1. 1 Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 1 Report September 22, 2009 HIGHLIGHTS Research and Policy Support Group FOR PRESS OFFICE – SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

2. 2 Summary of Findings  By all measures, Core Knowledge Reading (CKR) students made significantly greater gains in early literacy than peer students.  Compared to peers, kindergarteners taught with the CKR program made more progress in all areas of reading tested: spelling, phonemic awareness, decoding, and comprehension.  Surveys and case studies indicate overall high levels of administrator and teacher satisfaction with the CKR Pilot, while also offering guidance for year 2 implementation and evaluation work.  Administrators would recommend program to others; teachers rate CKR more favorably than other programs.  Administrators report change in teacher practice: more data- driven instruction & teacher collaboration.  Teachers and administrators feel more positively about the Skills Strand than the Listening and Learning Strand, particularly regarding student engagement.  Teachers may need more support addressing needs of struggling readers with CKR & managing time to complete lessons.

3. 3 Methodology: A multi-method, longitudinal research design YEAR 1 Literacy Assessments (at 10 CKR schools & 10 comparison schools) Pre- and post-test of literacy skills Additional tests of literacy skills at end of each year Periodic assessments throughout the year (DIBELS) Teacher and Administrator Surveys (at 10 CKR schools): Assesses satisfaction with and impact of CKR Case studies (at 3 CKR schools): Classroom observations, administrator & teacher interviews Hypothesis: Kindergarteners taught with the Core Knowledge Reading (CKR) Program will gain reading competencies at a faster rate than their peers. Focus of the Evaluation

4. 4 Similar Demographics at CKR and Comparison Schools CKR Schools (N = 584) Comparison Schools Note: These and other data were used to select comparison schools (data as of 2007-08 school year). Percent of Students (Number of Students for School Size) (N = 307)* * N = the number of students for whom both fall and spring data were available.

5. 5 Evaluation of Literacy Gains

6. 6 Different Literacy Domains: Greater Gains & Higher Spring Scores for CKR Students than Comparison Students in All Literacy Domains CKR Schools Compared with Compariso n Schools Basic Reading Skills W-J Letter Word Identification Oral Reading Comp- rehension W-J Passage Comprehension Decoding W-J Word Attack Written Spelling W-J Spelling of Sounds Oral Reading Comp- rehension, Vocabulary, Basic Reading, Decoding Terra Nova Reading Comparison Schools CKR Sig. Greater Gains/ Spring Scores CKR Sig. Greater Gains/ Spring Scores CKR Sig. Higher Spring Scores CKR Sig. Higher Spring Scores CKR Sig. Higher Spring Scores W-J Brief Reading

7. 7 6X Greater Literacy Gains for CKR Students than Students at Demographically Similar Comparison Schools Average Fall-Spring Gain in Scale Score Points Woodcock-Johnson (Brief Reading Test) CKR Students Significantly Higher p <.001

8. 8 Significantly Higher End of Year Performance on Decoding and Spelling Average Spring Scores in Woodcock-Johnson Scale Score Points CKR Students Significantly Higher p <.0001 Word Attack Subtest Spelling of Sounds Subtest

9. 9 CKR Schools Comparison Schools Average Fall-Spring Gain in Scale Score Points Woodcock-Johnson (Brief Reading Test) At All Achievement Levels, Greater Literacy Gains for CKR Students than Students at Comparison

10. 10 Significantly Higher Scores on End of Year Terra Nova Reading Test Average Spring Scale Score for TerraNova Overall Reading Battery CKR Students Significantly Higher p <.0001

11. 11 Spring Surveys & Case Studies 11

12. 12 Administrators Report Satisfaction with Program No 8 4 Yes 1 12 Will your Kindergarten classrooms be using the CK Reading program next year? (n = 9*) Do you plan to purchase the CK Reading program when it becomes commercially available? (n = 9*) Would you recommend the CK Reading curriculum to other administrators you know? (n = 9*) Not Sure 5 Yes 1 Not Sure 8 Yes Administrators’ overall satisfaction with CK Reading (n = 10) Very Somewhat Satisfied 3 7 * One administrator did not respond to most of the survey questions.

13. 13 Teachers Report Satisfaction with Curriculum Teachers’ overall satisfaction with CK Reading (n = 30) a Percent of Respondents 66.7% 86.7% Much Better Somewhat Better Teachers’ overall opinion of CK Reading compared with other K reading programs (n = 30) b Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Teachers’ Views: “The Skills Strand is really very good for the students. Their reading levels are higher this year than last year.” At first, I felt that many teachers did not know if they agreed with teaching sounds before letter names. But by January, when teachers started to see their children reading, they became believers.” “The Skills Strand has exceeded my expectations. I think it is the best reading program I have ever used. We are thrilled with the results. I hope it is introduced into more schools. We plan to change the sequence of the Listening Strand.” “After seeing how well Core Knowledge Skills worked for teaching my children to read, I would have a hard time teaching any other way.” Number of teachers selecting the “neutral” response: question a = 3 (10%); question b = 4 (13.3%).

14. 14 88.9% 66.7% Somewhat More Than Last Year Much More than Last Year Administrators Perceive Change in Teacher Methods Using assessment data to drive instruction (n = 9) a Discussing/ sharing ideas on teaching strategies w/ other K teachers (n = 9) b Administrators’ Views: “This year with Core Knowledge Reading, all of the teachers are communicating more, they discuss the pacing and delivery strategies.” “The CK pilot has honed the professional conversation.” “There was resistance and suspicion on the teachers part in the beginning but they are ecstatic over the results— the children are reading! “ Percent of Respondents Number of teachers selecting the “about the same as last year” response: question a n= 0; question b n = 2 (22.2%).

15. 15 Teachers Have Differing Views on Strands: Teachers Feel More Positively About Skills than Listening & Learning Strand Goals of lessons are clear (n = 30) a I have enough time to complete daily lesson (n = 30) c Students find activities engaging (n = 30) b 43.3% 96.7% 73.3% Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Goals of lessons are clear (n = 30) d I have enough time to complete daily lesson (n = 29) f Students find activities engaging (n = 30) e 46.7% 80.0% 44.8% Skills Strand Listening and Learning Strand Percent of Respondents Number of teachers selecting the “neutral” response: question a n = 0; question b n = 3 (10%); question c n = 7 (23.3%); question d n = 2 (6.7%); question e n = 6 (20%); question f n = 5 (17.2%).

16. 16 Teachers Compare CKR with Other Programs 72.4% 71.4% 69.0% Somewhat Better Much Better 41.3% 55.2% 62.9% Accommo- dations for different learning needs (n = 29) f Ability to engage students and spark enthusiasm for reading (n = 29) e Comprehen- siveness of program (n = 27) d Teaching content/ background knowledge (n = 29) c Teaching decoding skills (n = 29) a Sequence of instruction (n = 28) b Percent of Respondents Number of teachers selecting the “about the same” response: question a n = 3 (10.3%); question b n = 2 (7.1%); question c n = 2 (6.9%); question d n = 7 (25.9%); question e n = 6 (20.7%); question f n = 4 (13.8%).