The prevention of reading difficulties at scale: Outcomes from Reading First in Florida Joseph Torgesen Florida Center for Reading Research FCRR Research Symposium, 2007

100,000 hits per day 67,945 Unique Visitors 819,397 Page Views

The Nation’s Report Card—Reading 2007 Go to Google and type in “The Nation’s Report Card”

Growth in Average Score at 4 th Grade by SES group

Growth in Average Score at 8 th Grade by SES group

Proficient Level - should be able to demonstrate an overall understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal information. Should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making inferences, drawing conclusions, and making connections to their own experiences. The connection between the text and what the student infers should be clear Basic Level - Should demonstrate an understanding of the overall meaning of what they read. Should be able to make relatively obvious connections between the text and their own experiences and extend the ideas in the text by making simple inferences. Description by performance levels…. Advanced Level- should be able to generalize about topics in the reading selection and demonstrate an awareness of how authors compose and use literary devices. Should be able to judge text critically and, in general, to give thorough answers that indicate careful thought.

4 th Grade 8 th Grade

Improvements at 4 th Grade

Improvements at 8 th Grade D.C.

4 th Grade –

8 th Grade-

2007 results from National Assessment of Educational Progress at 4 th Grade Overall, 34% of 4 th graders performed below the Basic Level of Proficiency in 17,600 schools – Florida 30% Poor Non-poor White2319Black Hispanic Percent below Basic

Some Reading First Facts and Issues 1. Largest federal/state initiative every conducted to prevent early reading difficulties 2. Budget of approximately 6 Billion Dollars over 6 years, more than 300 million for Florida 3. To receive funds, States were required to submit applications that met specific requirements with regard to nature of instruction, assessments, professional development, leadership, etc. 4. Currently, 5,200 schools in 1550 Districts in every state have received awards—based on size of population – 584 schools in Florida

8. Reading First money is spent primarily for: Professional Development Curriculum Materials Early assessments Classroom and school libraries 20% can be used at state level- the rest goes to schools Some Reading First Facts and Issues

1. Reading First legislation was written to require states to use instruction consistent with “scientifically based research in reading.” Some Reading First Facts and Issues There is also federal law saying that the feds cannot tell the states what to do in instruction 2. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings calls it “the most effective and successful reading initiative in the nation's history”—yet its two leaders have been removed from their jobs—biggest charge was overstepping their authority 3. Reading First depends on strong leadership from State Departments of Education – yet they are continually faced with issues of local control, understaffing, and high turnover

3. New discoveries from scientific research about reading can provide the basis for improved outcomes for all children Why do we have Reading First? 2. Prevention of reading problems is far more effective and humane than trying to remediate after children fail 1. Far too many children, particularly poor and minority children, are being “left behind” when it comes to growth of proficient reading skills

The Intervention in Florida: What schools agree to do in their application to participate 1. Adopt a common, comprehensive core reading program that is to serve as a scaffold for explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies 2. Provide at least 90 minutes of protected reading time every day 3. Administer a common set of progress monitoring measures 4 times a year, and a common set of outcome measures once a year. Submit results to FCRR within a specified time schedule 4. Identify some means to provide more intensive instruction to students lagging behind in reading development

The Intervention: What schools agree to do (cont.) 5. Pay for a reading coach to serve K-3 teachers in each school 6. Support attendance of all teachers at a 4-day Reading First Teacher’s Academy during the summer 7. Participate in the state and federal evaluations of Reading First Funding: $300 per K-3 student – minimum 40,000/year, maximum 175,000/year- with declining funds over six years Funding issue: Do you highly fund a small number of schools to show what can be done with truly extraordinary funding, or do you “spread it around” to lots of schools for equity?

Ongoing support from State The work of Regional Reading First Professional Development Coordinators is coordinated by the University of Central Florida – Currently have 26 coordinators for 590 schools, but began with only 12 for 326 Have provided summer academies for teachers (4day), summer conferences for coaches (4 days) and principals (2 days) Provide all assessment training and support through FCRR, including the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network for student reports Lots of technical assistance about use of data, selection of programs, assessments, etc.

Outcome data from Reading First Schools in Florida: Three Groups of Schools: Cohort years of data – 317 schools Cohort years of data - 70 schools Cohort year of data schools

Student Demographics for all students grades K-3 Cohort 1 = 32,000 per grade Cohort 2 = 6,750 per grade Cohort 3 = 18,900 per grade

Student Demographics for all students Grade K-3 Miami-Dade = 9,500 per grade Other Dist. = 9,300 per grade Miami has the most difficult demographics of any of the groups

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL %HR2219 3%GL5960 %HR16 Miami%GL6162 %HR1312 Other C3 %GL5758 %HR19 Performance on SAT10 in 1 st Grade

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL %HR2320 3%GL5657 %HR21 Miami%GL5657 %HR2221 Other C3 %GL5857 %HR1920 Performance on SAT10 in 2 nd Grade

Cohort Year of Implementation %GL %HR %GL %HR %GL %HR Miami%GL %HR Other C3 %GL %HR Performance on FCAT in 3 rd Grade

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

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

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL %HR %GL6672 %HR1714 Miami%GL6671 %HR1814 Other C3 %GL6672 %HR1813 Performance on DIBELS in Kindergarten

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL52 59 %HR %GL5359 %HR2119 Miami%GL5258 %HR2319 Other C3 %GL5460 %HR2018 Performance on DIBELS in 1 st grade Best Estimate of year to year increase in % meeting GL = 2.7%/yr. Midyear estimate was 4.3% (50 to 63%)

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL %HR %GL44 %HR3335 Miami%GL4253 %HR36 Other C3 %GL4744 %HR3033 Performance on DIBELS in 2 nd grade Best Estimate of year to year increase in % meeting GL = 2.7%/yr. Midyear estimate was 4.3% (45 to 58%)

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL %HR %GL3651 %HR2919 Miami%GL3548 %HR3121 Other C3 %GL3853 %HR2817 Performance on DIBELS in 3 rd grade Best Estimate of year to year increase in % meeting GL = 3.3%/yr. Midyear estimate was 4.3% (40 to 53%)

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

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

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL31 32 %HR %GL2728 %HR4644 Miami%GL1719 %HR5752 Other C3 %GL36 %HR3736 Performance on PPVT in Kindergarten

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL32 37 %HR %GL3032 %HR5149 Miami%GL2122 %HR6160 Other C3 %GL39 %HR4140 Performance on PPVT in 1 st grade

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL %HR %GL3437 %HR4541 Miami%GL2529 %HR5449 Other C3 %GL4244 %HR3835 Performance on PPVT in 2 nd grade

CohortYear of Implementation %GL %HR %GL3943 %HR %GL3740 %HR4638 Miami%GL2931 %HR5646 Other C3 %GL47 %HR3631 Performance on PPVT in 3 rd grade

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

Examination of patterns of performance on various progress monitoring and outcome measures -- is an attempt to determine whether areas of concern are improving

Year to Year changes in performance on a combined measure of PA, Letter knowledge, and decoding Year to Year changes in measure of oral vocabulary Kindergarten End of year Cohort 1

Year to Year changes in performance on a combined measure of PA, Letter knowledge, and decoding Year to Year changes in measure of oral vocabulary Kindergarten End of year Cohort 2

Year to Year changes in performance on a combined measure of PA, Letter knowledge, and decoding Year to Year changes in measure of oral vocabulary Kindergarten End of year Cohort 3

Year to Year improvement in % of students at “grade level” in oral vocabulary in grades Kindergarten through Third Cohort 1

Year to Year improvement in % of students at “grade level” in oral vocabulary in grades Kindergarten through Third Cohort 2

Year to Year improvement in % of students at “grade level” in oral vocabulary in grades Kindergarten through Third Cohort 3

Progress in teaching phonemic decoding skills in First Grade

Point in TimeYear of Implementation End 1 st Grade1234 %GL 54.7%62.4%67.4%68.0% %HR 12.5%9.0%7.2%6.7% Beginning 2 nd 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

Point in TimeYear of Implementation End 1 st Grade123 %GL 56.5%64.6%66.5% %HR 11.2%8.5%7.7% Beginning 2 nd 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 Note: the Grade level standard is for the middle of first grade, and doesn’t change after that. 47% met the NWF benchmark in February of 007

Point in Time Year of Implementation End 1 st Grade %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 2 nd 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 Note: the Grade level standard is for the middle of first grade, and doesn’t change after that. Miami Rest of Cohort 3 50% met the NWF benchmark in February of 007

Rates of improvement in outcomes for different measures

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% Vocabulary1%.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 Oral Reading Fluency 2.7% Reading Comprehension. 2.3% Vocabulary1.3%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 Oral Reading Fluency 3.3%2% Reading Comprehension. 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 Performance among RF schools

Relationship of “school challenge” to student performance Level of School Challenge based on % of students qualifying for FR lunch % of 1-3 Students Performing At Grade Level at the End of Year Increasing Challenge Decreasing Performance Average % at GL 587 RF schools in Florida

The Adult Learning and Performance Gap Low 15% schools Top 15% Schools Approx. 27% Level of School Challenge based on % of students qualifying for FR lunch % of 1-3 Students Performing At Grade Level at the End of Year Approx. 20%

R Squared (% Variance) MIN, FRL and ELL Cohort 1GL_C53.10% HR_C40.16% Cohort 2GL_C57.27% HR_C51.45% Cohort 3GL_C46.07% HR_C31.79% R Squared (% Variance) MIN, FRL and ELL Cohort 1YYGL_C5.02% YYHR_C4.59% Cohort 2YYGL_C8.91% YYHR_C8.20% Cohort 3YYGL_C0.90% YYHR_C0.83% Relationship of School Level Demographics to Outcomes At end of year-2007 Improvement across years

Questions/Discussion