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
Cohort Year of Implementation
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
% 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 – SAT10 in third grade (FCAT_PRTRNK)
Cohort Year of Implementation
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
Cohort Year of Implementation
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
Cohort Year of Implementation
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
Performance on DIBELS in
2nd grade
Best Estimate of year to year increase in % meeting GL = 2.7%/yr. Midyear estimate was 4.3% (45 to 58%)
+8
-8
+0
+1+0
+3
Cohort Year of Implementation
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
Performance on DIBELS in
3rd grade
Best Estimate of year to year increase in % meeting GL = 3.3%/yr. Midyear estimate was 4.3% (40 to 53%)
+10
-6
+13
-6+15
-10
60
45
52
16
32
17
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 Oral Reading Fluency in Grades 1-3 –DIBELS Benchmarks
56 58
69
2118
11
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 Oral Reading Fluency in Grades 1-3 –Hasbrouck and Tindal Norms
Cohort Year of Implementation
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
Cohort Year of Implementation
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
Cohort Year of Implementation
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
Performance on PPVT in
2nd grade
+4
-3
+4
-3+3
-4
Cohort Year of Implementation
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
Performance on PPVT in
3rd grade
+8
-8
+4
-11+3
-8
3539
43 46
3841
3531
05
101520253035404550
% at Grade level % with SeriousDiff.
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
% Grade Level %High Risk
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-2007
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
31 31 32
41 41 40
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% Grade Level %High Risk
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
6268 72
19 1613
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% Grade Level %High Risk
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
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
27 28
4644
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% Grade Level %High Risk
2005-06 2006-07
66 72
17 14
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% Grade Level %High Risk
2005-06 2006-07
Year to Year changes in measure of oral vocabulary
Kindergarten End of year
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
Year to Year improvement in % of students at “grade level” in oral vocabulary in grades Kindergarten through Third
3231
39
36
Cohort 2
25
30
35
40
45
Year 1 Year 2
Kinder1st2nd3rd
40
37
32
28
Year to Year improvement in % of students at “grade level” in oral vocabulary in grades Kindergarten through Third
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
Point in Time Year of Implementation
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
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
Year of Implementation
Year of Implementation
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
Note: the Grade level standard is for the middle of first grade, and doesn’t change after that.
MiamiRest of
Cohort 3
50% met the NWF benchmark in February of 007
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
Oral Reading Fluency
2.7% 2.7%
Reading Comprehension.
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
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 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%
Cohort 2 GL_C 57.27%
HR_C 51.45%
Cohort 3 GL_C 46.07%
HR_C 31.79%
R Squared (% Variance)
MIN, FRL and ELL
Cohort 1 YYGL_C 5.02%
YYHR_C 4.59%
Cohort 2 YYGL_C 8.91%
YYHR_C 8.20%
Cohort 3 YYGL_C 0.90%
YYHR_C 0.83%
Relationship of School Level Demographics to Outcomes
At end of year-2007 Improvement across years
Questions/DiscussionQuestions/Discussion