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

2. 100,000 hits per day 67,945 Unique Visitors 819,397 Page Views

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

4. 200 210 220 1998 2002 200320052007 250 260 270 1998 2002 200320052007

5. Growth in Average Score at 4 th Grade by SES group

6. Growth in Average Score at 8 th Grade by SES group

7. 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. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp

8. 4 th Grade 8 th Grade

9. Improvements at 4 th Grade

10. Improvements at 8 th Grade D.C. http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/r0001.asp

11. 4 th Grade –

12. 8 th Grade-

13. 2007 results from National Assessment of Educational Progress at 4 th Grade 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Overall, 34% of 4 th graders performed below the Basic Level of Proficiency in 17,600 schools – Florida 30% Poor Non-poor White2319Black Hispanic5448 5136 5041 2118 Percent below Basic

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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?

20. 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.

21. Outcome data from Reading First Schools in Florida: 2006-2007 Three Groups of Schools: Cohort 1 - 4 years of data – 317 schools Cohort 2 - 3 years of data - 70 schools Cohort 3 - 2 year of data -- 197 schools

22. 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

23. 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

24. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL58 6062 %HR231816 2%GL525657 %HR2219 3%GL5960 %HR16 Miami%GL6162 %HR1312 Other C3 %GL5758 %HR19 Performance on SAT10 in 1 st Grade +4 -7 +5 -3 +1 -0

25. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL55596162 %HR231916 2%GL525556 %HR2320 3%GL5657 %HR21 Miami%GL5657 %HR2221 Other C3 %GL5857 %HR1920 Performance on SAT10 in 2 nd Grade +7 -7 +4 -3 +1 -0

26. Cohort 02-03 Year of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL5257596760 %HR3027251925 2%GL51556254 %HR33292229 3%GL526255 %HR332330 Miami%GL486152 %HR352532 Other C3 %GL556357 %HR30 2228 Performance on FCAT in 3 rd Grade +8 -5 +3 -4 +3 -3

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

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

29. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL54667072 %HR25181514 2%GL626872 %HR191613 3%GL6672 %HR1714 Miami%GL6671 %HR1814 Other C3 %GL6672 %HR1813 Performance on DIBELS in Kindergarten +18 -11 +10 -6 +6 -3

30. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL53 5561 %HR21191815 2%GL52 59 %HR212016 3%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%) +8 -6 +7 -5 +6 -3

31. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL38494846 %HR3928 31 2%GL474547 %HR293130 3%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%) +8 -8 +0 +1 +0 +3

32. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL4440 54 %HR22 2616 2%GL383751 %HR242818 3%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%) +10 -6 +13 -6 +15 -10

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

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

35. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL38393839 %HR35343534 2%GL31 32 %HR41 40 3%GL2728 %HR4644 Miami%GL1719 %HR5752 Other C3 %GL36 %HR3736 Performance on PPVT in Kindergarten +1 +1 +1 -2

36. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL41424344 %HR3837 36 2%GL32 37 %HR474642 3%GL3032 %HR5149 Miami%GL2122 %HR6160 Other C3 %GL39 %HR4140 Performance on PPVT in 1 st grade +3 -2 +5 -5 +2 -3

37. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL444748 %HR34313031 2%GL363940 %HR403937 3%GL3437 %HR4541 Miami%GL2529 %HR5449 Other C3 %GL4244 %HR3835 Performance on PPVT in 2 nd grade +4 -3 +4 -3 +3 -4

38. CohortYear of Implementation 03-0404-0505-0606-07 1%GL43475051 %HR38353226 2%GL3943 %HR444033 3%GL3740 %HR4638 Miami%GL2931 %HR5646 Other C3 %GL47 %HR3631 Performance on PPVT in 3 rd grade +8 -8 +4 -11 +3 -8

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

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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 51 48 44 39 Year to Year improvement in % of students at “grade level” in oral vocabulary in grades Kindergarten through Third 41 38 43 44 Cohort 1

45. 43 40 37 32 Year to Year improvement in % of students at “grade level” in oral vocabulary in grades Kindergarten through Third 32 31 39 36 Cohort 2

46. 40 37 32 28 Year to Year improvement in % of students at “grade level” in oral vocabulary in grades Kindergarten through Third 30 27 37 34 Cohort 3

47. Progress in teaching phonemic decoding skills in First Grade

48. 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

49. 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

50. Point in Time Year of Implementation End 1 st Grade121212 %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

51. Rates of improvement in outcomes for different measures

52. 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

53. 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

54. 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

55. Variability in Performance among RF schools

56. 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 % of 1-3 Students Performing At Grade Level at the End of Year 1 23 4 56 Increasing Challenge 72 61 58 53 51 66 Decreasing Performance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average % at GL 587 RF schools in Florida 637582869196

57. The Adult Learning and Performance Gap 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 7582 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 % of 1-3 Students Performing At Grade Level at the End of Year Approx. 20%

58. 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

59. Questions/Discussion