![](media/image1.png){width="1.56875in"
height="1.0506944444444444in"}![](media/image4.png){width="1.5in"
height="0.9777777777777777in"}

**Kentucky Reading First Evaluation**

**June 1, 2006 - May 31, 2007**

**Volume V: Kentucky's Reading First Special Education Study**

**Special Education Evaluation Team**

***Principal Investigator***

Paige Carney, Ed.D.

***Statistician***

Melissa Pittard, Ph.D.

**Evaluation Team**

Lauren Jones

Vicki McGinnis

Jill Perez

Betsy Turner

Kim Posey

Pam Seales

Dr. Paige Carney

120 Quinton Ct.

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40509

\(859\) 257-7213

jpcarn00@uky.edu

![](media/image4.png){width="1.5in" height="0.9777777777777777in"}

The mission of CCLD is to promote literacy achievement through
professional development and research. In collaboration with its
partners at Kentucky's eight public universities and the National Center
for Family Literacy, CCLD achieves this mission through initiatives
geared for improving literacy instruction for learners, childhood
through adulthood.

Cover and Photo design: Keith Lyons

Typeset: Lauren Jones and Michelle Sapp

Editor: Emily Papadopoulos

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Volume V**

**Page**

**Chapter 1:**

Introduction 1

Background 1

Research Questions 2

Rationale 3

Case Study School Selection / List 4

Data Sources 4

Timeline 5

**Chapter 2:**

**Section A:** Case Study Observations - Fall 2006 6

1.  Physical / Learning Environment 7

2.  Instructional Process 7

3.  Five Components of Reading 8

4.  Students' Reading 9

> **Section B**: Case Study Observations - Spring 2007 10

1.  Physical / Learning Environment 11

2.  Instructional Process 11

3.  Five Components of Reading 12

4.  Students' Reading 13

> **Section C:** Comparison between Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 14

**Chapter 3:**

School Coach Interviews - Fall 2006 16

**Chapter 4:**

Teacher Surveys 21

**Chapter 5:** 31

Student Interviews

**Chapter 6:**

Parent Interviews 35

**Chapter 7:**

Regular Education Teacher Interview 38

**Chapter 8:**

Special Education Teacher Interview 43

**Chapter 9:**

> GRADE & DIBELS Analysis 47

**Chapter 10:**

Special Education Summer Institutes 54

**Chapter 11:**

Volume Summary 63

[**Appendixes**:]{.underline} **pp. 66-72**

A.  School Coach Interview Questions

> **B** Teacher Survey
>
> **C** Student Interview Questions
>
> **D** Parent Interview Questions
>
> **E** Regular Education Teacher Interview Questions
>
> **F** Special Education Teacher Interview Questions

**Chapter 1**

###### 

###### [Case Study Introduction]{.underline}

Kentucky's Reading First Initiative is a federally funded project to
improve reading instruction and achievement for all children through a
research-based reading model. Professional development for teachers and
core, supplemental, and intervention reading programs for students are
the foundation of the project. This (2006-2007) is the third year of
implementation for the regular education study; however, the study has
been expanded to document the progress of Kentucky's Reading First
Initiative toward improving reading instruction and achievement for
special education students. The specific components of this study are
described in this chapter.

##### [Background]{.underline}

The Reading First grant states that over the course of the next few
years all students in special education grades P1 to 12 will be part of
the Reading First process and part of the Reading First evaluation
study. Special Education Summer Institutes have been held throughout the
state for the last two years. These Institutes were organized for the
teachers in non-Reading First schools, grades 4 through 8, and 9 through
12. Subsequent institutes will be held for 2007 and 2008.

On August 28, 2005, a special education team was assembled to design
Kentucky's Reading First Special Education Study. Research questions and
plans for implementing this study were created, and roles and
responsibilities were assigned to the team members. In a second meeting,
the team members developed questions specifically pertaining to special
education programs. These questions were intended for special education
teachers and Reading First School Coaches. During the 2005-2006 study,
evaluation team members conducted interviews with school coaches and
focus groups with special education teachers to find out how regular
education and special education teachers collaborated and how special
education students were integrated into the core reading time.

**[Research Questions]{.underline}**

Additional research is essential in order to determine how students with
disabilities are included in Kentucky\'s Reading First Initiative. The
following are the guiding questions for this study:

-   *In what way does intervention for students in special education
    occur in the regular education classroom?*

-   *How does the special education teacher provide interventions and
    specially designed instruction to students in special education who
    receive Reading First instruction?*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *How do students in special education participate in the core
    90-minute reading block?*

-   *How are students in special education engaged with peers who are
    not in special education?*

-   *What measures are taken to ensure that students in special
    education have equitable opportunities to respond to questions and
    discussion?*

-   *What types of interactions do students in special education
    experience within the context of the classroom?*

-   *Does the overall impact of Reading First Instruction increase
    reading achievement of students receiving special education
    services?*

**[Rationale]{.underline}**

Overall, the findings from Year I and Year II evaluation of Kentucky\'s
Reading First initiative have been positive. According to the
Collaborative Center for Literacy Development (CCLD) Evaluation Report ,
there are indications of improved student reading achievement. However,
these initial findings were not disaggregated for the population of
students receiving special education services. In order to ensure that
all children are included, it is important to know how these students
are faring under Kentucky's Reading First Initiative. Therefore, one
goal of Kentucky's Reading First Special Education Study is to analyze
and determine the effects of Reading First instruction on the reading
achievement of Kentucky\'s population of students receiving special
education services.

Another goal of this Reading First Special Education Study is to
formulate a description of how the Reading First Initiative is
implemented within schools\' existing special education programs. This
research is necessary to investigate how students with disabilities are
participating in the Reading First initiative and receiving instruction
in the five components of reading. A thorough analysis of the resulting
data will allow investigators to make recommendations to facilitate
implementation, modify instruction, and improve instructional practices
and reading performance outcomes for students with disabilities.

The proposed Kentucky Reading First Special Education Evaluation Study
will also support the goals that are outlined in Kentucky's Reading
First Grant Proposal. Those goals are:

> 1\. Increased and enhanced professional development,
>
> 2\. Implementation of scientifically based reading programs,
>
> 3\. High quality instruction focused on the five components of
> effective reading instruction,
>
> 4\. The use of valid and reliable assessment data, and
>
> 5\. On-going support through technical assistance so that all students
> will receive high quality instruction and read at or above grade level
> by the end of the primary grades.

Additionally, the Kentucky Reading First Special Education Evaluation
Study will permit investigators to better analyze the effectiveness of
the quality conditions for teaching and learning identified by the
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). CEC\'s quality conditions for
teaching and learning are:

> 1\. Every student with exceptionalities receives individualized
> services and supports from caring and competent professional
> educators,
>
> 2\. Every special and general educator has the teaching and learning
> conditions to practice effectively, and

3.  Every instructional leader establishes strong expectations for the
    use of effective and validated instructional practices.

The findings of the proposed study are expected to make a substantial
contribution to the research base for reading instruction and
achievement.

**[Case Study School Selection]{.underline}**

Case study schools were randomly selected based on their geographical
location

and demographics. There were 20 case schools selected for school coach
interviews and teacher surveys. From these 20, four schools were
selected in order to collect more specific data related to integration
of special education students during the core reading program and to
conduct extensive interviews with teachers and parents of the case study
students.

**[Data Sources]{.underline}**

**Student Observations** -- There were four students selected to
partipcate in the special education study who were observed during the
core reading block. The observation protocol contained checklists and
rubrics related to effective reading material and instruction.

**Parent Interview**-The parent chosen for interview was the parent of
the student who was observed for the case study. The purpose of the
interview was to discuss the extent of involvement the parent has in
his/her child's reading progress and instruction as well as his/her
feelings on the reading programs in the school.

**Student interview**- The student was random selected by the school
coach. The purpose of the interview was to discuss the extent of
involvement the student has in his/her own reading instruction and
his/her feelings about reading.

**Regular teacher interview**- The regular education teacher selected
for interview was the regular education teacher directly related to the
student selected for the case study. The purpose of the interview was to
discuss the specific daily reading instruction with the special
education student and collaboration with other staff and parents.

**Special education interview**- The special education teacher selected
for the interview was the teacher directly related to the student
selected for the case study. The purpose of the interview was to discuss
the specific daily reading instruction with the special education
student and collaboration with other staff and parents.

**Teacher surveys**- All teachers in all 20 case study schools were
given surveys to complete for the Special Education Reading First Study.
The purpose the of

the teacher surveys was to find out specific information regarding the
core reading program with special education students in their schools.

**School coach interviews**- Nineteen of the 20 school coaches were
interviewed for the study. One school coach was out due to illness.

**[Timeline]{.underline}**

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  **Focus Group & School Coach Interviews- Analyze  Completed Fall 2005
  Data**                                            

  **School Coach Interviews**                       Fall 2006

  **Teacher Surveys**                               Fall 2006

  **Case Study Observations**                       Fall 2006 & Spring
                                                    2007

  **Parent Interviews**                             Spring 2007

  **Student Interviews**                            Spring 2007

  **Regular Education Teacher Interviews**          Spring 2007

  **Special Education Teacher Interviews**          Spring 2007

  **Analyze Case Study and Interview Data**         Spring 2007

  **GRADE & DIBELS Data Summary**                   Spring 2007

  **Analyze Survey Data**                           Spring 2007

  **Report Findings**                               Spring 2007

  **Begin Planning for Special Education Phase III  Spring 2007
  Study for grades 9-12**                           

  **Attend Special Education Institutes**           Summer 2007

  **Analyze data and report findings**              Summer 2007

  **Implement Phase III study and report findings** Fall 2007 & Spring
                                                    2008
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

**[Evaluator Description]{.underline}**

The evaluators for this study were chosen based on their background
knowledge, experiences and qualifications in special education. The team
members had been part of the Reading First team previously and were
familiar with the Reading First research format. They were trained using
the special education observation protocols and interview
questionnaires.

**Chapter 2**

**[Section A: Case Study Observation-Fall 2006]{.underline}**

During the observations in the fall of 2006, the team members were
assigned a student to follow during the 90 minute core and collect data
using a common protocol for each student. The protocol allowed the
observers to rate areas such as the team environment, the grouping of
the student, the participation of the student with the regular education
students, modifications being used, and each of the five essential
Reading First components. These notes were compiled and grouped together
according to the individual questions by the team members. Included in
this section is the information on the protocol and trend or themes
mentioned during the classroom observations at each selected Reading
First school.

**[II. Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based on evidence from classroom observations:**

-   Students were fully integrated into the core program with their
    peers;

-   Very few or little modifications were used during the instruction
    process;

-   Students were given appropriate opportunities to respond to
    instructional tasks; and

-   Many types of instructional reading materials were available in the
    classroom.

> **Overall concerns based on evidence from classroom observations:**

-   The amount of reading time given to the student during the core
    reading time

-   Connection to student's prior knowledge

-   Use of higher level questioning

-   Lack of vocabulary instruction

**[II. Evidence]{.underline}**

**1. Physical Environment/Learning Environment**

All four classrooms had three or more types of reading materials
available to students in the classroom. These are examples of materials
found in all four classrooms: trade books, leveled books, word walls,
chalk boards, and white boards, and technology. Three out of the four
learning environments were at the moderate or extensive level, with well
defined areas for large, small and independent work areas. These
classrooms also showed evidence of learning centers with reading
materials and manipulatives related to the five components of
reading**.**

**2. Instructional process**

During the classroom observation of the case study student, two out of
the four scored at the minimal level for mode of delivery, whereas the
other two classrooms scored higher. Minimal evidence showed that reading
instruction was not always connected to other subjects and students'
prior knowledge. Student participation was minimal, and nominal feedback
and reflection were provided by the teacher. The materials utilized
during instruction were leveled books, worksheets, workbooks, and
whiteboards. Two out of the four classrooms used instructional reading
activities and technology during instruction.

The following chart represents how the case study students were grouped
during the instructional process:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Grouping Structures**             **Numbers of Classrooms**

  **Whole Group**                     **4**

  **Small Group**                     **2**

  **Independent Work**                **3**

  **Literacy Centers**                **1**

  **Cross Grade Grouping**            **0**

  **Cooperative learning**            **2**

  **Partner/Pair**                    **3**
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Two out of the four students showed minimal interest and enthusiasm
during the instructional process, and two out of four demonstrated
moderate interest and enthusiasm. All four classrooms showed minimal
evidence of assessment being used to measure student achievement. The
teacher primarily provided verbal feedback to students. One observation
revealed a student moderately engaged and active in the learning process
while the other three students showed minimal level of engagement.
Student-teacher interactions varied from the minimal to the extensive
level. Only two of the four classrooms integrated higher level

questioning at the moderate level during instruction. Three out of the
four classrooms facilitated learning about book knowledge.

**3. Five Components of Reading**

Evaluators noted on all five components that the teacher directed
instruction for component skills while students had opportunities to
practice. Informal assessments were guided by the teacher or conducted
in a verbal or written manner.

**[Phonemic Awareness]{.underline}**

Two of the four classrooms did not teach or show evidence of phonemic
awareness.

One classroom taught phonemic awareness at the minimal level; however,
the specific student under observation was given a chance to perform
seven of the skills taught by the teacher.

One classroom taught phonemic awareness at the moderate level; however,
the specific student under observation was given a chance to perform
three of the skills taught by the teacher.

**[Phonics]{.underline}**

All four classrooms observed taught phonics. Two of the four classrooms
taught phonics at a minimal level while two taught phonics at an
extensive level.

-   One classroom taught five phonic skills, and the student was given a
    chance to perform each skill.

-   One classroom taught one phonic skill, and the student was given a
    chance to perform that skill.

-   Another classroom taught two phonic skills, and the student was
    given a chance to perform those skills.

-   The last classroom taught four phonic skills, and the student was
    given a chance to perform each skill.

**[Vocabulary]{.underline}**

The four classrooms observed in the fall of 2006 showed very little
vocabulary instruction during the observation times. Two of the four
classrooms did not teach vocabulary instruction during the core reading
time. One classroom taught vocabulary at a minimal level, and another
taught vocabulary at a moderate level.

The classroom where vocabulary was taught at a moderate level did offer
a chance for the student to perform the skill (the teacher) used for
instruction.

**[Fluency]{.underline}**

Three of the four classrooms taught fluency at a moderate level while
one taught fluency a minimal level. In each classroom, the student
performed each skill taught by their teacher. Two of the four classrooms
taught fluency skills while one taught three and the other taught one.

**[Comprehension]{.underline}**

Three of the four classrooms taught comprehension at minimal level while
one taught comprehension at a moderate level.

-   One classroom taught three comprehension skills, and the student was
    able to perform that skill.

-   One classroom taught four comprehension skills, and the student was
    the given a chance to perform two.

-   One classroom taught two comprehension skills, and the student was
    not given a chance to perform either skill.

-   One classroom taught one comprehension skill, and the student was
    given a chance to perform that skill.

**4. Students' Reading Practices**

During the student observations, these specific types of reading were
observed in relation to the case study students:

-   Independent Reading: 4 out of 4 students

-   Shared Reading: 0 out of 4

-   Partner Paired: 2 out of 4

-   Choral: 2 out of 4

-   Guided: 3 out of 4

-   Dramatic/Readers' Theater: 1 out of 4

-   Poetry, Read Aloud, and Echo Reading: 0 out of 4

**[Section B: Case Study Observation- Spring 2007]{.underline}**

> In the spring of 2007, the evaluation team re-visited the case study
> school and observed the same student from the fall observations during
> the 90 minute core. Data was collected using the same observation
> protocol. This protocol allowed the observers to rate areas such as
> the learning environment, the grouping of the student, the
> participation of the student with the regular education student,
> modifications being used, and each of the five essential Reading First
> components. These notes were compiled and grouped together according
> to the individual questions by the team members. Included in this
> section is the information on the protocol and trend or themes
> mentioned during the classroom observations at each selected Reading
> First school.

**[II. Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based on evidence from classroom observations:**

-   Three out of the four classrooms had three or more types of reading
    materials available to students;

-   Students were fully integrated into the core program with their
    peers;

-   Students were provided with opportunities to participate during
    instruction;

-   All four students exhibited a moderate level of student motivation
    and interest; and

-   Increase in vocabulary instruction in three out of four classrooms.

**Overall concerns / needs based on evidence from classroom
observations:**

-   Students showed difficulty with text;

-   Overall, teachers had to provide assistance to students; and

-   Comprehension instruction for students did not show the "I do it."

**[III. Evidence]{.underline}**

**1. Physical Environment/Learning Environment**

Three out of the four classrooms observed had three or more types of
reading materials available to students in the classroom. One classroom
had only one type of reading material for the students. The classrooms
observed had the following reading materials available: basal readers,
charts, chalkboards, whiteboards, and easel pads. Three of the four
classrooms had word walls, leveled books, and trade books. One classroom
observed implemented reading modifications for the special education
student consisting of an aide, preferential seating, and a tracking
device to help the student follow along in the text.

Two of the four learning environments were at the moderate level with
well defined areas for large, small, and independent work areas. These
classrooms also showed evidence of learning centers with reading
materials and manipulatives related to the five components of
reading**.** One classroom was ranked at a minimal level pertaining to
classroom organization and student work display and literacy centers
were not clearly labeled and utilized. In addition, one classroom was at
the extensive level with well-defined areas, accessible literacy
centers, and multiple-types of reading materials that related to the
five reading components.

**2. Instructional process**

Two of the four classrooms were at the extensive level where reading
instruction was explicit and systematic with clear objectives, and
connections made to prior and current knowledge. However, one classroom
scored at the minimal level, and one scored at a moderate level.

The following chart represents how the case study students were grouped
during the instructional process:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Grouping Structures**             **Numbers of Classrooms**

  **Whole Group**                     **4**

  **Small Group**                     **4**

  **Independent Work**                **1**

  **Literacy Centers**                **0**

  **Cross Grade Grouping**            **0**

  **Cooperative learning**            **1**

  **Partner/Pair**                    **1**
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

All four students showed moderate motivation and interest and were given
adequate opportunities for expression. All four classrooms showed
minimal evidence of assessment being used to measure student
achievement. The

teacher primarily provided verbal feedback to students. Three of the
four students demonstrated moderate engagement during the learning
process, whereas one student had minimal opportunities to participate
with frequent teacher re-direction pertaining to on-task behavior. Three
of the four classrooms integrated higher level questioning at the
moderate level during instruction, and two classrooms facilitated
learning about book knowledge.

**3. Five Components of Reading**

Evaluators noted on all five components teacher directed skills and
students opportunities to practice through informal assessments
verbally, written, or teacher guided.

**Phonemic Awareness**

Two of the four classrooms did not teach or show evidence of phonemic
awareness.

-   One classroom taught phonemic awareness at a moderate level;
    however, the student observed was given a chance to perform two of
    the two skills taught during the instructional process.

-   One classroom taught phonemic awareness at the extensive level;
    however, the specific student under observation was given a chance
    to perform six of the skills taught by the teacher.

**Phonics**

One of the four classrooms did not teach phonics. Two of the four
classrooms taught phonics at a minimal level while one taught phonics at
an extensive level.

One classroom taught two phonic skills, and the student was given a
chance to perform each skill. One classroom taught one phonic skill, and
the student was given a chance to perform that skill. Another classroom
taught three phonic skills, and the student was given a chance to
perform each skill.

**Vocabulary**

Three of the four classrooms observed showed extensive vocabulary
instruction; however, one classroom showed no vocabulary instruction. In
each classroom, all were actively participating and performing each
vocabulary skill addressed.

**Fluency**

Two of the four classrooms taught fluency at a moderate level while two
taught fluency at an extensive level. In all four classrooms, the
students were given an opportunity to perform the skills taught 100% of
the time.

**Comprehension**

One classroom teacher was not observed teaching comprehension. One
classroom exhibited comprehension at the moderate level and two
classrooms exhibited instruction at the extensive level. The following
depicts the performance level of each student during instruction:

Classroom One -- Teacher directed 7 skills with the student performing
each skill.

Classroom Two -- Teacher directed 14 skills with student performing one
of the skills.

Classroom three -- Teacher directed 12 skills with the student
performing five of the skills.

**4. Students' Reading Practices**

During the student observations, these specific types of reading were
observed in relation to the case study students:

-   Independent Reading: 2 out of 4 students

-   Shared Reading: 0 out of 4

-   Partner Paired: 0 out of 4

-   Choral: 3 out of 4

-   Guided: 3 out of 4

-   Dramatic/Readers' Theater: 0 out of 4

-   Read Alouds: 1 out of 4

-   Poetry: 1 out of 4;

-   Echo Reading: 0 out of 4

**Overall Comments**

In one classroom the observer noted the difficulty level of text was
inappropriate for the student, requiring the student to track with
teacher support. In another classroom, the observer noted the student
would benefit from teacher re-direction and improve on-task behavior. In
summary, evaluators noted that special education students did not
participate as actively in whole group instruction and required moderate
to extensive teacher assistance in working independently.

**[Section C: Fall to Spring Comparisons]{.underline}**

**1. Physical and Learning Environment**

Fall and spring observations revealed very similar results in relation
to physical environment. There was only one classroom during the spring
that did not have evidence of a variety of reading materials. In the
spring, one classroom observed implemented reading modifications for the
special education students. Therefore, the physical environment remained
consistent from fall to spring.

**2. Instructional Process**

-   Small group instruction increased from fall to spring with a
    decrease in independent work being observed.

-   Decrease in the variety of grouping from fall to spring (i.e.
    partner/pair went from 3 out of 4 to 1 out of 4);

-   Student motivation increased from minimal to moderate from fall to
    spring;

-   Overall student engagement increased from minimal to moderate during
    instruction;

-   Higher level questioning ranked from two out of four to three out of
    four;

**3. Five Reading Components**

+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+
| **Reading        | **Fall 2006**   | **Spring 2007** | **Comparison |
| Component**      |                 |                 | summary**    |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+
| Phonemic         | Two not         | Two not         | Based on the |
| Awareness        | observed        | observed        | evidence,    |
|                  |                 |                 | two of the   |
|                  | One at the      | One at the      | classrooms   |
|                  | minimal level   | moderate level  | made no      |
|                  |                 |                 | improvement  |
|                  | One at the      | One at the      | and two of   |
|                  | moderate level  | extensive level | the          |
|                  |                 |                 | classrooms   |
|                  |                 |                 | increased by |
|                  |                 |                 | one level.   |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+
| Phonics          | Two at the      | One not         | Based on the |
|                  | minimal level   | observed        | evidence,    |
|                  |                 |                 | two of the   |
|                  | Two at the      | Two at the      | classrooms   |
|                  | extensive level | minimal level   | made no      |
|                  |                 |                 | improvement  |
|                  |                 | One at the      | and two of   |
|                  |                 | moderate level  | the          |
|                  |                 |                 | classrooms   |
|                  |                 |                 | decreased by |
|                  |                 |                 | one level.   |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+
| Vocabulary       | Two not         | One not         | Based on the |
|                  | observed        | observed        | evidence,    |
|                  |                 |                 | one of the   |
|                  | One at the      | Three at the    | classrooms   |
|                  | minimal level   | extensive level | made no      |
|                  |                 |                 | improvement, |
|                  | One at the      |                 | one of the   |
|                  | moderate level  |                 | classrooms   |
|                  |                 |                 | increased by |
|                  |                 |                 | two levels   |
|                  |                 |                 | and one      |
|                  |                 |                 | classroom    |
|                  |                 |                 | increased by |
|                  |                 |                 | one level.   |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+
| Fluency          | One at the      | Two at the      | Based on the |
|                  | minimal level   | moderate level  | evidence,    |
|                  |                 |                 | one of the   |
|                  | Three at the    | Two at the      | classrooms   |
|                  | moderate level  | extensive level | made no      |
|                  |                 |                 | improvement. |
|                  |                 |                 | The other    |
|                  |                 |                 | three        |
|                  |                 |                 | classrooms   |
|                  |                 |                 | increased by |
|                  |                 |                 | one level.   |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+
| Comprehension    | Three at the    | One not         | Based on the |
|                  | minimal level   | observed        | evidence,    |
|                  |                 |                 | one of the   |
|                  | One at the      | One at the      | classrooms   |
|                  | moderate level  | moderate level  | decreased by |
|                  |                 |                 | one level,   |
|                  |                 | Two at the      | two          |
|                  |                 | extensive level | increased by |
|                  |                 |                 | one level    |
|                  |                 |                 | and one of   |
|                  |                 |                 | the          |
|                  |                 |                 | classrooms   |
|                  |                 |                 | increased by |
|                  |                 |                 | two levels.  |
+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------------+

**Chapter 3**

[**I.** **School Coach Interviews -- Fall 2006**]{.underline}

Members of the CCLD Special Education Reading First Evaluation Team
interviewed school coaches from 19 of the 20 case study schools in the
fall of 2006. These notes were compiled and analyzed for themes and
trends. Following is a description of the overall themes, as well as
more specific information regarding each interview question.

**[II. Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based on evidence from Fall 2006 school coach
interviews:**

-   Strong support from school coaches;

-   Extensive collaboration with special education and regular education
    teachers;

-   Use of data for instruction for all the students; and

-   Teachers appear dedicated to the Reading First Program and the
    integration of special education students in the regular classroom.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from Fall 2006 school coach
interviews:**

-   The roles between the special education program and the school
    coaches; and

-   Collaboration between the special education teacher and the school
    coach.

**[III. Evidence]{.underline}**

1.  **How would you describe the participation of special education
    students in Reading First?**

> Sixteen out of the 19 schools have their special education students
> completely integrated in the 90 minute core instruction of Reading
> First. Some of the schools have the students receiving the core in the
> resource room or in small group pull out.

2.  **Do you assist in implementing any modifications for the special
    education or regular education students?**

> The majority of the school coaches do not assist in implementing any
> modifications unless specifically asked by the teachers. A few of the
> coaches do model lessons, develop groupings for classrooms, and assist
> with individual students.
>
> Overall, most school coaches do not assist in implementing any
> modification in the regular class for the special education students.
> They assist with scheduling, assessment suggestions, data analysis,
> testing, and lesson plans.

3.  **What specific assessments do teachers use for special education
    students in addition to GRADE and DIBELS?**

> Overall, the majority of schools use the core assessments that are
> part of the Reading First program. Teachers use informal assessments
> that coincide with their lessons and any standardized test that is
> required by the school.

4.  **How often do the special education and regular education teachers
    collaborate in the classroom to meet the needs of special education
    students?**

  -------------- -------------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------
  **Daily-full   **Daily-assistance   **Daily-on a   **Daily- (K-1) **Daily-30-40
  inclusion**    w/special education  rotation       only**         minutes**
                 students**           throughout all                
                                      classes**                     

  14             2                    1              1              1
  -------------- -------------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------

> **5. Describe an example of collaboration you have observed in the
> classroom?**

-   Special education teacher working one on one with small group

-   Team teaching

-   Individualized monitoring of special education students in core

-   "Tag team effort"

-   Special education teacher working in small group with special
    education students

-   Students rotate through centers with both teachers

> **6**. **Do you participate in collaboration in or outside the regular
> classroom to meet the needs of the special education students?
> Explain**
>
> School coaches are seen as facilitators of suggestions. Teachers come
> to them for help with collaboration. They model lessons, do
> observations, do small group lessons, help with progress monitoring,
> and assist with assessments and interventions. Most of the school
> coaches help with developing IEP objectives and incorporate those into
> the core reading program.

7.  **Do you actively participate in planning with the special education
    and regular education teachers? Explain.**

  ------------- --------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------
  **Everyday,   **Once a  **Weekly     **On         **Every two   **no**
  for an hour** month**   meetings**   demand**     weeks**       

  1             3         7            3            2             3
  ------------- --------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------

> **Instruction**

8.  **How is your school ensuring that special education students are
    receiving instruction in the five reading components?**

-   Walk-throughs

-   Lesson plans

-   Observations

-   Inclusion with core reading program

-   IEP goals and objectives

-   Literacy centers

-   Additional reinforcement in the resource room

-   Modified instruction in the core

9.  **Describe specific differentiated activities for each reading
    component**.

**Phonemic Awareness**- peer teaching, headsets, picture cards, literacy
centers, elkonin boxes, rhyming, beginning and ending sounds, tiles,
chunking

**Phonics**- magnetic letters, making words, sing and spell, word
families, cvc patterns, software programs, letter tiles

**Vocabulary**- word wall activities, fewer words are given, focus on
tiers, vocabulary notebook, computer games, leveled words, definitions
and sentences, matching activities

**Fluency**- Breakthrough computer activities, high frequency words,
partner reading, timed readings, fluency phrases, rapid read cards, word
rings, Great Leaps, echo reading, readers' theatre

**Comprehension**- small groups using leveled readers, graphic
organizers, comprehension strategies, "think alouds," story boards,
predicting

10. **At your school, how are the three levels (core, supplemental,
    and**

> **intervention) programs being implemented with special education**
>
> **students?**

**Core**- majority of the 20 schools have special education students in
the 90 minute core

**Supplemental**- most of the supplemental work is being done outside
the 90 minute core using a variety of materials and a range of time.

Range of time- 15 to 45 minutes daily

Materials- Light Span, Breakthrough to Literacy, computer programs,
Earobics, leap track and Direct Instruction

**Intervention-** most of the intervention work is being done in small
groups using a variety of materials and a range of time.

Range of time- 15 to 45 minutes daily

Materials- Great Leaps, Earobics, Early success, Reading Mastery,
assessment driven instruction

11. **In what instructional settings are the Individual Education Plans
    being met?**

-   Regular classroom during core reading block

-   Resource room

12. **What role does each teacher play in implementing reading IEP
    objectives?**

> Collaboration is seen as essential in the implementation of reading
> IEP objectives. Both the regular and special education teacher are
> responsible for having the goals monitored and met.

13. **From your perspective, what are the pros and cons of Reading First
    in regard to students with disabilities?**

**Pros**

-   Involvement in the regular education room

-   Meeting the goals of each student

-   Confidence in the special education students

-   Having role models

-   Support from peers and other teachers

-   Data driven instruction

-   Higher level of collaboration

-   Makes the teachers more accountable

-   Awareness of the five components on a daily basis

-   Fewer referrals

-   Explicit instruction

-   Shared teacher responsibilities

**Cons**

-   Scheduling for the special education teacher

-   Work load versus time for the teachers

-   Planning time

-   Paperwork

-   Testing reports

-   Accommodations for testing for the special education students

14. **Have special education referrals increased or decreased since the
    implementation of reading first?**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Increase**                        2 students

  **Decrease**                        17 students
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**15. Is there anything else you would like to share?**

"We are able to purchase many materials for special education children."

"The whole staff has really embraced Reading First, and it has been
really good for special education students to receive this type of
instruction."

"Helped collaboration process in our school."

"I am really impressed."

# Chapter 4

**[I. Special Education Teacher Survey - Winter 2007]{.underline}**

The special education RF evaluation team sent teacher surveys to all 20
case study schools for the Special Education RF study. These teacher
surveys were collected and analyzed by the CCLD's evaluation team. Using
this data, summaries were completed and themes were noted. Included in
this chapter are the individual and collective data, charts that
summarize the trends or themes from the teacher survey, and overall
successes and concerns based on these surveys. Please note that the
teachers were given a series of items and asked to *identify their
strengths and areas for improvement on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 reflecting
strengths and 1 reflecting areas of improvement.*

**[II. Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based on evidence from the special education teacher
surveys, *defined as a rating of 4 or 5 (on a scale of 1 to 5)*:**

-   61.5% reported their overall implementation of special education
    students into RF was a strength;

-   67.4% reported their use of data to drive instruction for special
    education students as a strength;

-   59.2% reported collaboration with special education staff in their
    classrooms, and 58.5% reported IEP goals being met in the regular
    classroom as strengths;

-   69.6% reported supplemental and intervention programs being
    implemented with special education students, and 72.6% reported
    placements based in individual needs into reading groups as
    strengths.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the special education teacher
surveys, *defined as a rating of 1 or 2 (on a scale of 1 to 5)*:**

-   51.5% reported getting special education students at benchmark as an
    area of improvement;

-   Only 21.2% reported getting special education students to strategic
    was an area of strength.

**[III. Evidence]{.underline}**

Years of teaching experience 0-5 6-10 11-15 15+

Highest degree completed Bachelor's Master's Rank I Other

Grade currently teacher K 1^st^ 2^nd^ 3^rd^ Other

Statistics

  ---- ------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------
                     Years of teaching  Highest degree     Grade currently
                     experience         completed          teaching

  N    Valid         256                252                233

       Missing       14                 18                 37
  ---- ------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------

Years of Teaching Experience

  --------------- --------------- --------------------- ------------------
                                  Frequency             Percent

  Valid           0-5             79                    29.3

                  6-10            63                    23.3

                  11-15           36                    13.3

                  15+             78                    28.9

                  Total           256                   94.8

  Missing                         14                    5.2

  Total                           270                   100.0
  --------------- --------------- --------------------- ------------------

Highest Degree completed

  ---------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------
                                   Frequency             Percent

  Valid      Bachelor\'s           65                    24.1

             Master\'s             115                   42.6

             Rank 1                71                    26.3

             Other                 1                     .4

             Total                 252                   93.3

             Missing               18                    6.7

  Total                            270                   100.0
  ---------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------

**Grade currently teaching**

  ------------- ------------------ --------------------- ------------------
                                   Frequency             Percent

  Valid         P1 (K)             49                    18.1

                P2 (1)             47                    17.4

                P3 (2)             48                    17.8

                P4 (3)             54                    20.0

                Other              35                    13.0

                Total              233                   86.3

                Missing            37                    13.7

  Total                            270                   100.0
  ------------- ------------------ --------------------- ------------------

**Descriptive Statistics for each survey question:**

  --------------- -------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------------
                  N        Minimum      Maximum      Mean      Std.
                                                               Deviation

  A1              257      1.00         5.00         3.8560    .99545

  A2              254      1.00         5.00         3.6929    1.04833

  A3              256      1.00         5.00         3.9766    1.00168

  A4              254      1.00         5.00         3.7559    1.25245

  A5              246      1.00         5.00         3.7683    1.11720

  A6              238      1.00         5.00         2.2941    1.24509

  A7              235      1.00         5.00         2.6298    1.21386

  A8              235      1.00         5.00         3.4511    1.25437

  A9              257      1.00         5.00         3.8949    .91891

  A10             257      1.00         5.00         4.0623    .97027

  A11             253      1.00         5.00         3.6640    1.04738

  A12             256      1.00         5.00         3.6719    1.02982

  A13             250      1.00         5.00         3.6880    1.04836

  A14             252      1.00         5.00         4.0278    .90330

  A15             256      1.00         5.00         4.2109    .91311

  A16             254      1.00         5.00         3.6732    1.00173

  A17             254      1.00         5.00         3.7795    .96920

  A18             257      1.00         5.00         3.9416    .96850

  Valid N         197                                          
  --------------- -------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------------

**1. Overall implementation of special education students in Reading
First**

A1

  ------------- ------------------ --------------------- ------------------
                                   Frequency             Percent

  Valid         1.00               5                     1.9

                2.00               16                    5.9

                3.00               70                    25.9

                4.00               86                    31.9

                5.00               80                    29.6

                Total              257                   95.2

                Missing            13                    4.8

  Total                            270                   100.0
  ------------- ------------------ --------------------- ------------------

**2. Implementation of modifications to Reading First program with
special education students**

A2

  ------------ ---------------- ---------------------- -------------------
                                Frequency              Percent

  Valid        1.00             8                      3.0

               2.00             21                     7.8

               3.00             79                     29.3

               4.00             79                     29.3

               5.00             67                     24.8

               Total            254                    94.1

               Missing          16                     5.9

  Total                         270                    100.0
  ------------ ---------------- ---------------------- -------------------

**3. Use of data to drive instruction for special education students**

A3

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                7                   2.6

               2.00                11                  4.1

               3.00                56                  20.7

               4.00                89                  33.0

               5.00                93                  34.4

               Total               256                 94.8

               Missing             14                  5.2

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**4. Collaboration with special education staff in the classroom to meet
needs of special education students**

A4

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                21                  7.8

               2.00                19                  7.0

               3.00                54                  20.0

               4.00                67                  24.8

               5.00                93                  34.4

               Total               254                 94.1

               Missing             16                  5.9

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**5. IEP goals being met in the regular classroom to meet needs of
special education students**

A5

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                12                  4.4

               2.00                20                  7.4

               3.00                56                  20.7

               4.00                83                  30.7

               5.00                75                  27.8

               Total               246                 91.1

               Missing             24                  8.9

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**6. Special education students @ benchmark**

A6

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                87                  32.2

               2.00                52                  19.3

               3.00                55                  20.4

               4.00                30                  11.1

               5.00                14                  5.2

               Total               238                 88.1

               Missing             32                  11.9

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**7. Special education students @ strategic**

A7

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                58                  21.5

               2.00                43                  15.9

               3.00                77                  28.5

               4.00                42                  15.6

               5.00                15                  5.6

               Total               235                 87.0

               Missing             35                  13.0

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**8. Special education students @ intensive**

A8

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                27                  10.0

               2.00                19                  7.0

               3.00                65                  24.1

               4.00                69                  25.6

               5.00                55                  20.4

               Total               235                 87.0

               Missing             35                  13.0

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**9. Teacher confidence and focus when delivering reading instruction to
special education students**

A9

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                3                   1.1

               2.00                13                  4.8

               3.00                66                  24.4

               4.00                101                 37.4

               5.00                74                  27.4

               Total               257                 95.2

               Missing             13                  4.8

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**10. Supplemental and intervention programs being implemented with the
special education students**

A10

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                6                   2.2

               2.00                7                   2.6

               3.00                56                  20.7

               4.00                84                  31.1

               5.00                104                 38.5

               Total               257                 95.2

               Missing             13                  4.8

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**11. Development of literacy center to differentiate and meet needs of
special education students**

A11

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                10                  3.7

               2.00                21                  7.8

               3.00                72                  26.7

               4.00                91                  33.7

               5.00                59                  21.9

               Total               253                 93.7

               Missing             17                  6.3

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**12. Implementation of reading strategies acquired through PD with
special education students**

A12

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                7                   2.6

               2.00                24                  8.9

               3.00                77                  28.5

               4.00                86                  31.9

               5.00                62                  23.0

               Total               256                 94.8

               Missing             14                  5.2

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**13. Integration of literacy centers in core reading program to meet
the needs of special education students**

A13

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                8                   3.0

               2.00                23                  8.5

               3.00                71                  26.3

               4.00                85                  31.5

               5.00                63                  23.3

               Total               250                 92.6

               Missing             20                  7.4

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**14. Utilization of flexible grouping with special education students**

> A14

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                1                   .4

               2.00                10                  3.7

               3.00                63                  23.3

               4.00                85                  31.5

               5.00                93                  34.4

               Total               252                 93.3

               Missing             18                  6.7

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**15. Placements of special education students in reading groups based
on individual needs**

A15

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                3                   1.1

               2.00                5                   1.9

               3.00                52                  19.3

               4.00                71                  26.3

               5.00                125                 46.3

               Total               256                 94.8

               Missing             14                  5.2

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**16. Classroom level of daily progress monitoring**

A16

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                8                   3.0

               2.00                18                  6.7

               3.00                80                  29.6

               4.00                91                  33.7

               5.00                57                  21.1

               Total               254                 94.1

               Missing             16                  5.9

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**17. Competence in meeting the needs of special education students
through the core, supplemental and intervention programs**

A17

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                6                   2.2

               2.00                16                  5.9

               3.00                69                  25.6

               4.00                100                 37.0

               5.00                63                  23.3

               Total               254                 94.1

               Missing             16                  5.9

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**18. Overall impact of the RF program**

A18

  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
                                   Frequency           Percent

  Valid        1.00                4                   1.5

               2.00                16                  5.9

               3.00                56                  20.7

               4.00                96                  35.6

               5.00                85                  31.5

               Total               257                 95.2

               Missing             13                  4.8

  Total                            270                 100.0
  ------------ ------------------- ------------------- -------------------

**Comments:**

-   Since I have no special education students, I do not feel that I can
    answer these questions in order to assist you in your study.

-   I'm not sure I understand questions 1 and 18. I feel my greatest
    area of need is in how to combine individualized instruction for
    students with IEPs and RF mandated programs/schedules.

-   I have no special ed students in my reading group

-   I have no special ed students in my classroom

-   Only this year do I feel sp/ed needs are being met, because they are
    being pulled and actually getting a 1^st^/2^nd^ grade program.

-   I feel confident this year that we are all doing a good job.

-   I feel that children with IEPs should receive sp/ed services from
    sp/ed instructors. I feel that students with IARPs should be other
    students "gray area" not sp/ed.

-   Special needs students are included 100%. At my grade level special
    accommodations and/or centers are not needed. This program meets the
    needs of my sp/ed students. They are enjoying success I did not see
    before using this program.

-   I do not teach a RF classroom, but I am involved in the RF program
    because I am a sp/ed teacher.

-   We have a wonderful coach!

-   Some of this doesn't apply to me.

-   My special ed kids are pulled out of my reading class, and it is
    difficult to answer some of these questions because of that.

-   Special needs students at the 3^rd^ grade level are served in the
    resource room using RF strategies and materials. Modifications to RF
    are based upon individual needs of students.

-   RF is special education!

-   Learning more and more each year and acquiring more confidence each
    year with utilizing the program for all students.

-   RF is so good to be a part of although overwhelming at first; I've
    witnessed and been a part of such great growth it is incredible.

-   The core program offers all students the ability to succeed with the
    numerous ideas, activities, etc. to meet needs with the help of our
    resource teachers; activities for centers and grouping can be more
    easily achieved than before.

-   Numbers 6, 7, and 8 need more clarification; I really didn't
    understand what the survey was asking.

-   For the most part, the teachers try to implement the IEPs of the
    sp/ed students. However, the sp/ed students do well with the
    classroom activities, but when administered the GRADE and DIBELS
    assessment no accommodations are provided. This makes testing scores
    lower than class performance. These assessments are not a true
    picture of what they know and are capable of when provided
    accommodations to meet their educational needs. These students are
    not sp/ed because they are "normal." Many have disabilities that
    affect ability to process information in a timely manner, cognitive
    ability to acquire, retain, and apply, focus on tasks, and maturity
    rate of children. Special needs students are just beginning to be
    grouped according to capabilities, needs, and level of instruction
    for small reading groups to focus on moving them in reading. It has
    only been a couple of weeks. We have not collected enough data to
    see its effectiveness. We have tried to control environmental
    stimulus to promote focus to task. I believe this will be effective
    for students to progress. I am also making accommodations and
    adapting activities within groups to meet their individual needs.

**Chapter 5**

**[I . Student Interview- Spring 2007]{.underline}**

The Special Education Reading First Evaluation Team interviewed each of
the four students who were observed during the case study visits. The
purpose of the interviews were to gather information on students'
perceptions and thoughts on reading, understand strategies they use to
assist them with reading, and what types of reading activities that they
engage in most often during the school day. The following is a
description of the overall themes, as well as more specific information
regarding each interview question.

II. **[Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based evidence from student interviews:**

-   Students articulating specific reading strategies used to assist
    them with reading (i.e. chunk-it, sound it out, look at pictures);

-   All four students shared that they read independently with the
    teacher; and

-   Ability to share what they do during reading time.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from student interviews:**

-   Increase interest in a variety of centers, not just computer center;

-   Continue to share specific strategies to assist students with
    reading;

-   Assist students with understanding how to select books both in the
    classroom and the library;

-   Continue to increase their understanding of different genre of books
    (i.e. fictional, non-fictional, informational); and

-   Provide more opportunities for students to partner read with peers.

**[III. Evidence]{.underline}**

**1. Tell me what you do during your reading time in the classroom? Do
you do this everyday?**

The students shared the following in regard to reading time:

-   Read independently;

-   Read and take a test;

-   Reading centers; and

-   Timed readings.

Three of the four students said that they participate in reading
activities everyday during reading time.

**2. Who is the best reader that you know? Why do you think this?**

All four students selected a peer from their classroom**.** Best readers
were chosen because students stated they read everyday, they meet their
reading time goal, read poems, and they read fast.

**3. When you are reading, what do you do when you come to a word that
you do not know?**

Of the four students, these are their responses:

-   Skip it;

-   Sound it; and

-   Ask a teacher.

**4. What is you favorite thing about reading time?**

Of the four students, these are their responses:

-   Getting library books;

-   Taking tests;

-   Learning new words; and

-   Being read to by the teacher.

**5. Do you like to read? If so, what do you like to read?**

Three of the four students said they like to read. Puppy books, train
books, funny books, and sports books are different examples shared by
the four students.

**6. Do you use any special strategies or tools that help you read?**

Students provided the following examples of specific strategies that
they use:

-   "Track my place"

-   "Use pictures in words"

-   "Sound out"

-   "Re-read"

-   "Chunk it"

**7. Do you read with other children at school? If so, give one
example.**

Three of the four students said that they read with other children. Two
students shared that they take turns while reading a page and reading
with partners in reading centers.

**8. Do you read with the teacher alone? If so, what reading skills do
you work on?**

Four of the students said that they read alone with the teacher. The
reading skills that they shared they work on included sounding out
words, word identification, and comprehension.

**9. What does your teacher do to help you become a better reader?**

The students commented that the teacher helps them sound out the words,
read out loud, and do open-responses.

**10. What is your favorite literacy center? Tell me what you do in this
center?**

All four students shared that their favorite literacy center is the
computer. They said the computer is their favorite center because they
can play reading games.

**11. How do you learn new words?**

Two of the four students said that they use the word wall and listen to
their teacher during reading time.

**12. Can you tell me about the word wall? Do you use it often? Is it
helpful to you?**

The students said they use it when we learn new words and when we forget
a word when reading.

**13. How do you choose a book to read in your classroom?**

The student comments were limited to choosing a book from the classroom
library or going to the school library to select a book.

**14. Are there specific activities in the classroom that you would like
to be involved in? Give some examples.**

One student said that they like to go to centers and another student
shared they would like to answer questions more often during reading
time.

**15. How has reading changed for you this year compared to last year?**

The students shared that the books are harder, they're learning bigger
words, and they're reading more. One student shared, "In kindergarten we
learned little bitty words, and in first grade we learned smaller words,
but in second grade we learned bigger words."

**Chapter 6**

**[I. Parent Interview- Spring 2007]{.underline}**

The Special Education Reading First Evaluation Team interviewed three
parents of the case study students. The purpose of the interviews were
to gather information on parents' involvement in their child's reading,
understanding if school/family communication occurs in regard to Reading
First components, and parents' perception if accommodations are being
made for their children during reading. The following is a description
of the overall themes, as well as more specific information regarding
each interview question.

**[II. Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based on evidence from parent interviews:**

-   Three out of four parents stated accommodations are being made for
    their child;

-   Parents are informed about their child's progress through a variety
    of methods (i.e. conferences, informal conversations, report cards);

-   All parents provided high ratings to modifications being implemented
    during reading time; and

-   Additional support is provided to students through supplemental and
    intervention instruction, and tutoring.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from parent interviews:**

-   Need to provide modifications to students during the GRADE and
    DIBELS tests;

-   More consistency needed on meeting with regular and special
    education teachers to discuss reading IEP goals; and

-   Encourage more involvement in assisting students' reading at home.

**[III. Evidence]{.underline}**

**1. What has your child told you about his/her reading in the
classroom?**

The responses to this question were limited to the following:

"He likes it."

"He tells stories."

"His confidence level is higher."

"He struggles with it."

**2. Can you tell me what you know about the Reading First program that
your child is involved in and how it has affected his reading
progress?**

One parent shared that her child seemed more interested in reading, and
another parent shared that her child comes home with more books and
wants to read.

**3. How are you informed about your child's progress in Reading First
throughout the school year?**

The parents interviewed shared that they were informed about their
child's progress through conferences, papers, regular meetings, report
cards, and talking informally with the teachers.

**4. How many times a year do you meet with the regular education and
special education teachers regarding his/her IEP goals relating to
reading?**

The responses varied from once a year to three times a year in regard to
how many times a year IEP meetings are held with the parent.

**5. Do you feel like your child's needs are being met with the Reading
First program?**

Two of the parents shared that they feel their child's needs are being
met; one parent responded no because there isn't enough whole language
instruction.

**6. Given a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest and 5 being the
highest, how do you feel modifications are being implemented in the
classroom with your child during reading?**

All parents rated a four or five for modifications being implemented in
the classroom with their child.

**7. Does your child receive any extra support outside the regular
classroom? (i.e. tutoring, resource class.....)**

The parents stated that their children are receiving additional support
through tutoring, resource room, and intervention and supplemental
instruction.

**8. Do you feel that teachers have changed what they do for your child
in classroom because of Reading First?**

Two out of the three parents shared that they feel teachers have changed
due to Reading First. The following quotes were shared from the parents:

"I can't say because they are told to stay with the program."

"They have more time with the students."

**9. Are there things that you would like to know about Reading First
that you have not had an opportunity to ask?**

All three parents said no to this question.

**10. Is there anything else that you would like to add?**

One parent shared, "No accommodations are made according to the IEP;
Students are tested on grade level."

Another parent said, "He is doing a lot better than he had and I have
seen a big improvement in his reading."

**Chapter 7**

**[I. Regular Education Teacher Interview -- Winter 2007]{.underline}**

The Special Education Reading First Evaluation Team interviewed four
regular education teachers. The purpose of the interviews was to gather
information on how regular education teachers modify instruction to meet
the needs of their special education population and how special
education students are integrated into the core, supplemental, and
intervention instructional time. The following is a description of the
overall themes, as well as more specific information regarding each
interview question.

**[II. Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based on evidence from teacher interviews:**

-   All four teachers responded that a variety of modifications during
    instruction are being implemented for special education students;

-   Teachers are individualizing assessments to meet their special
    education students' needs;

-   Communication is occurring between the special education teacher and
    regular education teacher; and

-   The five reading components are addressed during the core and
    supplemental and intervention instruction.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from teacher interviews:**

-   Increase students' reading achievement by moving them from intensive
    level to strategic and benchmark levels;

-   More modifications needed to the core reading program to accommodate
    the special education students' reading needs; and

-   Continue efforts to communicate and collaborate with special
    education teachers on a consistent basis.

**[III. Evidence:]{.underline}**

1.  **How many special education students are in your classroom?**

> The average number of special education students in the classroom was
> two. More specifically, two teachers had two students, one had three
> students, and one had one special education student.

2.  **Estimate the number of special education students in your
    classroom with reading achievement at the following levels:**

> The following chart provides the responses to the number of intensive,
> strategic, and benchmark special education students in each teacher's
> classroom:

+-------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Levels      | Number of | Number of   | Number of   | Number of   |
|             | students  | students    | students    | students    |
|             |           |             |             |             |
|             | *Teacher  | *Teacher 2* | *Teacher 3* | *Teacher 4* |
|             | 1*        |             |             |             |
+-------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Intensive   | 1         | 2           | 2           | 1           |
+-------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Strategic   | 0         | 0           | 1           | 0           |
+-------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Benchmark   | 1         | 0           | 0           | 0           |
+-------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

3.  **Do you feel confident and focused when delivering reading**

> **instruction to the special education students? Explain**
>
> Two of the teachers interviewed shared that the stories and vocabulary
> are difficult to modify. One teacher shared she feels confident when
> delivering reading instruction to special education students, and one
> stated no that the reading level is too difficult.

4.  **What modifications do you make in your instruction to meet the**

**needs/IEP goals of each individual special education student in your**

**classroom?**

The following are some modifications made by the regular education
teachers:

-   Preferential seating;

-   Literacy partners;

-   Shortened passages;

-   High lighting words;

-   Rephrase questions; and

-   Modified tests.

5.  **Do you design or modify any assessments for these students?**

> All four teachers responded "yes" that they do modify assessments for
> students. Some examples provided were reader scribe, one-on-one
> testing, verbal assessments, and giving multiple choice and true/false
> questions instead of short answers.
>
> **6. Are these students involved in any individualized instruction
> during**
>
> **the core program? If so, explain.**
>
> Teachers shared that they provide individualized tasks during small
> group instruction, and the teacher or aid reads one-on-one with
> student.
>
> **7. What supplemental and intervention programs are implemented
> with**
>
> **these students and how often?**
>
> The responses to the different programs varied from Open Court,
> Reading Mastery, and Earobics, to Early Success.
>
> **8. How are the five components of reading being implemented with**
>
> **modifications for special education students?**
>
> The five components are regularly implemented during the 90 minute
> core and during supplemental and intervention instruction.

9.  **Specifically, what are the special education teachers responsible
    for in your classroom?**

> The teachers stated that the special education teachers are
> responsible for assessments, pull-out instruction, comprehension, and
> writing.
>
> **10. What specific progress monitoring tools are you using in your**
>
> **classroom with special education students?**
>
> The following were a few of the monitoring tools being utilized with
> special education students:

-   Rapid word tests;

-   QRI;

-   DIBELS and GRADE;

-   Weekly fluency tests; and

-   Running records.

**11. Do you continue to create literacy centers that differentiate to
meet**

**students' needs?**

> Teachers shared that the centers are developed based on students'
> abilities and their needs.

12. **How does communication occur between the classroom teacher and**

> **interventionist?**
>
> Responses varied on communication efforts from daily, weekly, and
> after school communication and by e-mails.

13. **How do you differentiate the core reading lesson to address the**

> **needs of the special education students?**
>
> Teachers provide more visuals to students, shorter written work,
> extended time, individualized questioning, and opportunities for
> reading partners.

14. **Do you feel the overall impact of Reading First instruction
    increases**

> **reading achievement of students receiving special education**
>
> **services?**
>
> All four teachers shared that special education students' reading
> achievement was increasing; however, the following comments were made:
>
> "Text levels are challenging."
>
> "Direct Instruction is fast paced; therefore, students who fall behind
> fall further behind."
>
> "Small group instruction is better and more individualized."

15. **What measures are taken to ensure that students in special**

> **education have equitable opportunities to respond to questions and**
>
> **participate in discussions?**
>
> Teachers said they make an effort to ask questions, make students part
> of the whole class, and provide individualized conferences.

16. **Is the special education teacher providing intervention and/or**

> **supplemental instruction to special education students?**
>
> All four teachers responded "yes" that the special education teacher
> is providing intervention and supplemental instruction to special
> education students.

17. **Are you implementing and teaching any reading strategies that
    you**

> **acquired at the 2006 Summer Institute to special education**
>
> **students?**
>
> Teachers shared they are implementing the following reading strategies
> acquired at the summer institute:

a.  Differentiation and questioning techniques;

b.  Think-pair-share; and

c.  Graphic organizers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
18. **Name one specific strategy that you have found to be successful.**

"Making things more visual."

"T-chart and H-charts."

"Echo reading."

"Using the terms clarifying, inferencing, and comparing and
contrasting."

19. **Is there anything else you would like to share?**

> One teacher shared, "More time to make the core on the appropriate
> level for special education students**."**

**Chapter 8**

**[I. Special Education Teacher Interview -Winter 2007]{.underline}**

The Special Education Reading First Evaluation team interviewed four
special education teachers. The purpose of the interviews was to gather
information on how these teachers modify instruction to meet the needs
of their special education population and summarize their thoughts on
reading instruction. The following is a description of the overall
themes, as well as more specific information regarding each interview
question.

**[II. Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based on evidence from the special education teacher
interviews:**

-   Special education students are fully integrated during the core
    reading instruction;

-   A variety of monitoring tools are utilized to monitor students'
    progress;

-   Teachers are modifying instruction with different techniques to meet
    their students' needs;

-   One out of four schools estimated that they have 60% of special
    education students at benchmark; and

-   Special education students are offered a variety of opportunities to
    collaborate and interact with peers.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from special education teacher
interview:**

-   Lack of modifications on GRADE testing to accommodate special
    education students' assessment needs; and

-   Continue to improve reading achievement of special education
    population by moving them from the intensive level to the strategic
    and benchmark levels.

**[III. Evidence]{.underline}**

1.  **Do you feel confident and focused when delivering reading
    instruction to the special education students? Explain.**

> All four teachers said they feel confident when delivering reading
> instruction to special education students. One teacher shared she
> modifies actitivies as needed for the students. Another teacher stated
> it is clear what is expected from the reading program and how to
> assess the students. One teacher commented, "I feel I have been
> trained well in our core program, and I'm able to deliver instruction
> to special education students in a way that they are able to feel
> successful."

2.  **What modifications do you make in your instruction to meet the
    needs/IEP goals of each individual special education student in your
    classroom?**

The following are specific examples provided by the teachers:

-   Repetitive instruction;

-   Skill and drill;

-   Modeling;

-   Skill instruction based on students' needs;

-   Modifying activities;

-   Reading intervention; and

-   Differentiating learning centers.

3.  **Do you design or modify any assessments for these students?
    Explain.**

> All four teachers responded yes to this question. The following are
> their comments:

-   Reducing the number of choices on assessment tests;

-   Modifying the format for vocabulary and spelling tests;

-   Extended time;

-   Verbal and visual cues; and

-   IEP monitoring.

4.  **What supplemental and intervention programs are implemented with
    these students and how often?**

The teachers stated daily instruction up to 30 minutes. Some of the
programs being implemented are Reading Mastery, Great Leaps, Earobics,
and Early Success.

5.  **How are the five components of reading being implemented with
    modifications for special education students?**

Students are mainstreamed during the core reading time and receive
instruction with the five components with their peers. The students also
receive the five components instruction during intervention and centers.

6.  **What specific progress monitoring tools are used in your classroom
    with special education students?**

The following are a variety of monitoring tools used by the teachers:

-   Running records;

-   Progress monitoring;

-   GRADE and DIBELS; and

-   Reading Mastery tests.

7.  **Do you feel the overall impact of Reading First (RF) instruction
    increases reading achievement of students receiving special
    education services?**

Two teachers said yes that RF increases reading achievement of special
education students and two said no. One teacher shared that the students
struggle with the GRADE testing because they do not receive
accommodations like they do during classroom instruction. Another
teacher said that RF is a systematic approach to teaching reading.

8.  **What measures are taken to ensure that students in special
    education have equitable opportunities to respond to questions and
    participate in discussions?**

> Teachers shared that students are grouped according to academic level
> and the collaborative teaching model provides equal opportunities for
> all students.

9.  **From your observations, how are students in special education
    engaged with peers who are not in special education?**

> Students are engaged with peers during the 90 minute core; they
> participate in collaborative groups, and work with partners during
> literacy centers.

**10. Estimate the percentage of special education students in this
school at**

**the following levels of reading achievement:**

  --------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- --------------
                  **School     **School #2**  **School #3**  **School #4**
                  #1**                                       

  **Intensive**   80-90%       75%            10-15%         40%

  **Strategic**   20%          5%             30%            30%

  **Benchmark**   0-5%         1%             60%            20%
  --------------- ------------ -------------- -------------- --------------

**11. Is there anything else you would like to share?**

"I worry about modifications and accommodations not being met with GRADE
and DIBELS."

"We have seen fewer special education referrals since implementing
Reading First."

"I like it because all teachers share ownership of reading instruction."

"The program is flexible in modifying the curriculum for the students."

**Chapter 9**

**[I. GRADE and DIBELS Assessment Data Analysis]{.underline}**

The evaluation team collected student data on four case study students
from Year I of Reading First to present. The statistician then analyzed
data and compiled into graphs and charts.

**[II. Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based on evidence from GRADE and DIBELS data:**

-   Every student made some improvement in percentile scores on one of
    the four tests; and

-   Every student made gains on both GRADE and DIBELS ORF;

**Overall concerns based on evidence from GRADE and DIBELS data:**

-   Some special education students still showing decline in reading
    achievement; and

-   Teachers need to continue to explore strategies to improve student
    scores in a consistent manner.

**[III. Evidence]{.underline}**

**Assessment Results Summary**

The data of the four special education students in the case study showed
mixed outcomes. Every student made some improvement in percentile scores
on one of the four tests: GRADE overall, DIBELS NWF, PSF, or ORF.

Student 1 seems to have made the most gains. DIBELS ORF, NWF, and GRADE
data show improvements over time, with DIBELS PSF showing a slight
decline.

The data for student 2 are incomplete. However, the data that are
available show a great improvement in the GRADE percentile scores as
well as the DIBELS ORF percentile scores. These percentile scores are
the only significant amount of data available.

Student 3 made gains on the DIBELS ORF, but declined on the other three
tests.

Student 4 made gains on both DIBELS ORF and GRADE, but either remained
constant or declined on NWF and PSF.

Overall, every student made gains on both the GRADE and the DIBELS ORF,
showing that each student did improve to a degree in his/her reading. As
all of these students completed the 2006-2007 school year as 2^nd^
graders, these were the two current diagnostics and thus good indicators
that improvements in reading are occurring.

The graphs below represent assessment results for selected case study
special education students:

  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  **DIBELS**                                                                

  **NWF**       **winter    **spring    **fall 05** **winter    **spring    **fall 06**
                04**        05**                    05**        06**        

  **Grade**     **P1 (K)**              **P2 (1)**                          **P3 (2)**

  **Student**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**

  **one**       15          7           6           24          23          36

  **two**                               64                                  

  **three**     47          26          24          8           4           8

  **four**                              1           6           5           0
  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.0in" height="4.416666666666667in"}

  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  **GRADE**                                                                 

                **fall 05** **winter    **spring    **fall 06** **winter    **spring
                            05**        06**                    06**        07**

  **Grade**     **P2 (1)**                          **P3 (2)**              

  **Student**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**

  **one**       0           13          18          1           9           15

  **two**       18          3           58          24          56          79

  **three**     17          76          59          26          4           7

  **four**      0           7           44          10          22          8
  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.0in" height="4.416666666666667in"}

  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  **DIBELS**                                                    

  **PSF**       **winter    **spring    **fall 05** **winter    **spring
                04**        05**                    05**        06**

  **Grade**     **P1 (K)**                          **P2 (1)**  

  **Student**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**

  **one**       13          3           5           26          11

  **two**                                                       

  **three**     52          6           15          28          41

  **four**                              1           1           1
  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.0in" height="4.416666666666667in"}

  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  **DIBELS**                                                    

  **ORF**       **winter    **spring    **fall 06** **winter    **spring
                05**        06**                    06**        07**

  **Grade**     **P2 (1)**              **P3 (2)**              

  **Student**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**   **%tile**

  **one**       7           15          12          12          53

  **two**       80          54          39          74          130

  **three**     0           7           9           10          37

  **four**      1           1           0           0           28
  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

The data of the four special education students in the case study showed
mixed outcomes. Every student made some improvement in percentile scores
one of the four tests: GRADE overall, DIBELS NWF, PSF, or ORF.

Student 1 seems to have made the most gains. DIBELS ORF, NWF, and GRADE
data show improvements over time, with DIBELS PSF showing a slight
decline.

The data for student 2 are incomplete. However, the data that are
available show a great improvement in the GRADE percentile scores as
well as the DIBELS ORF percentile scores. These percentile scores are
the only significant amount of data available.

Student 3 made gains on the DIBELS ORF, but declined on the other three
tests.

Student 4 made gains on both DIBELS ORF and GRADE, but either remained
constant or declined on NWF and PSF.

Overall, every student made gains on both the GRADE and the DIBELS ORF,
showing that each student did improve to a degree in their reading. As
all of these students completed the 2006-2007 school year as 2^nd^
graders, these were the two current diagnostics and thus good indicators
that improvements in reading are occurring.

**Chapter 10**

**[I. Special Education Summer Institutes-Summer 2006]{.underline}**

During the summer of 2006, teachers attended the Reading First Special
Education Summer Institutes. At these institutes, Kentucky literacy
specialists presented information to assist teachers in their
understanding of the five reading components and develop ideas on
effective instructional reading strategies. This professional
development was designed for three grade level ranges: K-3, 4-8, and
9-12. This chapter includes the themes found in completed evaluations,
ratings of the presentations, and comments from participating teachers.

**[II. Themes]{.underline}**

**Overall successes based on evidence from the Special Education Summer
Institute participant evaluations:**

-   Teachers attending the institutes for grades K-3 and 4-8 indicated
    the strategies to teach the five components of reading were the most
    useful information to benefit their practice;

-   Teachers attending the institute for grades 9-12 indicated the
    Marzano strategies were the most useful information learned at the
    training; and

-   Teachers attending the institute for grades 9-12 indicated the
    information on graphic organizers, note-taking, vocabulary, and
    reading strategies will benefit their practice.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the Special Education Summer
Institute participant evaluations:**

-   Teachers attending the institutes for grades K-3 indicated a need to
    apply reading activities and strategies into classroom literacy
    centers;

-   Teachers attending the institutes for 4-8 indicated a need to use
    hands-on teaching strategies with students during reading
    instruction;

-   Teachers attending the institutes for 9-12 indicated a need to learn
    more specific strategies including those geared toward specific
    content areas; and

-   Teachers attending the institutes for 9-12 indicated a need to learn
    how to motivate special needs students and those who are reluctant
    to learn.

**[III. Evidence]{.underline}**

**Grades K-3 Special Education Institutes**

The following is an analysis of participant responses to the 2006
Reading First Special Education Summer Institute questionnaire for K-3
special education teachers. The number of respondents to the evaluations
was 87.

Possible responses to questions regarding the quality of the institute
were 1 to 5, with 1 being low and 5 being high.

The institutes were praised by the participants, with 91% of attendees
giving the institute a high overall rating of a 4 or a 5 and 92% of the
attendees giving the instructor a high overall rating.

Participants were generally positive about the usefulness of the
institute. Ninety-two percent agreed with a rating of a 4 or a 5 that
the institute provided them with adequate resources to support their
teaching. Eighty-eight percent of respondents felt strongly that the
content of the institute directly applied to their jobs. Eighty-six
percent of participants highly agreed that the content of the institute
was what they expected, and 95% highly agreed that the content was well
organized.

The respondents also rated the quality of the instructor and the
materials and visual aids. Ninety-five percent of the attendees highly
agreed that the instructor demonstrated knowledge of content, and 93%
strongly agreed that the instructor modeled techniques well. The
participants' responses were highly favorable toward the instructors,
with 93% agreeing strongly that the instructors indicated interest in
the participant. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents found that the
visual aids were highly effective, while 94% found the participant
notebook highly effective. Overall, 93% of the participants found the
materials and visual aids organized and well prepared.

The active participation level was high as well, 92%. This was not only
the self-examination of the attendees; the perceived active
participation of the co-participants was high at 86%.

**Special Education (K-3) Summer Institute Evaluation Results**

+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **Content**                             | **1     | * | * | * | **5    |
|                                         | (Low)** | * | * | * | (H     |
|                                         |         | 2 | 3 | 4 | igh)** |
|                                         |         | * | * | * |        |
|                                         |         | * | * | * |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 1\. Overall Rating                      | 0       | 0 | 7 | 1 | 62     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 7 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 2\. Content was what I expected         | 0       | 2 | 9 | 2 | 55     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 0 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 3\. Directly applicable to my job       | 1       | 1 | 6 | 2 | 54     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 3 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 4\. I found value in the resource       | 0       | 2 | 4 | 1 | 64     |
| materials                               |         |   |   | 6 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 5\. Content was well organized          | 0       | 0 | 3 | 1 | 67     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 6 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **Instructor**                          |         |   |   |   |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 6\. Overall Rating                      | 0       | 1 | 5 | 1 | 67     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 3 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 7\. Demonstrated knowledge of content   | 0       | 0 | 3 | 1 | 68     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 5 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 8\. Modeled techniques                  | 0       | 1 | 4 | 1 | 68     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 3 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 9\. Instructors' interest in            | 0       | 0 | 5 | 1 | 66     |
| participants                            |         |   |   | 5 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **Materials and Visual Aids**           |         |   |   |   |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 10\. Effectiveness of Visual Aids       | 0       | 0 | 8 | 1 | 60     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 7 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 11\. Usefulness of participant workbook | 0       | 0 | 5 | 2 | 59     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 2 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 12\. Organized and well prepared        | 0       | 0 | 6 | 1 | 68     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 2 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **You as a participant**                | **1**   | * | * | * | **5**  |
|                                         |         | * | * | * |        |
|                                         | **(S    | 2 | 3 | 4 | **(St  |
|                                         | trongly | * | * | * | rongly |
|                                         | disa    | * | * | * | ag     |
|                                         | gree)** |   |   |   | ree)** |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 13\. I was fully present and actively   | 1       | 1 | 4 | 2 | 60     |
| participated                            |         |   |   | 0 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 14\. My co-participants were actively   | 2       | 2 | 8 | 1 | 60     |
| involved and supported the learning     |         |   |   | 4 |        |
| process                                 |         |   |   |   |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+

The following three prompts were included on the evaluation form.

1\) The information I found most useful...

2\) What I would have preferred to learn from the institute/training...

3\) What specific training from this institute will benefit my school?

Following are responses from grades K-3 institute participants who
completed the prompts:

  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **The information I found most useful:**                    **\# of
                                                              Responses**

  Comprehension Strategies                                    11

  Teaching/Reading strategies                                 11

  Handouts                                                    9

  Hands-on activities                                         6

  New strategies for asking questions                         5

  Fluency strategies                                          5

  Focus on vocabulary                                         4

  Information on literacy centers                             4

  Phonemic awareness and phonics                              4

  Activities to use in the classroom                          4

  Intentional teaching of the five components                 3

  New assessment ideas                                        2

  Lesson plans                                                2

  Information of language skills and teaching strategies      2
  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **What I would have preferred to learn from the             **\# of
  institute/training...**                                     Responses**

  Application of learning/literacy centers in the classroom   9

  Reading activities and centers                              2

  Specific strategies to use in the classroom                 2

  How to help students who do not respond to training methods 1

  Reading strategies                                          1
  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **What specific training from this institute will benefit   **\# of
  my school?**                                                Responses**

  Strategies to use in all five components of reading         16
  instruction                                                 

  Teaching comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary             12

  Five components of reading                                  4

  Video and CD demonstrations                                 2

  Use of DIBELS with at risk students in different areas      2
  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

**Sample of participants' additional comments:**

"I hope this training will completely transform the way we teach
reading."

"I like having the notebook to refer to as a resource book. I enjoy
hearing personal experiences from other teachers in other counties at
the same grade level."

**Grades 4-8 Special Education Summer Institutes**

The following is an analysis of participant responses to the 2006
Reading First Special Education Summer Institute questionnaire for
grades 4-8 special education teachers. The number of respondents to the
evaluations was 41.

Possible responses to questions regarding the quality of the institute
were 1 to 5, with 1 being low and 5 being high.

The institutes were praised by the participants, with 95% of attendees
giving the institute a high overall rating of a 4 or 5 and 95% of the
attendees giving the instructor a high overall rating.

Participants were generally positive about the usefulness of the
institute. Ninety-five percent agreed with a rating of 4 or 5 that the
institute provided them with adequate resources to support their
teaching. Ninety percent of respondents felt strongly that the content
of the institute directly applied to their jobs. Ninety-three percent of
participants highly agreed that the content of the institute was what
they expected, and 90% highly agreed that the content was well
organized.

The respondents also rated the quality of the instructor and the
materials and visual aids. Ninety-eight percent of the attendees highly
agreed that the instructor demonstrated knowledge of content, and 95%
strongly agreed that the instructor modeled techniques well. The
participants' responses were highly favorable toward the instructors,
with 95% agreeing strongly that the instructors indicated interest in
the participant. Ninety-three percent of the respondents found that the
visual aids were highly effective, while 93% found the participant
notebook highly effective. Overall, 88% of the participants found the
materials and visual aids organized and well prepared.

The active participation level was high as well, 90%. This was not only
true of the self-examination of the attendees; the perceived active
participation of the co-participants was high as well at 90%.

**Special Education (4-8) Summer Institute Evaluation Results**

+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **Content**                             | **1     | * | * | * | **5    |
|                                         | (Low)** | * | * | * | (H     |
|                                         |         | 2 | 3 | 4 | igh)** |
|                                         |         | * | * | * |        |
|                                         |         | * | * | * |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 1\. Overall Rating                      | 0       | 0 | 1 | 1 | 29     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 0 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 2\. Content was what I expected         | 0       | 1 | 1 | 9 | 29     |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 3\. Directly applicable to my job       | 0       | 0 | 3 | 3 | 34     |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 4\. I found value in the resource       | 0       | 1 | 0 | 4 | 35     |
| materials                               |         |   |   |   |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 5\. Content was well organized          | 0       | 1 | 2 | 8 | 29     |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **Instructor**                          |         |   |   |   |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 6\. Overall Rating                      | 0       | 0 | 1 | 1 | 28     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 1 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 7\. Demonstrated knowledge of content   | 0       | 0 | 0 | 9 | 31     |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 8\. Modeled techniques                  | 0       | 0 | 1 | 1 | 27     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 2 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 9\. Instructors' interest in            | 0       | 0 | 1 | 7 | 32     |
| participants                            |         |   |   |   |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **Materials and Visual Aids**           |         |   |   |   |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 10\. Effectiveness of Visual Aids       | 0       | 0 | 1 | 9 | 29     |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 11\. Usefulness of participant workbook | 0       | 0 | 0 | 1 | 27     |
|                                         |         |   |   | 1 |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 12\. Organized and well prepared        | 0       | 0 | 2 | 8 | 28     |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **You as a participant**                | **1**   | * | * | * | **5**  |
|                                         |         | * | * | * |        |
|                                         | **(S    | 2 | 3 | 4 | **(St  |
|                                         | trongly | * | * | * | rongly |
|                                         | disa    | * | * | * | ag     |
|                                         | gree)** |   |   |   | ree)** |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 13\. I was fully present and actively   | 0       | 0 | 1 | 9 | 28     |
| participated                            |         |   |   |   |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 14\. My co-participants were actively   | 0       | 0 | 1 | 8 | 29     |
| involved and supported the learning     |         |   |   |   |        |
| process                                 |         |   |   |   |        |
+-----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+

The following are the responses from grades 4-8 institute participants
who completed the prompts:

  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **The information I found most useful:**                    **\# of
                                                              Responses**

  Strategies for teaching the five components                 22

  How to put all five components together                     4

  Resources and handouts                                      3

  Different ways to appeal to students' interest and          2
  motivation                                                  
  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **What I would have preferred to learn from the             **\# of
  institute/training...**                                     Responses**

  Hands on strategies/examples/resources                      4

  Assessing comprehension                                     1

  Instruction on modifications                                1
  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **What specific training from this institute will benefit   **\# of
  my school?**                                                Responses**

  Strategies for teaching five components                     14

  Strategies to use with struggling readers                   5

  Motivation techniques                                       2

  Open response training                                      1
  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

**Sample of participants' additional comments:**

"Excellent information that linked ideas and strategies to use in the
classroom."

"This is the best and most relevant professional development training I
have ever attended."

**Grades 9-12 Special Education Summer Institutes**

The following is an analysis of participant responses to the 2006
Reading First Special Education Summer Institute questionnaire for
grades 9-12 special education teachers. The number of respondents to the
evaluations was 224.

Possible responses to questions regarding the quality of the institute
were 1 to 5, with 1 being low and 5 being high.

The institutes were praised by the participants, with 85% of attendees
giving the institute a high overall rating of a 4 or 5 and 84% of the
attendees giving the instructor a high overall rating.

Participants were generally positive about the usefulness of the
institute. Ninety percent agreed with a rating of a 4 or 5 that the
institute provided them with valuable resource materials. Eighty-five
percent of respondents felt strongly that the content of the institute
directly applied to their jobs. Eighty-one percent of participants
highly agreed that the content of the institute was what they expected,
and 86% highly agreed that the content of the institute was well
organized.

The respondents also rated the quality of the instructor and the
materials and visual aids. Eighty-six percent of the attendees highly
agreed that the instructor demonstrated knowledge of content, and 87%
strongly agreed that the instructor modeled techniques well. The
participants' responses were highly favorable toward the instructors,
with 86% agreeing strongly that the instructors indicated interest in
the participant. Eighty-six percent of the respondents found that the
visual aids were highly effective, while 89% found the participant
notebook highly effective. Overall, 87% of the participants found the
materials and visual aids organized and well prepared.

The active participation level was high as well, 86%. This was not only
true of the self-examination of the attendees; the perceived active
participation of the co-participants was high as well at 97%.

**Special Education (9-12) Summer Institute Evaluation Results**

+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **Content**                            | **1     | * | * | * | **5    |
|                                        | (Low)** | * | * | * | (H     |
|                                        |         | 2 | 3 | 4 | igh)** |
|                                        |         | * | * | * |        |
|                                        |         | * | * | * |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 1\. Overall Rating                     | 0       | 3 | 1 | 6 | 128    |
|                                        |         |   | 3 | 2 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 2\. Content was what I expected        | 0       | 4 | 2 | 7 | 109    |
|                                        |         |   | 1 | 2 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 3\. Directly applicable to my job      | 0       | 1 | 1 | 4 | 147    |
|                                        |         |   | 4 | 3 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 4\. I found value in the resource      | 0       | 1 | 4 | 3 | 163    |
| materials                              |         |   |   | 8 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 5\. Content was well organized         | 0       | 3 | 1 | 4 | 150    |
|                                        |         |   | 0 | 3 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **Instructor**                         |         |   |   |   |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 6\. Overall Rating                     | 0       | 3 | 1 | 5 | 131    |
|                                        |         |   | 4 | 7 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 7\. Demonstrated knowledge of content  | 0       | 1 | 1 | 5 | 142    |
|                                        |         |   | 1 | 1 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 8\. Modeled techniques                 | 0       | 3 | 8 | 4 | 147    |
|                                        |         |   |   | 8 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 9\. Instructors' interest in           | 0       | 0 | 1 | 3 | 154    |
| participants                           |         |   | 1 | 9 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **Materials and Visual Aids**          |         |   |   |   |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 10\. Effectiveness of Visual Aids      | 0       | 1 | 8 | 4 | 150    |
|                                        |         |   |   | 3 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 11\. Usefulness of participant         | 0       | 0 | 4 | 3 | 163    |
| workbook                               |         |   |   | 6 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 12\. Organized and well prepared       | 0       | 1 | 7 | 4 | 151    |
|                                        |         |   |   | 4 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| **You as a participant**               | **1**   | * | * | * | **5**  |
|                                        |         | * | * | * |        |
|                                        | **(S    | 2 | 3 | 4 | **(St  |
|                                        | trongly | * | * | * | rongly |
|                                        | disa    | * | * | * | ag     |
|                                        | gree)** |   |   |   | ree)** |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 13\. I was fully present and actively  | 0       | 2 | 9 | 6 | 129    |
| participated                           |         |   |   | 3 |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+
| 14\. My co-participants were actively  | 0       | 1 | 6 | 6 | 132    |
| involved and supported the learning    |         |   |   | 3 |        |
| process                                |         |   |   |   |        |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---+---+---+--------+

The following are the responses from grades 9-12 institute participants
who completed the prompts:

  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **The information I found most useful:**                    **\# of
                                                              Responses**

  Marzano strategies                                          50

  Development and presentation of the "Tool Box"              34

  Different styles of graphic organizers                      21

  Vocabulary strategies                                       20

  Comprehension strategies                                    13

  Reading strategies                                          12

  Note-taking and summarizing strategies                      8

  How to reach more students efficiently                      1

  Discussions of metaphors and analogies                      1
  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **What I would have preferred to learn from the             **\# of
  institute/training...**                                     Responses**

  All strategies                                              8

  Strategies geared toward specific content areas             4

  Active learning                                             2

  Assessment                                                  1

  Comprehension and vocabulary                                1

  Motivational techniques for special needs students          1

  Specific strategies for lower level readers on a secondary  1
  level                                                       

  Specific adaptations for gifted and talented students       1

  Use of information in a co-teaching environment             1
  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **What specific training from this institute will benefit   **\# of
  my school?**                                                Responses**

  Graphic organizers and note-taking                          27

  Reading and vocabulary strategies                           24

  Specific strategies to use in the classroom                 9

  The various ways to incorporate into all content areas      9

  Comprehension through different learning tools              8

  Marzano strategies                                          5

  The development of the instructional tool box               3

  Tools for organization in the classroom                     2

  Frayer Model                                                2

  Engaging reluctant readers                                  2

  Specific tools to give teachers to increase literacy        2

  H chart                                                     1

  Brainstorming                                               1

  Reading First background                                    1

  Knowledge of how to use the handouts                        1
  ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

**Sample of participants' additional comments:**

"Loved the hands-on tools and need a little less on theory as most
educators are already familiar with it."

"Everything covered was relevant, and specific skills and tools were
outlined and modeled."

"I wish we could have spent more time with Marzano's note taking and
summarizing."

**Chapter 11**

**[Volume V Summary]{.underline}**

**[Purpose]{.underline}**

The purpose of this study is to analyze and determine the effects of
Reading First instruction on the reading achievement of Kentucky's
population of students receiving special education services, and to
formulate a description of how the Reading First Initiative is
implemented within schools' existing special education programs. This
study also supported the five key goals outlined in Kentucky's Reading
First Grant and provided an opportunity to analyze the effectiveness of
the Council for Exceptional Children's conditions for optimal teaching
and learning in classrooms.

**[Data Sources]{.underline}**

Case study schools were randomly selected based on their geographical
location and demographics. Out of the 20 case study schools, four were
selected to collect more specific data related to integration of special
education students during the core reading program. Other sources of
data included student observations, teacher surveys, and interviews with
parents, students, regular and special education teachers, and school
coaches.

**[Fall Results]{.underline}**

The fall case study data indicated that, overall, special education
students were fully integrated into the core program with their peers
and had appropriate opportunities to respond to instructional tasks.
Concerns included minimal time students spent reading during core,
minimal connections to students' prior knowledge, and a lack of
vocabulary instruction.

**[Spring Results]{.underline}**

The spring case study data indicated the same strengths as the fall,
with the addition of increased vocabulary instruction and a moderate
level of student motivation and interest. The spring data indicated
concerns regarding student difficulty with text and individual
opportunities to practice and apply comprehension skills. Overall, the
fall to spring data comparisons of physical learning environments and
instructional processes showed very similar results.

**[School Coach Interviews]{.underline}**

School coach interviews indicated extensive collaboration between
special and regular education teachers, strong school coach support, and
use of data for all students in the classroom. Concerns included
clarification on roles of special education teachers and the school
coaches, as well as collaboration between the special education teachers
and the school coaches.

**[Teacher Survey]{.underline}**

A number of strengths were reported on the special education teacher
survey, including the overall implementation of special education
students into RF, use of data to drive instruction for special education
students, collaboration with teachers, meeting IEP goals, and the use of
supplemental and intervention programs utilized for special education
students. Concerns included a need to get more special education
students to strategic and benchmark levels.

**[Student and Parent Interviews]{.underline}**

Student and parent interviews were conducted at each of the 20 case
study schools. During the interviews, the students articulated specific
reading strategies, reported reading independently with the teacher, and
shared what they do during reading time. Concerns included the need to
increase interest in a variety of learning centers (not just computer),
increased assistance to students during book selection process, and more
opportunities to partner read with peers. Parent interviews indicated a
high level of student accommodation in the classroom, a variety of
communication opportunities between school and home, and additional
support for their children through supplemental, intervention, or
tutoring instruction. Concerns included modifications during GRADE and
DIBELS, and more consistency in meeting with regular and special
education teachers regarding IEP goals.

**[Teacher Interviews]{.underline}**

The regular and special education teacher interviews indicated numerous
strengths and concerns. Regular education teachers reported using a
variety of modifications during instruction, individualizing
assessments, and communicating with the special education teacher as
strengths. Special education teachers reported full student integration
during core, varied monitoring tools, modified instruction, and variety
of peer interaction opportunities as strengths. As for concerns, regular
education teachers indicated the need for more modifications to core
programs, and continued communication/collaboration with special
education teachers. Special education teachers' concerns included a lack
of modifications on GRADE testing. *Both* regular and special education
teachers indicated concerns about moving more students from intensive to
strategic and benchmark levels.

**[Assessments]{.underline}**

GRADE and DIBELS assessment data analysis was done on four targeted
special education students. Available data included GRADE percentile
scores, phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, and oral
reading fluency. DIBELS data was available if the student was considered
intensive, strategic, or benchmark. Overall, the data indicated
improvement over time, with a few indications of decline or consistency
on specific subtests.

**[Professional Development]{.underline}**

Special education summer institutes were observed and evaluated by
members of the Reading First special education study team. Teachers
attending the institutes for grades K-3 and 4-8 indicated the most
useful information was the strategies to teach the five key reading
components; grade 9-12 teachers reported the information on Marzano
strategies, graphic organizers, note taking, vocabulary, and reading
strategies were most useful. In the area of concerns, grade K-3 teachers
indicated a need to apply reading activities/strategies into learning
centers, grade 4-8 teachers reported a need to use more hands-on
strategies during reading instruction, and grade 9-12 teachers expressed
concerns regarding more strategies for specific content areas, and
motivation techniques for reluctant students.

**APPENDIXES**

**Appendix A**

![](media/image1.png){width="1.125in" height="0.7534722222222222in"}

![](media/image8.wmf)

Reading First Special Education

School Coach Interview- Fall 2006

1\. How would you describe the participation of special education
students

in Reading First?

2\. Do you assist in implementing any modifications for the special

education or regular education students?

3\. What specific assessments do teachers use for special education

students in addition to GRADE and DIBELS?

4\. How often do the special education and regular education teachers

collaborate in the classroom to meet the needs of special education

students?

5\. Describe an example of collaboration you have observed in the

classroom.

6\. Do you participate in collaboration in or outside the regular
classroom

to meet the needs of the special education students? Explain.

7\. Do you actively participate in planning with the special education
and

regular education teachers? Explain

8\. How is your school ensuring that special education students are

receiving instruction in the five reading components?

9\. If possible, describe specific differentiated activities for each
reading

component.

Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary, Fluency, and

Comprehension

10\. At your school, how are the three levels (core, supplemental and

intervention) programs being implemented with special education

students?

11\. In what instructional settings are the Individual Education Plans
(IEP's)

being met?

12\. What role does each teacher (i.e. regular and special education)
play in

implementing reading IEP objectives?

13\. From your perspective, what are the pros and cons of Reading First
in

regard to students with disabilities?

14\. Have special education referrals increased or decreased since the

implementation of Reading First?

15\. Is there anything else you would like to share?

**Appendix B**

![](media/image1.png){width="1.31875in" height="0.8243055555555555in"}

![](media/image9.wmf)

**Code #\_\_\_\_\_**

**Kentucky Reading First Special Education Teacher Survey**

**2006-2007**

**Directions:** Read the following statements to identify your strengths
and areas for improvement. Rate each statement from 1 to 5, with 5
reflecting strengths and 1 reflecting areas for improvement. Your
anonymous responses will remain confidential.

1.  Years of teaching experience: 0-5 6-10 11-15 15+

2.  Highest degree completed: Bachelor's Master's Rank I Other

3.  Grade currently teaching: K 1^st^ 2^nd^ 3^rd^ Other

  ---------------------------------------------- --------------- ---- ---- ---- ----
                                                 **Minimal**                    
                                                 **Extensive**                  

  **1.** Overall implementation of special       1               2    3    4    5
  education students in Reading First                                           

  **2.** Implementation of modifications to      1               2    3    4    5
  Reading First program with special education                                  
  students                                                                      

  **3.** Use of data to drive instruction for    1               2    3    4    5
  special education students                                                    

  **4.** Collaboration with special education    1               2    3    4    5
  staff in the classroom to meet needs of                                       
  special education students                                                    

  **5.** IEP goals being met in the regular      1               2    3    4    5
  classroom                                                                     

  **6**. Special education students @ benchmark  1               2    3    4    5

  **7.** Special education students @ strategic  1               2    3    4    5

  **8.** Special education students @ intensive  1               2    3    4    5

  **9.** Teacher confidence and focus when       1               2    3    4    5
  delivering reading instruction to special                                     
  education students                                                            

  **10.** Supplemental and Intervention programs 1               2    3    4    5
  being implemented with the special education                                  
  students                                                                      

  **11**. Development of literacy center to      1               2    3    4    5
  differentiate and meet needs of special                                       
  education students                                                            

  **12.** Implementation of reading strategies   1               2    3    4    5
  acquired through PD with special education                                    
  students                                                                      

  **13.** Integration of literacy centers in     1               2    3    4    5
  core reading program to meet the needs of                                     
  special education students                                                    

  **14.** Utilization of flexible grouping with  1               2    3    4    5
  special education students                                                    

  **15.** Placements of special education        1               2    3    4    5
  students in reading groups based on individual                                
  needs                                                                         

  **16**. Classroom level of daily progress      1               2    3    4    5
  monitoring                                                                    

  **17**. Competence in meeting the needs of     1               2    3    4    5
  special education students through the core,                                  
  supplemental and intervention programs                                        

  **18**. Overall impact of the Reading First    1               2    3    4    5
  program                                                                       
  ---------------------------------------------- --------------- ---- ---- ---- ----

**Comments:**

**Appendix C**

![](media/image1.png){width="0.9854166666666667in"
height="0.6597222222222222in"}

![](media/image10.wmf){width="0.8659722222222223in"
height="0.5229166666666667in"}

**Kentucky Reading First Student Interview**

**Special Education Case Study**

**Winter 2007**

1\. Tell me what you do during your reading time in the classroom? Do
you do this everyday?

2\. Who is the best reader that you know? Why do you think this?

3\. When you are reading, what do you do when you come to a word that
you do not know?

4\. What is you favorite thing about reading time?

5\. Do you like to read?

a\. If so, what do you like to read?

b\. If not, can you tell me why?

6\. Do you use any special strategies or tools that help you read?

7\. Do you read with other children at school? If so, give one example.

8\. Do you read with the teacher alone?

a\. If so, what reading skills do you work on?

9\. What does your teacher do to help you become a better reader?

10\. What is your favorite literacy center? Tell me what you do in this
center?

11\. How do you learn new words?

12\. Can you tell me about word wall? Do you use it often? Is it helpful
to you?

13\. How do you choose a book to read in your classroom?

14\. Are there specific activities in the classroom that you would like
to be involved in? Give some examples.

15\. How has reading changed for you this year compared to last year?

**Appendix D**

![](media/image1.png){width="1.30625in" height="0.8444444444444444in"}

![](media/image10.wmf){width="1.229861111111111in" height="0.68125in"}

**Parent Interview**

**Reading First Special Education Case Study**

**Winter 2007**

1\. What has your child told you about his/her reading in the classroom?

2\. Can you tell me what you know about the Reading First program that
your child is involved in and how it has affected his reading progress?

3\. How are you informed about your child's progress in Reading First
throughout the school year?

4\. How many times a year do you meet with the regular education and
special education teachers regarding his/her IEP goals relating to
reading?

5\. Do you feel like your child's needs are being met with the Reading
First program?

6\. On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest,
how do you feel modifications are being implemented in the classroom
with your child during reading?

7\. Does your child receive any extra support outside the regular
classroom? (i.e. tutoring, resource class.....)

8\. Do you feel that teachers have changed what they do for your child
in classroom because of Reading First?

9\. Are there things that you would like to know about Reading First
that you have not had an opportunity to ask?

10\. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

![](media/image1.png){width="0.81875in"
height="0.5743055555555555in"}**Appendix E**

![](media/image11.wmf)

**Regular Education Teacher**

**Special Education Interview**

**Winter 2007**

1\. How many special education students are in your classroom?

> 2\. Estimate the number of special education students in your
> classroom with reading achievement at the following levels: Intensive
> \_\_\_\_,
>
> Strategic \_\_\_\_, Benchmark \_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> 3\. Do you feel confident and focused when delivering reading
>
> instruction to the special education students? Explain

4.  What modifications do you make in your instruction to meet the

needs/IEP goals of each individual special education student in your

classroom?

> 5\. Do you design or modify any assessments for these students?

6.  Are these students involved in any individualized instruction during

> the core program? If so, explain.

7.  What supplemental and intervention programs are implemented with

> these students and how often?

8.  How are the five components of reading being implemented with

> modifications for special education students?

9.  Specifically, what are the special education teachers responsible
    for

> in your classroom?

10. What specific progress monitoring tools are you using in your

> classroom with special education students?

11. Do you continue to create literacy centers that differentiate to
    meet

> students' needs?

12. How does communication occur between the classroom teacher and

> interventionist?

13. How do you differentiate the core reading lesson to address the

> needs of the special education students?

14. Do you feel the overall impact of Reading First instruction
    increases

> reading achievement of students receiving special education
>
> services?

15. What measures are taken to ensure that students in special

> education have equitable opportunities to respond to questions and
>
> participate in discussions?

16. Is the special education teacher providing intervention and/or

> supplemental instruction to special education students?

17. Are you implementing and teaching any reading strategies to special
    education students that you acquired at the 2006 Summer Institute?

18. Name one specific strategy that you have found to be successful.

19\. Is there anything else you would like to share?

![](media/image1.png){width="1.06875in"
height="0.7152777777777778in"}**Appendix F**

![](media/image12.wmf)

**Special Education Teacher Interview**

**Winter 2007**

1\. Do you feel confident and focused when delivering reading
instruction

to the special education students? Explain.

2\. What modifications do you make in your instruction to meet the

needs/IEP goals of each individual special education student in your

classroom?

3\. Do you design or modify any assessments for these students? Explain.

4\. What supplemental and intervention programs are implemented with

these students and how often?

5\. How are the five components of reading being implemented with

modifications for special education students?

6\. What specific progress monitoring tools are used in your classroom

with special education students?

7\. Do you feel the overall impact of Reading First instruction
increases

reading achievement of students receiving special education services?

8\. What measures are taken to ensure that students in special education

have equitable opportunities to respond to questions and participate in

discussions?

9\. From your observations, how are students in special education
engaged

with peers who are not in special education?

10\. Estimate the percentage of special education students in this
school at

the following levels of reading achievement:

Intensive: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Strategic: \_\_\_\_\_\_

Benchmark: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_

11\. Is there anything else you would like to share?