**[Striving Readers]{.smallcaps}**

**[Implementation of the]{.smallcaps}**

**[Targeted and the Whole School Interventions]{.smallcaps}**

**[Summary of Year 1 (2006-07)]{.smallcaps}**

**[Newark Public Schools, New Jersey]{.smallcaps}**

**[July 2008]{.smallcaps}**

**[Authors:]{.smallcaps}**

**[Jennifer Hamilton, Westat]{.smallcaps}**

**[Gayle Griffin, Ph.D., Newark Public Schools]{.smallcaps}**

**[Caryn Cavanagh, Newark Public Schools]{.smallcaps}**

*This report was submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education to fulfill requirements of the
Striving Readers grant, Marcia Kingman, Program Officer.*

**[Striving Readers]{.smallcaps}**

**[Executive Summary: Year 1 Implementation Study]{.smallcaps}**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **A. Project Overview**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**A1. District Context**

Newark Public Schools, serving 43,000 students in the city of Newark,
New Jersey, is the largest district in the state of New Jersey. It
serves a diverse population of approximately 61 percent African
American, 31 percent Hispanic, 7 percent white and 1 percent Asian in 78
schools. Approximately 10 percent of the students are English Language
Learners, and 14 percent receive special education services. While
student achievement in literacy has shown marked improvement over the
past 10 years at the elementary level, only 61 percent of middle-grade
general education students were proficient in 2006. When special
education students were factored into the data, less than half of the
middle-grade student population was proficient (49 percent).

Further analysis of district achievement data reveal that most students
at the middle-level grades have mastered literal comprehension skills
but have not mastered the analytical and inferential skills needed to
read between the lines and "beyond the lines" of content discipline
textbooks.

Nineteen middle-level schools are participating in the United States
Department of Education Striving Readers study. The Striving Readers
Grant addresses the unmet needs of middle-level students reading two or
more years below grade level, provides professional development for
teachers in all core content areas to know and use more effective
literacy strategies, and assesses our ability to implement a quality
program that will produce proficient adolescent readers.

**A2. Targeted Intervention**

Scholastic's READ 180 Enterprise Edition was chosen to be the Targeted
Intervention and replaced the core language arts curriculum for targeted
students in the treatment schools. READ 180 directly addresses the
individual needs of adolescents reading below grade level through
adaptive and instructional software, high-interest literature, and
direct instruction. Teachers received three half days (20 hours) of
whole-group training on all aspects of the READ 180 curriculum, from
preparation to implementation and evaluation. Make-up training was also
held for teachers who were unable to attend the initial session.
Teachers were provided with appropriate background information on READ
180 and research supporting its development. Teachers were prepared for
implementing the program by discussing their own role as classroom
instructors and by role playing activities. In addition, teachers
received one day (5.5 hours) of whole-group training on using student
data for differentiated instruction and one day of instruction on
interpreting READ 180 data reports. Classroom visits by Scholastic
coaches, and district Resource Teacher Coordinators (RTCs) were also
provided. These support visits to the classrooms were coordinated by the
district administration and were provided on an as-needed basis.

[Description of Schools and Students in Targeted
Intervention]{.underline}

The schools eligible to participate in the Striving Readers program were
randomly assigned to either the intervention or a control condition in
May 2006. No classroom- or student-level random assignment was involved.
Eligible middle schools were identified based on the following criteria.
They had to:

-   Be Title I eligible;

-   Serve a minimum of two grades (from 6, 7, 8);

-   Not already be using READ 180;

-   Be categorized as "in need of improvement" under *No Child Left
    Behind;* and

-   Serve a minimum of 25 eligible students.

These criteria ultimately resulted in a pool of 19 schools for
randomization. Ten schools were assigned to the treatment group.

Students were identified as eligible based on their score on the reading
subtest of the 2006 New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (ASK).
This was the first administration of this state assessment, and test
scores ranged from 100 to 300. The READ 180 cut-off scores for student
eligibility were set by the district. They were:

-   5th grade = 198,[^1]

-   6th grade = 186,

-   7th grade = 192.

After taking into account student transfers prior to the beginning of
school, the final count of eligible students was 1,371. Of the 1,371
eligible students, 708 attended treatment schools, and 663 attended
control schools. The characteristics of the students in the treatment
schools were similar to the district as a whole, except for special
education students. The percentage of special education students in the
Targeted Intervention is overrepresented in this study (14 percent in
the district versus 39 percent in the study). The percentage of special
education students is thus 25 percent higher than that of Newark Public
Schools as a whole. The following table illustrates the characteristics
of the students.

Table 1. Characteristics of Students in the Targeted Intervention

+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| **Number (column %)**   | **Students    | **Students | **All        |
|                         | in**          | in**       | Striving     |
|                         |               |            | Readers      |
|                         | **treatment   | **control  | students**   |
|                         | schools**     | schools**  |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| **Total number of       | 708           | 663        | 1,371        |
| students**              |               |            |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| **Average no. of        | 70.8          | 73.7       | 72.1         |
| students per school**   |               |            |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| **Grade spring 2007**   |               |            |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| Grade 6                 | 263 (37%)     | 240 (36%)  | 503 (37%)    |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| Grade 7                 | 213 (30%)     | 235 (35%)  | 448 (33%)    |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| Grade 8                 | 232 (33%)     | 188 (28%)  | 420 (30%)    |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| **Gender**              |               |            |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| Male                    | 404 (57%)     | 363 (55%)  | 767 (56%)    |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| Female                  | 304 (43%)     | 300 (45%)  | 604 (44%)    |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| **Economically          | 647 (91%)     | 556 (84%)  | 1,203 (88%)  |
| disadvantaged**         |               |            |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| **Limited English       | 45 (6%)       | 52 (8%)    | 97 (7%)      |
| proficient**            |               |            |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| **Special education**   | 273 (39%)     | 264 (40%)  | 537 (39%)    |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| **Race/ethnicity**      |               |            |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| African American        | 407 (57%)     | 384 (58%)  | 791 (58%)    |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| Asian                   | 4 (1%)        | 1 (\<1%)   | 5 (\<1%)     |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| Hispanic                | 292 (41%)     | 271 (41%)  | 563 (41%)    |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| White                   | 3 (\<1%)      | 7 (1%)     | 10 (1%)      |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+
| Other                   | 2 (\<1%)      | 0 (0%)     | 2 (\<1%)     |
+-------------------------+---------------+------------+--------------+

[Targeted Intervention Logic Model]{.underline}

The theory of change that underpins READ 180 is displayed in exhibit 1.
This theory of change provides the conceptual framework for the
intervention. The first column on the left lists the materials and
resources that should be in place to support full implementation and use
of READ 180. The second column includes the professional development
approaches that are necessary for implementation. The third column
includes instructional strategies that further define full
implementation and use of the program model. The theory of change goes
on to hypothesize that when all of the necessary resources are in place
and the appropriate teaching and learning activities occur, students
will demonstrate improved reading skills and improved classroom
behavior. Finally, the theory of change suggests that these short-term
outcomes will, in turn, result in longer term impacts as reflected in
improved student reading skills, increased school attendance, decreased
discipline problems, and gains in student learning in all subject areas.

***Exhibit 1: Targeted Intervention Logic Model***

*\*The RTC school visits supported both the whole-school and Targeted
Interventions of the Newark Striving Readers program.*

*\*\*These outcomes are not directly measured under the Newark Striving
Readers grant.*

**A3. Whole-School Intervention**

The goal of Newark Public Schools' Whole-School Intervention is to
improve students' ability to "read to learn" across multiple content
areas. The Whole-School Intervention is thus designed to train teachers
to better scaffold the differentiated learning strategies within the
district's core literacy program for middle-grade students. To this end,
the intervention provides professional development to bolster the
literacy knowledge of grades 6, 7, and 8 teachers in whole group
settings and to provide direct coaching support during in-school visits.
These professional development and support activities are conducted by
experts from New Jersey City University (NJCU), the National Urban
Alliance (NUA). Using a train-the-trainers model, the Resource Teacher
Coordinators support the implementation of both professional development
approaches through their own whole group training and site-based
demonstration lessons and coaching.

Driven by the understanding that basic literacy is the key to all
learning, the district posits that an improvement in students' literacy
skills will lead to improved achievement across the curriculum. The
assumption is that the majority of students will acquire literacy skills
that can be applied to the text-based learning within the disciplines of
mathematics, science, and social studies.

The Whole-School Intervention therefore has a two-pronged approach. It
aims to improve the instructional skills of language arts teachers
through training and support delivered by NJCU. In addition, math,
science and social science teachers are taught how to integrate literacy
skills within their content areas by NUA. This intensive and concerted
approach to literacy instruction across the curriculum is needed, given
the vast literacy needs of the district's middle-grade students.

The Whole-School Intervention provides high-quality professional
development for core content area teachers of literacy, mathematics,
science, and social studies, with an emphasis on literacy across the
curriculum through whole group professional development workshops and
classroom-embedded site visits, including demonstration lessons by
expert coaches. The theory of action driving the district's Whole-School
Intervention is illustrated in exhibit 2.

[Whole-School Intervention Logic Model]{.underline}

The first column of the Whole-School Intervention logic model documents
the basic resources that are needed to fully implement the intervention.
The second column documents instructional strategies. These classroom
practices incorporate what literacy experts and practitioners recommend
to help middle school students master basic reading skills; direct,
explicit instruction in comprehension; modeling of reading and thinking
strategies for comprehension; cooperative learning and discussion of
texts among students; self-selected reading at students' ability levels
to build motivation; ongoing progress monitoring; writing;
age-appropriate and diverse reading materials; and interdisciplinary,
classroom-based efforts to focus on literacy. As a result, the
Whole-School Intervention is expected to yield the following short- and
long-term outcomes:

**Short-Term Outcomes**

-   Improved student fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills; and

-   Improved teacher instructional behaviors and attitudes toward
    teaching.

    **Long-Term Outcomes**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Improved student achievement in reading on state assessments;

-   Improved student achievement across all subject areas;

-   Fewer students needing literacy-based interventions in high school;

-   Sustained student achievement through high school;

-   Increased number of students graduating high school; and

-   Teacher implementation of research-based strategies as part of
    instructional repertoire.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **B. Implementation Study**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**B1. Targeted Intervention**

Studying the implementation of the Targeted Intervention will allow us
to better understand the impacts on students and inform further research
in this area. There are six research questions for the implementation
study of Striving Readers:

1.  What kind of professional development was actually provided to
    teachers?

2.  Did the students assigned to the treatment group receive the
    intervention as planned?

3.  Did the students in the intervention have the characteristics
    specified in the model?

4.  What were the most important ways in which the model as implemented
    differed from the model as planned?

5.  How much variation in implementation fidelity was there across sites
    (schools, classrooms)?

6.  What are the experiences of the control students that were parallel
    to the interventions received by the treatment students?

Exhibit 3A illustrates the key sources of data for the study, which
include logs, observations, and record review. We anticipate the data
will tell us how well the implementation of the intervention reflected
the original intent of the model.

Exhibit 3A: Data Sources for Targeted Intervention Implementation Study

+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| **Research Questions**                         | *  |        |   |   |
|                                                | *M |        |   |   |
|                                                | ea |        |   |   |
|                                                | su |        |   |   |
|                                                | re |        |   |   |
|                                                | s/ |        |   |   |
|                                                | Da |        |   |   |
|                                                | ta |        |   |   |
|                                                | S  |        |   |   |
|                                                | ou |        |   |   |
|                                                | rc |        |   |   |
|                                                | es |        |   |   |
|                                                | ** |        |   |   |
+================================================+====+========+===+===+
|                                                | ** | **Cla  | * |   |
|                                                | Lo | ssroom | * |   |
|                                                | gs | Ob     | R |   |
|                                                | ** | servat | e |   |
|                                                |    | ions** | c |   |
|                                                |    |        | o |   |
|                                                |    |        | r |   |
|                                                |    |        | d |   |
|                                                |    |        | R |   |
|                                                |    |        | e |   |
|                                                |    |        | v |   |
|                                                |    |        | i |   |
|                                                |    |        | e |   |
|                                                |    |        | w |   |
|                                                |    |        | * |   |
|                                                |    |        | * |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
|                                                | >  | > *    | > | > |
|                                                |  * | *Evalu |   |   |
|                                                | *D | ator** | * | * |
|                                                | ev |        | * | * |
|                                                | el |        | P | D |
|                                                | op |        | D | i |
|                                                | er |        | > | s |
|                                                | ** |        |   | t |
|                                                |    |        | A | r |
|                                                |    |        | t | i |
|                                                |    |        | t | c |
|                                                |    |        | e | t |
|                                                |    |        | n | > |
|                                                |    |        | d |   |
|                                                |    |        | a | R |
|                                                |    |        | n | e |
|                                                |    |        | c | c |
|                                                |    |        | e | o |
|                                                |    |        | * | r |
|                                                |    |        | * | d |
|                                                |    |        |   | s |
|                                                |    |        |   | * |
|                                                |    |        |   | * |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| **[What kind of professional development was   |    |        |   |   |
| actually provided to teachers?]{.underline}**  |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| Types & amount of professional development     |   |        |  |   |
| provided to teachers                           |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| **[Did the students assigned to the treatment  |    |        |   |   |
| group receive the intervention as              |    |        |   |   |
| planned?]{.underline}**                        |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| Students assigned to the intervention          |    |        |   |  |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| **[Did the students in the intervention have   |    |        |   |   |
| the characteristics specified in the           |    |        |   |   |
| model?]{.underline}**                          |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| Characteristics of the students                |    |        |   |  |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| **[What were the most important ways in which  |    |        |   |   |
| the model as implemented differed from the     |    |        |   |   |
| model as planned?]{.underline}**               |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| Ways in which the model as implemented         |    |       |   |   |
| differed from the model as planned             |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| **[How much variation in implementation        |    |        |   |   |
| fidelity was there across sites (schools,      |    |        |   |   |
| classrooms)?]{.underline}**                    |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| Proportion of teachers who implemented         |    |       |   |   |
| classroom model at adequate level of           |    |        |   |   |
| implementation                                 |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| **[What are the experiences of the control     |    |        |   |   |
| students that were parallel to the             |    |        |   |   |
| interventions received by the treatment        |    |        |   |   |
| students?]{.underline}**                       |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+
| Comparison of classroom experiences of the     |    |       |   |   |
| treatments & control students                  |    |        |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+----+--------+---+---+

**B2. Whole-School Intervention**

Through the implementation study, it is our intent to examine the
influence of professional development on teachers' instructional
behaviors and attitudes. Over the tenure of the project, the research
question for the implementation study of the Whole-School Intervention
is "What was the level of implementation and variability of professional
development and support for teachers?"

Exhibit 3B illustrates the key sources of data for the study, which
include RTC logs and record review. We anticipate the data will tell us
how well the implementation of the intervention reflected the original
intent of the model.

***Exhibit 3B: Data Sources for Whole-School*** ***Intervention
Implementation Study***

+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| **Research Questions**                                  | ** |      |
|                                                         | Da |      |
|                                                         | ta |      |
|                                                         | S  |      |
|                                                         | ou |      |
|                                                         | rc |      |
|                                                         | es |      |
|                                                         | ** |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
|                                                         | ** | **Re |
|                                                         | Lo | cord |
|                                                         | gs | Revi |
|                                                         | ** | ew** |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
|                                                         | >  | >    |
|                                                         |  * | **PD |
|                                                         | *R | > At |
|                                                         | TC | tend |
|                                                         | ** | ance |
|                                                         |    | > R  |
|                                                         |    | ecor |
|                                                         |    | ds** |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| **What was the level of implementation and variability  |    |      |
| of professional development and support for teachers?** |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| *NJCU professional development and support*             |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Types and amount of professional development provided   |    |     |
| to teachers                                             |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Proportion of teachers participating at different       |    |     |
| levels of professional development                      |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Proportion of teachers participating at adequate level  |    |     |
| of professional development                             |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Types and amount of coaching that was provided          |   |     |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Proportion of teachers receiving different levels of    |   |     |
| coaching                                                |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Proportion of teachers receiving adequate level of      |   |     |
| coaching                                                |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| *NUA professional development and support*              |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Types and amount of professional development provided   |    |     |
| to teachers                                             |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Proportion of teachers receiving/participating at       |    |     |
| different levels of professional development            |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Proportion of teachers receiving/participating at       |    |     |
| adequate level of professional development              |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Types and amount of coaching that was provided          |   |     |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Proportion of teachers receiving different levels of    |   |     |
| coaching                                                |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+
| Proportion of teachers receiving adequate level of      |   |     |
| coaching                                                |    |      |
+---------------------------------------------------------+----+------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **C. Implementation Attainment Summary**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**C1. Targeted Intervention**

The Targeted Intervention is Scholastic's READ 180 curriculum. The
extent to which treatment schools fully implemented their assigned
curricula in year one has been measured and summarized. To determine the
degree of fidelity to READ 180, two 'input' and seven 'implementation'
components have been evaluated for each READ 180 teacher. These
components are:

[Input Components]{.underline}

1.  Professional development

2.  Receipt of materials and technology

[Implementation Components]{.underline}

1.  Class size

2.  Ongoing student assessment

3.  Instructional software

4.  Instructional model (rotations)

5.  Classroom organization

6.  Instruction & management

7.  Use of curricular materials

Scales have been developed to measure the extent to which each of the
above components has been implemented (these scales are described in
more detail in the full fidelity report). Furthermore, an overall scale
was developed to provide a holistic rating of fidelity. Overall, the
level of fidelity is very good, as shown in table 2. Only two teachers
were rated at the low level of fidelity.

Table 2: Number & percentages of teachers by final fidelity designation

  ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------
                          **Number**               **Percent**

  High                    11                       47.8

  Adequate                10                       43.5

  Low                     2                        8.7

  **TOTAL**               **23**                   **100**
  ----------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------

Although table 2 provides a useful summary of implementation fidelity to
the targeted curriculum, it does not answer the specific research
questions presented in section B1. Therefore, the results for these
questions are summarized below.

***Research Question 1. What kind of professional development was
actually provided to teachers?*** Teachers received whole-group training
on all aspects of the READ 180 curriculum, from preparation to
implementation and evaluation. In addition, teachers received training
on using student data for differential instruction and instruction on
interpreting READ 180 data reports. School literacy coaches also
received this training. School technology coordinators received
specialized training to support teachers in the classroom, as did school
principals.

***Research Question 2. Did the students assigned to the treatment group
receive the intervention as planned?*** As shown in table 2, the overall
fidelity to the READ 180 was good (with over 90 percent of teachers
having adequate or better fidelity ratings). Furthermore, over 90
percent of teachers ensured that most of their students had adequate
levels of exposure to the instructional software. However, absenteeism
and student mobility are challenges that can affect the dosage of the
intervention received.

Although the fidelity of implementation was good for the treatment
curriculum, 73 (10.3 percent) of the students assigned to the treatment
did not receive instruction in a READ 180 classroom. Of these students,
29 transferred to non-treatment schools, and 10 were out-of-residency
placements. It is not clear why the remaining 34 students did not
receive READ 180 in year one.

***Research Question 3. Did the students in the intervention have the
characteristics specified in the model?*** There was a larger than
anticipated percentage of special education students in the READ 180
program. While a maximum score on the state assessment was used to
determine eligibility, a similar minimum score was not applied.
Therefore, while special education students made up 14 percent of the
district population, they made up 39 percent of the study sample.
Although the model does not specify a lower limit for its students, we
found that many of the lowest performing students in the sample did not
have the minimum skills required to effectively use (and benefit from)
READ 180.

***Research Question 4. Overall, what were the most important ways in
which the model as implemented differed from the model as planned?***
There were a few instances in which differences occurred in how the
model was implemented versus how it was originally envisioned. At the
outset, Scholastic tentatively planned four visits to each READ 180
teacher in year one. These visits were changed to be on as-needed basis.
As a result, the district RTCs took on a larger role in coaching and
providing the in-school support to teachers.

Furthermore, in the planning stages of the grant, it was thought that
the school literacy coaches would have a greater role in supporting the
READ 180 teachers in the classroom. However, because most literacy
coaches did not attend the necessary training sessions, this support was
not as significant as we had hoped. Each literacy coach is responsible
for all of the LAL classes in their school, which could be up to 35
classrooms, ranging from kindergarten to grade 8. Therefore, in terms of
school-level resources, it may be difficult to justify a focus on just
one or two treatment classrooms at the expense of the others. However,
the district RTCs made numerous visits to each READ 180 teacher during
the school year, and this district level support may have compensated.
It is important to note that the school literacy coach position was not
funded by the Striving Readers grant. The literacy coaches did serve as
liaisons between the Striving Readers RTCs, administrators, teachers,
and Scholastic. They were responsible for coordinating visits from
Scholastic and contributed to scheduling.

***Research Question 5. How much variation in implementation fidelity
was there across sites (schools, classrooms)?*** In calculating
implementation levels, nine different components of fidelity were
evaluated and graded. When these nine components were scaled into a
percentage (with 100 percent representing perfect fidelity), scores
ranged from 62.5 percent to 97.2 percent. The average percentage score
was 86.4, which falls into the 'adequate' category. Exhibit 4 below is a
scatter plot that illustrates the variability in overall fidelity in
year one, where each dot represents a READ 180 classroom, and dots of
the same color are classrooms nested within the same school.

***Exhibit 4: Scatter Plot of Classroom Fidelity to READ 180***

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.621527777777778in"
height="3.5208333333333335in"}

***Research Question 6. What are the experiences of the control students
that were parallel to the interventions received by the treatment
students?*** The class size of the treatment classrooms was 16, while
control classrooms generally had more students (18), based on Westat
observations in the spring of 2006. Furthermore, although control and
treatment classrooms scored similarly on the availability of books and
instructional resources, the treatment classrooms had significantly more
technology-related equipment than control classrooms. In terms of
student grouping, observation data show that students in treatment
classrooms spent more time in small groups and working individually than
students in control classrooms (who spent more time in whole-class
work). However, writing activities occurred more often in control
classrooms than in treatment classrooms.

**C2. Whole-School Intervention**

The Whole-School Intervention consists of both whole-group professional
development and in-school teacher support. The degree of implementation
in year one was determined by teacher participation[^2] in these two
professional development opportunities, as discussed below.

***Research Question 1: What was the level of implementation and
variability of professional development and support for teachers in Year
1?*** The level of implementation of professional development is
calculated by examining the extent of teacher participation in the
whole-group training activities provided by NUA, NJCU, and by the
District RTCs. Table 3 provides a breakdown of these professional
development scores by school. Here, each school is given a participation
score, based on the percentage of eligible teachers who attended the
relevant whole-group training sessions. For example, in the NUA column,
a school is given a score of 4 if more than three-quarters of all
eligible content area teachers attended the NUA whole-group professional
development sessions. Similarly, a score of 1 is assigned to a school
where less than a quarter of teachers attended. An average score is then
computed per school, based on the three components; attendance at NUA,
NJCU, and RTC whole-group sessions. Based on this average score, each
school is then assigned an overall participation level; Low, Adequate,
or High.

Table 3: Ratings by School on Teacher Participation in Whole-Group
Professional Development

  ------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------------
  **School**    **NUA**    **NJCU**   **RTC**    **Average   **Level**
                                                 Score**     

  School 1      3          1          2          2.0         Low

  School 2      1          1          3          1.7         Low

  School 3      3          2          1          2.0         Low

  School 4      2          2          3          2.3         Adequate

  School 5      3          2          2          2.3         Adequate

  School 6      2          3          1          2.0         Low

  School 7      2          2          3          2.3         Adequate

  School 8      2          3          1          2.0         Low

  School 9      1          3          3          2.3         Adequate

  School 10     2          4          2          2.7         Adequate

  School 11     2          3          1          2.0         Low

  School 12     3          3          2          2.7         Adequate

  School 13     1          1          1          1.0         Low

  School 14     2          2          3          2.3         Adequate

  School 15     2          2          2          2.0         Low

  School 16     3          2          1          2.0         Low

  School 17     2          1          1          1.3         Low

  School 18     3          3          1          2.3         Adequate

  School 19     1          1          1          1.0         Low

  **AVERAGE**   **2.1**    **2.2**    **1.8**    **2.0**     **Low**
  ------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------------

Table 3 shows that most schools (58 percent) in year 1 had a low level
of teacher participation in whole-group sessions. The remainder of the
schools (42 percent) attained adequate levels of participation, while no
school attained a high level of participation.

The level of teacher support provided by the curriculum developers is
calculated by examining the number of in-school visits made by NUA and
JCU. Table 4 provides each school with a score for these in-school
visits. Here, each school's score is based on the number of visits
received compared to the number that was anticipated. For example, in
the NUA column, a school is given a score of 4 if it received at least
three-quarters of the designated coaching visits. An average score is
then computed per school, based on the NUA and NJCU components. Based on
this average score, each school is then assigned an overall
participation level; Low, Adequate, or High.

Table 4: Ratings by School on Receipt of In-School Teacher Support

  -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------------
  **School**     **NUA**      **NJCU**     **Average    **Level**
                                           Score**      

  School 1       4            4            4.0          High

  School 2       4            4            4.0          High

  School 3       4            4            4.0          High

  School 4       4            4            4.0          High

  School 5       4            4            4.0          High

  School 6       4            4            4.0          High

  School 7       4            4            4.0          High

  School 8       4            2            3.0          Adequate

  School 9       4            4            4.0          High

  School 10      4            3            3.5          High

  School 11      4            4            4.0          High

  School 12      4            2            3.0          Adequate

  School 13      4            1            2.5          Adequate

  School 14      4            1            2.5          Adequate

  School 15      4            4            4.0          High

  School 16      4            3            3.5          High

  School 17      4            4            4.0          High

  School 18      4            1            2.5          Adequate

  School 19      4            1            2.5          Adequate

  **AVERAGE**    **4.0**      **3.1**      **3.5**      **High**
  -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------------

It is significant to note that in-school coaching had higher
participation rates than the whole-group training sessions. On average,
NUA had the highest in-school coaching score (4.0), while NJCU had a
score of 3.1.

Research on effective professional development indicates that
classroom-embedded professional development produces changes in
teachers' instructional behaviors over time. Newark Public Schools
incorporated this understanding into its design of the whole-school
model. Both the NJCU and NUA professional development providers were
required to provide in-school, classroom-embedded professional
development to reinforce the practice of text-based content literacy
strategies.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **D. Discussion**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**D1. Targeted Intervention**

The greatest challenge in implementation of the Striving Readers Grant
was the inclusion of large numbers of special needs students into the
READ 180 program. The inclusion of these students meant that classroom
aides, personal aides, and special needs teachers were also entering the
READ 180 classrooms with their students. Therefore, these additional
staff members needed to be trained in both the READ 180 curriculum, but
also in effective co-teaching models. Furthermore, because some child
study team members felt that READ 180 violated the IEPs of some students
(because the timed rotations did not allow unlimited time to complete
tasks), higher levels of coordination and communication between the
Office of Language Arts Literacy and the Office of Special Education was
necessary. Upon reflection, this unanticipated collaboration was a
positive challenge in that larger numbers of special needs students
found themselves in inclusion settings, co-teaching improved, and Child
Study Teams and the Office of Special Education have a better
understanding of literacy learning, while the Office of Language Arts
Literacy has a better understanding of accommodations required for
special needs students.

Principal leadership also presented a challenge because principals did
not always adhere to grant requirements, despite signing the statement
of assurance. For example, scheduling was problematic, often because of
resistance to the implementation requirements of the READ 180 program.
In fact, of the five teachers with low fidelity, three of them are from
the same school---and one is a long-term substitute, who is not eligible
to receive training. According to District staff, the school leadership
at this school was replaced in year two of the grant.

Technical issues could have presented a major challenge, but the
cooperation of the Office of Instructional Technology, together with the
hiring of a systems analyst to support READ 180, averted many problems.

Although overall fidelity to the curriculum was very good, the
professional development component has some room for improvement. In the
future, the District plans to clarify that the school literacy coaches
are expected to attend the READ 180 training sessions provided by
Scholastic and will try to ensure that conflicting trainings do not take
place during this time. Furthermore, the issue of training long-term
substitute teachers needs to be resolved. A way must be found to ensure
their attendance at the Scholastic training sessions, or substitutes
cannot be used as READ 180 teachers.

**D2. Whole-School Intervention**

Challenges to implementing the model of Whole-School Intervention as
planned emerged at critical points in the process. We designed a model
that provided a balance of whole group and in-school teacher support so
there would be a greater chance to ensure that teachers used the
strategies learned in professional development sessions. This in-school
support meets many of the standards set forth by the National Staff
Development Council (NSDC), the nation\'s largest professional
association dedicated to improving teacher professional development.
Recommendations in the latest NSDC standards include:

-   the organization of educators into \"learning communities\" that
    have clear goals consistent with school and district goals;

-   effective leadership to support \"continuous instructional
    improvement\";

-   the application of research to school and classroom strategies and
    decision-making;

-   support for teacher collaboration;

-   the development of educators\' skills at increasing parent
    involvement.

According to NSDC, professional development for teachers should be
targeted, ongoing, and embedded into a teacher\'s workday. The
district's design for the whole-school implementation intervention was
developed with the commitment to providing support at the classroom
level.

However, one of the most significant difficulties is changing teacher
behaviors after introducing new ways of teaching. Changing ingrained
school practices, such as participation in professional development
during the summer, stable teacher assignments, and high student mobility
rates, also posed significant challenges to the whole-school model.
Other challenges such as personnel issues, student population and
teacher issues, and school-based administrator prerogatives also became
concerns during year one implementation.

Staff reassignments due to retirements, leaves of absence, promotions,
and the difficulty of hiring qualified replacement staff mid-year caused
unpredictable disruption of instruction. Principals also exacerbated the
challenge of staff reassignments by changing grade assignments. These
changes in staff assignments were a challenge for implementation because
they necessitated make-up professional development sessions.

One must also acknowledge the difficulty of scheduling in schools with
small student populations, which often require teachers to teach both
literacy and social studies. While these teachers could attend both
summer training sessions, the NUA and NJCU training sessions during the
school year overlapped, forcing teachers to choose which one to attend.
As a result, the district is considering pull-out training throughout
the school year so that eligible teachers can receive both NUA and NJCU
training. In addition, when sessions overlap, the district will provide
guidance to teachers stating that the NJCU session should take
precedence.

Furthermore, content area teachers were challenged by conflicting and
competing district initiatives. Specifically, on district staff
development days, several content area departments offered their own
professional development. In many instances, teachers opted to attend
this content-specific training. To avoid future conflicts, the district
intends to provide pull-out training throughout the year to alleviate
the potential of missing Striving Readers training.

The position of school literacy coach pre-dates the Striving Readers
grant. As a locally funded position, building-based literacy coaches are
responsible for literacy instruction in grades K-8. Providing literacy
service to all grades in a school means that literacy coaches are
sometimes required to present staff development sessions on days when
Striving Readers training is being presented. Further, their expansive
role in serving all grades in a particular school makes their focus on
grades 6-8 difficult. With less reliance upon staff development days for
training in the coming year, it is anticipated that literacy coaches may
more fully participate in training afforded by the Striving Readers
grant.

Student population variables resulted in a positive challenge for the
subgroup of special education teachers. The number of special education
and English Language Learners' teachers who participated in professional
development exceeded our expectations and was one of the reasons that
additional sessions for professional development were scheduled after
the school year began. Because special needs students are often placed
during the summer, schools may not know the grade levels for newly
assigned students, nor the number of teachers, until student assignments
are completed, which is in the later summer months. Consequently, we had
more special needs teachers who were assigned to middle-level grades
participating in the study. This occurred as the district was
implementing an aggressive plan to increase inclusion across the
district by 25 percent.

In describing the district's context for participating in the Striving
Readers' research study, student achievement is our primary motivation.
The Striving Readers grant 1) addresses the unmet need for middle-level
students reading two or more years below grade level, 2) provides
professional development for teachers in all core content areas to know
and use more effective literacy strategies, and 3) assesses our ability
to implement a quality program that will produce proficient adolescent
readers. It is important to note that New Jersey bundles its Adequate
Yearly Progress scores at grades 6-8. Our current achievement trend line
shows consistently stagnant student achievement at the middle-grade
level for the past three years. In 2006-07, the trend line did show
growth of approximately 5 percent at the middle level, which represents
the most fluctuation and upward movement of student achievement scores
at the middle-grade level reported in three years.

Newark Public Schools has undertaken specific actions to strengthen
implementation of the Striving Readers' whole-school intervention in
year two and beyond. The challenges and barriers presented during year
one implementation further reinforced our commitment to changing
ingrained school practices so that full implementation can affect
student achievement. We believe that the efforts of the district to
address literacy needs through the Whole-School Intervention model will
address the critical needs of the adolescent struggling reader over the
course of this study and beyond.

[^1]: ^1^. For the 5^th^-grade ASK only, everyone who scored in the
    partially proficient category became eligible for READ 180. Students
    did better on the 5^th^-grade ASK than the other two tests. Although
    the passing rate was 200, no one scored a 199, and 198 became the
    "partially proficient" cut off.

[^2]: The evaluation design for the whole-school intervention did not
    include classroom observations for the whole-school model. Because
    much of the professional development provides training in
    differentiated instruction, developing valid and reliable
    observation instruments to assess the implementation of these
    strategies is beyond the current scope of the grant. However, as
    part of the impact study, the evaluator will analyze teacher self
    reports of any change in instructional practices collected via
    repeated administrations of a survey instrument.