![](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 I: Kentucky Reading First Program Implementation**

**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 Ct.

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40509

\(859\) 257-4212

jpcarn00@uky.edu

![](media/image3.png){width="1.5in" height="0.9777777777777777in"}

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

Cover and Photo design: Keith Lyons

Typeset: Lauren Jones and Michelle Sapp

Editor: Emily Papadopoulos

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Volume I**

**Page**

**Chapter 1:**

Kentucky's Reading First Evaluation Study 3

**Chapter 2:**

**Section A:** Reading First Regular Education Summer Institutes

> Participants' Evaluations 12

**Section B**: Reading First Regular Education Summer Institutes

> Evaluators' Summary 18

**Chapter 3:**

**Section A**: Professional Development Grant Summer Institute

Participants' Evaluations 22

**Section B**: Professional Development Grant Summer Institute

Evaluators' Summary 28

**Chapter 4**:

**Section A:** Kentucky Reading First Principals' Institutes 32

**Section B:** Principal Institute Participants' Evaluations 35

**Chapter 5**:

2006 Summer School Survey 40

**Chapter 6:**

KY Department of Education Leadership Questionnaire 47

**Chapter 7:**

Reading First State Coach Questionnaire 51

**Chapter 8:**

**Section A**: Reading First State Coaches' Log 56

**Section B**: Reading First State Coaches' Reflections 59

**Chapter 9:**

Reading First School Coach Reflections 65

**Chapter 10:**

State Coach Case Study Reports of Exemplary Schools 79

**Chapter 11:**

Volume I Summary 85

**[Appendixes]{.underline}** pp. 87-96

**A** Institute Feedback Form

**B** Summer School Survey

**C** Kentucky Department of Education Leadership Questionnaire

**D** Reading First State Coach Interview Questions

**E** Reading First Evaluation Team Biographies

**F** State Coach Log Hours

**From the Reading First Study ...**

"Reading First has taught me a lot. I have been teaching for 20 years,
but the Professional Development offered through Reading First has
taught me so much more about the teaching of reading. It has given me
the tools to use that will help my students become better readers."

*Supplemental Teacher*

"Due to Reading First, teachers have been frustrated, enlightened,
challenged, and now are seeing the success with their students and
feeling good about themselves."

*Principal*

"Reading First is a program that allows teachers to become reading
specialists."

*School Coach*

"Reading First has connected everybody. The school is a lot closer. We
know our goals and we have so much more information to use."

*Intervention Teacher*

"If you don't know a word, you can skip it and then come back and use
your context clues to figure it out."

*Student*

"Reading First has pushed us to make all decisions based on what is best
for kids."

*Principal*

"Reading First has addressed how to do it all within a six hour day."

*District Coach*

"I have seen my child's reading improve greatly over the year. I believe
the program and her teacher have worked great together."

*Parent*

"Reading First is difficult as far as planning and prep go; however, it
is very beneficial to my students."

*Classroom Teacher*

"Teachers are taking the reading program and adjusting it to meet the
needs of the students."

*School Coach*

"I like the continuous assessment of students progress that Reading
First provides."

*Parent*

"The most positive outcome related to Reading First implementation is
the success of children who are reading and enjoying it!"

*State Coach*

**Chapter 1**

**[Introduction of Kentucky's Reading First Evaluation
Study]{.underline}**

The Collaborative Center for Literacy Development (CCLD) serves as the
outside evaluators for Kentucky's Reading First evaluation study. The
purpose of the study is to gather information and data through
qualitative and quantitative research methods on the implementation
process of Reading First (RF). The following are the three objectives of
the study:

1.  Observe Kentucky's Reading First program implementation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Analyze reading achievement gains of students

2.  Recognize Reading First's impact on reducing the numbers of students
    reading below grade level

There are presently 73 Kentucky Reading First schools and approximately
18,568 P1 -- P4 students involved in RF throughout the state. The map
below shows all funded Reading First districts.

![](media/image4.png){width="6.49375in" height="3.68125in"}

This evaluation study began on June 1, 2006 and was completed on May 31,
2007 and is lead by a *Principal Investigator (PI)* who facilitates the
entire Reading First research process. Additionally, an Evaluation Team
consisting of twelve researchers and a statistician were involved in all
phases of the evaluation study. The evaluation team was selected based
on its educational experiences which range from teaching at the
elementary and university levels to serving as educational consultants
and instructional leaders (See Appendix E for Team Biographies).

The team conducts research in all 17 case study schools, participates in
interviews and observations at institutes and workshops, and collects
and analyzes data from all 73 Kentucky Reading First Schools.
Additionally, the team members attend and participate in evaluation team
meetings, summer institutes, principal institutes, and workshops to
assist them with understanding the key events and themes of Reading
First for the evaluation study. Overall, the primary purpose of the PI
and evaluation team is to provide the Kentucky Department of Education
(KDE) with an annual report summarizing the research findings.

**Kentucky Department of Education RF Events**

KDE provides Reading First teachers, principals, school coaches,
district coaches, and state coaches with professional development
opportunities during the school year to deepen their knowledge and
understanding of Reading First components. The following table includes
the professional events for 2006-2007

*Kentucky Reading First*

*2006-2007 Calendar of Events*

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Dates        | Event                                                 |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **July**     | National Reading First Conference- Reno, Nevada       |
|              |                                                       |
| 18-21        |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **August**   | Kentucky Reading Project Retreat                      |
|              |                                                       |
| 1,2          | Writing Review Meeting                                |
|              |                                                       |
| 4            | Literacy Specialists' Meeting                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 14-17        | CRRF TAC Quarterly Meeting                            |
|              |                                                       |
| 29-30        |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| *            | Literacy Specialists Meeting                          |
| *September** |                                                       |
|              | Quarterly Special Education Meeting                   |
| 11-15        |                                                       |
|              | State Reading Coaches' Meeting                        |
| 12-14        |                                                       |
|              | New Principal Meeting                                 |
| 18-21        |                                                       |
|              | Pre-Kentucky Reading Association Meeting (Susan Hall) |
| 20           |                                                       |
|              | Kentucky Reading Association Meeting                  |
| 21           |                                                       |
|              | APR due from schools                                  |
| 22-23        |                                                       |
|              |                                                       |
| 30           |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **October**  | Literacy Specialists' Meeting                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 16-17        | State Reading Coaches' Meeting                        |
|              |                                                       |
| 16-17        | Principals' Institute                                 |
|              |                                                       |
| 18           | Literacy Specialists' Meeting                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 19           | State Reading Coaches' Meeting                        |
|              |                                                       |
| 19           | Regional Coaches' Meeting                             |
|              |                                                       |
| 25-26        | School Coaches' Regional Meeting                      |
|              |                                                       |
| 25           |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **November** | Literacy Specialists' Meeting                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 8-10         | State Reading Coaches' Meeting                        |
|              |                                                       |
| 8-10         | Special Ed. Literacy Specialists Meeting with State   |
|              | Coaches                                               |
| 9            |                                                       |
|              | Title I Conference                                    |
| 13-14        |                                                       |
|              | Regional Coaches' Meeting                             |
| 15-16        |                                                       |
|              | APR to Washington                                     |
| 30           |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **December** | Literacy Specialists' Meeting                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 11-15        | Special Education Quarterly Meeting                   |
|              |                                                       |
| 12-14        | State Reading Coaches' Meeting                        |
|              |                                                       |
| 13-15        |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **January**  | Literacy Specialists' Meeting                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 3-5          | State Reading Coaches' Meeting                        |
|              |                                                       |
| 3-5          | Principals' Institute                                 |
|              |                                                       |
| 24-25        | Regional Coaches' Meeting                             |
|              |                                                       |
| 25-26        |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **February** | Literacy Specialists' Meeting                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 5-8          | State Reading First Coaches' Meeting                  |
|              |                                                       |
| 6-8          | KCTE                                                  |
|              |                                                       |
| 9-10         | Regional Coaches' Meeting                             |
|              |                                                       |
| 21-22        |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **March**    | Literacy Specialists' Meeting                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 5-6          | State Reading First Coaches' Meeting                  |
|              |                                                       |
| 5-6          | Pre KY Teaching and Learning Conference (Susan Hall)  |
|              |                                                       |
| 7            | Principals' Institute                                 |
|              |                                                       |
| 7            | KY Teaching and Learning Conference                   |
|              |                                                       |
| 8-10         | Special Education Quarterly Meeting                   |
|              |                                                       |
| 13-15        | Maria Elena Arguelles' ELL Presentation               |
|              |                                                       |
| 21           |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **April**    | National CEC Conference, Louisville                   |
|              |                                                       |
| 18-20        | Literacy Specialists' Meeting                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 23-27        | State Reading Coaches' Meeting                        |
|              |                                                       |
| 23-26        | State Testing                                         |
|              |                                                       |
| 23-May 4     |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **May**      | Literacy Coaches' Meeting                             |
|              |                                                       |
| 7-11         | State Reading Coaches' Meeting                        |
|              |                                                       |
| 8-10         | Special Education Quarterly Meeting                   |
|              |                                                       |
| 8-10         |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

**[2006-2007 GRADE and DIBELS Testing Dates]{.underline}**

***Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE)***

**Fall Administration\
**August 22nd - September 2nd\
All test booklets must be at AGS by September 9th

**Winter Administration**\
November 28th - December 9th\
All test booklets must be at AGS by December 9th

**Spring Administration**\
April 23 - May 18th\
All test booklets must be mailed by May 18th

 ***Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)***

**Fall Administration\
**The Wireless system rolls over on July 1st\
August 29th -September 16th\
All palms must be synced by September 16th

**Winter Administration\
**The Wireless system rolls over on December 1st\
December 5th - December 16th\
All palms must be synced by December 16th.

**Spring Administration\
**The Wireless system rolls over on April 1st\
All palms must be synced by May 18th

**[Data Collection Process]{.underline}**

The data is analyzed from various perspectives. All the data is combined
and the following themes are explored across all sources to examine
closely the implementation process according to:

-   Roles of school coach, state coach, district coach and principal

-   Teachers and students

-   Instruction

-   Leadership

-   Communication and collaboration

-   Professional development

-   Intervention strategies

-   Assessment

-   Accountability

-   Learning Environment

-   Family Involvement

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

Below is a list of all data sources designated by case study schools,
Year I longitudinal case study schools, and all 73 Reading First
schools.

**CASE STUDY SCHOOLS**

-   P1 -- P4 Classroom Observations (10 per school)

-   Interviews (Principals, School Coach, District Coach, Students,
    Supplemental Teachers, and Intervention teachers)

-   Teacher Questionnaires

-   Parent Surveys

-   Observation of Literacy Centers

-   Observations of Intervention Instruction

-   Observations of Supplemental Instruction

**Year 1 Longitudinal CASE STUDY SCHOOLS**

-   Classroom Observations (4 per school)

-   Literacy Center Observations (2 per school)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   On-Site Principal Interviews

-   On-Site School Coach Interviews

-   Teacher Questionnaires

-   GRADE and DIBELS data

**ALL 73 READING FIRST SCHOOLS**

-   GRADE and DIBELS Data

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   State Coach Interviews

-   Summer Institute Evaluations

-   Special Education K-12 Summer Institute Evaluations

-   Professional Development Grant Schools Summer Institute Evaluations

-   Special Education Observations, Interviews, and Teacher Surveys

-   KDE Leadership Questionnaires

-   Principal Institutes Fall and Spring

**[STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA]{.underline}**

Student achievement is evaluated by using a variety of valid and
reliable measures including:

-   GRADE - Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation

> The 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 administer the GRADE K-3. The GRADE was
> selected because it is a diagnostic tool that gives teachers
> additional information pertaining to students' reading skills. It
> 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. Additional information will become available in
> schools where diagnostic assessments are linked to reading programs.

-   Screening/Progress Monitoring and Outcomes: Dynamic Indicators of
    Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

> DIBELS serves as a screening, progress monitoring and outcome
> assessment tool. It will assist in assessing phonemic awareness,
> phonics, and fluency. The instruments that will be used in the
> entry-level primary P1 (Kindergarten) are Segmentation Fluency (a
> measure of phonemic awareness) and Letter Naming Fluency. P2 (grade 1)
> will use Segmentation Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency (a measure of
> alphabetic reading skill). Progress monitoring occuring in February
> and May in P2 (grade 1) and P3 (grade 2) are Oral Reading Fluency (a
> measure of reading accuracy and fluency in text) and Nonsense Word
> Fluency. In P4 (grade 3), progress in fluency is monitored using the
> Oral Reading Fluency measure. For "at-risk" students, Segmentation
> Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency are administered as necessary.

**QUANTITATIVE DATA SUMMARY**

> DIBELS -- three times per year
>
> GRADE - three times per year
>
> Additional progress monitoring for comprehension and vocabulary
> determined by each individual Reading First school

**INFORMATION REGARDING STUDENT POPULATION**

-   Individual student information (STI) (public and private)

-   \# Students referred for special education

-   \# Students needing intensive intervention and reading plans

-   Attendance data

-   Ethnicity / subpopulations

-   Date student entered Reading First school: school intervention

-   Services each student receives

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ESS

-   ESL

-   Special education

-   Title I

-   Speech/language

Once the data has been collected, the evaluation team analyzes the data
and summarizes the findings. The chart below depicts the timeline of
events for the research process.

**Timeline for Evaluation Study Report**

**June 1, 2006 -- June 30, 2007**

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| **Month**         | **Items to be Completed**                        |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| July 2006         | -   Attend Summer Institutes and Special         |
|                   |     Education Institutes                         |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Analyze Summer Institute and Special         |
|                   |     Education Institute data                     |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| August 2006       | -   Review and summarize data collected to date  |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Review and refine observation protocols and  |
|                   |     interview questions                          |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| September 2006    | -   Develop and print Fall Classroom Observation |
|                   |     booklets                                     |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Meet with evaluation team to review          |
|                   |     observational and interview process          |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Fall GRADE and DIBELS window                 |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Receive Fall GRADE and DIBELS data           |
|                   |     mid-September                                |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Analyze Fall GRADE and DIBELS                |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Districts' APRs due by September 15^th^      |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Summarize district APRs, responses, and      |
|                   |     tables                                       |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Fall classroom observations and interviews   |
|                   |     begin                                        |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| October 2006      | -   Complete fall classroom observations and     |
|                   |     interviews                                   |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Enter and analyze fall classroom observation |
|                   |     and interview data                           |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| November 2006     | -   Meet with evaluation team to summarize       |
|                   |     observations and interview data              |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   APR due in Washington D.C.                   |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Special Education Study School Coach Phone   |
|                   |     Interviews                                   |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Special Education Study observations         |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Special Education Study teacher surveys      |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -                                                |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| December 2006     | -   Analysis of all Special Education data       |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Begin midyear GRADE and DIBELS testing       |
|                   |     window                                       |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Special Education Case Study Site Interviews |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Develop and print winter classroom           |
|                   |     observation booklets                         |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| January 2007      | -   Development of teacher survey                |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Development of Principals' Institute         |
|                   |     evaluation form                              |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Receive GRADE and DIBELS winter data around  |
|                   |     January 15^th^                               |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Winter classroom observations begin          |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -                                                |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| February 2007     | -   Complete winter classroom observations       |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Analyze winter GRADE and DIBELS data         |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Enter and analyze midyear classroom          |
|                   |     observations and interview data              |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Attend and collect data at Regional          |
|                   |     Principals' Institute                        |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Teacher questionnaires collected             |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Develop Summer Institutes and Special        |
|                   |     Education Institute evaluation forms;        |
|                   |     develop special education teacher knowledge  |
|                   |     evaluations                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| March 2007        | -   Spring classroom observation and interviews  |
|                   |     begin                                        |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Begin compiling Annual Report                |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Special Education Study observations         |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Special Education Case Study student         |
|                   |     interviews                                   |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Special Education Teacher interviews         |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Special Education Case Study parent          |
|                   |     interviews                                   |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| April 2007        | -   Analysis of all Special Education data       |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Analysis of Teacher survey data              |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Spring GRADE and DIBELS window, April 25^th^ |
|                   |     to May 5^th^                                 |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Special Education Study Teacher phone        |
|                   |     interviews                                   |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Complete spring classroom observations and   |
|                   |     interviews                                   |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| May 2007          | -   Receive spring GRADE and DIBELS data; May    |
|                   |     15^th^                                       |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Analyze spring GRADE and DIBELS data         |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Enter and analyze spring classroom           |
|                   |     observations and interview data              |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| June 2007         | -   Enter and analyze spring classroom           |
|                   |     observation data                             |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Summer Institutes and Special Education      |
|                   |     Institutes begin                             |
|                   |                                                  |
|                   | -   Complete Kentucky's Reading First Annual     |
|                   |     Report                                       |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

**[Presentation Outline for All Volumes]{.underline}**

The annual report consists of five volumes:

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Volume \#**           **Contents**            **Study Objectives**

  **Volume I**            All 73 RF Schools' Data Contains evidence to
                          Summary                 support objective 1 of
                                                  the study

  **Volume II**           All 73 GRADE and DIBELS Contains evidence to
                          Data Summary            support objective 1, 2,
                                                  and 3 of the study

  **Volume III**          Case Study Schools'     Contains evidence to
                          Data Summary            support objective 1 and
                                                  3 of the study

  **Volume IV**           Year 1 Longitudinal     Contains evidence to
                          Case Study Schools'     support objective 1 and
                          Summary                 2 of the study

  **Volume V**            Special Education Study Contains evidence to
                                                  support objective 1 and
                                                  3 of the study
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

The findings of each chapter follow the same outline:

-   Description of data source;

-   Themes and Trends with discussion of successes and concerns; and

-   Evidence of Findings.

Within each chapter are graphs, charts, and pictorial representations of
the synthesized data. It is the intent of the authors to provide the
reader with both a written and a visual perception of the data. Once all
data in each volume has been analyzed and written, then all five volumes
are submitted to the Kentucky Department of Education as the
Collaborative Center for Literacy Development's final report on
Kentucky's Reading First program.

**Chapter 2**

This chapter includes two sections, A and B. Section A reflects the
institute's participant evaluations (see Appendix A) while Section B
reflects the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development evaluators'
summary and evaluation of the institutes. This section includes overall
themes, participant evaluation ratings, and comments from participating
teachers.

**Section A**

**[IA. Reading First Regular Education Summer Institutes]{.underline}-
[2006]{.underline}**

**[Participant Evaluations]{.underline}**

During the summer of 2006, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE)
conducted professional development institutes for the 73 Reading First
schools. The 10 Reading First state coaches presented each institute's
agenda consisting of three days focusing on using data to design
explicit instruction. Specific emphasis was given to guidelines for
planning an explicit lesson, analyzing school's assessment data to
identify areas for growth, and evaluating core program lessons for
skills and strategies addressing the five components of reading.
Teachers were given opportunities to work with their colleagues to
augment core lessons to align with Reading First objectives.

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

**Overall successes based on evidence from the summer institute
participant evaluation comments:**

-   Teachers found the guidelines and discussion for explicit lesson
    planning and instruction to be the most useful information provided
    by the institute;

-   Teachers appreciated the opportunities to plan core program lessons
    with grade level colleagues during the institute; and

-   Teachers indicated the time spent evaluating and augmenting core
    lessons for explicit instruction in the five components was
    beneficial for their schools.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the summer institute
participant evaluation comments:**

-   Teachers' responses indicate a need for more professional
    development to plan, organize, manage, and differentiate literacy
    centers in their classrooms;

-   Teachers want to develop a more extensive repertoire of specific
    strategies and activities to engage students while explicitly
    teaching core lessons; and

-   Teachers want to develop more specific strategies and activities for
    explicitly teaching small group and guided reading.

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

**Summer Institute Evaluation Summary for Reading First Funded Schools**

The following is an analysis of participant responses to the 2006
Reading First Summer Institutes. The number of respondents to the
evaluations was 1249.

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

The institutes were praised by the participants with 81% of attendees
giving the institute a high overall rating of a 4 or a 5. Ninety-two of
the attendees gave a high overall rating to the instructor.

Participants were generally positive about the usefulness of the
institute. Eighty-eight percent agreed with a rating of a 4 or a 5 that
the institute provided them with valuable resource materials.
Eighty-five percent of respondents felt strongly that the content of the
institute directly applied to their jobs. Eighty-one percent of
participants highly agreed that the content of the institute was what
they expected, and 91% highly agreed that the content of the institute
was well organized.

The institute evaluation also rated the quality of the instructor and
the materials and visual aids. Ninety-one percent of the attendees
highly agreed that the instructor demonstrated knowledge of content, and
88% strongly agreed that the instructor modeled techniques well. The
participants' responses were highly favorable toward the instructors,
with 90% agreeing strongly that the instructors indicated interest in
the participant. Eighty-six percent of the respondents found that the
visual aids were highly effective, and the same percentage found the
participant notebook highly effective. Overall, 90% of the participants
found the materials and visual aids organized and well prepared.

The active participation level was high as well, 89%. The perceived
active participation of the other attendees was a bit lower, 59%.

**Regular Education Summer Institute Evaluation Results**

  --------------------------- ------------- -------- ------- ------- -----------
  **Content**                 **1 (Low)**   **2**    **3**   **4**   **5
                                                                     (High)**

  1\. Overall Rating          10            37       180     418     679

  2\. Content was what I      9             49       173     398     694
  expected                                                           

  3\. Directly applicable to  17            39       136     352     780
  my job                                                             

  4\. I found value in the    13            26       112     387     787
  resource materials                                                 

  5\. Content was well        12            18       81      325     889
  organized                                                          

  **Instructor**                                                     

  6\. Overall Rating          11            21       62      275     956

  7\. Demonstrated knowledge  12            31       71      276     934
  of content                                                         

  8\. Modeled techniques      12            21       109     271     912

  9\. Instructors' interest   12            22       87      291     907
  in participants                                                    

  **Materials and Visual                                             
  Aids**                                                             

  10\. Effectiveness of       11            20       124     379     769
  Visual Aids                                                        

  11\. Usefulness of          12            20       121     347     806
  participant workbook                                               

  12\. Organized and well     9             22       72      329     872
  prepared                                                           

  **You as a participant**    **1 (Strongly **2**    **3**   **4**   **5
                              Disagree)**                            (Strongly
                                                                     Agree)**

  13\. I was fully present    7             15       85      384     804
  and actively participated                                          

  14\. My co-participants     8             9        63      259     562
  were actively involved and                                         
  supported the learning                                             
  process                                                            
  --------------------------- ------------- -------- ------- ------- -----------

The evaluation form included three prompts for participants to complete:

-   The information I found most useful\....

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

-   What specific training from this institute will benefit my school?

The following charts reflect the participants' responses to these
prompts.

RF Schools 2006

Summer Institute Evaluation Comments

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

  Guidelines for explicit lesson planning and instruction      436

  Evaluating and augmenting core lessons for explicit          152
  instruction in the 5 components                              

  Time to plan explicit lessons with grade level colleagues    128

  Analyzing student assessment data                            89

  Differentiating between skills and strategies                32

  Modeling of comprehension strategies                         29

  Examples of lesson planning (i.e. blueprint template,        29
  planning organizer)                                          

  Resources given to participants ( i.e. handouts, information 27
  in binder, Nice to Know section, planning bookmark, posters, 
  cheat sheet, observation tools)                              

  Model lessons on video                                       18

  Conversations with other teachers from RF schools regarding  13
  helpful practices                                            

  Strategies for vocabulary instruction                        11

  Center activities/ideas                                      10

  Connecting skills, strategies, and activities for explicit   9
  instruction                                                  

  Phonics strategies/activities                                8

  Presenter modeling explicit lesson planning                  6
  ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| ***What I would have preferred* *to learn from the***      | **\# of |
|                                                            | Resp    |
| ***Institute/training....***                               | onses** |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| How to plan core and component related activities,         | 56      |
| organize, manage, and differentiate literacy centers       |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Specific strategies and activities to engage students      | 42      |
| while explicitly teaching core lessons                     |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Strategies/activities for teaching small group/guided      | 27      |
| reading explicitly                                         |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Strategies for differentiating instruction for struggling  | 13      |
| readers and diverse learners                               |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| More hands-on activities or practice teaching lessons      | 18      |
| during the institute                                       |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| More examples of modeling explicit teaching within the     | 18      |
| reading block                                              |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| More time to plan lessons within grade level teams         | 17      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| More time for data analysis to create an action plan to    | 13      |
| address areas of concern for upcoming school year          |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| More comprehension instruction strategies/ideas            | 10      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Guidance for time management for whole and small group     | 9       |
| during reading block                                       |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Material and examples relevant to upper primary grade      | 9       |
| levels                                                     |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| More fluency instruction strategies/ideas                  | 7       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| More training, planning, and strategies for intervention   | 7       |
| instruction                                                |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Easier and multiple lesson planning strategies             | 7       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| More discussion regarding special education students in    | 9       |
| core                                                       |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| ***What specific training from this institute will         | **\# of |
| benefit***                                                 | Resp    |
|                                                            | onses** |
| ***My school?***                                           |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Guidelines for explicit planning and instruction           | 273     |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Planning explicit lessons with grade level team            | 81      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Evaluating and augmenting core program to align with the 5 | 71      |
| components                                                 |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| How to use data analysis when designing explication        | 51      |
| instruction                                                |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Entire training                                            | 51      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| The school having a uniform lesson planning approach for   | 33      |
| reading                                                    |         |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Identifying objectives, skills, strategies, activities     | 17      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Modeling the two-week lesson plan                          | 10      |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| Comprehension skills and strategies                        | 8       |
+------------------------------------------------------------+---------+

**The following is a sample of additional comments by institute
participants:**

"I found it most useful that I have the ability (or permission) to move
lessons around to better fit my students' needs. I can use my
professional judgment and not do things 'by the book'."

"It was helpful to work with other teachers from my school."

"I appreciated the time to plan and to reflect. Thanks!"

"This was one of the most helpful workshops that I have been to. The
information will have a direct impact on the way that I will teach next
year."

"At times, the information was overkill. The planning process will take
a long time and time is of the essence! The color coded post-its were a
little too much."

"In all of my Reading First trainings, I don't think I've ever seen a
third grade example."

"We need more planning time at school to fulfill expectations."

"I am very thankful to receive this training. Thank you for all the hard
work and time that went into preparing this institute."

"These trainings can be so difficult because individual school
expectations can differ. I am leaving here conflicted over whether to
fight for what I heard today is "right" or to simply 'go with the flow'
of my faculty."

"This institute training was beneficial in helping me learn how to
effectively incorporate explicit instruction lessons into my core
reading program."

"I feel that this year's institute was very helpful and informative
because the content was based on our new reading series and allowing us
time to do curriculum mapping the new year."

"This was the [best]{.underline} Summer Institute. We were looking at
our individual materials and data."

"This has complicated my lesson planning process. It seems to have made
the process difficult."

"This training has been the most beneficial since the grant! Real
answers! The presenter knows how students learn and how teachers adapt
to learners' needs."

"I did not feel that these two days were very beneficial to me. I didn't
take anything away from the vignette activity or the discussion of the
data from the other schools or grades."

"I learned that I can change core lessons to fit students' abilities and
needs. I gained useful information on how to decide whether a skill
should be whole or small group."

"The information will help the school take our teaching methods to a
more explicit level which should help our students' performance
improve."

"I would like to see ways in which we incorporate interventions with
special needs children."

"Training introduced nothing new or beneficial to support classroom
reading series/lessons; focused on developing a lesson plan, which is
already completed for us in the series; wanted ideas for
lessons/centers!"

"I expected to learn new techniques/activities /center ideas, etc; I
feel that the text does a pretty good job of walking a teacher through
the lesson. We did not need to rewrite the lesson plans that are already
there. A veteran teacher will enhance the plan that is in the book
through experience."

"If planning on a daily basis is this involved, no teaching would get
done."

**Section B**

**IB. [Reading First Regular Education Summer
Institute-2006]{.underline}**

**[Evaluators' Summary]{.underline}**

The Collaborative Center for Literacy Developments' (CCLD) Reading First
Evaluation Team attended several of the Reading First Regular Education
Summer Institutes during the summer of 2006. Each evaluator was provided
with a training manual for explicit and systematic instruction to
preview before attending the training. Evaluators observed the institute
presenter's delivery, participants' involvement, and content of the
training.

This section includes overall themes, the evaluators' summary of the
institute, questions asked by participants, and evaluation team ratings.

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

**Overall successes based on evidence from evaluators' summary of summer
institutes:**

-   Institutes were very organized with helpful resources readily
    available;

-   The presenters were knowledgeable and shared experiences about the
    content presented;

-   Teachers were allowed to work with grade levels to apply information
    learned during institute; and

-   Teachers evaluated their core programs and identified ways to
    augment lessons to meet student needs.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from evaluators' summary of summer
institutes:**

-   Some institutes included teachers from more than one school, making
    space difficult to accommodate movement and materials;

-   The arrangement of the room prevented some teachers from seeing
    visuals used in the presentation;

-   Some participants seemed to be confused about augmenting their core
    lessons; and

-   Some institutes lacked participation when teachers were given
    opportunities to ask questions.

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

[Organization]{.underline}

The CCLD evaluators attended summer institutes in which approximately
285 teachers from 18 Reading First schools participated. Some of the
institutes had participants sitting in large groups while others had
them sitting at small tables with their grade level colleagues.
Handbooks for the training were available at the tables, and presenters
used Power Point presentations to guide the participants through the
process of planning explicit and systematic lessons.

[Atmosphere]{.underline}

Evaluators' summaries indicated a positive, casual atmosphere at the
institutes. Participants seemed to enjoy conversations with teachers
from their own school as well as teachers from other Reading First
schools. Presenters appeared to be professional by being organized,
punctual, friendly, and knowledgeable about the content being presented.
Some institutes had to deal with a lack of space, making it difficult
for everyone to have room for their materials and view all visuals
during the presentation.

[Opportunities to Apply Information]{.underline}

During the institute, teachers were given time to work in grade levels
to analyze assessment data and evaluate their core lesson plans.
Afterwards, they were asked to design explicit and systematic
instruction addressing the five components of effective reading
instruction and areas of growth identified through data analysis. The
time allotted for this portion of the training varied among institutes,
ranging from 1 hour to 2 hours, 15 minutes.

[Participation]{.underline}

Many teachers took advantage of the opportunity to plan with colleagues,
giving them a head start on their first week's lesson plans; however,
some groups had difficulty remaining on task. With several side
conversations occurring, presenters had to encourage some groups to
remain focused. When time for whole group discussion occurred, many
teachers were attentive, but several appeared reluctant to participate
in the conversations. One evaluator noticed the same group of teachers
responding to the presenter's questions throughout the discussion.

The following is a sample of issues teachers discussed in their grade
level conversations:

-   How to handle disruptive students

-   How to supplement when some students finish before others

-   How to challenge gifted students

-   Concerns expressed about what was lacking in the core program

-   Comparisons of core programs

-   Additional expectations seem to overwhelm some of the teachers.

[Questions]{.underline}

The following is a sample of the questions asked by participants during
discussions:

-   Can spelling, grammar and writing be included in the 90 minutes?

-   Can you help us understand the definition of phonological, phonemic
    awareness, and phonics?

-   When will we find time to plan?

-   Why are we moving kids through a program when they are not passing
    the tests?

-   Why do we not have a continuous rise in GRADE throughout the year?

-   How will I apply this meaningfully to my classroom?

-   Are we able to meet all students' needs in the amount of time
    required?

-   Which guideline for explicit instruction is the most important?

-   How many Tier II words should we introduce each day?

-   What is a good way to introduce Tier III words?

-   What is the difference between skills, strategies, and activities?

-   What is the difference between explicit and systematic instruction?

-   How do you decide which skills to teach whole group/ small group?

[Regular Education Summer Institute Evaluation Ratings]{.underline}

(Completed by CCLD Evaluators)

  --------------------------- ------------- -------- ------- ------- -----------
  **Content**                 **1 (Low)**   **2**    **3**   **4**   **5
                                                                     (High)**

  1\. Overall Rating                                         2       7

  2\. Content was what I                                             9
  expected                                                           

  3\. Directly applicable to                                 1       8
  my job                                                             

  4\. I found value in the                                   3       6
  resource materials                                                 

  5\. Content was well                                       3       6
  organized                                                          

  **Instructor**                                                     

  6\. Overall Rating                                                 9

  7\. Demonstrated knowledge                                         9
  of content                                                         

  8\. Modeled techniques                                     3       6

  9\. Instructors' interest                                          9
  in participants                                                    

  **Materials and Visual                                             
  Aids**                                                             

  10\. Effectiveness of                                      4       5
  Visual Aids                                                        

  11\. Usefulness of                                         4       5
  participant workbook                                               

  12\. Organized and well                                    2       7
  prepared                                                           

  13\. Overall environment                                   4       5
  and ambiance                                                       

  **Participants**            **1 (Strongly **2**    **3**   **4**   **5
                              Disagree)**                            (Strongly
                                                                     Agree)**

  14\. Participants were                    1                2       6
  fully present and actively                                         
  participated                                                       

  15\. Participants receptive                        1       4       4
  to new ideas presented                                             

  16\. Participants'                                 1       5       3
  questions focused on                                               
  content presented                                                  
  --------------------------- ------------- -------- ------- ------- -----------

**Chapter 3**

This chapter includes two sections: A and B. Section A reflects the
institute's participants' evaluations (See Appendix A), while Section B
reflects the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development evaluators'
summaries of the Professional Development Grant Summer Institutes during
the summer of 2006. Both section A and B include overall themes,
evaluation summaries, and comments and quotes from participants.

**Section A**

**[IA. Reading First Professional Development Grant 2006 Summer
Institutes Participant Evaluations]{.underline}**

During the summer of 2006, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE)
provided five non-Reading First schools with a grant for professional
development. Most institutes consisted of three days focusing on the
five essential components of reading instruction: phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Teachers completed a
questionnaire at the end of the sessions in order to provide feedback to
the instructors and to KDE.

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

**Overall successes based on evidence from the professional development
grant summer institute participant evaluation comments:**

-   The strategies, activities, and information on the five components
    of reading in the classroom were mentioned by participants as being
    useful information.

-   Participants felt the information on comprehension strategies was
    also beneficial.

-   Participants felt as if they had received more professional
    development ideas than anticipated and were satisfied overall.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the professional development
grant summer institute participant evaluation comments:**

-   Participants would like more "hands on" activities and templates for
    literacy centers and more ideas to take back to the classroom.

-   Some participants felt as if the institutes lacked in variety of
    presentation. They needed to move around more and varied lecture
    formats in order to remain actively engaged.

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

**Summer Institute Evaluation Summary for Professional Development Grant
Schools**

The following is an analysis of participant responses to the summer
institutes for teachers in non-funded schools. The number of respondents
to the evaluations was 252.

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

The institutes were praised by the participants with 85% of attendees
giving the institute a high overall rating of a 4 or a 5 and 89% of the
attendees giving the instructor a high overall rating.

Participants were generally positive about the usefulness of the
institute. Eighty-eight percent agreed with a rating of a 4 or a 5 that
the institute provided them with valuable resource materials.
Eighty-four percent of respondents felt strongly that the content of the
institute directly applied to their jobs. Eighty-four percent of
participants highly agreed that the content of the institute was what
they expected and 89% highly agreed that the content of the institute
was well organized.

The institute evaluation also rated the quality of the instructor and
the materials and visual aids. Ninety-one percent of the attendees
highly agreed that the instructor demonstrated knowledge of content, and
86% strongly agreed that the instructor modeled techniques well. The
participants' responses were highly favorable toward the instructors,
with 91% agreeing strongly that the instructors indicated interest in
the participant. Eighty-three percent of the respondents found that the
visual aids were highly effective, and 86% found the participant
notebook highly effective. Overall, 86% of the participants found the
materials and visual aids organized and well prepared.

The active participation level was high as well, 93%. This was not only
true of the self-examination of the participant, but also the perceived
active participation of the other attendees was high as well, 90%.

**Professional Development Grant Summer Institute Evaluation Results**

  --------------------------- ------------- -------- ------- ------- -----------
  **Content**                 **1 (Low)**   **2**    **3**   **4**   **5
                                                                     (High)**

  1\. Overall Rating          2             5        29      70      144

  2\. Content was what I      2             8        28      74      138
  expected                                                           

  3\. Directly applicable to  3             14       22      49      163
  my job                                                             

  4\. I found value in the    2             12       16      65      156
  resource materials                                                 

  5\. Content was well        5             8        14      54      170
  organized                                                          

  **Instructor**                                                     

  6\. Overall Rating          0             7        20      34      189

  7\. Demonstrated knowledge  0             4        15      26      204
  of content                                                         

  8\. Modeled techniques      3             11       20      36      180

  9\. Instructors' interest   1             5        14      30      200
  in participants                                                    

  **Materials and Visual                                             
  Aids**                                                             

  10\. Effectiveness of       1             12       25      62      148
  Visual Aids                                                        

  11\. Usefulness of          3             5        24      73      142
  participant workbook                                               

  12\. Organized and well     1             8        18      41      179
  prepared                                                           

  **You as a participant**    **1 (Strongly **2**    **3**   **4**   **5
                              Disagree)**                            (Strongly
                                                                     Agree)**

  13\. I was fully present    1             6        7       52      183
  and actively participated                                          

  14\. My co-participants     1             4        17      48      178
  were actively involved and                                         
  supported the learning                                             
  process                                                            
  --------------------------- ------------- -------- ------- ------- -----------

The evaluation form included three prompts for participants to complete:

-   The information I found most useful\....

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

-   What specific training from this institute will benefit my school?

The following charts reflect the participants' responses to these
prompts.

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

  Strategies, activities, information, and ideas on the five **31**
  components of teaching reading in the classrooms           

  Comprehension strategies/importance of teaching            **19**

  All of the information                                     **17**

  Vocabulary strategies and activities                       **13**

  Fluency strategies/importance of teaching                  **12**

  Literacy centers                                           **12**

  Information provided in notebook, handouts, checklists,    **8**
  terms                                                      

  Phonics strategies and activities                          **4**

  Research data                                              **3**

  Importance of nightly reading, lap time, and verbal        **3**
  discussions with children                                  

  Phonemic awareness strategies                              **3**

  Reciprocal teaching                                        **2**

  Read aloud information                                     **2**

  Assessment information                                     **2**

  The Reading is Fun "rif" website                           **2**

  Word work                                                  **1**

  Video                                                      **1**

  Authentic student writing                                  **1**
  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------

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

  More center activities/templates/ideas                     **12**

  How to manage instruction in classroom                     **5**

  Time management                                            **4**

  More procedures, examples, and ideas to introduce into the **3**
  classroom                                                  

  More time on the 5 components                              **3**

  More upper level/3^rd^ grade information                   **3**

  More modeling                                              **2**

  How to set up a classroom environment/organize             **2**

  Hands-on manipulative ideas/learning                       **2**

  The importance of reading                                  **2**

  How to make more connections to writing                    **1**

  More on emergent readers                                   **1**
  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------

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

  Everything presented will benefit our school               22

  In-depth knowledge of the five components of reading,      14
  including all components and specific instructional        
  strategies                                                 

  Effective reading strategies (including explicit and       7
  systematic strategies)                                     

  Reading/literacy centers                                   6

  Comprehension strategies                                   6

  Ideas to help struggling readers, slow learners            4

  Examples, procedures, and ideas to introduce in the        4
  classroom                                                  

  Progress monitoring/assessment                             3

  The skills/content learned will benefit all students       3

  Questioning techniques                                     2

  How to implement the program with every grade throughout   2
  the school                                                 

  Increase student achievement                               2

  Specific skills to use in the classroom related to         2
  comprehension                                              

  The fluency training                                       2

  Vocabulary strategies                                      2

  The information on early stages of reading integrated      1
  through core content                                       

  The importance of phonemic awareness and oral language     1
  development                                                

  Pull all of us together to insure all five components of   1
  reading are being taught                                   

  Increase student achievement                               1

  Reading abilities addressed                                1

  Phonics skills                                             1

  The specific order of instruction                          1

  How to implement literacy centers into the classroom       1

  Decoding                                                   1

  Refreshing our minds...                                    1
  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------

**[Additional Comments:]{.underline}**

**A sample of positive remarks:**

"I wouldn't change a thing. They did a great job."

"This workshop exceeded my expectations. I appreciate learning from
fellow teachers who are on the job."

"Education majors should receive this training."

"I thoroughly enjoyed this professional development- very informative."

"I loved this training! I only wish I had this training early in my
teaching career. Every reading teacher needs this training."

"This was one of the most beneficial trainings I have been a part of. I
am anxious to apply the content learned!"

"I thoroughly enjoyed this training and found it to be the most useful
training I have attended in a long time."

"I was very impressed."

"I thought this training was excellent and will benefit my school."

"These workshops were wonderful. Our teachers have gained valuable
information!"

"Very effective and helpful- Instructor was wonderful and very
knowledgeable."

"The institute was a very useful beginning on our efforts to raise
reading scores."

"Our presenter was highly enthusiastic about reading and the importance
of high achievements in reading and related skills."

"College reading teachers should be teaching this!"

"I enjoyed the training and look forward to implementing the ideas in my
classroom."

"Very well prepared presenter. Specific information provided with
excellent examples for our school to utilize."

**A sample of negative remarks:**

"The Power Point slides had words on top of words."

"Too much to cover in three days."

"Some parts of the presentation were long and became boring. We weren't

actively engaged. Most of the presentation was useful and well
researched."

"Needed to move more."

"Binder organization could be more efficient."

**Section B**

**[IB. Reading First Professional Development Grant Institutes 2006 --
Evaluators' Summary]{.underline}**

The Collaborative Center for Literacy Development's (CCLD) Reading First
evaluation team attended and observed professional development grant
summer institutes during the summer of 2006. The summer institutes
consisted of two days of professional development focusing on
establishing a classroom environment that promotes literacy development,
increasing teacher knowledge of the five components of reading, and
integrating reading and writing instruction. Specific emphasis was given
to make all reading instruction more intentional and explicit. This
chapter includes overall themes, a brief description, reflections from
the evaluation team, quotes, a summary of the evaluation, and trends
from the summer institutes.

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

**Overall successes based on evidence from evaluators' summary of the
professional development grant summer institutes:**

-   Very organized with materials;

-   Instructor was knowledgeable about content presented;

-   Instructor motivated teachers to use the RF skills and strategies;

-   Application of topic was given to participants during institute
    time;

-   Instructor shared experiences and insights; and

-   Worked in grade levels.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from evaluators' summary of the
professional development grant summer institutes:**

-   Lack of assessment tools impedes the implementation of RF;

-   Notebooks were not organized for teachers;

-   Reference materials were not in notebook;

-   Amount of content for one day seemed overwhelming; and

-   Manual format was hard to follow.

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

**[Organization]{.underline}**

There were 197 teacher participants and five schools attending the
professional development grant summer institutes that were observed by
the evaluators from the CCLD. Five schools attending these non-funded
summer institutes include

-   Pine Knot Elementary;

-   Southern Elementary;

-   Pendleton County;

-   Southside Elementary; and

-   John G. Carlisle Elementary.

The materials were available to all of the participants, and the
professional development started on time. All of the presentations were
given in the form of a Power Point by a lead presenter.

**[Atmosphere]{.underline}**

The ambiance of the non-funded summer institutes appeared friendly and
comfortable, oftentimes with the principal involved with the staff, and
a causal atmosphere.

During the non-funded summer institutes, the participants were sitting
on stools and desk chairs as a whole group. Often large groups with
tables were arranged by grade levels (K-5), and they also sat at either
library tables by grade levels or at small groups at tables.

There was not always room enough for activities and movement in the
rooms provided.

**[Preparation/planning/ organization]{.underline}**

Overall, the summer institutes started on time, were organized, and the
trainer was well prepared. The trainers also seemed knowledgeable of
material and often shared interesting experiences to enhance the
lectures. The handbooks were organized and easy to follow; however,
oftentimes the screens with the Power Point presentations were too far
away for participants to clearly and easily follow along. Also, the
teachers often had limited room at the tables for materials.

**[Questions asked by participants]{.underline}**

Listed below are several samples of questions that participants asked
during the presentations.

*How do you expand vocabulary through context clues?*

*What is the difference between phonemic awareness and phonics?*

> *What grade level should be more focused on phonemic awareness and
> phonics?*

*How do you address students who just do not get it?*

*In 4^th^ grade, can a picture book be used as a read-aloud?*

**[Amount of time participants were given for application of
learning]{.underline}**

After each strategy, participants were encouraged to apply what they
learned for 15 minutes.

**[Observations during activity time]{.underline}**

Listed below are samples of observations made during the participants'
activity times.

-   Group not on task during activity time;

-   One group primarily responded;

-   Most participants were attentive, but reluctant to verbally
    participate;

-   Lots of side conversations; and

-   Trainer encouragement required for participation.

**[Participant responses]{.underline}**

Many of the participants talked about testing, downloading DIBELS, word
walls and the categories for word walls, using specific strategies, and
utilizing Saxon Phonics. Some participants felt as if the material was
similar to material from the past.

**[Observation Rating Summary]{.underline}**

The following chart is a summary of the ratings given by the evaluators
after the summer institutes were completed. (Note -- not all evaluators
marked each category.)

  ------------------------------------------ ------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------
  **[Content]{.underline}**                  **[Low             **[2]{.underline}**   **[3]{.underline}**   **[4]{.underline}**   **[High
                                             1]{.underline}**                                                                     5]{.underline}**

  1\. Overall rating                                                                                        5                     

  2\. Content related to goals of Institute                                                                 2                     2

  3\. Content applicable to five reading                                                                    2                     2
  components                                                                                                                      

  4\. Value of resource material                                                                            1                     3

  5\. Content was well organized                                                                            4                     1

  **[Instructor]{.underline}**                                                                                                    

  6\. Overall rating                                                                                        3                     2

  7\. Demonstrated knowledge of content                                                                     2                     3

  8\. Modeled techniques                                                                                    2                     3

  9\. Instructors' interest in participants                                                                 3                     2

  **[Material and Visual Aids]{.underline}**                                                                                      

  10\. Effectiveness of Visual Aids                                                   2                                           3

  11\. Usefulness of participant workbook                                             2                     2                     1

  12\. Organized and well-prepared                                                                          5                     

  13\. Overall environment and ambiance                                               3                     2                     

  **[Participants]{.underline}**                                                                                                  

  14\. Participants fully present and                                                 3                     2                     
  actively participated                                                                                                           

  15\. Participants receptive to new ideas                                                                  5                     
  presented                                                                                                                       

  16\. Participants questions focused on                                                                    5                     
  content presented                                                                                                               
  ------------------------------------------ ------------------ --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------

**Chapter 4**

This chapter contains two sections, A and B. Written by two CCLD
evaluators who observed the training, Section A is a summary of the
fifth Reading First Principals' Institute. Section B includes a summary
of evaluations completed by participants, and phone interview responses
from eight of the attending principals.

**Section A**

**[IA. Principals' Institute V, Fall 2006]{.underline}**

On October 18, 2006, principals from all 73 Reading First schools were
given the opportunity to meet, network, and discuss the third year of
implementation of Reading First. Members of the Collaborative Center for
Literacy Development's (CCLD) Reading First evaluation team attended the
institute, compiled notes, and collected principals' evaluations of the
institute. Using this data, summaries were completed and themes were
noted.

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

**Overall successes based on evidence from the Reading First Principals'
Institute V participant evaluations:**

-   Responses indicated principals thought having school coaches attend
    the institute was beneficial, allowing them to review and analyze
    their student test data together;

-   Participants approved of the workshop format, especially the session
    where schools made data boards using their DIBELS data;

-   Participants appreciated opportunities for networking with other
    Reading First districts; and

-   Participants liked hearing about another state Reading First program
    and its successes with data collection and analysis.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the Reading First Principals'
Institute V participant evaluations:**

-   Some participants request more focus on the GRADE assessment and
    what to use to progress-monitor GRADE skills:

-   Other participants would like more time to work with data, culture,
    and assessment;

-   Some participants would like more time in sessions and continued
    emphasis on related topics; and

-   Some would like to see videos of explicit lessons that can serve as
    good models for teachers.

**I[IIA. Evidence for Principals' Institute V: Embracing
Data]{.underline}**

The fifth Principals' Institute was held October 18, 2006, in Frankfort,
Kentucky. Approximately 140 principals and school coaches attended the
one day workshop. Linda Holbrook, co-director of Reading First, welcomed
participants and reported on the highlights of the National Reading
Conference held in Reno in July. Ms. Holbrook stressed that this is
Kentucky's third year of Reading First implementation---a year of
refinement.

State coach James Ward made additional comments about the national
conference and introduced the presenters of the opening
session---"Embracing Data." Principal Mike Fosberg, literacy coach
Bethany Robinson, and data specialist Leslie Weil from Washington state
had presented their model at the national conference and those in
attendance at Reno agreed it was a model that should be shared with
Kentucky Reading First schools.

The presenters\-- using Power Point, handouts, and charts\--
demonstrated Madronna Elementary's success with creating a culture
centered on student data. They showed examples following four students
from fall test scores through the spring testing. Presenters
demonstrated how to create data boards targeting students for different
interventions or strategic groupings---the goal always being to get them
to benchmark. After the opening session, the remainder of the day was
spent with participants attending three different sessions.

**Session I-** Participants designed data boards based on their fall
DIBELS data. Participants downloaded a template and made student labels
for first grade. Mr. Fosberg and Ms. Robinson were at the workshop, and
along with state coaches, assisted participants in their tasks. The
attendees were also given boards to design the other grade level charts
on their own.

**Session II**---Roles, Responsibilities, and Hot Topics- Provided an
opportunity for principals and coaches to clarify their roles. With many
newcomers to Reading First, state coaches felt these roles needed to be
reviewed. Various state coaches facilitated the discussion with five
guiding questions. The questions and charted responses are as follows:

**1**. **In what ways do you demonstrate instructional leadership with
the following: support and professional development in Reading First?**

-   Instructional leadership should attend all PD.

-   Support sub-release days.

-   Base PD on need; don't waste time.

**2. What role do you play in seeing that instruction is driven by the
data?**

-   Lesson plans are data-driven.

-   Set classroom and grade level goals and follow up.

-   Individual teacher data charts

-   Look at students on the "fence."

**3. How can you include writing effectively during the core?**

-   Writing is not an add on; add authentic writing to learn; look at
    resources handout.

-   Response journals

-   Home conversation journals

-   Open-response assessments

-   Make connections between reading and writing. (Story had a good
    lead; sequencing).

**4. What are you doing to incorporate the new POS, Core Content 4.1,
and DOK into your core program?**

-   Alignment

-   Update curriculum

-   Depth of knowledge PD

**5. How does analyzing student work fit into your plan for improving
student achievement in reading and closing the achievement gap with your
sub groups?**

-   Probes---analyzing student work

-   Student ownership

-   Teacher "conversation" about expectations

-   Teacher instruction changes with student work.

-   What am I asking the student to do?

-   Regroup

**Session III**- State coach Debbie Carter presented step-by-step
examples of explicit weekly planning. She also stressed the importance
of teacher reflection at the end of each day so that someone else could
use it to carry out the next day's lesson. Ms. Carter reviewed an
example of explicit planning on the overhead that included an
explanation of the lesson, modeling, guided practice, independent
practice, and a conclusion. She further explained different scenarios
and how to scaffold instruction. Participants reviewed a lesson plan at
each table and discussed how to make it explicit.

The third workshop ended with state coach Jim Ward sharing an
observation tool he had designed based on Bill Gates' training model.
The form includes all 250 descriptors for an observation and will format
to a palm pilot and a word document. The day concluded when participants
completed an evaluation of the institute and received a certificate of
attendance.

**Section B**

**[Principal Institute Participants' Evaluations]{.underline}**

The Principals' Institute evaluation form directed participants to
respond to the following prompts:

-   The information I found to be most useful:

-   What I would have preferred to learn from the institute:

-   What specific training from this institute will benefit my school?

Eighty-five percent listed the data board session as the most useful;
ten percent gained the most from explicit planning, and the other five
percent reported Jim Ward's document (lesson plan template and e-walk
material) or the hot topics session as the most useful.

Of the 24 responses listed, eight would have preferred to learn about
charting GRADE data. Other responses included more work time for
entering data, more time to network, more information on walkthroughs
(Jim Wards' document), and more information on effective core programs.

Approximately seventy percent reported the data board training would
benefit their schools while others cited explicit lesson planning and
the information from the hot topics session.

In addition to the prompts, participants were asked to rank the content,
materials, instructor, and their own participation on the evaluation
form. The following chart is an analysis of participants' responses to
questions 1-14.

Principals' Institute V Evaluation Results

+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| **Content**          | **1   | **2** | **3**   | **4**   | **5      |
|                      | (L    |       |         |         | (High)** |
|                      | ow)** |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 1\. Overall Rating   | 1     | 0     | 4       | 40      | 67       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 2\. Content was what | 1     | 0     | 6       | 37      | 65       |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| I expected           |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 3\. Directly         | 1     | 0     | 2       | 35      | 74       |
| applicable           |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| To my job            |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 4\. I found value in | 0     | 2     | 2       | 38      | 70       |
| the                  |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| resource materials   |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 5\. Content was well | 0     | 0     | 3       | 35      | 74       |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| Organized            |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| **Instructor**       |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 6\. Overall Rating   | 0     | 1     | 3       | 29      | 79       |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 7\. Demonstrated     | 0     | 0     | 3       | 22      | 87       |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| knowledge of         |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| content              |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 8\. Modeled          | 0     | 2     | 7       | 38      | 74       |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| Techniques           |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 9\. Instructors'     | 0     | 1     | 4       | 27      | 80       |
| interest             |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| in participants      |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| **Materials and      |       |       |         |         |          |
| Visual Aids**        |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 10\. Effectiveness   | 0     | 2     | 8       | 27      | 75       |
| of                   |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| visual aids          |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 11\. Usefulness of   | 0     | 1     | 6       | 25      | 74       |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| participant          |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| workbook             |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 12\. Organized and   | 0     | 0     | 4       | 23      | 85       |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| well prepared        |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| **You as a           |       |       |         |         |          |
| participant**        |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 13\. I was fully     | 0     | 0     | 3       | 31      | 77       |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| present and          |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| actively             |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| participated         |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+
| 14\. My co-          | 0     | 0     | 4       | 33      | 75       |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| participants were    |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| actively involved    |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| and supported the    |       |       |         |         |          |
|                      |       |       |         |         |          |
| learning process     |       |       |         |         |          |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+----------+

**The following are samples of the additional comments participants
included on their evaluation forms:**

-   This has been the best institute to date. Being actively involved in
    practice and discussion was beneficial.

-   Very practical, applicable information- This session (day) made
    sense. I'm looking forward to sharing the explicit instruction
    information with my staff. They are ready for it.

-   This institute was packed with meaningful information that I can't
    wait to take back to my school and help guide teachers in using data
    to dig even deeper to meet our students' needs.

-   I don't think the school coaches should have been included in the
    explicit lesson planning. We guide the teachers in this process, so
    we are quite familiar with it already.

-   The data boards are very useful when looking at GRADE and DIBELS
    results. I feel I know explicit planning well, but teachers often
    feel it is a waste of their time. I was delighted to see how
    involved the principal from Washington was in the data.

-   At some point I would like to see differentiation of the PD for the
    various levels of knowledge to continue growth for all participants.

-   I was impressed with everything except the e-walk presentation. This
    presentation was mostly ineffective, could not see, too fast, and
    the objective was unclear.

-   This was one of the most beneficial days over 3 years. I wish we
    could have focused more on GRADE and what to use to progress monitor
    GRADE, especially since GRADE is the assessment we are accountable
    for in Red Flag status.

-   I felt his was mostly a rehash, and we spent way too much time on
    those boards.

-   Nice institute! Thanks! Reading First Coaches (state) should present
    at the Kentucky Association of Elementary School Principals
    Conference.

**[Reading First Principals' Phone Interviews]{.underline}**

Following KDE (Kentucky Department of Education) Principals' Institute V
10 principals were contacted and eight responded.

1.  **What was your overall impression of the Principals' Institute?**

    -   Presenters did a good job.

    -   I thought the institute was very informative and useful.

    -   I felt the institute was beneficial. I particularly liked the
        session on achievement boards.

    -   Overall, I thought it was beneficial. It was well organized, and
        the topics were relevant to the administrator's role. It was
        good to hear from a principal and his real life experiences with
        analyzing data. Some of the topics were covered in our summer
        institute, and I know the coaches have had additional sessions
        so some sessions were just a repeat of previous information.

    -   The institute was overall beneficial.

    -   Institute was well planned-good to use a practicing principal
        from a successful school to share.

    -   The morning session was very useful. Seeing the different ways
        to utilize data and the school-based improvement plan was eye
        opening. Session one was a repeat of our new principals'
        institute.

    -   I think this is the **worst** institute yet!

2.  **What did you find most beneficial to you in assisting with the
    Reading First implementation?**

-   The session on organizing data for analysis

-   There were several good ideas discussed during the breakout
    sessions. The one I like most was concerning the data collection and
    analysis.

-   The achievement boards provide an effective way of viewing data.

-   The most beneficial part for me was the data boards. It provided
    time for the coach and principal to look at the data together.
    Constructing the data boards is a great way to track the data
    visually, and it will help us to constantly monitor each child. (The
    difficult thing will be finding the time to complete all the
    classes.)

-   The data process, as explained and demonstrated by the people from
    Washington, was very beneficial.

-   I like having break-out sessions to address multiple topics, and
    keep the day flowing. (Most beneficial topic-explicit planning)

-   The morning example of an authentic team planning session

-   At this institute, nothing. I think much of the material is a rehash
    of things we have already done. Also, what is up with spending 4
    hours dealing with those boards?

3.  **What do you think needs to be included in the next Principals'
    Institute?**

-   Continued emphasis on related topics that are proven successful at
    other schools

-   I would like to have a more in-depth technology session.

-   I enjoyed being provided the time to accomplish something for my
    school. For example, we were given time to enter data. I think we
    should utilize the principals' institute to complete similar
    activities.

-   It would be helpful to have more time for the principal and coach to
    analyze data, construct data boards, make intervention plans, etc.

-   Anything that helps with collecting and using data

-   Would like to see video of explicit lessons that are good models

-   I need "real" instructional ideas.

-   More work with data, culture, and assessment. That is where the
    rubber meets the road. The rest is just conversation.

Chapter 5

[I. Summer School Survey- 2006]{.underline}

The Collaborative Center for Literacy Development's Reading First
evaluation team surveyed Reading First schools regarding their 2006
summer school programs. The survey consisted of two main parts: first,
eight questions regarding attendance, planning, and curriculum; second,
a section to record GRADE score averages and determine regression
percentages. Surveys from 37 schools were compiled, grouped, and
analyzed to determine themes and questions. Summaries and charts of the
data are provided in the evidence section below.

[II. Themes]{.underline}

The main theme noted in analyzing the summer school survey data was
diversity. The numbers of students receiving services, length of summer
school sessions, persons responsible for planning summer school, funding
sources, and types of curriculum utilized all demonstrated a wide range
of choices.

Overall successes based on 2006 Summer School surveys:

-   For the majority of summer school students, the main criteria for
    selection was low scores on DIBELS and GRADE, giving those students
    with the greatest need an opportunity for extra help in the summer.

-   The majority of schools used more than one funding source to provide
    summer school services.

-   The majority of schools provided bus transportation to help ensure
    students needing extra instruction could get to summer school
    sessions.

Concerns and questions noted from 2006 Summer School Surveys:

-   How can schools further refine their summer school curriculum to
    reduce the regression rates of students on GRADE?

-   How can transportation be worked out so more students who qualify
    can attend summer school sessions?

Overall, the surveys indicated the majority of schools planned summer
school sessions using multiple resources and curriculum to match the
needs of their lower achieving students.

[III. Evidence]{.underline}

1\. How many students attended on a regular basis? (above 80% of time)

Responses to this question indicated a wide range of regular attendance
totals.

The highest percentage of schools (41%) had 5-15 students who attended
summer school regularly.

+----------------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of students   | 5   | 1    | 2    | 3    | 4    | 5    | 6    |
| with                 | -15 | 6-25 | 6-35 | 6-45 | 6-55 | 6-65 | 6-75 |
|                      |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| regular attendance   |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| \% of schools        | 41% | 26%  | 18%  | 6%   | 6%   | 0%   | 3%   |
| indicated            |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                      |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| by surveys           |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+----------------------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+

2\. What did you do for students who had poor attendance?

Some surveys indicated multiple responses to this question; the majority
of schools used phone calls to address poor attendance.

Actions to Address Poor Attendance

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  Phone calls made home                 68%

  Incentives offered for good           16%
  attendance                            

  Home visits                           8%

  Letters home                          8%

  Not Applicable                        13%
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

3\. What criteria did you use to determine eligibility?

The majority of responses to this question indicated *more than one
criteria* was used to determine eligibility for summer school. The data
indicated a few summer school sessions were open to those with the
greatest needs [and]{.underline} anyone else willing to attend, but the
majority were planned to serve the students with greatest need.

Criteria Used to Determine Summer School Eligibility

  ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
  Lowest scores on GRADE/DIBELS        81%

  Teacher request                      33%

  Open to all students                 17%

  Parent requests                      11%

  Academic assessments                 11%

  Reading First coach referral         3%

  Migrant                              3%

  21^st^ Century Grant during school   3%
  year                                 
  ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

Out of the total number of responses, *31% indicated only one criteria
was used* to determine eligibility for summer school. Three summer
school sessions that targeted a specific grade level only, as indicated
below:

-   Rising 3^rd^ graders who were below 50^th^ percentile on GRADE

-   Rising 4^th^ graders, to address greatest needs before they left
    primary

-   Rising 1^st^/2^nd^ graders with greatest needs

In addition, one session focused on "family literacy." The goal was not
specifically to address students with greatest needs, but was open to
all families to enhance their overall literacy.

4\. Who was in charge of planning, etc.?

Responses to this question indicated the Reading First coach and the
summer school teachers were responsible for planning the summer school
sessions. However, collaboration with a wide variety of other educators
was also indicated. *The majority (73%) of responses cited more than one
person was responsible for planning summer school.*

Persons in Charge of Planning Summer School Session

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  Reading First Coach                   61%

  Summer School Teachers                42%

  ESS Coordinator                       24%

  Family Resource Center Coordinator    15%

  Principal                             12%

  Reading First District Coach          9%

  Literacy Team                         6%

  21^st^ Century Grant Coordinator      6%

  Save the Children Coordinator         6%

  Christian Appalachian Project         3%

  Special Education Teacher             3%

  Summer Program Coordinator            3%

  Public Librarian                      3%

  School Activities Coordinator         3%

  Child Guidance Specialist             3%

  Family Literacy Committee             3%

  Instructional Supervisor              3%
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

5\. How many weeks/days/hours did summer school last?

Responses to this question indicated diverse combinations of weeks, days
per week, and hours per day of summer school instruction. *Overall, the
data indicates the majority of summer school sessions were 3 to 5 weeks
long, 4* *to 5 days per week, and 3 to 4 hours a day*. The following
table summarizes the data collected:

Length of Summer School Sessions

\# Of Weeks \# of Days/Week \# of Hours/Day

  ----------- ------ -------- ------ --------- --------- -------- ---------
  1           8%              2      12%                 2        3%

  2           21%             3      12%                 3        33%

  3           18%             4      28%                 4        48%

  4           21%             5      48%                 5        6%

  5           15%                                        6        9%

  6           12%                                                 

  7           3%                                                  

  8           3%                                                  
  ----------- ------ -------- ------ --------- --------- -------- ---------

6\. What funding source did you use?

Survey data indicated *the majority of schools (53%) used only one
source* *of funding* for summer school. Those using more than one cited
a wide range of funding sources, summarized in the table below:

Funding Sources for Summer School Sessions

  ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
  Reading First Grant                  53%

  ESS                                  32%

  Title I                              18%

  21^st^ Century Grant                 11%

  Family Resource Center               8%

  Save the Children Grant              5%

  Public Library                       5%

  Food Service                         3%

  Homeless                             3%

  Migrant                              3%

  English as Second Language           3%

  Christian Appalachian Project        3%
  ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------

7\. How were transportation issues resolved?

Responses to this question indicated *76% of the schools surveyed
provided* *some kind of transportation* for students. Some surveys
indicated more than one response to this question; the data is
summarized in the table below:

Methods of Resolving Transportation Issues

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  Bus provided                       68%

  Gas vouchers given to parents      8%

  Staff walked to local daycares     3%

  Daycares provided van              3%
  transportation                     

  Not Applicable---no problems, or   24%
  transportation not provided        
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

8\. Write a brief description of the curriculum.

Survey data indicates *92% of summer school curriculum was a combination
of more than one program* and activities*.* The top six programs and/or
activities cited were:

-   Core program materials (32%)

-   GRADE Resource Library (16%)

-   Leveled readers (14%)

-   Voyager (11%)

-   Sight word activities (non-specific program) (11%)

-   Literacy stations on core components (non-specific program) (11%)

Other programs specifically mentioned (8% or less) were Sound Partners,
Soar to Success, Early Success, Lexia Phonics, Poetry Works, Reading
Mastery, Direct Instruction, Reading A-Z, Earobics, DIBELS Assessments,
Spiral Up Phonics, Project Read, Leapfrog, Sing, Spell, Read and Write,
AGS, Benchmark Fluency Kits, Reading For Coins, Comprehension Plus,
Wright Group, Stepping Stones to Literacy, Ready Readers, Plaid Phonics,
and Road to the Code.

Other activities specifically mentioned (8% or less) were reader's
theatre, poetry activities, literacy circles, high frequency words,
phonemic awareness activities, phonics activities, book club, and
fluency activities.

9\. What creative ways did you use to motivate students to attend?

All schools surveyed indicated they used some type of incentive prizes
or activities to motivate students to attend summer school regularly.
The top eight responses were as follows:

-   Incentive trip or party at end of session (31%)

-   Prizes other than books (31%)

-   Field trips (28%)

-   Free books (19%)

-   Free breakfast (17%)

-   Free lunch (17%)

-   Backpack or book bag with activities, prizes (14%)

-   Hands-on activities (14%)

Other methods of motivation cited (8% or less) included using a creative
theme for session, recognition of students for achievements, calls home,
use of technology, each student given a Leapster Educational game at
end, t-shirts, weekly reader's theatre productions for parents, special
classes such as karate offered to students, a later start time than
previous years, home visits, and the opportunity to earn AR points for
the coming school year. One school also offered *parents* of students
with regular attendance prizes; these parent's names were put in a
weekly drawing for \$25.00 gift cards for gas or Wal-Mart.

GRADE Averages and Percents of Regression

Schools were asked to provide the following data:

-   Please average the GRADE spring 2006 percentage of each child
    attending regularly.

-   Please average the GRADE fall 2006 percentages of each child
    attending regularly.

-   Subtract the difference.

Based on the data provided in the surveys, 91% of schools indicated
regression on GRADE scores for summer school students who attended
regularly. The most common rates of regression were between 11-15%. The
chart below summarizes the data collected:

Rates of Regression: Spring 2006 to Fall 2006

\% Regression in GRADE Scores Schools

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  1-5%                                16%

  6-10%                               22%

  11-15%                              28%

  16-20%                              13%

  21-25%                              9%

  26-30%                              9%

  31-36%                              9%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Not all schools indicated regression from spring to fall. In fact, *9%
of schools on the survey indicated gains for students who attended
summer school regularly,* *ranging from 5-11% gain from spring to fall
2006 GRADE scores*.

**Chapter 6**

**[I. Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) Leadership
Questionnaire]{.underline}**

KDE's Reading First (RF) Coordinators and Instructional Leaders were
sent a questionnaire regarding Reading First implementation in Kentucky.
This questionnaire focused on their leadership role, sustainability of
RF, plans for Red Flag schools, application of new ideas and
initiatives, and their observations of positive changes and barriers to
progress for Kentucky's RF initiative. The following is a summary of the
overall themes and specific evidence regarding the leadership
questionnaire.

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

**Overall successes based on evidence from the KDE Leadership
Questionnaire:**

-   Increase in data driven decision making;

-   Use of data boards as a goal setting tool for instructional decision
    making;

-   Implementation of explicit lesson plans and instruction;

-   Emphasis on implementation and accountability of Tiers II and III;

-   Teachers are recognizing the need for differentiation;

-   Small group instruction is improving; and

-   Purposeful leadership building and development.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the KDE Leadership
Questionnaire:**

-   Sustainability of RF after the grant has expired;

-   Negativity and complaints from schools concerning the amount of new

information that must be acquired;

-   Continued need for leadership training -- vision and persistence;

-   Decisive plans for addressing struggling schools;

-   Implementation of Individual Assistance Reading Plans; and

-   Clarification for schools regarding supplementary instruction.

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

1.  **What has been your main focus as a leader for RF this school
    year?**

This question solicited varied responses including:

-   Preparing three new state coaches

-   Tier II and Tier III implementation

-   Providing technical support to red flag schools

-   Sustainability of current RF efforts

-   Promote productive relationships and collaboration

-   Lead and manage change

-   Reflect on program goals

-   Keeping abreast of and sharing RF specific literacy research

2.  **What new ideas or initiatives have you applied to RF in Kentucky
    for this school year?**

> One respondent highlighted the expansion of RF professional
> development to all KY teachers (K-12) and the reinforcement of
> effective teaching practices in literacy through a CD-ROM series
> called *Literacy Strategies in Action*, in addition to collaboration
> with an English Language Learner (ELL) consultant.
>
> Other comments that were echoed were data driven decision making and
> the continued emphasis on explicit lesson plans and instruction

3.  **Have you applied new information from conferences or seminars
    attended this school year? Yes or no (if yes, please explain).**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Presenter / Resource**            **Application**

  Susan Hall                          DIBELS -- Taking data to a new
                                      depth

  Laura Lipton                        Learning Focused Relationships --
                                      Coaching

  National RF Conference              Data Boards

  Janice Almasi                       Impact of fluency and vocabulary on
                                      comprehension
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

4.  **What has KDE done to assist red flag schools this year?**

> After an October plan of action presentation from the leadership of
> these schools to a KDE panel was made and lines of communication were
> opened, KDE took several steps in assisting these schools.

-   Scheduled monthly conference calls

-   Visited schools and engaged in lots of professional dialogue

-   Increased the amount of time the state coach spent with the staff

> to 4 days a month (2 days back to back)

-   Provided additional funding to support summer school programs,

> additional intervention teacher, and arranged additional professional
> development for two schools with an ELL professional

5.  **What will happen with the schools that are making gains, yet are
    not meeting the benchmarks and expectations of RF in Kentucky?**

> Although it hadn't been decided at the time of the questionnaire,
> preliminary discussions have indicated increased technical assistance.

6.  **How do national changes impact RF schools in Kentucky?**

> All respondents agreed that there has been no impact.

7.  **What resources will be provided to schools to sustain RF
    initiatives?**

> Sixty-seven percent stated that nothing is in place at this time,
> while the remaining 33% indicate that the literacy professional
> development that the teachers are receiving will help to sustain RF
> initiatives.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The KY RF Grant states the focus of the last two years of the grant   |
| implementation will be to:                                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Design a strategic school plan for sustainability                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Expand and refine the expertise of school/district coaches, and   |
|                                                                       |
| -   Form regional cadres of RF schools for future support             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

8.  **What concerns or challenges remain as a barrier to progress for RF
    in Kentucky?**

> Responses to this question solicited the following responses:

-   Sustainability

-   Negativity to the program

-   Resistance of some teachers and coaches to the deepening of their
    content knowledge

-   Reluctance on the part of state and national literacy groups to
    engage in professional conversations clearly focused on students'
    successes and struggles with literacy instead of focusing on
    philosophical differences

9.  **Overall, what are the positive changes that have occurred due to
    RF this year?**

10. **Complete this sentence. During this point of implementation,
    RF...**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| *Is focused on creating conditions for sustainability by developing   |
| administrative*                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| *support and qualified literacy coaches who can continue the momentum |
| toward*                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| *high literacy attainment...taking it to the next level.*             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

11. **Complete this sentence. Leadership at the state level
    requires...**

> Leadership at the state level requires a specific and coherent plan to
> address literacy gaps in achievement. It also requires vision, good
> communication skills, flexibility, attention to details, persistence,
> and the ability to work with a variety of people.

12. **Additional comments:**

> The consensus of those surveyed is that Reading First is a work in
> progress. They believe that it is a powerful PD driven initiative that
> will benefit all KY students by equipping the teachers with literacy
> knowledge and resources.

**Chapter 7**

**[I. Reading First State Coach Questionnaire - Spring
2007]{.underline}**

Kentucky's Reading First State Coaches were provided with a
questionnaire to respond to regarding their thoughts of RF Year 3
implementation. Of the state coaches interviewed, all coaches had 12 or
more years of experience in the teaching field. The following is a
description of the overall themes and specific evidence regarding each
interview question.

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

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

-   Teachers using data boards to plan for instruction and recognize
    reading gains;

-   Understanding and implementing explicit instruction in small groups;

-   More focus on schools in need of improving;

-   State coaches observing and providing feedback to teachers;

-   Positive results of effective professional development; and

-   Beginning to think about ways to sustain RF components when grant
    has ended.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from state coach interviews:**

-   More district support needed;

-   More time to assist schools reach their benchmark goals;

-   Reluctant teachers with negative RF comments;

-   Fewer meetings and more time to spend with schools; and

-   Encouraging continued professional growth with reading instruction.

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

1.  **What has been your main focus as a RF leader for this school
    year?**

All ten of the state coaches commented on how they were assisting
schools with using data to plan for explicit reading instruction. In
addition, the coaches shared that they were focusing on coaching the
coach and developing leadership teams within the schools.

2.  **Describe one leadership success you've conducted in relation to RF
    implementation.**

State coach successes are

-   Introduction and implementation of data boards;

-   Understanding of effective small group instruction;

-   Assisting Red Flag schools to make assessment gains;

-   Developing a learning community with school staff; and

-   Helping new RF teachers and principal transition into the RF
    community.

> One state coach shared, "You make us feel that we can do this and all
> students can learn to read."

3.  **Have you changed your interactions or routines with RF schools in
    any way? If yes, please explain. (i.e. meetings, visits,
    communication, etc.)**

All ten state coaches commented that they have changed their
interactions or routines with their RF schools in Year III. They are
working more with leaders in the school and district, and there has been
an increase in the focus of Tier II and Tier III instruction. They make
daily contact by phone or e-mail with schools, conduct additional
back-to-back site visits to weaker schools, and celebrate reading
successes.

4.  **Based on last year's concerns, questions, and issues (listed
    below) which of these [have been addressed]{.underline} in your
    schools this year? Check all that apply.**

The following numbers indicate responses to these categories:

[5]{.underline} Lack of leadership skills of school coaches;

[1]{.underline} Clarifying role of state coach;

[6]{.underline} More time for state coaches to become a learning
community and

> promote the concept of team work;

[7]{.underline} Celebrate successes school-wide;

[7]{.underline} More modeling to provide examples to teachers; and

[4]{.underline} Teachers continuing to be resistant to RF with negative
comments.

5.  **Based on last year's concerns, questions, and issues (listed
    below),**

**which of these [still remain]{.underline} an area of concern for this
school year?**

**Check all that apply.**

[3]{.underline} Lack of leadership skills of school coaches;

[0]{.underline} Clarifying role of state coach;

[2]{.underline} More time for state coaches to become a learning
community and

promote the concept of team work;

[1]{.underline} Celebrate successes school-wide;

[2]{.underline} More modeling to provide examples to teachers; and

[6]{.underline} Teachers continuing to be resistant to RF with negative
comments.

6.  **Are there any [new concerns, questions, and/or issues]{.underline}
    that are not**

> **listed above? Please list any and explain.**

Three of the ten state coaches mentioned the need for more leadership
skills and support from the district coaches, district offices, and
principals. One state coach needs more time to assist a struggling
school and another one wants to assist with building sustainability
within each classroom. There was a comment shared about aligning IEP's
with students' IARP's.

7.  **What do you do to acknowledge and address student assessment**

**outcomes (GRADE, DIBELS) that are not at benchmark?**

Overwhelmingly, the state coaches responded that they use data to assist
schools with planning to increase students' reading scores. Most of the
coaches shared that their schools are implementing data boards both in
and out of the classroom. Some additional ways they acknowledge students
who are not at benchmark are to create a plan of action and timeline for
improvement, provide follow-up sessions, and require monthly reports
from the school coach depicting students at the intensive, strategic,
and benchmark levels.

8.  **What are you doing to assist your red flag schools?**

Six of the ten state coaches do not have red flag schools at this time.
However, all state coaches shared ways they assist their schools in
need:

-   Spend additional time in schools,

-   Model and observe teachers;

-   Conduct walk-throughs with specific feedback;

-   Involve the literacy assistance team in discussions;

-   Facilitate Saturday and after school Professional Development;

-   Provide networking opportunities;

-   Visit one time a month or two consecutive days; and

-   Encourage leadership team to shadow students and monitor their
    instruction.

9.  **What specific resources will be provided to schools to sustain RF
    initiatives?**

10. **Please rank or number the list below in order of importance in
    regard to learning in the classroom. (1 being the highest-12 being
    the least important)**

\_\_\_\_\_Assessment/data analysis

\_\_\_\_\_Community involvement/family literacy

\_\_\_\_\_ Comprehensive curriculum

\_\_\_\_\_ Student engagement

> \_\_\_\_\_ Explicit and systematic instruction

\_\_\_\_\_ Leadership

\_\_\_\_\_ Instructional materials

\_\_\_\_\_ Perseverance and persistence

\_\_\_\_\_ Professional development

\_\_\_\_\_ Variety of reading opportunities (i.e. guided independent,
read aloud,

shared, partner paired)

\_\_\_\_\_ Specialist support (i.e. district coach, state coach,
principal)

\_\_\_\_\_ Team planning

This ranking proved to be challenging for state coaches. Several coaches
commented that these selected numbers could change on any given day and
that all these components are important to classroom learning. However,
the intent was to gain their ideas as to what is the most and least
important in classroom learning based on their professional experience.
Granted all of these components are important; however, as leaders in
the state, it was interesting to analyze some similarities among
rankings in regard to the highest and lowest.

Five out of ten coaches ranked explicit and systematic instruction as
the highest, followed by leadership, student engagement, assessment/data
analysis, and professional development. The lowest ranking was community
involvement/family literacy with a total of five responses. In order to
be a successful, high performing school, the teachers and administrators
must implement all these components.

[Complete these sentences.]{.underline}

11. **The most challenging aspect of RF....**

-   Addressing needs of all schools;

-   Addressing low teacher morale and frustration;

-   Time to provide feedback to teachers and school coaches;

-   Meetings and paperwork; and

-   Working toward the ultimate goal of all students reading at grade
    level.

12. **The most positive outcomes related to RF implementation are...**

The two comments that all coaches shared were observing reading
achievement gains and changes in teachers' attitudes and instructional
practices.

13. **Any additional comments?**

"I would like to spend less time in Frankfort and more time in my
schools."

"Change takes a long time. I'm now seeing things come together in a more
positive and cohesive way. We now need our leadership to step up to the
plate."

**Chapter 8**

This chapter includes two sections: A and B. Section A contains the
Reading First state coaches' recorded hours of work devoted to the eight
general areas of responsibility as a Reading First leader. Section B
contains the state coaches' reflections for the 2006-2007 school year,
based on notable successes and concerns.

**Section A**

**[I. Reading First State Coaches' Logs]{.underline}**

The Professional Development Log is a tool used by all Reading First
(RF) state coaches in Kentucky. The log is designed to assist in the
monitoring and implementation of the school's Reading First plan. The
information is to be used by Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) to
identify the professional development and the technical assistance needs
in the state. Completing the Professional Development Log is a
requirement of Kentucky's Reading First Evaluation Plan.

The log serves as a focal point for discussions and planning at the
state, district, and school levels. In addition, the information
contained in the log is a valuable tool to be used by state, district,
and school coaches to collaboratively plan professional development
opportunities that meet the various needs of all stakeholders in their
schools and communities. The log categories are: in-class support,
coaching, assessment, on-going professional development, planning and
administrative, personal professional development, data reporting and
analysis, and other. The following sections include themes and evidence
based on the coaches' logs.

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

**Successes based on evidence from state coaches' logs:**

-   Largest percentages of hours logged were planning and administration
    at 31% and other at 26%;

-   Third largest percentage was coaching at 4,371.5 hours (18%); and

-   Overall, a large number of total logged hours at 23,803.75.

**Concerns based on evidence from state coach log:**

-   Low percentage of coaching hours in the areas of in-class support
    (3%) and assessment (2%);

-   Several inconsistencies of hours logged for different categories

> (i.e. in-class support 194 hours vs. 0 hours); and

-   Need to re-visit the goals of the state coaches' role to provide
    consistency on coaching activities across the state.

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

The following provides an overall summary of total hours logged for each
section, percentages, and averages per state coach:

State Coach Log Hours 2006-2007

Chart 1

  --------------- ---------------- ------------------ --------------------
  *In-class       *Coaching*       *Assessment*       *On-going
  support*                                            Professional
                                                      Development*

  681             4,371.5          441                1,911.5

  3%              18%              2%                 8%
  --------------- ---------------- ------------------ --------------------

Chart 2

+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+
| *Planning &  | *Personal   | *Data    | *Other*     | *Overall    |
| Adm          | P           | R        |             | Totals*     |
| inistration* | rofessional | eporting |             |             |
|              | D           | &        |             |             |
|              | evelopment* | A        |             |             |
|              |             | nalysis* |             |             |
+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+
| 7,429        | 1,767       | 1,243    | 5,959.75    | Yearly      |
|              |             |          |             | Total       |
|              |             |          |             |             |
|              |             |          |             | 23,803.75   |
+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+
| 31%          | 7%          | 5%       | 26%         | Total Time  |
|              |             |          |             | Percentage  |
|              |             |          |             |             |
|              |             |          |             | 100%        |
+--------------+-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+

Based on the ten state coaches' logs, total hours logged in 2006-2007
was 23,803.75. The evidence shows the largest percentage of hours was
the planning and administrative category at 31%; conversely, the lowest
percentage was the assessment category at 2%. Appendix F contains a
complete chart of all state coach logs submitted to the Collaborative
Center for Literacy Development.

**Log Comparisons from 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 School Year Summary**

Last year's log hours were based on seven out of ten state coaches; this
year's log hours were based on ten out of ten state coaches. Many
similar trends can be determined based on the evidence. For example, in
2005-2006 and 2006-2007 the categories *planning and administration* and
*other* were the two highest percentage scores. In addition, over both
school years the lowest percentage scores were for the categories of
*in-class support* and *assessment.*

Overall, the evidence provides a strong correlation of results from year
to year. Therefore, the following recommendations are made in order to
make each category more consistent with other categories: KDE should
determine if each category is equally important and/or a necessary part
of the state coaching responsibilities. Once this is determined, then
state coaches and KDE could develop strategies for obtaining consistency
among each coaching category. The following questions can be asked:

-   What are the most important responsibilities of state coaches for
    assisting schools with Reading First implementation?

-   Should there be consistency among each coaching category?

-   Is in-class support a necessary role for state coaches to engage in
    with their schools?

-   Do state coaches need to spend excessive hours engaged in planning
    and administrative tasks?

**Section B**

**[I. Reading First State Coaches' Reflections]{.underline}**

At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year, CCLD sent the 10 Reading
First state coaches a Coaches' Reflection Form. The purpose of the form
was to record three successes and three concerns each coach experienced
with Reading First implementation in the fall, as well as three
successes and three concerns experienced at the end of the school year.
Each response is recorded in the appropriate category of success or
concern.

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

**Overall successes based on evidence from state coaches' reflections:**

-   Summer institutes provided teachers with an understanding of
    explicit planning and instruction;

-   Teachers are re-designing instruction in all tiers based on
    students' instructional needs;

-   Schools are noting less regression in students' reading ability over
    the summer;

-   School coaches are well-prepared and have the tools to present at
    summer institutes;

-   Teachers have professional literacy conversations and are developing
    ways to improve student reading achievement; and

-   A larger percentage of students in schools are making academic
    progress and reaching benchmark on GRADE assessment.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from state coaches' reflections:**

-   Lack of school and district leadership for Reading First still
    remains in many schools and districts;

-   Schools still have teachers resisting RF implementation; and

-   Retirement and reassignments of teachers affect classroom
    instruction.

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

**[Fall 2006 Successes]{.underline}**

**Role of State Coach**

-   More familiar with region;

-   Developed professional, collaborative relationships with
    school/district coaches and principals;

-   Becoming more familiar with three tiers of instruction and ensuring
    grant implementation; and

-   Along with the school coach, shadowing students who were on
    Intensive Reading Plans to better understand the many layers of
    instruction to see that everything is being delivered to students.

**Assessment & Data Analysis**

-   Teachers observing students in grades P2, P3, and P4 coming into the
    year at higher levels; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Teachers use data boards to explicitly plan for instruction; these
    data boards became a springboard to instructionally focused
    conversations.

**Meeting Students' Needs**

-   School data targets set and plan of action in place for meeting
    student outcome objectives;

-   Schools aligning instruction, specifically intervention; and

-   Re-designing Tier II instruction to assist raising student reading
    scores.

**Classroom Instruction**

-   Evidence of teachers using strategic instruction;

-   Teachers were not as overwhelmed with instruction and had a better
    sense of where to begin;

-   As a result of the summer institute, teachers realized their
    instruction had not been explicit and that they had not been
    intentional about teaching strategies for applying skills; and

-   Additional professional development by outside sources (i.e.
    university professors.)

**School Culture**

-   Regional meetings effective and more reflective of individual
    regional needs, more collaborative discussions, and more focus on
    leadership teams;

-   Hearing professional conversations that produce action; and

-   Schools noted less regression over the summer.

**School Coaches**

-   School coaches more prepared to begin school year with significantly
    fewer comments about workload.

**Leadership**

-   Continued support of administration and district with integrating RF
    concepts in all schools.

**[Fall 2006 Concerns]{.underline}**

**Personnel**

-   School coaches leaving due to medical reasons.

**School Coaches**

-   New school coach affecting successful school due to different
    coaching styles;

-   "Pockets of resistance" still remain in many schools and presents
    challenges for school coaches;

-   Lack of organization after specific assistance was provided;

-   Need for school coaches to model more in the classrooms.

**Leadership**

-   RF "buy in" of new principals;

-   Inconsistent support and involvement of RF in districts;

-   One Red Flag school not getting help from the district level and
    district coach not assisting with this improvement process;

-   Negative feelings towards RF leadership at the state level due to
    requirements, frequent changes with expectations, and needing more
    support for areas of need at their school;

-   School leadership and their support for RF;

-   Support from KDE not consistent with all coaches;

-   Principal support remains an issue.

**Meeting Students' Needs**

-   Challenges with Tier II and Tier III instruction. Schools
    inconsistent with planning and instruction for these tiers. For
    example, students not progress monitored on a regular basis, and
    program driving tiers instead of students' needs;

-   Intervention groups still not meeting needs of students.

**Role of State Coach**

-   Developing strategies to assist schools that are not making
    significant progress;

-   Challenges on how to integrate comprehension and vocabulary into a
    core program that lacks these components and authentic literature
    (i.e. Direct Instruction);

-   Traveling from school to school remains an issue;

-   Knowing how to coach schools that are not progressing well and who
    have weak instructional teachers and resistant teachers.

**Assessment**

-   Challenges with aligning instruction with data.

**School Culture**

-   Pockets of teachers still do not want to buy in to program;

-   Teachers not receiving adequate training for new core reading
    programs.

**Classroom Instruction**

-   Explicit planning is occurring; however, implementation is not at
    the optimal level;

-   Teachers struggling with more explicit lesson planning due to time
    and resistant issues. Many could not see how it would become easier.

**[End of Year 2007 Successes]{.underline}**

**Role of State Coach**

-   Summer Institute for 2007 is complete, and product will meet needs
    of teachers;

-   One Red Flag school is no longer in that category;

-   Developed a strong, professional, collaborative relationship with
    schools and districts.

**Assessment & Data Analysis**

-   Data was analyzed and instruction revised to meet students' needs on
    a regular basis;

-   Teachers becoming "data hungry."

**Meeting Students' Needs**

-   One state coach has observed all schools showing progress;

-   Seventy-five percent of the teachers in one district are reaching
    and assisting students to reach the proficient level on GRADE
    assessment;

-   Schools made steady growth in tiers and subgroup population;

-   One district had 5 out of 6 schools meeting or exceeding the 75%
    projected target on GRADE; in another district, 5 out of 7 schools
    reached the 75%;

-   In one district, the number of special education and intervention
    referrals decreased;

-   Red Flag schools progressing from 16% in fall to 56% above 50^th^
    percentile in the spring.

**Classroom Instruction**

-   Explicit instruction is having positive impact on students needing
    supplemental and intervention instruction.

**School Culture**

-   New principals and new coaches continued great progress made over
    the school year;

-   Continued professional development on lesson planning focuses on
    strategies and 10 step explicit lesson model;

-   Professional development has risen to a professional level and is
    reflected in classroom practice;

-   Leadership teams meet regularly and have learning focused
    conversations;

-   Professional conversations from teachers move from excuses toward
    solutions.

> **School Coaches**

-   School coaches well-prepared to present at summer institutes. This
    is an improvement from past years;

-   School coaches conducted conferences with teachers and modeled
    lessons regularly.

**Leadership**

-   New district leadership and support of RF;

-   School year finished with a strong working relationship with KDE.

**[End of Year Concerns 2006]{.underline}**

**Personnel**

-   The impact retirement and reassignment of veteran RF teachers will
    have on classroom instruction;

-   Schools losing personnel and how this will affect instruction;

-   Large schools going from two coaches to one coach; and

-   Lack of school coach prevented teachers from having coaching
    opportunities.

**School Coaches**

-   Some school coaches still uncomfortable modeling in the classrooms;
    and

-   Need to continue providing support and professional development to
    school coaches so that they can continue literacy leadership.

> **Leadership**

-   Sustaining progress and RF concepts when leader in school is not
    instructionally focused or supporting growth of teachers.

**Meeting Students' Needs**

-   Maintaining progress in schools that are reaching goals and need to
    reach the last 20% of students; and

-   Need for some schools to explore other intervention programs due to
    the present programs not being effective.

**Role of State Coach**

-   Dealing with resistant teachers with little or no principal support.
    Coaches are phenomenal but are plagued with disrespect, negativity,
    and unprofessionalism by some teachers;

-   Excessive travel and meetings; and

-   Making sure KDE recognizes and values all state coaches'
    professional opinions and analyzing culture of state coaches.

**Assessment**

-   Decline in 2^nd^ grade test scores

**School Culture**

-   Developing sustainable attitudes and action for the remaining years
    of the grant;

-   Continue to work on developing a professional learning community;
    and

-   Some teachers a part of grant for 3 years and still have low student
    data.

**Chapter 9**

**[I. School Coach Reflections Fall 2006 and Spring 2007]{.underline}**

At the conclusion of the 2006-2007 school year, the CCLD sent all RF
school coaches in Kentucky an electronic Coaches' Reflection Form. The
purpose of the form was to learn about three successes and three
concerns experienced at the end of the fall semester as well as three
successes and three concerns experienced at the end of the spring
semester. Each response was tallied and placed in an appropriate
category with similar responses. Included in this chapter are the themes
found in the coaches' reflections, graphs representing the prominent
themes, and a categorized list of the responses.

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

**Overall Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 successes of RF based on coaches'
reflections:**

-   At least 22% of the coaches expressed successes in the Fall 2006
    reflections for *each* of the areas, including instruction,
    assessment, and collaboration. Professional development,
    environment, leadership, and individual students were stated as
    successes by 5% or fewer of the coaches.

-   Thirty-nine percent of the coaches' responses in the Spring 2007
    reflections related to assessment, and 22% related to instruction.
    Collaboration received 18.5% of the responses. The other topics,
    including leadership, professional development, parent involvement,
    and funding, received only 4% responses or less.

**Overall Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 concerns of RF based on coaches'
reflections:**

-   Thirty percent of the coaches expressed concerns in Fall 2006 in
    areas of instruction and assessment. Twenty-two percent of the
    responses related to issues regarding collaboration. Leadership,
    professional development, and environment were regarded as concerns,
    but only by 12% or fewer of the school coaches.

-   Similar to the Fall 2006 concerns, 30% of the coaches expressed
    concerns relating to instruction in Spring 2007. However, assessment
    concerns were reduced by 6% in the spring to twenty-four percent and
    collaboration was also reduced to 11% of the responses. Leadership
    concerns were very close to the same as in the fall with 11% of the
    coaches still concerned about this area. New concerns involving
    funding (11%) and students (7%) surfaced in the Spring 2007
    reflections. Three other areas with 4% or less of the responses from
    school coaches included professional development, parent
    involvement, and environment.

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

**[2006 Fall Successes]{.underline}**

The 2006 Fall successes received by school coaches in the electronic
reflection form were organized according to topics. The following seven
topics were synthesized from the log: assessment, instruction,
collaboration, professional development, environment, students, and
leadership. Below are some of the statements in the school coach
reflection logs, organized under these identified and related topics.

[Instruction (fall successes 2006)]{.underline}

-   We began implementation of tier II and tier III instruction earlier
    in the school year;

-   We just purchased a new program to use for interventions that will
    help focus the groups;

-   As a school, the teachers are using their leveled readers to
    supplement core reading time for focused guided reading groups;

-   Teachers demonstrated more ability to use data to determine next
    steps for students;

-   Our explicit instruction is really improving;

-   The explicit planning is helping teachers improve instruction;

-   Teachers do not have a planning time. It was a blessing to have time
    allotted for long range lesson planning as a part of RF. The process
    has been very beneficial for teachers. Teachers are more prepared,
    which results in better lesson delivery for students;

-   Explicit lessons were difficult to grasp, but the teachers saw a
    need for them;

-   Implementation of a new core program;

-   Using summer training of explicit planning (this is still somewhat a
    challenge, as teachers are getting used to the new core program);

-   Implementing explicit lesson planning with grade levels;

-   Open response hot and cold passages with 3^rd^ grade;

-   Intentional planning especially in small groups and teaching during
    the whole group with more time scaffolding concepts that are
    difficult;

-   Teachers went off without any real problems at the beginning of the
    year;

-   Intervention was able to start sooner than last year;

-   Teachers continue to become more explicit in their teaching;

-   Teachers provided objectives and comprehension core lesson summaries
    when augmenting teacher's manual and explicit planning;

-   We were able to get our core program up and running within a few
    days, and get all of our new students to the school, tested and
    placed by starting day of the program;

-   Work stations were up and running properly within a reasonable time

-   Writing instruction;

-   Focus on vocabulary, teachers using a variety of new
    strategies/activities;

-   Teachers feel confidence with their abilities in teaching RF;

-   Students know the routines with whole groups, small groups, and
    centers;

-   Teachers feel more at ease using a variety of grouping;

-   Explicit planning is helping;

-   Greater use of literacy centers in second grade; and

-   Teachers started the first day of school to teach explicit lesson
    plans.

[Assessment (fall successes 2006)]{.underline}

-   We were able to test at the beginning of August which allowed us to
    get a better picture of where the students are after summer break;

-   Introduction and implementation of data boards. Data boards were
    easy to set up and transfer to meetings and classrooms;

-   Early progress monitoring was a great way to find out what skills
    students were lacking and a way to anticipate who was going to score
    in which category at fall testing;

-   Using data to move students on level from supplemental to more
    appropriate reading instruction based on the needs of the student;

-   More in depth GRADE analysis and focusing on student needs;

-   Looking at data and determining the level of instruction that each
    child needs;

-   Using progress monitoring data, we kept data boards that change
    bi-weekly;

-   Fall administration of DIBELS and GRADE went smoothly;

-   Mid year benchmark scores increased;

-   We all continue to learn more about analyzing data and adjusting
    teaching;

-   Each year our DIBELS and GRADE scores have gone up;

-   Kindergarten scores from DIBELS spring assessment to fall did not
    show a regression over the summer months;

-   Second graders scores are incredible! (The first group to come up
    through RF);

-   Analysis of Data;

-   Use of phonics screener intervention;

-   DIBELS monitoring in K went from 21% Benchmark to 69% Benchmark;

-   GRADE testing showed that we moved 22% of our students to
    proficiency from the fall to winter testing;

-   Despite our low beginning of the year scores, students are motivated
    and are picking up quickly;

-   Winter testing showed growth for most grades;

-   Number one RF school in STATE;

-   GRADE results outstanding: 36% on level to 93%; and

-   Administering GRADE and DIBELS successfully during the first few
    weeks of school.

> [Collaboration (fall successes 2006)]{.underline}

-   All teachers posted and began using the word identification and
    comprehension strategies more effectively;

-   Intervention plans were being monitored more closely by the
    classroom teacher and the interventionist;

-   Grade level planning netted great results;

-   The set up of supplemental instruction with all students from grades
    1-3. Students placed into groups according to specific needs;

-   Monitoring of the school action plan each month;

-   Overwhelming support from the state due to our red flag status
    (state coach present 4x/month);

-   Weekly team planning focused on comprehension skills and strategies;

-   All teachers focused on student performance;

-   New kindergarten teacher who needed help with RF worked with other
    experienced teachers as we devised a plan;

-   Developing a relationship between teachers and school coach;

-   Collaborated with another school district, local library, and
    businesses for a reading festival;

-   Collaborated with special education teacher and first grade teacher;

-   Teachers great about "booking me" to come model in their rooms this
    year, and I was able to come for a few days at a time;

-   Second grade team worked well together, and students showed
    immediate progress;

-   Teachers, literacy partners, parents and administrators are sold on
    RF; and

-   Support staff with state coach and district coach being helpful.

[Professional Development (fall successes 2006)]{.underline}

-   We have a small faculty. The whole PD situation with RF allows us
    time to collaborate, discuss, and share ideas or thoughts related to
    SBRR that is a big part of building capacity at our school;

-   The summer institutes got us very focused on planning and teaching
    explicitly;

-   PD just prior to school starting that met teaching needs; and

-   All but one teacher had gone to summer institute.

[Environment (fall successes 2006)]{.underline}

-   Our environments are really improving; and

-   Much faster "start-up" since we are more familiar with RF
    guidelines.

[Leadership (fall successes 2006)]{.underline}

-   I didn't feel near as frazzled and clueless starting off.

[Students (fall successes 2006)]{.underline}

-   Students are stronger in reading due to having prior years of 90
    minutes of core instruction.

**2007 Spring Successes**

The Spring 2007 successes received by school coaches in the electronic
reflection form were organized according to topics as addressed by
school coaches. Five of the topics were similar to the Fall 2006
successes, including assessment, instruction, collaboration,
professional development, and leadership. However, two other topics were
identified for the spring including parent involvement and funding.
Below are the statements given by the school coaches organized under
headings.

[Assessment (spring successes 2007)]{.underline}

-   We met our school goals for both DIBELS and GRADE;

-   We have increased our GRADE scores in grades 2 and 3;

-   Teachers are beginning to use GRADE and DIBELS together to make
    decisions. Not just using the two scores but learning how the scores
    correlate;

-   We are progressing in our scores when we track students. We can see
    how we have less intensive and strategic students in that student
    body;

-   GRADE scores increased dramatically as compared to previous years;

-   According to end of the year data, our school is at 99% on level;

-   Data boards;

-   Implementing progress monitoring calendars where teachers wrote down
    who and what would be progress monitored daily, weekly, monthly, and
    turned those in to the school coach;

-   Teachers starting to use data, especially from GRADE to address
    skills that were deficits according to test results;

-   GRADE assessment;

-   Open responses on KCCT were easy because we practiced;

-   Kindergarten scores drastically increased;

-   GRADE data looks much better due to an intentional approach to
    comprehension instruction;

-   End of year scores continued to improve showing student successes;

-   Holding students accountable for their learning by teaching them to
    monitor their own progress;

-   Seventy percent of second graders ended on or above grade level on
    GRADE assessment;

-   Second grade scores went up significantly;

-   Hot shot program to target certain struggling readers;

-   Assessment results good again this year;

-   Pilot school for scanning, awesome;

-   We met our RF GRADE assessment goal of 75% students reading on or
    above level in reading;

-   GRADE scores as a school showed 55% scored above the 50 percentile
    as apposed to 43% on winter testing;

-   The gains we had in DIBELS scores from beginning to end of school
    year;

-   Our special ed students in decoding A were able to read several
    paragraphs in a story with few errors;

-   GRADE testing effort rubrics and other testing items to support the
    testing effort;

-   Sixty-six percent of our students at benchmark for DIBELS;

-   Grades 1,2,3 met or surpassed the national mean of growth scale
    value on GRADE;

-   Total comprehension scores increased as a result of explicit
    planning;

-   Many students reading far below grade level to reading above grade
    level;

-   Ninety percent of our students scored at or above the 50^th^
    percentile on GRADE

-   Great test scores;

-   Eighty-one percent benchmark on GRADE;

-   Eighty-one percent of our students at benchmark on DIBELS;

-   Ninety-eight percent of our students at level on GRADE;

-   Increase in GRADE and DIBELS scores;

-   Every child who was with us from the beginning of the year until the
    end did meet benchmark; and

-   All classrooms have met and exceeded their goals.

[Instruction (spring successes 2007)]{.underline}

-   Teachers were successfully planning for and implementing small group
    instruction following the explicit lesson planning model;

-   Our teachers' attitudes about change are improving;

-   It took us to about the end of winter to become proficient at the
    explicit lesson planning process. As we analyze lesson plans, you
    can see the improvements that have taken place which result in more
    effective teaching;

-   We have really seen improvements in our third grade students who
    were really struggling through first grade, second grade, and most
    of third. Our three tiers of instruction that have been aligned
    greatly benefited these students;

-   After completing the first year of the new core program, the
    teachers are "looking ahead" to next year as to how to better
    implement the five components of reading;

-   Teacher dedication;

-   Few teachers leaving;

-   Morale of teachers was up, feel confident about RF for next year;

-   Lesson planning and excitement with open response questions;

-   Teachers attitudes have improved greatly;

-   Explicit lesson plans are in place and being used by all primary
    faculty;

-   Teachers continue to improve small group guided reading instruction;

-   3^rd^ grade with small groups during core, supplemental and
    interventions and scores went up in DIBELS;

-   Approved for an interventionist for next year;

-   Teachers now see its results and feel confident in implementing it;

-   Teachers are more confident in planning; and

-   Teachers have adapted their instruction to fit the needs of each and
    every child in the room to maximize their learning.

[Collaboration (spring successes 2007)]{.underline}

-   Setting goals and implementing grade level action plans helped to
    improve student achievement;

-   Students were very excited about showing what they had learned this
    year as it related to DIBELS and GRADE;

-   We held meetings with each teacher at the end of the school year to
    reflect on their successes and concerns;

-   Regularly scheduled leadership team meetings that focus on planning
    and data analysis;

-   Intervention meetings improved;

-   Close collaboration with interventionist and K teachers;

-   Still too much paperwork, even though we hired a competent clerical
    assistant;

-   Teachers stepped up and volunteered to use their planning time at
    lunch to work with intensive or strategic students;

-   School board added 24 minutes to each day before testing (catch up
    on snow days BEFORE testing!);

-   Through dedication of teachers and staff and having a flexible
    principal, released as a red flag school;

-   Having KDE state RF team come to our school and observe, supporting
    with feedback and suggestions;

-   KDE being interested in our children and funding for a summer
    reading program;

-   Intense reading program has helped decrease the number of special
    education referrals;

-   Increased confidence in my ability to lead this group of teachers;
    and

-   Closely observing the collaboration of the special ed teacher and
    first grade teacher, success.

[Leadership (spring successes 2007)]{.underline}

-   With the support and guidance of our state coach, we have been
    striving to focus on the particular struggles of every individual
    student through the assessments. This has contributed to the growth
    of our struggling readers. We are able to identify where the
    breakdown begins and build upon those skills so that the students
    are successful during small group, supplemental, and intervention;

-   Our leadership team works well together to do what is best for our
    students; and

-   I feel I have done my job this year, and I wasn't really sure about
    it!

[Professional Development (spring successes 2007)]{.underline}

-   All teachers met and exceeded the required 80 hours of PD as of May
    2007;

-   Training provided by RF this year was tremendous (one of the best
    was the principal's institute); and

-   PD geared toward fulfilling teachers' professional growth needs this
    year.

[Parent Involvement (spring successes 2007)]{.underline}

-   Our parent involvement is continuing to improve; and

-   Our family nights were better, and more families attended.

[Funding (spring successes 2007)]{.underline}

-   With additional KDE money, we were able to purchase much needed
    level texts, implement weekly planning with teachers, and add an
    additional intervention teacher.

**2006 Fall Concerns**

The 2006 Fall concerns received by school coaches in the electronic
reflection form were organized according to topics as addressed by
school coaches. Topics identified as areas of concern for Fall 2006 were
identified as instruction, assessment, collaboration, leadership,
professional development,

and environment. Below are the statements given by the school coaches
organized under the appropriate heading.

[Instruction (fall concerns 2006)]{.underline}

-   Will teachers use the new intervention program, or will some opt to
    use what we had in the past even though it didn't work with the
    students;

-   Teacher absences and long term sick leave;

-   I'm not sure that the teachers are happy with the lesson plan
    format;

-   Small group instruction;

-   Intervention grouping/IARPs;

-   Not a real buy-in with lesson planning in one grade level, already
    planned;

-   Intensive assistance; reading plans are too much paperwork and
    teachers are becoming frustrated;

-   Student participation is not at the level I would like it to be;

-   Vocabulary instruction...teachers are not expecting students to use
    more sophisticated words in their daily language;

-   High number of students needing intervention and only one
    intervention teacher to provide the service;

-   Teachers frustrated with more paperwork;

-   Management of literacy centers;

-   Summer regression of students;

-   Still too much paperwork and not in rooms;

-   Core program was different from what I was used to;

-   Large class size in K affects learning for all students;

-   Many K students did not attend preschool and lack school skills; and

-   Teachers still unsure of explicit planning.

[Data/Assessment (fall concerns 2006)]{.underline}

-   I am concerned the data will be invalid if the elementary school,
    students, and teachers in our new district are mixed up;

-   PALMS were not working properly during testing;

-   Difficulty in finding spaces to test individuals and small groups of
    students;

-   According to GRADE and DIBELS fall benchmark assessments, we have
    seen regression with most students during the summer;

-   There is no way to truly progress monitor GRADE. We teach our core
    and provide supplemental and intervention based on the results but
    have no way of assessing the intervention until the next testing
    cycle;

-   Although teachers acknowledged the importance of data, I feel that
    teachers still did not have an understanding as to how/when to use
    the data;

-   GRADE assessment administered too early;

-   Low percentages of students on grade level entering each grade
    level;

-   The summer targeted program didn't make the progress we had hoped
    for;

-   First graders really struggled on the fall GRADE;

-   Unrealistic goal of 10% of our children at benchmark and 100% at
    about the 50th percentile on GRADE by 2009;

-   Beginning GRADE and DIBELS testing within a week after school
    starting;

-   GRADE test (full week of school is difficult!);

-   Concerned about meeting end of year goals;

-   Students are not retaining the skills and strategies over the
    summer;

-   Difficult to learn system of GRADE and DIBELS;

-   Students would regress over the summer; and

-   Data boards and confidentiality.

[Collaboration (fall concerns 2006)]{.underline}

-   I don't know that I can handle all the time to plan with each
    teacher;

-   Not enough time to reflect on anything we were doing;

-   Too many meetings;

-   Meeting with and monitoring teachers as they monitor IARPs;

-   Some teachers choose not to follow RF guidelines;

-   Scheduling with reading and math interventions, homeroom teachers,
    etc;

-   3^rd^ grade was departmentalized, difficult for reading teacher to
    do all that was required for RF and to collaborate with school
    coach;

-   As a new coach, I often heard from staff, "Well, it was good enough
    for the other guy;"

-   Being a red flag school was extremely difficult on the staff;

-   Having communication difficulties with the district was rough;

-   Concerned about teacher meetings and addressing areas of concern;
    and

-   How collaboration would work in first grade with special education.

[Leadership (fall concerns 2006)]{.underline}

-   Our school merged with another school which did not want to pursue
    the RF grant. I am concerned with the change of administration and
    philosophies that may affect RF at the school;

-   Teachers rely on school coach to validate their decisions;

-   Not enough time for school coach to demonstrate in classroom;

-   Leadership team concerned with second grade scores;

-   Leadership team concerned with adding writing to the core;

-   Trouble finding clerical assistant; and

-   Making sure everything was done that was supposed to be done.

[Professional Development (fall concerns 2006)]{.underline}

-   Our new teachers have not had the experience nor the PD needed to
    implement RF within their classrooms;

-   New struggling teachers; and

-   New teachers lack training.

[Environment (fall concerns 2006)]{.underline}

-   Class sizes in 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ grade are crowded.

**2007 Spring Concerns**

The 2007 Spring concerns received by school coaches in the electronic
reflection form were organized according to topics as addressed by
school coaches. Six of these topics identified according to the
responses in the reflection forms were given headings identical to the
Fall 2006 concerns. These six identical topics addressed in both fall
and spring concerns are instruction, assessment, leadership,
collaboration, professional development, and environment. However, there
were three additional headings identified for the concerns for the
Spring 2007, including students, funding, and parent involvement. These
were not listed as concerns in the Fall 2006 school coach reflections.
Below are the statements given by the school coaches organized under
headings.

[Instruction (spring concerns 2007)]{.underline}

-   How can we continue the progress next year so that we are moving
    more students;

-   Not enough money in the budget to support the same level of
    intervention instruction;

-   The students that need to attend summer school are not attending;

-   A few students are still not moving out of intervention. Even with
    benchmark scores, they still need the support of intervention;

-   Teaching the comprehension strategies effectively;

-   Flexible grouping;

-   Intervention needs to have be cinched up next year. Teachers want
    intervention focused on the yellow literacy profile cards, not on
    the IARPs;

-   Teachers want to focus on writing and have a huge concern for
    writing portfolios. We have to build it into our schedule next year;

-   Third grade students did not show the gains the rest of the grade
    levels demonstrated. The teachers were not eager to embrace change,
    and most often I did not see them incorporating the new information
    they were receiving;

-   Difficult to get interventionists and teachers to buy in to the
    importance of teaching skills within their small group time and
    having consistency within all three tiers with the IARPs;

-   Explicit planning is still an issue;

-   Keeping teachers motivated and focused on instruction after testing;

-   Explicit lesson plans are in place, still some are resentful of time
    spent on paperwork;

-   Effective literacy centers and accountability continue to be a
    struggle;

-   We will need to augment our Core a great deal next year in order to
    get in the vocabulary and comprehension strategies needed but not in
    the program;

-   3^rd^ grade literacy workstations;

-   Teachers use less product made items and more teacher made items;

-   Sustain reading growth through summer;

-   Students will regress over summer;

-   Meeting next year's student performance objectives; and

-   Targeted students will not attend summer school.

[Assessment (spring concerns 2007)]{.underline}

-   Monitor student progress closely so that students are moving at a
    steady pace;

-   Begin tracking the materials used with students during intervention
    since we are using Benchmark materials;

-   By the time the 3^rd^ graders take the GRADE assessment, they are
    worn out. The scores reflect that attitude;

-   End of the year goals had been for the 50^th^ percentile for GRADE
    at each level; we wanted at least 75% of students to reach this
    goal. As I have stated before, we are a very small school, and we do
    have some transitions to and from other schools. One student can
    equal about 7% of the class. We had some instances where a student
    was here about 40 days and was below the benchmark in GRADE and
    DIBELS. This brought the class average from 78.5% to 73% below the
    goal. It had been explained to me that if we were red flagged that
    students who were not here 100 days would be taken out of the
    calculation. The teacher who had the new student who was a
    struggling reader had to still report that the goal was not met
    which seemed unfair given that the student was only in attendance
    for such a short time. This also goes into play with our school
    report. One child made a difference in our overall school score from
    76% to 74.75% meeting the 50^th^ percentile in GRADE, being over the
    goal to slightly under the goal;

-   Decline in 2^nd^ grade scores;

-   Stagnant scores of special educations students;

-   PALMS are giving out;

-   DIBELS too low;

-   The pieces do not appear to be falling together. Whatever is being
    monitored at the time is what gets the focus and everything else
    seems to be forgotten;

-   Our first graders are still struggling;

-   Paperwork overwhelming, especially DIBELS demographics;

-   3^rd^ GRADE test (students were tired since it was after CATS);

-   GRADE booklets destroyed during shipping to AGS;

-   Maintaining our scores;

-   How to continue to increase our GRADE and DIBELS scores;

-   How to meet the needs of our supplemental and intervention students
    with one less teacher on staff; and

-   We are concerned about continuing to have high degrees of success in
    our scores next year.

[Leadership (spring concerns 2007)]{.underline}

-   This year was the first year that the principal and district coach
    did not support the school coach, teachers and RF, which I believe
    was reflected in our end of the year data;

-   Our school district has merged this year with a non RF school and
    the new administration has been difficult to work with concerning
    RF;

-   Too many district/state level meetings;

-   Lack of support from the principal. Little interest shown toward
    assisting with implementation of grant;

-   School coach does not spend much time modeling due to other
    commitments;

-   Organize through summer and for summer;

-   Loosing another state coach and breaking in another new one; and

-   What could I have done to help our school be more successful?

[Funding (spring concerns 2007)]{.underline}

-   Finding funding for our interventionists for next year;

-   Our instructional aids have been cut, they have "watched our
    classes" while teachers have attended grade level meetings;

-   Lost a teacher who has helped us with core, supplemental, and
    intervention groups, position has been cut;

-   Fewer instructors to teach the core, therefore larger DI grouping;

-   Uncertain of next year's staff due to county budget cuts;

-   Concerned about staff...due to district doing major layoffs of no
    tenured teachers and major reshuffling of tenured teachers;

-   How to meet the needs of our supplemental and intervention students
    with one less teacher on staff; and

-   Enrollment is down, therefore two teachers will be dropped, and two
    not rehired.

[Students (spring concerns 2007)]{.underline}

-   I'm concerned that some students will regress over the summer;

-   Ownership of students;

-   Students not retaining learned skills and material over the summer;

-   Reaching students with IEPs; and

-   Even with excessive preparations, time, effort, etc, some students
    still fail to read at grade level.

[Collaboration (spring concerns 2007)]{.underline}

-   No lunch enrichment activities time to schedule our interventions
    without interfering with homeroom teachers' schedules;

-   Loosing extra interventionist who was hired with the extra funding;
    and

-   How to work our class schedules to get the most out of our reading
    block instruction time.

[Professional Development (spring concerns 2007)]{.underline}

-   Our new teachers coming out of colleges were not prepared to
    implement RF which is in its third year. It was and is difficult to
    provide all of the PD that new teachers have not had to "catch them
    up." As a result, the students in his or her class do not get the
    same type of instruction as teachers who have been in RF schools
    since the first year of implementation;

-   Continue to provide PD to new teachers to ensure high levels of
    reading instruction;

-   Too much movement with our special education students, looking at
    this on a school-wide basis, trying to look at the disabilities of
    each student and making sure the teachers get PD on that disability.

[Parent Involvement (spring concerns 2007)]{.underline}

-   Teachers do not always participate in the family nights, and I don't
    know how to get them to see the importance; and

-   Book clubs were not well attended.

[Environment (spring concerns 2007)]{.underline}

-   Class size is still an issue.

**Chapter 10**

**[I. State Coach Case Study Reports of Reading First Exemplary
Schools]{.underline}**

Kentucky's Reading First State Coaches submitted a case study report of
one of their exemplary Reading First schools. The principal investigator
provided the state coaches with an outline of specific topics related to
the selected school's success with Reading First implementation. The
state coaches interacted and communicated with all of their schools for
the 2006-2007 school year. At the end of the year, coaches selected a
school that demonstrated effective change, growth in student reading
achievement, and successful implementation of research-based reading
instruction. The following is a description of the overall themes and
specific evidence regarding the case study reports.

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

**Overall successes based on evidence from case study reports:**

-   GRADE and DIBELS scores increasing from Year I to Year III;

-   Positive changes in school culture and attitudes;

-   Recognition by students of their reading successes;

-   More focused planning on meeting students' needs;

-   Family literacy events engaging and creating learning opportunities
    related to literacy;

-   Most schools' special education referrals decreasing;

-   Ninety-percent evidence of district support and involvement from
    superintendent, state coach, district coach, and literacy teams;

-   All schools meeting required eighty hours of professional
    development;

-   Professional development designed at the school-level and has moved
    from the "sit and get" to developing a learning community by working
    toward common instructional goals; and

-   All principals fully participating, communicating, and providing
    support to teachers and school coaches;

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

-   Need to continue involving and providing opportunities for
    non-funded RF schools; and

-   In some schools, more district support still needed.

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

***School Profiles***

Schools selected had various demographics including ethnic groups, rural
to urban, and number of students on free and reduced lunch.

***Year I to Year III Changes***

State coaches shared numerous positive changes that have occurred in
their schools as a result of Reading First. The schools identified in
Year I were struggling with how to effectively teach students to read.
Presently, these exemplary schools are exceeding their own expectations.
For example, change in school culture has moved from teacher negativity
to teachers now addressing change with professionalism and positive
attitudes. In addition, leadership has become a key component to these
schools' success. Principals are serving as instructional leaders and
districts are providing the support needed for successful
implementation.

Several coaches mentioned the changes in classroom learning environments
and the abundance of reading resources and materials. In addition,
teachers and students have become aware of their reading successes. One
student was asked how she was doing with reading. The student responded,
"Do you want to hear what my reading fluency score is now?" Moreover,
evidence of success is in the data and student achievement. All of these
schools have made major strides in improving students' reading ability.
One state coach said, "The improved reading ability in all classrooms
and all subjects has been the greatest reward for teachers' efforts."

***Student's Reading Success***

Students' scores on GRADE and DIBELS depict steady growth from Year I to
Year III. Several state coaches mentioned the improvement of their
schools subgroup population scores. For example, one state coach shared
how an English Language Learner spoke only Spanish at home, scored 0 on
DIBELS ORF, and scored below the 5^th^ percentile on GRADE. At the end
of his second year in a Reading First school, he was reading 118 words
per minute and scored at the 50^th^ percentile on GRADE assessment.
According to the state coach, this student's confidence has increased
and he shows pride in his work and accomplishments.

Another success story was with a kindergarten student who was having
reading difficulty. This student scored below benchmark at the 18^th^
percentile in the fall, reached benchmark in the winter at the 51^st^
percentile, and soared to success in the spring by reading at the 94^th^
percentile on GRADE assessment

The following chart shows one school's overall scores for students at
benchmark:

  ------------------------ --------------------- ------------------------
  *Years*                  *% at Benchmark on    *% at Benchmark on
                           DIBELS*               GRADE*

  Spring 2005              52%                   55%

  Spring 2006              71%                   74%

  Spring 2007              79%                   88%
  ------------------------ --------------------- ------------------------

***Special Education Referrals***

Ninety-percent of the state coaches reported that special education
referrals have dropped dramatically. For example, one school's referrals
decreased from eight in Year I, three in Year II, and one in Year III.
Last year, state coaches reported that strong collaborations existed
among faculty in planning to address student learning and reading
achievement needs. This same theme of collaboration and planning in
regard to students' learning and reading achievement continues to
flourish. One state coach pointed out, "Teachers believe that the drop
in special education referrals is directly related to supplemental and
intervention instruction based on addressing students' needs and
progress monitoring." Another state coach shared, "Teachers are skilled
at digging deep into the data to find out what it is saying about each
and every child." Overall, Reading First is making an impact on the
decreasing numbers in special education referrals.

***Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III Implementation***

All the selected exemplary schools have a variety of core, supplemental,
and intervention reading programs. In comparison to Year II, several
schools have made modifications to their programs. One district is
monitoring Reading First requirements and school needs by conducting
site visits and offering follow-up assistance. It appears that the
continued teamwork and collaboration among teachers have unified reading
instruction. One coach shared the staff has made a strong effort to
align instruction across the three tiers and utilize their intervention
plans with intensive students. The case studies demonstrated that an
increasing number of students are progressing from intensive, through
strategic, and then to benchmark levels.

***Family Literacy***

Family literacy events shared by state coaches demonstrated a wide-range
of literacy activities that promoted family involvement and
understanding of the Reading First grant. Exemplary schools show
cooperation between school coaches, teachers, and family resource groups
to promote literacy at home. These schools' family literacy activities
focused on the five reading components collectively. The chart below
depicts a few of the family literacy events occurring at these schools:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  ***Family Literacy Event***         ***Description of Event***

  Potluck Dinner                      Goals were to inform parents about
                                      reading programs that were focused
                                      on closing the achievement gap and
                                      to solicit parental support.

  Pizza and Pages                     Public librarian read aloud to
                                      students while they ate pizza.

  Amazing Race to Read                Students take home reading
                                      backpacks and involve their
                                      families in the reading process.

  Pajama Night                        Local community members wore their
                                      pajamas and read aloud to small
                                      groups of students.

  Storybooks Alive                    Teachers dressed up like a
                                      character from favorite books.
                                      Students received an item (i.e.
                                      magic wands, doggie ears) connected
                                      to the story while they listened to
                                      stories.
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

One school has a Reading Festival in partnership with local community
members. Famous authors are invited to attend and participate in this
event. Well known author, E.B. White attended recently and was so
impressed with the community that he has written a book using two of the
students in the story and creating illustrations from local sites.
Overall, family literacy events continue to grow and are becoming a part
of the school culture.

***District Support***

A large majority of district personnel support the Reading First (RF)
initiative. Only one state coach reported that her district support was
lacking and the district coach had not taken an active role in the
school. This support is shown through various activities such as
classroom walkthroughs, additional funding, encouragement of
professional development for non-funded RF schools, allowing for
observations in other model schools, and constant communication among
all involved in the RF process. It is interesting to note, that some
district leaders have a specific focus and objective when conducting
site visits. For example, one districts' leadership team observes and
analyzes the implementation of the five reading components in RF
classrooms.

***Professional Development***

This year's professional development was delivered through a variety of
methods. The mandatory requirement of professional development for
Reading First teachers was 80 hours. However, several schools went well
beyond the required 80 hours. One state coach discussed the importance
of providing follow-up professional development over an extended period
of time. This has been instrumental to effectively implement the
training provided. Professional development in Year III focused on a
variety of topics. For example, explicit lesson planning assisted
teachers in recognizing students' prior knowledge and understanding the
process of scaffolding to reach struggling readers.

Schools from all three years have implemented many different types of
professional development. These include networking and observing other
RF schools, make-it and take-it workshops, book study groups, attending
national and state conferences, and participating at summer institutes.
One coach pointed out how professional development has taken on new
faces through reading resource books, initiating conversations related
to journal articles, and collaborative discussions during planning and
data meetings.

Professional development changed from "sit and get" to a focus on
teachers working together to promote a learning community where common
goals and objectives are embraced. Most of the professional development
has been offered at the school-level with the school coach facilitating
the process. One teacher stated, "Professional development has provided
much to learn, but now I can't imagine teaching any other way."

***Leadership***

Every case study discussed the strong leadership occurring in schools.
Leaders mentioned were literacy teams, teachers, school coaches,
district coaches, state coaches, and principals. One school's leadership
team has moved Reading First from a P1-P4 initiative to a school-wide
initiative. There were common leadership characteristics such as
exhibiting positive attitudes, designing schedules to accommodate and
protect the reading block time, recognizing and creating summer school
programs, and attending professional development.

***State, District, and School Collaboration***

State coaches agreed there is strong collaboration between the state,
district and school levels. Although each school has unique
collaborative process in place, they share a common goal of helping
students achieve reading success. One school coach reported how the
state co-directors welcome communication and respond promptly. Moreover,
the school coach shared, "This is truly the only State Program that has
a high level of collaboration, communication, and positive support that
schools need to continually show progress."

***Final Thoughts and Summary***

It is evident that teachers in these exemplary schools emulate a strong
commitment to student learning and achievement. Teachers and coaches are
designing optimal learning environments where students can become fluent
readers. The case studies illustrate the changes and transformations
each school has completed to become unique learning communities. One
state coach provided an analogy to the life cycle of the butterfly and
how there are many variables and conditions that need to occur in order
for the life cycle to become complete. In comparison to the butterfly,
schools have maintained their focus and commitment to Reading First.
They have refined many aspects of their instruction and assessment
procedures through supportive leadership, quality professional
development, and collaborative learning environments.

One state coach presented the following school coach quote:

> *"Reading first has given our school the tools needed to turn our
> school around. The amount of improvement is remarkable and the whole
> community is celebrating this progress. The ultimate reward for me is
> seeing students that are more excited about getting a new book to read
> than getting candy or a toy."*

In conclusion, these exemplary schools have demonstrated how students
CAN become successful readers when provided with research-based
instructional reading strategies and a structure for learning to take
place. One state coach re-emphasized this idea, "the goal of building a
strong foundation through teamwork and to achieve academic excellence
and respect by all, can be summed up in one short statement......mission
accomplished!"

**Chapter 11**

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

**[Purpose]{.underline}**

The purpose of Volume I was threefold: observation of program
implementation, analysis of reading achievement gains, and recognition
of Reading First's impact in reduction of below level reading
achievement. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and
analyzed by a statistician and evaluation team members. Data sources
included questionnaires, surveys, interviews, evaluations of institutes
and professional development, and analysis of student achievement data.

**[Summer Institutes]{.underline}**

At regular education summer institutes, teachers from all 73 Reading
First schools participated in three days of professional development on
using data to design explicit instruction. Overall, teacher evaluations
of the institutes were positive; the majority of teachers indicated the
information and opportunities to plan and augment core lessons were
beneficial. Participants did indicate a need to have more professional
development and time to plan core lessons and literacy centers. CCLD
evaluation of the institute presenters' delivery, participants'
involvement, and content of the training indicated that, overall, the
institutes were organized, resources were readily available, and
teachers had multiple opportunities to apply information during the
sessions.

**[Professional Development for Non-Funded Schools]{.underline}**

KDE professional development provided to non-funded Reading First
schools focused on the five essential components of reading.
Participants' evaluations of these summer institutes were positive,
overall, indicating the strategies, activities, and information provided
were useful. Concerns expressed by participants included a need for more
"hands on" activities for classroom implementation and better
organization of the notebooks provided to the participants. CCLD's
evaluation of the institutes indicated the presenters were knowledgeable
and organized, and the participants were given time to work together to
apply new knowledge. Evaluators expressed concern about the lack of
assessment tools available to the participants and the format of the
manual being difficult to follow.

**[Principals' Institute]{.underline}**

The 2006 Principal's Institute focused on "embracing data," including
designing data boards, discussions of role clarification (principal vs.
school coach), and examples of explicit weekly planning. Participant
evaluations overall were positive, indicating the data board session was
most useful. Follow-up phone interviews indicated a desire to focus on
more ideas/examples of successful ways to collect and use data.

**[Summer School Survey]{.underline}**

Results of the CCLD summer school survey indicated that Reading First
schools offered a diverse range of curriculum, length of program, and
funding sources to implement summer school. The majority of students
participating were selected based on greatest academic need, and the
majority of schools provided some type of transportation assistance for
these targeted students. Ninety-one percent of students in summer school
showed regression from their Spring 2006 to Fall 2006 GRADE scores, and
the remaining 9% indicated gains, ranging from 5-11%.

**[Reading First Coordinators]{.underline}**

KDE's Reading First coordinators and instructional leaders were surveyed
regarding Reading First implementation in Kentucky; results indicated an
increase in data-driven instruction, explicit lesson planning, and
differentiation in lesson content. Survey participants' concerns
included Reading First sustainability beyond the grant, the continued
need for leadership training, and decisive plans for struggling schools.

**[Reading First State Coaches]{.underline}**

The 10 Kentucky Reading First state coaches responded to a CCLD
questionnaire regarding RF year 3 implementation. The state coaches
indicated successes in several areas: use of data boards for lesson
planning, explicit lesson planning in small groups, increased focus on
schools in need, and opportunities to observe and provide feedback to
teachers. Concerns included a need for more district support, more time
to assist schools in need, and less time in Frankfort at meetings. State
coaches indicated four key resources that will be provided to assist
schools in sustaining RF when the grant expires: follow up professional
development, networking with other schools, discussions at the district
level, and tapes modeling reading instruction.

**APPENDIXES**

**Appendix A**

Using Data to Explicitly Design Instruction

2006 Institute Feedback Form

*This evaluation is designed to develop an overall understanding of
Reading First professional development in the state of Kentucky.*

*The findings will be included in the 2006-2007 annual report prepared
by the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development (CCLD).*

The information I found most
useful:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What I would have preferred to learn from the institute/training:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What specific training from this institute will benefit my school?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

*Please rate the following areas from 1 being low to 5 being high
related to your experience at the Institute.*

Content Low High

1\. Overall Rating 1 2 3 4 5

2\. Content was what I expected 1 2 3 4 5

3\. Directly applicable to my job 1 2 3 4 5

4\. I found value in the resource materials 1 2 3 4 5

5\. Content was well organized 1 2 3 4 5

Instructor Low High

6\. Overall Rating 1 2 3 4 5

7\. Demonstrated knowledge of content 1 2 3 4 5

8\. Modeled techniques 1 2 3 4 5

9\. Instructors' interest in participant 1 2 3 4 5

Materials and Visual Aids Low High

10\. Effectiveness of visual aids 1 2 3 4 5

11\. Usefulness of participant workbook 1 2 3 4 5

12\. Organized and well prepare 1 2 3 4 5

You as a Participant Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

13\. I was fully present and actively participated 1 2 3 4 5

14\. My co-participants were actively involved and

supported the learning process 1 2 3 4 5

Please share your comments in 30 words or less about this
institute/training day *(use back of page, if needed).*

**Appendix B**

**2006 Summer School Survey**

**Reading First is interested in the success of summer school programs
to slow summer regression. Please respond to the following questions:**

**School name:**
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1\. How many total students were enrolled in summer school?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2\. How many students attended on a regular basis? (80% or
higher)\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

3\. What did you do for students who had poor attendance?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

4\. What criteria did you use to determine eligibility? If you used test
scores, what was the cut-off? (i.e. Students scoring below \_\_\_\_\_ on
\_\_\_\_\_assessment)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5\. What were the roles of those in charge of planning summer school?
(i.e. school reading coach, principal, teachers, etc.)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

6\. How many weeks/day/hours did the summer school last? *[Please fill
in below]{.underline}*:

Our summer school program was \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ weeks,
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ days per week, \_\_\_\_\_\_ hours per day.

7.  What funding sources did you use?
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

8\. Did you have transportation issues? Yes No If so, how were they
resolved?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9\. Please average the GRADE Spring 2007 percentages for students ***who
attended* *summer school regularly*** (above 80% attendance)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Please average the fall GRADE 2008 percentages for students **who
attended** **summer school regularly** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**[Use above figures to calculate the difference:]{.underline}**

Average spring GRADE percentages (above): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Average fall GRADE percentages (above): \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Subtract the difference: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

10\. Who instructed summer school students? (i.e. certified teachers,
instructional assistants, volunteers)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

11\. How many students was each instructor responsible for teaching?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12\. Please write a brief description of the curriculum (program used,
etc.).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

13\. What creative ways did you use to motivate students to attend?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

14\. What will you change about your summer school program for the
coming year to improve your student achievement results?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Appendix C**

**Kentucky Department of Education (KDE)**

**Leadership Questionnaire**

1.  What has been your main focus as a leader for RF this school year?

2.  What new ideas or initiatives have you applied to RF in Kentucky for
    this school year?

3.  Have you applied new information from conferences or seminars
    attended this school year?

4.  What has KDE done to assist red flag schools this year?

5.  What will happen with the schools that are making gains, yet are not
    meeting the benchmarks and expectations of RF in Kentucky?

6.  How do national changes impact RF schools in Kentucky?

7.  What resources will be provided to schools to sustain RF
    initiatives?

8.  What concerns or challenges remain as a barrier to progress for RF
    in Kentucky?

9.  Overall, what are the positive changes that have occurred due to RF
    this year?

10. Complete this sentence. During this point of implementation,
    RF\...\...

11. Complete this sentence. Leadership at the state level requires\.....

12. Additional Comments

**Appendix D**

**Reading First State Coach**

**Interview Questions**

1.  What has been your main focus as a RF leader for this school year?

2.  Describe one leadership success you've conducted in relation to RF
    implementation.

3.  Have you changed your interactions or routines with RF schools in
    any way?

4.  Based on last year's concerns, questions, and issues (provided),
    which of these have been addressed in your schools this year?

5.  Based on last year's concerns, questions, and issues (provided),
    which of these still remain an area of concern for this school year?

6.  Are there any new concerns, questions, and / or issues that are not
    listed above?

7.  What do you do to acknowledge and address student assessment
    outcomes (GRADE, DIBELS) that are not at benchmark?

8.  What are you doing to assist your red flag schools?

9.  What specific resources will be provided to schools to sustain RF
    initiatives?

10. Please rank or number the list below in order of importance in
    regard to learning in the classroom (1 being the highest-12 being
    the least important).

**Appendix E**

**Reading First Evaluation Team Biographies**

**2006-2007**

**Principal Investigator**

**Paige Carney, Ed.D.-**Paige Carney received her Bachelor of Arts in
Education from the University of South Carolina, Master of Arts in
Education from Georgetown College, and Doctor of Education from the
University of Kentucky. Presently, Dr. Carney serves as a Lecturer and
Researcher for the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development at the
University of Kentucky. Dr. Carney teaches literacy courses to
University of Kentucky Teacher Education Candidates and serves as the
Principal Investigator for Kentucky's *Reading First* Program. She has
taught both undergraduate and graduate elementary courses at West
Virginia State University, Marshall University, and Eastern Kentucky
University. While teaching in West Virginia, she served as External
Reading Facilitator for a grant titled *Reading for All*. As an External
Facilitator, she coached, presented, and conducted research on improving
reading achievement in elementary students. Dr. Carney has presented and
published at the state, national, and international levels on various
components of reading and writing.

**Statistician**

**Melissa Pittard, Ph.D**.-Melissa Pittard is the statistician for the
*Reading First* Evaluation. She earned her Ph.D. at the University of
Kentucky in 1999. During that time she taught in the University of
Kentucky's department of statistics as well as worked as a statistical
consultant at the Markey Cancer Center. While at the Markey Cancer
Center, Dr. Pittard co-authored several papers with physicians. Dr.
Pittard has taught at Midway College for two years as an assistant
professor in the department of mathematics. Currently, she tutors
home-schooled high school students in mathematics.

**Cynthia Branstetter -** Cynthia Branstetter received her Bachelors
Degree in Elementary Education and Masters Degree as a Reading
Specialist from the University of Kentucky. Cynthia taught first and
second grade in Fayette County Public Schools for five years. She also
enjoyed working as a Reading Teacher for grades one through five.
Currently, Cynthia serves as a volunteer in her community school by
assisting in the classroom, serving on various committees, and tutoring
individuals or small groups. This is Cynthia's first year working with
the *Reading First* Evaluation Team.

**Charlie Hardy**-Charlie Hardy earned his B.A. and M.A. Degrees in
Elementary Education at Eastern Kentucky University. He enjoyed teaching
fourth, fifth, and sixth grades for eighteen years in the Fayette County
School System. After completing his Rank I in Administration, Charlie
continued to serve Fayette

County as a school administrator for ten years. He continues to share
literacy with children of all ages as a storyteller for *Spellbinders*
and the *Kentucky Storytelling Association.*

**Ann Hendrix**-Ann Hendrix is a graduate of Morehead State University
with a B.A., M.A., and Rank I in Elementary Education. Ann taught grades
K-6 in Fleming County for eighteen years. After obtaining certification
from the University of Kentucky, she continued in the Fleming County
schools as an elementary school media specialist for nine years. Ann
worked for six years for the U.S. Department of Education as the
Director for the Licking Valley C.A.P. Parental Assistance Program. This
is Ann's second year as a *Reading First* Evaluator.

**Nancy Huffstutter**-Nancy Huffstutter earned her Bachelor's Degree in
Elementary Education, Master's Degree in Guidance and Counseling, and
Administrative Certification from Murray State University. After
teaching First Grade for five years, Nancy was involved in gifted
education as a teacher, then consultant for ten years. She served as the
Director of School Services for Murray State University's College of
Education, the Director of Professional Development for the West
Kentucky Educational Cooperative and a trainer/coach for the
Collaborative for Teaching and Learning (Different Ways of Knowing).
Currently, Nancy is an adjunct professor in Murray State University's
Teacher Certification Program.

**Lauren Jones**-Lauren Jones earned her Bachelors Degree in Elementary
Education from the University of Kentucky and her Masters Degree in
Education at Bellarmine University. For seven years, Lauren taught
Kindergarten and Second Grade for the Archdiocese of Louisville schools.
Currently, she is working towards her Rank I in Literacy at the
University of Kentucky. This is Lauren's second year as a research
assistant for the Collaborative Center on Literacy Development's
*Reading First* evaluation.

**Vicki McGinnis**-Vicki McGinnis earned her Bachelors Degree in
Elementary Education from Centre College and Masters Degree as a Reading
Specialist from the University of Kentucky. She earned her Rank I Degree
from Morehead State University. Vicki taught in Kindergarten and First
Grades for seven years in Kentucky and Ohio, and most recently taught as
a *Reading Recovery* teacher for four years. While working at the
University of Kentucky's Institute on Education Reform, she helped
conduct research on the *Primary Program Progress Report* and assisted
in developing professional materials for teachers, including the *Lap
Reading Program.*

**Jill Perez-**Jill Perez earned her Bachelors Degree in Special
Education from the University of Kentucky. After teaching special
education (K-6) in Kentucky for Franklin and Fayette County schools,
Jill moved to Ohio where she taught

special education (K-5) in the Dayton Public Schools. While in Ohio, she
became a ninth grade LBD resource teacher for the Anthony Wayne Schools
in Toledo where she co-taught and collaborated with the Ninth Grade
teachers in all academic areas. Jill is involved in her community school
by volunteering in the classroom and serving on school committees.

**Michelle Sapp** - Michelle Sapp earned her Master of Arts in Education
Degree from Campbellsville University and a Bachelor of Science Degree
in Elementary Education from Western Kentucky University. Michelle has
experience teaching third grade at Caldwell County Elementary in
Princeton, KY and second grade at Taylor County Elementary in
Campbellsville, KY. She also worked as Director of Education and
Training doing work-related seminars for Fruit of the Loom.
Additionally, Michelle has coordinated the Mothers of Preschoolers
ministry at her church, served on various school based committees, and
is currently PTA President at Veterans Park Elementary.

**Mary Jane Scaggs**-Mary Jane Scaggs earned her Bachelors Degree in
Elementary Education and Special Education from Eastern Kentucky
University. She completed her Master's Degree and Rank I in Elementary
Education at Morehead State University. Mary Jane taught middle school,
special education students for nineteen years and middle school, Social
Studies classes for eight years in Fleming County. Since retirement in
2000, she has served as a substitute teacher and teacher educator for
the KTIP Program.

**Pam Seales**-Pam earned her Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary
Education from the State University of New York (Geneseo) and a Master
of Science Degree with specialization in Reading (University of
Wisconsin-Madison). She has experience in the classroom as a third and
fourth grade teacher, as an independent literacy consultant, and is
currently the vice-chairperson for the Jessamine County Board of
Education. This is Pam's third year serving on the *Reading First*
Evaluation Team.

**Kaye Warner** - Kaye Warner earned her Bachelors Degree in Elementary
Education and English, Masters Degree in Secondary Education and Rank I
as a Reading Specialist from Murray State University. She taught 27
years in the Murray Independent School System with two of those years
being on loan to the Kentucky Department of Education as reading and
language arts consultant in the Division of Curriculum and Assessment
Development. Since her retirement, Kaye has been a classroom observer
for several reading projects in Kentucky as well as for Appalachian
Education Lab (Edvantia) in West Virginia. She also worked as a
consultant for Advance Systems in Measurement.

**Appendix F**

**Kentucky Reading First State Coaches' Log Hours**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>State</p>
<p>Coach</p></td>
<td><p>In Class</p>
<p>Support</p></td>
<td>Coaching</td>
<td>Assessment</td>
<td><p>On-going</p>
<p>PD</p></td>
<td><p>Planning &amp;</p>
<p>Administrative</p></td>
<td><p>Personal</p>
<p>PD</p></td>
<td>Date Reporting &amp; Analysis</td>
<td>Other</td>
<td><p>Yearly</p>
<p>Totals</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>456</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>86</td>
<td>636</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>402</td>
<td>1672</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2</td>
<td>71</td>
<td>154</td>
<td>9.5</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>539</td>
<td>385</td>
<td>144</td>
<td>284.5</td>
<td>1772.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3</td>
<td>97</td>
<td>130</td>
<td>59</td>
<td>304</td>
<td>1069</td>
<td>237</td>
<td>260</td>
<td>218</td>
<td>2374</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>186</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>55.5</td>
<td>57.7</td>
<td>162</td>
<td>138</td>
<td>900.5</td>
<td>2056</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>697</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>174</td>
<td>1122</td>
<td>146</td>
<td>250</td>
<td>554</td>
<td>2953</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>6</td>
<td>143</td>
<td>229</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>111</td>
<td>667</td>
<td>111</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>785</td>
<td>2128</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>7</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>586.5</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>275</td>
<td>682</td>
<td>205</td>
<td>187</td>
<td>476.75</td>
<td>2426.25</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8</td>
<td>137</td>
<td>369</td>
<td>110.5</td>
<td>241</td>
<td>399</td>
<td>120</td>
<td>152</td>
<td>408</td>
<td>1936.50</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>9</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>534</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>214</td>
<td>622</td>
<td>232</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>913</td>
<td>2545</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>10</td>
<td>194</td>
<td>334</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>265</td>
<td>480</td>
<td>89</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>616</td>
<td>2114</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>