![](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 III: Kentucky Reading First Case Study Schools**

**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

Elizabeth Turner

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 III**

**Page**

**Chapter 1:**

Case Study Description 1

Demographic Information 2

Map of Year III Case Study Sites 4

Case Study Sites 2006-2007 5

Case Study Sites 2007-2008 6

Map of Year IV Case Study Sites 6

**Chapter 2:**

Evaluation Team Role 7

Evaluation Team Responsibilities 9

**Chapter 3:** Classroom Observations -- 2006-2007 12

*Evidence Sections*

Part 1: Analysis of Classroom Observations 13

Part 2: Analysis of Five Reading Components 23

Part 3: Analysis According to Grades P1-P4 30

Part 4: Analysis of Lessons, Groupings, and Reading 56

Part 5: Analysis of Whole Group and Individual Reading Times 61

Part 6: Analysis of Instructional Groupings 80

Part 7: Analysis of Practices Occurring During the Reading Block 83

**Chapter 4**:

Case Study Reports 90

**Chapter 5:**

District Coach Interviews 96

**Chapter 6:**

Principal Interviews 106

**Chapter 7:**

School Coach Interviews 111

Section A: Fall 111

Section B: Winter 120

Section C: Spring 125

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Volume III (cont.)**

**Chapter 8:**

Teacher Questionnaires 133

**Chapter 9:**

Supplemental and Intervention Observations 141

Section A: Supplemental Instruction Observations 141

Section B: Intervention Instruction Observations 145

**Chapter 10:**

Supplemental and Intervention Teacher Interviews 149

Section A: Supplemental Teacher Interviews 149

Section B: Intervention Teacher Interviews 154

**Chapter 11:**

Literacy Center Observations 161

**Chapter 12:**

Parent Surveys 164

**Chapter 13:**

Student Interviews 179

**Chapter 14:**

Volume III Summary 191

[**Appendixes**:]{.underline} pp. 194-223

A.  Case Study Report Letter

B.  Observation Protocol Glossary

C.  Case Study Report Form

D.  District Coach Interview Questions

E.  Principal Interview Questions

F.  School Coach Interview Questions- Fall 2006

G.  School Coach Interview Questions- Winter 2007

H.  School Coach Interview Questions- Spring 2007

I.  Teacher Questionnaire-Winter 2007

J.  Supplemental/Intervention Interview Questions

K.  Literacy Center Observation Form

L.  Parent Survey

M.  Student Interview Questions

**Chapter 1**

**[Case Study Description]{.underline}**

The purpose of the case study evaluation is to continue to explore
Reading First study goals as described in Volume I. These goals are to

-   examine Kentucky's Reading First (RF) program implementation;

-   analyze reading achievement gains of students; and

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

The case study evaluation process is similar to the non-case process in
that it involves both qualitative and quantitative analysis of data.
Additionally, the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development's (CCLD)
site evaluators conduct and summarize research findings in all case
study sites.

**Case Study Selection Process**

In April 2006, researchers selected seventeen 2006-2007 case study
sites. Schools were identified on the basis of core reading programs,
demographics, geographical location, and supplemental and intervention
programs (See Chart 2 for demographics). Additionally, ethnicity and
size of school were taken into consideration during the selection
process. Therefore, a representative sample of Kentucky schools was
selected. Chart 2 presents core programs, schools, and district for the
2006-2007 study, and the map depicts the geographic location of each
case study site. Once the selection process was complete, a letter was
sent to each case study site (see Appendix A for letter).

**Chart 1**

**[Demographic Information]{.underline}**

**Reported by 2006-2007 Reading First Case Study Schools**

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

**NA=**Native American **O=**Other **L**=Liberian **\*ELL=**English
Language Learners

+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| *         | **       | **Loc   | **Enr     | **Race** | **Free and |
| *School** | District | ation** | ollment** |          | Reduced    |
|           | \#**     |         |           |          | Lunch**    |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           | **School |         |           |          |            |
|           | \#**     |         |           |          |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| **Allen   | 050      | Rural   | 924       | AA=1%    | 59%        |
| County    |          |         |           |          |            |
| Primary** | 010      |         |           | C=96%    |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | H=1.2%   |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | A=1%     |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | O=.8%    |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| *         | 502      | Rural   | 292       | AA=1%    | 38%        |
| *Campbell |          |         |           |          |            |
| Ele       | 010      |         |           | C=98%    |            |
| mentary** |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | H=1%     |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| **Catle   | 045      | Urban   | 305       | AA=1.85% | 80%        |
| ttsburg** |          |         |           |          |            |
|           | 095      | (small  |           | C=95.94% |            |
| **Ele     |          | town)   |           |          |            |
| mentary** |          |         |           | H=.74%   |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | O=1.48%  |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| **        | 351      | Rural   | 423       | AA=2%    | 56%        |
| Chandlers |          |         |           |          |            |
| Ele       | 013      |         |           | C=98%    |            |
| mentary** |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | A=.002%  |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| **Crab    | 341      | Rural   | 375       | C=99.5%  | 49%        |
| Orchard   |          |         |           |          |            |
| Ele       | 040      |         |           | O=.5%    |            |
| mentary** |          |         |           |          |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| **Eden    | 385      | Rural   | 347       | C=99%    | 77%        |
| Ele       |          |         |           |          |            |
| mentary** | 051      |         |           | H=\<1%   |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | O=\<1%   |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| *         | 275      | Rural   | 493       | A        | 75.2%      |
| *Fairdale |          |         |           | A=31.24% |            |
| Ele       | 010      |         |           |          |            |
| mentary** |          |         |           | C=63.49% |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | H=1.42%  |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | A=.61%   |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | O=3.25%  |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| *         | 335      | Rural   | 359       | AA=.01%  | 81%        |
| *Garrison |          |         |           |          |            |
| Ele       | 040      |         |           | C=99.9%  |            |
| mentary** |          |         |           |          |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+
| *         | 165      | Urban   | 205       | AA=52%   | 98%        |
| *Harrison |          |         |           |          |            |
| Ele       | 038      |         |           | C=38.5%  |            |
| mentary** |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | H=6%     |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | A=\<1%   |            |
|           |          |         |           |          |            |
|           |          |         |           | O=1.4%   |            |
+-----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------+------------+

**Chart 1**

**[Demographics (Continued)]{.underline}**

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

**NA=**Native America **O=**Other **L=**Liberian **\*ELL=English
Language Learners**

+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **School** | **D     | **Loc   | **Enr     | **Race**  | **Free and |
|            | istrict | ation** | ollment** |           | Reduced    |
|            | \#**    |         |           |           | Lunch**    |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            | *       |         |           |           |            |
|            | *School |         |           |           |            |
|            | \#**    |         |           |           |            |
+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **Jones    | 111     | Rural   | 530       | AA=.01%   | 68%        |
| Park       |         |         |           |           |            |
| El         | 026     |         |           | C=98%     |            |
| ementary** |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | H=.01%    |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | A=.01%    |            |
+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **M        | 525     | Rural   | 460       | AA=21%    | 65%        |
| organfield |         |         |           |           |            |
| El         | 020     |         |           | C=76%     |            |
| ementary** |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | H=\<1%    |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | A=\<1%    |            |
+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **Nancy    | 501     | Rural   | 377       | C=98%     | 55%        |
| El         |         |         |           |           |            |
| ementary** | 280     |         |           | H=2%      |            |
+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **Owen Co. | 471     | Rural   | 627       | AA=.01%   | 54.7%      |
| Primary**  |         |         |           |           |            |
|            | 020     |         |           | C=95%     |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | H=.03%    |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | NA=.001%  |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | A=.001%   |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | O=.003%   |            |
+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **Owi      | 025     | Rural   | 405       | AA=1.28%  | 86%        |
| ngsville** |         |         |           |           |            |
|            | 030     |         |           | C=98.08%  |            |
| **El       |         |         |           |           |            |
| ementary** |         |         |           | H=.32%    |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | NA=.16%   |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | O=.16%    |            |
+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **Parker   | 042     | Urban   | 436       | AA        | 93.8%      |
| Bennett    |         |         |           | /L=36.47% |            |
| Curry      | 057     |         |           |           |            |
| El         |         |         |           | C/B=      |            |
| ementary** |         |         |           | 26.38%    |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | H=31.88%  |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | NA=.23%   |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | A=3.67%   |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | O=1.38%   |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | \*ELL=41% |            |
+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **Pembroke | 115     | Rural   | 400       | AA=28%    | 62%        |
| El         |         |         |           |           |            |
| ementary** | 130     |         |           | C=62%     |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | H=.07%    |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | NA=.0075% |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | A=.0075%  |            |
|            |         |         |           |           |            |
|            |         |         |           | O=.01%    |            |
+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| **Taylor   | 055     | Rural   | 460       | C=99.7%   | 48%        |
| El         |         |         |           |           |            |
| ementary** | 050     |         |           | H=\<1%    |            |
+------------+---------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="8.375in" height="4.09375in"}

**Chart 2**

**[2006-2007 Reading First Case Study Sites]{.underline}**

+--------------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| ***School***             | ***District***    | ***Core Program***   |
+--------------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| Taylor Elementary        | Bracken County    | Open Court           |
+--------------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| Fairdale Elementary      | Jefferson County  | Rigby                |
|                          |                   |                      |
| Crab Orchard Elementary  | Lincoln County    |                      |
+--------------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| Campbell Elementary      | Raceland          | Breakthrough to      |
|                          | Independent       | Literacy             |
| Catlettsburg Elementary  |                   |                      |
|                          | Boyd County       |                      |
+--------------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| Chandlers Elementary     | Logan County      | Houghton Mifflin     |
|                          |                   |                      |
| Garrison Elementary      | Lewis County      |                      |
|                          |                   |                      |
| Parker Bennett Curry     | Bowling Green     |                      |
| Elem.                    | Ind.              |                      |
|                          |                   |                      |
| Morganfield Elementary   | Union County      |                      |
|                          |                   |                      |
| Jones Park Elementary    | Casey County      |                      |
|                          |                   |                      |
| Harrison Elementary      | Fayette County    |                      |
+--------------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| Pembroke Elementary      | Christian County  | Scott Foresman       |
|                          |                   |                      |
| Allen County Primary     | Allen County      |                      |
+--------------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| Eden Elementary          | Martin County     | Success for All      |
+--------------------------+-------------------+----------------------+
| Nancy Elementary         | Pulaski County    | Harcourt             |
|                          |                   |                      |
| Owen County Elementary   | Owen County       |                      |
|                          |                   |                      |
| Owingsville Elementary   | Bath County       |                      |
+--------------------------+-------------------+----------------------+

The following chart and map represent the case study schools for the
2007-2008 study:

**[2007-2008 Reading First Case Study Schools]{.underline}**

+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------+
| **School**            | **District**       | **Core Program**        |
+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------+
| Caldwell County       | Caldwell County    | Houghton-Mifflin        |
| Elementary            |                    |                         |
|                       | Clay County        |                         |
| Goose Rock Elementary |                    |                         |
|                       | Fleming County     |                         |
| Ewing Elementary      |                    |                         |
+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------+
| Burnside Elementary   | Pulaski County     | Scott Foresman          |
|                       |                    |                         |
| Lancaster Elementary  | Garrard County     |                         |
|                       |                    |                         |
| Cumberland Trace      | Warren County      |                         |
+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------+
| East Valley           | Morgan County      | Harcourt Trophies       |
| Elementary            |                    |                         |
|                       | Hickman County     |                         |
| Hickman County        |                    |                         |
| Elementary            |                    |                         |
+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------+
| Gilmore Lane          | Jefferson County   | Rigby                   |
| Elementary            |                    |                         |
|                       | Fayette County     |                         |
| Mary Todd Elementary  |                    |                         |
+-----------------------+--------------------+-------------------------+

**[Map of Year IV Case Study Sites]{.underline}**

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="7.625in" height="3.441666666666667in"}

**Chapter 2**

**[Evaluation Team Role]{.underline}**

The role of CCLD's Reading First Evaluation Team is to serve as the
outside evaluators for Kentucky's Reading First evaluation study. The
evaluation team conducts extensive research with the case study schools
through a variety of research methods. The following chart lists
research components conducted by team members in case study sites:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ***Case Study Data***

  Classroom Observations P1 -- P 4

  Teacher Questionnaires

  Principal Questionnaires

  Intervention Instruction Observations

  Supplemental Instruction Observations

  School Coach Interviews

  Principal Interviews

  District Coach Interviews

  Student Interviews

  Parent Surveys

  Literacy Center Observations

  Supplemental Interviews

  Intervention Interviews
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to beginning the 2005-2006 case study, four RF evaluation team
members designed an observational protocol based on research from a
variety of sources. The protocol was then piloted at several schools to
determine reliability and validity. Revisions were made based on
observations and discussions regarding the protocol's format and
content. Additionally, a glossary was created to provide consistency of
reading terms and concepts (See Appendix B for glossary). In preparing
for the Year III study, evaluation team members revised the protocol by
adding a variety of reading structures. This change allowed the
evaluators to record different types of reading instruction (i.e.
guided, shared, independent) and the number of minutes teachers and
students participated in reading.

Next, the evaluation team attended Summer RF Institutes and training
meetings in order to develop knowledge of RF components and to
understand how to effectively use all research protocols. The purpose of
these training sessions was to ensure the reliability of protocols used
in the study. Several instructional training videos with real RF
classrooms were provided for practice and discussion. The following
agenda items depict the major topics, issues, and requirements discussed
at various team meetings.

**Reading First Evaluation Team Meeting Agenda Items**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **August 2006**                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Define goals of Reading First Evaluation Study                        |
|                                                                       |
| Identify data sources                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| Review process of data collection                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Identify effective observation characteristics                        |
|                                                                       |
| Outline protocol for site visits                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Determine Evaluation Team schedule for 2006-2007                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **December 2006**                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Review first case study site visits                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Preview winter site visit objectives/protocols                        |
|                                                                       |
| Discuss supporting case study report rankings with documented         |
| evidence                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| View Reading First classroom instruction video and practice note      |
| taking                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Following video, discuss evaluators' interpretations with team        |
| members                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Create mock case study report from video observation                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **February 2007**                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Review progress of schools according to assessment data               |
|                                                                       |
| View Reading First study findings from Year I implementation to       |
| present                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Review second case study site visits                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Summarize collected data for future analysis                          |
|                                                                       |
| Assign team members' writing responsibilities                         |
|                                                                       |
| Evaluate feedback form procedures                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Determine interview questions for final site visit                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **May 2007**                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Summarize collected data for analysis                                 |
|                                                                       |
| Evaluate process of data collection/reporting for 2006-2007           |
|                                                                       |
| Develop interview protocols for 2007/2008 case studies                |
|                                                                       |
| Determine team members' case study school assignments for 2007-2008   |
|                                                                       |
| Determine team members' Summer Institute assignments                  |
|                                                                       |
| Determine writing responsibilities for Annual Performance Report      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

After the fall, winter, and spring GRADE and DIBELS testing windows,
trained evaluators began conducting the study and spent a total of three
days in each of the seventeen schools located across the state for a
total of 51 days on site. Each evaluator summarized his or her
observation and interview findings and completed a case study report
form highlighting major strengths and questions from the visit (see
Appendix C for feedback form). The Principal Investigator reviewed the
reports and then sent the forms directly to each school to promote
discussions about RF implementation.

Additional follow up meetings were held at the completion of each round
of site visits. The purpose of these meetings was to have conversations
about the site experience, discuss findings, summarize data, and discuss
next site visit goals and requirements. In May of 2007, evaluators
participated in summarizing data in a specific format for this annual
report. The following schedule lists activities that occurred during the
site visit year.

  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
  **2006-2007 Evaluation    
  Team Schedule**           

  **August 24**             **Team orientation & training**

  **September 18 - October  First case study site visit window
  25**                      

  **October 18**            Principals' Institute III

  **December 7**            **Team meeting following first site visits**

  **January 9 - February    Second case study site visit window
  19**                      

  **February**              Regional Principals' Institute

  **February - April**      Longitudinal Schools' site visits

  **March 19 - April 13**   Final case study site visit window

  **May 17**                **Team meeting following final site visits**

  **June - July**           Reading First Summer Institutes
  ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

**[Evaluation Team Responsibilities]{.underline}**

Team members are provided with a scope of work that clearly defines
their roles and responsibilities for the research study. The team member
roles are defined below:

> ***Case Study Project Statistician*** serves as the statistician for
> research collected in all case study schools. The primary
> responsibility of the case study statistician is to report classroom
> observation data, survey data, and assessment data through statistical
> methods. Data is then shared through visual charts and graphs to
> represent overall findings and is integrated into RF presentations,
> Federal Annual Performance Report, and Annual RF Report.
>
> ***Research Assistant (RA)*** facilitates the collection of all data
> for the Evaluation Team. Data collection tools must be photocopied and
> organized to distribute to Evaluation Team members. These tools
> include
>
> the observation protocol, interview questions, consent forms, and
> additional checklists. Once data is collected, the assistant compiles
> the information to distribute to team members for analysis. The RA
> records and mails the case study and Year I case study school reports
> following each site visit, organizes records of correspondence between
> the CCLD, RF office and schools, compiles evaluation team meeting
> minutes, and creates and disseminates calendars and site-visit
> schedules. Additionally, the RA attends RF professional development
> and state and national conferences, assists the principal investigator
> (PI) with communication with RF personnel, conducts site visits and
> evaluations, develops data collection tools, and writes summaries for
> the annual report.
>
> ***Case Study Researchers*** observe, interview, and survey RF
> participants during the fall, winter, and spring site visits. The
> researchers work as a team and conduct site visits to conduct
> classroom observations, school coach interviews, principal interviews,
> principal surveys, P1 -- P 4 teacher surveys, parent interviews,
> student interviews, district coach interviews, focus group meetings,
> and special education teacher meetings. Supplemental and intervention
> teacher interviews and classroom observations are conducted during the
> winter site visits.
>
> Additionally, researchers facilitate a longitudinal study in eight of
> the 2004-2005 (Year 1) case study schools. Researchers observe in
> classrooms, interview principals and school coaches, and administer
> teacher surveys.
>
> Overall, each researcher is responsible for submitting research
> documents, summarizing site visits, providing the Principal
> Investigator with the site visit school case study report,
> participating in Evaluation Team meetings, attending Summer
> Institutes, and assisting with writing and editing the final annual
> report.

**2006-2007 Case Study**

For the 2006-2007 case studies, site evaluators worked in teams to
conduct observations and interviews during fall, winter, and spring site
visits. This team concept provided more in-depth information and
multiple perspectives regarding RF implementation.

In the fall of 2006, a special education study was integrated into the
existing study to analyze and determine the effects of Reading First
instruction on the reading achievement of Kentucky\'s population of
students receiving special education services. Additionally, the special
education study provides a description of how the Reading First
initiative is implemented within schools\' existing special education
programs, how students with disabilities are participating in Reading
First, and to what extent they are receiving instruction in the five
components of reading.

New personnel were needed and positions created to assist with
designing, organizing, and conducting these new research initiatives.
The position responsibilities are described below.

> ***Special Education Project Coordinator* (SEPC)** will primarily be
> responsible for implementation of the RF Special Education Study. The
> SEPC will assist the PI with designing the research study, creating
> parallel research protocols, and obtaining consent for the
> implementation of study from the Institutional Review Board. In
> addition, the SEPC will assist with selecting the special education
> evaluation team, conducting observations and interviews with study
> participants, creating special education teacher surveys, assisting
> with both quantitative and qualitative data analysis and synthesis,
> providing periodic reports to the PI and KDE, and writing and editing
> research findings for the RF annual report.
>
> ***Special Education Researchers*** will serve as researchers for the
> RF special education study. The contractors will collect data in
> selected schools and conduct observations, interviews, and focus group
> meetings. Additionally, they will assist with creating research
> protocols and attend Special Education Summer Institutes. These
> contractors will be expected to summarize research findings and
> provide summaries to the PI and Special Education Research
> Coordinator.

**Chapter 3**

**[I. Classroom Observations: 2006-2007]{.underline}**

Seventeen Reading First schools were selected to participate as case
study schools for the 2006-2007 school years. The Reading First
Evaluation Team conducted fall, winter, and spring site visits for each
of these seventeen schools in teams of two. At each school, evaluation
team members observed four random P1-P4 primary classrooms during the
core reading time for a total of 203 classrooms. During the
observations, each team collected data in the classroom using a common
observation protocol. The protocol allowed the observers to rate areas
such as the learning environment, student grouping, authentic
assessment, mode of delivery, literacy centers, and each of the five
essential Reading First components. The ratings were based on the
following:

-   *low* evidence -- nominal to no implementation of the instructional
    component;

-   *minimal* evidence -- minimal (below average) implementation of the
    instructional component;

-   *moderate* evidence *--* moderate (average) implementation of the
    instructional component; and

-   *extensive* evidence -- extensive content (broad in scope) and
    demonstrates optimal (superior) instructional implementation of the
    component.

Evaluators recorded *not observed* when evidence for the area did not
exist. In addition, the evaluators marked various checklists (i.e.
resources and materials, instructional delivery) throughout the protocol
related to reading instruction.

At the completion of each fall, winter, and spring site visits the
observation protocols were compiled and grouped together according to
each area both by a statistician and by selected team members. Using
this data, summaries were completed, and themes were noted. Included in
the following section is information related to the protocol in the form
of charts and graphs with abstracts that summarize the themes observed
during the classroom observations.

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

**Overall Successes based on evidence from observation protocols:**

-   Ninety-seven percent of the classrooms had extensive evidence of
    reading resources and materials;

-   Out of the P1-P4 classrooms, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension
    show the highest percentages at the P4 level;

-   Guided practice of concept/skill appeared consistently high during
    the fall (90%), winter (84%), and spring (72%) observations;

-   Ninety-seven percent and above of the classrooms observed were not
    conducting spelling and handwriting instruction; and

-   Seventy-five percent and above teachers implemented mode of
    delivery, student-teacher interactions, student engagement, and
    higher-level questioning at the moderate and extensive levels.

**Concerns based on evidence from the observation protocols:**

-   Data revealed that authentic assessment was rated at the extensive
    level at only 27.4%;

-   Thirty-one percent of literacy centers showed low evidence of
    implementation;

-   Reading instruction is primarily conducted in whole groups at 70.4%;

-   All five reading components were rated 50% or below at the moderate
    and extensive levels;

-   Only 26.5% of the classrooms provided a summary of the lesson; and

-   Observations revealed limited opportunities for students to engage
    in different types of reading (i.e. shared, choral, readers'
    theater) for extended time periods.

**[III. Evidence-Part 1: Analysis of Classroom
Observations]{.underline}**

The Reading First Evaluators rated observations in specific categories
based on the scale of low evidence, minimal evidence, moderate evidence,
to extensive evidence. The following charts and graphs present results
from the observations conducted during the site visits. Areas of
strength were as follows:

-   Extensive ratings included instructional resources and materials
    (97%), literate learning environments (51.7%), a variety of grouping
    (40.3%), and mode of delivery (46.8%);

-   Moderate ratings included higher level questioning (44.8%),
    authentic assessment (40.8%), and student teacher interaction
    (44.8%);

-   Low level literacy centers were only rated at 31.3% of the
    classrooms; and

-   Student engagement was rated the same percentage (38.1%) for the
    moderate and extensive levels.

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

-   Continue to develop ways to improve and show growth in the
    instructional practices of higher level questioning, student-teacher
    interactions, and student engagement;

-   Teachers need to conduct more authentic assessments before, during
    and after the instructional process;

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

-   Increase the implementation of a variety of grouping structures
    during the core (i.e. small group, partner-paired, cooperative
    groups).

**Resource/Materials**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Low level     0          0            0            **0**       0.0
  evidence**                                                       

  **Minimal level 1          0            0            **1**       0.5
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      5          0            0            **5**       2.5
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     62         67           67           **197**     97.0
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **68**     **67**       **67**       **203**     

  **Missing**     0          1            0            1           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image6.wmf)

**Learning Environment**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Low level     1          1            0            **2**       1.0
  evidence**                                                       

  **Minimal level 9          6            3            **18**      8.9
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      30         26           22           **78**      38.4
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     28         35           42           **105**     51.7
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **68**     **68**       **67**       **203**     

  **Missing**     0          0            0            0           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image7.wmf)

**Mode of Delivery**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Low level     1          0            0            **1**       0.5
  evidence**                                                       

  **Minimal level 8          5            5            **18**      8.9
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      38         29           22           **89**      43.8
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     21         34           40           **95**      46.8
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **68**     **68**       **67**       **203**     

  **Missing**     0          0            0            0           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image8.wmf)

**Literacy Centers**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Low level     15         23           25           **63**      31.3
  evidence**                                                       

  **Minimal level 8          11           3            **22**      10.9
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      25         22           12           **59**      29.3
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     18         12           27           **57**      28.4
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **66**     **68**       **67**       **201**     

  **Missing**     2          0            0            2           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image9.wmf)

**Grouping**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Low level     7          8            10           **25**      12.4
  evidence**                                                       

  **Minimal level 14         10           15           **39**      19.4
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      17         26           13           **56**      27.9
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     29         24           28           **81**      40.3
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **67**     **68**       **66**       **201**     

  **Missing**     1          0            1            0           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image10.wmf)

**Authentic Assessment**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Low level     0          6            5            **11**      5.5
  evidence**                                                       

  **Minimal level 4          30           19           **53**      26.4
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      36         20           26           **82**      40.8
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     27         12           16           **55**      27.4
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **67**     **68**       **66**       **201**     

  **Missing**     1          0            1            2           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image11.wmf)

**Student Engagement**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Low level     8          0            0            **8**       4.0
  evidence**                                                       

  **Minimal level 31         3            6            **40**      19.8
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      22         32           23           **77**      38.1
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     6          33           38           **77**      38.1
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **67**     **68**       **67**       **202**     

  **Missing**     1          0            0            1           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image12.wmf)

**Student-Teacher Interactions**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Low level     0          18           0            **18**      9.0
  evidence**                                                       

  **Minimal level 7          15           7            **29**      14.4
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      34         22           34           **90**      44.8
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     26         12           26           **64**      31.8
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **67**     **67**       **67**       **201**     

  **Missing**     1          1            0            2           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image13.wmf)

**Higher-Level Questioning**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Low level     0          3            1            **4**       2.0
  evidence**                                                       

  **Minimal level 20         6            11           **37**      18.2
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      34         33           24           **91**      44.8
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     14         26           31           **71**      35.0
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **68**     **68**       **67**       **203**     

  **Missing**     0          0            0            0           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image14.wmf)

**[Evidence -- Part 2: Analysis of Five Reading
Components]{.underline}**

The following charts and graphs present results from the observations
conducted during the fall, winter, and spring site visits. The Reading
First Evaluators rated observations based on the instructional delivery
of the five reading components: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension. The rating scale for the five components
was *not observed*, *minimal evidence*, *moderate evidence*, and
*extensive evidence*. For this case study, the findings revealed all
five reading components scored the highest at the moderate level. The
following are the percentages for each component at the moderate level:

-   phonemic awareness 18.2%

-   phonics 29.9%

-   vocabulary 31.2%

-   fluency 43.3%

-   comprehension 40.9%

There was little evidence of significant growth from fall to spring in
regard to each component. The graph at the end of this section shows
overall total percentages for each rating. The highest percentages for
each level were as follows:

-   extensive level -- 36% comprehension;

-   moderate level -- 43.3% fluency; and

-   minimal level -- 12.1% phonemic awareness.

Recommendations based on the evidence in this section:

-   Continue to analyze ways to increase all components to the extensive
    instructional level.

**Phonemic Awareness**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           33         39           37           **109**     55.1
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 12         8            4            **24**      12.1
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      15         9            12           **36**      18.2
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     7          9            13           **29**      14.6
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **67**     **65**       **66**       **198**     

  **Missing**     1          3            1            5           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image15.wmf)

**Phonics**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           24         22           14           **60**      29.9
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 9          12           9            **30**      14.9
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      20         19           21           **60**      29.9
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     15         15           21           **51**      25.4
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **68**     **68**       **65**       **201**     

  **Missing**     0          0            2            2           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image16.wmf)

**Vocabulary**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           23         20           14           **57**      28.2
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 9          9            7            **25**      12.4
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      25         16           22           **63**      31.2
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     11         23           23           **57**      28.2
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **68**     **68**       **66**       **202**     

  **Missing**     0          0            1            1           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image17.wmf)

**Fluency**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           14         18           10           **42**      20.9
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 6          15           5            **26**      12.9
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      32         22           33           **87**      43.3
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     16         12           18           **46**      22.9
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **68**     **67**       **66**       **201**     

  **Missing**     0          1            1            2           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image18.wmf)

**Comprehension**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           4          4            8            **16**      7.9
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 15         8            8            **31**      15.3
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      29         34           20           **83**      40.9
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     20         22           31           **73**      36.0
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **68**     **68**       **67**       **203**     

  **Missing**     0          0            0            0           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image19.wmf)

![](media/image20.wmf)

**[Evidence -- Part 3: Analysis According to Grades P1-P4]{.underline}**

The following charts and graphs present results by *grade level* for
each of the five reading components, based on this rating scale: not
observed, minimal evidence, moderate evidence, to extensive evidence.
The findings reveal that P1 (kindergarten) had the highest percentage at
the extensive level, 32% for phonemic awareness and phonics at 34%. P4
(third grade) revealed the lowest percentages at 1% for phonemic
awareness and 17.6% for phonics. However, it should be noted that
phonemic awareness and phonics are not normally taught at the P3
(second) and P4 (third) grade levels. The focus of P2 and P3 grades is
most often vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

P4 (third) had the highest extensive level percentages for comprehension
(45.1%), vocabulary (35.3%), and fluency (29.4%). The lowest extensive
level percentage for vocabulary was at the P1 (kindergarten) level at
19.6%. The lowest extensive level percentages for fluency (12%) and
comprehension (31.4%) were in grade P1 (kindergarten).

The rating with the highest percentages overall was the *moderate*
category.

Moderate Ratings by Grade Level

  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
  ***Grade Level***      ***Reading Component***  ***Percentage***

  P1                     Phonemic awareness       38%

  P1                     Phonics                  46%

  P2                     Vocabulary               46.9%

  P3                     Fluency                  48%

  P2                     Comprehension            46%
  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------

The following charts and graphs are presented by individual grade
levels, and provide more in-depth information in relation to each grade
level's reading component data. At the end of this section, the year-end
comparison graphs illustrate the highest percentages for the minimal,
moderate, and extensive levels.

**PHONEMIC AWARENESS**

**P1 (Kindergarten)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           1          2            4            **7**       14.0
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 3          4            1            **8**       16.0
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      10         6            3            **19**      38.0
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     3          4            9            **16**      32.0
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **16**       **17**       **50**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image21.wmf)

**Phonemic Awareness**

**P2 (1^st^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           8          6            4            **18**      38.3
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 6          2            1            **9**       19.1
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      0          3            6            **9**       19.1
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     3          4            4            **11**      23.4
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **15**       **15**       **47**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image22.wmf)

**Phonemic Awareness**

**P3 (2^nd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           10         16           14           **40**      80.0
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 1          1            2            **4**       8.0
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      4          0            1            **5**       10.0
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     1          0            0            **1**       2.0
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **16**     **17**       **17**       **50**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image23.wmf)

**Phonemic Awareness**

**P4 (3^rd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           0          14           15           **15**      44
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 1          2            1            **0**       3
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      2          1            0            **2**       3
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     3          0            1            **0**       1
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **17**       **51**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image24.wmf)

**Phonics**

**P1 (Kindergarten)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           1          2            0            **3**       6
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 4          2            1            **7**       14
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      8          9            6            **23**      46
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     4          4            9            **17**      34
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **16**       **50**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image25.wmf)

**Phonics**

**P2 (1^st^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           6          4            2            **12**      24
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 2          5            1            **8**       16
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      5          3            8            **16**      32
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     4          5            5            **14**      28
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **16**       **50**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image26.wmf)

**Phonics**

**P3 (2^nd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           7          6            5            **18**      36
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 2          3            4            **9**       18
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      5          4            3            **12**      24
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     3          4            4            **11**      22
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **16**       **50**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image27.wmf)

**Phonics**

**P4 (3^rd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           10         10           7            **27**      52.9
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 1          2            3            **6**       11.8
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      2          3            4            **9**       17.6
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     4          2            3            **9**       17.6
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **17**       **51**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image28.wmf)

**Vocabulary**

**P1 (Kindergarten)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  Not Observed    7          9            6            **22**      43.1

  Minimal level   2          3            1            **6**       11.8
  evidence                                                         

  Moderate level  6          2            5            **13**      25.5
  evidence                                                         

  Extensive level 2          3            5            **10**      19.6
  evidence                                                         

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **17**       **51**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image29.wmf)

**Vocabulary**

**P2 (1^st^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           5          3            4            **12**      24.5
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 1          0            0            **1**       2.0
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      9          7            7            **23**      46.9
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     2          7            4            **13**      26.5
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **15**       **49**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image30.wmf)

**Vocabulary**

**P3 (2^nd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           5          4            3            **12**      23.5
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 3          3            1            **7**       13.7
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      6          3            7            **16**      31.4
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     3          7            6            **16**      31.4
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **17**       **51**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image31.wmf)

**Vocabulary**

**P4 (3^rd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           6          4            1            **11**      21.6
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 3          3            5            **11**      21.6
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      4          4            3            **11**      21.6
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     4          6            8            **18**      35.3
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **17**       **51**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image32.wmf)

**Fluency**

**P1 (Kindergarten)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           7          7            3            **17**      34
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 1          3            2            **6**       12
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      7          6            8            **21**      42
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     2          1            3            **6**       12
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **16**       **50**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image33.wmf)

**Fluency**

**P2 (1^st^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           4          5            4            **13**      26
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 1          2            1            **4**       8
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      8          7            7            **22**      44
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     4          3            4            **11**      22
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **16**       **50**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image34.wmf)

**Fluency**

**P3 (2^nd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           1          2            0            **3**       6
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 3          5            1            **9**       18
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      7          5            12           **24**      48
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     6          4            4            **14**      28
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **16**       **17**       **50**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image35.wmf)

**Fluency**

**P4 (3^rd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           2          4            3            **9**       17.6
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 1          5            1            **7**       13.7
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      10         4            6            **20**      39.2
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     4          4            7            **15**      29.4
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **17**       **51**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image36.wmf)

**Comprehension**

**P1 (Kindergarten)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           2          3            2            **7**       13.7
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 5          3            1            **9**       17.6
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      5          7            7            **19**      37.3
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     5          4            7            **16**      31.4
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **17**       **51**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image37.wmf)

**Comprehension**

**P2 (1^st^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           0          0            3            **3**       6.0
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 5                       3            **8**       16.0
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      8          13           2            **23**      46.0
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     4          4            8            **16**      32.0
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **16**       **50**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image38.wmf)

**Comprehension**

**P3 (2^nd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           2          1            2            **5**       9.8
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 3          3            2            **8**       15.7
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      7          6            7            **20**      39.2
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     5          7            6            **18**      35.3
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **17**       **51**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image39.wmf)

**Comprehension**

**P4 (3^rd^ Grade)**

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           0          0            1            **1**       2.0
  Observed**                                                       

  **Minimal level 2          2            2            **6**       11.8
  evidence**                                                       

  **Moderate      9          8            4            **21**      41.2
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Extensive     6          7            10           **23**      45.1
  level                                                            
  evidence**                                                       

  **Total**       **17**     **17**       **17**       **51**      100%
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image40.wmf)

![](media/image41.wmf)

![](media/image42.wmf)

![](media/image43.wmf)

![](media/image44.wmf)

![](media/image45.wmf)

**[Evidence - Part 4: Analysis of Groupings, Lessons, and
Reading]{.underline}**

In this section the tables and graphs present results from data
collected during the P1 to P4 classroom observations. These results show
only those classrooms where specific instructional components were
observed on a variety of checklists. The categories for the checklists
include student grouping, lesson components, and student reading. The
following table shows the highest area percentages from the fall,
winter, and spring observations:

Grouping Checklist Table 1

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  *Time period*           *Checklist item*        *Percentage*

  Fall                    Small group             75%

  Winter                  Small group             73.5%

  Spring                  Whole group             80.6%
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Lesson Checklist Table 2

  ------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------
  *Time period*      *Checklist item*            *Approximate percentage*

  Fall               Guided practice of          89.7%
                     concept/skill               

  Winter             Guided practice of          83.8%
                     concept/skill               

  Spring             Guided practice of          71.6%
                     concept/skill               
  ------------------ --------------------------- ------------------------

Reading Checklist Table 3

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  *Time period*           *Checklist item*        *Approximate
                                                  percentage*

  Fall                    Guided reading with     57.4%
                          teacher                 

  Winter                  Independent reading     64.7%

  Spring                  Independent reading     59.7%
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Recommendations based on the evidence from the checklists:

-   Implement a variety of reading practices in all P1 to P4 classrooms;

-   Review effective lesson components (i.e. summary, summarization of
    "how" and "why" the concept/skill applies to reading, instructional
    feedback) and develop ways to integrate these into all reading
    lessons; and

-   Analyze daily grouping structures and create ways to implement a
    variety within daily instruction.

The following charts and graphs illustrate each category and
percentages:

  ---------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  **Grouping**           **Fall**    **Winter**    **Spring**    **Total**

  **whole group**        63.2        67.6          80.6          70.4

  **small groups**       75.0        73.5          61.2          70.0

  **independent**        44.1        48.5          55.2          49.3

  **lit centers**        67.6        55.9          58.2          56.2

  **cross-grade**        7.4         4.4           6.0           5.9

  **coop learning**      11.8        14.7          7.5           11.3

  **partnered/paired**   38.2        41.2          40.3          39.9
  ---------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- -------------

![](media/image46.wmf)

**Lesson Checklist Letters Represent the Following:**

**A** = Objective is clearly stated

**B** = Concept/skill explained and modeled

**C** = Scaffolding instruction

**D** = Guided practice of concept/skill

**E** = Independent practice of concept/skill (verbal or written)

**F** = Assistants provide reading instruction

**G** = High level questioning

  ---------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Lesson         **Fall**    **Winter**     **Spring**     **Total**
  Checklist**                                                

  **A**            67.6        58.8           65.7           64.0

  **B**            70.6        76.5           71.6           72.9

  **C**            35.3        44.1           58.2           45.8

  **D**            89.7        83.8           71.6           81.8

  **E**            58.8        61.8           65.7           62.1

  **F**            44.1        51.5           37.3           44.3

  **G**            47.1        58.8           59.7           55.2
  ---------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- --------------

![](media/image47.wmf)

**Lesson Checklist Letters Represent the Following:**

**H** = High level of instructional feedback

**I** = Application of concept or skill

**J** = Effective transitions

**K** = "Hands-on" activities

**L** = Making connections (i.e. to other subjects, concepts, or
experiences)

**M** = Skill practice

**N** = Summarization of "how" and "why" concept applies to reading

**O** = Summary

  ---------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  **Lesson         **Fall**    **Winter**     **Spring**     **Total**
  Checklist**                                                

  **H**            36.8        45.6           37.3           36.8

  **I**            61.8        64.7           56.7           61.8

  **J**            63.2        70.6           71.6           63.2

  **K**            57.4        51.5           53.7           57.4

  **L**            72.1        63.2           65.7           72.1

  **M**            39.7        51.5           52.2           39.7

  **N**            36.8        30.9           35.8           36.8

  **O**            26.5        28.4           43.3           26.5
  ---------------- ----------- -------------- -------------- --------------

![](media/image48.wmf)

**Student Reading Checklist Letters Represent the Following:**

**A**= Independent Reading

**B**= Shared Reading

**C**= Partnered/Paired Reading

**D**= Choral Reading

**E**= Guided Reading (with teacher)

**F**= Dramatic/Readers' Theater

**G**= Echo Reading

**H**= Read Alouds

**I**= Tape Assisted Reading (winter and spring only)

  -------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  **Student Reading**  **Fall**    **Winter**    **Spring**    **Total**

  **Independent**      50.0        64.7          59.7          58.1

  **Shared**           8.8         17.6          4.5           10.3

  **Partner/Paired**   35.3        36.8          29.9          34.0

  **Choral**           39.7        44.1          58.2          47.3

  **Guided**           57.4        57.4          55.2          56.7

  **Dramatic**         1.5         1.5           3.0           2.0

  **Echo**             27.9        13.2          13.4          18.2

  **Read Alouds**      44.1        51.5          53.7          49.8

  **Tape Assisted**                26.5          28.4          27.4
  -------------------- ----------- ------------- ------------- -------------

![](media/image49.wmf)

**[Evidence - Part 5: Analysis of Whole Group and Individual Reading
Times]{.underline}**

In this section the tables and graphs present results from data
collected specifically regarding whole group and individual reading
times. One student was randomly selected by the evaluator and was
observed during the 45 minute observational period. Evaluators noted the
type of reading and recorded time read in increments of 0 minutes, 1-5
minutes, 6-10 minutes, 11-15 minutes, 16-20 minutes, and 21 plus
minutes.

Whole group reading results from winter and spring showed the rating
with the highest percentage was 1-5 minutes, in independent reading,
shared reading, partner/paired reading, choral reading, echo reading,
and read alouds. Increases from winter to spring were minimal. Tape
assisted whole group reading showed consistent percentages both in the
winter and spring for 6-10 minutes at 1.6%. Overall, during *whole group
instruction*, the data indicates that the students themselves were not
reading (see charts for specific percentages).

Winter *individual student* *reading* results indicated the largest
number of students read 1-5 minutes independently (19.7%) and chorally
(19.7%). However, in the spring, results reveal guided reading on top at
15.9% for 11-15 minutes. The only reading categories that rated 21 plus
minutes were independent, partner/paired, and guided reading. Overall,
the data indicated during the 45 minute observation period that students
are not reading individually for large increments of time (see charts
and graphs for specific percentages).

Recommendations based on evidence:

-   Encourage staff to review core reading lessons to evaluate the
    number of opportunities for students to read;

-   Once core reading lessons have been reviewed, then discuss how to
    integrate more reading on a daily basis;

-   Facilitate a variety of different types of reading practices; and

-   Increase the amount of time for students to read throughout the core
    reading block.

  --------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Independent   **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading: Whole  min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Group**                                                          

  **Winter**      80.3     13.6      3.0       3.0       0         0

  **Spring**      76.6     14.1      7.8       1.6       0.0       0.0
  --------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image50.wmf)

  --------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Independent   **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading:        min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Individual**                                                     

  **Winter**      42.4     19.7      15.2      9.1       9.1       4.5

  **Spring**      62.5     7.8       15.6      9.4       4.7       0.0
  --------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image51.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Shared       **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading: Whole min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Group**                                                         

  **Winter**     88.2     8.8       2.9       0.0       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     95.5     3.0       0.0       1.5       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image52.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Shared       **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading:       min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Individual**                                                    

  **Winter**     91.2     1.5       4.4       2.9       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     100      0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image53.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Partner/     **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Paired: Whole  min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Group**                                                         

  **Winter**     86.4     7.6       3.0       3.0       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     92.3     4.6       1.5       1.5       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image54.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Partner/     **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Paired:        min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Individual**                                                    

  **Winter**     72.7     10.6      12.1      3.0       0.0       1.5

  **Spring**     78.5     13.8      3.1       4.6       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image55.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Choral       **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading: Whole min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Group**                                                         

  **Winter**     77.3     21.2      1.5       0.0       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     60.6     30.3      9.1       0.0       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image56.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Choral       **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading:       min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Individual**                                                    

  **Winter**     74.2     19.7      3.0       3.0       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     78.8     12.1      4.5       4.5       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image57.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Guided       **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading: Whole min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Group**                                                         

  **Winter**     90.6     0.0       1.6       3.1       0.0       4.7

  **Spring**     84.1     7.9       6.3       1.6       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image58.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Guided       **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading:       min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Individual**                                                    

  **Winter**     50.0     18.8      7.8       9.4       9.4       4.7

  **Spring**     55.6     11.1      9.5       15.9      7.9       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image59.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Dramatic     **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading: Whole min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Group**                                                         

  **Winter**     98.5     0.0       1.5       0.0       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     100.0    0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image60.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Dramatic     **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading:       min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Individual**                                                    

  **Winter**     100.0    0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     97.0     0.0       1.5       0.0       1.5       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image61.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Echo         **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading: Whole min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Group**                                                         

  **Winter**     94.1     5.9       0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     92.5     3.0       3.0       1.5       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image62.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Echo         **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Reading:       min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Individual**                                                    

  **Winter**     92.6     5.9       0.0       1.5       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     94.0     3.0       3.0       0.0       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image63.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Read Alouds: **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Whole Group**  min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**

  **Winter**     64.7     23.5      8.8       1.5       1.5       0.0

  **Spring**     56.9     18.5      15.4      6.2       3.1       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image64.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Read Alouds: **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Individual**   min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**

  **Winter**     75.0     17.6      5.9       0.0       1.5       0.0

  **Spring**     83.1     13.8      3.1       0.0       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image65.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Tape         **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Assisted       min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Reading: Whole                                                  
  Group**                                                         

  **Winter**     98.4     0.0       1.6       0.0       0.0       0.0

  **Spring**     98.4     0.0       1.6       0.0       0.0       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image66.wmf)

  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
  **Tape         **0      **1-5     **6-10    **11-15   **16-20   **21+
  Assisted       min**    min**     min**     min**     min**     min**
  Reading:                                                        
  Individual**                                                    

  **Winter**     82.3     3.2       4.8       6.5       3.2       0.0

  **Spring**     75.0     10.9      12.5      0.0       1.6       0.0
  -------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

![](media/image67.wmf)

**[Evidence- Part 6: Analysis of Instructional Groupings]{.underline}**

The following graphs present results from data collected pertaining to
groups observed during the core reading time. The Reading First
evaluators checked only those areas observed within the observation time
period. The largest percentage was 70% and illustrated whole group to be
the primary grouping structure during the core reading time. This
percentage is followed by literacy centers at 56% and independent work
at 49%. The most significant percentages for grouping structures not
observed during instruction were cross-grade grouping at 94%,
cooperative learning at 89%, and partner/pair at 60%. Small group
instruction observed was only at 30%.

![](media/image68.wmf)

![](media/image69.wmf)

![](media/image70.wmf)

![](media/image71.wmf)

![](media/image72.wmf)

![](media/image73.wmf)

![](media/image74.wmf)

**[Evidence - Part 7: Analysis of Practices Occurring During the Reading
Block]{.underline}**

The following charts and graphs present findings for areas that were
observed or not observed. The areas are spelling, spelling tests,
handwriting, grammar, classroom interruptions, and writing process.
According to the grant guidelines, these practices should not be
occurring during the core instructional reading time. The data indicates
high percentages of "not observed" in all practices. The largest area
for not observed at 100% was grammar instruction. All areas for not
observed were above 90 percent, except for classroom interruption at
74.9%. Out of 203 classrooms observed, there were 49 interruptions
observed from the fall, winter, to spring for a low percentage of 25.1%.

> Recommendations based on the evidence in this section:

-   Continue to follow the grant guidelines for not implementing these
    specific areas; and

-   Discuss at the school level how to minimize classroom interruptions
    during the core reading time.

Interruptions

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           44         52           50           146         **74.9**
  observed**                                                       

  **Observed**    20         14           15           49          **25.1**

  **Total**       64         66           65           195         

  **Missing**     4          2            2            8           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image75.wmf)

Spelling

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           61         62           65           188         **96.4**
  observed**                                                       

  **Observed**    3          4            0            7           **3.6**

  **Total**       64         66           65           195         

  **Missing**     4          2            2            8           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image76.wmf)

Spelling Tests

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           58         64           66           188         **99.5**
  observed**                                                       

  **Observed**    0          1            0            1           **0.5**

  **Total**       58         65           66           189         

  **Missing**     10         3            1            14          
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image77.wmf)

Grammar

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           62         67           65           194         **100**
  observed**                                                       

  **Observed**    0          0            0            0           **0**

  **Total**       62         67           65           194         

  **Missing**     6          1            2            9           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image78.wmf)

Handwriting

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           61         65           65           191         **97.4**
  observed**                                                       

  **Observed**    2          2            1            5           **2.6**

  **Total**       63         67           66           196         

  **Missing**     5          1            1            7           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image79.wmf)

Writing

  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------
  **Observation   **Fall**   **Winter**   **Spring**   **Year      **Year Total
  Response**                                           Total**     Percentage**

  **Not           60         no data      62           122         **95.3**
  observed**                                                       

  **Observed**    4          no data      2            6           **4.7**

  **Total**       64         no data      64           128         

  **Missing**     4          no data      3            7           
  --------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- --------------

![](media/image80.wmf)

**Chapter 4**

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

The seventeen schools that were observed by the Collaborative Center for
Literacy Development's (CCLD) Reading First Evaluation Team during the
final site visit for the school year 2006-2007 were sent follow-up case
study reports after each site visit. (See Appendix A and C for letter
and form.) Therefore, each school participating in the case study
received a total of three feedback reports from CCLD. These reports
included information based on interviews and either the four classrooms
observed during the fall and winter visits, or the two classrooms during
the final site visit. Each report included information about each of the
five Reading First components, grouping, core program information,
learning environment, literacy centers, instruction, and concerns and
strengths observed during the visit.

Reports from the 2006-2007 school year were compiled and grouped
together according to the feedback given for each area. Using this data,
summaries were completed, and themes were noted.

# Five Components

**Strengths:**

All five components were observed in all classrooms, specifically with
the greatest improvement noted in vocabulary and comprehension. Teachers
are learning to teach all of the components, and the components are
implemented throughout reading instruction. CCLD observed specific ways
teachers are reinforcing comprehension strategies, teaching phonemic
awareness, and using vocabulary.

**Concerns:**

The questions raised regarding the five components remained consistent
from fall to spring and mainly focused on consistency, full inclusion of
all five components, and focus on explicit instruction, especially of
vocabulary. Based on the observations, daily, full implementation of the
five components is necessary in all classrooms. Evaluators seemed
particularly concerned that vocabulary be more prominent in planning and
teaching, and be connected to students' prior knowledge. School coach
interviews revealed that phonics is addressed extensively, comprehension
is the component needing the most improvement, and fluency is only
addressed minimally.

# Literacy Centers

**Strengths:**

Literacy centers address the five components, are well organized, and
contain meaningful activities that reinforce instruction. There is
evidence that teachers

are continuing to improve and refine centers and that the school coaches
have worked to improve centers, especially by addressing
differentiation. Labeling and task cards in centers are visible and easy
to follow. Transitions in centers are timely and smooth. Students find
center activities engaging.

**Concerns:**

Concerns regarding literacy centers focus on differentiated activities
to meet the needs of all students and management. Accountability and
assessment for center activities and ignoring off task students are just
a few of the management issues. The general effectiveness of centers was
also questioned. In the area of student engagement, suggestions for
improving literacy centers included providing more student choice, more
hands-on activities, less paper and pencil activities, and more varied
reading opportunities (i.e. dramatic reading partner/paired reading).

In response to questionnaires, teachers continue to express the need for
more time and ideas to plan for center activities and particularly for
differentiated activities.

# Instruction

**Strengths:**

Best practices, explicit instruction, good lesson plans,
differentiation, various grouping, and clear statements of objectives as
well as summaries were observed in Reading First classrooms. Small group
instruction appears to elicit the most resourcefulness of teachers.
Spring observations by CCLD revealed much improvement in instruction,
including the use of data to plan instruction, scaffolding and higher
level questioning, specific improvements observed by school coaches, use
of new phonics and comprehension strategies, and assessment of students'
prior knowledge.

Spring interviews with school coaches revealed that half of the coaches
report an increase in explicit instruction at their schools, 100% report
observing more than one strategy to deal with struggling students, and
over half report implementing new information from read aloud and
vocabulary models gained through professional development.

**Concerns:**

Providing time for student reflection and sharing is a concern;
additionally, the use of higher level questioning techniques was
suggested. There is still a need for teachers to make their instruction
explicit, answering the what, why, when,

and how questions. Allowing time for post-reading activities, instead of
only pre-reading, was emphasized, as was more daily utilization of best
practices when delivering the five components.

# Learning Environment

**Strengths:**

Evidence demonstrating a positive learning environment included displays
of student work in classrooms and hallways, celebrations of student
success, positive communication between teachers and students, and
posters displaying reading strategies. Classrooms are colorful,
inviting, and print rich, with a variety of materials for reading. They
are also arranged for a variety of activities and groupings. Positive
attitudes are evident, and classroom management is strong.

**Concerns:**

In one new school, teachers were asked not to display student work on
the walls. In other schools, they are still looking for ways to display
and showcase student work.

**Leadership**

**Strengths:**

CCLD found evidence that district and school coaches, in addition to the
school principal, go into classrooms on a regular basis to observe and
assist with instruction. Moreover, they monitor lesson plans and provide
support for Reading First. School coaches are assisting with explicit
lessons, data assessment, modeling, providing professional development,
and planning. In school coach interviews, they indicated that they are
spending more time observing and conferencing with teachers. This is a
significant change from previous years when they emphasized paperwork as
an overwhelming task. In general, strong leadership for Reading First is
present school wide.

**Concerns:**

Some Reading First school coaches perceive a lack of support from the
principal and district coach.

# Student Engagement / Higher Level Questioning

**Strengths:**

A variety of activities and groupings engage learners. Classroom
management practices promote active engagement and participation in
class discussion. Moreover, students are able to work independently
also. Resources such as white boards, charts, easels, computers, and
vocabulary and picture cards

enhance engagement. Students enjoy reading time and are on task. To
further enhance student engagement and provide differentiation, teachers
are asking higher level questions, some of which require students to
make connections between text and real life.

**Concerns:**

Disruptive behavior in some classrooms seems to result from poor
engagement, lack of student-centered activities, and few opportunities
for creative expression. Evaluators question how teachers can design
small group lessons with student-centered discussions and time for
summary and reflection on reading instruction. A variety of groupings
such as cooperative learning groups, guided with teacher, drama,
Reader's Theater, and tape-assisted were suggested to stimulate
engagement. Evaluators also expressed that higher level questioning
needs to be more evident and time should be offered for students to
reflect and develop their own questions regarding a text. A concern with
the frequency of low level questioning remains.

**Supplemental and Intervention Programs**

**Strengths:**

Intervention teachers are meeting weekly, and there is evidence of
extensive collaboration between intervention and regular classroom
teachers. Individual instruction occurs during intervention. Interviews
with intervention teachers revealed that they are maintaining small
groups of 1-6 students, and 81% of teachers interviewed are spending
16-30 minutes for each intervention lesson. Observations of intervention
groups showed an extensive level of student engagement and that the
majority of them were free of distractions. Supplemental teacher
interviews reveal that the majority of supplemental groups meet 16-30
minutes each day, and students are monitored regularly.

**Concerns:**

Professional training for supplemental instruction is weak; only 50% of
supplemental teachers interviewed report receiving specific supplemental
training. Professional development for intervention teachers also varies
and is not specific to intervention programs. In interviews,
intervention teachers report that there is no formal communication
process in place with classroom teachers and that scheduling remains a
problem, especially for subjects students miss during intervention. Is
the intervention provided assisting struggling readers, and can
supplemental and intervention be better organized?

# Family Involvement

**Strengths:**

Attempts are made at family involvement, and some literacy events are
well planned and attended. Monthly activities are offered for family
involvement and to celebrate student success. Parent surveys indicate
they are knowledgeable of Reading First, support the program, and are
pleased with their child's progress. Surveys also revealed that 83% of
parents read with their children at home, and 92% of parents strongly
agree that they feel comfortable talking with their child's teacher
about reading progress. Beyond parent volunteers, there is evidence of
community volunteers providing tutoring, and collaboration with the
community on events such as reading carnivals.

**Concerns:**

How can staff encourage more parental involvement and participation in
literacy events is the principle question regarding family involvement.
The majority of parents are not attending family reading activities at
schools. Parent surveys show that while 52% of parents strongly agree
that family reading events are convenient to them, only 24% strongly
agree that they attend.

**Reading Practice**

**Strengths:**

Students are practicing different ways of reading, especially in the
1^st^ and 2^nd^ grades. Observations reveal that many minutes are spent
actively reading during instruction in some classrooms and that reading
is practiced in various groupings during whole group and center time.

**Concerns:**

The amount of time spent actually reading seems to be the primary
concern in reading practice. For example, in one 45 minute observation,
students read as little as three to five minutes. Time spent reading by
students needs to increase, as well as different groupings and ways of
reading. CCLD evaluators suggested integrating more reading into core
reading time and that time for reading exceed the 1-5 minutes observed.

# 

# Instructional Assistance / Paraprofessionals

**Strengths:**

The assistance of paraprofessionals has provided much needed help during
core time. Paraprofessionals have also been assisting during
supplemental and center time. They provide positive support for teachers
and effective reading

instruction for students. Some classroom assistants are also working
with small groups and progress monitoring individual students.

**Concerns:**

How can paraprofessionals be used more effectively to benefit student
achievement and enhance the efficiency of classroom teachers?

# Student Achievement / Data / Assessment

**Strengths:**

Gains are being made in student achievement, as demonstrated by
assessments. Many ESL students are progressing, as teachers are removing
barriers. Some schools are "opening their doors to other schools" for
Reading First instruction to strengthen reading programs.

Data boards are being used to track student achievement, and data is
being used to plan instruction. Fifty percent of school coaches
interviewed in the spring reported using data to inform or drive
instruction as their "biggest success" this year. Moreover, 83% of
teachers are finding Reading First assessments easier to manage.
Teachers maintain assessment binders to organize progress monitoring and
aid in analyzing assessment data.

**Concerns:**

Teachers continue to need assistance in interpreting data and planning
effective lessons to target individual needs. The extent to which
teachers, not school

coaches alone, are using data boards was questioned. Interestingly, only
44% of school coaches interviewed state that data analysis is a way to
sustain Reading First objectives after the grant expires. Receiving data
in a timely manner remains an issue for planning and responding to
results. Observers questioned if teachers have the opportunity to do
authentic assessments in reading and if these could be done during small
group reading instruction. Checklists, timed repeated reading,
inventories, or running records were suggested. Finally, evaluators
asked teachers to consider ways they can help students retain skills
through the summer.

**Chapter 5**

**[I. District Coach Interview]{.underline}**

Seventeen district coaches for the 2006-2007 case study schools were
interviewed during the fall by the Collaborative Center for Literacy
Development's (CCLD) Reading First Evaluation Team. Their responses were
compiled and grouped together according to the individual questions and
responses (See Appendix D for interview questions). Using this data, the
following themes and summaries emerged.

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

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

-   Twenty-four percent of district coaches noted observed improvement
    in classroom instructional practices;

-   In the third year of implementation, 17% of district coaches feel
    their district is offering stronger leadership and support to RF
    school coaches and teachers; and

-   Thirty-five percent of district coaches identify professional
    development as a successful district initiative.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the district coach
interviews:**

-   Twenty-five percent of district coaches are concerned about
    addressing the varying needs of students;

-   Twenty-one percent of district coaches are concerned about
    improvements in classroom instruction which still need to occur;

-   Twenty-one percent of district coaches voiced concerns over schools'
    struggles with training new teachers due to turnover, teachers
    resisting commitment to RF, and teacher morale; and

-   Twenty-three percent of district coaches continue to have difficulty
    managing to meet the requirements of the grant.

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

**1. How is the district leadership involved in the coordination of RF
activities for the entire district? (Explain)**

According to district coaches, district leadership has coordinated RF
activities in the following areas for the entire district:

-   Development and presentation of professional development

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Participation on the district literacy team

-   Organizing assessments in non-funded elementary, middle, and high
    schools

-   Analyzing student assessment data

-   Conducting classroom walk-throughs

-   Sharing RF information and strategies with non-funded schools

-   Communicating between district leadership, school board, and RF
    schools.

**2. Regarding the district, what changes have occurred from RF year one
implementation to now?**

The changes shared by the 17 district coaches are listed in the
following four categories: Professional Growth, Leadership, Assessment,
and Implementation.

**Professional Growth:**

-   Level of knowledge of classroom teachers, particularly in RF schools

-   Knowledge in all district schools regarding SBRR

-   More focused and clearer on five components

-   More conversations about reading

-   General awareness across district

**Leadership:**

-   Consistent district leader dedicated to RF

-   District office has become more accessible and serves as a resource
    for principals and teachers

-   District wide literacy team including a reading specialist for the
    district

**Assessment:**

-   Created a display board of children, by classroom, to view student
    achievement

-   The district did not do district wide assessment

-   Increased assessment results

-   Assess professional development needs for teachers

**Implementation**:

-   Augmenting core program lessons to meet the students' needs

-   Teachers are more comfortable and share ownership of the program.

-   District coach attends grade level meetings.

-   Looking at instructional changes needing to be made

-   Created a solution team to focus on IARP

-   Aligning Supplemental and Intervention programs with students' needs

-   Progress with computer program implementation program

-   Focus on explicit planning

-   Increased involvement with public library

**3.** **What specific activities/communication have the district
implemented with non-funded schools as well as private schools regarding
RF?**

A district coach shared, "We take the good things happening in funded
schools to the non-funded schools." The process of sharing information
with the non-funded schools is described by district coaches in a
variety of ways. For example, one non-funded school principal asks a
school leader to attend district meetings. One district coach said she
meets with the non-funded schools for a monthly professional development
concerning the five components and data analysis, while another district
coach leads all the district primary schools in continuous training with
the district wide intervention program.

Six districts have private schools who regularly participate in Reading
First meetings and professional development. Some private schools will
include their entire staff while others may send teacher leaders. Two
districts have invited private schools to participate in Reading First
professional development; however, the schools have shown no interest.
Two district coaches said they also extend professional development
invitations to home schools.

Three of the 17 case study schools are the only primary schools in their
district, making this question not applicable to them.

**4. What are your top three responsibilities regarding RF for your
district?**

The responsibility most frequently mentioned by the 17 district coaches
was to assist in developing and providing professional development for
teachers. The chart indicates responsibilities given by three or more
coaches.

![](media/image81.wmf){width="5.6875in" height="4.177083333333333in"}

Additional responsibilities listed by district coaches:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **One Response**                    **Two Responses**

  District Liaison                    Instructional support for teachers

  Walk-throughs and feedback to       Support all RF schools
  teachers                            

  Help present action plans to KDE    Provide teachers with materials
                                      they need

  Lead team effort                    District literacy team

  Communicate with school coach       Communication

  Assist with scheduling              

  Scan GRADE assessment               

  Meeting goals set by state          
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**5. What are three areas that are causing you the most concern
regarding RF implementation across the district?**

The graph indicates the five areas of district concerns given by the 17
district coaches, with meeting students' needs with the majority of
responses. A detailed list of concerns follows the graph.

![](media/image82.wmf){width="5.0in" height="2.64375in"}

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Meeting the needs of          | **[Management]{.underline}**      |
| students]{.underline}**          |                                   |
|                                  | -   Time to address state         |
| -   Number of needy children     |     mandates, state coach, school |
|                                  |     requirements                  |
| -   Transient student population |                                   |
|                                  | -   Amount of paperwork,          |
| -   Diversity unlike any other   |     documentation                 |
|                                  |                                   |
| -   Cannot rely on state for PD  | -   Overwhelmed with work of the  |
|     for ESL                      |     grant                         |
|                                  |                                   |
| -   3 Tier model ; Be sure       | -   Would not apply for another   |
|     students are                 |     grant such as RF              |
|                                  |                                   |
| > placed in intervention based   | -   Time for all schools          |
| > on                             |                                   |
| >                                | -   Schedules                     |
| > specific needs                 |                                   |
|                                  | -   Money                         |
| -   Finding what works with      |                                   |
|     intensive students           | -   Be able to get more research  |
|                                  |     based information to all      |
| -   Intervention for the         |     schools                       |
|     students with most needs     |                                   |
|                                  | -   Developing a plan to sustain  |
| -   Need for more intervention   |     after RF                      |
|     teachers                     |                                   |
|                                  |                                   |
| -   Applying RF principles       |                                   |
|     beyond 3^rd^ grade; What can |                                   |
|     be done for struggling       |                                   |
|     readers in middle and high   |                                   |
|     school?                      |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Personnel]{.underline}**      | **[Classroom                      |
|                                  | Instruction]{.underline}**        |
| -   Teacher turn over; Level     |                                   |
|     with others already          | -   Comprehension                 |
|     implementing RF              |                                   |
|                                  | -   Flexible grouping             |
| -   Keeping teachers trained;    |                                   |
|     turnover                     | -   Eliminate down time regarding |
|                                  |     the daily start at centers    |
| -   Motivate veteran teachers    |     and change between whole      |
|                                  |     group to small group          |
| -   Additional work load for     |                                   |
|     teachers                     | -   Transition times              |
|                                  |                                   |
| -   Difference in reading        | -   Observing paraprofessional    |
|     philosophy among elementary  |     and teacher relationships     |
|     schools                      |     giving quality of instruction |
|                                  |                                   |
| -   Teacher morale               | -   Writing has no connection     |
|                                  |     with RF                       |
| -   Resistance among teachers    |                                   |
|                                  | -   Core content; integrate in 90 |
| -   PD is good, but needs to     |     minutes core                  |
|     improve; Needs to be more    |                                   |
|     teacher specific             | -   Continue to improve in        |
|                                  |     differentiating instruction   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **[Student                       | **[Additional                     |
| Achievement]{.underline}**       | Concerns]{.underline}**           |
|                                  |                                   |
| -   Goals of testing benchmark   | -   Core program is different     |
|     need to be factored in for   |     from the district adoption    |
|     ESL                          |                                   |
|                                  | -   Continuing to improve in      |
| -   Not seeing results we had    |     using data to drive           |
|     expected                     |     instruction                   |
|                                  |                                   |
| -   Still have students not      | -   Need to improve interventions |
|     progressing                  |                                   |
|                                  | -   Really not concerned          |
| -   Not seeing enough movement   |                                   |
|     of IARP and special          |                                   |
|     education                    |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**6. What are three of the most successful initiatives being conducted
in the district regarding RF?**

District coaches identified professional development as the district's
most successful initiative. The following graph indicates the seven
initiatives district coaches have found to be the most successful.

![](media/image83.wmf){width="4.875in" height="2.558333333333333in"}

**7. How would you describe this school's implementation of Reading
First?**

When the 17 district coaches were asked to answer this question by
rating the school's implementation as minimal, moderate, or extensive,
14 coaches rated their school as having extensive implementation while 3
coaches rated their school as exhibiting moderate implementation.

![](media/image84.wmf)

**8. What involvement has the district had that directly impacts this
school's RF implementation process?**

Among the 17 coaches, the following responses were given as their
districts' involvement directly impacting RF implementation in the
schools:

![](media/image85.wmf){width="5.123611111111111in"
height="3.629861111111111in"}

**9. How do you provide feedback to this school?**

Informal conversations, e-mails, and conferences are the three most
common methods used by the 17 district coaches to provide feedback to RF
schools.

Methods of Providing Feedback

  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
  **Method**                                       **\# of Responses**

  Informal conversations                           16

  E-mail                                           14

  Conferences                                      14

  Formal written documents                         7

  Staff Meetings/ Grade Level Meetings             6

  Site Visits                                      1

  Phone                                            1

  Professional Development                         1
  ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------

**10. How often do you observe and monitor what is happening in this
school?**

Almost half of the 17 district coaches state they observe and monitor RF
implementation in their schools once a week.

![](media/image86.wmf){width="5.789583333333334in"
height="3.546527777777778in"}

**11. What are three areas that are causing you the most concern
regarding RF implementation for this school?**

Fourteen district coaches expressed concern about their school's
classroom instruction. Some of their concerns include transition time
between whole group and small group, improving literacy centers, lack of
fluency instruction, explicit instruction, and addressing writing during
the core.

The following chart indicates the areas of concern for district coaches.

![](media/image87.wmf){width="4.997916666666667in"
height="3.497916666666667in"}

**12. What are three areas that this school is most successful in
implementing regarding RF at this school?**

Just as the majority of district coaches find classroom instruction to
be an area of concern, thirteen district coaches listed areas of
classroom instruction as their school's success. Specifically, the
successful areas in classroom instruction include teaching the five
components, implementation of the core program, and literacy centers.

**The following graph indicates the other successful areas shared by the
district coaches:**

![](media/image88.wmf){width="5.25in" height="3.8645833333333335in"}

# Chapter 6

# I. Principal Interviews

The seventeen Reading First case study school principals were
interviewed by the Collaborative Center for Literacy Development's
(CCLD) Reading First Evaluation Team during the fall of 2006. Notes from
these interviews were compiled according to the individual questions.
Based on this data, summaries were completed, and themes noted. This
section includes the questions presented to the principals (See Appendix
E), quotes, and diagrams or charts that summarize the themes from the
data analysis.

# II. Themes

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

-   Principals are observing in classrooms and providing feedback to
    teachers on a regular basis;

-   Principals are regularly attending professional development with
    their teachers, and regularly attending Reading First Literacy Team
    meetings;

-   Reading test scores continue to improve; and

-   Fidelity to the grant and implementation continue to be on target.

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

-   Time constraints, scheduling problems, and funding issues continue
    to be a problem;

-   State regulations, expectations, and information are frequently
    changing;

-   Large amounts of paperwork take away time from explicit planning;

-   Supplemental and intervention programs continue to be a challenge;
    and

-   The rigidity of the grant guidelines minimize time for writing and
    other content area instruction.

# III. Evidence

*Listed below is each question asked along with charts and graphs to
summarize responses given during the 17 principal interviews.*

1.  How much time do you spend in the Reading First classrooms per week?

The majority of principals interviewed spend over 40 minutes per week in
classrooms observing Reading First instruction.

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

  5%                11%               17%               67%
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

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

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

  22%               28%               28%               22%
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

3.  How do teachers receive feedback?

All seventeen principals reported using *multiple methods* of feedback.
The following table shows the [number of responses]{.underline} for each
type of feedback.

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Informal Conversations              14

  Formal Conversations                11

  Written Form                        9

  E-mail                              8

  Other-(team meetings)               3
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

4.  Do you regularly attend the professional development scheduled for

teachers for Reading First?

-   Sixteen out of seventeen (94%) responded "yes."

-   One out of seventeen (6%) responded "some."

-   One out of seventeen (6%) was new, and had not yet attended the PD.

    1.  What areas of reading continue to need the most attention at
        your

school?

Principals were asked to give their top three areas of concern at their
school, and the answers varied widely. Overall, the top five responses
were:

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Comprehension                       66%

  Fluency                             55%

  Vocabulary                          39%

  Intervention Programs               17%

  Phonics                             17%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

[The following responses were given *no more than twice* (out of
seventeen principals):]{.underline} literacy centers, open response,
teacher turn over, phonemic awareness, pacing for instruction, context
clues, analyzing data, test taking skills, home support for the core
program, grouping students, addressing all five components in
instruction, and maintaining gains from P1/P2 up to grades P3/P4.

2.  If you could change any aspect of Reading First, what would it be?

Answers to this question varied widely, but generally fell into three
main categories: flexibility, time, and administrative concerns.

Principals would like more flexibility to:

-   Amend the grant, adopt a new series

-   Use alternate materials for ESL students

-   Use time (for other content areas, etc.)

-   Adjust PD requirements to correlate with teacher experience

-   Continue the program in 4-6^th^ grades

-   Have more gradual implementation.

Principals are concerned about the amount of time regarding:

-   Professional Development---too much in addition to what they already
    have done

-   Paperwork---too much time spent to amend grant, maintain grant

-   GRADE---results take too long to get, not able to use diagnostically
    for planning.

Principals have administrative concerns regarding:

-   The continual changes of information and expectations from KDE

-   The coordination of the Reading First action plan and their school's
    comprehensive plan

-   Establishing guidelines for coaches regarding job experience.

    1.  What plans does your school have in place to sustain any
        positive

changes that have occurred as a result of Reading First?

Principals provided a variety of answers to this question. The top six
responses were:

Action % Principals Responding

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Continue testing with             | 33%                               |
|                                   |                                   |
| GRADE and DIBELS                  |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Keep reading coach                | 22%                               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Continue small groups,            | 22%                               |
| interventions, literacy centers   |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Continue Professional Development | 16%                               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Continue supplemental instruction | 16%                               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Continue five key components      | 16%                               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Other responses given related to expanding the program up through middle
school, hiring subs so teachers can do explicit planning, and continuing
the 90 minute reading block.

2.  Are you involved with the Reading First Literacy Team?

-   88% of principals interviewed responded "yes."

-   12% of principals interviewed responded "no."

    1.  Given the selected eight characteristics from the Marzano study
        of

effective leadership, choose the three that are most important for

implementing Reading First at your school.

The following table shows the responses to this question:

Characteristic Number of Responses

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Curriculum, instruction, assessment 15

  Communication                       13

  Culture                             9

  Evaluate                            8

  Beliefs                             5

  Visibility                          3

  Affirm                              1

  Optimize                            0
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

2.  What threatens the success of Reading First in your school?

Principals reported a range of issues that could threaten the success of
Reading First at their schools. These issues generally fell into three
categories, relating to teachers, time constraints, and students.

Issues related to teachers:

-   High teacher turnover rate

-   Discouragement of teachers when test results are not showing
    progress

-   Older teachers much slower to embrace RF changes

-   Lack of support for teachers from state coach

-   Difficulties following grant requirements and meeting needs of
    special education and ESL students

-   Constant changes in the grant, info from KDE

-   Rigid PD requirements

Issues related to time constraints:

-   Duplicate work

-   Special activities always interrupt other content area instruction

-   Students miss writing and content area instruction during
    intervention instruction

-   Not enough time to explore all resources related to core

-   Progress monitoring is very time consuming

Issues related to students:

-   Student population is very large---42 classrooms

-   High number of transient students

-   Students have frequent late attendance, miss core work

Two principals (11%) reported "no threats" to Reading First at their
schools. One stated," Teachers see that the research based methods are
better than what they were doing....Test results are so positive...(RF)
has been an asset to our school." It is interesting to note that on the
2005 principal survey the same question was asked, and 50% of the
principals interviewed reported "no threats" to the success of Reading
First at their schools.

**Chapter 7**

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

Chapter 7 includes three sections: A, B, and C. Section A is the summary
of the Fall 2006 school coach interviews (See Appendix F). Section B is
the summary of the Winter 2007 school coach interviews (See Appendix G),
and Section C is the summary of the Spring 2007 school coach interviews
(See Appendix H).

**[Section A -- Fall 2006]{.underline}**

**IA. School Coach Interviews**

During the fall of 2006, the Collaborative Center for Literacy
Developments' (CCLD) Evaluation Team observed all seventeen of the
selected case study schools for the 2006-2007 school year. During these
observations, the evaluators conducted an interview with the school
coach at each school. One of these schools now has two reading coaches,
and at that school, both coaches were interviewed individually.
Interview responses from the school coaches were compiled and grouped
together according to the individual questions. Using this data,
summaries were completed and themes were noted. Included in this section
are the overall successes and concerns that summarize the trends or
themes of the school coach interviews, the individual questions asked,
the coaches' responses, and selected quotes and comments given by the
school coaches during the interviews.

**IIA. Themes**

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

-   Coaches place a high importance on modeling in the classrooms,
    assisting teachers with testing, and conferencing with teachers;

-   The majority of school coaches interviewed feel the Kentucky
    Department of Education (KDE) along with their principals provide an
    extensive amount of support at their school for RF;

-   The majority of the coaches report that 100% of their participating
    RF teachers are implementing "best practices" in their classrooms
    for reading instruction;

-   The majority of the schools report they are monitoring their
    intensive students more often than any other students; and

-   All of the schools, with the exception of one, have identified
    specific goals for the implementation of RF at their schools for
    this school year.

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

-   Only two school coaches reported "explicit lesson plans" as an area
    for development at their participating RF school;

-   All of the school coaches, except one, reported specific goals for
    their schools reading instruction this year; yet, according to
    school coaches only 37% of these goals are *measurable* goals; and

-   The majority of the school coaches (73%) are spending *less* than 40
    minutes modeling in classrooms on a daily basis.

**IIIA. Evidence**

*Listed below is each question asked along with charts and graphs to
summarize responses given by all seventeen school coaches.*

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

The following chart represents the [mode]{.underline} as given by the
school coaches as how they would rank the listed responsibilities. [One
is the highest ranking]{.underline} and what the school coaches deem as
the most important duties of school coaches and [seven is the lowest
ranking]{.underline} and what coaches regard as the least important
duties of school coaches.

  -------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  Lowest 7       Completing necessary administrative tasks

  6              Attending and chairing RF meetings

  5              Testing

  4              Providing professional development

  3              Conferencing with teachers

  2              Observing in the classroom

  Highest 1      Modeling lessons in classroom
  -------------- --------------------------------------------------------

**2. Do you have an assistant?**

Out of the 17 school coach interviews, 50% of the coaches reported they
do not have an assistant, and 50% reported that they do have an
assistant at some time during the school day.

**3. Do you have a RF literacy team in place?**

Out of the 17 school coach interviews, with the exception of one, all of
the coaches declared they have a Reading First literacy team in place.

**4. If yes, who sets the agenda for the RF literacy team?**

The majority of the school coaches (89%) set the agenda for the Reading
First literacy teams. Two coaches reported otherwise. One school coach
reported the district coach as the responsible party for setting the
agenda, and the other coach reported determining the agenda with the
assistance of the principal.

**5. If yes, what does the RF literacy team do?**

Listed below are several tasks of the RF literacy teams:

-   Review and analyze school data;

-   Update teachers on events and progress;

-   Plan literacy nights and home/school connections;

-   Create and complete monitoring tools;

-   Create reports and action plans;

-   Review IARPs;

-   Review budget, plan spending;

-   Plan PD and support for teachers;

-   Pinpoint intensive and strategic students;

-   Discuss "best practices" for teachers; and

-   Plan interventions and discuss individual students.

**6. How would you rate your support from KDE?**

![](media/image89.wmf){width="2.6993055555555556in"
height="2.3534722222222224in"}

**7. How would you rate your support from your district?**

**8. How would you rate your support from your principal?**

**9. On an average day, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms
modeling reading lessons?**

The following chart represents the percentage of time school coaches
spend in the classrooms modeling reading lessons.

  ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------
  0-20 minutes      21-40 minutes      41-60 minutes      61+ minutes

  47%               26%                16%                11%
  ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------

**10. On an average day, how much of your time is spent in the
classrooms observing?**

The following chart represents the percentage of time school coaches
spend in the classrooms observing.

  ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------
  0-20 minutes      21-40 minutes      41-60 minutes      61+ minutes

  17%               17%                27%                39%
  ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------

**11. On an average day, how much of your time is spent conferencing
with individual teachers?**

The following chart represents the percentage of time school coaches
spend conferencing with individual teachers.

  ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------
  0-20 minutes      21-40 minutes      41-60 minutes      61+ minutes

  17%               44%                28%                11%
  ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------

**12. How often are you progress monitoring students per month?**

The following charts below represent progress monitoring and how many
times per month each school monitors students for that area. The
majority of the schools reported monitoring intensive students more
often than benchmark students.

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| [Times/month **intensive**       | [Percentage of schools            |
| students]{.underline}            | monitoring]{.underline}           |
|                                  |                                   |
| [are being                       |                                   |
| monitored]{.underline}           |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 4                                | 55.5%                             |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 3                                | 5.5%                              |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 2                                | 39%                               |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| [Times/month **strategic**       | [Percentage of schools            |
| students]{.underline}            | monitoring]{.underline}           |
|                                  |                                   |
| [are being                       |                                   |
| monitored]{.underline}           |                                   |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 3                                | 6%                                |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 2                                | 72%                               |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 1                                | 22%                               |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| [Times/month **benchmark**        | [Percentage of schools           |
| students]{.underline}             | monitoring]{.underline}          |
|                                   |                                  |
| [are being monitored]{.underline} |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 3                                 | 12%                              |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 2                                 | 0%                               |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 1                                 | 88%                              |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

**13. How many total classroom teachers participate in RF?**

The chart below represents the number of teachers participating in
Reading First at the participating schools.

+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| **Number of participating**                   | **Number of**        |
|                                               |                      |
| **teachers**                                  | **schools**          |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 11                                            | 1                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 12                                            | 1                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 13                                            | 2                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 14                                            | 4                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 15                                            | 3                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 16                                            | 1                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 21                                            | 1                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 23                                            | 1                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 25                                            | 1                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 31.5                                          | 1                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+
| 47                                            | 1                    |
+-----------------------------------------------+----------------------+

**14. How many RF teachers are implementing "best practices" at your
school during reading instruction?**

While the majority of the school coaches feel 100% of their teachers are
implementing "best practices" during reading instruction, there was a
range of responses to this question with the lowest percentage being 71%
and the highest being 100%. About 1/5^th^ of the school coaches reported
their teachers as implementing "best practices" between 71% and 81% of
the time.

**15. What areas of reading continue to need the most attention at your
school?**

The following table represents the areas school coaches have identified
as areas of attention for their schools. While the five components are
all still a main focus, comprehension (21% of the responses) is the most
common focus. Literacy centers (12% of the responses) and monitoring and
analyzing data (7% of the responses) are also areas that school coaches
have identified as areas of need for participating schools.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
  Comprehension                                                        9

  Effective literacy/reading centers                                   5

  Vocabulary                                                           4

  Phonemic awareness                                                   3

  Fluency                                                              3

  Analyzing and monitoring data                                        3
  -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

  -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
  Phonics                                                              2

  Small group instruction                                              2

  Using data to drive instruction                                      2

  Individual school coaches reported these areas: focus on students    1
  reading, differentiation, reducing worksheets, higher level          
  questions, explicit lesson plans, classroom pacing, intervention,    
  time management, PD, and intensive instruction for IARP students     
  -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

**16. Are you implementing new changes for RF at your school this
year?**

All schools, except one, reported making new changes for RF at their
school this year. The new changes to their implementation included:

-   focusing on explicit teaching;

-   using data to plan instruction;

-   explicit lesson planning;

-   adding a new additional coach;

-   more of a focus on comprehension, vocabulary, and/or phonics;

-   specific focus on word identification strategies;

-   using lesson plan grids to address the five components of RF;

-   amending the grant to change assessment;

-   adding a new coach or new personnel;

-   adding a phonics program or new intervention program;

-   teaching strategies for test taking skills;

-   additional literacy nights;

-   changing PD activities relating to data results; and

-   focus on explicit lesson plans or instruction.

**17. Has your school identified specific goals for this year's reading
instruction?**

All of the schools, except one, reported identifying specific goals for
this year's reading instruction. For all of the schools, the goals were
very specific for their school. Schools reported goals that were
specific to their assessment results. Goals identified include:

-   working on fluency

-   phonemic awareness and comprehension

-   focusing on explicit instruction in all five RF components

-   improving classroom libraries

-   being more strategic during reading instruction

-   incorporating oral language during instruction

-   decreasing the gap with special education students

-   reducing the number of strategic and intensive students

-   setting a specific goal for the entire school of 75% for GRADE

-   getting all students by 3^rd^ grade reading at or above grade level

-   challenging higher level students

-   moving every tier to progress

-   intervention at 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ grade

-   planning more specific professional development

-   getting 80% of students to benchmark

-   explicit lesson plans

-   higher level questioning during reading instruction.

**18. What on-going professional development (PD) is planned for this
school?**

The most common types of PD planned for the schools participating
included a focus on the five components with an intense focus on
vocabulary, fluency, and/or comprehension, adding book studies for
teachers, data analysis, explicit lesson planning, collaboration with
grade level teams, and differentiating instruction.

**19. How are you collaborating with other non RF schools and non RF
districts for professional development?**

Most of the school coaches (83%) reported collaborating with other
schools through their PD at their district level or simply by inviting
other schools in the district to attend their RF planned PD at their
schools, including their book studies, demonstrations, or district team
meetings. Inviting non-RF schools to participate in GRADE and/or DIBELS
training and sharing in demonstrations (33%) were additional common
approaches to collaboration. There was a small percentage of schools
(17%) reporting no collaboration.

**20. How many school-wide family literacy events do you have planned
for this school year?**

Out of the seventeen school coaches reporting, 35% reported to have
planned one family literacy event per month for the year. The second
highest percentage was 18% with four family literacy nights planned for
the entire year. The rest of the schools reported either one grade per
month, one to five per year, and four times per *month*. Examples of
family literacy nights include back to school bash, family reading
night, storytelling, reading carnival, family literacy nights, open
house, doughnuts with dads, and muffins with moms.

**21. What plans does your school have in place to sustain the positive
changes that have occurred as a result of RF?**

Out of the thirty different responses about areas that schools will
sustain positive changes that have occurred as a result of RF, four
school coaches reported they have no plans. The following chart
represents the areas that will be sustained when the grant is completed
and the percentage of school coaches responding to that specific area to
be maintained.

**[Section B -- Winter 2007]{.underline}**

IB. School Coach Interviews

The Collaborative Center for Literacy Development (CCLD) Reading First
Evaluation Team interviewed 17 Reading First Literacy Coaches during the
Winter 2007 site visits. (There are 17 case study schools for 2006-2007,
with one school so large it has 2 Reading First School Coaches.)
Questions were asked regarding use of time, professional development,
core programs, and data analysis. Data from these 17 interviews was
compiled, summarized, and analyzed; discussion of themes, concerns and
questions may be found in the sections below.

**IIB. Themes**

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

-   70% report spending at least 40 minutes a day observing in
    classrooms, and 56% report spending at least 40 minutes a day
    conferencing with teachers.

-   95% report they are *in the process of* meeting their school's
    needs, [or]{.underline} *have already met* their school's needs
    through on-going professional development.

-   47% of school coaches report grade level data analysis is done on a
    weekly basis, [or]{.underline} at least 8-12 times since the
    beginning of the school year.

-   72% report progress has been made during the current school year to
    reach specific goals regarding GRADE/DIBELS scores, and/or fluency
    and comprehension achievement goals.

-   84% report moderate [or]{.underline} extensive support from their
    state coach.

**Questions and concerns based on evidence from winter school coach
interviews:**

-   83% report comprehension needing the most improvement at their
    school.

-   28% report either fluency or vocabulary needing the most improvement
    at their school.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   73% report their core program *minimally addresses* fluency,
    vocabulary, or comprehension.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   95% report spending less than 40 minutes a day in classrooms
    modeling reading lessons.

-   5% report progress toward specific goals on explicit planning; 22%
    report successful professional development regarding explicit
    planning.

-   55% report having one or two family literacy events. 50% report the
    overall success of their family literacy events was moderate.

**IIIB. Evidence**

1.  **Currently, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms
    modeling reading lessons on an average day?**

> **Minutes per Day School Coaches Model Reading Lessons in Classrooms**

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

  56%            39%                  0%                5%
  -------------- -------------------- ----------------- -----------------

2.  **Currently, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms
    observing on an average day?**

## Minutes per Day School Coaches Observe in Classrooms

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

  5%          5%                      28%                   62%
  ----------- ----------------------- --------------------- --------------

3.  **Currently, how much of your time is spent conferencing with
    individual teachers on an average day?**

## Minutes per Day School Coaches Conference with Individual Teachers

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

  11%          33%                   28%                28%
  ------------ --------------------- ------------------ ------------------

4.  **Considering the school's on-going professional development, how
    would you describe the level of accomplishment to meet your school's
    needs?**

-   Currently planning: 5%

-   Planned, but not implemented: 39%

-   Already implemented: 56%

    1.  **Describe one successful professional development your school
        has participated in this year.**

Answers to this question varied. The top four responses were:

-   Data analysis (22%)

-   Explicit planning (22%)

-   Focus on all five components (17%)

-   Vocabulary instruction (17%)

Other successes mentioned included using data boards, learning center
development, and small group instruction for struggling readers.

**6. Which of the five components does your core program address
extensively?**

### Components Addressed Extensively in Core

+--------+---------------------+--------+-----------+----------------+
| **Pho  | ####                | **Flu  | **Voc     | **C            |
| nics** |  Phonemic Awareness | ency** | abulary** | omprehension** |
+--------+---------------------+--------+-----------+----------------+
| 61%    | 22%                 | 5%     | 11%       | 22%            |
+--------+---------------------+--------+-----------+----------------+

\*Some coaches marked more than one response to this question.

**7.** **Which of the five components does your core program address**

**minimally?**

### Components Addressed Minimally in Core

+--------+---------------------+--------+-----------+----------------+
| **Pho  | ####                | **Flu  | **Voc     | **C            |
| nics** |  Phonemic Awareness | ency** | abulary** | omprehension** |
+--------+---------------------+--------+-----------+----------------+
| 11%    | 17%                 | 39%    | 17%       | 17%            |
+--------+---------------------+--------+-----------+----------------+

\*Some school coaches selected more than one response on this question.

\*One school coach noted, "It (the core) addresses them all"

8.  **After analyzing student assessment data, which component have your
    teachers identified as needing the most attention?**

##### Core Component Needing Most Improvement

+--------+---------------------+--------+-----------+----------------+
| **Pho  | ####                | **Flu  | **Voc     | **C            |
| nics** |  Phonemic Awareness | ency** | abulary** | omprehension** |
+--------+---------------------+--------+-----------+----------------+
| 5%     | 5%                  | 17%    | 11%       | 83%            |
+--------+---------------------+--------+-----------+----------------+

9.  **How many times has your school analyzed student data this school
    year?**

This question was divided into three parts, summarized below:

###### [School wide analysis of student data this year:]{.underline}

-   None (18%)

-   Once (11%)

-   Twice (50%)

-   3-6 times (5% for each)

> **[Grade level analysis of student data this year:]{.underline}**

-   None (11%)

-   Weekly (18%)

-   Every other week (5%)

-   3,6,10 times (5% each)

-   5 times (22%)

-   8 times (11%)

-   12 times (18%)

> **[Individual teacher analysis of student data this
> year:]{.underline}**

-   None (11%)

-   Weekly (22%)

-   As needed (18%)

-   5,6,13 (5% each)

-   12 times (18%)

10. To this date, how many family literacy events have you held?

-   5 family literacy events (44%)

-   2 family literacy events (33%)

-   1 family literacy event (22%)

11. How would you rate the overall success of these events?

[Minimal]{.underline} [Moderate]{.underline} [Extensive]{.underline}

**17% 50% 33%**

12. Please describe the progress you have made toward the specific goals
    you set for this school year.

Responses to this question varied.

-   Specific improvements related to GRADE and DIBELS scores (33%)

-   Improvements specifically in fluency (22%)

-   Improvements specifically in comprehension (17%)

-   Data driven instruction (11%)

-   Literacy center planning/activities (11%)

-   ESL, classroom libraries, explicit planning (5% each)

13. **How would you rate the support you receive from your state
    coach?**

[Minimal]{.underline} [Moderate]{.underline} [Extensive]{.underline}

**11% 17% 67%**

14. **Describe one specific support from the state coach you have
    received this year.**

Answers to this question varied.

-   Data analysis (22%)

-   Focus on supplemental/intervention instruction (11%)

-   Assistance with IARP's (11%)

-   Assistance with classroom observations, coaching teachers (11%)

-   Source of information on research, state expectations (11%)

-   Explicit lesson planning, professional development, data boards (5%
    each)

**[Section C -- Spring 2007]{.underline}**

IC. School Coach Interviews

The Collaborative Center for Literacy Development (CCLD) Reading First
Evaluation Team interviewed 17 Reading First School Coaches during the
Spring 2007 site visits. (There are 17 case study schools for 2006-2007,
with one school so large it has 2 Reading First school coaches.)
Questions were asked regarding implementation successes/concerns,
instructional improvements achieved and desired, and action plans for
next year and beyond the grant. Data from these 17 interviews was
compiled, summarized, and analyzed; discussion of themes, concerns, and
questions may be found in the sections below.

**IIC. Themes**

##### Overall strengths based on evidence from spring school coach interviews:

-   50% report their "biggest success" this year was using data to
    inform or drive instruction.

-   61% report implementing new information from the Susan Hall (read
    alouds) or Tonya May (vocabulary) during this school year.

-   50% report an increase in explicit instruction; *in the Winter 2007
    school coach interviews, only 5% reported progress toward explicit
    planning goals.*

-   44% report an increase in differentiation during instruction.

-   83% report teachers finding the RF assessments easier to manage.

-   100% report using more than one strategy to address the needs of
    students who are still struggling.

##### Overall Concerns based on evidence from spring school coach interviews:

-   33% report a need for improvement in explicit instruction. Only 11%
    report explicit planning as a component of their action plans for
    next year. *While half the school coaches reported improvements in
    this area, one third still see it as a need, and less than a third
    have it as a focus for next year.*

-   Less than half (44%) report *data analysis* as a school-based
    structure to sustain RF objectives after the grant expires. *If data
    analysis is not sustained in all RF schools, will student needs
    continue to be met, and reading achievement continue to increase?*

-   33% report plans to continue the school coach position after the
    grant expires. *If this leadership is not available to teachers, are
    there others on the faculty prepared to assist in leading their
    peers? (i.e. experienced teachers, district personnel.)*

# IIIC. Evidence

# 

1.  **What has been your biggest success this year with Reading First
    implementation?**

School coaches have more than one response to this question, with half
citing the use of data to inform or drive instruction.

**Reading First Success Response**

2.  **What do you consider your biggest concern?**

Responses about concerns were more varied than successes; 22% of school
coaches cited multiple concerns.

Reading First Concerns Response

+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Some students still not on grade level            | 28%              |
|                                                   |                  |
| despite multiple and varied interventions         |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Funding not available from other sources          | 17%              |
|                                                   |                  |
| after grant ends                                  |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| School coach position will not be continued       | 17%              |
|                                                   |                  |
| after grant ends                                  |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Turnover in school leadership or teachers         | 11%              |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Core program/instruction not continuing           | 11%              |
|                                                   |                  |
| after grant ends                                  |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Inconsistencies among teachers                    | 11%              |
|                                                   |                  |
| regarding instruction                             |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Large amount of testing, especially for           | 11%              |
|                                                   |                  |
| 3^rd^ graders---time consuming                    |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Teacher buy-in to program                         | 6%               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Core will be switched after grant ends            | 6%               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Scheduling time to fit 90 minutes, intervention   | 6%               |
|                                                   |                  |
| supplemental into instructional day               |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| ELL students---challenges teaching and testing    | 6%               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Improvements in explicit instruction will not     | 6%               |
| continue                                          |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| Time management throughout instructional day      | 6%               |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+

3.  **Have you applied new information from conferences or seminars
    attended this school year?**

The majority of school coaches (89%) responded that their teachers
applied specific new ideas, programs, or strategies this school year.
The remaining 11% responded with general comments, stating they had used
new information received at conferences or seminars. Listed below is a
summary of the specific information school coaches shared in response to
this question.

-   **44%** reported implementation of **read aloud strategies** **from
    Susan Hall**

-   **17%** reported implementation of **vocabulary strategies** **from
    Tonya May**

-   **11%** reported application of strategies regarding the following:

> Quick Phonics Screener, data analysis, explicit instruction

-   **6%** reported implementation of strategies regarding the
    following:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Questioning strategies

  Student engagement

  Struggling readers

  Comprehension

  Marie Carbo

  IARP's

  Literacy centers

  Walk throughs

  Summer school ideas

  Family literacy

  Differentiation in instruction

  ELL---instruction strategies

  GRADE analysis (type)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**4. Describe specific improvements you have observed in teachers'**

**instruction over the course of the year.**

School coaches gave multiple responses to this question, with the top
three relating directly to instructional delivery.

**5. Are there specific instructional improvements to be made by your**

**teachers?**

School coaches noted a wide variety of specific areas they would like to
target for teacher improvement.

## Teacher Improvement Targets for 2007-2008

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  33%                Explicit Instruction

  22%                Comprehension strategies

  17%                Differentiation of instruction, Small group
                     instruction

  11%                Vocabulary instruction, Literacy centers,
                     Scaffolding instruction, Continue to refine
                     instruction

  6%                 Prepare students for portfolios, Whole group
                     instruction, Special needs students, Assist first
                     year teachers, Increase higher level questioning,
                     Improve communication, Phonics, Lesson
                     modifications, Supplemental
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

**6. Do you and the teachers find the assessments easier to manage?**

The majority of school coaches (83%) answered positively, many with
specific examples of what they are doing to manage RF assessments. The
remainder (17%) expressed concern about the difficulties of managing the
required assessments, combined with other state mandated assessments.
More specifically:

-   17% discussed data analysis and management

-   11% discussed collaboration and use of teachers to assist with
    administering assessments

-   6% discussed teacher use of the GRADE resource library

On a positive note, one coach shared:

> "Teachers have finally begun to feel more comfortable doing
> assessments because they can access the results themselves. They feel
> ownership in the assessment process."

Others stated:

> "This year we have really learned how to look and better understand
> our data. We are constantly looking and re-looking at data, because we
> understand what we are looking for. Teachers are understanding the
> purposes of the different assessments and are more willing to use them
> to drive their instruction."
>
> "We are more comfortable with and understand assessment. They are
> getting better with it, and they see the overall purpose for
> assessment. They understand how to use assessment information for
> individual instruction. It is still stressful. Progress monitoring has
> become old hat. They are using the GRADE resource library more."

A few shared these notes of concern:

> "Still difficult to manage---lots of assessments, especially with
> progress monitoring and SFA (Success for All) assessments."
>
> "The end of year testing will be hard to manage for 3^rd^
> grade---Terra Nova, state testing in math and reading, DIBELS,
> GRADE---hard for ELL (English Language Learner) students
> particularly."

1.  **What school-based structures are in place to sustain Reading
    First**

> **objectives after the grant expires? (i.e. grade level meetings,
> data**
>
> **analysis, etc.)**

The majority of school coaches (83%) discussed multiple structures to
assist in sustaining RF goals at their school. Only one school coach
shared that there were "*no definite plans in place*" to sustain RF
objectives. The table below summarizes their responses:

**Structures to Sustain Reading First Objectives**

+---------+-------+-----------+--------+--------------+-------------+
| **61%** | **    | **33%**   | *      | **11%**      | **6%**      |
|         | 44%** |           | *17%** |              |             |
+---------+-------+-----------+--------+--------------+-------------+
| \*Grade | \     | \*C       | \*Pl   | \*Teacher    | \*Literacy  |
|         | *Data | ontinuing | anning |              | team        |
| level   |       |           |        | knowledge    |             |
|         | ana   | school    | days   |              | \*Light     |
| m       | lysis |           | (with  | of 5 key     | Span        |
| eetings |       | coach     | subs   |              |             |
|         |       |           | for    | components   | Lab         |
|         |       | position  |        |              |             |
|         |       |           | tea    | \*Explicit   | \*Bookroom  |
|         |       |           | chers) | lesson       | of          |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        | planning     | teacher     |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        | \*Leadership | resources   |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        | team         | \*Reading   |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        | \*Training   | Recovery    |
|         |       |           |        | in           |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | small group |
|         |       |           |        | core         |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | i           |
|         |       |           |        | program/PD   | ntervention |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        | \*Common     | \*Child     |
|         |       |           |        |              | Study       |
|         |       |           |        | planning     |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | Team        |
|         |       |           |        | times for    |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | \*Response  |
|         |       |           |        | teachers     | to          |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | I           |
|         |       |           |        |              | ntervention |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | Team        |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | \*Keep 90   |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | minute      |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | reading     |
|         |       |           |        |              | block       |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | \*I         |
|         |       |           |        |              | mprovements |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | in teacher  |
|         |       |           |        |              |             |
|         |       |           |        |              | attitude    |
+---------+-------+-----------+--------+--------------+-------------+

8.  **What have you done to address students who are still struggling
    with**

> **making progress?**

All of the school coaches shared multiple responses to this question,
ranging from 2-7 strategies/actions to address the needs of struggling
students. The table below summarizes their responses:

###  Strategies and Resources Used to Address Struggling Students

+-------+---------+-------+-------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| **    | **33%** | **    | **    | *      | **11%**   | **6%**      |
| 39%** |         | 28%** | 22%** | *17%** |           |             |
+-------+---------+-------+-------+--------+-----------+-------------+
| \*I   | \*Small | \*B   | \*Re  | \*     | \*ESS     | \*I         |
| ARP's | group   | etter | group | School |           | ntervention |
|       | inst    |       |       |        | \*        |             |
|       | ruction | use   | stu   | coach  | Literacy/ | program     |
|       |         |       | dents |        |           |             |
|       |         | of    |       | meets  | L         | \*Use of    |
|       |         | teac  |       |        | eadership |             |
|       |         | hers, |       | with   |           | volunteers  |
|       |         | sche  |       |        | Teams     |             |
|       |         | dules |       | t      |           | \*School    |
|       |         |       |       | eacher | \*Pull    | coach       |
|       |         |       |       |        | out       |             |
|       |         |       |       | to     |           | assists     |
|       |         |       |       |        | int       | with        |
|       |         |       |       | a      | ervention |             |
|       |         |       |       | ssist, |           | assessments |
|       |         |       |       | d      | \*Differ  |             |
|       |         |       |       | iscuss | entiation | \*GRADE     |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | Resource    |
|       |         |       |       | indiv  | of        |             |
|       |         |       |       | iduals | in        | library     |
|       |         |       |       |        | struction |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | \*Incenti   |
|       |         |       |       |        | \*More 1  | ves/rallies |
|       |         |       |       |        | on 1      |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | \*Hot List  |
|       |         |       |       |        | in        | of          |
|       |         |       |       |        | struction |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | students    |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | \*Reading   |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | readiness   |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | instruction |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | \*Mentors   |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | for new     |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | teachers    |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | \*Response  |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | to          |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | I           |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | ntervention |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | Team        |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | \*Phonics   |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | screener    |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | \*Family    |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | literacy    |
|       |         |       |       |        |           |             |
|       |         |       |       |        |           | Events      |
+-------+---------+-------+-------+--------+-----------+-------------+

9.  **What will be your action plan for next year's implementation?**

The majority (89%) of school coaches described more than one "action"
for their coming year's action plan. Answers ranged from general
comments to very specific ideas. For example, one school coach shared:

> *"*After the initial round of testing we have decided to pull out
> those students who score in the 30's and 40's percentiles three
> days/week for interventions. The intensive students will receive
> interventions in the regular classroom. ESS will also be offered to
> those struggling students."

Another shared:

> "Improve in delivery of instruction. Improve in lesson planning
> process. These two go hand in hand and are two areas we need to
> concentrate on. PD more needs based---individualized according to
> teacher needs. Work earlier in the year with struggling students."

The table below summarizes their responses:

Action Plan Components for Coming School Year

+--------------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+
| 33%          | 17%            | 11%          | 6%                   |
+--------------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+
| -   **Lesson | -   **Teaching | -   **Focus  | -   **Work earlier   |
|     plan     |     specific** |     on       |     with struggling  |
|     a        |                |              |     students**       |
| daptations** | >              | vocabulary** |                      |
|              | **strategies** |              | -   **Growth in open |
|              |                | > **         |     response**       |
|              | -   **Di       | strategies** |                      |
|              | fferentiated** |              | -   **Extra          |
|              |                | -   **Growth |     PD---targeted to |
|              | > *            |     in       |     teacher needs**  |
|              | *Instruction** |              |                      |
|              |                |    writing** | -   **Literacy First |
|              | -   **Literacy |              |     PD**             |
|              |     centers**  | -            |                      |
|              |                |   **Explicit | -   **New materials  |
|              |                |     i        |     on 5 key         |
|              |                | nstruction** |     components**     |
|              |                |              |                      |
|              |                | -   *        | -   **Growth in      |
|              |                | *Parent/home |     assessment**     |
|              |                |              |                      |
|              |                | connection** | -   **Teaching       |
|              |                |              |     specific         |
|              |                |              |     literacy         |
|              |                |              |     skills**         |
|              |                |              |                      |
|              |                |              | -   **Pull out       |
|              |                |              |     intervention for |
|              |                |              |     students scoring |
|              |                |              |     in 30/40         |
|              |                |              |     percentiles**    |
|              |                |              |                      |
|              |                |              | -   **ESS**          |
|              |                |              |                      |
|              |                |              | -   **Data           |
|              |                |              |     analysis**       |
|              |                |              |                      |
|              |                |              | -   **Building       |
|              |                |              |     teacher          |
|              |                |              |     leadership**     |
|              |                |              |                      |
|              |                |              | -   **Marie Carbo    |
|              |                |              |     training to      |
|              |                |              |     become a model   |
|              |                |              |     school**         |
+--------------+----------------+--------------+----------------------+

**Chapter 8**

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

During the winter of 2007, the CCLD asked school coaches at each of the
17 case study schools to distribute questionnaires (See Appendix I) to
eight teachers. Of the 127 questionnaires returned, 124 were completed
by female teachers and 3 by male teachers. All primary grade levels were
represented equally with grades 1-3 returning 32 questionnaires each.
Kindergarten teachers' returned responses totaled 31. Responding
teachers exhibited a range of teaching experience. Fifty-seven percent
of teachers indicated 0-9 years of teaching experience while forty-three
percent of respondents indicated 10-17 or more years of experience. This
chapter contains the questions teachers were asked and a summary of
their responses.

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

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

-   The majority of teachers (88%) approve of their core reading
    program.

-   Teacher responses regarding reading strategies they are teaching
    students indicated a focus on comprehension at all grade levels,
    K-3.

-   Seventy-six percent of teachers said they talk about books they are
    reading with students.

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

-   Teachers (67%) expressed difficulty managing, organizing, creating
    new activities, and developing differentiated activities for
    literacy centers.

-   Teachers (35%) indicated time for planning activities was the most
    needed resource for center development. Many noted planning with
    colleagues, make-it take-it workshops, and observing successful
    centers in teachers' classrooms as needed professional development
    opportunities.

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

**Core Reading Program**

**Overall, do you like your core reading program?**

**Do you like the stories in your core reading program (i.e. are they
interesting, engaging, culturally responsive?)**

The majority of teachers (88%) said they like their school's core
reading program. Eighty-nine percent of teachers said they like the
program's stories.

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

Thirty-three percent of teachers find their programs always integrate
other content areas within its curriculum. Over half of the teachers
(66%) find their programs sometimes connect to other content areas, and
one percent of teachers never see the program's connections.

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

The following chart shows teachers' rating of their core programs'
comprehensiveness:

![](media/image90.wmf){width="4.498611111111111in"
height="2.9402777777777778in"}

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

![](media/image91.wmf){width="4.208333333333333in"
height="3.095138888888889in"}

**Literacy Centers**

The majority of teachers (87%) answered "yes" when asked if literacy
centers are beneficial for students. Teachers plan center activities to
reinforce lesson concepts, address the five components, and provide
opportunities for writing. Eighty-seven percent of teachers plan for
students to work in literacy centers five days a week. Nine percent have
centers four days a week, while four percent have centers only three
days per week. Teachers indicated a variety of intervals for which they
change center activities. These intervals are indicated in the following
chart:

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

  Once a month                        9%

  Twice a month                       15%

  Twice a week                        15%

  Once a week                         61%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Only twenty-nine percent of teachers rated their literacy centers as
having an extensive quality level. The majority (66%) rated center
quality as moderate, and 5% rated their centers with minimal quality.

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

  Minimal                             5%

  Moderate                            66%

  Extensive                           29%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Thirty-nine percent of teachers spend between 0 and 2 hours a week
planning center activities. This is the same percentage reported for
teachers spending 3 to 4 hours per week. Teachers spending the most time
planning centers are included in the chart below.

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

  0-2 hours                             39%

  3-4 hours                             39%

  5-6 hours                             13%

  7-8 hours                             6%

  8+ hours                              3%
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

As indicated by teacher responses, creating literacy center activities
is time consuming. Forty-five percent of teachers create their own
center activities. Many teachers (50%) use commercially produced centers
in addition to creating their own activities. Seven percent of teachers
use only commercially produced activities in their centers.

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

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

  --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
  **Improvement Areas** **Examples**

  **Management**        Organization, Time to do centers, Rotation,
                        Developing easy directions, Task cards, Change them
                        more often, Students staying on task, Storage

  **Activities**        More creativity with activities, More hands-on,
                        Fewer worksheets, Activities to connect to core,
                        More specific with skills, Connect activities to
                        other content areas, More ideas

  **Differentiation**   Differentiated activities, Provide more choices for
                        students, Appeal to advanced readers

  **Components**        More comprehension activities, Fluency activities,
                        Phonics practice without worksheets

  **Accountability**    Better assessment, Student accountability

  **Materials**         Need books on tape, More manipulatives, Extra game
                        materials
  --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

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

Teachers identified eight areas which would help them develop and
implement literacy centers. This chart exhibits these areas with a list
of examples following the chart.

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

  **Time to plan**   Time to work with colleagues to develop activities,
                     Time to teach students how to use centers
                     independently, Time to make centers

  **More Ideas**     Resource books with center ideas, Activities to
                     correlate with core program, Easy to challenging
                     activities

  **More Materials** Computers, Manipulatives, Ready-made centers,
                     Phonics materials

  **Additional       Instructional assistant during centers
  Person**           

  **Professional     PD on center development, Observe successful
  Development**      teachers' center time, Make-it, Take-it workshop for
                     centers

  **Class Size**     Smaller class size to manage

  **Space**          Space to organize centers

  **Money**          Additional money to purchase center materials
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

**Reading Instruction**

**During reading instruction, which group do you utilize most often?
Please rank the top three groups, with one being the group you utilize
most often, two being the group you utilize often and three being the
group you utilize least.**

The most frequently used grouping for reading instruction rated 1 to 3
by teachers is small group instruction. Whole group is rated second in
frequency, and partner/paired groups are third, with independent reading
practice a close fourth. Five percent of teachers said they use dramatic
reading as the third most frequent method for reading practice. The
following chart indicates the percentage of teachers who ranked reading
practices from 1-3:

![](media/image92.wmf){width="4.247916666666667in"
height="3.120138888888889in"}

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

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

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

  **P1**              Tracking print from left to right, Blending and
                      segmenting sounds, Reading for interest and
                      enjoyment, Sight words, Phonics, Phonemic
                      awareness, Rereading, Making connections,
                      Summarizing, Predicting, Asking questions, Mental
                      imagery, Decoding skills
  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
  **P2**              Decoding strategies, Use of context clues,
                      Monitoring, Predicting, Questioning, Rereading,
                      Summarizing, Making connections, Reading for
                      purpose and enjoyment, Prosody

  **P3**              Making inferences, Rereading, Decoding skills,
                      Prosody, Chunking, Vocabulary development, Story
                      elements, Questioning

  **P4**              Monitoring, Predicting, Making connections and
                      inferences, Retelling, Summarizing, Visualizing,
                      Decoding
  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

  **P1**              Retelling, Summarizing, Monitoring, Clarifying,
                      Building background knowledge, Questioning,
                      Applying word families to text, Blending,
                      Segmenting

  **P2**              Clarifying, Monitoring, Making inferences,
                      Retelling, Questioning, Summarizing, Decoding
                      strategies

  **P3**              Questioning, Main idea, Making inferences,
                      Cause/Effect, Summarizing, Context clues, Decoding
                      strategies, Prosody

  **P4**              Making inferences, Questioning, Main idea,
                      Visualizing, Prosody
  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

**Reading at Home**

The responses to the following questions are summarized below:

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

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

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

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

Ninety-four percent of teachers said they require students to read at
home, while 72% said they have time to read at home during the week.
Seventy-six percent of teachers said they tell students about the books
they read on a regular basis.

Although 72% of teachers said they have time to read at home, only 18%
indicated reading as an after-school activity. Seventy-two percent of
teachers

chose work related activities such as grading papers as an after-school
activity. The following chart indicates the variety of reading materials
teachers choose to read at home.

![](media/image93.wmf){width="5.6875in" height="4.177083333333333in"}

**Chapter 9**

**[I. Supplemental and Intervention Observations]{.underline}**

**[Section A - Supplemental Instruction Observation]{.underline}**

**IA. Introduction**

Sixteen supplemental programs were observed by the Reading First
Evaluation Team during the winter site visit. Evaluators rated the
instructional process and reading components, recorded classroom reading
practices, and took anecdotal notes during the thirty minute
observation. The ratings and notes were analyzed and summarized based on
common trends and themes. Included in this section are the overall
themes and specific evidence acquired during the observations.

**IIA. Themes**

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

-   Student engagement and mode of delivery were at the extensive level
    with 53.3% and 43.8% respectfully;

-   75% of supplemental instruction was delivered with little or no
    distractions

-   Phonemic awareness was rated at the extensive level 40% of the time,
    while phonics was rated extensive 41.7%;

-   Instructional checklists revealed high frequency on the categories
    of guided practice of skill (75%), concept explained and modeled
    (62.5%), teacher provides statement of objective (62.5%), and
    teacher provides positive, specific feedback (62.5%);

-   Large percent (68.8%) of the supplemental groups conducted guided
    reading; and

-   Variety of hands-on learning opportunities and types of reading were
    observed.

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

-   50% of vocabulary instruction was rated minimal;

-   Fluency was rated extensive on only 7.7%, vocabulary 8.3%, and high
    level questioning 18.8%;

-   None of the supplemental groups employed tape assisted reading and
    only one group (6.3%) used dramatic / readers theater;

-   Only 12.5% of supplemental groups engaged students in meaningful
    discussions or had student generated questions, and only 18.8%
    practiced fix-up strategies; and

-   43.8% of supplemental groups offered no hands-on manipualtives
    during instruction.

**IIIA. Evidence**

**1. The following contains the grade levels observed, number of
students in supplemental groups, and description of the supplemental
learning environment.**

Supplemental observations ranged from grades P1 to P4; however, P2 was
the grade level most often observed by the evaluators. The number of
students in groups ranged from three students to twenty-three students.
The mode of students most often observed was a total amount of five
students. The most frequent location of supplemental instruction was in
the classroom at 87.5%, one intervention group took place in a resource
room, and one group met in a Light Span lab.

**2. The following depict the minimal, moderate, and extensive
percentage ratings from a variety of instructional categories and
reading components. Note however, that the percentages for the reading
components may appear higher due to the fact that not all observations
were rated all five components:**

  -------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------
  ***Category/Component***   ***Minimal***    ***Moderate***   ***Extensive***

  Mode of delivery           6.3%             50%              43.8%

  Student teacher            25%              50%              25%
  interactions                                                 

  Student engagement         6.7%             40%              53.3%

  Higher level questioning   25%              56.3%            18.8%

  Phonemic awareness         30%              30%              40%

  Phonics                    8.3%             50%              41.7%

  Vocabulary                 50%              41.7%            8.3%

  Fluency                    30.8%            61.5%            7.7%

  Comprehension              33.3%            41.7%            25%
  -------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------

**3. Supplemental instruction is presented with little or no
distractions.** Seventy-five percent of the supplemental instruction had
little or no distractions; twenty-five percent had distractions during
the instructional process.

**4. There were a variety of hands-on learning experiences observed**

**during supplemental instruction. These were:**

-   6 out of 16 supplemental classrooms used a variety of hands-on
    experiences (i.e. letter tiles, sentence strips, word cards, white
    boards, Light Span games);

-   3 of 16 supplemental lessons used worksheets; and

-   7 of 16 used no hands-on manipulatives.

**5. Evaluators were asked to use a small group instructional checklist
to**

**record the number of times different items were observed. The
following**

**table provide the results:**

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***Checklist component***         | ***Observed frequency of          |
|                                   | component***                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Teacher provides statement of     | 10                                |
| objectives prior to lesson        |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Concept/skill explained and       | 10                                |
| modeled                           |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Guided practice of concept/skill  | 12                                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Students engage in meaningful     | 3                                 |
| discussions                       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Independent practice of           | 9                                 |
| concept/skill                     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Text introduction, previewing     | 5                                 |
| text and/or making connections    |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Questions generated by students   | 2                                 |
| throughout lesson                 |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Students practice fix-up          | 3                                 |
| strategies (i.e. clarifying,      |                                   |
| restating                         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| sentences in own words, making    |                                   |
| connections,)                     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Decoding strategies (chunk-it,    | 7                                 |
| use context clues, reread,        |                                   |
| picture clues)                    |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Comprehension strategies          | 7                                 |
| (questioning, retelling, compare  |                                   |
| and                               |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| contrast, clarifying, graphic     |                                   |
| organizers, preview text,         |                                   |
| prediction)                       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Teacher provides positive,        | 10                                |
| corrective, and specific feedback |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| One-on-one instruction provided   | 4                                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| "I do it, you do it, we do it"    | 7                                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Summary of lesson                 | 6                                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**6. Evaluators observed and checked the number of reading practices**

**during the supplemental instruction. The following are the results:**

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Reading Type**                      **Frequency observed**

  Independent reading                   7

  Shared reading                        3

  Partnered/paired reading              3

  Choral                                8

  Guided (with teacher)                 11

  Dramatic/readers' theater             1

  Echo reading                          2

  Read alouds                           3

  Tape Assisted Reading                 0
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

Note: One group observed participated in no reading practices.

**7. Concluding observations:**

A variety of reading practices (i.e. guided, choral, independent,
partner/ paired) were observed during the 30 minute observation. The
majority of the instruction occurred in small group except for two
supplemental lessons that were conducted with the entire class.
Evaluators noted that four teachers provided extensive phonemic
awareness and phonics lessons. Additionally, four classrooms were
indicated as positive learning environments.

One teacher used a checklist and provided immediate feedback. Three
lessons included high frequency word practice. Two teachers offered
reference of text to self. For example, during a homophone lesson, the
teacher shook the child's hand and said "nice to *meet* you". One
supplemental lesson implemented readers theater as the students took
turns reading different character roles. Two classrooms had three
teachers in the room during supplemental instruction.

**[Section B: Intervention Instruction Observation]{.underline}**

**IB. Introduction**

Seventeen intervention programs were observed by the Reading First
Evaluation Team during the winter site visit. Evaluators rated the
instructional process and reading components, recorded classroom reading
practices, and took anecdotal notes during the thirty minute
observation. The ratings and notes were analyzed and summarized based on
common trends and themes. Included in this section are the overall
themes and specific evidence acquired during the observations.

**IIB. Themes**

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

-   Mode of delivery, student engagement, student teacher interactions,
    and higher level questioning were at the extensive level with 47% or
    above;

-   Phonics and fluency components were rated at the extensive level at
    53.8% and 43.8% respectfully;

-   Eighty-eight percent of intervention groups observed had little or
    no instructional distractions, and 65% of the interventions observed
    were in self-contained resource rooms;

-   Instructional checklists revealed high frequency on the categories
    of student guided practice of concept/skill (82.3%), independent
    practice of concept/skill (76.4%), and concept/skill explained and
    modeled (70.5%);

-   Large percent (70.5%) of the intervention groups conducted guided
    reading; and

-   Multiple opportunities for students to engage with hands-on learning
    experiences.

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

-   Evidence revealed that only 16.6% of vocabulary observed was at the
    extensive level;

-   Only 29.4% of intervention groups provided opportunities for
    students to generate questions, and only 23.5% of the groups
    practiced using fix-up strategies and utilized comprehension
    strategies during instruction;

-   None of the intervention groups employed dramatic/readers' theater
    and tape assisted reading;

-   Decrease the use of worksheets during intervention instruction; and

-   Avoid instruction related to learning spelling words during
    intervention.

**IIIB. Evidence**

**1. The following contains the grade levels observed, number of
students in intervention groups, and description of the intervention
learning environment.**

Intervention observations ranged from grades P1 to P4; however, P3 was
the grade level most often observed by the evaluators. The number of
students in groups ranged from two students to 14 students. The mode of
students most often observed was a total amount of four students. The
most frequent location of intervention instruction was in a
self-contained resource room at 65%, followed by in class instruction at
29%, and one intervention group took place in the hallway.

**2. The following depict the minimal, moderate, and extensive
percentage ratings from a variety of instructional categories and
reading components. Note, however, that the percentages for the reading
components may appear higher due to the fact that not all observations
rated all five components:**

  -------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------
  ***Category/Component***   ***Minimal***    ***Moderate***   ***Extensive***

  Mode of delivery           23.5%            29.4%            47%

  Student teacher            29.4%            23.5%            47%
  interactions                                                 

  Student engagement         11.7%            23.5%            64.7%

  Higher level questioning   29.4%            17.6%            52.9%

  Phonemic awareness         25%              50%              25%

  Phonics                    0%               46.1%            53.8%

  Vocabulary                 41.6%            41.6%            16.6%

  Fluency                    21.4%            35.7%            42.8%

  Comprehension              20%              50%              30%
  -------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------------

**3. Intervention instruction is presented with little or no
distractions.** Eighty-eight percent of the intervention instruction had
little or no distractions, whereas twelve percent had distractions
during the instructional process.

**4.** **There were a variety of hands-on learning experiences observed
during intervention instruction, including the following:**

-   Three out of the four interventions observed used white boards
    during the instructional process; and

-   Eight out of 17 intervention classrooms used a variety of hands-on
    experiences (i.e. letter tiles, students using word cards, sentence
    strips).

**5. Evaluators were asked to use a small group instructional checklist
to record the number of times different items were observed. The
following table provides the results:**

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ***Checklist component***         | ***Observed frequency of          |
|                                   | component***                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Teacher provides statement of     | 8                                 |
| objectives prior to lesson        |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Concept/skill explained and       | 12                                |
| modeled                           |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Guided practice of concept/skill  | 14                                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Students engage in meaningful     | 7                                 |
| discussions                       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Independent practice of           | 13                                |
| concept/skill                     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Text introduction, previewing     | 6                                 |
| text and/or making connections    |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Questions generated by students   | 5                                 |
| throughout lesson                 |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Students practice fix-up          | 4                                 |
| strategies (i.e. clarifying,      |                                   |
| restating                         |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| sentences in own words, making    |                                   |
| connections,)                     |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Decoding strategies (chunk-it,    | 7                                 |
| use context clues, reread,        |                                   |
| picture clues)                    |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Comprehension strategies          | 4                                 |
| (questioning, retelling, compare  |                                   |
| and                               |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| contrast, clarifying, graphic     |                                   |
| organizers, preview text,         |                                   |
| prediction)                       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Teacher provides positive,        | 11                                |
| corrective, and specific feedback |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| One-on-one instruction provided   | 9                                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| "I do it, you do it, we do it"    | 10                                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Summary of lesson                 | 9                                 |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**6. Evaluators observed and checked the number of reading practices
during the intervention instruction as follows:**

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Reading Type**                      **Frequency observed**

  Independent reading                   8

  Shared reading                        1

  Partnered/paired reading              2

  Choral                                8

  Guided (with teacher)                 12

  Dramatic/readers' theater             0

  Echo reading                          5

  Read alouds                           2

  Tape Assisted Reading                 0
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

Note: One group observed participated in no reading practices.

**7. Concluding observations:**

Overall, a variety of instructional strategies (i.e. games, read alouds,
manipulatives, Alpha friend character) were observed during the 30
minute observation. The majority of the instruction occurred in small
groups except for one intervention that was conducted with the entire
class. Evaluators indicated that four teachers provided immediate
feedback to students and recorded anecdotal notes related to students'
reading abilities and two teachers conducted picture walks prior to
reading text. Another teacher conducted one-on-one individualized
assessment checks for consonants and skills.

In addition, an evaluator noted that one teacher used time efficiently
and was well-organized. More importantly, in this classroom the students
knew what was expected of them and stayed engaged for the entire 30
minute instructional period. Also interesting to note, was that one
group focused on learning spelling words and five groups of students
completed worksheets. Three teachers provided connections from school to
home reading by offering suggestions on how to practice reading at home.
For example, one teacher encouraged her students to use a microwave
timer when practicing fluent reading. This directly related to the
intervention instruction by the teacher using a timer during timed
reading experiences.

**Chapter 10**

**[Supplemental and Intervention Teacher Interviews]{.underline}**

This chapter includes two sections: A and B. Section A is a summary of
supplemental teacher interviews (See Appendix J). Section B is a summary
of intervention teacher interviews (See Appendix J).

**[Section A: Supplemental Teacher Interviews]{.underline}**

**IA. Introduction**

During the winter of 2007, the Collaborative Center for Literacy
Developments' (CCLD) Evaluation Team interviewed one randomly selected
supplemental teacher from all seventeen of the selected case study
schools for the 2006-2007 school year. These interview notes were
compiled and grouped together according to the individual questions.
Using this data, summaries were completed and themes were noted.
Included in this section are overall successes and concerns that
summarize the trends or themes of the supplemental teacher interviews,
the individual questions asked, the supplemental teachers' responses,
and selected quotes and comments given by the supplemental teachers
during the interviews.

**IIA. Themes**

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

-   Supplemental groups appear to change regularly throughout the year,
    based on needs of the students;

-   The majority of supplemental groups meet 16 -30 minutes each day;
    and

-   Students are monitored regularly, either weekly or twice a month, in
    the majority of the supplemental groups.

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

-   The professional training for supplemental instruction is weak, (50%
    of the supplemental teachers reported receiving no specific
    supplemental training), and PD is not regular or specific to
    individual supplemental programs used in the classrooms; and

-   There is not a formal plan in place to take higher achieving readers
    beyond the supplemental work, nor are there plans to include them in
    the labs and/or classrooms where supplemental instruction is taught
    to the entire class.

**IIIA. Evidence**

**1. Name of Supplemental Program:**

Several teachers identified specific publishers, and others identified
specific programs that are utilized during supplemental instruction.
Below are the programs and/or publishers identified:

-   Leapfrog/Leapstart

-   Breakthrough to Literacy

-   Scott Foresman

-   Light Span Lab

-   Houghton Mifflin

-   Hunks and Chunks, Word Families

-   Classroom Connections

-   Literacy Launch

-   Harcourt

-   Earobics

-   Reading Mastery

**2. Grade/s taught:**

Twelve of the teachers interviewed provide supplemental instruction for
only one grade. Four of the teachers interviewed are responsible for
more than one grade for supplemental instruction. All four grades were
represented during the interview process.

**3. Qualifications:**

All of the supplemental teachers interviewed, with the exception of one,
are "certified teachers."

**4. Location:**

All of the supplemental teachers interviewed (with the exception of one
using a "self contained lab") utilize the classroom during supplemental
instruction.

**5. How many students are in your supplemental groups?**

The chart below represents the number of students in supplemental groups
and the number of teachers utilizing groups of that identified size.

  ----------------------------- -----------------------------------------
  [Number of                    [Number of teachers]{.underline} teaching
  students]{.underline} in      groups of corresponding number:
  supplemental group:           

  0-3                           1

  4-6                           8

  7-9                           2

  10+                           5
  ----------------------------- -----------------------------------------

**6. How many times do your supplemental groups meet per week?**

Out of the sixteen teachers reporting, the majority of the teachers (13)
reported meeting for supplemental instruction five times per week, two
teachers reported meeting four times per week, and only one teacher
reported meeting one time per week.

**7. How long is supplemental instruction?**

According to the data collected during the interviews, the majority of
the teachers (75%) spend 16-30 minutes for each supplemental lesson.

**8. What content area are students pulled from for supplemental
instruction?**

According to the supplemental teacher interviews, the majority of the
students are not pulled from content area instruction, but are pulled
during morning work time, or regular supplemental time that is built
into the schedule. Five teachers out of the seventeen reported pulling
students either from writing, language arts, math, science, social
studies, or reading.

**9. How often do your groups change?**

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Twice a month | 2                                                    |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Once a month  | 3                                                    |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Twice a year  | 3                                                    |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Other         | 1 flexible everyday with teachers                    |
|               |                                                      |
|               | 1 change as test data shows needed areas of growth   |
|               |                                                      |
|               | 1 same group all year                                |
|               |                                                      |
|               | 1 based on need                                      |
|               |                                                      |
|               | 1 based on assessments and observations              |
|               |                                                      |
|               | 2 5x per year (every 9 weeks approx.)                |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

**10. Describe the process used to place student in supplemental
groups:**

The majority of the supplemental teachers (70.5%) reported using DIBELS
and GRADE assessments for student placement for supplemental reading
groups. Although most of the teachers utilize these two assessments,
other information is often used with DIBELS and/or GRADE to place
students into supplemental groups. This includes DRA scores, other
classroom assessments, observations, teacher recommendation, and weekly
anecdotal records.

**11. How do you design instruction for individual children?**

Teachers varied widely in their responses to how they design instruction
for individual students due to factors such as the focus and structure
of their supplemental instruction, observations, years of teaching
experience, test scores, and student needs.

**12. How often is progress monitoring conducted with your supplemental
students?**

The chart below represents the number of supplemental teachers reporting
how often students receive progress monitoring:

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  How often students receive progress monitoring:   Number of teachers:

  Weekly                                            6

  Twice a month                                     7

  Once a month                                      2

  Other: 5x per year                                1
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

**13. What type of PD (professional development) have you attended for
the supplemental program?**

Out of the seventeen supplemental teachers interviewed, only 29%
reported receiving PD specifically for their supplemental program. These
five teachers reported receiving specific PD for supplemental
instruction, yet only one out of these five teachers reported having
"extensive training" for their specific program. The remaining 52%
teachers reported receiving either "no specific" training for
supplemental instruction or informal training only.

**14. How do you communicate with the classroom teachers?**

The teachers varied in their answers as to how they communicate with
classroom teachers. There were several supplemental teachers who are
actually the classroom teachers. The remaining interviewed teachers
mentioned weekly planning, school coach meetings, and grade level
meetings as being an avenue for formal communication. One teacher
reported communicating through casual discussions in the lunchroom or
hallway, and another reported there is no

communication between supplemental teachers and classroom teachers at
their school.

**15. Additional comments:**

Teachers were given the opportunity to list any additional comments they
may have about the supplemental instruction or the overall RF
instruction at their school. Below are a few of the comments sorted by
supplemental teachers' responses:

**Strengths**

-   "I really love it (our supplemental program)!" We have "science
    links" to expand what I am teaching, and it often goes along with
    reading strategies I am using in the classroom.

-   "It is my belief that the weekly/monthly team meetings are very
    beneficial to the overall RF program."

-   "It (RF) has taught me a lot. I had been teaching 20 years before
    RF, but the PD has taught me so much more about teaching reading
    than I had ever heard of or thought of before."

**Concerns**

-   "I don't like our (supplemental) program. I'm not a center oriented
    teacher. We need to keep our homeroom class together for
    instruction. When my students come back from reading core I do not
    know what strategies they know or are capable of doing."

-   "The paperwork is overwhelming and RF is not a one size fits all. I
    need to be able to do what my students need and not spend so much
    time on lesson plans."

-   "We have problems with our core program due to no scope and
    sequence."

**[Section B: Intervention Teacher Interviews]{.underline}**

**IB. Introduction**

During the winter of 2007, the Collaborative Center for Literacy
Developments' (CCLD) Evaluation Team interviewed one randomly selected
intervention teacher from all selected case study schools for the
2006-2007 school year. The interview notes were compiled and grouped
together according to the individual questions. Using this data,
summaries were completed and themes were noted. Included in this section
are overall successes and concerns that summarize the trends or themes
of the intervention teacher interviews, the individual questions asked,
the intervention teachers' responses, and selected quotes and comments
given by the intervention teachers during the interviews.

**IIB. Themes**

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

-   The majority of intervention teachers are meeting with their
    students on a daily basis; and

-   The majority of intervention teachers interviewed maintain small
    groups for intervention with a range of 1-6 students.

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

-   Many intervention teachers have no formal method of communication in
    place to discuss student progress and needs with classroom teachers;

-   Professional Development for intervention teachers varies and is not
    specific to their intervention program or to intervention students;
    and

-   Scheduling still remains a problem, especially with what subjects
    students are missing when they attend intervention instruction.

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

**1. Name of Intervention Program:**

Several teachers identified specific publishing companies, yet others
identified the specific name of the program that is utilized during
intervention instruction. Below is a sample of the programs and/or
publishers that these teachers identified:

-   Houghton Mifflin

-   Reading Mastery

-   Build Up

-   Earobics

-   Harcourt Trophies

-   Reading Recovery

-   Sound partners

-   Open Court: Leveled Readers

-   Voyager

-   Soar to Success/Early Success

**2. Grade/s taught**

Intervention teachers often provide instruction for more than one grade.
All of the primary grades (P1-P4) were represented by intervention
teachers in the interviews. The chart below represents what grades the
teachers provide intervention instruction for:

  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------
  **Grade:**                 **Number of teachers providing
                             instruction:**

  P1                         7

  P2                         11

  P3                         7

  P4                         4
  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------

**3. Qualifications:**

All of the intervention teachers interviewed, with the exception of one,
are "certified teachers."

**4. Location:**

The chart below identifies the location of the intervention instruction
by the teachers interviewed:

![](media/image94.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="3.0208333333333335in"}

**5. How many students are in your intervention groups?**

The chart below represents the number of students in regular
intervention groups, and the number of teachers utilizing groups of that
identified size.

  ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
  **[Number of                   **[Number of teachers]{.underline}
  students]{.underline} in       teaching groups of corresponding
  supplemental group:**          number:**

  0-3                            2

  4-6                            12

  7-9                            1

  10+                            1
  ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------

**6. How many times do your intervention groups meet per week?**

Out of the sixteen teachers reporting, the majority of the teachers (14)
reported providing intervention instruction five times per week; and two
teachers reported providing intervention instruction four times per
week.

**7. How long is intervention instruction?**

According to the data collected during the interviews, the majority of
the teachers (81%) spend 16-30 minutes for each intervention lesson.

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **Minutes of Instruction**   **Number of Teachers Responding**

  0-15 minutes                 1

  16-30 minutes                13

  30+ minutes                  2
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**8. What content area are students pulled from for intervention
instruction?**

Intervention teachers shared that students who are pulled out during an
"extended reading time" after the core reading block. Others claim the
intervention instruction is often built into the schedule. Only one
teacher mentioned that intervention students would miss math, and one
mentioned portions of science would be missed.

**9. How often do your groups change?**

Intervention teachers responded how often their intervention groups
change throughout the year. The following chart represents how often
these groups change. Although the teachers varied in their responses,
31% did acknowledge changing intervention groups at least once a month.

**10. Describe the process used to place students in intervention
groups:**

Most of the intervention teachers interviewed reported utilizing data
from DIBELS and GRADE as their primary sources for placing students into
intervention groups. Although most of the teachers use DIBELS and/or
GRADE (62.5%-87.5%), they also mentioned utilizing other resources
including teacher recommendations and classroom observations. The chart
below represents the types of resources used for placement as well as
the frequency or use according to the intervention teachers.

**11. How do you design instruction for individual children?**

Most of the groups are already designed for individual students. The
teachers use assessments and other methods as listed above to group
students together with similar needs and weaknesses. As the students
progress in their groups, and skills are not mastered, teachers often
"pull from different materials to meet individual needs."

**12. How often is progress monitoring conducted with your intervention
students?**

The chart below explains how often students receive progress monitoring
according to the intervention teachers responses, with 62.5% reporting
that they provide progress monitoring for intervention instruction
weekly.

![](media/image95.wmf){width="2.9270833333333335in"
height="2.564583333333333in"}

**13. What type of PD have you attended for the intervention program?**

Although intervention teachers are receiving Reading First PD, the
majority of the teachers responding to this question did not mention
receiving specific training for their intervention program. Only three
teachers (18%) mentioned receiving specific training; one teacher
received training for her intervention program from a specialist who
trained every three months, and the other two teachers received training
specifically for their program through watching a video.

**14. How do you communicate with the classroom teachers?**

The majority of the teachers communicate informally with the classroom
teachers about the progress of intervention students. Informal
communication includes messages in student folders, verbal discussions,
email, or notes in mailboxes. One teachers notes:

it *"would be good to complete a progress report so teachers could have
a written component."*

Three intervention teachers (18%) mentioned communicating formally
through grade level or common planning meetings or during weekly
conferences.

**15. Additional comments:**

Intervention teachers were given the opportunity to list any additional
comments they may have about the intervention program or the overall RF
instruction at their school. Below are a few of the quotes of the
intervention teachers:

**Strengths**

-   "Have seen success with RF among students."

-   "District coach and principal analyzed data and regrouped kids, has
    been very beneficial and meeting IEP goals."

-   "Have lots of materials to use; lots more help out there now than
    when I was a classroom teacher. "

-   "RF has connected everybody; school is a lot closer, know what our
    goals are; so much more information to use such as DIBELS and other
    test scores."

-   "It's a good program. Have fewer referrals to special education
    programs. Most students by third grade don't qualify anymore. I see
    a big difference in reading ability."

-   "Students are making gains every day, and they respond well. They
    need that extra push to help them succeed."

**Concerns**

-   "Eighty hours for PD is time consuming. More time could better be
    spent on planning the core program/lesson plans."

-   "More training would be helpful."

-   "I wish more kindergarten materials were available."

-   We need to "keep numbers low; work with students on the same level.
    More intervention teachers would help decrease size of group."

**Chapter 11**

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

**I. Introduction**

During the fall of 2006, CCLD evaluators conducted classroom literacy
center observations. Evaluators completed a classroom literacy center
checklist rating literacy center standards as not observed, minimal,
moderate, or extensive (see appendix K). This section includes overall
themes of the literacy centers observed, the evaluators' ratings for
each literacy center standard, and a listing of classroom center
activities.

**II. Themes**

**Overall successes based on evidence from the Fall 2006 literacy center
observations:**

-   Thirty-eight percent of the literacy center activities observed
    incorporated the five reading components at an extensive level;

-   An organizational system for centers was extensively evident in 56%
    of classrooms;

-   Fifty-six percent of centers observed had extensive evidence of
    prepared, organized, and easily accessible materials for students;

-   The majority (79%) of literacy centers observed kept students
    moderately or extensively engaged with 35% containing and extensive
    level of meaningful activities; and

-   Thirty-eight percent of students worked in an extensive variety of
    grouping structures during center time.

**Overall concerns based on evidence from the Fall 2006 literacy center
observations:**

-   Almost half (47%) of the centers observed did not have clear
    objectives for center tasks, posted;

-   Fifty-three percent of observed classroom center activities did not
    have evidence of differentiation to meet the needs of a variety of
    learners;

-   Sixty-two percent of centers observed did not contain or minimally
    contained multiple tasks or activities for students who finished
    their center work early; and

-   Sixty-five percent of classrooms did not have a system or showed
    minimal evidence of a system in place to help students or answer
    their questions during center time.

> **III. Evidence**

Evaluators observed thirty-four classroom literacy centers. The
following table indicates the number of classrooms, listed under the
level of evidence observed, for each literacy center standard.

+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|                                     | #     | **Mi  | **Mod | *     |
|                                     |  Not  | nimal | erate | *Exte |
|                                     |       | Evide | Evide | nsive |
|                                     | **    | nce** | nce** | Evide |
|                                     | Obser |       |       | nce** |
|                                     | ved** |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 1\. Centers focus on literacy/ the  |       | 6     | 13    | *     |
| five essential components of        |       |       |       | *13** |
| reading                             |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 2\. Organizational pattern of       | 6     | 3     | 4     | *     |
| centers is posted                   |       |       |       | *19** |
|                                     |       |       |       |       |
| (work board, center chart, etc.)    |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 3\. Students are actively engaged   |       | 5     | 14    | *     |
|                                     |       |       |       | *13** |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 4\. Centers have clear objectives   | 10    | 6     | 6     | *     |
| (i.e., task cards posted)           |       |       |       | *12** |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 5\. Materials are prepared,         |       | 3     | 11    | *     |
| organized, and easily accessible to |       |       |       | *19** |
| students                            |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 6\. Center activities maximize use  |       | 8     | 16    | *     |
| of time/learning                    |       |       |       | *10** |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 7\. Center tasks are meaningful     | 1     | 9     | 11    | *     |
| (activities or tasks that require   |       |       |       | *12** |
| high level/critical thinking and    |       |       |       |       |
| application of previously taught    |       |       |       |       |
| material)                           |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 8\. Center tasks are engaging (use  | 2     | 10    | 12    | *     |
| of manipulatives, games,            |       |       |       | *11** |
| activities)                         |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 9\. Centers include an              | 4     | 9     | 7     | *     |
| assessment/accountability component |       |       |       | *12** |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 10\. Centers have multiple          | 15    | 6     | 7     | **4** |
| tasks/"finish early" activities     |       |       |       |       |
| where appropriate                   |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 11\. Evidence of differentiation to | 8     | 10    | 13    | **2** |
| meet the needs of a variety of      |       |       |       |       |
| learners                            |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 12\. Students work in various       | 2     | 8     | 10    | *     |
| groupings (individual, partner,     |       |       |       | *13** |
| team, group)                        |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 13\. Help system for students is    | 21    | 1     | 3     | **5** |
| evident (i.e., center captains)     |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 14\. Specific location for student  | 8     | 1     | 9     | *     |
| work -- complete and incomplete     |       |       |       | *13** |
| (task folder, pocket folder,        |       |       |       |       |
| hanging folder, basket, etc.)       |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 15\. Students' behavior follows     |       | 5     | 17    | *     |
| classroom rules/learner             |       |       |       | *12** |
| expectations                        |       |       |       |       |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
| 16\. Student movement between       | 4     | 5     | 13    | *     |
| centers/transitions are organized   |       |       |       | *11** |
+-------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

Source: KDE Reading First State Coaches

The following is a sample of the kinds of centers observed by
evaluators.

-   Listening centers

-   Letter (Alphabet) centers-make letters using Wicki Stix; make
    letters using dough

-   Writing centers

-   Reading centers-read book and write script for play

-   Computer centers- correlating software with core program

-   Spelling centers-puzzle with plural nouns

-   Vocabulary centers-match vocabulary word with definition, draw
    picture illustrating word (related to story)

-   Suffix matching-make as many words as possible, record

-   Comprehension centers-draw picture of favorite part of story

-   Phonics centers-building words with "all"; word sorts

-   Art centers-drawing pictures

-   Fluency centers-two students reading and using a timer; choices of
    story to read

-   Inquiry center-worksheet on natural resources

-   Word Work centers-verb tense game; high frequency word game; ending
    sounds to build words, rhyming word game; synonyms; antonyms

**Chapter 12**

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

**I. Introduction**

During the spring of 2007, the Reading First (RF) Evaluation Team
provided surveys (See Appendix L) to the case study schools to be sent
home (in each of the primary grades) and completed by two selected and
willing parents. One hundred thirty-six parents completed these surveys
at home, gave them to the school coaches, and then the RF team
evaluators collected the surveys at the final site visit in the spring
of 2007. Using this data, summaries were completed and themes were
noted. Included in this chapter is overall success and concerns that
summarize the trends or themes of the parent surveys, the individual
questions asked, the parents' responses, and selected quotes and
comments given by the parents in these surveys.

**II. Themes**

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

-   Ninety-two percent of parents strongly agree that they feel
    comfortable speaking with the teacher about their child's reading
    progress.

-   Eighty percent of parents strongly agree that they are kept informed
    about their child's reading progress.

-   Seventy-seven percent of parents strongly agree that their teachers,
    principals, and school staff work together to make all children
    successful readers.

-   Parents (eighty-three percent) are reading with their children at
    home.

-   The majority of children (seventy-four percent) are reading
    independently at home.

-   Eighty-three percent of parents strongly agree that the teachers
    share the results of their child's reading assessments with them.

-   Sixty-five percent of parents strongly agree that RF has made a
    difference in their child's reading ability.

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

-   There is not a majority of parents attending family reading
    activities at the schools. Fifteen percent of parents *strongly*
    *disagreed* that they attend family reading activities. Another
    fourteen percent *disagree* that they attend family reading
    activities. The rest of the parents were split among the other
    levels; and

-   Parents commented minimally (9% of the time) about topics related to
    family involvement.

> **III. Evidence**

The chart below represents the primary grade levels of the children
represented by the parents completing the surveys. Each grade level was
represented.

![](media/image96.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

The chart below represents how many years the children of the parents
completing the survey have attended RF schools. The majority of the
students have attended one to four years at the current RF school.

![](media/image97.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.689583333333333in"}

**1. I feel RF has been beneficial to my child and has raised his/her
reading scores.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Sixty-four percent of parents strongly agree that RF has been beneficial
to their child and has raised his/her reading scores.

![](media/image98.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**2. I feel the school has offered assistance to me in helping my child
with reading at home.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Sixty-six percent of parents strongly agree that the school has offered
assistance to them in helping with reading at home with their child.

![](media/image99.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**3. Family reading events are offered at times convenient for me.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Fifty-two percent of parents strongly agree that family reading events
are convenient to them.

![](media/image100.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**4. I attend family reading activities at this school.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Twenty-four percent of parents strongly agree that they attend family
reading activities at this school.

![](media/image101.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**5. I have observed an increase in my child's interest in reading.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Fifty-seven percent of parents strongly agree that their child has an
increased interest in reading.

![](media/image102.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**6. I feel comfortable speaking with the teachers about my child's
reading**

**progress.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Ninety-two percent of parents strongly agree that they feel comfortable
speaking with the teacher about their child's reading progress.

![](media/image103.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**7. I am kept informed about my child's reading progress.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Eighty percent of parents strongly agree that they are kept informed
about their child's reading progress.

![](media/image104.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**8. I feel the teachers, principals, and school staff work together to
make all children successful readers.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Seventy-seven percent of parents strongly agree that their teachers,
principals, and school staff work together to make all children
successful readers.

![](media/image105.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**9. My child talks to me about reading activities that they are
participating in at school.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Sixty-two percent of parents strongly agree that their children talk to
them about reading activities that they are participating in at school.

![](media/image106.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**10. I read with my child.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Eighty-three percent of parents strongly agree that they read with their
children.

![](media/image107.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**11. My child reads independently at home.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Seventy-four percent of parents strongly agree that their child reads
independently at home.

![](media/image108.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**12. The teacher requires my child to record minutes or pages read
daily at home.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Fifty-seven percent of parents strongly agree that the teacher requires
their child to record minutes or pages read daily at home.

![](media/image109.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**13. My child seems excited about reading.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Sixty-three percent of parents strongly agree that their child seems
excited about reading.

![](media/image110.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**14. The school provides me with information about RF.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Sixty-six percent of parents strongly agree that the school provides
them with information about RF.

![](media/image111.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**15. I am kept informed about reading through various ways (i.e.
newsletters, conferences).**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree." Sixty
percent of parents strongly agree that they are kept informed about
reading through various ways.

![](media/image112.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**16. I understand what the different assessments are used for in the
classroom (i.e. Grade and DIBELS).**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Sixty-one percent of parents strongly agree that they understand what
the different assessments are used for in the classroom.

![](media/image113.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**17. The teachers share my child's reading assessment results with
me.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Eighty-three percent of parents strongly agree that the teachers share
the results of their child's reading assessments with them.

![](media/image114.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**18. Overall, I feel that RF has made a difference in my child's
reading ability.**

The following chart represents the percentages of each given parent
response; one is "strongly disagree" and five is "strongly agree."
Sixty-five percent of parents strongly agree that RF has made a
difference in their child's reading ability.

![](media/image115.wmf){width="4.001388888888889in"
height="2.686111111111111in"}

**19. Please share one thing you "like" about RF or reading in your
child's school.**

**20. Please share one thing you "wish were different" in your child's
school in regard to reading.**

The following table represents the areas that parents "like" about RF
and the areas they would "like to change". The areas have been grouped
into topics due to the responses of the parents.

+--------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
|              | **"Likes"**          | **"Needed RF Changes"**        |
+--------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **Motivation | **(14%) Parents      | > **(2%) Parents responded in  |
| to Read**    | responded in this    | > this area. Included is a     |
|              | area. Included is a  | > sample of the parent         |
| **S          | sample of the parent | > responses:**                 |
| elf/Esteem** | responses:**         |                                |
|              |                      | -   Reading is very important  |
|              | -   My child enjoys  |     to any child. I think if a |
|              |     reading so much  |     child can read well, they  |
|              |     that it has made |     will have more confidence  |
|              |     her a more       |     in all other subjects.     |
|              |     confident child  |     More resources and         |
|              |     in many ways.    |     confidence in all other    |
|              |                      |     subjects. More resources   |
|              | -   She has more     |     and time needs to be put   |
|              |     interest in      |     forth towards reading.     |
|              |     reading.         |                                |
|              |                      | -   I wish RF was dropped and  |
|              | -   My child has     |     taken out. I feel that it  |
|              |     developed an     |     takes away the teacher     |
|              |     interest in      |     ability to teach other     |
|              |     reading and      |     things in a way more       |
|              |     likes to read    |     sufficient so more kids    |
|              |     her take home    |     can learn more things that |
|              |     books.           |     are lacking. Go back to    |
|              |                      |     old school in the way      |
|              | -   He loves to read |     things are taught. If      |
|              |     more now than    |     learning can be made fun,  |
|              |     before.          |     then children learn more.  |
|              |                      |     RF stops that.             |
|              | -   I like the       |                                |
|              |     excitement my    |                                |
|              |     child has when   |                                |
|              |     he reads         |                                |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   I like the way   |                                |
|              |     they reward her  |                                |
|              |     with small       |                                |
|              |     prizes and tell  |                                |
|              |     her she is       |                                |
|              |     improving. Self  |                                |
|              |     esteem goes up!  |                                |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   My daughter's    |                                |
|              |     teachers have    |                                |
|              |     made reading     |                                |
|              |     very fun, and    |                                |
|              |     that makes her   |                                |
|              |     interested. I    |                                |
|              |     feel she has     |                                |
|              |     been taught a    |                                |
|              |     great deal about |                                |
|              |     how important    |                                |
|              |     reading is.      |                                |
+--------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **The        | **(25%) Parents      | > **(15%) Parents responded in |
| Overall RF   | responded in this    | > this area. Included is a     |
| Program**    | area. Included is a  | > sample of the parent         |
|              | sample of the parent | > responses:**                 |
|              | responses:**         |                                |
|              |                      | -   One thing I wish were      |
|              | -   Reading is       |     different is the pressure  |
|              |     designed to meet |     put on teachers and        |
|              |     my child at his  |     students to perform.       |
|              |     point of need    |                                |
|              |                      | -   I feeling Reading block is |
|              | -   The way the      |     too long to keep the       |
|              |     program is       |     children interested.       |
|              |     structured, it   |                                |
|              |     is very easy for | -   I wish I knew about what   |
|              |     children to      |     level she is on.           |
|              |     learn to read.   |                                |
|              |                      | -   The only complaint is      |
|              | -   I have seen my   |     spending almost 3hrs in    |
|              |     child's reading  |     the morning ONLY doing     |
|              |     improve greatly  |     reading activities         |
|              |     over the year. I |                                |
|              |     believe the      | -   I'm afraid this program is |
|              |     program and her  |     not challenging my child   |
|              |     teacher have     |                                |
|              |     worked great     | -   I would like to see more   |
|              |     together         |     advanced activities with   |
|              |                      |     children with higher       |
|              | -   The amount of    |     reading levels.            |
|              |     time given to    |                                |
|              |     reading:90       | -   To understand how the      |
|              |     minutes          |     program is working with my |
|              |     uninterrupted    |     child.                     |
|              |     reading          |                                |
|              |                      | -   It takes a lot of time and |
|              | -   The gifted       |     time away from other       |
|              |     program has      |     subjects                   |
|              |     really pushed my |                                |
|              |     child.           |                                |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   Reading is the   |                                |
|              |     main priority in |                                |
|              |     my child's       |                                |
|              |     school.          |                                |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   It is very       |                                |
|              |     structured.      |                                |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   I like the       |                                |
|              |     reading program  |                                |
|              |     being used       |                                |
|              |     throughout the   |                                |
|              |     entire school,   |                                |
|              |     continuity is    |                                |
|              |     important for    |                                |
|              |     student          |                                |
|              |     learning.        |                                |
+--------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **Grouping** | **(5%) Parents       | **(4%) Parents responded in    |
|              | responded in this    | this area. Included is a       |
|              | area. Included is a  | sample of the parent           |
|              | sample of parent     | responses:**                   |
|              | responses:**         |                                |
|              |                      | -   Stay with homeroom         |
|              | -   I like that they |     teacher.                   |
|              |     have a lesson in |                                |
|              |     whole group, and | -   Don't switch to other      |
|              |     then break into  |     rooms, but they have to    |
|              |     smaller groups   |     with SFA.                  |
|              |     for specific     |                                |
|              |     individualized   | -   More one on one help.      |
|              |     needs.           |                                |
|              |                      | -   SFA grouping.              |
|              | -   The reading      |                                |
|              |     program          | -   Longer small groups.       |
|              |     specifically     |                                |
|              |     targets my       |                                |
|              |     child's reading  |                                |
|              |     needs.           |                                |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   I like the       |                                |
|              |     individualized   |                                |
|              |     instruction      |                                |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   My child can     |                                |
|              |     read at her      |                                |
|              |     level and is not |                                |
|              |     held back        |                                |
|              |     because others   |                                |
|              |     may be at a      |                                |
|              |     lower level than |                                |
|              |     she.             |                                |
+--------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **Family     | **(8%) Parents       | **(9%) Parents responded in    |
| I            | responded in this    | this area. Included is a       |
| nvolvement** | area. Included is a  | sample of the parent           |
|              | sample of the parent | responses:**                   |
|              | responses:**         |                                |
|              |                      | -   More family reading        |
|              | -   It will promote  |     events!                    |
|              |     or encourage     |                                |
|              |     reading in the   | ```{=html}                     |
|              |     homes where it   | <!-- -->                       |
|              |     is very little   | ```                            |
|              |     to nonexistent.  | -   I would prefer more        |
|              |                      |     advanced notice of family  |
|              | -   I like RF        |     reading activities.        |
|              |     because it       |                                |
|              |     allows children  | -   More updates on how my     |
|              |     to learn to read |     child is doing             |
|              |     with the help of |                                |
|              |     parents and      | -   That I would get more      |
|              |     allows reading   |     information on the         |
|              |     to be fun!       |     programs that she is in. I |
|              |                      |     have no idea what this     |
|              | -   I have really    |     class is... no information |
|              |     enjoyed the      |     on it.                     |
|              |     reading nights   |                                |
|              |     at school        | -   I wish that I could have   |
|              |                      |     attended some after school |
|              | -   I love how       |     activities. Due to my      |
|              |     informed I am!   |     schedule, I could not.     |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   It helps me to   | -   Would like to know more    |
|              |     know if my child |     about the family reading   |
|              |     needs help in    |     events and school reading  |
|              |     certain areas.   |     activities.                |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   Reading homework | -   I believe that parents     |
|              |     each night, the  |     should be allowed to       |
|              |     extra practice   |     observe/participate in     |
|              |     helps.           |     their child's education at |
|              |                      |     any time during the day    |
|              |                      |     not only after 10:30 am.   |
+--------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| **A          | **(6%) Parents       | **(4%) Parents responded in    |
| ssessments** | responded in this    | this area. Included is a       |
|              | area. Included is a  | sample of the parent           |
|              | sample of the parent | responses:**                   |
|              | responses:**         |                                |
|              |                      | -   Timed tests are often      |
|              | -   Reading scores   |     frustrating for children   |
|              |     have increased,  |     and don't always well      |
|              |     especially my    |     represent child's reading  |
|              |     child's.         |     ability and understanding  |
|              |                      |                                |
|              | -   I like the       | -   More explanation on how    |
|              |     computerized     |     children are evaluated.    |
|              |     test results     |                                |
|              |                      | -   My children get 'burned    |
|              | -   I like the       |     out' with so much emphasis |
|              |     continuous       |     on reaching 'levels' and   |
|              |     assessment of    |     'benchmarks' too much      |
|              |     student          |     stress                     |
|              |     progress.        |                                |
|              |     Teachers can     | -   I do not agree with        |
|              |     gauge their      |     testing beginning with     |
|              |     instruction by   |     kindergarteners. It is not |
|              |     progress.        |     developmentally            |
|              |                      |     appropriate for 5 and 6    |
|              | -   I like knowing   |     year olds to take          |
|              |     where he is      |     standardized written       |
|              |     (WPM) and where  |     tests.                     |
|              |     he needs to be.  |                                |
+--------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+
| *            | **(7% )Parents       | **(6%) Parents responded in    |
| *Materials** | responded in this    | this area. Included is a       |
|              | area. Included is a  | sample of the parent           |
|              | sample of the parent | responses:**                   |
|              | responses:**         |                                |
|              |                      | -   I do not like the books. I |
|              | -   I like the       |     think the words are too    |
|              |     variety of       |     hard. With not enough time |
|              |     materials used   |     to develop fluency. I also |
|              |     in the program.  |     do not like that it is     |
|              |                      |     based solely on time!!     |
|              | -   Love the take    |                                |
|              |     home books!      | -   I wish that our school had |
|              |                      |     been allowed to adopt new  |
|              | -   I like the fact  |     reading textbooks when the |
|              |     that our         |     rest of the district       |
|              |     children are     |     adopted their textbooks.   |
|              |     getting books on |                                |
|              |     topics that      | -   A wider variety of books   |
|              |     entertain them   |     would be great             |
|              |     and that they    |                                |
|              |     can keep.        | -   I wish they didn't have to |
|              |                      |     read the same story over   |
|              | -   The book choices |     and over again.            |
|              |     are varied and   |                                |
|              |     plentiful.       | -   Wish the books were more   |
|              |                      |     challenging                |
|              | -   The opportunity  |                                |
|              |     for free books   |                                |
|              |     and magazines at |                                |
|              |     grade level      |                                |
+--------------+----------------------+--------------------------------+

**Chapter 13**

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

**I. Introduction**

During the winter of 2007, the Reading First Evaluation Team interviewed
randomly selected students from each primary grade from all seventeen of
the selected case study schools. These interviews consisted of
sixty-three primary grade students. The notes were compiled and grouped
together according to the individual questions (see appendix M for
questions). Using this data, summaries were completed and themes were
noted. Included in this section are overall successes and concerns that
summarize the trends or themes of the student interviews, the individual
questions asked, the students' responses, and selected quotes and
comments given by the students during the interviews.

**II. Themes**

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

-   Students overwhelmingly agree that they like reading at school.

-   Students enjoy the stories they are reading with their teachers at
    school.

-   Students enjoy their literacy centers (76% claim they are "fun").

-   Students report they enjoy reading after school.

-   Sixty-two percent of the students interviewed stated they read at
    least a medium amount at home or as much as they can. Only five
    percent of the students stated they do not read at home after school
    at all.

-   Students see reading as important. One student stated, "Reading is
    important because it entertains me. It's exciting. I can find out
    things about the world or a person."

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

-   Parents of primary grade students are not consistently supporting
    reading at home by modeling reading or discussing books with their
    children.

-   Students have multiple options for after school activities, and many
    of these activities do not involve reading.

**III. Evidence**

**1. Please circle one:**

Twenty-six male students and thirty-six female primary grade students
were interviewed as indicated in the chart below.

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Gender of Students**              **Number of Students**

  M                                   26

  F                                   37
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**2. Please circle one grade:**

All of the primary grades were represented by students interviewed as
indicated in the chart below.

  -------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------
  **Grades**     **Male Students**          **Female Students**

  P1             6                          8

  P2             7                          8

  P3             6                          11

  P4             7                          10
  -------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------

**3. Do you like reading at school?**

All of the female students (100%) interviewed responded positively and
answered "yes" when asked if they liked reading at school. All of the
male students, with the exception of one, responded positively as well.
The other male student said he "sometimes" liked reading at school.

**4. Do you like the stories you read with your teacher at school?**

All of the female students (100%) interviewed responded positively and
answered "yes" when asked if they like the stories that they read with
their teacher at school. The majority of the boys (92%) also responded
positively, yet one male student said "no," and the other student said,
"sometimes" he likes the stories he reads at school.

**5. During your reading time at school, which group do you like to read
in best? (Read the list to the student and mark number 1 for their
favorite type of group. What is your second favorite group for reading?
What about your third favorite group for reading?)**

According to the interviews, male primary grade students preferred
reading alone first; whole group was the mode for the second choice; and
for the third choice, male students responded with small groups or with
partners. Female primary

grade students preferred reading alone as well, whole group was also the
mode for their second choice, and small group was their favorite third
reading practice.

Gender was not a factor in determining which reading group primary
students preferred since both male and female students have similar
responses.

**First Choice: Favorite Reading Practices/Male Students**

![](media/image116.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="2.4270833333333335in"}

**First Choice: Favorite Reading Practices/Female Students**

![](media/image117.wmf){width="3.4479166666666665in"
height="2.4583333333333335in"}

**Second Choice: Favorite Reading Practices/Male Students**

![](media/image118.wmf){width="3.092361111111111in"
height="2.2840277777777778in"}

**Second Choice: Favorite Reading Practices/Female Students**

![](media/image119.wmf){width="3.1131944444444444in" height="2.175in"}

**Third Choice: Favorite Reading Practices/Male Students**

![](media/image120.wmf){width="3.175in" height="2.3090277777777777in"}

**Third Choice: Favorite Reading Practices/Female Students**

![](media/image121.wmf){width="3.3027777777777776in"
height="2.4291666666666667in"}

**6. I'm going to list some genres or types of stories. Tell me which
one you like to read the most. What is your second favorite type of
story to read? What is your third favorite type of story to read?**

According to the interviews, male and female primary grade students
ranked the following genres as their favorite, second favorite, and
third favorites. The following charts represent the results from their
responses.

![](media/image122.wmf){width="3.10748031496063in"
height="2.188976377952756in"}![](media/image123.wmf){width="3.1070866141732285in"
height="2.189763779527559in"}

![](media/image124.wmf){width="3.1244094488188976in"
height="2.249212598425197in"}![](media/image125.wmf){width="2.999212598425197in"
height="2.1244094488188976in"}

![](media/image126.wmf){width="2.999212598425197in"
height="1.999212598425197in"}![](media/image127.wmf){width="2.8744094488188976in"
height="1.8751968503937009in"}

**7. Do you have some of these favorite stories in your classroom that
you can read?**

All of the female primary grade students (100%) said they have favorite
stories in their classroom that they can read. All of the males, with
the exception of one, claim they have favorite stories in their
classroom as well. One student said he did not.

**8. What is your favorite classroom literacy center?**

The graph below represents the primary boys and girls interviewed and
their responses as to the literacy center that was their "favorite"
center. Girls enjoyed computer, reading corner, and writing for their
top three favorite centers, and boys ranked computers, writing, and
"other" as their favorites.

![](media/image128.wmf){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="3.4583333333333335in"}

**9. How do you think this center helps you with reading?**

Listed below are samplings of quotes from the students about how they
feel the literacy center helps them with their reading. Many students
mentioned learning new words (vocabulary) or reading faster (fluency) as
areas of improvement due to literacy centers.

-   *The centers help me to "read faster, so I can be better at
    reading."*

-   *"By chunking out words, (I can) read words (I) don't know using
    strategies."*

-   *The centers "help me predict and build fluency."*

-   *"The computer (center) helps me with words I don't know. It shows
    me the word and says the word."*

-   *"If you don't know the words, you won't know the words and won't
    know what the story is about."*

-   *"By spelling words, because the words might help you when you see
    them in a story."*

-   *"Matching cards, definitions, pictures, in a sentence. Helps me
    learn what words mean."*

-   *"Learning about letters (by) coloring and drawing."*

-   *"Read with more expression, read harder levels."*

> *and finally...*

-   *"Don't really think it helps with reading, but it is fun."*

**10. How would you rate your literacy centers?**

The charts below represent the student responses as to how they rated
their classroom literacy centers:

![](media/image129.wmf){width="4.623611111111111in"
height="3.1083333333333334in"}

![](media/image130.wmf){width="4.623611111111111in"
height="3.1145833333333335in"}

**11. Does your teacher ever tell you about books s/he has read?**

The majority of the students responded "yes" to this question. Only
twenty-four percent reported their teachers not discussing books to
their students. One student did not know.

**12. What has your teacher taught you that will help you become a
better reader?**

Listed below are samplings of quotes from the students about what they
believe their teacher has taught them in order to help them become a
better reader.

**My Teacher has taught me how to...**

-   *"...sound out words in stories."*

-   *"...comprehend."*

-   *"...read with fluency... prosody."*

-   *"...skip words, think about the meaning of the story, look for
    little words within the word, and look at the picture"*

-   *"...read big words and little words, taught me the word wall
    words."*

-   *"...understand reading by reading it more than one time, go back to
    read it better."*

-   *"...listen. When we listen, we learn."*

-   *"...chunk words; sound out words, and summarize (the) story."*

-   *"...read fluently. It's like reading like you talk; don't read too
    fast or too slow."*

-   *"...take tests over the story."*

-   *"...sound out words and use pictures to help."*

-   *"...read with more expression, I love to read!"*

**My teacher has taught me about...**

-   *"...listening to books."*

-   *"...all sounds"*

-   *"...letter sounds."*

-   *"...rate, punctuation, and getting all of the words correct."*

Two students said their teacher taught them **"nothing"** that would
help them become a better reader.

**13. Do you like to read after school?**

A large majority of the students like to read after school. Only
fourteen percent reported they did not like to read after school, and
two boys reported they like to read "sometimes" after school.

**14. About how long do you read after school?**

The chart below represents the girls' and boys' responses to how long
they read after school. Although forty-six percent of the girls
responded "as much as I can," another thirty percent responded "just a
little bit." The boys' responses increased steadily with the rate of how
much they read at home.

![](media/image131.wmf){width="5.020833333333333in" height="3.375in"}

**15. I'm going to read to you another list. Can you tell me in this
list what your favorite after school activity is?**

The following chart represents the mode for the responses from the male
and female students as to their favorite after school activities. Girls
enjoy reading, watching television, drawing or coloring, and playing on
the computer. Boys enjoy playing on a game system, playing outside, and
watching television or drawing and coloring.

  ----------------------------- -------------------- --------------------
  Description                   **Males**            **Females**

  Play Outside                  **2nd** Choice       

  Play on the Computer                               **3rd** Choice (Tie)

  Read                                               **1st** Choice

  Watch TV                      **3rd** Choice (Tie) **2nd** Choice

  Play with Toys                                     **3rd** Choice (Tie)

  Draw or Color                 **3rd** Choice (Tie) **3rd** Choice (Tie)

  Play on a Game System         **1st** Choice       
  ----------------------------- -------------------- --------------------

**16. If you are going to read by yourself, which type of book would you
like to read the most?**

The following chart represents the responses given by the students
during the interview as to which types of books they prefer to read
alone.

![](media/image132.wmf){width="5.020833333333333in" height="3.375in"}

**17. Does your mom or dad read at home?**

Seventy-nine percent of the students responded "yes" their mothers and
fathers read at home.

**18. If yes, do you know what they like to read?**

According to the students responding "yes" to the prior question,
parents are reading magazines, newspapers, the Bible, and bestsellers of
different genres.

**19. Does your mom or dad ever tell you about books s/he has read?**

Fifty-two percent of the students said that "yes" their parents talk to
them about what they are reading. Forty-one percent said that "no" their
parents do not mention books they have read.

**20. Please complete this sentence for me.**

**A reading strategy that I use is....**

Below is a sample of completed sentences from the students:

-   "...reread the story."

-   "...sounding out."

-   "...chunking words."

-   "...get your mouth ready to make the first sound."

-   "...ask myself questions while I am reading."

-   "...go ahead of the word and try to figure out what it is saying, go
    back and try to figure out the word."

-   "...visualizing what I read."

**21. And the last question! Please complete this sentence for me.**

**Reading is important because...**

Below is a sample of completed sentences from the students:

-   "...if you can't read, you can't do anything."

-   "...readers can think."

-   "...you get to learn new things."

-   "...it helps you learn."

-   "...it helps you to be smart. The more you read, the better your
    imagination."

-   "...you can learn bout math and science cause there's books about
    them."

-   "... if you can read, you can picture yourself there. Maybe you
    couldn't do it in real life."

-   "...it will help you when you grow up and have to pay your bills. If
    you don't pay your bills you won't have electric or a house."

-   "...when you get older you might really need it for your job. It is
    fun and if I am bored, I can just pull out my book."

-   "...**it entertains me...it's exciting. I can find out things about
    the world or a person."**

**Chapter 14**

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

Purpose

The purpose of the case study evaluation process is to continue to
explore at a deeper level the goals of Reading First. These goals are to
examine Kentucky's Reading First (RF) program implementation, analyze
reading achievement gains of students, and recognize Reading First's
impact on reducing the numbers of students reading below grade level. To
meet these research goals both quantitative and qualitative data were
collected and analyzed by a statistician and evaluation team members.
Data sources included over 200 classroom observations, questionnaires,
surveys, interviews, and evaluations of institutes and professional
development.

Classroom Observations

Moderate or extensive evidence of the following were observed in 75% or
more of the classrooms: mode of delivery, student teacher interactions,
student engagement, and higher level questioning. Guided practice of
concept/skill was consistently high on fall (90%), winter (84%), and
spring (72%) observations, and vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension
showed highest percentages in P4 classrooms. Concerns based on classroom
observations include limited opportunities for students to engage in
different types of reading (whole group instruction was observed 70.4%
of time), authentic assessment rated *below* extensive 72.6% of the
time, and summaries of lessons were only observed in 26.5% of
classrooms.

Teachers and Literacy Centers

Based on questionnaire responses, the majority (88%) of teachers
approved of their core reading program and are focusing on comprehension
at all grade levels. Challenges for teachers include managing,
organizing, and planning differentiated activities for literacy centers.
During case study site visits, the majority (76%) of literacy centers
observed kept students moderately or extensively engaged, and 56% of
centers observed were organized with materials that were easily
accessible for students. Specific concerns based on literacy center
observations include a lack of time and structure to address student
questions during center time (65%), the absence of multiple tasks to do
in case of early completion of work (62%), and a lack of clear
objectives for center tasks (47%).

# Supplemental and Intervention Instruction

Supplemental teacher interviews indicate that supplemental groups change
regularly (based on student needs) and are monitored regularly
throughout the year. Professional training for supplemental instruction
is weak and there is a lack of formal planning to take higher achieving
readers beyond their supplemental work. Regarding intervention for
struggling students, the majority of intervention teachers meet with
their targeted students daily, usually in small groups (1-6 students).
Formal, planned communication is lacking between many intervention and
regular classroom teachers and program specific professional development
for intervention teachers remains a challenge.

# Principals

Principals report they are doing the following activities on a regular
basis: observing in classrooms providing feedback to teachers, and
attending professional development and Reading First Literacy Team
meetings. They note reading scores continue to improve, and
implementation and fidelity to the grant continue to be on target.
Problems principals face include time constraints,

scheduling, funding issues, frequently changing state regulations and
expectations, large amounts of paperwork (less time for explicit
planning), and the rigidity of grant guidelines that leave minimal time
for writing and content area instruction.

# School Coaches

According to school coach interviews, 70% spend at least 40 minutes/day
observing in classrooms, and 56% spend at least 40 minutes/day
conferencing with teachers. Overall, 83% indicate the Reading First
assessments are easier to manage, and 61% are incorporating new material
from their professional development during the school year. In spring,
50% indicated an increase in explicit instruction at their school, an
increase from 5% in the winter interviews. Every coach reported the use
of more than one strategy to address struggling students. Concerns for
school coaches include 73% indicate their core program *minimally*
addresses fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension; 95% indicate spending
less than 40 minutes/day in classrooms modeling lessons, and only 11%
indicate explicit planning is a component in their action plans for the
coming school year.

# District Coaches

District coaches report improvement in classroom instructional
practices, stronger leadership and support to Reading First school
coaches and teachers, and successful professional development. Concerns
for district coaches include

addressing the varying needs of students, struggles with teacher
turnover and training for new Reading First teachers, teacher morale,
and managing all the requirements of the Reading First grant.

# Parents

Parent surveys indicated 92% strongly agree they are comfortable
speaking with their child's teacher about his/her reading progress, 80%
strongly agree they are kept informed of their child's reading progress,
83% read to their children at home, and 74% of their children are
reading independently at home. Sixty-five percent strongly agree Reading
First has made a difference in their child's reading ability. However,
parent surveys indicate a low level of participation in family literacy
activities at the schools.

**Students**

Based on student interviews, students overwhelmingly agree they like
reading at school, enjoy the stories their teachers read, think literacy
centers are "fun," choose to read after school, and *see* *reading as
important*. Only 5% indicated they do not read at home at all, and
(based on student interviews) parent support of reading at home is not
consistent.

**Appendixes**

**Appendix A**

**Case Study Report Letter**

March 10, 2006

Dear Principals and School Reading Coach,

Thank you for allowing us to observe and talk with your teachers
regarding Reading First implementation for a second time. Again, the
goals of the two day visit were to gather information about your
school's implementation of Reading First, to begin recognizing successes
occurring at the twenty case study schools, and to assist with
summarizing common themes of implementation for the annual report.

By recognizing and documenting these successes, the *Collaborative
Center for* *Literacy Development* along with the *Kentucky Department
of Education* can share these successes with other Reading First and
non-Reading First schools. More importantly, these successes can provide
insight into how to improve reading instruction for all students.

Our intention in the enclosed mini-report is to provide feedback to
schools about what we did observe, highlight some strengths, and ask
some questions that we were left with after our two day visit. We hope
that these questions will be considered in your ongoing conversations
about the Reading First implementation process at your school.

The evaluation team observed for 45 minute time periods in a P1, P2, P3
and P4 classroom. Due to the limited time in the classroom, the team did
not expect to observe all areas on the observation protocol. The
feedback report is based on a summary and analysis of the observations,
and interviews with teachers, principals, and school coaches. Overall,
the feedback report focuses on the following:

-   Existence of the core reading program

-   Implementation of the Supplemental & Intervention Programs

-   Establishment of a supportive learning environment

-   Explicit and systematic teaching of the five reading components

-   Effective instructional delivery

We appreciate your efforts in ensuring that the observations were able
to take place and we look forward to continuing our involvement with
your school. This spring your site evaluator will be contacting you to
schedule the next site visit. This visit will be conducted in one day
and take place sometime in April or early May.

As stated in the fall letter, it is our intent that the feedback
provided will be useful and further assist your school with successful
implementation of Reading First. Thank you for your continued efforts in
working to improve reading achievement for all Kentucky students.

Sincerely,

Paige Carney, Ed.D.

Reading First Principal Researcher

**Appendix B**

**Glossary for Classroom Observation Protocol**

**Reading First**

**Authentic Assessment:** the process of gathering data in order to
better understand the strengths and weaknesses for students' literacy
concepts and skills (i.e. portfolios, observations, checklists,
conferences, time re-reading, anecdotal records, and running records)

**Automaticity:** fast, accurate, and effortless word identification

**Call and response method:** an instructional method that includes the
teacher asking questions and students responding verbally; also referred
to direction instruction

**Choral reading:** two or more students reading aloud from the same
text

**Comprehension:** understanding what one is reading

**Consonant Digraph:** two consonants together that represent one
phoneme, or sound (i.e. ch, sh)

**Cooperative Learning:** students working in groups on a specific task
to promote learning

**Derivative:** a word formed by adding an affix to a root or stem;
derived form; as adding pre before fix to make prefix.

**Direct instruction:** instruction delivered primarily through lecture

**Echo reading:** reading a text where the teacher reads a line aloud
and the students repeat the line aloud

**Etymology:** the origin of a word and the historical development of
its meaning

**Explicit instruction:** Teacher-led, interactive instruction in which
the teacher directly presents materials and relationships that need to
be learned; teacher models expectations, then supports the students by
providing immediate corrective feedback as the students demonstrate
their learning

**Fix-up strategies:** strategies to enhance comprehension such as
restating sentences in own words, looking back through the text for
information, etc.

**Fluency:** the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with
proper expression

**Grammar:** instruction in isolation focusing on specific skills
related to grammar (i.e. conventions and forms, sentence structure,
prefixes, suffixes, etc.)

**Graphic organizers:** a diagram or pictorial device that illustrates,
summarizes, and portrays the relationships among concepts in text

**Guided reading:** teacher works with a group of students similar in
strengths and needs and provides instructing through mini-lessons

**Handwriting:** physical practice of handwriting (i.e. copying letters,
sentences, numbers, etc.)

**Higher instructional feedback:** encouraging students to engage in
inferential, critical, and creative thinking rather than engage in
literal thinking

**Higher level thinking:** questions requiring students to expand their
thinking (i.e. comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation questions)

**Incidental Word Learning:** word learning occurring through oral
language and wide reading experiences

**Independent reading:** when students read silently

**Indirect instruction:** instruction primarily delivered through group
work with teacher serving as a facilitator

**Letter-sound correspondence:** making the connection between the
written letter and its sound

**Literacy centers:** centers that promote reading concepts and/or
skills that contain specific objectives and task cards (i.e. listening,
ABC, book/library, poetry, drama, and computer centers)

**Manipulatives:** activities that can be manipulated to deepen
understanding of concept through hands-on interactions

**Meta-cognitive skills:** strategies that encourage students to "think
about thinking" or monitor their own thoughts such as clarify purpose or
reading, preview text, etc.

**Modeled reading:** teach read alouds selections to students

**Monitoring:** actively thinking about learning or understanding the
material, activities, or reading in which they are engaged

**Morpheme:** the smallest meaningful unit of language

**Onset:** the initial consonant or consonants in a word (i.e. in the
word *sat*, *s* is the onset, *at* is the rime)

**Partner/paired reading:** two students and/or teacher/student reading
texts to further comprehension and fluency

**Phonemic Awareness:** the ability to notice, think about, or
manipulate the individual phonemes (sounds) in words

**Phoneme addition:** making a new word by adding a phoneme to an
existing word (i.e. add *s* to *park*; *spark*)

**Phoneme blending:** listening to a sequence of separately spoken
phonemes, then combining the phonemes to form a word (i.e. /b/ /i/ /g/
is *big*)

**Phoneme categorization:** recognizing the word in a set of three or
four words that has the "odd" sound (i.e. in *bus, bun, rug; rug* has
the odd sound)

**Phoneme deletion:** recognizing the word that remains when a phoneme
is removed from another word (i.e. *smile* without s is *mile*)

**Phoneme identity:** recognizing the same sounds in different words

(i.e. fix, fall, and fun)

**Phoneme isolation:** recognizing individual sounds in a word

**Phoneme segmentation:** separating a word into its individual sounds,
saying each sound as they tap out or count it (i.e. *grab* is /g/ /r/
/a/ /b/)

**Phoneme substitution:** substituting one phoneme for another to form a
new word (i.e. *bug*, change /g/ to /n/; *bun*)

**Phonics:** the study of the relationships between letters and the
sounds they represent; sound-symbol correspondences

**Prosody:** reading with expression, proper intonation, and phrasing

**Reader's theater:** when the teacher or students adapt short script
from shared reading selections and the students act-out a dramatic
presentation of the script

**Reading conferences:** the teacher talks with a student individually
about his or her strengths and weaknesses in reading

**Repeated reading:** reading the same text 2-4 times to achieve fluency

**Rime:** the vowel and any consonants that follow it in a word (i.e. in
the word *flip, fl* is the onset, *ip* is the rime)

**Scaffolding:** instructional assistance and support given to students
from teachers, assistants, or peers to assist in promoting learning

**Semantic organizers**: a graphic organizer that is organized around a
word that represents an important concept; forms a network of related
words

**Shared reading:** teacher reads a book to the children several times;
initially the teacher reads most of the book; as students become more
familiar with the book, they join in and share the reading with the
teacher

**Story structure:** plot and important elements of story; the
beginning, middle, and end of a story; listing the main events of a
story

**Student centered:** interactions and activities within the classroom
that focus on students' interest and/or involvement

**Student discussion:** discussion between students about reading
activities

**Student friendly definitions:** word meanings related to or created by
students in terms based on their experience

**Syllable blending:** blending syllable sounds of a word together to
pronounce the entire word

**Syllable segmentation:** separating syllables of a word while clapping
or tapping

**Systematic Instruction:** a carefully planned sequence for instruction
designed prior to planning lessons and activities; lessons build on
previously taught information, from simple to complex

**Tape-assisted reading:** reading aloud, simultaneously or as an echo
with an audio-taped model

**Teacher interactions:** interactions that focus primarily on teacher
direction

**Teacher/student read aloud:** the student or teacher reads a text
aloud

**Technology:** consists of computers, VCR's, DVD's, tape recorders,
overhead projectors, and listening centers

**Think-pair-share**: students reflect individually on topic presented,
discuss their ideas with a partner, then share ideas with a large group

**Transitions:** the flow from one activity to the next with ease

**Word wall:** a list of words posted in the classroom that lists
frequently used words to assist students in reviewing words they may use
while reading or writing

**Visual imagery**: creating an image in the mind while listening to a
story's details and descriptive words

**Vocabulary:** all the words of our language and their meanings

**Vowel Digraph:** two vowel together that represent one phoneme, or
sound

(i.e. ea, ai, oa)

**Word building:** working with letters individually or in a group to
make words

**Word consciousness:** an awareness of and interest in words, their
meanings, and their power

**Word families:** words having different onsets, but the same rime
(i.e. sat, cat, hat, and pat)

**Word studies:** exploring word meanings and make associations among
words

(i.e. etymological, derivational)

**References**

Armbruster, B. Osborn, J. (2001) [Put Reading First]{.underline}. Center
for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. National Institute for
Literacy. Office of Education Research and Improvement. Administered by
U.S. Department of Education. Washington D.C.

Lehr, F. Osborn, J. Hieber, E. (2004) [Focus on Vocabulary]{.underline}.
Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Honolulu, Hawaii

Kentucky Reading First State Coaches Observation Checklist, 2005

Kentucky Reading First Summer Institute Glossary of Terms, 2004

Read to Achieve Observation Protocol, 2005

Tompkins, G. (2005) [Language Arts Patterns of Practice]{.underline}.
Pearson & Prentice Hall: NJ

Questioning techniques*,
<http://pigseye.kennesay.edu/~rouyang/ece4473/q-techni.html>*

![](media/image133.png){width="0.875in"
height="0.5861111111111111in"}![](media/image3.png){width="0.8847222222222222in"
height="0.5729166666666666in"}

**Appendix C**

**Kentucky Reading First**

**Case Study Report- Winter 2007**

**School: Date:**

**Observers:**

**Grades Observed: P1 P2 P3 P4**

**Core Program: *Success for All ***

> \_\_ Observed

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

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

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

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

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

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

> being above average in evidence

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

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

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

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

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

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

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

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

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

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

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

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

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

\_\_\_ Not Observed

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

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

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

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

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

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

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

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

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

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

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

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

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

\_\_\_ Minimal Evidence

\_\_\_ Moderate Evidence

\_\_\_ Extensive Evidence

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

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

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

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

**Appendix D**

![](media/image133.png){width="0.875in" height="0.5868055555555556in"}

![](media/image134.wmf)

**District Coach Interview Questions- Fall 2006**

1\. How is the district leadership involved in the coordination of RF
activities for the entire district? (Explain)

2\. Regarding the district, what changes have occurred from RF year one
implementation to now?

3\. What specific activities/communication has the district implemented
with non-funded schools as well as private schools regarding RF?

4\. What are your top three responsibilities regarding RF for your
district?

5\. What are three areas that are causing you the most concern regarding
RF implementation across the district?

6\. What are three of the most successful initiatives being conducted in
the district regarding RF?

7\. How would you describe this school's implementation of Reading
First?

8\. What involvement has the district had that directly impacts this
school's RF implementation process?

9\. How do you provide feedback to this school?

10\. How often do you observe and monitor what is happening in this
school?

11\. What are three areas that are causing you the most concern
regarding RF implementation for this school?

12\. What are three areas that this school is most successful in
implementing regarding RF at this school?

![](media/image135.wmf)

**Appendix E**

![](media/image133.png){width="1.0in"
height="0.6701388888888888in"}**Principal Interviews**

**Fall 2006**

1\. How much time do you spend observing in the reading first classrooms
per week?

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

2\. How much time do you spend conferencing with teachers about their
reading instruction per week?

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

3\. How do teachers receive feedback from your observations?

\_\_\_\_\_ they do not receive any

\_\_\_\_\_ by email

\_\_\_\_\_ by informal conversations

\_\_\_\_\_ by formal conversations

\_\_\_\_\_ by a written form

\_\_\_\_\_ other

4\. Do you regularly attend the professional development scheduled for
teachers for Reading First?

5\. What areas of reading continue to need the most attention at your
school?

(List the top three)

a\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

c\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

6\. If you could change any aspect of Reading First, what would it be?

7\. What plans does your school have in place to sustain any positive
changes that have occurred as a result of Reading First?

8\. Are you involved with the Reading First literacy team?

9\. Given the selected eight characteristic from the Marzano study of
effective leadership, choose three that are the most important for
implementing Reading First at your school:

\_\_\_\_\_ Communication

\_\_\_\_\_ Affirmation

\_\_\_\_\_ Culture

\_\_\_\_\_ Beliefs, ideas

\_\_\_\_\_ Curriculum, instruction, assessment

\_\_\_\_\_ Visibility

\_\_\_\_\_ Evaluate, monitor

\_\_\_\_\_ Optimize

10\. What threatens the success of Reading First in your school?
(Explain)

**[Complete these sentences:]{.underline}**

11\. I see Reading First as a program that...

12\. Children in the Reading First program will...

13\. Reading First has not addressed...

14\. Due to Reading First teachers...

15\. Reading First has changed...

![](media/image133.png){width="1.0in" height="0.6701388888888888in"}
![](media/image136.wmf)

**Appendix F**

**School Coach Interview**

**Fall 2006**

**[Interview survey:]{.underline}**

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

(1 being the most important...)

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

\_\_\_\_\_ testing

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

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

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

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

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

2\. Do you have an assistant?

3\. Do you have a Reading First literacy team in place?

4\. If yes, who sets the agenda for the Reading First literacy team?
(Check one)

The school coach: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The principal: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5\. If yes, what does the Reading First Literacy team do?

6\. How would you rate your support from KDE? (Circle one)

Minimal Moderate Extensive

7\. How would you rate your support from your district? (Circle one)

Minimal Moderate Extensive

8\. How would you rate your support from your principal? (Circle one)

Minimal Moderate Extensive

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

modeling reading lessons? (Circle one)

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

10\. On an average day, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms
observing? (Circle one)

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

11\. On an average day, how much of your time is spent conferencing with
individual teachers? (Circle one)

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

12\. How often are you progress monitoring students/*month*? (Circle one
for each)

Intensive 1 2 3 4

Strategic 1 2 3 4

Benchmark 1 2 3 4

13\. How many classroom teachers participate in Reading First?

(Total number of primary school teachers, special education teachers,
etc.)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

14\. How many Reading First teachers are implementing "best practices"
at your school during reading instruction?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ out of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

15\. What areas of reading continue to need the most attention at your
school?

­(List top three)

a\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

b\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

c\. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**[Interview discussion questions:]{.underline}**

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

17\. Has your school identified specific goals for this year's reading
instruction?

18\. What on-going professional development is planned for this school?

19\. How are you collaborating with other non Reading First schools and
non Reading First districts for professional development?

20\. How many school-wide family literacy events do you have planned for
this school year? (Describe)

21\. What plans does your school have in place to sustain the positive
changes that have occurred as a result of Reading First?

**[Please complete these sentences]{.underline}:**

22\. I see Reading First as a program that...

23\. Children in the Reading First program will...

24\. Reading First has not addressed...

25\. Due to Reading First teachers...

26\. Our school has been successful...

![](media/image133.png){width="1.19375in" height="0.7993055555555556in"}
![](media/image137.wmf)

**Appendix G**

**Kentucky Reading First**

**School Coach Interview**

**Winter 2007**

1.  **Currently, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms
    modeling reading lessons? (Circle one)**

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

2.  **Currently, how much of your time is spent in the classrooms
    observing?**

**(Circle one)**

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

3.  **Currently, how much of your time is spent conferencing with
    individual**

**teachers? (Circle one)**

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

4.  **Considering the school's on-going professional development, how
    would you describe the level of accomplishment to meet your school's
    need?**

> Currently planning Planned, but not implemented Already implemented

5.  **Describe one successful professional development your school has
    participated in this school year.**

6.  **Which of the five components does your core program address**

> **extensively?**

7.  **Which of the five components does your core program address
    minimally?**

8.  **After analyzing student assessment data, which component have your
    teachers identified for needing the most attention?**

9.  **How many times has your school analyzed current student data this
    school year?**

> School-wide, as a faculty \_\_\_\_
>
> Grade level meetings \_\_\_\_
>
> Individual teachers \_\_\_\_

10. **To this date, how many family literacy events have you held?
    \_\_\_\_\_\_**

11. **How would you rate the overall success of these events? (Circle
    one)**

> Minimal Moderate Extensive

12. **Please describe the progress you have made towards the specific
    goals you set for this school year?**

> **Fall Goals**:
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

13. **How would you rate the support you receive from your state
    coach?**

> Minimal Moderate Extensive

14. **Describe one specific support from the state coach you have
    received**

> **this school year.**
>
> **[Please complete these sentences:]{.underline}**

15. KDE has\...\...\.....

16. The district coach\...\...\...\.....

17\. The principal\...\...\...\...\...

![](media/image133.png){width="0.94375in"
height="0.6319444444444444in"}![](media/image138.wmf)

**Appendix H**

**Reading First School Coach Interview**

**Spring 2007**

**(Created by Paige Carney Ed.D., Pam Seales, and Lauren Jones)**

1.  What has been your biggest success this year regarding RF

> implementation?

2.  What do you consider your biggest concern?

3.  Have you applied new information from conferences or seminars
    attended this school year? Yes or No

> (If yes, explain)

4.  Describe specific improvements you have observed in teachers'
    instruction over the course of this year.

5.  Are there specific instructional improvements to be made by your
    teachers? (Explain)

6.  Do you and the teachers find assessments easier to manage? Yes or No

> (Explain)

7.  What school based structures are in place to sustain Reading First
    objectives after the grant expires (i.e. grade level meetings, data
    analysis)?

8.  What have you done to address students who still are struggling with
    making progress?

9.  What will be your action plan for next year's implementation?

**Complete these sentences**.

10\. Our comprehension instruction
is\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...

11. Over the last three years, our students have grown
    in\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....

12\. Over the last three years, our teachers have grown
in\...\...\...\...\...\....

![](media/image133.png){width="1.25in"
height="0.8375in"}![](media/image3.png){width="1.125in"
height="0.7319444444444444in"} **Appendix I**

**Kentucky Reading First**

**Teacher Questionnaire**

**Winter 2007**

1\. Please circle one: M or F

2\. Please circle which grade you are currently teaching: K 1^st^ 2^nd^
3^rd^

3\. How many years of teaching experience? (Circle one)

0-3 4-6 7-9 10-13 14-16 17+

**AT SCHOOL**

4\. Overall, do you like your core reading program? (Circle one) Y or N

5\. Check which describes the overall comprehensiveness of your core
reading program. (i.e. five essential reading components are explicitly
and systematically covered, and lessons are organized well.)

\_\_\_\_ Minimally comprehensive

\_\_\_\_ Moderately comprehensive

\_\_\_\_ Extensively comprehensive

6\. Do you like the stories in your core reading program? (I.e. are they
interesting? Are they engaging? Are they culturally responsive?)(Circle
one) Y or N

7\. Does your core program connect to other content areas? (Check one)

\_\_\_\_\_ Never

\_\_\_\_\_ Sometimes

\_\_\_\_\_ Always

8\. During reading instruction, which [group]{.underline} do you utilize
most often? Please rank the top three groups, with one being the group
you utilize most often, two being the group you utilize often and three
being the group you utilize the least.

\_\_\_ Whole group (the whole classroom together)

\_\_\_ Small group (the teacher works with just a few students)

\_\_\_ Individual (the teacher works with an individual student)

\_\_\_ Partners/paired (students work together)

\_\_\_ Dramatic (students act out or read a play or story dramatically)

\_\_\_ Alone (students read alone)

9\. Please **rank the top three genres** found in your core program.
Please list which genre your core program uses most often for stories: 1
is the highest and 3 the lowest.

\_\_\_ Animal stories

\_\_\_ Autobiographies and

> Biographies

\_\_\_ Funny stories

\_\_\_ Nonfiction

\_\_\_ Poems

\_\_\_ Historical fiction

\_\_\_ Fantasy or fairytales

\_\_\_ Adventure stories

\_\_\_ Mystery stories

\_\_\_ Scary stories

\_\_\_ Science fiction

\_\_\_ Sport stories

\_\_\_ Stories in a series

\_\_\_ Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

10\. Do you think literacy centers are beneficial to students? (Circle
one) Y or N

11\. How many days a week do your students work in literacy centers?

12\. When planning your classroom literacy centers, how would you rank
the importance of the following items to be reinforced during center
time?

(Rank 1 for the highest and 7 for the lowest)

\_\_\_ Phonemic awareness

\_\_\_ Phonics

\_\_\_ Vocabulary

\_\_\_ Fluency

\_\_\_ Comprehension

\_\_\_ Writing

\_\_\_ Lesson concepts (i.e. reinforcing core program lesson
*objectives*)

13\. How often do you change the literacy centers in your classroom?
(Circle one)

once a month twice a month twice a week once a week

14\. How much time do you spend developing literacy center material each
week? (Circle one)

0-2 hours 3-4 hours 5-6 hours 7-8 hours 8+ hours

15\. How would you rate the quality of your literacy centers? (Circle
one)

Minimal Moderate Extensive

16\. What type of literacy centers do you utilize most frequently?
(Check one)

\_\_\_\_\_ teacher created

\_\_\_\_\_ commercially produced

\_\_\_\_\_ both (teacher and commercially produced) equally utilized

17\. What area of improvement would you identify for your literacy
centers?

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

19\. Do you tell your students about books you have read regularly?

(Circle one) Y or N

20\. What do you feel is one of the most important skills/strategies you
have taught your students in order to make them better readers?

21\. What do you feel is one of the most difficult skills/strategies to
teach your students at this age to become better readers?

**AT HOME**

22\. Do you require students to read at home? (Circle one) Y or N

23\. Do you have time to read at home during the week? (Circle one) Y or
N

25\. Please rank the following list with the activity you would most
likely do after school. **Please list only the top three activities you
participate in after school.**

\_\_\_ Gardening outside

\_\_\_ Mom/Dad's taxi service

\_\_\_ Hiking/biking

\_\_\_ Sports

\_\_\_ Computer

\_\_\_ Work/grading/

lesson plans

\_\_\_ Reading

\_\_\_ Watching Television

\_\_\_ Playing an instrument

\_\_\_ Cooking

\_\_\_ Sewing/doing crafts

\_\_\_ Shopping

\_\_\_ Spending time with

friends

\_\_\_ Talking on the telephone

\_\_\_ Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

26\. If you have a chance to read, which [type of book]{.underline}
would you most likely read? (Check one)

\_\_\_ bestseller

\_\_\_ book club

\_\_\_ series

\_\_\_ informational

\_\_\_ professional

\_\_\_ journals/articles

\_\_\_ magazine

\_\_\_ comic book

\_\_\_ newspaper

\_\_\_ other:

27\. Please complete the following sentence:

My school coach....

28\. Please complete the following sentence:

Reading First is...

![](media/image133.png){width="1.0in"
height="0.6694444444444444in"}![](media/image3.png){width="0.9986111111111111in"
height="0.6534722222222222in"}

**Appendix J**

**Kentucky Reading First**

**Supplemental / Intervention Interview Questions**

**Winter 2007**

1.  Name of intervention program/s:
    \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2\. Grade/s taught (Circle one) P1 P2 P3 P4

3\. Qualifications: Classified or Certified

4\. Location: self-contained classroom cafeteria

hallway library other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

5\. How many students are in your intervention groups?

0-3 4-6 7-9 10+

6\. How many times do your intervention groups meet per week?

1 2 3 4 5

7\. How long is intervention instruction?

0-15 minutes 16-30 minutes 30+ minutes

8\. What content area are students pulled from for intervention
instruction?

9\. How often do your groups change? (Check one)

\_\_\_\_\_ weekly

\_\_\_\_\_ twice a month

\_\_\_\_\_ once a month

\_\_\_\_\_ twice a year

\_\_\_\_\_ once a year

> \_\_\_\_\_ other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

10\. Describe the process used to place students in intervention groups.

(Tier II or strategic groups)

11\. How do you design instruction for individual children?

12\. How often is progress monitoring conducted with your intervention
students? (Check one)

> \_\_\_\_\_weekly

\_\_\_\_\_ twice a month

\_\_\_\_\_ once a month

\_\_\_\_\_ twice a year

\_\_\_\_\_once a year

> \_\_\_\_\_ other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

13\. What type of professional development have you attended for the

intervention program?

14\. How do you communicate with the classroom teachers?

15\. Additional comments:

**Appendix K**

Reading First Literacy Center Observation

Case Study Schools Fall 2006

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

  **Evaluator's Name:**

  **Grade/Level:**

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

### 

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

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

**Additional Notes:**

**Appendix L**

**Reading First Parent Survey**

**Directions:** Read the following statements and rate each statement
from 1 to 5, with 5 being strongly agree and 1 being strongly disagree.
Your responses will be kept confidential and anonymous.

1.  Grade level of
    child:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2.  Years your child has attended this
    school:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
|                                              | S |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | t |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | r |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | o |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | n |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | g |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | l |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | y |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | S |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | t |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | r |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | o |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | n |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | g |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | l |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | y |   |   |   |   |
|                                              |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | A |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | g |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | r |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | e |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | e |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | D |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | i |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | s |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | a |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | g |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | r |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | e |   |   |   |   |
|                                              | e |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1\. I feel Reading First has been beneficial | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| to my child and has raised his/her reading   |   |   |   |   |   |
| scores.                                      |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 2\. I feel the school has offered assistance | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| to me in helping my child with reading at    |   |   |   |   |   |
| home.                                        |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 3\. Family reading events are offered at     | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| times convenient for me.                     |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 4\. I attend family reading activities at    | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| this school.                                 |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 5\. I've observed an increase in my child's  | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| interest in reading.                         |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 6\. I feel comfortable speaking with the     | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| teachers about my child's reading progress.  |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 7\. I'm kept informed about my child's       | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| reading progress.                            |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 8\. I feel the teachers, principals, and     | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| school staff work together to make all       |   |   |   |   |   |
| children successful readers.                 |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 9\. My child talks to me about reading       | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| activities that they are participating in at |   |   |   |   |   |
| school.                                      |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 10\. I read with my child.                   | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 11\. My child reads independently at home.   | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 12\. The teacher requires my child to record | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| minutes or pages read daily at home.         |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 13\. My child seems excited about reading.   | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 14\. The school provides me with information | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| about Reading First.                         |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 15\. I'm kept informed about reading through | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| various ways (i.e. newsletters,              |   |   |   |   |   |
| conferences).                                |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 16\. I understand what the different         | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| assessments are used for in the classroom    |   |   |   |   |   |
| (i.e. GRADE and DIBELS).                     |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 17\. The teachers share my child's reading   | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| assessment results with me.                  |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| 18\. Overall, I feel that Reading First has  | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| made a difference in my child's reading      |   |   |   |   |   |
| ability.                                     |   |   |   |   |   |
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+

-   Please share one thing you like about Reading First or reading in
    your child's school.

-   Please share one thing you wish were different in your child's
    school in regard to reading.

*Thank you for completing this survey.*

![](media/image133.png){width="1.125in"
height="0.7534722222222222in"}![](media/image3.png){width="1.0104166666666667in"
height="0.6534722222222222in"}

**Appendix M**

**Kentucky Reading First**

**Student Interview - Winter 2007**

Created by: Paige Carney, Lauren Jones, Pam Seales

1\. Please circle one: M or F

2\. Please circle one grade: P1 P2 P3 P4

**AT SCHOOL**

3\. Do you like reading at school? Y or N

4\. Do you like the stories you read with your teacher at school? Y or N

5\. During your reading time at school, which [group]{.underline} do you
like to read in best? (Read the list to the student and mark number 1
for their favorite type of group.)

\_\_\_ Whole group (the whole classroom together)

\_\_\_ Small group (the teacher works with just a few students)

\_\_\_ Individual (the teacher works just with you)

\_\_\_ Partners/paired (you work with another student)

\_\_\_ Dramatic (you get to read a play or act out a play)

\_\_\_ Alone (you like to read just by yourself)

-   What is your second favorite group for reading? (Read the list again
    and mark a number 2 for their second favorite.)

-   What about your third favorite group for reading? (Read the list
    again and mark number 3 for their third favorite.)

6\. Now I'm going to list some [genres, or types of
stories.]{.underline} Tell me which one you like to read the most. (Read
the list to the student and mark number 1 for their first favorite
genre.)

\_\_\_ Animal stories

\_\_\_ True stories about people

\_\_\_ Funny stories

\_\_\_ Nonfiction (true events or true facts)

\_\_\_ Poems

\_\_\_ Historical fiction (stories from history)

\_\_\_ Fantasy or fairytales

\_\_\_ Adventure stories

\_\_\_ Mystery stories

\_\_\_ Scary stories

\_\_\_ Sports stories

\_\_\_ Science fiction

\_\_\_ Stories in a series

\_\_\_ Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

-   What is your second favorite type of story to read? (Read the list
    again and mark a number 2 for their second favorite.)

-   What is your third favorite type of story to read? (Read the list
    again and mark a number 3 for their third favorite.)

7\. Do you have some of these favorite stories in your classroom that
you can read?

Y or N

8\. What is your favorite classroom literacy center? (Please check
appropriate response or write "other.")

\_\_\_ Computer

\_\_\_ Reading Corner

\_\_\_ Comprehension

\_\_\_ Phonics

\_\_\_ Fluency

\_\_\_ Phonemic Awareness

\_\_\_ Writing

\_\_\_ Listening center

\_\_\_ Vocabulary

\_\_\_ Working with words

\_\_\_ Other: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9\. How do you think this center help you with reading?

10\. How would you rate your literacy centers? (Please circle one
description for both a and b.)

a\. easy just right too hard

b\. fun okay boring

11\. Does your teacher ever tell you about books s/he has read? Y or N

12\. What has your teacher taught you that will help you become a better
reader?

**AT HOME**

13\. Do you like to read after school? (Circle one) Y or N

14\. About how long do you read after school? (Check one)

\_\_\_not at all

\_\_\_just a little bit

\_\_\_a medium amount

\_\_\_as much as I can

\_\_\_too much

15\. I'm going to read to you another list. Can you tell me in this list
what your favorite after school activity is? (Read the list and mark a 1
for their favorite.)

\_\_\_ Play outside

\_\_\_ Play on the computer

\_\_\_ Read

\_\_\_ Watch TV

\_\_\_ Play with my toys

\_\_\_ Draw or color

\_\_\_ Write stories

\_\_\_ Play an instrument

\_\_\_ Play on a game system (i.e. gameboy, Xbox, gamecube, playstation)

-   What after school activity do you like to do the second best? (Read
    the list again and mark a number 2 for their second favorite.)

-   And then what is the third activity you like to do? (Read the list
    again and mark a number 3 for their third favorite.)

16\. If you are going to read by yourself, which [type of
book]{.underline} would you like to read the most? (Check one)

\_\_\_ a picture book

\_\_\_ a chapter book

\_\_\_ an informational book

\_\_\_ a magazine

\_\_\_ a comic book

\_\_\_ I don't like to read by myself

17\. Does your mom or dad read at home? Y or N

18\. If yes, do you know what they like to read? (Have the student
explain if they can, for example, the newspaper, a magazine, books,
etc...)

19\. Does your mom or dad ever tell you about books s/he has read?
(Circle one)

Y or N

20\. Please complete this sentence for me:

A reading strategy that I use is...

21\. And the last question!!!....Please complete this sentence for me:

Reading is important because...