Reading First: Final Report claims 2-3% effect
If you followed my last a couple of posts (here, and here) back in May, you are due for an update. Now the interim report is superceded by this final report, which found something positive to report.
By that I don’t mean the finding that RF schools spend more time on reading or are more likely to refer students to reading coaches. That’s part of the ReadingFirst package, and that’s supposed to happen regardless its effect on students. More time on reading instruction, more reading coaches, few switching of textbooks may sound good, but there is no guarantee that they will lead to better reading.
So … what have we in the report with regard to student performance? If you need more details, here’s the 20+M pdf.
Report Highlights: Reading First Implementation Evaluation Final Report
Based on analyses of states’ reading assessment scores, there is limited but statistically significant evidence that successive cohorts of third- and fourth-grade students in RF schools improved their reading performance over time more quickly than did their counterparts in non-RF Title I schools.
Third-Grade Reading Performance. Average effect sizes across 24 states indicate that RF schools gained between 2 and 3 percentage points more, on average, from pre-to post-RF implementation than non-RF Title I schools on the proportion of students meeting standards on states’ third-grade reading assessments, a statistically significant yet small difference (p < .001). In 12 of 24 states, the improvement in third-grade reading scores among RF schools was statistically significantly larger than in non-RF Title I schools for at least one of the four methods used to define pre- and post-RF implementation years. In the other 12 states, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups of schools.
Fourth-Grade Reading Performance. Average effect sizes across 17 states indicate that RF schools gained between 2 and 3 percentage points more, on average, from pre- to post-RF implementation than non-RF Title I schools on the proportion of students meeting standards on states’ fourth-grade reading assessments, a statistically significant yet small difference (p < .001). In six of 17 states, the improvement in fourth-grade reading scores among RF schools was statistically significantly larger than in non-RF Title I schools for at least one of methods (described earlier) used in the analysis. In 11 states there were no significant differences between the two types of schools.
There is a positive and statistically significant relationship between only one of four measures of RF and non-RF Title I schools’ implementation of RF-aligned activities, as measured through surveys, and their levels of third-grade reading achievement.
The study team analyzed the relationship between schools’ third-grade reading scores on state assessments and four composite measures constructed from survey data that characterize teachers’ RF-aligned activities: classroom reading instruction; strategies to help struggling readers; participation in professional development; and uses of assessment to inform instruction. [ 1 ] For every increase of one standard deviation unit in the struggling readers implementation composite score, the probability of being in the top quartile increased by 15.6 percentage points, for the average school (p <.001).