![](media/image1.png){width="1.9437007874015748in"
height="1.3015748031496064in"}![](media/image2.png){width="2.25in"
height="1.1665354330708662in"}

**Kentucky Reading First Evaluation**

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

**Volume IV: Kentucky Reading First**

**Longitudinal Case Study**

**Reading First Evaluation Team**

***Principal Investigator***

Paige Carney, Ed. D.

***Statistician***

Melissa Pittard, Ph.D.

***Evaluation Team***

Cynthia Branstetter

Charlie Hardy

Ann Hendrix

Nancy Huffstutter

Lauren Jones

Vicki McGinnis

Jill Perez

Michelle Sapp

Mary Jane Scaggs

Pam Seales

Kaye Warner

Dr. Paige Carney

120 Quinton Circle

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40509

\(859\) 257-4212

jpcarn00@uky.edu

**Table of Contents**

**Volume IV**

**Page**

**Chapter 1:** 1

Longitudinal Case Study Introduction

**Chapter 2:** 3

Longitudinal Classroom Observations

**Chapter 3:** 52

Longitudinal Literacy Center Observations

**Chapter 4:** 59

Longitudinal Case Study Reports

**Chapter 5:** 75

Longitudinal School Coach Interviews

**Chapter 6:** 82

Longitudinal Principal Interviews

**Chapter 7:** 87

Longitudinal Teacher Questionnaires

**Chapter 8**: 95

Longitudinal GRADE Assessment Data

**Chapter 9:** 101

Longitudinal DIBELS Assessment Data

**Chapter 10:** 107

Year to Year Longitudinal School Comparisons

**[Appendixes]{.underline} pp.** 130-141

**A** Literacy Center Observation Form

**B** Case Study Report Form

**C** School Coach Interview Questions

**D** Principal Interview Questions

**E** Teacher Questionnaire

**Chapter 1**

**[Longitudinal Case Study Introduction]{.underline}**

Volume IV contains the longitudinal study based on eight of Kentucky's
Reading First schools. The purpose of the study is to provide in-depth
information to all Reading First schools on how to effectively implement
change and have an impact on student reading achievement. More
specifically, the study will produce analysis of similarities and
differences within these schools and provide a synthesis of themes that
contribute to successful Reading First implementation.

In the fall of 2004, the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development's
(CCLD) Reading First Evaluation Team began conducting research during
Year 1 of Reading First implementation. To further develop an idea about
how schools are successfully changing and implementing the goals of
Reading First, the Evaluation Team randomly selected eight of the Year 1
case study schools. During the spring of 2006, and the winter of 2007,
the Evaluation Team conducted research in these eight schools. Two site
evaluators were assigned to each school for a one day site visit. The
following research was conducted:

-   Observation of two randomly selected lower primary classrooms P1-P2;

-   Observation of two randomly selected upper primary classrooms P3-P4;

-   Observation of two classrooms during literacy center time (2007);

-   Interview with School Coach; and

-   Interview with School Principal.

In addition, teacher questionnaires were sent prior to the site visits.
These teacher questionnaires were collected and analyzed by the
Evaluation Team. The Year I case study school names are kept anonymous,
and the data is randomly presented as Schools 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and
8. CCLD's Evaluation Team will continue to collect data during each
Reading First school year. The goals of the data collection process are
to analyze:

-   Explicit and systematic reading instruction;

-   Instructional reading strategies;

-   Level of the five RF components;

-   Analyze year to year changes of RF implementation;

-   Change characteristics; and

-   Reading assessment gains.

The following chart provides the demographic information for the
2006-2007 school year provided to the Evaluation Team by the
participating longitudinal schools.

**Demographic Information**

**Reported by 2007 Reading First Longitudinal Case Study Schools**

**C=**Caucasian **AA=**African American **H=**Hispanic **A=**Asian

**NA=**Native American **O=**Other **ELL=English Language Learners**

+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+
| *         | **L       | **En       | **Race**       | **Free and    |
| *School** | ocation** | rollment** |                | Reduced       |
|           |           |            |                | Lunch**       |
+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+
| **1**     | Urban     | 252        | AA= 44.8%      | 94.1%         |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | C= 41%         |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | H= 2.4%        |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | A= 0.4%        |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | O= 11.5%       |               |
+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+
| **2**     | Rural     | 209        | C=100%         | 66%           |
+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+
| **3**     | Rural     | 594        | AA= 24%        | 86%           |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | C= 56%         |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | H= 15%         |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | A= 2%          |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | O= 3%          |               |
+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+
| **4**     | Urban     | 558        | AA= 45.16%     | 84%           |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | C= 28.49%      |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | H= 12.54%      |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | A= 6.63%       |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | O= 6.99%%      |               |
+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+
| **5**     | Rural     | 362        | AA= 4.6%       | 73%           |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | C= 91%%        |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | H=1.2%         |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | A= 1.2%        |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | O=1.85%        |               |
+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+
| **6**     | Urban     | 509        | AA= 52%        | 72%           |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | C= 33%         |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | H= 9%          |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | A=.03%         |               |
+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+
| **7**     | Urban     | 469        | AA= 40%        | 65%           |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | C= 46%         |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | H= 7%          |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | A= .2%         |               |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | O= 7%          |               |
+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+
| **8**     | Rural     | 494        | C=97%          | 74%           |
|           |           |            |                |               |
|           |           |            | O=2%           |               |
+-----------+-----------+------------+----------------+---------------+

**Chapter 2**

# [Longitudinal Classroom Observations]{.underline}

**I. Introduction**

During the 2007 longitudinal observations, each team member collected
data in each classroom using a common protocol. The protocol allowed the
observers to rate areas such as the room environment, the grouping of
the students, the students' participation, the lesson(s) presented,
literacy centers, and each of the five essential Reading First
components. These notes were compiled and grouped together according to
the individual questions both by a statistician and by selected team
members. Using this data, summaries were completed and themes were
noted. Included in this section is information on the protocol, quotes,
individual and collective data, and abstracts or charts that summarize
the trends or themes mentioned during the classroom observations at each
longitudinal Reading First school.

# II. Themes

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

-   High levels of the following were observed: extensive learning
    environments (81%), three or more types of reading materials (94%),
    students reading independently (78%), and a high level of student
    engagement (97%);

-   Comprehension continues to be the key reading component that is most
    commonly embedded in reading instruction. In the 2006 observations,
    there were 81% classrooms with moderate/extensive evidence; in 2007
    there were 91% with extensive evidence;

-   Moderate or extensive evidence of higher level questioning was
    observed in 88% of the classrooms. Compared to 2006 data, there was
    a shift toward extensive evidence\--a decrease in moderate evidence,
    and an increase in extensive evidence; and

-   There was a significant increase in types of student groupings based
    on classroom observations. In 2006, there were 27% of classrooms
    with extensive evidence of groupings (four or more types of reading
    groups); and in 2007, there were 53% of classrooms with extensive
    evidence for utilizing a variety of student reading groups.

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

-   Reading instruction continues to be primarily teacher centered, with
    a slight increase in minimal evidence compared to 2006 data;

-   Minimal or moderate evidence of fluency instruction was observed in
    classrooms. Compared to 2006 data, minimal evidence increased from
    4% to 28%, and extensive decreased from 19% to 12%;

-   Minimal, moderate, or no evidence of literacy centers was primarily
    observed in classrooms. Compared to 2006, extensive evidence
    remained the same (28%), and minimal and moderate percentages
    increased;

-   Authentic assessment evidence was minimal or moderate in 75% of the
    classrooms; and

-   The following variety of effective reading practices were observed
    in less than 40% of the classrooms: shared reading, partner/paired
    reading, choral reading, drama/Reader's Theater, echo reading, and
    tape assisted reading.

**III. Evidence**

**Part A: Analysis of Classroom Observations**

The Reading First Evaluators rated observations in specific categories
based on the scale of low evidence, minimal evidence, moderate evidence,
to extensive evidence. Below is an analysis of the data that was
collected from the 2007 classroom observations and the RF Evaluators'
recommendations.

**Areas of strength were as follows:**

-   Extensive ratings included instructional resources and materials
    (93.8%), literate learning environments (81.3%), a variety of
    grouping (53.1%), student engagement (56.3%), and higher-level
    questioning (50%).

**Areas that were average were as follows:**

-   Moderate ratings included mode of delivery (53.1%), and
    student-teacher interactions (40.6% and 46.9%).

**Areas that were below average are as follows:**

-   Minimal or low level evidence ratings included literacy centers
    (43.8%), and authentic assessment (50%).

**Recommendations based on evidence in this section:**

-   Continue to develop ways to improve and show growth in the
    instruction practices of authentic assessment, mode of delivery, and
    student-teacher interactions;

-   Create discussions and interactions that are more student focused,
    as well as provide meaningful and specific instructional feedback;

-   Conduct more authentic assessment before, during and after the
    instructional process; and

-   Analyze components of optimal literacy centers and develop ways to
    increase the quality of these centers during the core reading block.

**Part B: Evidence of Classroom Observations**

The following charts and graphs present evidence from the 2007 classroom
observations conducted for the longitudinal case study schools. (Note:
If the charts do not add up to 100%, this is due to an absence of data
in that specific area.)

**Physical Environment: Resources and Materials**

  -------------------------------------- ------------- -------------------
  Responses                              Frequency     Percentage

  No reading materials are available in  0             0.0
  the classroom                                        

  One type of reading material is        0             0.0
  available                                            

  Two types of reading materials are     1             3.1
  available                                            

  Three or more types of reading         30            93.8
  materials are available                              
  -------------------------------------- ------------- -------------------

![](media/image3.wmf)

**Learning Environment**

Classroom is organized with literacy centers, multiple-types of reading
materials, instructional reading activities, and manipulatives.

  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------------------
  Responses                             Frequency   Percentage

  \(0\) Low level evidence              0           0

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence          2           6.3

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence         4           12.5

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence        26          81.3
  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------------------

![](media/image4.wmf)

**Instructional Process: Mode of Delivery**

Reading instruction is explicit and systematic with clear objectives,
connections made to students' prior and current knowledge, opportunities
for active participation, practice of concept "I do it, we do it, and
you do it," and summary of lesson.

  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------------------
  Responses                             Frequency   Percentage

  \(0\) Low level evidence              0           0

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence          1           3.1

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence         17          53.1

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence        14          43.8
  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------------------

![](media/image5.wmf)

**Literacy Centers**

Centers are observed, engaging, have clear objectives, contain task
cards, and appear to differentiate the needs of individual students.
Materials are prepared, organized, easily accessible to students, and
focus on literacy concepts.

  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------------------
  Responses                             Frequency   Percentage

  \(0\) Low level evidence              14          43.8

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence          3           9.4

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence         6           18.8

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence        9           28.1
  ------------------------------------- ----------- ----------------------

![](media/image6.wmf)

**Grouping**

A variety of reading groups are observed, such as whole groups, small
groups, independent work, literacy centers, cross-grade grouping,
cooperative learning, and partner/paired groups.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) One type of reading group   4                      12.5

  \(1\) Two types of reading groups 6                      18.8

  (2)Three types of reading groups  3                      9.4

  \(3\) Four or more types of       17                     53.1
  reading groups                                           
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image7.wmf)

**Authentic Assessment**

Authentic assessment is the method of evaluating student performance and
achievement.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) None                        0                      0

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence      16                     50

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence     8                      25

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence    7                      21.9
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image8.wmf)

**Student Engagement**

The students are highly engaged in learning.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) Low level evidence          0                      0

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence      1                      3.1

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence     13                     40.6

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence    18                     56.3
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image9.wmf)

**Student-Teacher Interaction**

Student-teacher interactions are open-ended, student focused, and
provide meaningful and specific instructional feedback

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) Low level evidence          0                      0

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence      4                      12.5

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence     13                     40.6

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence    15                     46.9
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image10.wmf)

**Higher-Level Questioning**

Teacher provides multiple levels of questions requiring students to
expand their thinking and learning. Some examples include basic
knowledge/recall, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation questions.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) Low level evidence          0                      0

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence      4                      12.5

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence     12                     37.5

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence    16                     50
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image11.wmf)

**Part C: Analysis of Five Reading First Components**

The Reading First Evaluators rated observations based on the
instructional delivery of the five reading components: phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The rating
scale for the five components was *not observed, minimal evidence,
moderate evidence, and extensive evidence.* Below is an analysis of the
data that was collected from the 2007 classroom observations regarding
the five RF components and the RF Evaluators' recommendations.

**Areas of strength were as follows:**

-   Extensive ratings included comprehension (53.1%).

**Areas that were average were as follows:**

-   Moderate ratings included fluency (34.4% and 28.1%).

**Areas that were below average were as follows:**

-   Minimal or low level evidence ratings included phonics (28.1%) and
    vocabulary (9.4% and 50%).

The fifth area of phonemic awareness, due to the nature of the component
as well as the limited forty-five minute classroom observations, was
rated as not observed (68.8%).

**Recommendations based on evidence in this section:**

-   Maintain the consistent comprehension instruction in the classrooms;

-   Continue to develop ways in which to implement vocabulary
    instruction regularly and intentionally during the reading
    instruction; and

-   Increase the explicit and systematic instruction of fluency and
    phonics during the reading instruction.

**Part D: Evidence of Five Reading First Components**

The following charts and graphs present evidence from the observations
conducted during the site visits at the longitudinal schools, regarding
the five RF components observed during the 2007 classroom observations.

**Phonemic Awareness**

The ability to hear, identify, and manipulate the individual
sounds/phonemes of spoken word only.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) Not observed                22                     68.8

  \(1\) Minimal evidence            1                      3.1

  \(2\) Moderate evidence           6                      18.8

  \(3\) Extensive evidence          3                      9.4
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image12.wmf)

**Phonics**

The ability to understanding the relationships between the letters of
written language and the sounds of spoken language.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) Not observed                16                     50

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence      9                      28.1

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence     3                      9.4

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence    4                      12.5
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image13.wmf)

**Vocabulary**

The ability to understand the meaning of words recognized or used in
print.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) Not observed                16                     50.0

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence      3                      9.4

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence     9                      28.1

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence    4                      12.5
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image14.wmf)

**Fluency**

The ability to read text accurately and quickly.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) Not observed                8                      25.0

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence      9                      28.1

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence     11                     34.4

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence    4                      12.5
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image15.wmf)

**Comprehension**

The ability to understand what is read.

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  \(0\) Not observed                1                      3.1

  \(1\) Minimal level evidence      2                      6.3

  \(2\) Moderate level evidence     12                     37.5

  \(3\) Extensive level evidence    17                     53.1
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image16.wmf)

**The Five Components of Reading First**

**Part E: Analysis of Reading Groups**

The Reading First Evaluators observed and made note as to whether the
following reading groups were observed during the classroom
observations: whole group, small group, independent reading, literacy
centers, cross grade grouping, cooperative learning, and partner/paired
groups.

The Evaluators also noted specific types of reading that occurred, along
with the number of minutes of reading during the whole group classroom
instruction and for one randomly selected student. Whole group and
individual student instruction were observed in areas for independent
reading, shared reading, partner/paired reading, choral reading, guided
reading, dramatic/readers' theater, echo reading, read alouds, and tape
assisted reading. Below is an analysis of the data that was collected
from the 2007 classroom observations for the types of reading groups and
the number of minutes students were reading during whole group and
individual reading instruction.

**Areas of strength were as follows:**

-   During the classroom observations, the following grouping structures
    were observed: whole group (75% of the time), small group (56% of
    the time), Independent reading (65.6% of the time), and literacy
    centers (50% of the time);

-   During the whole group instruction, the following reading practices
    were observed most often: independent student reading (consisting of
    a range of 1-15 minutes with a combined percentage of 31.3%), guided
    reading (consisting of a range of 1-20 minutes with a combined
    percentage of 25%), and read alouds (consisting of a range of 1-10
    minutes with a combined percentage of 46.9%); and

-   During individual student observations, the following reading
    practices were observed most often: independent student reading
    (consisting of a range of 1-15 minutes with a combined percentage of
    50%), partner/paired (consisting of a range of 1-15 minutes with a
    combined percentage of 25.1%), and guided reading (consisting of a
    range of 1-20 minutes with a combined percentage of 37.5%).

**Areas that were below average are as follows:**

-   During the classroom observations the following grouping structures
    were observed at a minimal rating or low level rating: cross grade
    grouping (84.4%), cooperative learning (81.3%) and partner/paired
    groups (59.4%);

-   During whole group instruction, the following reading practices were
    observed the least and students read for the fewest minutes in the
    areas of shared reading (consisting of a range of 1-20 minutes
    reported and a combined percentage of 12.5%), choral reading
    (consisting of a range of 1-5 minutes reported and a percentage of
    21.9%), dramatic/readers' theater (no minutes reported), echo
    reading (consisting of a range of 1-5 minutes and a percent of
    15.6%), and tape assisted reading (consisting of a range of 1-10
    minutes and with a combined percentage of 6.2%); and

-   While observing an individual student during the classroom
    observations, the following reading practices were observed the
    least and students read for the fewest minutes in the areas of
    shared reading *(*no minutes reported), choral reading (consisting
    of a range of 1-5 minutes and 21.9%), dramatic/readers' theater
    (consisting of a range of 1-5 minutes and 3.1%), echo reading (no
    minutes reported), read alouds (consisting of 1-5 minutes and
    15.6%), and tape assisted reading (consisting of a range of 1-10
    minutes and a combined percentage of 18.8%).

**Recommendations based on evidence in this section:**

-   Continue to develop reading practices based on a variety of grouping
    structures, specifically including areas such as partner/paired
    groups, cooperative learning groups, and cross grade grouping;

-   During whole group instruction, teachers need to provide not only a
    variety of reading opportunities for children including dramatic
    readers' theater, choral, echo, shared, and tape assisted reading,
    but also more time reading in these areas; and

-   Teachers need to provide not only a variety of reading opportunities
    for students including shared reading, choral reading, echo reading,
    tape assisted reading, read alouds, and dramatic readers' theater,
    but also increased actual minutes of students reading in these
    areas.

**Part F: Evidence of Reading Groups**

During the observations, the following reading groups were checked "yes"
if they were observed and "no" if they were not observed by the
Evaluation Team. The following charts and graphs present evidence of
reading groups observed during the 2007 longitudinal case study
classroom observations.

**Whole Group**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     24                      75

  No                      8                       25
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image17.wmf)

**Small Group**

  ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency              Percentage

  Yes                     18                     56.3

  No                      14                     43.8
  ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image18.wmf)

**Independent Work**

  ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency              Percentage

  Yes                     21                     65.6

  No                      11                     34.4
  ----------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image19.wmf)

**Literacy Centers**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     16                      50

  No                      16                      50
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image20.wmf)

**Cross Grade**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     5                       15.6

  No                      27                      84.4
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image21.wmf)

**Cooperative Learning**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     6                       12

  No                      26                      88
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image22.wmf)

**Partner/Paired**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     13                      40.6

  No                      19                      59.4
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image23.wmf)

**Part G: Analysis of Classroom Reading Practices:**

During the 2007 longitudinal classroom observations, the RF Evaluation
team noted the classroom reading practices observed (the team marked
"yes" if the reading practices were observed). The Reading First
Evaluators also noted the number of minutes students read during whole
group and individual instruction. Below is an analysis of the data that
was collected from the 2007 classroom observations regarding reading
practices and the RF Evaluators' recommendations.

**Areas of strength were as follows:**

-   Independent reading (78%) was the classroom reading practice used
    most frequently during the 2007 longitudinal classroom observations.

**Areas that were average were as follows:**

-   Read alouds (59 %) and guided reading groups (59%) were observed
    regularly during the 2007 longitudinal classroom observations.

**Areas that were below average were as follows:**

-   Dramatic readers' theater (97%), shared reading (88%), tape assisted
    (69%), partner/paired and choral reading (63%), were *not observed*
    regularly during the 2007 longitudinal classroom observations.
    Students were observed reading in a dramatic readers' theater group
    only once during the 2007 longitudinal classroom observations.

**Recommendations based on evidence in this section:**

-   Provide a broader variety of reading practices during reading
    instruction, such as dramatic readers' theater, partner/paired,
    choral, and tape assisted reading.

-   Intentionally provide students with a greater amount of actual
    reading time/minutes during reading instruction.

**Part H: Evidence of Classroom Reading Practices:**

The following charts and graphs present evidence of grouping for
classroom reading practices in addition to the number of minutes
students read during the 2007 longitudinal case study classroom
observations.

**Independent Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     25                      78.1

  No                      7                       21.9
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image24.wmf)

**Shared Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     4                       12.5

  No                      28                      87.5
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image25.wmf)

**Partnered/Paired**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     12                      37.5

  No                      20                      62.5
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image26.wmf)

**Choral**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     12                      37.5

  No                      20                      62.5
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image27.wmf)

**Guided Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     19                      59.4

  No                      13                      40.6
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image28.wmf)

**Dramatic/Readers' Theater**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     1                       3.1

  No                      31                      96.9
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image29.wmf)

**Echo Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     5                       15.6

  No                      27                      84.4
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image30.wmf)

**Read Alouds**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     19                      59.4

  No                      13                      40.6
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image31.wmf)

**Tape Assisted Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
  Responses               Frequency               Percentage

  Yes                     10                      31.3

  No                      22                      68.8
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

![](media/image32.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Independent Reading: Whole Group**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         21                     65.6

  1-5 Minutes                       7                      21.9

  6-10 Minutes                      2                      6.3

  11-15 Minutes                     1                      3.1

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image33.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Shared Reading: Whole Group**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         28                     87.5

  1-5 Minutes                       2                      6.3

  6-10 Minutes                      1                      3.1

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     1                      3.1

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image34.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Partnered/Paired Reading: Whole Group**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         26                     81.3

  1-5 Minutes                       4                      12.5

  6-10 Minutes                      2                      6.3

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image35.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Choral Reading: Whole Group**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         25                     78.1

  1-5 Minutes                       7                      21.9

  6-10 Minutes                      0                      0

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image36.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Guided Reading: Whole Group**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         24                     75.0

  1-5 Minutes                       4                      12.5

  6-10 Minutes                      1                      3.1

  11-15 Minutes                     1                      3.1

  16-20 Minutes                     2                      6.3

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image37.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Dramatic/Reader's Theater: Whole Group**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         32                     100

  1-5 Minutes                       0                      0

  6-10 Minutes                      0                      0

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image38.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Echo Reading: Whole Group**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         27                     84.4

  1-5 Minutes                       5                      15.6

  6-10 Minutes                      0                      0

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image39.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Read Alouds: Whole Group**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         17                     53.1

  1-5 Minutes                       12                     37.5

  6-10 Minutes                      3                      9.4

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image40.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Tape Assisted Reading: Whole Group**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         29                     90.6

  1-5 Minutes                       1                      3.1

  6-10 Minutes                      1                      3.1

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image41.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Independent Reading: Individual Student**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         13                     40.6

  1-5 Minutes                       8                      25.0

  6-10 Minutes                      4                      12.5

  11-15 Minutes                     4                      12.5

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image42.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Shared Reading: Individual Student**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         32                     100

  1-5 Minutes                       0                      0

  6-10 Minutes                      0                      0

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image43.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Partnered/Paired Reading:**

**Individual Student**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         24                     75.0

  1-5 Minutes                       2                      6.3

  6-10 Minutes                      4                      12.5

  11-15 Minutes                     2                      6.3

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image44.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Choral Reading: Individual Student**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         26                     81.3

  1-5 Minutes                       5                      15.6

  6-10 Minutes                      0                      0

  11-15 Minutes                     1                      3.1

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image45.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Guided Reading: Individual Student**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         20                     62.5

  1-5 Minutes                       5                      15.6

  6-10 Minutes                      3                      9.4

  11-15 Minutes                     3                      9.4

  16-20 Minutes                     1                      3.1

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image46.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Dramatic/Reader's Theater:**

**Individual Student**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         31                     96.9

  1-5 Minutes                       1                      3.1

  6-10 Minutes                      0                      0

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image47.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Echo Reading: Individual Student**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         32                     100

  1-5 Minutes                       0                      0

  6-10 Minutes                      0                      0

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image48.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Read Alouds: Individual Student**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         27                     84.4

  1-5 Minutes                       5                      15.6

  6-10 Minutes                      0                      0

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image49.wmf)

**Number of Minutes of Tape Assisted Reading: Individual Student**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------
  Responses                         Frequency              Percentage

  0 Minutes                         25                     78.1

  1-5 Minutes                       3                      9.4

  6-10 Minutes                      3                      9.4

  11-15 Minutes                     0                      0

  16-20 Minutes                     0                      0

  21 or more minutes                0                      0
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- --------------

![](media/image50.wmf)

**Chapter 3**

**[Longitudinal Literacy Center Observations]{.underline}**

**I. Introduction**

Members of the CCLD Reading First Evaluation Team observed two literacy
centers in at least two primary classrooms during their Winter 2007
observations at each longitudinal school. These notes were compiled and
analyzed for themes and trends. Following is a description of the
overall themes for the sixteen literacy center observations, as well as
more specific information regarding the evidence collected to support
these themes.

**II. Themes**

**Overall successes based on evidence from the longitudinal school
literacy center observations:**

-   The RF Evaluation Team members found that literacy centers at the
    longitudinal schools contained extensive evidence (68%) that their
    centers had "posted charts" for the organization of their centers;

-   Literacy centers at the longitudinal schools contained extensive
    evidence (56%) that their students were "actively engaged" during
    center time;

-   Literacy centers at the longitudinal schools contained extensive
    evidence (62%) that the center materials were prepared, organized,
    and easily accessible to students;

-   Literacy centers at the longitudinal schools contained extensive
    evidence (54%) that the center tasks were engaging (use of
    manipulatives, games, activities, etc.); and

-   Literacy centers at the longitudinal schools contained extensive
    evidence (56%) that students' behavior followed classroom rules and
    learner expectations during center time.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the longitudinal school
literacy center observations:**

-   The RF Evaluation Team members did not observe and/or observed with
    minimal evidence (73%) literacy centers having multiple tasks/finish
    early activities;

-   The RF Evaluation Team members did not observe and/or observed with
    minimal evidence (62%) literacy centers containing evidence of
    differentiation to meet the needs of a variety of learners; and

-   The RF Evaluation Team members did not observe and/or observed with
    minimal evidence (52%) the centers having "help systems" in place
    for students (center captains, etc.).

**III. Evidence**

All four primary grades were represented in the literacy center
observations. The number of students varied between 13-22+ in each
classroom during the center observations.

Each RF Evaluation Team Member rated the literacy centers on a scale
from "not observed, minimal evidence, moderate evidence, to extensive
evidence." Following each statement taken from the literacy center
protocol is a chart that summarizes the percentages for the ratings
given by the RF Evaluation Team members.

**Centers focus on literacy/ the five components of reading.**

![](media/image51.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Organizational pattern of centers is posted (work board, center chart,
etc.).**

![](media/image52.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Students are actively engaged.**

![](media/image53.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Centers have clear objectives (task cards posted, etc.).**

![](media/image54.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Materials are prepared, organized, and easily accessible to
students.**

![](media/image55.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Center activities maximize use of time and earning.**

![](media/image56.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Center tasks are meaningful (activities or tasks require high
level/critical thinking and application of previously taught
materials).**

![](media/image57.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Center tasks are engaging (use of manipulatives, games, activities,
etc.).**

![](media/image58.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Centers include an assessment /accountability component.**

![](media/image59.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Centers have multiple tasks/finish early activities where
appropriate.**

![](media/image60.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Evidence of differentiation to meet the needs of a variety of learners
is apparent.**

![](media/image61.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Students work in various groups (individual, partner, team, group,
etc.).**

![](media/image62.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0416666666666665in"}

**Help system for students is evident (center captains, etc.).**

![](media/image63.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Specific location for complete and incomplete student work is evident
(task folders, pocket folders, hanging folders, basket, etc.).**

![](media/image64.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0416666666666665in"}

**Students' behavior follows classroom rules and learner expectations.**

![](media/image65.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0416666666666665in"}

**Student movement (transitions) between centers is organized.**

![](media/image66.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0416666666666665in"}

**Sample of Evaluators' notes from the literacy observation protocols:**

-   Could not determine if students had a "help system;" however,
    students were working collaboratively and assisting each other;

-   Centers are labeled over the tables, task cards were not observed,
    and each student had a center folder;

-   Several center activities help with differentiation;

-   Aid circulates around to each center; and

-   Some groups were off task and loud.

**Chapter 4**

**[Longitudinal Case Study Reports]{.underline}**

**I. Introduction**

The eight longitudinal schools that were observed by the CCLD's Reading
First Evaluation Team during the winter of 2007 were sent follow-up case
study reports after their winter visits. This is the third year in which
these schools have been observed and have received follow-up reports
from the CCLD's Reading First Evaluation Team. These reports included
information based on interviews and the four classrooms observed during
the site visits. Each report included information about the five Reading
First components, grouping, core program information, learning
environment, literacy centers, instruction, and questions and strengths
resulting from the visit. These case study reports from the winter of
2007 longitudinal site visits were compiled and grouped together
according to the feedback given for each area. Using this data,
summaries were completed and themes were noted.

**II. Themes**

**Overall successes based on evidence from the longitudinal case study
feedback reports:**

-   Fifty-two percent of the teachers taught comprehension with
    extensive evidence, and an additional 48% taught with moderate
    evidence during core reading instruction;

-   Eighty-seven percent of the teachers taught fluency with moderate
    evidence during core reading instruction;

-   Fifty-three percent of the teachers taught vocabulary with moderate
    evidence, and an additional 27% taught with extensive evidence;

-   Seventy-five percent of the schools contained "extensive evidence"
    regarding an organized classroom with literacy centers, multiple
    types of reading materials, manipulatives, and different types of
    seating, signs, and charts all relating to the reading instruction;
    and

-   Support and collaboration among the leadership and staff appear to
    be common throughout the longitudinal schools. "There is a high
    level of collaboration among the leaders and teachers to help all
    students progress, providing a focused goal for the entire school."

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the longitudinal case study
feedback reports:**

-   Phonemic Awareness was not observed during 60% of the site visits.
    During the remaining 40% of the visits, there was minimal evidence
    to support phonemic awareness;

-   Vocabulary instruction was not observed during 53% of the site
    visits;

-   Only 3% of the classrooms observed provided "dramatic or readers'
    theater" for students, and 16% of the classrooms observed provided
    both "echo" and" shared" reading for students. These three reading
    practices, along with other types of reading practices, provide a
    variety for students in the classroom during the reading
    instruction; and

-   Questions and concerns such as "How can teachers implement authentic
    assessment to check for student understanding of content presented
    during lessons (i.e. checklist, running records)?" and "During the
    core reading instruction, how can teachers continue to promote a
    variety of grouping structures in the classroom?" are posed in the
    case study reports.

**III. Evidence**

The following statements, graphs, and charts, present the evidence from
the classroom observation protocols utilized during the longitudinal
site visits.

**Grades observed:**

Kindergarten, first, second, and third grades were observed at each of
the longitudinal schools.

**Core program observed:**

The core programs were observed during the winter site visit at each of
the longitudinal schools.

**Five reading components observed:**

The Evaluation Team reported to each school how often they observed the
five RF components in each of the four classrooms during their
forty-five minute observation. This forty-five minute observation was
part of the teacher's ninety minutes of core reading instruction. If the
component was observed, the team member noted whether there was minimal,
moderate, or extensive evidence in that classroom for that reading
component. Out of the eight schools represented, the following pie
charts disclose the percentages for each component and the evidence
supporting the observation.

**Phonemic Awareness:**

This pie chart represents *thirteen* classrooms out of thirty-two
classrooms where phonemic awareness was observed and the rating given by
the Evaluation Team for those classrooms:

![](media/image67.wmf){width="4.008333333333334in"
height="2.0458333333333334in"}

**Phonics:**

This pie chart represents *sixteen* out of thirty-two classrooms where
phonics was observed and the rating given by the Evaluation Team for
those classrooms:

![](media/image68.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Vocabulary:**

This pie chart represents *fifteen* out of thirty-two classrooms where
vocabulary was observed and the rating given by the Evaluation Team for
those classrooms:

![](media/image69.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Fluency:**

This pie chart represents *twenty-four* out of thirty-two classrooms
where fluency was observed and the rating given by the Evaluation Team
for those classrooms:

![](media/image70.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Comprehension:**

This pie chart represents *thirty-one* out of thirty-two classrooms
where comprehension was observed and the rating given by the Evaluation
Team for those classrooms:

![](media/image71.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Learning environment:**

The chart below represents all eight longitudinal schools and the
findings submitted to the schools from the Evaluation Team regarding the
"learning environment" in their classrooms. Seventy-five percent of the
schools contained "extensive evidence" regarding an organized classroom
with literacy centers, multiple types of reading materials,
manipulatives, and different types of seating, signs, and charts all
relating to the reading instruction.

![](media/image72.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Mode of Delivery:**

The chart below represents all eight longitudinal schools and the
findings submitted to the schools from the Evaluation Team regarding the
"mode of delivery" during reading instruction. Seventy-five percent of
the schools contained "moderate evidence" regarding explicit and
systematic instruction with clear objectives and connections made to
students' prior and current knowledge.

![](media/image73.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Literacy Centers:**

The chart below represents all eight longitudinal schools and the
findings submitted to the schools from the Evaluation Team regarding the
"literacy centers" in their classrooms. Literacy centers were not
observed in two schools during the site visits. Fifty percent of the
remaining schools had "moderate evidence" to support engaging centers
that promoted differentiated activities, clear objectives, task cards,
and opportunities for student response-methods during core instruction.

![](media/image74.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Student Engagement:**

The chart below represents all eight longitudinal schools and the
findings submitted to the schools from the Evaluation Team regarding
"student engagement" during reading instruction. Sixty-two and one-half
percent of the schools received "extensive evidence" for their feedback
in regard to students being highly engaged during the reading
instruction.

![](media/image75.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Student-Teacher Interactions:**

The chart below represents all eight longitudinal schools and the
findings submitted to the schools from the Evaluation Team regarding
"student-teacher interactions" during reading instruction. Sixty-two and
one-half percent of the schools received "moderate evidence" for their
feedback in regard to student-teacher interactions being open-ended,
student focused, and providing meaningful and specific instructional
feedback.

![](media/image76.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Higher-Level Questioning:**

The chart below represents all eight longitudinal schools and the
findings submitted to the schools from the Evaluation Team regarding the
"higher-level questioning" during reading instruction. Fifty percent of
the schools received "extensive evidence," and 50% of the schools
received "moderate evidence" in regard to the teacher providing multiple
levels of questions requiring students to expand their thinking and
learning.

![](media/image77.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="2.0520833333333335in"}

**Classroom Reading Practices:**

The chart below represents all eight longitudinal schools and the
findings submitted to the schools from the Evaluation Team regarding the
thirty-two classrooms and how often these specific reading practices
were observed.

Eighty-one percent of the classrooms observed provided "independent"
reading for students. However, only 3% of the classrooms observed
provided "dramatic or readers' theater" for students.

**Number of Observations of Reading Practices**

![](media/image78.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="5.583333333333333in"}

**Whole Group and Individual Student Reading Practices:**

The following boxes include additional information regarding the reading
practices observed. The Evaluation Team noted the minutes read for the
whole group and minutes read for an individual student throughout the
forty-five minute reading lesson and then provided a range of time for
the case study report. These findings are the total ranges for all eight
longitudinal schools.

**Independent** Whole group: students reading a range of 1-15 minutes

Individual: students reading a range of 1-45 + minutes

**Shared** Whole group: students reading a range of 1-20 minutes

Individual: students reading a range of 1-15 minutes

**Partner/Paired** Whole group: students reading a range of 1-10 minutes

Individual: students reading a range of 1-15 minutes

**Choral** Whole group: students reading a range of 1-10 minutes

Individual: students reading a range of 1-15 minutes

**Guided** Whole group: students reading a range of 1-30 minutes

Individual: students reading a range of 1-20 minutes

**Dramatic** Whole group: students reading a range of 1-5 minutes

**Readers' Theater** Individual: students reading a range of 0 minutes

**Echo** Whole group: students reading a range of 1-10 minutes

Individual: students reading a range of 0 minutes

**Read Alouds** Whole group: students reading a range of 1-20 minutes

Individual: students reading a range of 1-5 minutes

**Tape Assisted** Whole group: students reading a range of 1-10 minutes

**Reading** Individual: students reading a range of 1-20 minutes

**Strengths Submitted**

The Evaluation Team reported several strengths to each of the eight
longitudinal schools. Below is the complete list of strengths included
in each case study report, grouped according to subject matter.

**Strengths in Leadership**

-   The principal and reading coach should be recognized for their
    support to the staff through PD, classroom visits, organizing summer
    reading programs, etc;

-   The school coach is very aware of the reading needs of students and
    actively involved in assisting teachers as needed;

-   Strong administrative support especially from the district coach;

-   School coach and principal provide positive support and extensive
    assistance with RF implementation;

-   Collaboration among teachers and the intervention specialist are
    common and continuous;

-   School celebrates student reading successes and displays student
    work in classrooms and hallways;

-   Kentucky Department of Education providing extensive support to
    school and additional funding to implement a summer school program;

-   Learning environment at the school is literacy focused with student
    work displayed and well stocked, organized classroom libraries;

-   There is a high level of collaboration among the leaders and
    teachers to help all students progress, providing a focused goal for
    the entire school;

-   School coach and principal providing positive support and extensive
    assistance with Reading First implementation;

-   School coach and principal spend extensive time observing and
    conferencing with teachers in regard to effective reading
    instruction;

-   School coach displayed data visually from grades P1 to P4 to
    determine needs and identify areas of growth;

-   Principal supportive of the Reading First (RF) initiative and has
    observed teachers applying knowledge and skills acquired during
    professional development in their classrooms; and

-   Principal shared that RF has shown teachers how to plan instruction
    with specific data.

**Strengths in Teachers**

-   Teachers who were observed made connections between assessments and
    instruction;

-   Teachers appear focused on designing and delivering explicit
    instruction. Objectives were clearly stated, strategies explained,
    and summaries provided;

-   Teachers use the color-coded data boards to track student progress;

-   Teachers demonstrate a positive attitude for RF and are motivated to
    analyze data and design instruction that will move students forward;

-   Teachers are using data to plan for instruction and testing students
    at the intensive and strategic level every three weeks;

-   Most of the teachers were summarizing "how" and "why" the lesson
    concept applies to reading;

-   Teachers communicated different reading strategies and how students
    could use them during reading (i.e. fix-up strategy);

-   During a pre-reading discussion, a teacher modeled her process of
    developing a prediction for students (thinking aloud);

-   One teacher provided a variety of reading opportunities for students
    during whole group;

-   Teachers and students used multiple resources and literacy materials
    during instruction;

-   During instruction, teachers provided students with summaries of
    "how" and "why" concepts applied to reading (i.e. "We use comparing
    and contrasting to help us better understand the story");

-   Several teachers provided a variety of learning structures during
    large group (i.e. After the teacher reviewed first, next, and last
    concept, she had students read to a partner and then re-tell story
    using the terms first, next, and last);

-   Teachers provided positive social and emotional support to the
    students;

-   A teacher provided time for students to share their responses and
    ideas with students sitting next to them; and

-   Before reading a story, a teacher allowed students ample time to
    preview text to interpret meaning from text illustrations. Through
    their interpretations, students were to determine the author's point
    of view.

**Strengths for Paraprofessionals**

-   Good classroom management. Paraprofessionals monitor and manage
    centers so that the teacher is not interrupted during small group
    instruction;

-   Professional development is on-going. The school coach stated that
    the professional growth of teachers improves each year; and

-   Every classroom has a paraprofessional to assist during the core
    literacy center time.

**Strengths in Classrooms**

-   Learning environments were equipped with extensive literacy
    materials and organized for small and large group instruction;

-   Observations revealed a variety of reading practices being
    implemented in the classrooms, especially in third grade;

-   A variety of student reading practices observed especially in second
    and third grades;

-   Literacy centers had clear objectives, provided for active
    engagement, focused on the five reading components and allowed for a
    variety of grouping structures;

-   Picture representations are displayed along side vocabulary words in
    the classroom;

-   Literacy centers in two classrooms included hands-on activities
    related to the five components and included student accountability;

-   Three classrooms displayed the five components with objectives and
    skills to be addressed for the day and/or week. The posted
    objectives were included in the lesson delivery;

-   Explicit and systematic instruction was delivered in all classrooms;

-   Classroom learning environments had well defined areas for large and
    small group instruction;

-   Literacy centers were well connected to the five reading components
    and the core program, provided clear task objectives, supplied
    meaningful, hands-on activities, and allowed for a variety of
    grouping structures (i.e. individual and partner/pair);

-   Most classrooms had smooth transitions from one learning event to
    the next;

-   Learning environments were well-organized and print rich with a
    variety of literacy materials and books;

-   There was evidence of literacy centers being implemented with
    specific tasks related to the five components of reading; and

-   The observations revealed that a variety of grouping structures were
    being implemented in all classrooms.

**Strengths of Students**

-   Students exhibited knowledge of reading skills and strategies (i.e.
    steps to clarification, tickle me words);

-   Students are making gains; there are fewer students reading below
    grade level. Approximately 25% of the strategic and intensive
    students have moved to benchmark status this school year;

-   Students are ability grouped on grade level instead of across grade
    levels;

-   Students transitioned smoothly from large group to small group to
    literacy centers;

-   During instruction, students were engaged and student-teacher
    interaction was at the extensive level;

-   Comprehension was at the extensive level for P1-P4;

-   Students are being placed in groups based on their reading needs;

-   During a small group lesson, students were given the opportunity to
    cooperate and discuss a story's sequence before individually
    completing a sequencing assignment;

-   Students were highly engaged throughout the learning process;

-   Students were given the opportunity to respond to higher level
    questions; and

-   Students transitioned smoothly from one learning event to the next.

**Questions Submitted**

The Evaluation Team reported several questions to each of the eight
longitudinal schools. Below is the complete list of the questions
included in each case study report according to subject matter.

**Questions for Leadership**

-   Are plans in place to sustain the positive changes that have
    occurred as a result of RF? In particular, will the school try to
    continue with the services of a reading coach after the grant is
    over?

-   Are all members of the leadership team (principal, school coach, and
    district coach) involved and doing their part in making sure
    teachers are at the right point in the implementation of RF?

-   How will intervention instruction be affected by cutbacks in
    personnel? (There is concern that the classroom teacher would be
    responsible for delivering intervention instruction in addition to
    the core and supplemental programs.)

-   How can the school coach assist teachers in implementing more
    shared, partner/paired, and dramatic/readers' theater reading?

**Questions for Teachers**

-   How can teachers continue to create literacy centers that are
    integrated with the core program and the five reading components,
    and also differentiate to meet students' needs?

-   Are the five components being addressed on a daily basis?

-   How can teachers continue to develop the skill of teaching fluency,
    an area where students are struggling? Are there ways other than
    round-robin reading for students to practice fluency during small
    group instruction?

-   Are the five components of reading being addressed? (There was no
    phonics instruction observed.)

-   Do teachers explicitly explain (what, when, how , why) the five
    components of reading, provide summaries at the end of lessons, and
    allot time for reflection?

-   How can teachers continue to implement systematic and explicit
    instruction through the "I do it, we do it, you do it" strategy?

-   During lesson delivery, do teachers explicitly discuss how reading
    strategies apply to reading practices?

-   How can teachers authentically assess students during the learning
    process?

-   How can teachers implement authentic assessment to check for student
    understanding of content presented during lessons (i.e. checklist,
    running records)?

-   How can teachers assess students authentically during the learning
    process (i.e. checklists, running records)?

-   Are there alternative methods for teaching specific skills or ways
    in which teachers are able to provide a variety of methods for
    teaching skills and concepts as opposed to teaching primarily
    through workbooks?

-   Do teachers provide a variety of opportunities for students to read?

-   Teachers led a discussion using higher order questions, but are
    students given opportunities to generate and share their own
    questions regarding text?

-   How can teachers continue to ask higher-level questions and provide
    high level of instructional feedback?

-   Although there was evidence of higher-level questioning, how can
    teachers provide students with the opportunity to elaborate and
    expand on their responses (i.e. move beyond and extend on topic)?

-   When completing a lesson, do teachers allow times for students to
    reflect or provide a summary of lesson objectives?

-   How can teachers provide follow-up lesson activities to understand
    students' comprehension level?

-   How can teachers integrate summaries of "how" and "why" the lesson
    concept applies to reading?

**Questions for Paraprofessionals**

-   A classroom assistant worked independently during small group time.
    Is she available to work with a small group for one or two group
    rotations?

**Questions for Classrooms**

-   During the core, how can teachers continue to promote a variety of
    grouping structures in the classroom?

-   Are the literacy centers engaging, and do they differentiate the
    needs for ALL students?

-   What kinds of assessment and accountability components can be
    embedded with all literacy center activities?

-   How can more shared reading and dramatic/readers' theater be
    implemented in the classroom?

-   How can more meaningful and a variety of reading practices (i.e.
    partner/paired, readers' theater, echo) be encouraged during the
    core reading time?

**Questions for Students**

-   Are students practicing the different ways of reading during core?
    (In classrooms observed, student reading ranged from one to ten
    minutes during the forty-five minute observation.)

-   Are students at all levels provided with meaningful literacy
    activities during center time?

**Questions for Programs**

-   Is the supplemental program beneficial for those students
    participating in this tier program? Is it a good use of students'
    time? How is their progress measured and monitored with this
    program?

-   Are there options that would make the intervention program more
    effective?

**Chapter 5**

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

**I. Introduction**

Members of the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development (CCLD)
Reading First Evaluation Team interviewed school coaches at the eight
longitudinal case study schools in the winter of 2007. A protocol of 20
questions was used and the responses were compiled, summarized, and
analyzed for themes and areas of concern. Included in this section are
the individual questions presented to school coaches, graphs and
summaries of their responses, and themes or trends that were noted.

####### **II. Themes**

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

-   Teacher-centered duties were the priority for school coaches; the
    top three were observing in classrooms, conferencing with teachers,
    and modeling lessons;

-   Half of the school coaches are spending at least 60 minutes per day
    observing in classrooms, and one third are spending 40-60 minutes a
    day conferencing with teachers;

-   Intensive students are progress monitored 2.7 times per month, on
    average; strategic, 1.9 times per month; and

-   School coaches report continued professional growth by their
    teachers (100%), moderate or extensive support from KDE (86%),
    extensive support from their district (75%), and extensive support
    from their principals (57%).

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

-   Twenty-five percent of school coaches reported 31-40% of intensive
    students moving to strategic or benchmark, and the remaining 75% of
    school coaches reported less than 30% of intensive students moved up
    to strategic or benchmark;

-   Fourteen percent of school coaches reported over 51% of strategic
    students moved up to benchmark; 72% reported less that 25% of
    strategic students moved up to benchmark level; and

-   Fifty percent of school coaches report concerns (overall) about P3
    students, and 63% of school coaches report concerns about P4
    students. Concerns primarily related to oversized classrooms and
    regression over the summer.

**III. Evidence**

The following statements, charts, and graphs present the evidence
collected during the school coach interviews for the 2007 longitudinal
site visits.

How would you rank your school coaching duties in order of importance?

School coaches ranked a list of duties from 1 to 7, with 1 being the
most important. On some of the duties, the rankings were consistently
close. (For example, "Completing necessary administrative
tasks"---rankings were between 5 and 7. On others, the range was much
wider; "Providing professional development", had a range of 1-6
rankings.) To illustrate the range of answers, the data is presented in
range, mean, median, and mode on the table below. *The duties are*
*listed from most to* *least important*, based on their mean.

***Range of***

***S***chool Coach Duty Rankings Mean Median Mode

+------------------------------------------+--------+-----+------+----+
| ### Observing in the classroom           | 1-3    | 1.9 | 2    | 1  |
|                                          |        |     |      | ,2 |
+------------------------------------------+--------+-----+------+----+
| Conferencing with teachers               | 1-3    | 2.1 | 2    | 2  |
|                                          |        |     |      | ,3 |
+------------------------------------------+--------+-----+------+----+
| Modeling lessons in the classroom        | 1-5    | 2.2 | 1.5  | 1  |
+------------------------------------------+--------+-----+------+----+
| Providing professional development       | 1-6    | 3.6 | 4    | 4  |
+------------------------------------------+--------+-----+------+----+
| Testing                                  | 4-5    | 4.4 | 4    | 4  |
+------------------------------------------+--------+-----+------+----+
| Attending and chairing Reading First     | 3-7    | 5.7 | 6    | 6  |
| meetings                                 |        |     |      |    |
+------------------------------------------+--------+-----+------+----+
| Completing necessary administrative      | 5-7    | 6.4 | 7    | 7  |
| tasks                                    |        |     |      |    |
+------------------------------------------+--------+-----+------+----+

Do you have an assistant?

  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------
  Yes                               37%

  No                                63%
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

**On an average day, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms
[modeling]{.underline} reading lessons?**

**On an average day, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms
[observing]{.underline}?**

**On an average day, how much of your time is spent
[conferencing]{.underline} with individual teachers?**

The chart below summarizes the responses to the previous three
questions:

**School Coach Daily Activities In Classrooms**

#####  Minutes/day Modeling Observing Conferencing

  --------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------------
  0-20            72%                 25%              25%

  21-40           14%                 12.5%            37.5%

  41-60           14%                 12.5%            37.5%

  60+             0%                  50%              0%
  --------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------------

Are you implementing new changes for Reading First at your school this
year?

All of the school coaches responded "yes" to this question, giving
multiple explanations of these changes. A summary of their responses is
listed below:

-   Refining intervention (38%);

-   Focused and intentional supplemental instruction (25%);

-   More proactive team planning (13%);

-   Focus on scaffolding instruction (13%);

-   Alignment with core content (13%);

-   Focus on re-grouping in literacy block (13%); and

-   Cross grade level groupings (13%).

At this point of implementation, what one major concern do you or the
teachers have regarding Reading First?

What are you doing to address this concern?

School coaches gave different answers to the above questions. Below is a
summary of their responses, *with the concern listed first, and then how
they are addressing it*:

-   Rigid guidelines of the program---we are working with the state
    coach, seeking feedback, asking questions about what we can do;

-   Lack of progress---test scores are not where they should be---we are
    looking at data more closely, working with KDE (conference calls),
    having summer school;

-   My major concern after 2.5 years is a few teachers are still not on
    board. Teachers concern is explicit lesson plans and time
    involved---we are hiring subs so teachers can work on planning;

-   Personnel issues, looking at cutbacks, may not have personnel for
    intervention, and our 2^nd^/3^rd^ grade classes will be over cap
    size---we are considering hiring an interventionist;

-   So much paperwork---yet I love the ideas. Intervention plans are
    lengthy; GRADE analysis and report cards are telling us the same
    thing. We spent hours and hours grouping, yet it turned out to be
    the same way we already had it organized! We have to do it---nothing
    we can do to change the paperwork;

-   Staying on top of intervention, making sure everything is aligned
    and difficult to remain effective constantly. We meet monthly to
    stay on top of things, putting everything into practice at level we
    need it to be. I am trying to teach and model more, and be present
    at planning, and implementing it by modeling. I have a more trusting
    relationship and more problem solving with the teachers;

-   Intensive program is not a fit for our kids---we are looking at
    making an amendment to grant to purchase another Tier III program;
    and

-   Meeting the students' needs in comprehension---we are training on
    how to choose an answer on the test.

How often are you progress-monitoring students/month?

School coaches were to pick from 1-4 times per month for intensive,
strategic, and benchmark students. The table below summarizes their
responses:

Frequency of Progress Monitoring

(Times per Month)

Mean Median Mode

  ---------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
  Intensive        2.7                2                  2

  Strategic        1.9                2                  2

  Benchmark        1                  1                  1
  ---------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------

Approximately, what percentage of intensive students has moved to
strategic or benchmark status this school year?

Approximately, what percentage of strategic students has moved to
benchmark status this school year?

The following table summarizes the responses to both of the above
questions. (For example, looking at the first line, 14% of school
coaches estimated that 0-5% of their students moved from strategic to
benchmark this school year, while none of the school coaches reported
0-5% of their students moved from intensive to strategic/benchmark.)

School Coach Estimates

> \% Of students moving Intensive students moving Strategic students
> moving

Up a level to Strategic or Benchmark to Benchmark

  ------------------ ------------------------- ---------------------------
  0-5                0%                        14%

  6-10               25%                       14%

  11-15              12.5%                     0%

  16-20              12.5%                     30%

  21-25              12.5%                     14%

  26-30              12.5%                     0%

  31-40              25%                       14%

  41-50              0%                        0%

  51+                0%                        14%
  ------------------ ------------------------- ---------------------------

What do you think has been the greatest impact on reducing the number of
students reading below grade level at your school?

School coaches gave multiple answers to this question, which included
the following:

-   Explicit instruction (35%);

-   Core instruction (25%);

-   Intervention instruction (13%);

-   Professional development (13%);

-   Consistence in instruction (13%);

-   Planning to meet individual needs (13%);

-   Flexible groupings (13%);

-   Better communication between all educators (13%);

-   Literacy center groupings (13%); and

-   Leadership (13%).

What assessment, GRADE, DIBELS, or other assessments, provides you with
the most information to plan individual instruction?

The majority of school coaches gave multiple answers to this question,
including:

-   GRADE (75%);

-   DIBELS (63%);

-   Running Records (25%);

-   Unit skills tests (13%);

-   DRA (13%);

-   PASS test (13%); and

-   Phonics skills tests (13%).

What system do you have in place for analyzing data?

The vast majority (88%) of school coaches described more than one system
for analyzing data at their schools. Their responses were:

-   GRADE analysis by type (75%);

-   DIBELS forms (25%);

-   Data analysis as a faculty after school (25%);

-   Data boards (13%);

-   Embedded PD (13%);

-   Team weekly meetings (13%); and

-   Grade level meetings (13%).

In this third year of implementation, do you feel your teachers continue
to grow professionally as a result of Reading First?

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yes

  100%
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Explain:

-   Teachers have/show more leadership skills (25%);

-   Teachers are implementing the strategies (13%);

-   Teachers are using explicit instruction (13%);

-   Teachers are becoming more data driven (13%);

-   Reading First has forced us to have a framework and professional
    development, leading us to improvement (13%);and

-   We have 6 new primary teachers, so we are starting over.

Do your teachers plan in grade level teams or individually?

How Teachers Plan

  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------
  Grade level teams                            63%

  Individually                                 0%

  Both                                         37%
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------

Overall, what grade/s are you most concerned about? Has this changed
since last year?

Areas of Concern for School Coaches

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  P1                                 13%

  P2                                 0%

  P3                                 50%

  P4                                 63%
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

Several school coaches gave more than one grade level as an area of
concern. Their reasons included:

-   Students regressed from second grade level to first in the
    summer---we're having to re-teach a large amount of material; for
    K-1, it is skills oriented, and their application needs to be
    stronger;

-   We have large class sizes and several special needs students;

-   3^rd^ grade is most commonly "stagnant"; and

-   Oversize classrooms have been an issue---I'm focusing on small group
    plans, planning for oral fluency instruction.

How would you rate your support from KDE? ...your district?\...your
principal?

The chart below summarizes school coaches' responses to the last 3
questions of the interview.

> Level of Support KDE District Principal

  --------------------------- ------------- ------------- ----------------
  Minimal                     14%           25%           14%

  Moderate                    43%           0%            29%

  Extensive                   43%           75%           57%
  --------------------------- ------------- ------------- ----------------

**Chapter 6**

[Longitudinal Principal Interviews]{.underline}

I. Introduction

Members of the CCLD Reading First Evaluation Team interviewed school
principals from the eight longitudinal schools in the Winter 2007 (See
Appendix D). Interview notes were compiled and analyzed for themes and
trends. Following is a description of the overall themes, as well as the
questions and responses from the principals' interviews.

### II. Themes

### Overall successes based on evidence from the Year I principal interviews: 

-   Positive teacher attitude;

-   Communication and collaboration among staff;

-   Assessment data driving planning and instruction:

-   Understanding of research-based reading practices;

-   Teachers exhibiting confidence in teaching reading; and

-   Increase in students' test scores.

### Overall concerns based on evidence from Year I principal interviews:

-   Accountability in learning centers;

-   Continue to develop students' comprehension abilities;

-   How to integrate experiences to build background knowledge for
    reading instruction;

-   Time and assistance to schedule everything;

-   Funding literacy coaches at end of grant period;

-   Addressing problem of students with high transient rates;

-   Workloads, teacher stress, scheduling demands and time constraints;
    and

-   Sustainability without funding.

**III. Evidence**

The following statements, charts, and graphs present the evidence
collected during the principal interviews for the 2007 longitudinal site
visits.

> **How many years have you been a Reading First principal?**

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  *One Year*        *Two Years*       *Three Years*     *Four Years*

  1 principal       1 principal       2 principals      4 principals
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

> **How much time do you spend observing in the Reading First classrooms
> per week?**

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  0-20 minutes      21-40 minutes     41-60 minutes     60+ minutes

  1 principal       2 principals      0 principals      5 principals
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

> **How much time do you spend conferencing with teachers about their
> reading instruction per week?**

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  0-20 minutes      21-40 minutes     41-60 minutes     60+ minutes

  1 principal       2 principals      1 principal       4 principals
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

> **How will your school sustain any positive changes that have occurred
> as a result of Reading First?**

-   Funding the literacy coach (3 responses);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Continue intervention and core 90 minute reading program (2
    responses);

-   Summer literacy program (1 response);

-   ESS targets of reading and math (1 response);

-   District support and instructional PD money (1 response);

-   Data analysis, team planning, goal setting, and celebrations (1
    response);

-   Continue using literacy materials (1 response);

-   PD mini-sessions (1 response); and

-   Teachers know how to use data to make instructional changes and how
    to teach reading (1 response).

> **In what specific manner have teachers continued to grow
> professionally during this third year of implementation?**
>
> The principals shared the following comments:

-   3 out of 8 shared assessment helps to drive planning and
    instruction;

-   3 out of 8 shared communication and collaboration exist among staff;

-   3 out of 8 shared positive attitude about attending and
    participating in PD;

-   2 out of 8 shared teachers are committed and observing student
    progress;

-   1 out of 8 shared that staff knows reading component processes;

-   1 out of 8 shared teachers are developing next steps and strategies
    on their own plus connection to theory;

-   1 out of 8 shared teachers are applying what they have learned;

-   1 out of 8 shared evidence of modeling and coaching other teachers;

-   1 out of 8 shared accountability in regard to reading achievement;

-   1 out of 8 shared developing literacy centers; and

-   1 out of 8 shared the occurrence of monthly roundtable discussions.

> **Have you observed changes in teacher attitudes during year 3 of
> implementation?**
>
> All eight principals stated that they have observed change in
> teachers' attitudes. In addition, they commented that teachers are
> exhibiting confidence in teaching reading, demonstrating willingness
> to be involved, observing positive outcomes of the RF process, feeling
> more comfortable with core reading program, and showing more
> determination to increase test scores.
>
> **Overall, which one of the five components do you feel the teachers
> implement at the highest level?**
>
> Three principals selected phonemic awareness, and two principals
> selected fluency at the highest implementation level. Additionally,
> one principal selected comprehension, one principal selected phonics,
> and
>
> one principal selected vocabulary.
>
> **Which of the five components do you feel the teachers implement at
> the lowest level?**
>
> This question provided a variety of responses from the seven
> principals who responded. Three principals shared that comprehension
> was at the lowest level, and one principal shared vocabulary *and*
> comprehension were both at the lowest level, and another principal
> shared that that upper primary (grades 2-3) needs to work on
> comprehension and lower primary (grades K-1) needs to work on phonemic
> awareness. One principal responded that phonemic awareness was
> implemented at the lowest level at their school, and the final
> principal shared that fluency was implemented at the lowest level at
> their school.
>
> **What areas of reading continue to need the most attention at your
> school?**
>
> Four principals stated that comprehension needed the most attention at
> their schools, while three stated vocabulary, and two stated fluency.
> One principal shared the need for more general background knowledge
> for economically disadvantaged students.
>
> **What one major success has your school celebrated during the third
> year of Reading First implementation?**
>
> The following are successes shared by the principals grouped according
> to the topics shared:

-   Increase in GRADE scores as a result of developing an action plan
    and funds from KDE;

-   Celebration at the kindergarten level with the least number of
    intensive students;

-   Highest kindergarten scores in the district;

-   Sustaining growth in reading achievement at the third grade level;

-   Intervention is down; and

-   Increase in all test scores;

> Note: One principal shared that he is pleased with progress but has
> not celebrated anything this year.
>
> **The following is a prompt that the principals were asked to respond
> to and their quotes:**
>
> **Principals shared that RF is a program that ................**

+----------------+------------------+-----------+---------------------+
| ...helps in    | ...enabled our   | ...builds | ...makes it         |
| many ways.     | school to be     | fluent    | possible for all    |
|                | focused          | readers.  | students to be      |
|                |                  |           | fluent.             |
|                | and practice in  |           |                     |
|                | meeting needs of |           |                     |
|                | our students.    |           |                     |
+----------------+------------------+-----------+---------------------+
| ...makes a     | ...ensures a     | ...has    | ...provides         |
| huge impact on | structure to     | benefited | structure and       |
| each and every | ensure student   | students. | stability that      |
| student.       | progress in      |           | shows us how to     |
|                | reading.         |           | teach everything.   |
+----------------+------------------+-----------+---------------------+

> **All principals shared that children in the RF program would be
> proficient readers and be taught based on their individual needs.**
>
> **Principals shared that RF has not addressed the following:**

-   Accountability in learning centers;

-   How to integrate experiences to build background knowledge for
    reading instruction;

-   Time and assistance to schedule everything;

-   Funding literacy coaches at end of grant period;

-   Addressing problem of students with high transient rates;

-   Workloads, teacher stress, scheduling demands, and time constraints;
    and

-   Sustainability without the money.

> **The following are prompts the principals were asked to respond to
> and their condensed quotes:**
>
> **Due to RF teachers........**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  ...are very knowledgeable of        ...know how to meet the needs of
  individual student needs and        their kids. Core program allowed a
  strategies to address those.        structure that meets needs for
                                      school wide reform.

  ...have grown professionally and    ...other teachers are being more
  are able to properly and accurately influence to have training and
  identify students at-risk for       knowledge on reading instruction.
  reading difficulties. Teachers have 
  in place successful strategies for  
  preventing reading difficulties in  
  young children.                     

  ...now aware of what to teach in    ...students have become more fluent
  regard to reading.                  readers.

  ...see the progress of students to  ...are consistent and effective.
  do things better.                   
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

> **RF has changed...**

  -------------- -------------- ------------------------ -----------------
  ...teacher     ...quality of  ...level of              ...being able to
  attitudes.     instruction.   expectations.            access specific
                                                         data.

  ...way reading ...our level   ...team-effort where     ...how students
  is taught.     of focus.      everyone is working      learn to read.
                                together.                
  -------------- -------------- ------------------------ -----------------

**Chapter 7**

**[Longitudinal Teacher Questionnaire]{.underline}**

**I. Introduction**

During the winter of 2007, the CCLD asked school coaches at each of the
eight longitudinal case study schools to distribute questionnaires (See
Appendix E) to eight teachers. Of the 50 questionnaires returned, 49
were completed by female teachers and one by a male teacher. All primary
grade levels were represented by grades K-3 returning 15, 14, 12, and 10
questionnaires respectively. The majority of responding teachers (78%)
indicated 0-9 years of teaching experience, with 22% of respondents
indicating 10-17 years or more of teaching experience. This chapter
contains the questions teachers were asked and a summary of their
responses.

**II. Themes**

**Overall strengths based on evidence from teacher questionnaires:**

-   Ninety-eight percent of teachers like their core reading program;

-   Eighty-four percent of teachers feel their program connects to other
    content areas within the curriculum;

-   Eighty-eight percent of teachers think literacy centers are
    beneficial for students;

-   Ninety-eight percent of teachers require students to read at home;

-   Seventy-six percent of teachers tell their students about books they
    read; and

-   Teachers in all grades, K-3, indicated a variety of strategy
    instruction.

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

-   Thirty-four percent of teachers indicate activities addressing the
    five components as an area for improvement with their literacy
    centers;

-   Twenty percent of teachers indicate a need to improve the types of
    activities offered in a center; and

-   Teachers (24%) indicate a need for ideas to improve literacy centers
    in their classrooms. They also indicated time to plan (20%) and
    professional development (14%) as resources to help improve literacy
    center development.

**III. Evidence**

The following statements, charts, and graphs present the evidence
collected from the teacher questionnaires during the 2007 longitudinal
site visits.

**Core Reading Program**

The majority of teachers (98%) said they like their school's core
reading program. Ninety-two percent of teachers said they also like the
program's stories.

**Does your core program connect to other content areas?**

Sixteen percent of teachers find their programs **always** integrate
other content areas within its curriculum, whereas 84% find their
programs **sometimes** connect to other content areas.

**How would you rate the overall comprehensiveness of your core reading
program? (Minimal, Moderate, or Extensive)**

The following chart shows teachers' rating their core programs'
comprehensiveness.

![](media/image79.wmf){width="4.020833333333333in"
height="2.6666666666666665in"}

The three genres appearing most frequently in schools' core reading
programs include fantasy stories or fairytales, animal stories, and
expository text.

![](media/image80.wmf){width="4.59375in" height="2.7708333333333335in"}

**Literacy Centers**

The majority of teachers (88%) answered "yes" when asked if literacy
centers are beneficial for students. Eighty-six percent of teachers plan
for students to work in literacy centers five days a week. Twelve
percent have centers four days a week, while two percent have centers
only three days per week. Teachers indicated a variety of intervals for
changing center activities. These intervals are indicated in the
following chart:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **How often do you change center    
  activities?**                       

  Once a month                        10%

  Twice a month                       22%

  Twice a week                        4%

  Once a week                         56%

  Daily                               4%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Only twenty-two percent of teachers rated their literacy centers as
having an extensive level of quality. The majority (78%) rated center
quality as moderate, and 5% rated their centers with minimal quality.

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Center Quality Ratings**          

  Minimal                             5%

  Moderate                            78%

  Extensive                           22%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Forty-six percent of teachers spend between 0 and 2 hours a week
planning center activities. Thirty-eight percent reported spending 3 to
4 hours per week. Teachers' planning time for centers is included in the
chart below.

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Literacy Center Planning Per Week** 

  0-2 hours                             46%

  3-4 hours                             38%

  5-6 hours                             6%

  7-8 hours                             6%

  8+ hours                              4%
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

As indicated by teacher responses, creating literacy center activities
is time consuming. Thirty-five percent of teachers create their own
center activities. Many teachers (63%) use commercially produced centers
in addition to creating their own activities. Two percent of teachers
use only commercially produced activities in their centers.

**What area of improvement would you identify for your literacy
centers?**

Teachers identified six main areas for center improvement. This chart
exhibits these areas with a list of examples following the chart.

![](media/image81.wmf)

  --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
  **Area**              **Examples**

  **Management**        Organization, Space, Management

  **Activities**        More hands-on activities, Activities to connect to
                        curriculum, Activities to reinforce skills, More
                        challenging activities, Activities for low voice
                        levels

  **Differentiation**   Differentiated activities, Provide more choices for
                        students, Group students according to need

  **Components**        More comprehension activities, Fluency activities,
                        Vocabulary activities

  **Accountability**    Student accountability

  **Materials**         Need for additional materials
  --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

**What resource do you need to help you successfully develop and
implement literacy centers in your classroom?**

Teachers identified seven areas which would help them develop and
implement literacy centers. This chart exhibits these areas, and a list
of examples follows the chart.

![](media/image82.wmf){width="4.58125in" height="3.3625in"}

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  **Resource**       **Example**

  **Time to plan**   Time to work with colleagues to develop, Time to
                     make centers

  **More Ideas**     Resource books with center ideas, Activities to
                     correlate with core program, Fluency activities,
                     Phonemic awareness activities, Phonics activities

  **More Materials** Computers, Manipulatives, Leveled books, Computer
                     software

  **Additional       Instructional assistant during centers
  Person**           

  **Professional     PD on center development, Modeling PD, Observe
  Development**      successful teachers' centers, Make and Take workshop

  **Space**          Space to organize centers

  **Money**          Additional money for items without purchase orders
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

**Reading Instruction**

The most frequently used grouping for reading instruction according to
teachers is small group instruction (52%). Whole group is rated second
in frequency (21%) with the same percentage of teachers ranking it first
(21%). Partner/paired groups are third (48%), whereas working with
individuals was ranked third in frequency (22%). Sixteen percent of
teachers said they use dramatic reading as the third most frequent
method for reading practice. The following chart indicates the
percentage of teachers and their top three rankings for reading
practices:

![](media/image83.wmf){width="5.423611111111111in" height="3.74375in"}

**What do you feel is an important skill/strategy you have taught your
students in order to make them better readers?**

Many of the teachers' responses indicated comprehension and decoding
strategies important to help their students to become better readers.
The following table includes examples of the skills and strategies
listed by teachers based on grade level.

  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
  **Grade Level**     **Skills and Strategies**

  **Kindergarten**    Blending and segmenting sounds, Recognizing sight
                      words, Phonics, Phonemic awareness, Visualizing,
                      Use of picture clues, Retelling, Listening

  **First Grade**     Decoding strategies, Chunking, Monitoring,
                      Questioning, Rereading, Looking for details,
                      Vocabulary, Making predictions, Blending, How to
                      use strategies

  **Second Grade**    Making inferences, Predicting, Confirming
                      predictions, Rereading, Decoding skills, Fluency,
                      Fix-up Strategies, Story elements, Questioning,
                      Applying reading to real world

  **Third Grade**     Monitoring, Chunking, Making connections and
                      inferences, Questioning, Summarizing, Using graphic
                      organizers, Decoding, Fluency, Clarifying
  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

**What do you feel is a skill/strategy students have difficulty applying
to their reading practice?**

Comprehension skills and strategies were indicated most often by
teachers as difficult for students to apply to their reading practice.
The following table includes examples listed by teachers based on grade
level.

  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
  **Grade Level**     **Difficult Skills and Strategies**

  **Kindergarten**    Ending sounds, Prosody, Retelling, Summarizing,
                      Alphabetic recognition, Different letter sounds,
                      Visualizing

  **First Grade**     Reading for meaning, Making inferences, Retelling,
                      Summarizing, Decoding strategies, Applying the
                      skills, Drawing conclusions

  **Second Grade**    Cause/Effect, Questioning, Making inferences,
                      Clarifying, Summarizing, Rereading, Retelling,
                      Decoding strategies, Understanding author's purpose

  **Third Grade**     Rereading, Making inferences, Questioning,
                      Visualizing, Prosody, Monitoring, Phonics
  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

**Reading at Home**

The responses to the following questions are summarized below.

**Do you require students to read at home?**

**Do you tell your students about books you have read regularly?**

**Do you have time to read at home during the week?**

**If you have a chance to read, which type of book would you likely
read?**

Ninety-eight percent of teachers said they require students to read at
home, while 76% said they have time to read at home during the week.
Seventy percent of teachers said they tell students about the books they
read on a regular basis.

Although 76% of teachers said they have time to read at home, only 18%
indicated reading as an after-school activity. Seventy-six percent of
teachers named work related activities such as grading papers as an
after-school activity. The following chart indicates the variety of
reading materials teachers choose to read at home.

![](media/image84.wmf){width="5.0in" height="3.2666666666666666in"}

**Chapter 8**

**[Longitudinal Schools GRADE Assessment Data]{.underline}**

**I. Introduction**

The Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) is a
non-negotiable component of Kentucky Reading First. It is a scientific
research-based, norm-referenced, group administered assessment of
reading for pre-kindergarten to young adult learners. Trained Reading
Coaches and or classroom teachers administer the GRADE K-3. GRADE
informs teachers about what skills students have and what skills they
need to be taught. It is also a useful tool for following progress and
monitoring growth. Analysis of the GRADE assessments from Year I to Year
III reveals the following themes and evidence:

**II. Themes**

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

-   Overall Spring 2007 scores show an increase in percentage proficient
    scores from Spring 2005 (see Table 3);

-   In the Spring 2007, all schools made gains in percentage proficient
    scores for grade P3 from Spring 2005 (see Table 3);

-   Longitudinal scores indicate that five out of eight schools showed
    growth from Spring 2005 to Spring 2007 in grades P1 to P3 (see Graph
    6);

-   Longitudinal scores indicate four out of eight schools showed growth
    from Spring 2005 to Spring 2007 in grades P2 to P4 (see Graph 7);
    and

-   Five out of the eight schools showed an increase in percentage
    proficient scores for grades P1, P2, and P4.

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

-   Need for all grade levels at every school to make gains on
    percentage proficient scores.

**III. Evidence**

The following charts and graphs present the evidence for the GRADE
assessment data for the longitudinal schools.

**Chart 1**

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **GRADE** | **Spring  |           |           |           |           |
|           | 2005**    |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | **P       |           |           |           |           |
|           | ercentage |           |           |           |           |
|           | of        |           |           |           |           |
|           | S         |           |           |           |           |
|           | tudents** |           |           |           |           |
|           |           |           |           |           |           |
|           | **Pro     |           |           |           |           |
|           | ficient** |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| *         | **P1**    | **P2**    | **P3**    | **P4**    | **        |
| *School** |           |           |           |           | Overall** |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 1         | 68.4      | 52.2      | 60.0      | 45.9      | 65.6      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2         | 68.3      | 52.0      | 68.0      | 47.9      | 64.4      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 3         | 53.6      | 81.8      | 69.2      | 61.1      | 71.1      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 4         | 36.7      | 52.4      | 43.3      | 32.2      | 45.5      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 5         | 64.1      | 72.1      | 59.3      | 46.4      | 65.6      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 6         | 80.0      | 81.8      | 59.6      | 60.4      | 79.9      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7         | 87.3      | 60.3      | 49.2      | 51.9      | 67.5      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 8         | 37.0      | 54.4      | 38.3      | 28.7      | 44.1      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**Chart 2**

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **GRADE** | **Spring  |           |           |           |           |
|           | 2006**    |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | **P       |           |           |           |           |
|           | ercentage |           |           |           |           |
|           | of        |           |           |           |           |
|           | S         |           |           |           |           |
|           | tudents** |           |           |           |           |
|           |           |           |           |           |           |
|           | **Pro     |           |           |           |           |
|           | ficient** |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| *         | **P1**    | **P2**    | **P3**    | **P4**    | **        |
| *School** |           |           |           |           | Overall** |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 1         | 67.9      | 65.6      | 77.8      | 50.0      | 57.6      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2         | 66.7      | 65.5      | 56.8      | 67.3      | 59.6      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 3         | 73.0      | 78.6      | 60.0      | 72.7      | 65.2      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 4         | 55.9      | 50.0      | 45.0      | 25.0      | 41.3      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 5         | 72.2      | 69.5      | 64.6      | 55.8      | 61.1      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 6         | 83.7      | 85.4      | 82.9      | 67.4      | 69.4      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7         | 82.5      | 78.4      | 62.7      | 46.3      | 62.5      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 8         | 49.4      | 57.3      | 35.7      | 34.5      | 39.1      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**Chart 3**

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **GRADE** | **Spring  |           |           |           |           |
|           | 2007**    |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | **P       |           |           |           |           |
|           | ercentage |           |           |           |           |
|           | of        |           |           |           |           |
|           | S         |           |           |           |           |
|           | tudents** |           |           |           |           |
|           |           |           |           |           |           |
|           | **Pro     |           |           |           |           |
|           | ficient** |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| *         | **P1**    | **P2**    | **P3**    | **P4**    | **        |
| *School** |           |           |           |           | Overall** |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 1         | 78.3      | 70.7      | 80.2      | 44.0      | 69.3      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2         | 63.2      | 76.9      | 74.5      | 63.6      | 70.1      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 3         | 83.3      | 88.6      | 71.0      | 82.1      | 81.5      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 4         | 61.8      | 76.1      | 51.2      | 27.0      | 55.9      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 5         | 86.2      | 86.7      | 82.9      | 71.9      | 81.4      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 6         | 84.1      | 71.4      | 94.9      | 68.6      | 80.0      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7         | 91.1      | 79.0      | 74.4      | 63.6      | 77.1      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 8         | 73.9      | 58.3      | 54.3      | 31.0      | 54.8      |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**Graph 1**

![](media/image85.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="3.941666666666667in"}

**Graph 2**

![](media/image86.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="3.941666666666667in"}

**Graph 3**

![](media/image87.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="3.941666666666667in"}

**Graph 4**

![](media/image88.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="3.941666666666667in"}

**Graph 5**

![](media/image89.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="3.941666666666667in"}

**Graph 6**

![](media/image90.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="3.941666666666667in"}

**Graph 7**

![](media/image91.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="3.941666666666667in"}

**Chapter 9**

**[Longitudinal Schools DIBELS Assessment Data]{.underline}**

**I. Introduction**

Dynamic Indicators of Basic early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) serves as a
screening, progress monitoring, and outcome assessment. It serves as a
tool for assessing phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. The focus
of DIBELS is to assess these reading components at different grade
levels and times in the school year. The following themes and evidence
of the eight longitudinal schools present the DIBELS assessment from
Year I to Year III.

**II. Themes**

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

-   For both Spring 2006 and Spring 2007 seven out of eight schools had
    overall scores with a majority of students proficient at 65% or
    above;

-   In four out of eight schools, P3 students showed improvement in
    percentage scores;

-   For Spring 2007, P1 students showed the highest percentage
    proficient scores at 72% and above; and

-   P3 students show the most growth on percentage proficient scores
    than any other grade levels (see Graph 4).

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

-   Longitudinal scores indicate that only one out of the eight schools
    showed growth from Spring 2005 to Spring 2007 in grades P2 to P4
    (see Graph 7); and

-   Longitudinal scores indicate only three out of the eight schools'
    percentage scores showed growth from Spring 2005 to Spring 2007 in
    grades P1 to P3 (see Graph 6);

**III. Evidence**

The following charts and graphs present the evidence for the GRADE
assessment data for the longitudinal schools.

**Chart 1**

+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| *         | **Spring |          |          |          |           |
| *DIBELS** | 2005**   |          |          |          |           |
|           |          |          |          |          |           |
|           | **Pe     |          |          |          |           |
|           | rcentage |          |          |          |           |
|           | of       |          |          |          |           |
|           | Students |          |          |          |           |
|           | Prof     |          |          |          |           |
|           | icient** |          |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| *         | **P1**   | **P2**   | **P3**   | **P4**   | **        |
| *School** |          |          |          |          | Overall** |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 1         | 76.7     | 63.3     | 55.2     | 44.0     | 60.8      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 2         | 88.3     | 52.0     | 53.1     | 52.1     | 62.8      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 3         | 64.3     | 91.7     | 61.5     | 47.2     | 64.0      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 4         | 82.4     | 25.4     | 30.8     | 38.5     | 44.7      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 5         | 68.8     | 57.0     | 52.5     | 55.1     | 58.3      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 6         | 82.2     | 67.6     | 47.9     | 42.9     | 59.1      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 7         | 95.7     | 56.5     | 54.8     | 38.2     | 61.1      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 8         | 47.8     | 52.2     | 43.6     | 26.4     | 41.7      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+

**Chart 2**

+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| *         | **Spring |          |          |          |           |
| *DIBELS** | 2006**   |          |          |          |           |
|           |          |          |          |          |           |
|           | **Pe     |          |          |          |           |
|           | rcentage |          |          |          |           |
|           | of       |          |          |          |           |
|           | Students |          |          |          |           |
|           | Prof     |          |          |          |           |
|           | icient** |          |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| *         | **P1**   | **P2**   | **P3**   | **P4**   | **        |
| *School** |          |          |          |          | Overall** |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 1         | 83.1     | 70.0     | 76.1     | 58.2     | 72.3      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 2         | 87.3     | 64.4     | 69.0     | 78.0     | 74.8      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 3         | 86.5     | 81.5     | 61.3     | 43.8     | 68.5      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 4         | 83.1     | 65.4     | 41.9     | 64.3     | 65.3      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 5         | 83.5     | 81.9     | 72.9     | 59.0     | 74.4      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 6         | 88.4     | 80.9     | 71.1     | 56.1     | 74.6      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 7         | 93.7     | 77.0     | 71.6     | 50.0     | 72.8      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 8         | 43.0     | 50.6     | 34.9     | 34.0     | 40.5      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+

**Chart 3**

+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| *         | **Spring |          |          |          |           |
| *DIBELS** | 2007**   |          |          |          |           |
|           |          |          |          |          |           |
|           | **Pe     |          |          |          |           |
|           | rcentage |          |          |          |           |
|           | of       |          |          |          |           |
|           | Students |          |          |          |           |
|           | Prof     |          |          |          |           |
|           | icient** |          |          |          |           |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| *         | **P1**   | **P2**   | **P3**   | **P4**   | **        |
| *School** |          |          |          |          | Overall** |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 1         | 80.4     | 59.2     | 77.4     | 74.0     | 72.3      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 2         | 72.4     | 67.2     | 64.9     | 62.2     | 67.0      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 3         | 86.1     | 88.6     | 61.3     | 81.5     | 79.8      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 4         | 80.3     | 78.7     | 62.5     | 47.2     | 69.6      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 5         | 80.2     | 85.3     | 77.6     | 54.2     | 73.3      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 6         | 93.2     | 64.3     | 89.7     | 62.9     | 78.1      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 7         | 91.6     | 73.2     | 70.5     | 62.3     | 74.7      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| 8         | 72.2     | 58.9     | 47.6     | 33.0     | 53.2      |
+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+

**Graph 1**

![](media/image92.wmf){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="4.0680555555555555in"}

Graph 2

![](media/image93.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="3.9555555555555557in"}

Graph 3

![](media/image94.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="3.9555555555555557in"}

Graph 4

![](media/image95.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="3.9555555555555557in"}

Graph 5

![](media/image96.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="3.9555555555555557in"}

Graph 6

![](media/image97.wmf){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="3.9555555555555557in"}

Graph 7

![](media/image98.wmf){width="5.99375in" height="3.7583333333333333in"}

**Chapter 10**

**[Year to Year Longitudinal School Comparisons]{.underline}**

**I. Introduction**

Last year there were successes and concerns noted, and protocols and
interviews used to gather specific forms of evidence from eight
longitudinal schools. This year the original eight longitudinal schools
were observed once again with successes and concerns noted and data
collected. These themes and the evidence gathered from each year are
comparable. This chapter focuses on the comparisons of the successes and
concerns from the longitudinal site visits in addition to the evidence
collected during the last two years.

**II. Themes**

**Classroom Observations**

**A comparison of overall successes based on longitudinal classroom
observations:**

Last year (2005/2006) during the classroom observations, the CCLD's team
of RF evaluators found extensive evidence of multiple types of reading
materials in classrooms in addition to a high level of student
motivation and engagement. This year (2006/2007) student engagement was
observed at the extensive level in 97% of the classrooms. In addition,
the classrooms were well stocked with ample types of reading materials,
just as the previous year. This year (2006/2007), comprehension
continues to be the most highly embedded of the five RF components in
reading instruction, similar to last year's findings. In 2005/2006,
there were 27% of classrooms with extensive evidence of groupings (four
or more types of reading groups); in 2006/2007, there were 53% of the
classrooms with extensive evidence showing improvement in this area.

**A comparison of overall concerns based on longitudinal classroom
observations:**

For the last two years during the observations for the longitudinal site
visits, evaluators found reading instruction to be primarily teacher
centered. Authentic assessment also remains a concern for this year.
Another similarity for the site visits includes the issues of grouping
structures and reading practices. During the 2005/2006 school year, it
was reported that the majority of teachers were not utilizing a variety
of grouping structures and reading practices. This year (2006/2007), the
following variety of effective reading practices were observed in *less*
than 40% of the classrooms: shared reading, partner/paired reading,
choral reading, drama/reader's theater, echo reading, and tape assisted
reading.

**Case Study Reports**

**A comparison of overall successes based on longitudinal case study
reports**:

Last year (2005/2006) the teachers were noted to be consistent as they
taught reading for 90 minutes uninterrupted, actively engaging and
motivating students during instruction, and analyzing student data to
improve student achievement. This year (2006/2007), teachers taught
comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary with at least moderate evidence,
and classrooms were organized with literacy centers and multiple types
of reading materials. This year the case study reports found that
support and collaboration among leadership and staff were common
throughout the longitudinal schools.

**A comparison of overall concerns based on longitudinal case study
reports:**

Last year (2005/2006), phonics was not observed consistently throughout
the primary grades. This year (2006/2007), phonemic awareness and
vocabulary instruction were not consistently observed throughout the
primary grades. In addition, both years showed a lack of variety for
reading practices among all of the primary grades. Reading practices
such as dramatic or readers' theater, echo and shared reading were not
observed regularly. A new concern was noted this year (2006/2007)
regarding authentic assessment; evaluators found this lacking in some
classrooms.

**School Coach Interviews**

**A comparison of overall successes based on longitudinal school coach
interviews:**

School coaches shared last year's successes focused on the majority of
teachers implementing explicit and systematic instruction, and that
Reading First has had a positive impact on teachers' professional growth
and student reading achievement. This year (2006-2007), the successes
noted were more school coaches observing in the classroom and providing
feedback to teachers. In addition, students were progressed monitored
more frequently, indication of a 100% participation of teachers in
professional development, and 86% support from Kentucky Department of
Education.

**A comparison of overall concerns based on longitudinal school coach
interviews:**

The concerns from both years were similar in that school coaches are
reporting concerns about P3 and P4 students' reading achievement and
regression during the summer months. Last year's (2005-2006), data
revealed one of the major concerns was the amount of paperwork expected
of school coaches; however, this year (2006-2007), the major concern was
those students who were not progressing from strategic to the benchmark
level.

**Principal Interviews**

**A comparison of overall successes based on longitudinal principal
interviews:**

The successes for both years were closely related. Student reading
achievement was listed as a success from the principal's interviews this
year as well as last year. During the 2006/2007 interviews, the
principal's specifically remarked about their schools using their
assessment data to drive planning and instruction as one of their
successes along with collaboration, communication, positive attitudes,
and teachers understanding research-based reading practices and
exhibiting confidence in teaching reading. During the 2005/2006
interviews, principals also felt RF had brought a positive increase in
teacher knowledge and use of best practices in their classrooms.

**A comparison of overall concerns based on longitudinal principal
interviews:**

The concerns for the principals were also closely related from last year
to this year. Last year (2005/2006), principals realized that
comprehension scores were not increasing at the improvement rate of the
other four key components. This year (2006/2007), the principals also
felt comprehension was the component needing most of attention. Last
year, time and paperwork were challenges for the overall implementation
of RF, and this year the challenges were slightly different. The
challenges for this year included the sustainability of grant after
funding is no longer available, scheduling, transient students,
workloads, and teacher stress.

**Teacher Surveys**

**A comparison of overall successes based on** **longitudinal teacher
surveys:**

During the 2005/2006 longitudinal case study, the successes listed from
the teacher surveys focused on analyzing assessment, implementing
literacy centers, and providing a variety of grouping structures for
students. Teachers also felt RF was beneficial to students, and teachers
were supported and had positive communication from state and district
coaches. However, the 2006/2007 longitudinal case study successes listed
from the teacher surveys' successes focused on other areas. The
successes this year focused on what the teachers saw as beneficial, in
addition to focusing more on additional strategies for students and
opportunities for school-home connections. More specifically, these
areas of success included satisfaction with the core program, core
connecting well to content areas, acknowledgement of the benefits of
literacy centers, requirements of students to read at home, making
connections with their own reading to students, and implementing a
variety of strategy instruction in all primary grades.

**A comparison of overall concerns based on** **longitudinal teacher
surveys:**

During the 2005/2006 longitudinal case study, concerns listed from the
teacher surveys focused primarily on leadership. More specifically the
concerns were teachers needing to continue to develop confidence in
teaching all five reading components, more regular modeling of best
practices by school coach, more involvement of principals with design of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and more principals regularly
observe reading instruction and provide feedback to teachers . During
the 2006/2007 longitudinal case study, concerns listed from the teacher
surveys focused on similar areas such as the five components, but this
time with more focus on utilizing literacy centers to provide additional
experience with these components. The focus on this year's concerns was
primarily the literacy centers, the need to improve the types of
activities offered in literacy centers, and PD to help improve center
development and instruction.

**GRADE Assessment Data**

**A comparison of overall successes based on the longitudinal GRADE
assessment data:**

During the 2006/2007 longitudinal case study, overall spring GRADE 2007
scores show an increase in percentage proficient scores from spring
2005. In spring 2007, all schools made gains in percentage proficient
scores for grade P3; in spring 2006, only five out of eight schools made
gains in the percentage of proficient scores.

**A comparisons of overall concerns based on the longitudinal GRADE
assessment data:**

During the 2006/2007 longitudinal case study, the concerns described
from GRADE data were minimal but presented the need for all schools to
make gains on the percentage proficient scores. Compared to the
2005-2006 study, there was a slight decline from spring 2005 to spring
2006 in percentage of students at the proficient level.

**DIBELS ASSESSMENT DATA**

**A comparison of overall successes based on longitudinal DIBELS
assessment data:**

For both spring 2006 and spring 2007, seven out of eight schools had
overall scores with a majority of students proficient at 65% or above.
In spring 2006 and spring 2007, P3 students showed the most gains in the
percentage proficient scores.

**A comparison of overall concerns based on longitudinal DIBELS
assessment data:**

Longitudinal scores indicate that only one out of the eight schools
showed growth from Spring 2005 to Spring 2007 in grades P2 to P4. and
only three out of eight schools' percentage scores showed growth from
spring 2005 to spring 2007 in grades P1 to P3. One school in all three
spring scores consistently below other schools on percentage proficient
with the exception of the spring 2007 score at a minimal 53.2%.

**III. Evidence**

The following charts include data collected by the CCLD Evaluation Team
from the longitudinal site schools for 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. **It is
important to note that during the classroom site visits the Evaluation
Team observed in the primary classrooms for forty-five minutes of the
ninety mandatory minutes of core instruction. Therefore, the evaluators
do not always observe all of the five RF components in one classroom
site visit.**

**Classroom Observations: Physical Environment**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  No reading materials    0.0                     0.0
  are available in the                            
  classroom                                       

  One type of reading     0.0                     0.0
  material is available                           

  Two types of reading    0.0                     3.1
  materials are available                         

  Three or more types of  100.0                   93.8
  reading materials are                           
  available                                       
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image99.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Learning Environment**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Low level evidence      3.8                     0

  Minimal level evidence  3.8                     6.3

  Moderate level evidence 38.5                    12.5

  Extensive level         53.8                    81.3
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image100.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Mode of Delivery**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Low level evidence      0                       0

  Minimal level evidence  11.5                    3.1

  Moderate level evidence 46.2                    53.1

  Extensive level         42.3                    43.8
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image101.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Literacy Centers**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Low level evidence      60.0                    43.8

  Minimal level evidence  0                       9.4

  Moderate level evidence 12.0                    18.8

  Extensive level         28.0                    28.1
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image102.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Grouping**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  One type of reading     23.1                    12.5
  group                                           

  Two types of reading    19.2                    18.8
  groups                                          

  Three types of reading  30.8                    9.4
  groups                                          

  Four or more types of   26.9                    53.1
  reading groups                                  
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image103.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Authentic Assessment**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Low level evidence      11.5                    0

  Minimal level evidence  57.7                    50

  Moderate level evidence 23.1                    25

  Extensive level         7.7                     21.9
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image104.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Student Engagement**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Low level evidence      0                       0

  Minimal level evidence  0                       3.1

  Moderate level evidence 46.2                    40.6

  Extensive level         53.8                    56.3
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image105.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Student-Teacher Interaction**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Low level evidence      0                       0

  Minimal level evidence  3.8                     12.5

  Moderate level evidence 50.0                    40.6

  Extensive level         46.2                    46.9
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image106.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Higher-Level Questioning**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Low level evidence      0                       0

  Minimal level evidence  8                       12.5

  Moderate level evidence 54                      37.5

  Extensive level         39                      50
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image107.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Phonemic Awareness**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Not observed            65.4                    68.8

  Minimal level evidence  15.4                    3.1

  Moderate level evidence 11.5                    18.8

  Extensive level         7.7                     9.4
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image108.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Phonics**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Not observed            52.0                    50

  Minimal level evidence  4.0                     28.1

  Moderate level evidence 32.0                    9.4

  Extensive level         12.0                    12.5
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image109.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Vocabulary**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Not observed            57.7                    50

  Minimal level evidence  3.8                     9.4

  Moderate level evidence 30.8                    28.1

  Extensive level         7.7                     12.5
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image110.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Fluency**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Not observed            57.7                    25.0

  Minimal level evidence  3.8                     28.1

  Moderate level evidence 19.2                    34.4

  Extensive level         19.2                    12.5
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image111.wmf)

**Classroom Observations: Comprehension**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Not observed            11.5                    3.1

  Minimal level evidence  7.7                     6.3

  Moderate level evidence 42.3                    37.5

  Extensive level         38.5                    53.1
  evidence                                        
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

![](media/image112.wmf)

**Classroom Observations:** **Whole Group**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     69.2                    75

  No                      30.8                    25
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Small Group**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     46.2                    56.3

  No                      53.8                    43.8
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations: Independent**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     57.7                    65.6

  No                      42.3                    34.4
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Literacy Centers**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     42.3                    50

  No                      57.7                    50
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Cross Grade**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     15.4                    15.6

  No                      84.6                    84.4
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Cooperative Learning**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     11.5                    18.8

  No                      88.5                    81.2
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Partner/Paired Groups**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     26.9                    40.6

  No                      73.1                    59.4
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Independent Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     73.1                    78.1

  No                      26.9                    21.9
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Shared Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     7.7                     12.5

  No                      92.3                    87.5
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Partner/Paired Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     11.5                    37.5

  No                      88.5                    62.5
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Choral Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     50.0                    37.5

  No                      50.0                    62.5
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Guided Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     42.3                    59.4

  No                      57.7                    40.6
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Dramatic/ Readers' Theater**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     3.8                     3.1

  No                      96.2                    96.9
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations:** **Read Alouds**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     38.5                    59.4

  No                      61.5                    40.6
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Classroom Observations: Echo Reading**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Responses               2005/2006 Percentages   2006/2007 Percentages

  Yes                     19.2                    15.6

  No                      80.8                    84.4
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Case Study Reports: Five Reading Components Observed**

Out of the five reading components, phonemic awareness, fluency, and
comprehension were all observed at the longitudinal schools this year
more often and with a higher ranking than during last year's site
visits. Phonics and vocabulary dropped slightly, with less classrooms
providing evidence in these areas.

**Case Study Reports:** **Phonemic Awareness**

![](media/image113.wmf){width="3.363888888888889in"
height="2.3493055555555555in"}

**Case Study Reports:** **Phonics**

![](media/image114.wmf){width="3.488888888888889in"
height="2.102777777777778in"}

**Case Study Reports:** **Fluency**

![](media/image115.wmf){width="3.488888888888889in"
height="2.279861111111111in"}

**Case Study Reports: Comprehension**

![](media/image116.wmf){width="3.488888888888889in"
height="2.477777777777778in"}

**Case Study Reports: Vocabulary**

![](media/image117.wmf){width="3.488888888888889in"
height="2.3006944444444444in"}

APPENDIXES

**[Appendix A]{.underline}**

Reading First Literacy Center Observation

Longitudinal Case Study Schools Winter 2007

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **School Name:**

  **Evaluator's Name:**

  **Grade/Level:**

  **Number of Students:**
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

### 

Please rank each item based on the following scale during the 30 minute
literacy center observation.

+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     | #     | **Mi  | **Mod | *     |
|                                     |  Not  | nimal | erate | *Exte |
|                                     |       | Evide | Evide | nsive |
|                                     | **    | nce** | nce** | Evide |
|                                     | Obser |       |       | nce** |
|                                     | ved** |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. Centers focus on literacy/ the  |       |       |       |       |
| five essential components of        |       |       |       |       |
| reading                             |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. Organizational pattern of       |       |       |       |       |
| centers is posted                   |       |       |       |       |
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
| (work board, center chart, etc.)    |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 3\. Students are actively engaged   |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 4\. Centers have clear objectives   |       |       |       |       |
| (i.e., task cards posted)           |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 5\. Evidence of student             |       |       |       |       |
| accountability                      |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 6\. Materials are prepared,         |       |       |       |       |
| organized, and easily accessible to |       |       |       |       |
| students                            |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 7\. Center activities maximize use  |       |       |       |       |
| of time/learning                    |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 8\. Center tasks are meaningful     |       |       |       |       |
| (activities or tasks that require   |       |       |       |       |
| high level/critical thinking and    |       |       |       |       |
| application of previously taught    |       |       |       |       |
| material)                           |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 9\. Center tasks are engaging (use  |       |       |       |       |
| of manipulatives, games,            |       |       |       |       |
| activities)                         |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 10\. Materials are prepared,        |       |       |       |       |
| organized, and accessible           |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 11\. Centers include an             |       |       |       |       |
| assessment/accountability component |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 12\. Centers have multiple          |       |       |       |       |
| tasks/"finish early" activities     |       |       |       |       |
| where appropriate                   |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 13\. Evidence of differentiation to |       |       |       |       |
| meet the needs of a variety of      |       |       |       |       |
| learners                            |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 14\. Students work in various       |       |       |       |       |
| groupings (individual, partner,     |       |       |       |       |
| team, group)                        |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 15\. Help system for students is    |       |       |       |       |
| evident (i.e., center captains)     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 16\. Specific location for student  |       |       |       |       |
| work -- complete and incomplete     |       |       |       |       |
| (task folder, pocket folder,        |       |       |       |       |
| hanging folder, basket, etc.)       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 17\. Students' behavior follows     |       |       |       |       |
| classroom rules/learner             |       |       |       |       |
| expectations                        |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 18\. Student movement between       |       |       |       |       |
| centers/transitions are organized   |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

**Additional Notes:**

**[Appendix B]{.underline}**

![](media/image118.png){width="1.375in"
height="0.9208333333333333in"}![](media/image119.png){width="1.2597222222222222in"
height="0.8159722222222222in"} **Kentucky Reading First**

**Longitudinal Case Study Report**

**Winter 2007**

**School: Date:**

**Observers:**

**Grades Observed: P1 P2 P3 P4**

**Core Program:**

> \_\_\_ Observed

***\_\_\_*** Not Observed

**The Reading First Components observed were**: (Note: If any of the
five reading components were not observed during the four observations,
the unobserved component was not scored.)

-   **[Minima]{.underline}l**: the least possible, there is very little
    evidence

-   **[Moderate]{.underline}**: being within reasonable or average
    limits, not excessive or

> Extreme, average evidence including both minimal and extensive
> evidence during observations

-   **[Extensive]{.underline}**: broad in scope or content, large in
    extent, range or amount,

> Being above average in evidence

**Phonemic Awareness:** Observed in \_ out of four classrooms

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

**Phonics:** Observed in \_ out of four classrooms

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

***\_\_\_*** Extensive Evidence

**Vocabulary:** Observed in **\_** out of four classrooms

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

**Fluency:** Observed in \_ out of four classrooms

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

**Comprehension:** Observed in \_ out of four classrooms

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

**Learning Environment**: classroom is organized with literacy centers,
multiple-types of reading materials, instructional reading activities,
and manipulatives. There are additional spaces for Readers' Theater and
Author's Chair with a variety of charts, signs, labels, & quotations
that promote reading.

***\_\_\_*** Not Observed

***\_\_\_*** Minimal Evidence

***\_\_\_*** Moderate Evidence

***\_\_\_*** Extensive Evidence

**Mode of Delivery**: reading instruction is explicit and systematic
with clear objectives, connections made to students' prior and current
knowledge, opportunities for active participation and practice of
concept: "I do it, we do it, and you do it" and summary of lesson.

***\_\_\_*** Not Observed

***\_\_\_*** Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

***\_\_\_*** Extensive Evidence

**Literacy Centers**: centers present and utilized during the core
reading block time. Centers are engaging and promote literacy concepts,
provide differentiated activities, contain clear objectives, task cards,
and opportunities for student response-methods.

\_\_\_ Not Observed

***\_\_\_*** Minimal Evidence

***\_\_\_*** Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

**Student Engagement**: students are highly engaged in the learning
process.

***\_\_\_*** Not Observed

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

**Student-Teacher Interactions**: student-teacher interactions are
open-ended; student focused, and provides meaningful and specific
instructional feedback.

***\_\_\_*** Not Observed

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

***\_\_\_*** Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

**Higher-Level Questioning**: teacher provides multiple levels of
questions requiring students to expand their thinking and learning.

***\_\_\_*** Not Observed

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

**Classroom Reading Practices:** the following reading practices were
observed either during large group time or during small group/literacy
centers.

+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Reading**            | **Reading    | **Range of   | **Range of   |
|                        | practices    | reading time | reading time |
| **Practice**           | observed:**  | for whole    | for          |
|                        |              | group:**     | individual** |
|                        |              |              |              |
|                        |              |              | **student:** |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Independent:**       | out of 4     |              |              |
| individual students    |              |              |              |
| read silently on their | classrooms   |              |              |
| own                    |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Shared**: teacher    | out of 4     |              |              |
| reads a book to the    | classrooms   |              |              |
| children several       |              |              |              |
| times; initially the   |              |              |              |
| teacher reads; as      |              |              |              |
| students become more   |              |              |              |
| familiar with the      |              |              |              |
| book, they join in and |              |              |              |
| share the reading with |              |              |              |
| the teacher            |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Partner/Paired:**    | out of 4     |              |              |
| two students and/or    | classrooms   |              |              |
| teacher/student        |              |              |              |
| reading texts to       |              |              |              |
| further comprehension  |              |              |              |
| and fluency            |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Choral:** two or     | out of 4     |              |              |
| more students reading  | classrooms   |              |              |
| aloud from the same    |              |              |              |
| text                   |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Guided**             | out of 4     |              |              |
|                        | classrooms   |              |              |
| **(with teacher):**    |              |              |              |
| teacher works with a   |              |              |              |
| group of students      |              |              |              |
| similar in strength    |              |              |              |
| and needs and provides |              |              |              |
| instruction through    |              |              |              |
| mini-lessons           |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Dramatic/**          | out of 4     |              |              |
|                        | classrooms   |              |              |
| **readers' theater:**  |              |              |              |
| the teacher or         |              |              |              |
| students adapt a story |              |              |              |
| script from shared     |              |              |              |
| reading selections and |              |              |              |
| the students act out a |              |              |              |
| dramatic presentation  |              |              |              |
| of script              |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Echo reading:** the  | out of 4     |              |              |
| teacher reads a line   | classrooms   |              |              |
| of text aloud and the  |              |              |              |
| students repeat the    |              |              |              |
| line                   |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Read alouds:**       | out of 4     |              |              |
| teacher reading text   | classrooms   |              |              |
| to students modeling   |              |              |              |
| fluency                |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| **Tape assisted        | out of 4     |              |              |
| reading:** students    | classrooms   |              |              |
| read silently along    |              |              |              |
| with an audio book     |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

**Strengths recognized during the observations and interviews:**

**Questions arising from the observations and interview:**

**[Appendix C]{.underline}**

![](media/image118.png){width="0.94375in" height="0.6319444444444444in"}
![](media/image120.wmf)

**Reading First Longitudinal School Coach Interview 2007**

1\. How would you rank your school coaching duties in order of
importance?

> (1 being most important\...\.....)

\_\_\_\_\_ modeling lessons in the classroom

\_\_\_\_\_ testing

\_\_\_\_\_ observing in the classroom

\_\_\_\_\_ providing professional development

\_\_\_\_\_ conferencing with teachers

\_\_\_\_\_ attending and chairing Reading First meetings

\_\_\_\_\_ completing necessary administrative tasks

2\. Do you have an assistant? (Circle one) Y or N

3\. On an average day, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms

modeling reading lessons? (Circle one)

> 0-20 minutes 21-40 minutes 41-60 minutes 60+ minutes

4\. On an average day, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms

> observing? (Circle one)

0-20 minutes 21-40 minutes 41-60 minutes 60+ minutes

5\. On an average day, how much of your time is spent conferencing with

individual teachers? (Circle one)

0-20 minutes 21-40 minutes 41-60 minutes 60+ minutes

6\. Are you implementing new changes for Reading First at your school
this

Year? Y or N

> If yes, explain

7\. At this point of implementation, what one major concern do you or
the

> teachers have regarding Reading First?

8\. What are you doing to address this concern?

9\. How often are you progress monitoring students/*month*?

(Circle one for each category.)

Intensive 1 2 3 4

Strategic 1 2 3 4

Benchmark 1 2 3 4

10\. Approximately, what percentage of **intensive** students has moved
to strategic or benchmark status this school year?

> 0-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21-25%
>
> 26-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51%+

11\. Approximately, what percentage of **strategic** students has moved
to benchmark status this school year?

> 0-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21-25%
>
> 26-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51%+

12\. What do you think has had the greatest impact on reducing the
number

> of students reading below grade level at your school?

13\. What assessment, GRADE, DIBELS, or other assessments, provides you
with the most information to plan individual instruction? (Explain: )

14\. What system do you have in place for analyzing data?

> (Request a copy if a specific format is given.)

15 In this third year of implementation, do you feel your teachers are
continuing to grow professionally as a result of Reading First? Y or N

> Explain:

16 Do your teachers plan in grade level teams or individually? (Circle
one)

Grade level teams Individually Both

17Overall, what grade/s are you most concerned about? Has this changed
since last year? (Explain) P1 P2 P3 P4

18 How would you rate your support from KDE? (Circle one)

> Minimal Moderate Extensive

19\. How would you rate your support from your district? (Circle one)

> Minimal Moderate Extensive

20 How would you rate your support from your principal? (Circle one)

> Minimal Moderate Extensive

**Please complete these sentences:**

21\. I see Reading First as a program that\...\...\...

22\. To sustain results from Reading First\...\...\....

23\. Reading First has not addressed\...\...\....

24\. Our school has been successful\...\.....

**[Appendix D]{.underline}**

![](media/image118.png){width="0.94375in" height="0.6319444444444444in"}
![](media/image121.wmf)

**Reading First Longitudinal Principal Interview 2007**

1.  How many years have you been a Reading First principal? (1, 2, 3, 4,
    +)

2.  How much time do you spend observing in the Reading First classrooms
    per week? 0-20 21-40 1-60 60+minutes

3.  How much time do you spend conferencing with teachers about their
    reading instruction per week?

> 0-20 21-40 41-60 60+minutes

4.  How will your school sustain any positive changes that have occurred
    as a

result of Reading First? (Explain:)

5.  In what specific manner have teachers continued to grow
    professionally during this third year of implementation?

6.  Have you observed changes in teacher attitudes during Year 3 of
    implementation? (If so, describe...) Yes No

7.  Overall, which one of the five components do you feel the teachers
    implement at the highest level? (Circle one)

> PA, Phonics, Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension

8.  Which of the five components do you feel the teachers implement at
    the lowest level? (Circle one)

> PA, Phonics, Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension

9\. What areas of reading continue to need the most attention at your
school?

10\. What **one** major success has your school celebrated during the
third year

> of Reading First implementation?
>
> **Please complete these sentences:**

10. I see Reading First as a program that\...\.....

11. Children in the Reading First program will\...\...

12. Reading First has not addressed\...\....

13. Due to Reading First teachers\...\.....

14. Reading First has changed\...\.....

**[Appendix E]{.underline}**

![](media/image118.png){width="1.25in"
height="0.8375in"}![](media/image119.png){width="1.125in"
height="0.7319444444444444in"}

**Kentucky RF Teacher Questionnaire**

**Winter 2007**

1\. Please circle one: M or F

2\. Please circle which grade you are currently teaching: K 1^st^ 2^nd^
3^rd^

3\. How many years of teaching experience? (Circle one)

0-3 4-6 7-9 10-13 14-16 17+

**AT SCHOOL**

4\. Overall, do you like your core reading program? (Circle one) Y or N

5\. Check which describes the overall comprehensiveness of your core
reading program. (i.e. five essential reading components are explicitly
and systematically covered, and lessons are organized well.)

\_\_\_\_ Minimally comprehensive

\_\_\_\_ Moderately comprehensive

\_\_\_\_ Extensively comprehensive

6\. Do you like the stories in your core reading program? (I.e. are they
interesting? Are they engaging? Are they culturally responsive?)(Circle
one) Y or N

7\. Does your core program connect to other content areas? (Check one)

\_\_\_\_\_ Never

\_\_\_\_\_ Sometimes

\_\_\_\_\_ Always

8\. During reading instruction, which [group]{.underline} do you utilize
most often? Please rank the top three groups, with one being the group
you utilize most often, two being the group you utilize often and three
being the group you utilize the least.

\_\_\_ Whole group (the whole classroom together)

\_\_\_ Small group (the teacher works with just a few students)

\_\_\_ Individual (the teacher works with an individual student)

\_\_\_ Partners/paired (students work together)

\_\_\_ Dramatic (students act out or read a play or story dramatically)

\_\_\_ Alone (students read alone)

9\. Please **rank the top three genres** found in your core program.
Please list which genre your core program uses most often for stories: 1
is the highest and 3 the lowest. \_\_\_ Animal stories

\_\_\_ Autobiographies and

> Biographies

\_\_\_ Funny stories

\_\_\_ Nonfiction

\_\_\_ Poems

\_\_\_ Historical fiction

\_\_\_ Fantasy or fairytales

\_\_\_ Adventure stories

\_\_\_ Mystery stories

\_\_\_ Scary stories

\_\_\_ Science fiction

\_\_\_ Sport stories

\_\_\_ Stories in a series

\_\_\_ Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

10\. Do you think literacy centers are beneficial to students? (Circle
one) Y or N

11\. How many days a week do your students work in literacy centers?

12\. When planning your classroom literacy centers, how would you rank
the importance of the following items to be reinforced during center
time?

(Rank 1 for the highest and 7 for the lowest)

\_\_\_ Phonemic awareness

\_\_\_ Phonics

\_\_\_ Vocabulary

\_\_\_ Fluency

\_\_\_ Comprehension

\_\_\_ Writing

\_\_\_ Lesson concepts (i.e. reinforcing core lesson *objectives*)

13\. How often do you change the literacy centers in your classroom?
(Circle one)

once a month twice a month twice a week once a week

14\. How much time do you spend developing literacy center material each
week? (Circle one) 0-2 hours 3-4 hours 5-6 hours 7-8 hours 8+ hours

15\. How would you rate the quality of your literacy centers? (Circle
one)

Minimal Moderate Extensive

16\. What type of literacy centers do you utilize most frequently?
(Check one)

\_\_\_\_\_ teacher created

\_\_\_\_\_ commercially produced

\_\_\_\_\_ both (teacher and commercially produced) equally utilized

17\. What area of improvement would you identify for your literacy
centers?

18\. What resource do you need to help you successfully develop and
implement literacy centers in your classroom?

19\. Do you tell your students about books you have read regularly?

(Circle one) Y or N

20\. What do you feel is one of the most important skills/strategies you
have taught your students in order to make them better readers?

21\. What do you feel is one of the most difficult skills/strategies to
teach your students at this age to become better readers?

22\. Do you require students to read at home? (Circle one) Y or N

23\. Do you have time to read at home during the week? (Circle one) Y or
N

25\. Please rank the following list with the activity you would most
likely do after school. **Please list only the top three activities you
participate in after school.**

\_\_\_ Gardening outside

\_\_\_ Mom/Dad's taxi service

\_\_\_ Hiking/biking

\_\_\_ Sports

\_\_\_ Computer

\_\_\_ Work/grading/

lesson plans

\_\_\_ Reading

\_\_\_ Watching Television

\_\_\_ Playing an instrument

\_\_\_ Cooking

\_\_\_ Sewing/doing crafts

\_\_\_ Shopping

\_\_\_ Spending time with

friends

\_\_\_ Talking on the telephone

\_\_\_ Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_

26\. If you have a chance to read, which type of book would you most
likely read?