification type Temp Regular Specific grade certification 10% 40% 50%

21. Child Outcomes (Fall and Spring Testing) Phonological awareness Phonics (CTOPPS) F(1,69) =1.29CECE.52 1.67 Word Attack (Woodcock Johnson) F(1,151) = 4.09*CECE 27.15 35.86 Letter/Word Identification (Woodcock Johnson) F(1,152) = 5.25*CECE 34.12 42.22 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) F(1,120) = 0.38CECE 1.20 2.32 Outcome F-Test Group LSMean

22. Effect Sizes

23. Conclusions The TRI intervention group made significant gains in word attack and letter/word identification in comparison to the control group. Next year we hope to have a significant impact on all areas identified by Reading First and the TRI Model.