SM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Reading First Implementation

Evaluation: Interim Report

Reading First Implementation Evaluation: 

Interim Report 

Prepared by 

Marc Moss 

Robin Jacob 

Beth Boulay 

Megan Horst 

Jennifer Poulos 

With assistance from 

Robert St. Pierre 

Beth Gamse 

Alan Werner 

Quentin Dixon 

Abt Associates Inc. 

Cambridge, MA 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2006 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-01-CO-0093/0005. 

The project monitor was Beth A. Franklin in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The views expressed 

herein are those of the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or 

should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Tom Luce 

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

July 2006 

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with permission 

and copyright, 2006, Getty Images. Authorization to produce it in whole or in part is granted. Although 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Reading First 

Implementation Evaluation: Interim Report, Washington, D.C., 2006. 

To order copies of this report, write: 

ED Pubs 

Education Publications Center 

U. S. Department of Education 

P. O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244; 

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your 

area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN); those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-800-437-0833. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.edpubs.org. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-

9895 or (202) 205-8113. 
Contents iii 

Contents 

List of Exhibits ....................................................................................................................... vii 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

A. Key Provisions of the Reading First Program............................................................ 1 

B. Overview of the Evaluation ........................................................................................ 1 

C. Results of the Reading First Implementation Evaluation ........................................... 3 

External Resources to Support Reading Programs ................................................. 3 

Reading Instruction in K–3 Classrooms ................................................................. 4 

Interventions for Struggling Readers...................................................................... 7 

Assessment.............................................................................................................. 9 

Oversight and Classroom Support Activities........................................................ 11 

Professional Development .................................................................................... 13 

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 14 

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 17

Background..................................................................................................................... 17 

Scientifically Based Reading Research ................................................................ 17 

The Reading First Legislation............................................................................... 18 

The Study Design ........................................................................................................... 19 

Surveys.................................................................................................................. 21 

Reading First State Coordinator Interviews.......................................................... 22 

Limitations ............................................................................................................ 22 

The Presentation of Findings.......................................................................................... 23 

Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample .................................................................... 25

Characteristics of Reading First and Title I Schools...................................................... 25 

School Characteristics........................................................................................... 25 

School Staff........................................................................................................... 26 

Student Population................................................................................................ 28 

External Resources to Support Schools’ Reading Programs ................................ 29 

Nonfinancial Assistance with K–3 Reading Programs......................................... 30 

NCLB Accountability............................................................................................ 31 

Summary......................................................................................................................... 32 

Chapter 3: Reading Instruction............................................................................................ 35

Instructional Time .......................................................................................................... 35 

Amount of Time Spent on Reading Instruction.................................................... 35 

Perceived Change in Amount of Time Spent on Reading Instruction.................. 36 

Instructional Materials.................................................................................................... 37 

Responsibility for Selection of Materials ............................................................. 39 

Core Reading Programs ........................................................................................ 42 

Use of Supplemental Materials............................................................................. 45 
iv Contents 

Contents (cont'd) 

Instructional Activities and Strategies.............................................................................45 

Characteristics of Instruction at the School Level.................................................46 

Collaboration on Reading Instruction....................................................................46 

Instructional Activities...........................................................................................47 

Summary .........................................................................................................................49 

Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers...............................................................51

Identification for and Availability of Interventions for Struggling Readers...................51 

Availability of Services .........................................................................................52 

Methods to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers.........................................................52 

Time Set Aside for Coordination of Interventions Among Teachers and Other Staff....57 

Summary .........................................................................................................................59 

Chapter 5: Assessment ...........................................................................................................61

Selection and Interpretation of Reading Assessments ....................................................61 

Selection of Reading Assessments ........................................................................62 

Interpretation of Assessment Results.....................................................................63 

Types of Reading Assessments Teachers Find Useful....................................................64 

Types of Assessments............................................................................................64 

Specific Assessments.............................................................................................66 

Classroom Application of Reading Assessment Results.......................................68 

Summary .........................................................................................................................70 

Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities ...................................................71

Reading Coaches .............................................................................................................71 

Responsibilities of Reading Coaches.....................................................................72 

Coaching Activities Undertaken by Reading Coaches..........................................77 

Responsibility for Oversight of Reading Activities ........................................................81 

Role of the School Principal in the Evaluation of K–3 Reading Instruction ..................83 

Summary .........................................................................................................................84 

Chapter 7: Professional Development..................................................................................87

The Structure of Professional Development Activities Attended by Teachers...............88 

The Specific Design Features of Professional Development ..........................................89 

Professional Development Related to the Five Dimensions of Reading ........................92 

Teachers’ Participation in Professional Development on the Five Dimensions 

of Reading..............................................................................................................92 

Teacher Ratings of Their Preparedness to Teach the Five Dimensions 

of Reading..............................................................................................................94 

Principals’ and Reading Coaches’ Participation in Professional Development 

on the Five Dimensions of Reading.......................................................................95 

Professional Development Related to General Teaching Strategies...............................95 
Contents v 

Contents (cont'd) 

Teachers’ Participation in Professional Development on General Teaching 

Strategies............................................................................................................... 95 

Principals’ Participation in Professional Development on General Teaching 

Strategies............................................................................................................. 100 

Reading Coaches’ Participation in Professional Development on General 

Teaching Strategies............................................................................................. 102 

Direct Classroom Support to Teachers for Improving Reading Instruction................. 103 

Summary....................................................................................................................... 106 

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................. 109

Reading Instruction in Reading First Schools and Non-RF Title I Schools................. 109 

Limitations.................................................................................................................... 111 

Future Activities ........................................................................................................... 111

References ........................................................................................................................... 1133

Appendix A: The Study Samples and the Sampling Weights.......................................... A-1 

Appendix B: Survey Instruments ....................................................................................... B-1 

Grade 1 Teacher Survey............................................................................................. B-3 

Principal Survey....................................................................................................... B-21 

Reading Coach Survey............................................................................................. B-37 

Appendix C: Back-up Exhibits ........................................................................................... C-1 

Appendix D: The Construct Matrix ................................................................................... D-1 

 
vi 
Exhibits vii 

Exhibits 

E-1: Nonfinancial External Assistance for K–3 Reading Program Activities in 

Reading First Schools and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ............................... 4 

E-2: Scheduled Reading Blocks in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 

School Year................................................................................................................... 5

E-3: Changes to Reading Program Materials for Newly Funded Reading First 

Schools and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year...................................................... 6 

E-4: Types of Assessments Reported by Principals That Were Used to Identify 

Students for Reading Interventions, in RF and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year.................................................................................................... 8 

E-5: Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Various Support Activities in 

Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year........................................... 12 

E-6: The Five Dimensions of Reading Instruction: Reading First and Title I 

Teacher Participation in and Self-ratings of Preparedness, 2004–05 School Year..... 14 

1.1: Data Collection Methods, Samples, and Schedule...................................................... 21 

2.1: School Enrollment and Urbanicity in Reading First and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year.................................................................................................. 25 

2.2: Mobility Rates, Attendance Rates and Changes in Enrollment in Reading 

First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ......................................................... 26 

2.3: Years of Experience for Staff in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 

School Year................................................................................................................. 27 

2.4: Teachers’ Self-Ratings on Their Preservice Training to Teach Five 

Dimensions of Reading: Teachers in Reading First and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year.................................................................................................. 28 

2.5: Student Characteristics in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year. 29 

2.6: Distribution of Reading First Funds to Schools by Average Enrollment, for 

Reading First Schools, 2004–05 School Year ............................................................ 30 

2.7: Nonfinancial External Assistance for K–3 Reading Program Activities in 

Reading First and Non-RF Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year............................. 31 

2.8: Status of Reading First Schools Designated as in Need of Improvement, 

2004–05 School Year.................................................................................................. 32 

3.1: Percentage of Mature Reading First Schools and Title I Schools with a Daily 

Scheduled Reading Block, Length of the Reading Block, and Total Length of 

Reading Instruction, 2004–05 School Year ................................................................ 36 
viii Exhibits 

Exhibits (cont’d) 

3.2: Percentage of Teachers in Mature and New Reading First Schools and Title I 

Schools Who Changed the Amount of Time Spent Teaching Reading from 

Previous Year, 2004–05 School Year..........................................................................37 

3.3: Changes to Reading Program Materials for New Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year....................................................................................39 

3.4: Responsibility for Selection of Reading Materials in RF Schools, 2004–05 

School Year..................................................................................................................40

3.5: Responsibility for Selection of Reading Materials in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ..................................................................41 

3.6.a: Core Reading Programs Used by Reading First Schools, 2004–05 School Year........43 

3.6.b: Core Reading Programs Used by Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ...................44 

3.7: Characteristics of Reading Instruction as Reported by Reading Coaches 

in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year...........................46 

3.8: Teacher Reports on the Type and Frequency of Collaboration About Reading 

in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year...........................47 

3.9: Teacher Ratings of the Centrality of SBRR Aligned Instructional Activities 

in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year...........................48 

4.1: Methods Used to Identify Students for Reading Interventions, in Mature 

Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year............................................52 

4.2: Teachers’ Use of Supports Used to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers in 

Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ...............................54 

4.3: Teachers’ Scores on Composite Measure Extra Practice Provided to Struggling 

Readers in the Previous Month, in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year...................................................................................................55 

4.4: Materials Used to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers in the Last Year, 

as Reported by the Principals or Reading Coaches in Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year....................................................................................56 

4.5: Staff Activities Used to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers in the Previous 

Year, as Reported by the Principals or Reading Coaches in Reading First and 

Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year .........................................................................57 

4.6: Amount of Time Teachers in Reading First and Title I Schools Set Aside 

to Coordinate Interventions with Staff, 2004–05 School Year....................................58 

5.1: Assistance for K–3 Reading Assessment Activities in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ..................................................................61 

5.2: Responsibility for Reading Assessment Activities in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools as Reported by Principals, 2004–05 School Year .......................62 
Exhibits ix 

Exhibits (cont’d) 

5.3: Regularly Scheduled and Formal Time Set Aside for K–3, Teachers to Use 

Assessment Data to Plan Instruction for Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year ................................................................................... 63 

5.4: Types of Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature 

Reading First and Title I K–3 Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 

School Year................................................................................................................. 65 

5.5: Types of Specific Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful 

by Mature Reading First and Title I K–3 Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 

2004–05 School Year.................................................................................................. 67 

5.6: Teachers’ Use of Assessments for Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year.................................................................................................. 69 

6.1: Responsibilities of the Reading Coach in Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year ................................................................................... 72 

6.2: Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Teacher Support Activities 

Related to the Reading Programs in Reading First Schools, 2004–05 

School Year................................................................................................................. 74 

6.3: Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Various Teacher Support 

Activities in RF and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year....................................... 75 

6.4: Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Administrative and School 

Support Activities Related to the Reading Programs in Reading First Schools, 

2004–05 School Year.................................................................................................. 76 

6.5: Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Administrative and School 

Support Activities, in RF and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ........................ 77 

6.6: Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Activities Supporting 

Teachers’ Instruction in Reading First Schools, 2004–05 School Year ..................... 79 

6.7: Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Activities Supporting Teachers’ 

Instruction in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year........ 80

6.8: Responsibility for Oversight of Reading Activities in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ................................................................. 82 

6.9: Percentage of Reading First Schools and Title I Schools in Which K–3 Reading 

Instruction Was Evaluated by the Principal, by Mode and Frequency of 

Evaluation, 2004–05 School Year............................................................................... 84 

7.1: Structure of Professional Development Activities Attended by Teachers in 

Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year .............................. 89 

7.2: Characteristics of the Professional Development Activities Reading First 

Teachers Attended in the Last Year, as Reported by Teachers, Principals 

and Reading Coaches, 2004–05 School Year ............................................................. 90 
x Exhibits 

Exhibits (cont’d) 

7.3: Specific Features of Professional Development Activities Differences Between 

Teachers in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year...........91 

7.4: Teacher Participation in Professional Development Activities Related to the 

Five Dimensions of Reading: Teachers in Mature Reading First Schools and 

Title I Schools, The Range of Grade-Level Percents, 2004–05 School Year..............93 

7.5: Preparedness to Teach Five Dimensions of Reading: Teachers in Mature 

Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year............................................94 

7.6: Professional Development Related to the Five Dimensions of Reading 

Attended by Principals and Reading Coaches in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ..................................................................95 

7.7a : Teacher Professional Development on Materials and Teaching Strategies in 

Reading First Schools, 2004–05 School Year .............................................................96 

7.7b: Teacher Professional Development on Grouping and Assessment in Reading 

First Schools, 2004–05 School Year............................................................................97 

7.7c: Teacher Professional Development on Struggling Readers in Reading First 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year....................................................................................98 

7.7d: Teacher Professional Development on Organization and Planning in Reading 

First Schools, 2004–05 School Year............................................................................99 

7.8: Professional Development in Teaching Strategies in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ................................................................100 

7.9: Reading First Principals’ Participation in Professional Development in Teaching 

Strategies, 2004–05 School Year...............................................................................101 

7.10: Professional Development Events Attended by Principals in Mature Reading 

First and Title I Schools: Summary and Composite Measures, 2004–05 

School Year................................................................................................................102 

7.11: Topics Addressed in Professional Development Offered to Reading Coaches 

 in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year........................103 

7.12: Direct Support for Reading Instruction for Teachers in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year ...............................................................105
Executive Summary 1 

Executive Summary 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) established the Reading First Program 

(Title I, Part B, Subpart 1), a major federal initiative designed to help ensure that all children can 

read at or above grade level by the end of third grade. Reading First (RF) is predicated on 

scientifically researched findings that high-quality reading instruction in the primary grades 

significantly reduces the number of students who experience reading difficulties in later years. 

A. Key Provisions of the Reading First Program 

The Reading First program’s overarching goal is to improve the quality of reading instruction—

and thereby improve the reading skills and achievement of children in the primary grades—by 

providing substantial resources at both the state and local levels. The intent is to ensure that 

teachers in kindergarten through third grade use reading programs and materials that are 

research-based. Additionally, Reading First intends to increase access to and the quality of 

professional development for all teachers of these grades, including special education teachers, to 

ensure that they have the necessary skills to teach these researched-based reading programs 

effectively. An important provision of the RF legislation is that professional development be 

made available to all schools, not only schools that received RF funding. A third emphasis is on 

using assessments, both to monitor progress and to identify students’ reading problems early on. 

Reading First is intended to help prepare classroom teachers to screen for, identify, and 

overcome barriers to students’ ability to read at grade level by the end of third grade. More 

specifically, the programs and the professional development provided to school staff must use 

reading instructional methods and materials that incorporate the five essential elements of 

effective primary-grade reading instruction, as specified in the legislation: 1) phonemic 

awareness; 2) decoding; 3) vocabulary development; 4) reading fluency, including oral reading 

skills; and 5) reading comprehension strategies. 

All 50 states and other jurisdictions1

 have been awarded Reading First grants. To date (April 

2006), states have awarded subgrants to approximately 1,550 local school districts and, in turn, 

these districts have provided funds to approximately 5,200 schools nationwide. Because grants to 

states were awarded over an extended time period and states differed in the amount of time they 

allotted to their competitive subgrant processes, districts and schools are at various stages of 

implementing their Reading First programs. 

B. Overview of the Evaluation 

The enabling legislation for RF requires the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to contract with 

an outside entity to evaluate the program’s implementation (Section 1205). To meet this 

 

1

 State Education Agencies (SEAs) were eligible to apply for RF grants. Other jurisdictions eligible include 

District of Columbia, the schools of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and American Samoa. Guam and Northern 

Mariana Islands received grants through the consolidated grants to insular areas..
2 Executive Summary 

requirement, the Department contracted with Abt Associates in October 2003 to design and 

conduct the Reading First Implementation Evaluation, which addresses the following questions: 

1. How is the Reading First program implemented in districts and schools? 

2. How does reading instruction differ between Reading First schools and non-RF Title I 

schools? 

3. How does reading instruction differ between Reading First schools and non-RF Title I 

schools as RF schools’ implementation efforts mature over time? 

4. Does student achievement improve in schools with Reading First funds? 

5. Is there any relationship between how schools implement Reading First and changes 

in reading achievement? 

The five-year study has produced this interim report based on data collected during the 2004–05 

school year as well as analyses of extant data sources; it will also produce a final report in 2007 

based on data from the 2006–07 school year and updated extant data. This interim report 

addresses questions 1 and 2. Question 3 requires an analysis of longitudinal data and will be 

addressed upon completion of the second wave of data collection in 2007, as will questions 4 and 

5. Below we summarize key findings from the evaluation, using the following data sources: 

• Surveys completed in spring 2005 by 6,185 K–3 teachers, 1,574 principals, and 1,318 

reading coaches in nationally representative samples of 1,092 Reading First schools 

and 541 non-RF Title I schools; 

• Interviews with Reading First state coordinators, and reviews of states’ applications 

for RF awards; 

• The Reading First Awards Database that lists all RF districts and schools as well as 

their baseline measures of K–3 reading performance and poverty rates (as measured 

by percent of students receiving free and reduced-price lunches); and 

• ED’s School-Level State Assessment Score Database (SLAD) that provided measures 

of reading achievement and poverty for all school districts nationwide. 

The non-RF Title I school sample was constructed purposefully to provide a context for 

understanding how reading programs in a sample of Reading First schools differ from those in 

schools serving similar populations of students.2

 The non-RF sample includes only Title I 

schoolwide project (SWP) schools with at least 40 percent of the students eligible for free or 

reduced price lunches, which is comparable to the RF school population. The two groups of 

schools are demographically similar in staff experience, attendance rates, mobility, and stability 

of enrollment. RF schools are, however, on average, larger than the Title I schools, and have 

larger proportions of K–3 students reading below grade level. 

 

2

 The most rigorous design option available for this evaluation would have been to identify a group of non-RF 

schools matched to RF schools on key demographic and achievement characteristics to minimize differences 

between RF and non-RF schools and thereby approximate a random assignment experiment. However, because 

RF schools, by definition, are among the lowest performing schools in their respective districts, matched 

comparison schools could include better performing schools. Also, RF schools could likely differ from similar 

non-funded schools because, often, they had to demonstrate motivation, and this factor could influence any 

observed instructional differences between RF and comparison schools. 
Executive Summary 3 

We can make comparisons between RF and non-RF Title I samples, but because the two samples 

are not matched they cannot be assumed to be equivalent. Thus, the differences between the 

groups discussed in this report cannot be attributed to the Reading First program. 

C. Results of the Reading First Implementation Evaluation 

Key Finding 

Reading First schools appear to be implementing the major elements of the program as 

intended by the legislation, such as providing scientifically based reading instruction in grades 

K–3, increased amounts of time for reading instruction, interventions for struggling readers, 

wider use of classroom-based reading assessments, and more professional development 

activities. 

External Resources to Support Reading Programs 

Most RF schools also received Title I funds (91 percent) and district funds (79 percent) to 

support their reading programs. Exhibit E-1 illustrates that beyond financial support, according 

to principals, RF schools received substantially more external assistance than did Title I schools 

on selecting instructional programs (76 percent vs. 56 percent), diagnosing needs of struggling 

readers (70 percent vs. 50 percent), conducting demonstration lessons (71 percent vs. 48 

percent), and reviewing the effectiveness of reading programs (71 percent vs. 47 percent). 

Key Findings 

Reading First schools received both financial and nonfinancial support from a variety of 

external sources. During the 2004–05 school year, the median annual amount of funds RF 

schools received to implement their reading program was $138,000. In addition, Reading 

First schools have multiple external resources, in addition to RF funds, to support the 

implementation of their reading programs. 
4 Executive Summary 

Exhibit E-1 

Nonfinancial External Assistance for K–3 Reading Program Activities in Reading First 

Schools and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

 

71* 

81* 

76* 

70* 

80* 

71* 

48 49 50

56

47 50

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent Reading First

Title I

Source: Principal Survey, Question B7. 

Exhibit reads: 71 percent of principals in RF schools reported receiving external assistance in conducting 

demonstration lessons, compared to 48 percent of principals in Title I schools. This difference is statistically 

significant (p < .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and 

Title I schools. 

TA stands for technical assistance. 

Reading Instruction in K–3 Classrooms 

Key Finding

Classroom reading instruction in RF schools is significantly more likely to adhere to 

the RF legislation than that in Title I schools. Reading instruction encompasses the 

amount of instructional time, use of appropriate reading materials, and implementing 

reading activities and strategies supported by scientifically based reading research. 

Instructional Time 

The Guidance for the Reading First Program states that schools “should consider the allocation 

of time, including a protected, uninterrupted block of time for reading instruction of more than 

90 minutes per day.” Significantly more RF schools than Title I schools reported having a 

reading block for each of grades K through 3 (grades 1–3; 98 percent vs. 92 percent, 

kindergarten; 98 percent vs. 88 percent, Exhibit E-2). Teachers in Reading First schools reported, 

on average, that they spent significantly more time on reading than did teachers in non-RF Title I 

schools—a difference of about 19 minutes per day, or almost 100 minutes per week. Teachers in 

newly funded RF schools were also significantly more likely than teachers in non-RF Title I 

Conducting 

Demonstration 

lessons 

Conducting 

Classroom 

observation 

Diagnosing needs 

of struggling 

 readers

Selecting 

instructional 

programs 

/materials 

Providing TA in 

implementing 

core reading 

programs

Reviewing 

reading program

effectiveness 
Executive Summary 5 

schools to report that they had increased the amount of time spent on reading from the 2003–04 

to the 2004–05 school years (61 percent vs. 35 percent).3

 

Exhibit E-2 

Scheduled Reading Blocks in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Source: Reading Coach Survey and Principal Survey, Questions D2 and D3. 

Exhibit reads: 98 percent of RF schools reported having a scheduled block at grades 1–3, compared with 92 percent of 

Title I schools (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I schools. 

Staff in RF schools also reported (using a five-point scale4) having significantly more time set 

aside than staff in non-RF Title I schools to use assessment data to plan instruction (3.88 vs. 

3.38); to observe reading instruction in other classrooms (2.21 vs. 1.96); to collaborate on 

reading lesson planning and instruction (4.23 vs. 3.88); and to receive instruction themselves 

from a reading coach (once a month on average for RF schools, vs. four or fewer times per year 

in non-RF Title I schools). 

Instructional Materials 

Reading First schools reported that they have made substantial changes to their reading programs 

since they received their RF funds in the 2004–05 school year (Exhibit E-3). Newly funded RF 

schools were significantly more likely than Title I schools to have adopted a new core reading 

program (39 percent vs. 16 percent), to have added new intervention programs for struggling 

readers (74 percent vs. 43 percent), to have added new supplementary materials (69 percent vs. 

58 percent), and to have adopted new materials for English Language Learners (43 percent vs. 29 

percent). 

 

3

 For this comparison, we used the newly funded RF schools since the mature RF schools may have already 

increased their instructional time in their first year of implementation, 2002–03. That said, about 45 percent of 

the mature RF schools reported increasing their instructional time in the 2004–05 school year. 

4

 The scale represents how often schools reported time being set aside during the school year: 1 = Not at all, 2 = 

1–4 times, 3 = 5–8 times, 4 = Once a month, and 5 = Once a week or more. 

Grades 1–3

Percent of Schools with Reading Block 

88

92

98

98

0 20 40 60 80 100

Kindergarten

Grades 1–3

* 

* 
6 Executive Summary 

Exhibit E-3 

Changes to Reading Program Materials for Newly Funded Reading First Schools and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

71* 

43* 

69* 74* 

39* 

16

43

58

29

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

Adopted a new

core reading

program

Added a new

intervention

program for

struggling

readers

Added new

supplementary

materials

Added new

materials for ELLs

Adopted new

reading

assessments

Percent Reading First

Title I

Source: Reading Coach Survey Question C3 and Principal Survey, Question D7. 

Exhibit reads: 39 percent of the newly funded Reading First schools reported adopting a new core reading program at the 

beginning of the 2004–05 school year, compared with 16 percent of Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant (p 

≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I schools.

Staff in mature RF schools were significantly more likely than staff in non-RF Title I schools to 

rate (on a five-point scale) the following statements about their schools’ reading programs more 

positively: 

• The core reading program is aligned with scientifically based reading research 

(SBRR) (4.63 vs. 4.29). 

• Reading intervention materials are aligned with SBRR (4.38 vs. 4.22). 

• High-quality instructional materials are available (4.39 vs. 4.01). 

Despite evidence of greater alignment with SBRR, staff in mature RF schools recognized their 

lack of experience working with some materials. They were significantly more likely than staff 

in non-RF Title I schools to rate (also on a five-point scale) the following statements more 

negatively: 1) Teachers are experienced with supplemental reading materials (3.29 vs. 3.58); and 

2) Teachers are experienced with reading intervention materials (3.19 vs. 3.39). This may reflect 

the fact that many of these materials are new in RF schools. 

Instructional Strategies 

Reading instructional activities and strategies in RF schools appear to be aligned with the tenets 

of the Reading First program. Differences in instructional environments between mature RF and 
Executive Summary 7 

non-RF Title I schools were manifested in a variety of ways.5 RF teachers across all grades (K–

3) rated as central a greater proportion of SBRR-aligned practices than did teachers in Title I 

schools: These statistically significant differences were modest in size (e.g., second grade: 76 

percent vs. 72 percent), although the difference for kindergarten teachers was somewhat larger 

(77 percent vs. 68 percent). 

When asked specifically about the centrality of instruction in the five dimensions of reading, 

similar patterns emerge. There are differences that are modest in magnitude. Kindergarten and 

first-grade teachers rated as central to their instruction a significantly higher proportion of 

scientifically based practices in teaching phonemic awareness and decoding than did teachers in 

Title I schools (kindergarten: 91 percent vs. 86 percent; first grade: 85 percent vs. 81 percent). 

RF third-grade teachers rated as central to their instruction a significantly higher proportion of 

scientifically based practices in teaching vocabulary and fluency than did their Title I 

counterparts (vocabulary, 75 percent vs. 70 percent; fluency. 56 percent vs. 47 percent). There 

were no differences between RF and Title I teachers in their centrality ratings related to teaching 

comprehension skills. 

Interventions for Struggling Readers 

Key Findings 

RF teachers in three grades (kindergarten, second, and third) were significantly more likely 

than their counterparts in Title I schools to place their struggling students in intervention 

programs. 

Based on principal reports, in both RF and Title I schools, there was no time delay between 

identifying students who need interventions and the provision of services to those students. RF and 

Title I schools were also similar with respect to planning and coordinating instruction for ELL 

students. 

Although significantly more RF teachers reported receiving professional development in helping 

struggling readers than did Title I teachers, teachers in both RF and Title I schools recognized the 

challenge of providing effective instruction to struggling readers; 80 percent of teachers in both 

groups reported that they need additional professional development on this topic.

Exhibit E-4 indicates that RF schools were more likely to rely on progress monitoring (98 

percent vs. 90 percent) and reading coach recommendations to identify struggling readers (92 

percent and 55 percent) than were Title I schools. Although there were no differences in 

 

5

 We constructed six composites to summarize teachers’ ratings of the centrality of a series of instructional 

activities associated with the following reading dimensions and other instructional features: 1) phonemic 

awareness and decoding; 2) vocabulary; 3) comprehension; 4) fluency; 5) use of scientifically based 

instructional strategies and materials; and 6) negative alignment with scientifically based reading research. (See 

Appendix D for a list the specific items included in each composite.) Scores were computed for each composite 

based on the percentage of instructional activities specified in that composite that a teacher rated as “central to 

their instruction.” 
8 Executive Summary 

principal reports of the use of diagnostic tests, RF teachers across all grades were significantly 

more likely to rely on diagnostic assessments to determine their struggling readers’ core deficits 

than were teachers in Title I schools (74 percent vs. 64 percent). 

Exhibit E-4 

Types of Assessments Reported by Principals That Were Used to Identify 

Students for Reading Interventions, in RF and Title I Schools, 2004–05 

School Year 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Schools 

Type of Test Percent Percent 

Progress monitoring tests 98%* 90% 

Tests from core reading program 95 92 

Diagnostic tests 91 91 

Reading coach recommendation1 92* 55 

Standardized achievement tests 88 88 

Screening tests 87* 82 

Source: Principal Survey, Question E2. 

Exhibit reads: Reading First schools are more likely to use progress monitoring tests to identify 

students for reading interventions than are Title I schools (98 percent vs. 90 percent. This difference 

is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

1. Only schools that have reading coaches are included in the analysis of this item. 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) 

between RF and Title I schools. 

Despite these differences in the identification of struggling readers, there were no substantive or 

statistically significant differences between RF and Title I schools in terms of availability of 

intervention services for struggling readers; about 80 percent of both RF and Title I principals 

reported that reading intervention services are available when needed. Nor did the average 

waiting time for students’ receipt of services differ significantly between RF and Title I schools; 

two-thirds of the principals reported no wait time for students in need of intervention. On 

average, identified students received services within approximately one week. 

RF and Title I schools are more similar than different with respect to coordinating instruction for 

ELL students. There were no significant differences between RF and Title I teachers in reported 

time set aside to coordinate instruction with ELL staff; in fact, more than one-third of teachers 

who have ELL students in their classrooms (in both groups of schools) reported that no such time 

is specifically set aside. Only about 10 percent of teachers reported that they had weekly 

meetings with ELL staff to coordinate reading instruction for their struggling ELL students. It is 

important to note here, however, that some schools may not have any ELL teachers on staff. 

RF and Title I schools do differ in the provision of special education services to struggling 

readers. Title I schools were significantly more likely than RF schools to have a certified special 

education teacher provide recommendations to plan instruction for struggling readers (83 percent 

vs. 72 percent). RF teachers in kindergarten, first, and second grades were significantly more 

likely than Title I teachers to report that time is not set aside for coordination of the reading 
Executive Summary 9 

instruction provided to their special education students (kindergarten: 51 percent vs. 44 percent; 

first grade: 42 percent vs. 35 percent; second grade: 37 percent vs. 30 percent). 

RF teachers were more likely to report increased amounts of time for struggling readers to 

practice skills in several dimensions of reading. RF teachers in three of four grades reported 

providing practice in significantly more reading dimensions than did teachers in Title I schools 

(kindergarten: 2.75 vs. 2.66; second grade: 2.83 vs. 2.78; third grade: 2.71 vs. 2.45). These 

differences, while statistically significant, are substantively quite small. RF third-grade teachers 

were significantly more likely than Title I teachers to provide struggling readers with extra 

practice in decoding (92 percent vs. 82 percent) and fluency (97 percent vs. 90 percent); there 

were no significant differences for the other grades. 

In terms of materials, RF teachers were also more likely to draw upon resources external to the 

core reading program to support struggling readers. Kindergarten and third-grade teachers in RF 

schools were significantly more likely than their counterparts in Title I schools to use materials 

that supplement the core reading program (kindergarten teachers: 70 percent vs. 62 percent; 

third-grade teachers 74 percent vs. 66 percent). There were no significant differences in first or 

second grade. RF teachers in first and second grade were significantly more likely than teachers 

in Title I schools to provide in-class help in reading for ELL students (66 percent vs. 55 percent). 

Kindergarten and third grade were not significantly different. 

Assessment 

Key Findings 

Assessment plays an important role in reading programs in both RF and non-RF Title I 

schools. 

Reading First schools received more outside assistance in selecting assessments than Title I 

schools. At the same time, staff in both RF and Title I reported that the district is largely 

responsible for the selection and interpretation of reading assessments. 

There were some differences in the types of assessments teachers in Reading First schools and 

teachers in non-RF Title I schools found useful. RF teachers were more likely to identify 

assessments from their core or supplementary reading programs as useful than are teachers in 

Title I schools. In contrast, Title I teachers were more likely to report that informal assessments 

are useful than are RF teachers. 

Teachers in RF schools were more likely to report applying assessment results for varied 

instructional purposes (e.g., for planning grouping, progress monitoring and identifying 

struggling readers) than their Title I counterparts. 
10 Executive Summary 

Selection and Interpretation of Reading Assessments 

Reading First schools received significantly more outside assistance (from district, state, 

publisher, university expert, etc.) than did non-RF Title I schools in selecting assessment 

instruments for their K–3 reading program (76 percent vs. 56 percent) and interpreting 

assessment results (82 percent vs.70 percent). 

Overall, there were many similarities in RF and non-RF Title I principals’ reports of who is 

responsible for the selection and interpretation of reading assessments. More than three-quarters 

of both RF and non-RF Title I principals identified the district as responsible for selecting 

assessments. There were, however, some differences. Half of RF principals (51 percent) also 

reported state responsibility for selecting assessments, compared to 31 percent of non-RF Title I 

principals. In 54 percent of non-RF Title I schools, the principal also held this responsibility, 

compared to only 40 percent of RF principals. 

Nearly all, about 90 percent, Reading First and non-RF Title I principals reported that they, as 

principals, were responsible for interpreting assessment results. In 93 percent of RF schools, the 

reading coach also assumed responsibility for this task, compared to only half of Title I 

principals (52 percent). This significant difference reflects the fact that, in contrast to Reading 

First schools, Title I schools were much less likely to have a designated reading coach. 

Eighty-four percent of RF teachers reported that they had regularly scheduled, formal time set 

aside to use assessment data to plan instruction, compared with 74 percent of non-RF Title I 

teachers. 

Types of Reading Assessments Teachers Find Useful 

Most teachers in both RF and Title I schools named at least one assessment that they found 

useful in placing or grouping students (90 percent), determining student mastery of skills (89 

percent), and identifying the core deficits of struggling students (85 percent). 

In general, RF teachers were significantly more likely to identify formal assessments as useful 

than Title I teachers. In contrast, Title I teachers were more likely to report the usefulness of 

informal assessments than were RF teachers. Across assessment purposes, Reading First teachers 

were more likely than their Title I counterparts to identify assessments from the core or 

supplementary reading program (e.g., for determining student mastery of skills, 50 percent vs. 38 

percent) or standardized tests (e.g., for placing or grouping students, 50 percent vs. 44 percent), 

such as the DIBELS (e.g., for identifying the core deficits of struggling students, 33 percent vs. 

10 percent). 

In contrast, across the three uses of assessments, Title I teachers were significantly more likely to 

identify informal assessments as useful than were Reading First teachers (e.g., for determining 

student mastery of skills, 38 percent vs. 28 percent). Specifically, Title I teachers were more 

likely to report classroom-based assessments (e.g. for identifying the core deficits of struggling 

students, 24 percent vs. 17 percent) and running records or miscue analysis (e.g., for placing or 

grouping students, 19 percent vs. 10 percent) as useful than Reading First teachers. 
Executive Summary 11 

Most K–3 teachers in both Reading First and Title I schools named at least one assessment that 

they found useful in placing or grouping students (90 percent), determining student mastery of 

skills (89 percent), and identifying the core deficits of struggling students (85 percent). 

However, a significantly greater percentage of RF teachers reported that they use assessment 

results to organize instructional groups (83 percent vs. 73 percent), to determine progress on 

skills (85 percent vs. 78 percent), and to identify students who need reading intervention services 

(75 percent vs. 65 percent) than did Title I teachers. 

Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 

Key Findings 

Principals in Reading First schools were significantly more likely to report having a 

reading coach than were principals of non-RF Title I schools.6 

Coaches in RF schools were significantly more likely to provide teachers with various 

supports for their reading instruction than were coaches in non-RF Title I schools. 

Reading First schools were significantly more likely to have a reading coach (98 percent vs. 60 

percent) than were non-RF Title I schools, as reported by the principal, reflecting the fact that 

nearly all states required RF schools (but not non-RF Title I schools) to have a reading coach. 

Of the Title I schools that reported having reading coaches, 88 percent have a coach that is doing 

the central activities of a reading coach.7 In Reading First schools, reading coaches are intended 

to work primarily with teachers rather than directly with students. It is therefore noteworthy that 

a significantly smaller percentage of reading coaches in RF schools reported that providing

direct reading instruction to students is absolutely central to their work: 29 percent, compared to 

53 percent in non-RF Title I schools (Exhibit E-5). 

Reading coaches in mature Reading First schools were significantly more likely than their nonRF Title I counterparts to rate the following teacher support activities as absolutely central to 

their work: providing training or professional development (95 percent vs. 87 percent), coaching 

staff on a range of topics (92 percent vs. 83 percent), organizing professional development (87 

percent vs. 67 percent), and facilitating grade-level meetings (67 percent vs. 47 percent). 

 

6

 Most states require RF schools to employ reading coaches to support teachers’ reading instruction; this is not 

the case for non-RF Title I schools. 

7

 Because respondents from non-RF Title I schools who completed the Reading Coach Survey reported a 

multiplicity of job titles, we used their responses to two survey questions to determine their inclusion in the 

comparison group of reading coaches: How central is each of the following activities? 1) “Coaches staff on a 

range of topics”; and 2) “Organizes professional development for K–3 teachers.” Respondents who answered a 

3 (“somewhat central”) or above (on a 5-point scale) for at least one of these two items were included in the 

comparison group of reading coaches from Title I schools for these sets of analyses regarding reading coach 

responsibilities. As a result, 34 reading coach respondents from Title schools, the equivalent of 940 weighted 

respondents, were excluded from these analyses. 
12 Executive Summary 

Reading coaches in mature Reading First schools were significantly more likely than their nonRF Title I counterparts to report that the following administrative support activities were 

absolutely central to their work: compiling reading assessment data (88 percent vs. 67 percent) 

and administering or coordinating reading assessments (86 percent vs. 67 percent). About 75 

percent of both mature RF and non-RF Title I schools reported participating in school leadership 

team meetings, and about 70 percent of both types of schools reported managing reading 

instructional materials, as absolutely central to their work (with no significant differences). 

Significantly more reading coaches in mature RF schools, compared with coaches in non-RF 

Title I schools, characterized participating in professional development (97 percent vs. 86 

percent) as absolutely central to their work. 

Exhibit E-5 

Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Various Support Activities in Reading 

First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Mature 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Schools 

Activity Rated as 

Reading Activity/ “Absolutely Central” 

Centrality of the Activity Percent Percent 

Teacher Support: 

Facilitate grade-level meetings 67%* 47% 

Coach staff on a range of topics 92* 83 

Provide direct reading instruction to students 29 53* 

Organize professional development for K–3 teachers 67* 47 

Provide training/professional development in reading 

materials, strategies, and assessments 

95* 87 

Give demonstration lessons with core/supplemental 

materials 

79* 70 

Observe and provide feedback to teachers 84* 69 

Assist teachers in forming instructional groups 85* 68 

Help teachers design strategies for struggling readers 90 86 

Give demonstrations on assessment administration/scoring 71* 56 

Administrative Support 

Administer reading assessments 86* 67 

Participate in school leadership team meetings 76 75 

Compile reading assessment data 88* 67 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Question B4. 

Exhibit reads: 67 percent of reading coaches in RF schools rate facilitating grade-level meeting as “central” to 

their work, compared with 47 percent of reading coaches in Title I schools. This difference is statistically 

significant (p < .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between reading 

coaches in RF schools and reading coaches in Title I schools. 

The responses of 34 reading coaches (940 weighted) from non-RF Title I schools from this analysis because, 

based on their survey responses, they did not appear to meet the definition of ”reading coach.” 
Executive Summary 13 

Professional Development 

Key Findings 

RF staff received significantly more professional development than did Title I staff. RF 

teachers were more likely to have received professional development in the five dimensions of 

reading instruction as well as in overall teaching strategies. Indeed, RF teachers reported 

feeling better prepared to teach the five dimensions of reading than their Title I counterparts. 

Activities attended by RF teachers were more likely to have structural attributes conducive to a 

successful experience, such as incentives and follow-up activities, than those attended by 

teachers in non-RF Title I teachers (Corcoran, 1995; Corcoran, et al., 2003; Garet, et al., 1999; 

Learning First Alliance, 2003). 

Significantly more Reading First teachers attended professional development workshops related 

to reading than did non-RF Title I teachers (94 percent vs. 81 percent). Further, RF teachers, on 

average, reported having spent significantly more time attending professional development 

activities—conferences, workshops, college courses—in the past year than did teachers in nonRF Title I schools (40 hours vs. 24 hours). 

Based on teacher reports, professional development activities attended by RF teachers, as 

compared with non-RF Title I teachers, were significantly more likely to: 

• Offer incentives for participation, such as stipends (40 percent vs. 20 percent), release 

time (43 percent vs. 33 percent), or graduate credits (25 percent vs. 14 percent). 

• Be conducted by well-established and experienced trainers (75 percent vs. 65 

percent). 

• Require teachers to attend (74 percent vs. 57 percent). 

• Use a team-based approach (67 percent vs. 53 percent). 

RF principals, reading coaches and teachers reported having participated in significantly more 

professional development activities to improve their knowledge of the five dimensions of reading 

instruction than did Title I teachers (Exhibit E-6). For example, significantly more RF than 

Title I teachers received professional development in phonemic awareness (85 percent vs. 62 

percent). RF teachers rated themselves (on a five-point scale) as significantly better prepared to 

teach the following skills than did Title I teachers: phonemic awareness, 4.13 vs. 3.66; decoding, 

3.86 vs. 3.35; vocabulary, 3.79 vs. 3.40; comprehension, 3.80 vs. 3.54; and fluency, 3.83 vs. 

3.40. 
14 Executive Summary 

Exhibit E-6 

The Five Dimensions of Reading Instruction: Reading First and Title I Teacher Participation in 

and Self-ratings of Preparedness, 2004–05 School Year 

Source: Teacher Survey, Questions D4 and D6 

Exhibit reads: 85 percent of RF teachers participated in professional development on phonemic awareness, compared to 62 

percent of teachers in Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant (p < .05). 

Note: Kindergarten teachers where not asked about fluency. 

The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between teachers in RF and Title I 

schools. 

RF teachers were significantly more likely than teachers in Title I schools to report having 

received professional development assistance on administering and using assessments (85 

percent vs. 67 percent), interpreting assessment data (90 percent vs. 68 percent), and using 

diagnostic tests to guide instruction (66 percent vs. 49 percent). 

Reading coaches and principals also received professional development to support them in their 

roles. RF reading coaches were significantly more likely than their non-RF Title I counterparts 

to report having received professional development assistance on how to help teachers make 

reading instruction systematic and explicit (78 percent vs. 52 percent), and on the essential 

components of SBRR instruction (90 percent vs. 60 percent). Both of these topics are central to 

the Reading First program. Similarly, principals in RF schools were significantly more likely to 

report having received professional development in all five dimensions of reading than were 

principals in Title I schools (p < .05 for all five dimensions). 

Conclusions 

These findings provide some preliminary evidence to suggest that Reading First is being 

implemented in schools and classrooms as intended by the legislation. For the most part, funds 

are awarded to appropriate districts and schools. States are providing appropriate supports, 

3.40

3.54

3.40

3.35

3.66

3.83

3.80

3.79

3.86

4.13

012345

Reading First 

Title I

69

75

52

63

62

86

87

74

86

85

100 80 60 40 20 0

Phonemic 

Awareness

Decoding

Vocabulary

Fluency *

Comprehension

***

***

***

***

***

**

**

**

**

**

Self-ratings of preparedness to 

teach the five dimensions of 

reading

Percent

3.40

3.54

3.40

3.35

3.66

3.83

3.80

3.79

3.86

4.13

012345

Reading First 

Title I

69

75

52

63

62

86

87

74

86

85

100 80 60 40 20 0

Phonemic 

Awareness

Decoding

Vocabulary

Fluency *

Comprehension

***

***

***

***

***

**

**

**

**

**

Self-ratings of preparedness to 

teach the five dimensions of 

reading

Percent
Executive Summary 15 

particularly in terms of professional development related to reading, and in the selection and use 

of assessments to inform instruction. Reading First schools appear to have established 

instructional environments to support SBRR-based reading instruction. In K–3 classrooms, the 

reading programs implemented by teachers in Reading First and non-RF Title I schools appear to 

be different in a variety of ways, including instructional time, resources, instructional planning 

and collaboration, use of assessments, and focus on the five dimensions of reading instruction. 

Taken together, these findings provide some initial evidence to suggest that Reading First 

schools are carrying out the objectives of the Reading First legislation. Future analyses, after the 

second round of survey data collection in 2007, will examine how implementation of these 

elements changes over time and how student achievement patterns in RF schools may differ from 

those in non-RF Title I schools. 
16 Executive Summary 
Chapter 1: Introduction 17 

Chapter 1: Introduction

In October 2003, the Department contracted with Abt Associates to design and conduct the 

Reading First Implementation Evaluation to address the following questions: 

1. How is the Reading First program implemented in districts and schools? 

2. How does reading instruction differ in Reading First schools and non-grantee Title I 

schools? 

3. How does reading instruction differ in RF schools and non-grantee Title I schools as 

RF schools’ implementation efforts mature over time? 

4. Does student achievement improve in schools with Reading First funds? 

5. Is there any relationship between how schools implement Reading First and changes 

in reading achievement? 

The present report focuses on Questions 1–2. Questions 3–5 will be discussed in the final report. 

Background 

The ability to read and comprehend text well is at the heart of educational attainment and, as 

such, is central to all children’s elementary school success. Unfortunately, success in elementary 

school (and beyond) disproportionately eludes many minority and economically disadvantaged 

children. Large numbers of minority children, often in high-poverty schools, are not developing 

the reading skills needed for success in school. Results from the 2005 National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading Assessment indicate that 54 percent of fourth-grade 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches read at a Below Basic level compared to only 

23 percent of fourth-graders not eligible for free or reduced-price lunches who perform at that 

level.8 Although these results are disappointing, these findings are an improvement over the 2000 

NAEP results where 62 percent of students eligible free or reduced price lunches scored at the 

Below Basic level (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). 

Scientifically Based Reading Research 

The fact that substantial numbers of our nation’s primary grade students are not developing 

adequate reading skills occurs at a time when we have made considerable progress in 

understanding how to teach reading effectively in the early grades, particularly to children who 

are struggling academically. The National Research Council’s 1998 report, Preventing Reading 

Difficulties in Young Children, noted that, “the majority of the reading problems faced by today’s 

adolescents and adults could have been avoided or resolved in the early years of childhood.” The 

8

 Performance at the Below Basic level means that fourth-grade students are not performing at the Basic level. 

“Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should demonstrate an understanding of the overall 

meaning of what they read. When reading text appropriate for fourth-graders, they should be able to make 

relatively obvious connections between the text and their own experiences and extend the ideas in the text by 

making simple inferences.” (National Center for Education Statistics, retrieved May 10, 2006, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp#grade4). 
18 Chapter 1: Introduction 

report’s summary of research on the development of early reading skills concluded that many 

elements of effective reading instruction are already known, and that the provision of “excellent 

instruction is the best intervention for children who demonstrate problems learning to read.” 

Building on the council’s report, the National Reading Panel9

 reviewed the scientific research in 

key areas of reading development, focusing on skills critical to the acquisition of beginning 

reading skills. The report found strong evidence that direct, explicit instruction is helpful to 

primary grade children in the development of their reading skills, particularly in the areas of 

phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. 

The Reading First Legislation 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) established the Reading First Program 

(Title I, Part B, Subpart 1) to address the fact that large numbers of our nation’s students do not 

develop the reading skills necessary to be successful in school. Reading First is a major federal 

initiative that builds on years of scientific research in reading to ensure that all children can read 

at or above grade level by the end of third grade. The legislation requires the U.S. Department of 

Education to contract with an outside entity to conduct an evaluation of, among other things, the 

Reading First (RF) program’s implementation (Section 1205). 

Reading First is predicated on research findings that high-quality reading instruction in the 

primary grades significantly reduces the number of students who experience difficulties in later 

years. The program’s overarching goal is to improve the quality of reading instruction and 

thereby improve the reading skills and achievement of children in the primary grades. The RF 

program provides substantial resources at both the state and local levels: 1) to ensure that 

research-based reading programs and materials are used to teach students in kindergarten through 

third grade; 2) to increase access to and quality of professional development of all teachers who 

teach K–3 students, including special education teachers, to ensure that they have the skills 

necessary to teach these reading programs effectively; and 3) to help prepare classroom teachers 

to screen, identify, and overcome barriers to students’ ability to read on grade level by the end of 

third grade. More specifically, the programs and the professional development provided to 

school staff must use reading instructional methods and materials that incorporate the five 

essential elements of effective primary-grade reading instruction, as specified in the legislation: 

1) phonemic awareness; 2) decoding; 3) vocabulary development; 4) reading fluency, including 

oral reading skills; and 5) reading comprehension strategies. 

In April 2002, the U.S. Department of Education invited state education agencies to apply for 

Reading First grants. State applications submitted to the U.S. Department of Education went 

 

9

 The National Reading Panel (NRP) was formed under the joint auspices of the National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development and the U.S Department of Education to “assess the status of research-based 

knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read” (Report of the 

National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read, 2000, page 1-1.) The findings from the NRP also were 

instrumental in the development of the Reading First program (part of the No Child Left Behind Act), the current 

administration’s comprehensive effort to improve early reading instruction and student reading achievement. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 19 

through an expert review process that resulted in six-year awards dependent on demonstration of 

progress and congressional appropriations. States, in turn, awarded subgrants to local school 

districts based on a competitive process. All10 states and jurisdictions have been awarded 

Reading First grants. To date (April 2006), states have awarded subgrants to approximately 

1,550 local school districts and 5,200 schools nationwide.11 Because grants to states were 

awarded over an extended time period and states differed in the amount of time allotted to 

subgrant process, districts and schools are at various stages of implementation of their Reading 

First programs. 

The Implementation Evaluation is one of five complementary studies designed to gather 

information about Reading First. In addition to the Implementation Evaluation, the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) conducted the Analyses 

of State Reading Standards and Assessments that evaluated the alignment of state reading 

content standards for students in grades K–3 with the five key elements of reading instruction by 

analyzing: 1) the reading content standards of a random sample of 20 states; and 2) the role of 

state assessments in measuring Reading First outcomes as presented in state Reading First 

applications. PPSS is also conducting the study of Reading First and Special Education 

Participation Rates, which will use an interrupted time-series design to: 1) compare rates of 

learning disabilities in Reading First schools with a comparison group of schools; 2) investigate 

changes in these rates in RF schools before and after grants were awarded; and 3) examine the 

relationship between reading achievement and rates of learning disabilities. 

The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences is conducting two studies 

related to Reading First. The Reading First Impact Study is a five-year rigorous evaluation 

designed to measure the impact of Reading First on classroom reading instruction and students’ 

reading achievement. The study is being conducted in more than 250 elementary schools in 18 

sites and 13 states and will collect information on students and classrooms in grades 1–3 over the 

course of three years. The Study of Teacher Preparation in Early Reading Instruction will 

conduct a survey of preservice teachers at 100 schools of education to answer the question: To 

what extent does the content of teacher preparation programs focus on the essential components 

of early reading instruction? In addition, the study will administer an assessment to a random 

sample of 2,000 graduating preservice elementary teachers to answer the question: To what 

extent are graduating preservice teachers knowledgeable about the essential components of early 

reading instruction? 

The Study Design 

The evaluation included the following components: 1) surveys of teachers, principals and 

reading coaches in nationally representative samples of Reading First schools and non-RF Title I 

(non–Reading First) schools; 2) interviews with Reading First state coordinators; 3) the Reading 

 

10 Guam and Northern Mariana Islands received grants through consolidated grants to the insular areas.

11 The figures are based on current information listed on ED’s Reading First Awards Database (Retrieved April 1, 

2006, from www.sedl.org/readingfirst/reports-awards.html). 
20 Chapter 1: Introduction 

First Awards Database that lists all RF districts and schools as well as school and district poverty 

rates and proportions of K–3 students reading below grade level; and 4) ED’s School-Level State 

Assessment Score Database (SLAD) that provides measures of poverty for all school districts 

nationwide. Exhibit 1.1 summarizes the primary data collection activities. The sample design 

calls for two nationally representative samples of Reading First schools—550 newly funded

schools that are in their first year of implementation, and 550 mature schools that have been 

implementing RF activities for one year or more—along with 550 Title I (non–Reading First) 

schools.12 The principal, reading coach (if applicable), and one teacher (randomly selected) from 

each of the four target grades of Reading First (K–3) were sent surveys to complete. Also, the 

study design calls for two waves of data collection in the 2004–05 and 2006–07 school years. 

The present report describes findings based on the data collected in spring 2005.13 Below we 

describe the survey and state coordinator data collections, including brief descriptions of the 

measures, and include discussions of the sampling strategy and data collection along with the 

corresponding response rates. 

 

12 For the purpose of recruiting these two types of RF schools, schools were designated as new or mature based on 

the Reading First program guidelines to states for their annual performance reports; “...schools receiving grants 

between July 1 and December 31 of any reporting period, the current school year will be considered in the first year 

of implementation.” Therefore, schools awarded subgrants before Dec. 31, 2003, were designated as mature, because 

when data collection occurred in spring 2005, those schools were in at least their second year of implementation. All 

other RF schools were classified as newly funded. 

13 To produce national estimates from the study sample, all analyses are weighted and computed using STATA, a 

statistical package that generates appropriate standard errors associated with each weighted estimate by taking 

account of the structure of the survey sampling design. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 21 

Exhibit 1.1 

Data Collection Methods, Samples, and Schedule 

Data Collection Method 

Number of 

Schools 

Estimated Number of 

Respondents 

Schedule 

2004–05 2006–07 

Principal and Teacher Mail Survey 

Newly funded Reading First schools 550 2,200 teachers 

550 principals 

up to 550 reading coaches 

b b

Mature Reading First schools 550 2,200 teachers 

550 principals 

up to 550 reading coaches 

b

Non-RF Title I schools 550 2,200 teachers 

550 principals 

up to 550 reading coaches 

b b

RF State Coordinator Telephone 

Interview 

 53 state coordinators b b

Exhibit reads: 550 newly funded RF schools were selected for inclusion in the study sample. The expected respondents 

include 2,200 teachers, 550 principals, and up to 550 reading coaches. There are two waves of data collection, one in 

spring 2005 and one in spring 2007. 

Note: Four teachers per school were sampled by randomly selecting one teacher from each of grades K–3. One principal 

and one reading coach (if applicable) per school were surveyed. RF state coordinator interviews were conducted with 

respondents in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Surveys 

Measures 

The primary data collection instruments for the Reading First Implementation Evaluation were 

surveys designed for principals, teachers in grades K–3, and reading coaches. The Principal 

Survey asked for background information on teacher and student characteristics, resources and 

support for reading instruction, reading intervention services, professional development provided 

to teachers and administrators, and principals’ knowledge of research-based approaches to 

reading. The Reading Coach Survey was targeted to school-level individuals whose primary role 

is to assist classroom teachers in delivering effective reading instruction. This survey included 

items on the coaches’ background and experience, core and supplemental reading materials, 

professional development offered to K–3 teachers, specific coaching activities, characteristics of 

reading instruction in the school, changes that have taken place in reading instruction, and areas 

needing improvement. The Teacher Survey addressed teachers’ background and experience, 

student characteristics, reading instruction (e.g., materials, content, time allocation), use of 

assessment, interventions for struggling readers, participation in reading professional 

development, and collaboration and support from other teachers and staff. The surveys also 

included a subset of questions tailored to specific grade levels, the answers to which allowed us 

to describe grade-specific instructional emphases, reflecting RF’s research-based teaching of 

reading.

Data Collection 

We recruited 1,649 study schools (1,098 Reading First schools and 551 non-RF Title I schools) 

in early 2005. Survey packets (including principal, teacher, and reading coach surveys) were 

mailed to each school. All but six RF schools and 10 Title I schools (1,092 and 541 schools) 
22 Chapter 1: Introduction 

returned at least one survey.14 Most schools (88 percent) returned completed surveys for all 

selected respondents in their schools; another 8 percent of schools completed all but one of the 

surveys and only 17 schools, or 1 percent, returned none of the surveys. Response rates were 

slightly higher for Reading First schools compared with Title I schools; 96 percent of Reading 

First schools were either complete or missing only one survey, compared with 93 percent for 

Title I schools. Reading First schools are required, according to the conditions of their awards, to 

participate in a national evaluation, whereas no corresponding requirement exists for Title I 

schools. The response rate across all types of respondents and all schools was 96 percent. Of 

9,460 potential respondents, 9,076 individuals returned completed surveys. For teachers in 

Reading First schools, response rates were approximately 96 percent across the four grade levels, 

compared with 94 percent in Title I schools. All response rates are presented in Appendix A, 

Exhibit A.4.15 

Reading First State Coordinator Interviews 

To learn about state-level administration of Reading First, we conducted a semi-structured 

telephone interview protocol for RF state directors. The interview protocols were developed in 

collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and were aligned with topics that 

informed states’ development of state Reading First plans, including state context for reading 

education, professional development, reading and assessment plans used state-wide and 

differences across districts, the state’s subgrant process, technical assistance, and state 

management and evaluation of the program. Interviews with state Reading First coordinators in 

all 50 states, as well as American Samoa, the schools of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the 

District of Columbia, were conducted in April and May of 2005. 

Limitations

There are several limitations to the findings presented in this report. First, the data sources 

(primarily surveys) represent respondents’ self-reported subjective perceptions and judgments 

about the implementation of their reading programs. The second limitation is based on the 

Reading First legislation which requires states to provide professional development in 

scientifically based reading instruction to all K–3 teachers, not only the teachers in schools that 

receive RF funding; this may reduce the potential to find large differences between RF and nonRF Title I schools. 

Third, states often require RF schools to have a designated reading coach, whereas the reading 

coaches in Title I schools are often classroom teachers or reading specialists with additional 

responsibilities. We addressed this shortcoming by limiting the Title I group of reading coaches 

to those respondents who reported that they routinely engage in the activities used to define the 

 

14 In addition to the 10 Title I schools that did not complete any surveys, 67 Title I schools refused to participate in 

the study. 

15 To generate national estimates from the RF and Title I respondent samples, we constructed and applied sets of 

sampling weights at two levels, school and teacher. A discussion of the rationale and method used to construct 

the sampling weights is presented in Appendix A. 
Chapter 1: Introduction 23 

responsibilities of a reading coach. Nevertheless, any observed differences between RF and 

reading coaches in Title I schools should be interpreted with somewhat more caution than 

observed differences between other respondent categories. Fourth, this report presents findings 

on a large number of comparisons, and the study draws from a large sample; as a result, one 

could expect that there would then be many statistically significant comparisons. We note in the 

text and accompanying tables when specific comparisons are statistically significant, and we also 

note when these comparisons represent statistical differences that are modest, and may not 

substantively meaningful. Finally, this evaluation uses a quasi-experimental design, and as such, 

one cannot attribute observed differences to the Reading First program. 

The Presentation of Findings 

The report is organized into eight chapters, reflecting not only the broad evaluation questions 

(Questions 1 and 2), but the sub-questions related to different facets of implementation of the 

Reading First program as well. Chapter 1 focuses on study design, sampling, and measures. 

The rest of the interim report is organized as follows: 

Chapter 2: Composition of the study sample; 

Chapter 3: Reading instruction; 

Chapter 4: Interventions for struggling readers; 

Chapter 5: Assessment; 

Chapter 6: Oversight and classroom support activities; 

Chapter 7: Professional development; 

Chapter 8: Conclusions. 

The report presents two kinds of findings: descriptions of RF program implementation, and 

comparisons of reading programs in both RF and non-RF Title I schools. The descriptive 

findings use information collected from respondents in the complete sample of RF schools, both 

newly funded and mature, to characterize the Reading First program (Question 1). The 

comparisons are based on the observed differences between the sample of mature RF schools and 

Title I schools (Question 2). 

To describe the implementation of reading programs in RF schools more broadly, we used 

survey data to generate descriptive statistics, such as means, proportions, and frequency 

distributions that are weighted to produce national, population-level estimates.16 Our study 

sample and design allows us to generate separate findings for each grade, however, when results 

do not vary across grades, we aggregate teacher-level findings across the four grades and, to 

simplify the presentation, we display the range of grade-level means. Specific grade-level 

estimates are, however, presented in Appendix C. 

 

16 All weighted analyses are conducted using STATA, a statistical package that generates appropriate standard 

errors associated with each weighted estimate by taking account of the structure of the survey sampling design. 
24 Chapter 1: Introduction 

For the purpose of recruiting the two types of RF schools, schools were designated as new or 

mature based on the Reading First program guidelines to states for their annual performance 

reports.17

 

 

17 “...schools receiving grants between July 1 and December 31 of any reporting period, the current school year 

will be considered in the first year of implementation.” Therefore, schools awarded subgrants before Dec. 31, 

2003, were designated as mature, because when data collection occurred in spring 2005, those schools were in 

at least their second year of implementation. All other RF schools were classified as newly funded. 
Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 25 

Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 

This chapter examines the characteristics of the sampled schools, both those that have received 

RF funding and the non-RF Title I schools. In this section, we present background information 

on school enrollment, staffing, student populations and external resources targeted to reading 

schools’ reading programs. 

Characteristics of Reading First and Title I Schools 

This section describes RF and Title I schools in terms of school characteristics (e.g., size, 

attendance and mobility rates), staff experience, students, resources targeted to reading 

programs, and accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Sampling weights 

have been applied to the survey data to provide estimates that represent the populations of RF 

and Title I schools. 

School Characteristics 

Exhibit 2.1 presents the distribution of schools based on school size; the distributions are similar 

for the populations of RF and Title I schools. There is a significantly greater proportion of very 

large RF schools than Title I schools (17 percent vs. 11 percent). This difference is also reflected 

in the mean enrollment, which, on average, is significantly higher in RF schools. 

Exhibit 2.1 

School Enrollment and Urbanicity in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School 

Year 

 Reading First Schools Title I Schools 

School Size 

 Mean enrollment 513* 465 

 Percent Percent 

Very small (1–99) 3% 3% 

Small (100–249) 11 14* 

Medium (250–499) 40 46* 

Large (500–749) 29 26 

Very large (750+) 17* 11 

 

Urbanicity 

Urban 46%* 39% 

Suburban 34 33 

Rural 20 28* 

Source: Principal Survey, Question A3a. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 3,878 RF principals, 14,625 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: < 1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: About 3 percent of RF and non-RF Title I schools are very small, with enrollments of less than 100. 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and 

Title I schools.
26 Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 

Enrollment stability is similar for RF and Title I schools, with approximately one-quarter of the 

schools in each group experiencing an increase in enrollment and another quarter of the schools 

experiencing a decrease in enrollment over the last five years (Exhibit 2.2). Reading First and 

Title I schools also have similar attendance and mobility rates. Average attendance across both 

types of schools is about 94 percent. Mobility rates average 18 percent for RF schools and 16 

percent for Title I schools. This difference, while statistically significant, is not substantively 

large or meaningful. 

Exhibit 2.2 

Mobility Rates, Attendance Rates and Changes in Enrollment in Reading First and 

Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Schools 

Percent Percent 

Change in Enrollment in Last Five Years 

Decreased 47% 44% 

Remained stable 25 27 

Increased 27 28 

School is new 2 1 

Mobility Rate 18%* 16% 

Attendance Rate 94 95 

Source: Principal Survey, Questions A3c, A3d, and A5. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: Mobility and attendance rates—3,186 RF principals, 12,305 Title I principals; .change 

in enrollment: 3,790 RF principals, 14,032 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 4.2 to 9.5 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Attendance rates in both Reading First and Title I schools during the 2004–05 school year 

were, on average, 94 and 95 percent, respectively. This difference is not statistically significant. 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF 

and Title I schools.

School Staff 

Overall, staff reports of their years of experience are similar in RF and Title I schools. 

There are, however, some small differences. Principals in Title I schools have significantly 

more experience as principal than do their counterparts in RF schools (8.5 years vs. 7.7 years). 

Similarly, they have been in their current schools slightly longer than principals in RF schools 

(5.3 years vs. 4.8 years). While these differences in experience are statistically significant, they 

are not substantively large (Exhibit 2.3). Although, on average, the principals appear to be 

experienced, about half of the principals have been in their schools for three years or less (51 

percent of the RF principals and 46 percent of the Title I principals). Further, 23 percent of RF 

principals and 18 percent of Title I principals reported that 2004–05 represented their first year in 

that school as principal (Exhibit 2.3). Frequent changes in key staff, such as the principal, may 

well have an effect on how well new programs function in the school. 
Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 27 

Exhibit 2.3 

Years of Experience for Staff in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School 

Year 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Schools 

Mean Mean 

Principals 

Years experience as principal 7.7 8.5* 

Years in this school 4.8 5.3* 

Teachers 

Years experience 12.8 13.2 

Years in this school 8.0 8.5 

Reading Coaches1 

Percent Percent 

Schools with Reading Coaches 98%* 60% 

 

Mean Mean 

Years experience 18.0 18.5 

Years in this school 7.5 9.0* 

Years as reading coach in this school 1.8 3.3* 

Source: Principal, and Teacher Surveys, Question A1; Reading Coach Survey, Question A3. 

Weight: Principal, Teacher, and Reading coach. 

Weighted respondents: 3,866 RF principals, 14,485 Title I principals; 64,545 RF teachers, 201,431 Title I 

teachers; 3,733 RF reading coaches, 7,613 reading coaches in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items and respondents: 0.3 to 5.2 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Principals in Reading First schools have, on average, 7.7 years experience in that position, 

compared with 8.5 years for principals in Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant (p = ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF 

and Title I respondents. 

1

 34 reading coaches in Title I schools were excluded from this analysis because based on their survey 

responses, they do not appear to meet the definition of “reading coach” used in this evaluation.

Teachers in RF and Title I schools are equally experienced, with about 13 years of teaching 

experience, on average. About one-third of teachers reported that they are relatively new to 

the current schools—14 percent of teachers for one year or less; 18 to 20 percent of 

teachers have taught in this school for between one and three years (See Appendix C.2.a for 

details). 

Reading coaches in RF and Title I schools are even more experienced than teachers in these 

schools; on average, they have 18 years of combined teaching or coaching experience 

(Exhibit 2.3). Further, 75 percent of reading coaches, whether in Reading First or Title I 

schools, have ten or more years of experience. Reading coaches in Title I schools reported that 

they have been working in their current schools for more than three years; this compares with 

less than two years for RF coaches, reflecting a distinction between the RF and Title I schools. 

Most states require RF schools to employ reading coaches to support teachers’ reading 
28 Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 

instruction; this is not the case for non-RF Title I schools, which may or may not have reading 

coaches. 

Preservice Teacher Training in the Five Dimensions of Reading 

A cornerstone of the Reading First program is that teachers should be knowledgeable about and 

well prepared to teach the five essential components of reading instruction—phonemic 

awareness, decoding, vocabulary, comprehension, and reading fluency. Teachers were asked to 

rate the extent to which their preservice training prepared them to teach the five dimensions of 

reading using a scale of 1 (not at all prepared) to 5 (extremely well-prepared). Generally, across 

the five dimensions, RF teachers rated themselves in the middle of the range—suggesting 

that their preservice training left them somewhat prepared to teach these skills. On all 

dimensions, Title I teachers rated themselves significantly higher than did the RF teachers; 

these differences, while statistically significant, are substantively small. (Exhibit 2.4). 

Exhibit 2.4 

Teachers’ Self-Ratings on Their Preservice Training to Teach Five Dimensions of 

Reading: Teachers in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

RF Teachers Title I Teachers 

Dimension Mean Self-Rating Mean Self-Rating 

 Phonemic awareness 2.99 3.15* 

Decoding 3.10 3.19* 

Vocabulary 3.25 3.45* 

Comprehension 3.33 3.47* 

Fluency 2.89 3.09* 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question A5. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 64,397 RF teachers, 201,292 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rate across survey items: < 1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Title I teachers rated themselves as better prepared based on their preservice training to 

teach phonemic awareness than did RF teachers (3.15 vs. 2.99, p is ≤ .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between 

RF and Title I teachers.

Ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1= not at all prepared and 5 = extremely well prepared. 

Student Population 

Principals reported that special education services are provided to roughly the same proportion of 

students in RF and Title I schools. In both groups of schools, this proportion increases from 

about 5 percent in kindergarten to almost 10 percent for third grade students (Exhibit 2.5). 

Principals also reported that significantly more students in RF schools are also more likely to 

receive English as a Second Language (ESL) education services—about 20 percent of K–3 

students, compared with about 10 percent for students in Title I schools. 
Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 29 

Exhibit 2.5 

Student Characteristics in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

 Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Schools 

 Mean Percent Mean Percent 

Receive Special Education Services 

Kindergarten 6% 6% 

1st grade 7 7 

2nd grade 8 9 

3rd grade 10 10 

Receive ESL Instruction 

Kindergarten 22* 12 

1st grade 21* 12 

2nd grade 21* 11 

3rd grade 20* 10 

Instruction in language other than English 

Kindergarten 7* 6 

1st grade 7* 5 

2nd grade 6 5 

3rd grade 5* 4 

Source: Principal Survey, Question A6. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted Respondents: 3,551 RF principals, 13,499 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items and grades: 7.8 to 13.5 percent. 

Exhibit reads: In RF schools and Title I schools, 6 percent of kindergarten students receive special 

education services. 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF 

and Title I schools.

External Resources to Support Schools’ Reading Programs 

Reading First is the signature reading program of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB). As such, it 

represents a substantial investment in improving the reading achievement of the nation’s 

students. However, states, school districts, and schools receive support for their reading 

programs from other sources. Interviews with state Reading First coordinators, for example, 

found that 30 states had separate reading initiatives based on scientifically based reading 

research (SBRR), and 36 states had major statewide initiatives focused on professional 

development in reading instruction for teachers or reading specialists and administrators, 

among other initiatives.18 Below, we summarize survey results about the array of funding and 

external support for reading for Reading First schools. 

Size of Reading First Grant 

For the total population of Reading First schools, principals reported that the median 

annual RF award was $138,000 for school year 2004–05 (Exhibit 2.6). Typically, schools 

receive funds for three years or more. The funds ranged in size from a low of $2,000 to a 

 

18 Other initiatives include revised reading or language arts standards and accountability or assessment initiatives 

focused on reading proficiency (29 states), early child education and school readiness initiatives (18 states), and 

family literacy programs such as Even Start. 
30 Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 

high of $854,000. About 12 percent of the awards were less than $50,000; less than 1 percent 

were more than $500,000. The great majority of the RF awards to schools (81 percent) were 

between $50,000 and $299,999. We expected that larger schools, on average, would receive 

larger Reading First awards, and this trend seems to hold; however, some smaller schools 

received larger awards as well. 

Exhibit 2.6 

Distribution of Reading First Funds to Schools by Average Enrollment, for Reading First 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First Schools Median RF award to schools $138,000 

Size of annual RF award 

Percent of 

Schools 

Average 

School Enrollment 

... $2,000––$99,999 29% 470 

...$100,000–$199,999 46 490 

...$200,000–$299,999 18 511 

...$300,000–$399,999 4 532 

...$400,000–$499,999 2 715 

...$500,000 and over 1 737 

Source: Principal Survey, Question B6. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 2,851 RF principals. 

Nonresponse rate: 27.1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 29 percent of Reading First schools received funds of between $2,000 and $99,999. The average school 

enrollment for schools receiving between $2,000 and $99,999 in Reading First funds was 470 students. 

Other Sources of Financial Assistance for K–3 Reading Programs 

Principals of the total population of Reading First schools reported that they received funding 

from an average of 5.1 sources, compared with 4.5 sources reported by principals of Title I 

schools (Appendix C, Exhibit 2.C.6). Significantly more Title I schools than Reading First 

schools reported receiving funding from Title I, district general funds, state textbook funds, 

professional development funds, and private grants. 

Nonfinancial Assistance with K–3 Reading Programs 

Beyond financial support, RF principals were significantly more likely to report receiving 

substantially more external, nonfinancial assistance than Title I principals, in a variety of 

areas including selecting instructional programs (76 percent vs. 56 percent), diagnosing 

needs of struggling readers (70 percent vs. 50 percent), conducting demonstration lessons 

(71 percent vs. 48 percent), and reviewing the effectiveness of reading programs (71 

percent vs. 47 percent) (See Exhibit 2.7). 
Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 31 

Exhibit 2.7 

Nonfinancial External Assistance for K–3 Reading Program Activities in Reading First and 

Non-RF Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Schools 

Type of Assistance Percent Percent 

Planning professional development 84%* 73% 

Interpreting assessment results 84* 70 

Conducting classroom observation 80* 49 

Providing technical assistance in implementing core reading programs 81* 50 

Selecting professional development providers 77* 57 

Selecting assessment instruments 76* 56 

Selecting instructional programs/materials 76* 56 

Reviewing reading program effectiveness 71* 47 

Conducting demonstration lessons 71* 48 

Diagnosing needs of struggling readers 70* 50 

Setting up intervention programs for struggling readers 70* 51 

Providing technical assistance for using supplementary reading materials 69* 48 

Conducting needs assessment for professional development 57* 43 

Leading teacher study groups 49* 33 

Recruiting staff with reading expertise 40* 25 

Source: Principal Survey, Question B7. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 3,850 RF principals, 14,481 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 1.7 to 4.4 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 82 percent of principals in RF schools reported receiving external assistance in interpreting assessment results, 

compared to 70 percent of principals in Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant (p-value ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

schools. 

NCLB Accountability 

All schools, including Reading First schools, must also continue to meet the accountability 

requirements of the NCLB legislation. NCLB mandates that states develop and implement 

systems of accountability to ensure that districts and schools make adequate yearly progress as 

measured by the academic achievement of its students (Part A, Sec. 1111, (b), (2)). States 

develop their own definitions of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for their districts and schools 

by specifying the minimum levels of improvement in student performance that must be attained. 

The legislation also includes sanctions for schools that do not make AYP. Schools that do not 

make AYP for two consecutive years are designated as schools in need of improvement and are 

required to develop a plan to remedy the situation; they are in year 1 of school improvement. If, 

at the end of year 1 a school fails to make AYP, the school district is required to provide 

technical assistance and supplemental educational services to the eligible students in those 

schools. Then, if those schools fail to make AYP at the end of year 2 of improvement, the district 

must implement a series of ‘corrective actions’ (e.g., replacing staff, implementing new 
32 Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 

curricula, extending the school day, restructuring the organization of the school). If a school does 

not make AYP after five or more years, the school must implement a restructuring plan. 

Of the 4,764 schools identified as RF schools during the 2004–05 school year, currently about 

1,096 (or 23 percent) have been designated as schools in need of improvement, exactly the 

schools RF is supposed to serve (Exhibit 2.8). About 70 percent of the RF schools in need of 

improvement are in their first or second year of school improvement; about 19 percent are 

schools in which districts are required to implement corrective action to improve the school. In 

about 11 percent of these schools, districts are required to restructure schools in which AYP has 

not been accomplished for five years.

Exhibit 2.8 

Status of Reading First Schools Designated as in Need of Improvement, 2004–05 School 

Year 

 Number of Schools Percent 

School improvement—Year 1 418 41% 

School improvement—Year 2 294 29 

Corrective action 189 19 

Restructuring and planning 113 11 

 

Total 1,014 100 

Source: Database provided by the U.S. Department of Education. 

Note: 82 RF schools included in the Schools in Need of Improvement database are missing a specific status 

classification. 

Summary 

The demographic characteristics of Reading First and Title I schools are similar in several areas 

including attendance rates, mobility, and stability of enrollment. In general, the patterns of staff 

experience are similar for the two groups of schools. About half of the principals and one-third 

of the teachers have been in their current schools for three years or less. Reading First schools, 

however, on average have larger enrollments and are more likely to be located in urban areas 

with almost half of RF schools in such a locale, compared with 39 percent of Title I schools. 

The K–3 student populations of RF and Title I schools are similar in terms of the proportion of 

students receiving special education services and instruction in a language other than English. 

However, these schools differ in their proportions of students receiving ESL instruction; about 

one-fifth of K–3 students in RF schools receive such services, compared with about 10 percent in 

Title I schools. 

The median school in the total Reading First population received $138,000 in federal Reading 

First funds for school year 2004–05; about 80 percent of the awards were between $50,000 and 

$299,999 in size. In addition to these funds, most schools in the total population of Reading First 

schools received support for reading programs from Title I (91 percent) and from school district 
Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 33 

general funds (79 percent). Reading First schools also received many different kinds of 

nonfinancial assistance for their K–3 reading programs in the form of assistance with planning 

professional development, interpreting assessment results, implementing the core reading 

program, and conducting classroom observations. Finally, across a variety of types of 

nonfinancial assistance, Reading First schools were much more likely to receive such assistance 

than were Title I schools. 
34 Chapter 2: Composition of the Study Sample 
Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 35 

Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 

The purpose of Reading First is to change how reading is taught in K–3 classrooms. These 

changes may include how much time is allocated to reading instruction, the types of materials 

used for reading instruction, the strategies used for helping teachers implement reading 

instruction, and the specific activities teachers use to teach reading. 

This chapter reports findings on the amount of time spent on reading instruction in Reading First 

and Title I schools, changes in materials and the types of materials used for reading instruction, 

and the types of strategies and activities used for reading instruction in Reading First and Title I 

classrooms. 

Instructional Time 

Research has shown that the amount of time that schools spend on reading is a major determinant 

of reading achievement (National Research Council, 1998). The Reading First program guidance 

notes that schools “should also consider the allocation of time, including a protected, 

uninterrupted block of time for reading instruction of more than 90 minutes per day.”19 This 

section presents results on whether uninterrupted reading blocks are scheduled, the amount of 

time scheduled and actually spent on reading instruction, and changes in the amount of time 

spent on reading instruction compared to the previous school year, as reported by reading 

coaches and classroom teachers. 

Amount of Time Spent on Reading Instruction 

Reading coaches in RF and Title I schools agreed that there is sufficient time during the school 

day allotted for reading instruction.20 As shown in Exhibit 3.1, a great majority of reading 

coaches and principals (88–98 percent) reported that their schools had a scheduled reading block 

for grades 1–3. However, mature Reading First schools were significantly more likely than 

Title I schools to have a scheduled reading block (98 percent vs. 92 percent). At these three 

grade levels, Reading First schools, on average, reported having a 15-minute longer 

scheduled reading block than did Title I schools. Very few grade 1–3 classrooms in mature 

Reading First schools (3 percent) reported having a scheduled reading block less than 90 

minutes long, compared with more than 20 percent of the grade 1–3 classrooms in Title I 

schools. 

These differences between mature Reading First and Title I schools were similar for kindergarten 

classrooms. Kindergartens in Reading First schools were also significantly more likely to have a 

 

19 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, “Guidance for the Reading First 

Program.” Washington, D.C., April 2002, page 6. 

20 Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale of one to five how accurately the statement “Sufficient time 

during the school day is allotted for reading instruction (Question H1)” describes their school. The average 

response was 4.54 for RF schools and 4.46 for Title I schools. This difference is not statistically significant. 
36 Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 

scheduled reading block than Title I kindergartens (98 percent vs. 88 percent). Although nearly 

12 percent of RF kindergartens had scheduled reading blocks less than 90 minutes long, 

nearly one-third of Title I kindergartens (33 percent) had reading blocks of less than 90 

minutes. 

Teachers in Reading First schools, at all four grade levels, reported that they spent more 

time on reading than did teachers in Title I schools—a difference of about 19 minutes per 

day, or almost 100 minutes per week (99 minutes vs. 80 minutes per day). 

Exhibit 3.1 

Percentage of Mature Reading First Schools and Title I Schools with a Daily Scheduled Reading 

Block, Length of the Reading Block, and Total Length of Reading Instruction, 2004–05 School 

Year 

Grade Level 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Schools 

Kindergarten 

...Schools with reading block 

...Schools with a reading block <90 minutes 

98%* 

12% 

88% 

33%* 

...Length of reading block 

...Total reading instruction 

98 minutes 

121 minutes 

94 minutes 

116 minutes 

1st grade 

...Schools with reading block 

...Schools with a reading block <90 minutes 

98%* 

3% 

92% 

21%* 

...Length of reading block 

...Total reading instruction 

116 minutes* 

141 minutes* 

100 minutes 

125 minutes 

2nd grade 

...Schools with reading block 

...Schools with a reading block <90 minutes 

98%* 

3% 

92% 

22% 

...Length of reading block 

...Total reading instruction 

114 minutes* 

139 minutes* 

100 minutes 

124 minutes 

3rd grade 

...Schools with reading block 

...Schools with a reading block <90 minutes 

98%* 

4% 

92% 

24%* 

...Length of reading block 

...Total reading instruction 

114 minutes* 

137 minutes* 

99 minutes 

121 minutes 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Questions D2 and D3; Principal Survey, Questions D2 and D3. 

Weight: School. 

Weighted respondents: 2,216 RF reading coaches or principals, 14,259 reading coaches or principals in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items and respondents: 0 to 5 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 98 percent of RF schools reported having a scheduled reading block at the kindergarten level, compared with 88 

percent of Title I schools. The difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

schools.

Total reading instruction includes the scheduled reading block. Data are taken from Reading Coach survey. If the Reading 

Coach survey is missing responses to this question, then data are taken from Principal Survey. 

Perceived Change in Amount of Time Spent on Reading Instruction 

About 60 percent of the K–3 teachers in new Reading First schools reported that they 

increased the amount of time spent on reading in 2004–05 as compared with 2003–04; 

additionally, around 45 percent of the K–3 teachers in mature Reading First schools 

reported increased time spent on reading compared to the prior year (Exhibit 3.2). In 
Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 37 

comparison, about one-third of K–3 teachers in Title I schools reported increasing the 

amount of time spent on reading instruction in 2004–05. 

Exhibit 3.2 

Percentage of Teachers in Mature and New Reading First Schools and Title I Schools Who 

Changed the Amount of Time Spent Teaching Reading from Previous Year, 2004–05 School 

Year 

Mature Reading First 

Schools 

New Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Change in Time Spent Schools 

Teaching Reading Percent Percent Percent 

Kindergarten teachers 

...Increase 44% 60%* 40% 

...Remain the same 54 37 55* 

...Decrease 2 3 5 

1st grade teachers 

...Increase 47 59* 34 

...Remain the same 52 36 61* 

...Decrease 2 5 5 

2nd grade teachers 

...Increase 47 62* 34 

...Remain the same 51 35 61* 

...Decrease 2 3 5 

3rd grade teachers 

...Increase 42 61* 31 

...Remain the same 55 35 63* 

...Decrease 3 3 7 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C2. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 35,215 teachers in mature Reading First schools, 23,908 teachers in new Reading First schools, 

187,373 teachers in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rate across grades: < 1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 47 percent of first-grade teachers in mature RF schools increased the amount of time they spent teaching 

reading from the previous year. 59 percent of first-grade teachers in new RF schools increased the amount of time they 

spent teaching reading, compared with 34 percent of first-grade teachers at Title I schools. This difference is statistically 

significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between new RF and 

Title I schools. 

Instructional Materials 

The Reading First legislation provides states and districts with specific guidelines about the 

selection of instructional materials for teaching reading. In their grant applications, states were 

required to demonstrate how they would support districts’ efforts to identify instructional 

materials based on scientifically based reading research. The guidance further specifies that a 

high-quality reading program must have a coherent design and address the five essential 

elements of reading instruction. In this section we describe 1) how RF schools selected their 

reading instructional materials and 2) the instructional programs (core, supplementary, and those 

selected for English Language Learners) used most frequently in RF schools. 

The self-report information provided by the survey respondents suggest that RF schools have 

made changes to their reading programs. Reading coaches and school principals indicated 
38 Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 

whether they had changed their reading program materials since the beginning of the 2004–05 

school year. RF reading coaches were significantly more likely to indicate that K–3 classrooms 

had ample, high quality instructional materials than were coaches in Title I schools.21 

As shown in Exhibit 3.3, new RF schools were significantly more likely than their Title I 

counterparts to have adopted a new core reading program at the beginning of the school 

year (39 percent vs. 16 percent). They were also much more likely to have added new 

intervention programs for struggling readers (74 percent vs. 43 percent), new 

supplementary materials (69 percent vs. 58 percent), new materials for English Language 

Learners (43 percent vs. 23 percent), and new reading assessments (71 percent vs. 36 

percent). Data from mature RF schools are not presented,22 because mature RF schools would 

most likely have adopted a new core reading program at the start of their RF grant and not 

changed their core program as of the beginning of the 2004–05 school year.23 

 

21 Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale of one to five how accurately the statement “K–3 classrooms 

have ample, high quality instructional materials” (Question H1)” describes their school. The average response 

was 4.39 for RF reading coaches and 4.01 for reading coaches in Title I schools. This difference is statistically 

significant (p ≤ .05). 

22 The figures for mature Reading First schools are as follows: 7 percent reported adopting a new core reading 

program in the 2004–05 school year; 52 percent reported adding a new intervention program for struggling 

readers; 57 percent reported adding new supplementary materials; 30 percent reported adding new materials for 

ELLs; and 26 percent reported adding new reading assessments. 

23 For this study, a core reading program is defined as one that provides a comprehensive program of instruction 

on a daily basis in all aspects of reading. Supplementary reading materials provide instruction in a targeted area 

of reading to all students. Intervention programs are designed to help struggling readers and are to be used in 

addition to the core reading program. 
Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 39 

Exhibit 3.3 

Changes to Reading Program Materials for New Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

71* 

43* 

69* 74* 

39* 

16

43

58

29

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

Adopted a new

core reading

program

Added a new

intervention

program for

struggling readers

Added new

supplementary

materials

Added new

materials for ELLs

Adopted new

reading

assessments

Percent of 

Schools

Reading First

Title I

Source: Reading Coach Survey Question C3; Principal Survey, Question D7. 

Weight: School. 

Weighted respondents: 18,239 reading coaches and principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 1 to 2 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 39 percent of the new Reading First schools in the sample had adopted a new core reading program at the beginning of 

the school year, as opposed to 16 percent of Title I schools in the sample. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I schools.

Responsibility for Selection of Materials 

Interviews with state Reading First coordinators24 indicated that virtually all states were involved 

in the selection of core reading programs for Reading First schools, either by developing a list of 

recommended reading programs (37 states), or by referring districts to A Consumer’s Guide for 

Evaluating a Core Program Grades K–325 (15 states). However, although most state agencies 

were involved in choosing programs, much flexibility existed for districts and schools. 

Twenty-eight states reported providing assistance to districts or schools in selecting a core 

reading program. Most of these states (23) provided this assistance prior to subgrant award, 

usually by providing lists of approved programs or other guidance (such as directing districts or 

schools to the Consumer’s Guide. 

Principals too were asked about who was involved in selecting instructional materials. As shown 

in Exhibit 3.4, 86 percent of principals reported the selection of core reading programs involved 

 

24 Reading First coordinators for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs schools were interviewed. 

25 A Consumer’s Guide for Evaluating a Core Program Grades K–3: A Critical Elements Analysis by Deborah 

Simmons and Edward Kame’enui is a product of the National Center to Improve Tools for Educators and the 

Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement at the College of Education, University of Oregon. 

The Guide lists criteria that should be carefully considered in selecting a scientifically based core reading 

program. 
40 Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 

the district. Forty-two percent of the RF principals reported that districts selected the core 

reading programs without the involvement of other actors. Thirty percent of the RF principals 

reported that the state was involved in the core reading program selection process, although 

principals may not have been aware of state involvement in providing menus from which to 

select programs. 

Approximately one-third of principals in the total population of Reading First schools reported 

that they or their reading coach had participated in the selection of the core reading program. 

Very few schools (7 percent) reported that they were able to select core programs without any 

state or district input. This suggests that the RF guidelines that encourage state and district 

participation in key instructional decisions are largely being followed. 

Exhibit 3.4 

Responsibility for Selection of Reading Materials in RF Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

64

19 19

30

86

61 64 66

38

69

61

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

Selection of intervention

reading program

materials

Selection of

supplemental reading

program materials 

Selection of a specific

core reading program

Percent of 

Schools

State

District

Principal

Reading Coach

Source: Principal Survey, Question D4. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 3,911 RF principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: < 1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 69 percent of RF school principals indicated that their school’s reading coach was involved in the selection 

of intervention reading program materials for their school.

Principals reported that the districts were also involved in the selection of supplemental materials 

(66 percent), although the district selected supplemental materials without involvement from the 

school or the state for only 15 percent of schools. A smaller proportion of states helped select 

supplemental curriculum materials (19 percent). Principals more commonly reported that it was 

school personnel, either the reading coaches or principals, who selected supplemental materials 

(61 and 66 percent, respectively). In fact, in nearly one-third of schools (28 percent), school staff 

selected the supplemental curriculum materials without either state or district involvement. The 

selection patterns of interventions for struggling readers mirror those described above. 

The actors involved in the selection of curricular materials differ in mature RF and Title I 

schools. As shown in Exhibit 3.5, principals in mature RF schools were more likely than 
Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 41 

principals in Title I schools to report state involvement in the selection of core reading programs 

(31 percent vs. 18 percent), supplemental materials (19 percent vs. 6 percent), and intervention 

reading materials (18 percent vs. 5 percent). 

Exhibit 3.5 

Responsibility for Selection of Reading Materials in Mature Reading First and 

Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Selection of a Specific Core Reading Program

26* 33

88* 

31* 

18 18

83

38

0

20

40

60

80

100

State District Principal Reading coach

Percent of 

Schools

Reading First

Title I

Selection of Supplemental Reading Program Materials

66 66* 61

19* 

6

40

56

68

0

20

40

60

80

100

State District Principal Reading coach

Percent of 

Schools

Selection of Intervention Reading Program 

Materials for use with Struggling Readers

67* 64* 62

18* 

5

43

56

70* 

0

20

40

60

80

100

State District Principal Reading coach

Percent of

 Schools

Source: Principal Survey, Question D4. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 2,210 RF principals, 14,684 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rate across survey items: < 1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 31 percent of principals in RF schools indicated that the state was involved in the selection of the school’s 

core reading program vs. 18 percent of principals in Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and 

Title I schools. 
42 Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 

Principals in mature RF schools were significantly more likely than Title I principals to report 

district involvement in selecting core materials (88 percent vs. 83 percent) and intervention 

materials (64 percent vs. 56 percent). These differences, although statistically significant, are not 

substantively meaningful. There were no significant differences between mature RF and Title I 

schools in district involvement for selection of supplemental materials. This may reflect the fact 

that core materials have not been in place long enough in Reading First schools for districts to 

systematically review what needs to be supplemented. Not surprisingly, reading coaches were 

more likely to be involved in the selection of materials in RF schools than in Title I schools, 

reflecting the fact that most states required their RF schools (but not their Title I schools) to hire 

reading coaches. Finally, principals in RF and Title I schools reported statistically similar 

patterns of involvement in the selection of supplemental materials. (Details are shown in 

Appendix C, Exhibit C.3.5.) 

Core Reading Programs 

One of the cornerstones of the Reading First program is the implementation of a core reading 

program that is supported by SBRR and provides instruction in the five essential elements of 

reading. A core reading program is one that provides a comprehensive daily program of 

instruction in all aspects of reading. 

Each state is responsible for ensuring that the core reading programs the Reading First schools 

use, are aligned with scientifically based reading research. Some states fulfill that responsibility 

by developing a list of core reading programs from which districts or schools make their 

selections. Others allow local selection. Of the 37 state Reading First coordinators who reported 

the core reading programs used by name, almost all (35) reported three or more programs in use 

in their states. Two states limit their allowable core programs to two. The states with the shorter 

lists contain 20 percent of the Reading First schools in the study sample. 

 

We asked principals and reading coaches in an open-ended question about the core program in 

use in each grade K–3. Both principals and reading coaches were surveyed because not all 

schools have reading coaches. Where available, we used the reading coach response. We 

received responses from 100 percent of the Reading First schools versus 81 percent of the 

sampled Title I schools. Response rates were lower for this question than many others in the 

report because it was open-ended26 and possibly because some sampled Title I schools27 or 

grades did not have a core reading program. 

 

26 Some respondents omitted the name of the publisher, the name of the program, or the year of the program. 

27 As is true with all of the survey results, the Title I sample includes only Title I schoolwide project (SWP) 

schools with at least 40 percent of the students eligible for free or reduced price lunches. Therefore this 

information is not generalizable to all Title I schools. 
Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 43 

Reading First personnel reported using 37 different core reading programs28 (Exhibit 3.6.a). The 

most frequently cited programs in Reading First schools include: Houghton Mifflin 

(unspecified), McGraw-Hill Reading, Nation’s Choice, Open Court, Success for All, and 

Trophies. The findings for the sample of Title I schools were similar. Personnel in the sampled 

Title I schools mentioned 49 different core reading programs (Exhibit 3.6.b). The most 

frequently cited programs in these Title I schools were: McGraw-Hill Reading, Open Court, 

Scott Foresman Reading, Success for All, and Trophies. 

Exhibit 3.6.a 

Core Reading Programs Used by Reading First Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

 Reading First Schools 

Percentage of Schools in Sample that 

Use the Program Publisher Program 

1–5% Addison Wesley Unspecified 

Harcourt Unspecified/Other 

Rigby Reading 

Collections 

 Houghton Mifflin Lectura 

 Reading 2005 

 State Specific Edition 

McGraw-Hill Unspecified 

 Scott Foresman State Specific Edition 

 Reading 

 Unspecified 

 Literacy Works 

Sopris Read Well 

 Voyager Universal Literacy 

Houghton Mifflin Legacy of Literacy 

6–10% Houghton Mifflin Unspecified 

McGraw-Hill Reading 

 Success for All Success for All 

11–23% Harcourt Trophies 

 Houghton Mifflin Nation's Choice 

McGraw-Hill Open Court 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Principal Survey Question C1. 

Unweighted. 

Respondents: 1,042 RF reading coaches and 50 RF principals. 

Nonresponse rate: 0 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Between 1and 5 percent of RF schools (reading coaches or principals) reported using a reading program 

published by Addison Wesley for at least one of the grades K–3. 

Notes: Programs with frequencies of less than 1 percent are presented in Appendix C, Exhibit C.3.6.a. 

The columns list the unweighted percent of schools that listed the specified reading program as the core program their school 

uses for at least one of grades K–3. 

Weights were not used because many strata did not have enough respondents to accurately figure the weighted percent. 

In many instances respondents identified a publisher but did not specify a program. These are designated here as 

“unspecified.” Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

A number of publishers have developed programs tailored specifically to the needs of individual states, referred to here as 

“state specific editions.”

 

28 3.9 percent of the Reading Coach respondents named multiple publishers for an individual grade; 2.5 percent 

named multiple programs for an individual grade. Some respondents named supplemental or other noncore 

programs. 
44 Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 

Exhibit 3.6.b 

Core Reading Programs Used by Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

 Title I Schools 

Percentage of Schools in Sample that 

Use the Program Publisher Program 

1–5% Caron-Dellosa Unspecified 

DSC Making Meaning 

 Harcourt Signatures 

 Unspecified/Other 

 Rigby Reading 

Heinemann Fountas Pinnel units of study 

 Houghton Mifflin Horizons 

 State Specific Edition 

McGraw-Hill Reading Mastery 

Spotlight on Literacy 

 Saxon Saxon Phonics 

Scholastic Unspecified 

Literacy Place 

 Scott Foresman Lectura 

 Celebrate Reading 

Sopris Read Well 

 Voyager Universal Literacy 

Wright Group Unspecified 

6–10% Harcourt Collections 

Houghton Mifflin Nation's Choice 

Reading 2005 

Legacy of Literacy 

Invitation to Literacy 

Unspecified 

 McGraw-Hill Unspecified 

Scott Foresman Unspecified 

Literacy Works 

11–18% Harcourt Trophies 

McGraw-Hill Open Court 

Reading 

 Scott Foresman Reading 

Success for All Success for All 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Principal Survey Question C1. 

Unweighted. 

Respondents: 273 reading coaches in Title I schools and 167 Title I principals 

Nonresponse rate: 19 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 1 percent of Title I sampled schools (reading coaches or principals) reported using a reading program 

published by Addison-Wesley for at least one of the grades K–3. The particular Addison-Wesley reading program was not 

specified. 

Notes: Programs with frequencies of less than 1 percent are presented in Appendix C, Exhibit C.3.6.b. 

The columns list the unweighted percent of schools that listed the specified reading program as the core program their school 

uses for at least one of grades K–3. 

Weights were not used because many strata did not have enough respondents to accurately figure the weighted percent. 

In many instances respondents identified a publisher but did not specify a program. These are designated here as 

“unspecified.” 

A number of publishers have developed programs tailored specifically to the needs of individual states, referred to here as 

“state specific editions.” 

The Title I sample includes only Title I schoolwide project (SWP) schools with at least 40 percent of the students eligible for

free or reduced price lunches. Therefore this information is not generalizable to all non-RF Title I schools 
Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 45 

Use of Supplemental Materials 

The use of supplemental materials to support instruction in the five key elements of reading 

instruction is an important component of Reading First. Reading coaches in both RF and Title I 

schools were equally likely to report that supplemental materials used in their schools are aligned 

with SBRR.29 Reading coaches and principals were asked to indicate whether teachers in their 

schools used supplementary reading materials to teach reading, and also to indicate the specific 

elements of reading for which these supplementary materials were selected.30

Interestingly, although about 80 percent of the RF schools in the sample of mature RF schools 

used supplemental materials in their classrooms, reading coaches and principals reported that 

teachers in Title I schools were significantly more likely (more than 90 percent) to use 

supplemental materials than were teachers in RF schools. Further, reading coaches in Title I 

schools were more likely to report that their teachers have experience with supplemental 

materials.31 A statistically significant difference of approximately 10 percentage points (and in 

many cases as much as 15 percentage points) was observed across all grades and all elements of 

reading, with the exception of comprehension in kindergarten and fluency in grades 1 to 3. For 

comprehension, kindergarten teachers were equally likely to use supplemental materials in RF 

and Title I schools (35 percent vs. 37 percent). 

The fact that Title I teachers reported that they are more likely to use supplementary materials, 

and that Title I reading coaches reported that their teachers have more experience with 

supplementary materials, is puzzling. One possible explanation is that Title I schools are less 

likely to have adopted one core reading program, and instead use a number of disparate 

supplemental materials to teach various aspects of reading. Another possibility is that Title I 

schools are less likely to have a core program that emphasizes all five elements of reading, and 

may therefore be more likely to use supplemental materials for instruction in skills like decoding, 

vocabulary development, and comprehension. 

Instructional Activities and Strategies 

The RF program is, at its core, designed to have an influence on the instructional activities of the 

teachers in RF schools. In this section we describe what survey results tell us about the 

instructional activities and strategies used by the RF teachers in our sample. 

 

29 Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale of one to five how accurately the statement “Supplemental 

materials are aligned with SBRR” (Question H1) describes their school. The average response was 4.11 for RF 

coaches and 4.03 for reading coaches in Title I schools. This difference is not statistically significant. 

30 Though we tried to be clear on the surveys, it is possible that the distinctions between supplementary and 

intervention materials may not have been clear to some respondents. 

31 Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale of one to five how accurately the statement “K–3 teachers 

are experienced with supplemental reading materials” (Question H1) describes their school. The average 

response was 3.58 for reading coaches in Title I schools percent vs. 3.29 for RF coaches. This difference is 

statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 
46 Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 

Characteristics of Instruction at the School Level 

The importance of improving reading instruction is central to RF’s potential for positive effects 

in schools. As shown in Exhibit 3.7, reading coaches in RF and Title I schools were equally 

likely to report a schoolwide focus on reading and language arts and alignment of reading 

instruction with state reading and language arts standards. In contrast, however, RF 

coaches were significantly more likely than reading coaches in Title I schools to report that 

the core reading program is aligned with scientifically based reading research (4.63 vs. 

4.29). Also, consistent with the findings presented earlier, coaches in RF schools were 

significantly more likely to report involvement from the state and district in providing direction 

concerning reading instruction than coaches in Title I schools (4.22 vs. 3.66). On the other hand, 

reading coaches in RF schools were significantly less likely than their Title I counterparts to 

report that teachers in their schools are motivated to improve reading instruction (4.04 vs. 4.22). 

This difference, however, while statistically significant, is not large enough to be substantively 

meaningful. 

Exhibit 3.7 

Characteristics of Reading Instruction as Reported by Reading Coaches in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First Title I 

Mean Mean 

K–3 teachers are knowledgeable about scientifically based reading instruction 3.63 3.52 

K–3 teachers make an effort to involve parents in their children's reading 

instruction 

3.84 3.96 

K–3 teachers are experienced with the core reading program 3.99 4.05 

K–3 teachers are motivated to improve reading instruction 4.04 4.22* 

The district provides direction concerning reading instruction 4.12 3.96 

The state provides direction concerning reading instruction 4.22* 3.66 

Reading instruction in K–3 classrooms is aligned with the state 

reading/language arts content standards 

4.45 4.43 

There is a schoolwide focus on reading and language arts 4.52 4.59 

The core reading program is aligned with SBRR 4.63* 4.29 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Question H1. 

Weight: Reading coach. 

Weighted respondents: 2,215 RF reading coaches, 7,563 reading coaches in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 1 to 3 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale of one to five how accurately the statement “Teachers use a 

variety of instructional materials to fill in gaps in the core program” described their school. The average response for RF 

schools was 3.46 for RF schools and 3.69 for Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I schools.

Collaboration on Reading Instruction 

Reading coaches in mature RF schools reported that their schools have more time regularly set 

aside for staff to collaborate on reading lesson planning and instruction. The difference, although 

statistically significant, is not large, more often than monthly in RF schools and somewhat less 
Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 47 

frequently in Title I schools.32 Teachers, however, corroborate this finding. As shown in Exhibit 

3.8, teachers in Title I schools were more likely to report that no time was set aside for 

collaboration on reading lesson planning and instruction (17 percent vs. 10 percent), or for 

observation of reading instruction in other classrooms (62 percent vs. 54 percent). 

Exhibit 3.8 

Teacher Reports on the Type and Frequency of Collaboration About Reading in Mature 

Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First 

Teachers 

Title I 

Teachers 

Type and Frequency of Collaboration: Percent Percent 

Collaborate on reading lesson planning and instruction 

...Not at all 10% 17%* 

...Infrequently (monthly or less) 43* 33 

...Once a week or more 38 35 

...Informally, as needed 9 15* 

Observe reading instruction in other classrooms 

...Not at all 54 62* 

...Infrequently (monthly or less) 24 19* 

...Once a week or more 1 1 

...Informally, as needed 21* 18 

Help with coaching or be coached about reading by other 

teacher 

 

...Not at all 23 39* 

...Infrequently (monthly or less) 45* 35 

...Once a week or more 12* 7 

...Informally, as needed 20 19 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C3. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 64,545 RF teachers, 201,431 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: < 1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 43 percent of K–3 teachers in RF schools reported having time set aside “infrequently” (monthly or less) 

for collaboration on lesson planning and instruction, compared with 33 percent of K–3 teachers in Title I schools. This 

difference is statistically significant (1 = Not at all; 2 = 1–4 times per year; 3 = 5–8 times per year; 4 = once a month; 5 = 

once a week or more) 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and 

Title I respondents. 

Instructional Activities 

We created six composites to summarize teachers’ self-ratings of the centrality of a series of 

instructional activities associated with the following reading dimensions and other instructional 

features: 1) phonemic awareness and decoding; 2) vocabulary; 3) comprehension; 4) fluency; 5) 

use of scientifically based instructional strategies and materials in their classroom; and 6) 

negative alignment with scientifically based reading research. (See Appendix D for a list the 

individual items included in each composite.) Scores were computed for each composite based 

on the percentage of instructional activities specified in that composite that a teacher rated as 

 

32 Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale of one to five (1 = Not at all; 2 = 1–4 times per year; 3 = 5–8 

times per year; 4 = once a month; 5 = once a week or more) how often time is set aside for collaboration on 

reading lesson planning. The average response for RF schools was 4.23 and 3.88 for Title I schools. This 

difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 
48 Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 

“central to their instruction.” For example, if a kindergarten teacher rated six of the seven 

activities that comprise the comprehension composite as central, then their score would be 85.7 

percent. Exhibit 3.9 presents the mean percents for the six composites obtained teachers in each 

of the four target grades in mature RF schools and Title I schools. 

Exhibit 3.9 

Teacher Ratings of the Centrality of SBRR Aligned Instructional Activities in 

Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

 Reading First 

Teachers 

Title I 

Teachers 

 Mean Percent Mean Percent 

Phonemic Awareness and Decoding 

Kindergarten 91%* 86% 

1st grade 85* 81 

2nd grade 63 59 

3rd grade 58 54 

Comprehension 

Kindergarten 71 69 

1st grade 74 72 

2nd grade 67 70 

3rd grade 72 70 

Vocabulary 

Kindergarten 62 60 

1st grade 88 87 

2nd grade 71 72 

3rd grade 81* 75 

Fluency 

Kindergarten 

1st grade 87* 83 

2nd grade 57 58 

3rd grade 56* 47 

Overall Composite SBRR 

Kindergarten 77* 68 

1st grade 79* 76 

2nd grade 76* 72 

3rd grade 75* 70 

Overall Composite Non-SBRR 

Kindergarten 66 67 

1st grade 68 70 

2nd grade 66 64 

3rd grade 66 64 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C4. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted Respondents: 38,317 RF teachers, 200,730 teachers in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rates across composites and grades: 0.2 to 4.5 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Kindergarten teachers in RF schools, on average, rated 91 percent of SBRR-aligned 

phonemic awareness and decoding activities as central to their instruction; this compares with 86 percent 

for kindergarten teachers in Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant (p < .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between 

RF and Title I schools. 

Kindergarten teachers were not asked any questions related to fluency instruction.
Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 49 

Across the six composites, there were some significant differences between teachers in 

mature RF and Title I schools. In general, however, the differences while statistically 

significant are not large. Specifically: 

• Kindergarten and first-grade teachers in RF schools rated a higher proportion of 

scientifically based practices to teach phonemic awareness and decoding as central 

than did teachers in Title I schools (kindergarten: 91 percent vs. 86 percent; first 

grade: 85 percent vs. 81 percent). 

• Across all four grades, there were no differences between RF teachers and teachers in 

Title I schools in the proportion of scientifically based practices to teach 

comprehension that were rated as central. 

• Third-grade teachers in RF schools rated a higher proportion of scientifically based 

practices to teach vocabulary as central than did teachers in Title I schools (81 percent 

to 75 percent). There were no significant differences between RF teachers and 

teachers in Title I schools at the grade levels. 

• First- and third-grade teachers in RF schools rated a higher proportion of 

scientifically based practices to teach fluency as central than did teachers in Title I 

schools (first grade: 87 percent to 83 percent; third grade: 56 percent vs. 47 percent). 

• RF Teachers across all four grades rated a higher proportion of scientifically based 

teaching strategies and materials as central than did teachers in Title I schools. The 

differences in grades 1, 2 and 3 are substantively small although statistically 

significant. The difference in kindergarten is larger and more substantively 

meaningful (77 percent vs. 68 percent). 

• There were no significant differences between K–3 RF teachers and teachers in Title I 

schools in the proportion of non-scientifically based activities that teachers rated as 

central to their instruction. 

Summary 

The Reading First legislation requires all aspects of reading instruction in RF schools to be 

scientifically based, and the RF guidance recommends considering the allocation of time for 

reading instruction, as well as carefully selecting scientifically based materials, activities, and 

strategies for reading instruction. On the issue of time allocation, significantly more RF schools 

reported having scheduled reading blocks than did non-RF Title I schools (98 percent vs. 92 

percent), and RF schools reported scheduling about 15 more minutes for their reading blocks in 

grades 1–3 than non-RF Title I schools. In addition, teachers in RF schools reported spending 

about 19 more minutes per day teaching reading than non-RF Title I teachers. Compared to 

teachers in non-RF Title I schools, significantly more teachers in new RF schools reported 

increasing the amount of time they spent teaching reading compared to the previous year (across 

all grades, 35 percent vs. 61 percent). 

Reading First schools have made changes to their reading programs since they received their RF 

funds. New RF schools were significantly more likely than their non-RF Title I counterparts to 

have adopted a new core reading program (39 percent vs. 16 percent), to have added new 
50 Chapter 3: Reading Instruction 

intervention programs for struggling readers (74 percent vs. 43 percent), to have added new 

supplementary materials (69 percent vs. 58 percent), and to have adopted new materials for 

English Language Learners (43 percent vs. 23 percent). Reading First schools also were more 

likely than non-RF Title I schools to report the involvement of districts (88 percent vs. 83 

percent) and states (31 percent vs. 18 percent) in the selection of a core reading program. The 

particular types of materials selected and used by RF and non-RF Title I schools differ as well. 

Reading First schools are more likely than non-RF Title I schools to use supplemental materials 

designed especially for ELLs to support the instruction of ELL students in their classrooms (60 

percent vs. 41 percent). Non-RF Title I schools are more likely than RF schools to use 

supplemental materials to teach phonemic awareness (74 percent vs. 60 percent in kindergarten), 

decoding (79 percent vs. 63 percent in first grade), vocabulary (70 percent vs. 51 percent in first 

grade), and comprehension (75 percent vs. 60 percent in third grade). 

Reading instructional activities and strategies also appear to be aligned with the tenets of the 

Reading First program. Teachers in Reading First schools were more likely to report instruction 

that aligned with SBRR is central to their instruction than were teachers in Title I schools. 

Specifically, kindergarten, first- and second-grade teachers in RF schools were significantly 

more likely to report using scientifically based practices to teach decoding and phonemic 

awareness; kindergarten teachers were significantly more likely to use scientifically based 

practices to teach comprehension; and third-grade teachers were more likely to use scientifically 

based practices to teach vocabulary and fluency than were Title I teachers. In addition, RF 

kindergarten, first-, and second-grade teachers were significantly less likely than Title I teachers 

to use activities not aligned with SBRR as a central part of their reading instruction. Reading 

First teachers across all four grades were more likely than Title I teachers to report using 

scientifically based teaching strategies and materials. 
Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 51 

Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 

A central objective of the Reading First legislation is to provide effective instruction to children 

in grades K–3 who are having difficulty learning to read, may be at risk of being referred to 

special education, or are having difficulty mastering the five key components of reading. 

Reading First aims to provide targeted interventions to those students who have been identified 

as struggling readers⎯expressly to help them overcome difficulties that could otherwise lead to 

unnecessary special education referrals. 

This section presents findings organized into several subsections: a) identification of students 

who may need interventions to develop their reading skills and the availability of intervention 

services to serve them, b) methods used to meet the needs of struggling readers, and c) 

coordination of services provided to struggling readers. 

Identification for and Availability of Interventions for Struggling 

Readers 

Principals were asked to identify which sources of information they used (during the 2004–05 

school year) to identify struggling readers in need of intervention services. In general, principals 

in RF and Title I schools reported that they drew from multiple sources to identify struggling 

readers requiring interventions. Most principals (80 percent) reported having used eight out of 

the ten sources listed in Exhibit 4.1. The most common sources were readily available reading 

tests, such as progress monitoring tests, tests from the core reading program, and diagnostic tests, 

as well as recommendations from teachers. More than 90 percent of both RF and Title I school 

principals reported using these methods in that year to identify students as struggling readers in 

need of interventions. Indeed, reading coaches in both RF and Title I schools reported using 

reading assessments to screen students for difficulties.33

Principals in RF schools were more likely to rely on the results of progress monitoring and 

screening tests to identify students as struggling readers than were principals in Title I 

schools (98 percent vs. 90 percent and 87 percent vs. 82 percent, respectively; see Exhibit 

4.1). There were no significant differences between RF and Title I principals in their reported 

use of a) scores on tests from the core reading program, b) diagnostic tests, and b) standardized 

tests, to identify struggling readers. Nor were there any differences between RF and Title I 

schools’ identification of struggling readers based on teacher or other school staff 

recommendation or classroom observations.

Reading coach recommendations were a significantly more common source of information 

used to identify struggling students in RF schools than in Title I schools (92 percent vs. 55 

 

33 Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale from one to five how accurately the statement “reading 

assessments are used to screen students for reading difficulties” (Question H1) describes their school. The 

average response for RF schools was 4.32 and 4.28 for Title I schools. This difference is not statistically 

significant. 
52 Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 

percent); this is not surprising given that Title I schools do not necessarily have a reading coach 

on staff. Finally, principals in Title I schools reported that they were significantly more likely to 

use parent requests to identify struggling readers than are RF principals (80 percent vs. 70 

percent). 

Exhibit 4.1 

Methods Used to Identify Students for Reading Interventions, in Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Schools 

Method Percent Percent 

Progress monitoring tests 98%* 90% 

Teacher recommendation 97 98 

Scores on tests from core reading program 95 92 

Diagnostic tests 91 91 

Reading coach recommendation1 92* 55 

Standardized achievement tests 88 88 

Screening tests 87* 82 

Documented classroom observations 84 85 

Other school staff recommendations 76 78 

Parent request 71 80* 

Source: Principal Survey, Question E2. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 2,189 Reading First principals, 14,487 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 1.4 to 4.2 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Reading First schools are more likely than are Title I schools to use progress monitoring tests to identify students 

for reading interventions (98 percent vs. 90 percent). This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

1. Only schools that have reading coaches are included in the analysis of this item. 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I schools. 

Availability of Services 

There were no substantive or statistically significant differences between RF and Title I 

schools in terms of availability of intervention services for struggling readers; about 80 

percent of principals across both RF and Title I schools reported that reading intervention 

services are available for students who need them. Nor did the average waiting time for students 

to receive services differ significantly across RF and Title I schools. In about two-thirds of the 

schools, principals reported that there was no wait time at all for students in need of intervention. 

On average, students in need of such services wait an average of about one week before 

receiving services.

Methods to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers 

Once students are identified as struggling readers, teachers use a variety of supports to meet their 

needs. Teachers were asked to indicate, for the previous month, which additional supports they 

used with their students (e.g., providing extra practice in key areas, working with specialists). 

Kindergarten and third-grade teachers in RF schools were significantly more likely than 

teachers in Title I schools to report supporting struggling readers by using materials that 
Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 53 

supplement the core reading program (Exhibit 4.2, kindergarten teachers: 70 percent vs. 62 

percent; third-grade teachers: 74 percent vs. 66 percent). There were no significant differences 

for first- and second-grade teachers. RF teachers in three grades (kindergarten, second, and 

third) were significantly more likely than their counterparts in Title I schools to place their 

struggling students in intervention programs (kindergarten: 54 percent vs. 45 percent; second 

grade: 70 percent vs. 61 percent; third grade: 68 percent vs. 60 percent). 

Exhibit 4.2 also shows that RF teachers in all four grades were significantly more likely 

than Title I teachers to rely on diagnostic assessments to determine their struggling 

readers’ core deficits (kindergarten: 75 percent vs. 59 percent; first grade: 78 percent vs. 69 

percent; second grade: 72 percent vs. 65 percent; third grade: 70 percent vs. 61 percent). 

Relatively few teachers across both RF and Title I schools reported using reading specialists, 

placing their students in a separate core reading program, or providing reading instruction in 

ELL students’ home language to meet the needs of their struggling students. 
54 Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 

Exhibit 4.2 

Teachers’ Use of Supports Used to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C9. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 38,309 RF teachers, 201,864 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items and grades: 0.1 to 1.1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Across three grades, RF teachers were significantly more likely than Title I teachers to use diagnostic assessments to 

determine core deficits. 

Notes: For the items under ‘Support for ELLs’ the grade level means—as represented by the bars—are based on teachers who 

reported having ELL students in their classrooms. 

Each bar represents the range of the grade-level means computed for each item. 

For each grade level, a significant difference (p ≤ .05) between RF teachers and Title I teachers is indicated by the grade level 

symbol (i.e., K, 1, 2, 3). For example, if kindergarten, second grade, and third grade showed significant differences between RF 

teachers and Title I teachers, then ”K23” would be presented. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.4.2 for additional statistics. 

Extra instructional time

Work with tutor on one-to-one basis

Work with reading specialist on one-to-one basis

Work with reading specialist in small group

Work with more advanced peer

English as a Second Language

Provide reading instruction in home language for ELLs

In classroom help in reading from ELL teacher for ELLs

Support for ELLs

Placement in materials that supplement the core 

reading program

Placement in different level of core reading program

Placement in separate core reading program

Placement in special intervention program

Special materials for parents to provide practice

Materials

Diagnostic assessment to determine core deficits

in phonemic awareness

in decoding

in fluency

in comprehension

Staff Activities

Extra practice

+ +

+

+ + +

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+ +

Extra instructional time

Work with tutor on one-to-one basis

Work with reading specialist on one-to-one basis

Work with reading specialist in small group

Work with more advanced peer

English as a Second Language

Provide reading instruction in home language for ELLs

In classroom help in reading from ELL teacher for ELLs

Support for ELLs

Placement in materials that supplement the core 

reading program

Placement in different level of core reading program

Placement in separate core reading program

Placement in special intervention program

Special materials for parents to provide practice

Materials

Diagnostic assessment to determine core deficits

in phonemic awareness

in decoding

in fluency

in comprehension

Staff Activities

Extra practice

+ +

+

+ + +

+ +

+

+ + +

+

+

+

+ +

Reading First

Title I

Key

Percent of Teachers 

Ranges Across Grades K–3 

K13

2 

1 

3 

K3 

3 

K3 

3 

K23

12 

3 

Statistically 

Significant at 

p < .05 
Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 55 

In both RF and Title I schools, most teachers reported providing extra practice in one of the key 

dimensions of reading to meet the needs of their struggling readers. We constructed a composite 

measure to summarize teachers’ provision of extra practice that includes the three dimensions of 

reading in which struggling readers most typically need additional practice, phonemic awareness, 

decoding, and fluency. Scores on the composite range from 0 to 3; a score of 0 indicates that the 

teacher did not provide extra practice in any of these three dimensions in the last month, while a 

score of 3 means that the teacher provided extra practice in all three dimensions. Exhibit 4.3 

shows the grade-level mean scores on the composite measure of extra practice teacher reported 

providing to students last month. Across three grades—kindergarten, second and third—on 

average, teachers in RF schools reported providing practice in significantly more 

dimensions than did teachers in Title I schools; however, these differences are substantively 

small. 

Exhibit 4.3 

Teachers’ Scores on Composite Measure Extra Practice Provided to Struggling Readers in 

the Previous Month, in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers 

Grade Mean Mean 

Kindergarten 2.75* 2.66 

1st grade 2.83 2.78 

2nd grade 2.83* 2.74 

3rd grade 2.72* 2.45 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C9. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 38,386 RF teachers, 203,540 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items and grades: 0.3 to 0.8 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Reading First teachers in grade 3 provided significantly more practice in more of the key dimensions of 

reading than did Title I teachers to struggling readers (2.72 vs. 2.45, p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between teachers in RF and 

Title I schools. 

Principals and reading coaches were also asked to identify the materials and staff activities used 

in their school to meet the needs of struggling readers. As seen in Exhibit 4.4, about 90 percent 

of principals in RF and Title I schools reported having used a core reading program, augmented 

by supplemental materials during the 2004–05 school year to meet the needs of struggling 

readers. Principals in Title I schools were significantly more likely to report that their 

schools used separate program materials for interventions than were principals in RF 

schools (78 percent vs. 70 percent). Further, reading coaches in Title I schools were more 

likely to report that their teachers are experienced with reading intervention materials than were 

reading coaches in RF schools. However, RF coaches were more likely to agree that reading 

intervention materials are aligned with scientifically based research than reading coaches in 

Title I schools. When asked about the prior school year, RF school staff were significantly more 

likely than staff in Title I schools to have reported using only the materials from their core 

reading programs to meet the needs of struggling readers (27 percent vs. 20 percent). 
56 Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 

These findings suggest that in general, teachers rely heavily on the core reading program and 

supplementary materials. Because core reading programs are often chosen to emphasize 

research-based, systematic instruction, relying on them may indicate that teachers are adopting a 

systematic approach to teaching reading. This is in contrast to using reading instructional 

activities from a variety of sources (e.g., several different reading programs), which could lead to 

less systematic instruction. 

Exhibit 4.4 

Materials Used to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers in the Last Year, as Reported by the 

Principals or Reading Coaches in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

RF Schools Title I Schools 

Materials Percent Percent 

Use core reading program with supplemental materials 90% 90% 

Use separate program materials in interventions 70 78* 

Use alternative materials designed for English learners 47 49 

Use reading materials written in students’ home language 32 36 

Use core reading program only 27* 20 

Source: Principal Survey, Question E1; Reading Coach Survey, Question E1. 

Weight: School. 

Weighted respondents: 3,893 RF principals or reading coaches; 14,171Title I principals or reading coaches. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items and respondents: 0.7 to 7.5 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Reading First schools were significantly less likely than Title I schools to use separate program materials to meet 

the needs of struggling readers (70 and. 78 percent, p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I schools. 

Principals and reading coaches reported using a variety of staff and activities to meet the needs 

of struggling readers. As seen in Exhibit 4.5, across both RF and Title I schools, classroom 

teachers and trained aides were most often used to provide additional direct instruction 

and practice opportunities for struggling readers during the school day. Overall, the 

patterns were quite similar for both RF and Title I schools. However, certified special 

education teachers were significantly more likely to be called upon to make recommendations 

about how to meet the needs of these students in Title I schools than in RF schools (83 percent 

vs. 72 percent). Title I schools were also significantly more likely than RF schools to use 

untrained aides during the school day to assist in meeting the needs of struggling readers (42 

percent vs. 34 percent). 
Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 57 

Exhibit 4.5 

Staff Activities Used to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers in the Previous Year, as Reported 

by the Principals or Reading Coaches in Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

RF Schools Title I Schools 

Staff Activities Percent Percent 

Classroom teacher provides additional practice opportunities 98% 98% 

Classroom teacher provides additional direct instruction 97 97 

Trained aides or volunteers work with students during class 87 87 

A certified special education teacher provides recommendations on 

accommodations 

72 83* 

A certified reading specialist works directly with students 51 57 

Trained aides or volunteers work with students before or after school 51 52 

A certified bilingual/ESL teacher provides recommendations on 

accommodations 

44 43 

Untrained aides or volunteers work with students during class 34 42* 

Untrained aides or volunteers work with students before or after school 15 17 

Source: Principal Survey, Question E1; Reading Coach Survey, Question E1. 

Weight: School. 

Weighted respondents: 3,893 RF principals or reading coaches; 14,171 Title I principals or reading coaches. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 0.3 to 3.1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Almost all (98 percent) of Reading First and Title I teachers provide additional practice for struggling readers. 

There is no statistically significant difference on this item between Reading First and Title I teachers. 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between teachers in RF and 

Title I schools. 

Time Set Aside for Coordination of Interventions Among Teachers 

and Other Staff 

Reading intervention efforts with struggling readers or ELL students, to be successful, must 

allow time for teachers, ELL staff, or special education teachers to coordinate their instructional 

activities. Absent such coordination—if teachers and other staff are not working on the same 

reading subskills and in the same sequence—the usefulness of the reading intervention is likely 

to be compromised. 

As seen in Exhibit 4.6, in general, relatively few teachers in any grade reported that time is set 

aside to coordinate instructional activities; less than 15 percent of teachers in both RF and Title I 

schools reported that time was available weekly. Although more teachers at all grades reported 

that time is set aside for meeting with ELL and special education staff (in both RF and Title I 

schools), over 31 percent (and up to 45 percent) reported that no such time was designated. 

Specifically, RF kindergarten, first- and second-grade teachers were significantly more 

likely than Title I teachers to report no time set aside for coordination of the reading 

instruction provided to their special education students (kindergarten: 51 percent vs. 44 

percent, first-grade: 42 percent vs. 35 percent; second grade: 37 percent vs. 30 percent). 

There were no significant differences between RF and Title I teachers with regard to time 

set aside to coordinate instruction with ELL staff (Exhibit 4.6). These findings are consistent 
58 Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 

with reading coach and principal reports of how often time is set aside for coordination between 

teachers, ELL staff and staff providing special education services (SPED) to students.34

Exhibit 4.6 

Amount of Time Teachers in Reading First and Title I Schools Set Aside to Coordinate 

Interventions with Staff, 2004–05 School Year 

Source: Teacher Survey, Questions C3F and C3G. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respndents: special education coordination—64,457 RF teachers, 201,054 Title I teachers; ELL coordination—37,641 

RF teachers, 94,880 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items and grades: < 1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: In three of four grades more Reading First teachers than Title I teachers indicated that there is no time set aside for 

coordinating reading interventions for struggling readers. 

Notes: Grade-level means for coordinating interventions with ELL staff (right panel) are based on teachers who reported having 

ELL students in their classrooms 

Each bar represents the range of the grade-level means computed for each item. 

For each grade level, a significant difference (p < .05) between RF teachers and Title I teachers is indicated by the grade level 

symbol (i.e., K, 1, 2, 3). For example, if kindergarten, second grade, and third grade showed significant differences between RF 

teachers and Title I teachers, then ”K23” would be presented. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.4.6 for additional statistics.

 

34 Principals and reading coaches were asked how often during the year time is regularly set aside for coordination 

with SPED and ELL staff, on a scale from “not at all” to “once a week or more” (Question D1). The average 

response regarding coordination with SPED staff for RF schools was 3.16 and 3.05 for Title I schools, which 

corresponds to between five to eight times per year on the scale. The average response regarding coordination 

with ELL staff (in schools serving ELL students) was 2.79 in RF schools and 2.58 in Title I schools, 

corresponding to between one to four times and five to eight times per year. Neither of these differences are 

statistically significant. 

Teachers that Coordinate Reading 

Interventions with ELL Staff in RF and Title I 

Schools Staff 

Teachers that Coordinate Readings 

Interventions with Special Education Staff 

in RF and Title I Schools

Reading First

Title I

Key

Not at all

Infrequently

Weekly

Informally

K12 

1 

Statistically 

Significant at 

p < .05 
Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 59 

Summary 

One of the goals of Reading First is for schools to identify, provide, and coordinate services to 

students who are struggling to learn to read. Staff in both RF and Title I schools reported using 

information from readily available reading tests to identify students as struggling readers. 

However, RF teachers across all grades were significantly more likely to rely on diagnostic 

assessments to determine their struggling readers’ core deficits than were teachers in 

corresponding grades in Title I schools. Additionally, there were differences in schools’ reported 

use of staff recommendations to identify struggling readers. While both RF and Title I schools 

reported using teacher recommendations quite often to identify students for interventions, RF 

schools more often relied on reading coach recommendations to identify struggling readers than 

Title I schools. 

There were only small differences in RF and Title I schools’ use of materials and staff activities 

to meet the needs of struggling readers. In general, teachers reported relying heavily on the core 

reading program and supplementary materials. In addition, teachers in both RF and Title I 

schools provided extra practice opportunities in the key dimensions of reading to meet the needs 

of struggling readers. However third-grade teachers in RF schools reported providing their 

struggling readers with extra practice opportunities in phonemic awareness, decoding, and 

fluency more often than their counterparts in Title I schools. More generally, RF teachers in 

three of four grades reported providing practice in significantly more reading dimensions than 

did Title I teachers. 

RF and Title I schools are similar with respect to planning and coordinating instruction for 

struggling readers; in general, teachers in both types of schools reported that little time is set 

aside to coordinate interventions for struggling readers with ELL or special education staff. This 

finding is consistent with reading coach and principal reports from both sets of schools, 

indicating that this sort of coordination, while important to the success of intervention services, 

has yet to be achieved. 
60 Chapter 4: Interventions for Struggling Readers 
Chapter 5: Assessment 61 

Chapter 5: Assessment 

Assessment of students’ reading proficiency is a central element of Reading First; the legislation 

specifically requires that schools assess students for screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, 

and outcome purposes in the five core dimensions of reading instruction (i.e., phonemic 

awareness, phonics, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and fluency). States and districts are to 

provide assistance to RF schools in selecting, administering, and interpreting reading 

assessments as well as professional development to teachers in the use of reading assessments, 

particularly with students at risk of reading failure. The Reading First program does not advocate 

the use of any specific assessment but rather requires that reading assessments selected by states, 

districts, or schools be psychometrically strong and aligned with instruction (U.S. Department of 

Education, OESE, “Guidance for the Reading First Program,” April 2002). 

In this section we describe differences between Reading First schools and non-RF Title I schools 

in (a) the selection and interpretation of reading assessments and (b) the types of reading 

assessments teachers find useful in their classroom applications. 

Selection and Interpretation of Reading Assessments 

Significantly more Reading First principals reported that their schools received assistance 

selecting assessment instruments than did non-RF Title I principals (76 percent vs. 56 

percent) and interpreting assessment results (82 percent vs. 70 percent). (Exhibit 5.1)

Exhibit 5.1 

Assistance for K–3 Reading Assessment Activities in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year 

56

70 76* 82*

0

20

40

60

80

100

Selecting assessment instruments Interpreting assessment results

Percent 

of Schools

Reading First

Title I

Source: Principal Survey, Questions B7b and B7f. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 2,169 RF principals; 14,481 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 1.5 to 2.3 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 76 percent of RF schools received assistance selecting assessment instruments, as compared with 56 percent of 

Title I schools. This difference was statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

schools. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.5.1 for additional statistics. 
62 Chapter 5: Assessment 

Selection of Reading Assessments 

As shown in Exhibit 5.2, over three-quarters of the principals in RF and Title I schools 

identified the district as responsible for the selection of assessment instruments. However, 

half of Reading First principals (51 percent) indicated that selecting assessment 

instruments was also the state’s responsibility, compared to only 31 percent of Title I 

principals.35 

The direct role that states and districts played in selecting reading assessments for Reading First 

schools was also evident through our review of state Reading First grant applications and 

interviews with state Reading First coordinators. Of the states and jurisdictions reporting, 55 

percent (29 states) selected all of the assessments to be used administered in Reading First 

schools. An additional 18 states (32 percent) selected at least one of the assessments (but not all) 

to be administered as part of a portfolio of assessments selected by the district. Only six states 

(11 percent) did not specify any required assessment.

Exhibit 5.2 

Responsibility for Reading Assessment Activities in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools 

as Reported by Principals, 2004–05 School Year 

78

40

90

57

93*

25*

38

51*

31

52

92

82

33

13

59 54*

0

20

40

60

80

100

State Principal District Reading

Coach

Percent 

of Schools

Reading First

Title I

Source: Principal Survey, Questions D4d and D5d. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 2,196 RF principals; 14,353 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items and respondents: 0.6 to 3.9 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 51 percent of RF principals identified the state as responsible for selecting assessment instruments, as 

compared with 30 percent of Title I principals. This difference was statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

schools. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.5.2 for additional statistics. 

 

35 Principals could identify one or more entities as having responsibility. 

Selecting Assessment Instruments Interpreting Assessment Results 
Chapter 5: Assessment 63 

Interpretation of Assessment Results 

Nearly all principals, about 90 percent, in Reading First and Title I schools identified 

themselves as responsible for interpreting assessment results. In addition, more than half the 

Reading First and Title I principals identified the district as responsible for this activity (57 

percent vs. 59 percent). However, almost all RF principals (93 percent) also identified the 

school’s reading coach as responsible for interpreting assessment results, compared to only half 

of Title I principals (52 percent). This significant difference should not be surprising given that, 

in contrast to Reading First schools, Title I schools were much less likely to have a designated 

reading coach. 

Teachers in Reading First schools reported having had more time to use assessment data to 

plan instruction than did teachers in Title I schools (Exhibit 5.3). For example, Reading First 

teachers were significantly more likely to report having time set aside for this task on a monthly 

basis than were Title I teachers (21 percent vs. 14 percent). In contrast, Title I teachers were 

more significantly likely to report that formal time was not set aside at all than were RF teachers 

(12 percent vs. 6 percent). These findings are consistent with principal and reading coach reports 

that teachers in RF schools have significantly more formal time set aside to use assessment data 

to plan instruction than teachers in Title I schools.36

Exhibit 5.3 

Regularly Scheduled and Formal Time Set Aside for K–3, Teachers to Use 

Assessment Data to Plan Instruction for Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year 

Reading First 

Teachers Title I Teachers 

Frequency of Time Set Aside Percent Percent 

Once a week or more 27% 24% 

Once a month 21* 14 

5-8 times 12* 9 

1-4 times 24 27* 

Not at all 6 12* 

Informally, only as needed 10 13* 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C3c. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 38,002 RF teachers; 197,316 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rate: 2.9 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 27 percent of RF teachers had regularly scheduled and formal time set aside once a week or 

more for grade-level teachers to use assessment data to plan instruction, as compared with 24 percent of 

Title I teachers. The difference was not statistically significant (p = .184). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF 

and Title I respondents. 

 

36 Principals and reading coaches were asked to rate the frequency of an activity using a five-point scale (1 = not 

at all, 2 = 1–4 times a year, 3 = 5–8 times a year, 4 = once a month, 5 = once a week or more). The average 

response in RF schools was 3.88, corresponding most closely to “once a month,” whereas the average response 

for Title I schools was 3.38 or about 5-8 times a year. This difference is statistically significant (p < .05). 
64 Chapter 5: Assessment 

Types of Reading Assessments Teachers Find Useful 

Reading First funds are to be used, in part, to assess students’ reading. Reading First specifically 

requires schools to assess students’ reading for screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and 

outcome purposes. We asked Reading First and Title I teachers to indicate which assessments 

(formal or informal) they found useful for each of the following purposes: (a) placement or 

grouping of students, (b) determining student mastery of skills, and (c) identifying the core 

deficits of struggling readers. For each purpose, we asked teachers to name up to three 

assessments. 

We grouped their responses into the following broad categories: 

• Formal assessments: 

o Core or supplementary reading program assessments 

o District assessments37

o Standardized assessments 

o State-specific assessments (i.e., test specific to a particular state) 

• Informal Assessments (e.g., running records, classroom-based assessments). 

Most teachers in both RF and Title I schools named at least one assessment that they found 

useful in placing or grouping students (90 percent), determining student mastery of skills 

(89 percent), and identifying the core deficits of struggling students (85 percent). 

Types of Assessments 

There were significant differences between RF and Title I teachers in the types of assessments 

they reported as useful for the purposes of placing or grouping students, determining student 

mastery of skills, or identifying the core deficits of struggling readers (Exhibit 5.4). For 

example, for placing or grouping students into appropriate reading groups, significantly more RF 

teachers identified standardized assessments than did Title I teachers (50 percent vs. 44 percent). 

RF teachers also were more likely to report that assessments from the core or supplemental 

reading program were useful for placing or grouping students than were Title I teachers (35 

percent vs. 27 percent). In contrast, significantly more Title I teachers identified informal 

assessments as useful than did than RF teachers for placing or grouping students (36 percent vs. 

27 percent). As shown in Exhibit 5.4, similar differences were observed for a) the purposes of 

determining student mastery of skills and b) identifying the core deficits of struggling readers. 

 

37 In order to be grouped as a “district assessment,” the teacher had to clearly label it as a district test. 
Chapter 5: Assessment 65 

Exhibit 5.4 

Types of Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature Reading 

First and Title I K–3 Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b

Reading First 

Teachers 

Title I 

Assessment Purpose Teachers

Type of Assessment 

Placing or grouping of students Percent Percent 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 35%* 27% 

District assessment c 4 5 

Standardized assessment 50* 44 

State-specific assessment 15 13 

Informal assessments 27 36* 

Determining student mastery of skills 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 50* 38 

District assessment 5 4 

Standardized assessment 33 30 

State-specific assessment 14 12 

Informal assessments 28 38* 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 37* 25 

District assessment 4 3 

Standardized assessment 40* 34 

State-specific assessment 14 14 

Informal assessments 25 37* 

Source: Teacher Survey, Questions C7a-C7c. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 8,367 RF teachers; 43,898 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 10 to 15 percent. 

a

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not add up to 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to 

three assessments per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, 

then that assessment was counted only once (e.g., if the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency test and the DIBELS 

Phonemic Segmentation Fluency test were used to place or group students, then the DIBELS was counted only 

once for that purpose). 

b We were not able to categorize 35–40 percent of teachers’ responses. “Not able to categorize” includes 

responses that were too vague to be coded (e.g., assessment, test, eight-weeks, benchmarks, letter names, 

decoding, rubric, pretest, quarterly test, skill test, fluency); responses that accounted for less than 1 percent of 

the total frequency (e.g., MGLS, parent reading, KIA); and responses that were not discernable (e.g., ELLA 

stands for Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas or the English Language and Literacy Assessment). c

 In order to be grouped as a “district assessment,” the teacher had to clearly label it as a district test. 

Exhibit reads: 35 percent of RF teachers reported that they found core or supplementary reading program 

assessments useful for the purpose of placing or grouping students, as compared with 27 percent of Title I 

teachers. This difference was statistically significant (p < .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF 

and Title I respondents. 

Additional, grade-level statistics are presented in Appendix C, Exhibits C.5.3a-d and C.5.4a-d. 
66 Chapter 5: Assessment 

Specific Assessments 

Within the broad types of assessments (as discussed above), several specific assessment 

instruments were each reported as useful instruments by at least 5 percent of all RF and Title I 

teachers: 

Formal Assessments: 

• Clay Observational Survey, 

• Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), 

• Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), and 

• STAR Reading. 

Informal Assessments: 

• Classroom-based assessments (e.g., teacher made tests), and 

• Running records or miscue analysis. 

While most teachers identified at least one assessment as useful for various instructional 

purposes, there were significant differences between RF and Title I teachers in the specific 

assessments they identified as useful (Exhibit 5.5). Across all uses of assessments, RF teachers 

were significantly more likely to name the DIBELS as useful than were Title I teachers 

(e.g., for grouping students: 39 percent vs. 10 percent). In contrast, significantly more 

Title I teachers reported that informal assessments such as classroom-based assessments 

(e.g., teacher-made tests) were useful in identifying core deficits of struggling readers than 

RF teachers (24 percent vs. 17 percent). Additionally, across all assessment uses, Title I 

teachers were significantly more likely to name formal assessments including the 

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), STAR Reading, and Clay Observational 

Survey than were RF teachers. As an example, Title I teachers also were more likely to report 

the DRA were useful in grouping students than were RF teachers (20 percent vs. 11 percent).

In addition to these general findings, other patterns emerged in the reported usefulness of 

assessments (Exhibits 5.4 and 5.5): 

Differences by assessment purpose: 

• A greater percentage of RF and Title I teachers identified standardized assessments 

as useful for the purpose of placing or grouping students (50 percent vs. 44 percent) 

than for the purposes of identifying the core deficits of struggling readers (40 percent 

vs. 34 percent) or for determining student mastery of skills (33 percent vs. 30 

percent). This trend was also evident for the DRA and STAR Reading for both RF 

and Title I teachers, and for the DIBELS among Reading First teachers only. 

• RF and Title I teachers more often identified assessments from the core or 

supplementary reading program as useful for determining student mastery of skills 

(50 percent vs. 38 percent) than for grouping students (35 percent vs. 27 percent) or 

for identifying the core deficits of struggling readers (37 percent vs. 25 percent). This 

trend was also evident for classroom based assessments for both RF and Title I 

teachers. 
Chapter 5: Assessment 67 

Exhibit 5.5 

Types of Specific Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature 

Reading First and Title I K–3 Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b 

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers

Assessment Purpose 

Type of Assessment Percent Percent 

Placing or grouping of students 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 5% 8%* 

DIBELS 39* 10 

DRA 11 20* 

STAR Reading 6 12* 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment c 18 20 

Running records or miscue analysis d 10 19* 

Determining student mastery of skills 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 4 9* 

DIBELS 26* 7 

DRA 5 12* 

STAR Reading 3 6* 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 24* 29 

Running records or miscue analysis 6 12* 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 5 10* 

DIBELS 33* 10 

DRA 7 13* 

STAR Reading 2 6* 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 17* 24 

Running records or miscue analysis 10* 17 

Source: Teacher Survey, Questions C7a-C7c. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 8,359 RF teachers; 42,724 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 10 to 15 percent. 

a

 Only individual assessments that constituted more than 5 percent of responses are included in this table. b

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not total 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to three 

assessments per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, then the 

assessment was counted only once. 

c

 The category of “Classroom-based assessment” includes informal, teacher-guided assessments, such as tests created 

by the teacher, teacher observations of students, and teacher conferences with students. 

d

 The category of “Running records or miscue analysis” represents responses in which teachers did not specify 

anything in addition to “running record” or “miscue analysis.” Instances in which teachers responded “Running 

record/(core reading program name)” were coded as “Core or supplementary reading program” as running records 

were presented as a component of the core program. 

Exhibit reads: 5 percent of RF teachers identified the Clay Observational Survey as useful for placing or grouping 

students, as compared with 8 percent of Title I teachers. This difference was statistically significant (p < .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

respondents. 
68 Chapter 5: Assessment 

Differences by grade level:38

• A greater percentage of RF and Title I kindergarten teachers than first-, second-, and 

third-grade teachers identified classroom-based assessments as useful reading 

assessment instruments. For example, for grouping students, 26 percent of RF 

kindergarten teachers and 32 percent of Title I kindergarten teachers found 

classroom-based assessments as useful, as compared to 15–18 percent of RF teachers 

in grades 1–3 and 16–19 percent of Title I teachers in grades 1–3. 

• The percentage of RF and Title I teachers who identified the DIBELS as a useful reading 

assessment generally decreased with grade progression. As an example, for determining 

student mastery of skills, 33 percent of RF kindergarten teachers reported the DIBELS as 

useful, which fell to 30 percent in grade 1, to 23 percent in grade 2, and to 19 percent in 

grade 3. 

• Similarly, the percentage of RF and Title I teachers who identified the usefulness of 

informal assessments also decreased with grade progression. For example, for placing or 

grouping students, 33 percent of RF kindergarten teachers reported classroom-based 

assessments useful, which fell to 29 percent in grade 1, to 25 percent in grade 2, and to 24 

percent in grade 3. 

Classroom Application of Reading Assessment Results 

Across grade levels, more than three-quarters of teachers in mature Reading First schools 

reported using assessment-related teaching strategies that reflect key tenets of the Reading 

First policy (Exhibit 5.6). In addition, significantly more Reading First K–3 teachers than 

Title I teachers reported each of these strategies as central to their reading instruction: 

• Using test results to organize instructional groups (83 percent vs. 73 percent); 

• Using tests to determine progress on skills (85 percent vs. 78 percent); and

• Using diagnostic tests to identify students who need reading intervention services 

(75 percent vs. 65 percent). 

As shown in Exhibit 5.6, the use of the four assessment strategies that are not the emphasis of 

Reading First policy was less widespread. Title I teachers reported using informal reading 

inventories as a central part of their reading instruction at significantly higher rates than did 

Reading First teachers (61 percent vs. 56 percent). In contrast, RF teachers reported using tests to 

determine who can benefit from the core reading series at higher rates than did Title I teachers 

(54 percent vs. 45 percent). 

 

38 See Appendix C Exhibits C.5.4a-d and C.5.5a-d for grade-level statistics. 
Chapter 5: Assessment 69 

Exhibit 5.6 

Teachers’ Use of Assessments for Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School 

Year 

Reading First 

Teachers 

Title I 

Teachers Assessment Strategy Percent Percent 

Reading First Policy 

Use test results to organize instructional groups 83%* 73% 

Use tests to determine progress on skills 85* 78 

Use diagnostic tests to identify students who need reading intervention 

services 75* 65 

Non Reading First Policy 

Use informal reading inventories 56 61* 

Use tests to determine who can benefit from the core reading series 54* 45 

Use screening tests to identify students who need a supplementary reading 

program 

51 48 

Conduct miscue analysis, analyzing errors students make while reading 

aloud 50 53 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C6. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 38,408 RF teachers; 202,772 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rate: 0.6 to 1.3 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 83 percent of RF teachers reported using test results to organize instructional groups as a central part of their 

reading instruction, as compared with 73 percent of Title I teachers. This difference was statistically significant (p < .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

respondents. 

 

Interestingly, even though RF teachers were more likely to report using assessments to monitor 

skill progress than were Title I teachers (85 percent vs. 78 percent), there were no differences in 

reading coaches reporting of the use of reading assessments for this purpose (4.51 and 4.4139). 

These findings may indicate that while school leadership in both RF and Title I schools 

understand the importance of using assessment data to monitor students, Title I teachers have not 

implemented this strategy to the same degree as RF teachers. 

Of important note, when looking at the total population of Reading First schools, similar 

percentages of kindergarten, first-, and second-grade teachers in new and mature Reading 

First schools reported the central use of assessment-related teaching strategies. However, a 

significantly greater percentage of third-grade teachers in new Reading First schools than mature

Reading First schools reported the use of informal reading inventories (62 percent vs. 53 percent) 

or miscue analysis (60 percent vs. 52 percent) as a central component of their reading instruction; 

these types of informal assessments are not the emphasis of Reading First. 

 

39 Reading coaches were asked to rate on a five-point scale how accurately the statement “Reading assessments 

are used to monitor student progress” describes their school. The average response was 4.51 for RF schools and 

4.41 for Title I schools. This difference is not statistically significant. 
70 Chapter 5: Assessment 

Summary 

Principals and teachers in both RF and in non-RF Title I schools indicated that assessment plays 

an important role in their reading programs. At the same time, there are some significant 

differences between RF and Title I schools. Most Reading First schools—significantly more than 

non-RF Title I schools—received external help in selecting assessment instruments (76 percent 

vs. 56 percent) and interpreting assessment results (82 percent vs. 70 percent). Reading First and 

Title I principals were equally likely to report that the district was responsible for selecting 

assessment instruments (about 80 percent). However, Reading First principals were significantly 

more likely to also identify the state as responsible for this selection than were principals in 

Title I schools (51 percent vs. 30 percent). Most RF and Title I principals identified themselves 

as responsible for interpreting assessment results (90 percent). However, in RF schools, reading 

coaches were significantly more likely to be involved in interpreting test results than were 

coaches in Title I schools (92 percent vs. 51 percent). Further, across grade levels, significantly 

more Reading First teachers reported having had regular time set aside at least once a month to 

use assessment data to plan instruction than did teachers in Title I schools (48 percent vs. 38 

percent). 

Most teachers in both RF and Title I schools named at least one assessment that they found 

useful in placing or grouping students (90 percent), determining student mastery of skills (89 

percent), and identifying the core deficits of struggling students (85 percent). There were 

significant differences, however, in the types of assessments teachers identified as useful. In 

general, RF teachers were more likely to report formal assessments, whereas Title I teachers 

named informal assessments. For each assessment purpose, RF teachers were more likely than 

Title I teachers to identify assessments from the core or supplementary reading program (e.g., for 

determining student mastery of skills, 50 percent vs. 38 percent)40 and standardized tests (e.g., 

for placing or grouping students, 50 percent vs. 44 percent), such as the DIBELS (e.g., for 

identifying the core deficits of struggling students, 33 percent vs. 10 percent). 

In contrast, across the three uses of assessments, Title I teachers were significantly more likely to 

identify informal assessments as useful than were RF teachers (e.g., for determining student 

mastery of skills, 38 percent vs. 28 percent). Specifically, Title I teachers were more likely to 

identify classroom-based assessments as useful for identifying the core deficits of struggling 

students than were RF teachers (24 percent vs. 17 percent); a similar pattern holds for running 

records or miscue analysis (e.g., for placing or grouping students, 19 percent vs. 10 percent). 

Although most RF and Title I teachers were able to identify at least one assessment as useful 

across purposes, significantly more RF teachers than non-RF Title I teachers, reported using 

assessment data as a central component of their classroom reading instruction to organize 

instructional groups (83 percent vs. 73 percent), determine progress on skills (85 percent vs. 78 

percent), and identify students who need reading intervention services (75 percent vs. 65 

percent).

 

40 For space and clarity, percentages are reported for only one purpose per assessment. 
Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 71 

Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support 

Activities 

Although it is teachers who ultimately deliver reading instruction, a number of other 

personnel are often involved in oversight or support of teachers’ reading instruction. One 

model for supporting teachers’ reading instruction involves hiring a reading coach who will 

help teachers develop the skills needed to implement reading instruction that is aligned with 

scientifically based reading instruction. Others who are often involved in oversight of a 

school’s reading program include school principals, district staff and state personnel. This 

section first reports the findings regarding the responsibilities and coaching activities of 

reading coaches, followed by subsections discussing responsibility for oversight of the 

reading program, the role of the school principal, and state monitoring and evaluation. 

Reading Coaches 

Almost all states require Reading First schools to have reading coordinators to assist in the 

implementation of their reading programs. In many schools, this person is called a reading 

coach and is responsible for working with teachers so that they can implement reading 

activities aligned with SBRR. 

According to school principals, 98 percent of Reading First schools (new and mature) have a 

person designated as a reading coach. RF reading coaches reported spending an average of 87 

percent of their time as a reading coach for grades K–3 in the sampled school. Sixty-two 

percent of reading coaches in RF schools reported that their duties as K–3 reading coach in 

the sampled school constituted a full-time job. Reading coaches worked with an average of 

1.2 schools (89 percent work with only one school), and with 21 teachers (83 percent work 

with more than 10 teachers). 

Mature Reading First schools were significantly more likely than Title I schools to report 

having a reading coach on staff (98 percent vs. 88 percent). As shown in Exhibit 6.1, reading 

coaches41 in Reading First and Title I schools work with the same number of schools and 

teachers. However, reading coaches in mature Reading First schools reported that they spend 

much more of their time on coaching responsibilities than do reading coaches in Title I 

schools (86 percent vs. 59 percent). 

 

41 Because respondents from non-RF Title I schools who completed the Reading Coach Survey reported a 

multiplicity of job titles, we used their responses to two survey questions to determine their inclusion in the 

comparison group of reading coaches: How central is each of the following activities? 1) “Coaches staff on a 

range of topics”; and 2) “Organizes professional development for K–3 teachers.” Respondents who 

answered a 3 (“somewhat central”) or above (on a five-point scale) for at least one of these two items were 

included in the comparison group of reading coaches from Title I schools for these sets of analyses regarding 

reading coach responsibilities (Exhibits 6.5 and 6.7). As a result, 34 reading coach respondents from Title I 

schools, the equivalent of 940 weighted respondents, were excluded from these analyses. 
72 Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 

Exhibit 6.1 

Responsibilities of the Reading Coach in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 

School Year 

Responsibilities of 

Reading Coach 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Schools 

Average number of schools with which reading coach 

works 

1.2 1.4* 

... 1 school 

... 2 schools 

... 3 schools 

... 4+ schools 

88% 

9 

1 

1 

83% 

8 

1 

6 

Average number of teachers with whom reading coach 

works 

22.0 23.3 

... 1–10 teachers 

... 11–20 teachers 

... 21–30 teachers 

... 31+ teachers 

16% 

38 

27 

19 

16% 

33 

28 

21 

Average percentage of time spent as reading coach 86%* 59% 

... 100% time 

... 75–99% time 

... 50–74% time 

... 25–49% time 

... 1–24% time 

58 

20 

16 

3 

2 

19 

16 

37 

17 

11 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Questions B1– B3. 

Weight: Reading coach. 

Weighted respondents: 2,116 RF reading coaches, 6,727 reading coaches in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 0.7 to 3.9 percent. 

Exhibit reads: A reading coach in an RF school serves an average of 1.2 schools, compared with 1.4 schools for a reading 

coach in a Title I school. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 88 percent of reading coaches in RF schools 

reported serving just one school, compared with 83 percent of reading coaches in Title I schools. 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

schools. 

Responsibilities of Reading Coaches 

We asked reading coaches to rate the relative importance of a series of different activities that 

are central to the Reading First program; their responses provide an indication of the fidelity 

with which reading coaches are implementing Reading First in the total population of RF 

schools. 

Examining teacher support activities (Exhibit 6.2), more than 85 percent of the reading 

coaches in the total population of RF schools characterized three activities as absolutely 

central to their work: providing professional development (94 percent), coaching school staff 

(91 percent), and organizing professional development for K–3 teachers (87 percent). The task 

least likely to be rated as central to coaches’ work in the total population of Reading First 

schools was providing direct reading instruction to students (rated as not central by 49 percent 

of reading coaches). On the other hand, there is variation across reading coaches in the 

perceived importance of teaching reading directly to students, as 30 percent of reading 

coaches in RF schools rated this task as absolutely central. Although there is no significant 
Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 73 

difference between the percentage of reading coaches at new and mature RF schools rating 

this as absolutely central, a significant difference does exist between new and mature RF 

schools in the percentage of reading coaches rating direct instruction to students as not central 

to their role as reading coach (44 percent vs. 52 percent), indicating that there may be a shift 

in reading coaches’ role as Reading First becomes more firmly planted in their school.42 This 

is a potential cause for concern, because reading coaches in RF schools are supposed to be 

focusing on providing support and professional development to teachers, rather than on 

instructing students. However, in smaller schools, reading coaches might have the time to 

both serve teachers’ needs and provide direct reading instruction to students. To explore this 

issue further, reading coach response was analyzed by school size. Consistent with this 

hypothesis, 44 percent of reading coaches from schools with fewer than 250 students 

responded that direct instruction to students was absolutely central, the highest percentage of 

the four school size categories analyzed.43 

 

42 We will be able to test this hypothesis with longitudinal data after the next wave of data collection for the 

“new” RF schools in the 2006–07 school year. That is, by asking reading coaches from the same schools 

after two more years of RF implementation, we will be able to see if there is a change in these figures. 

43 Additional figures: For school size 250–499, 31 percent; 500–749, 21 percent; and greater than or equal to 

750, 29 percent of reading coaches rated “providing direct instruction to students” as absolutely central to 

their role as reading coach. 
74 Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 

Exhibit 6.2 

Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Teacher Support Activities Related to the Reading 

Programs in Reading First Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Question B4. 

Weight: Reading coach 

Weighted respondents: 3,754 RF reading coaches. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 0.7 to 1.2 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 5 percent of reading coaches at RF schools reported administering and coordinating reading assessments as “not 

central” to their work; 8 percent reported it as “somewhat central”; and 87 percent reported it as “absolutely central.” 

Reading coaches in mature Reading First schools were significantly more likely than their 

Title I counterparts to report that the following reading activities were absolutely central to 

their work (Exhibit 6.3): providing training or professional development (95 percent vs. 87 

percent), coaching staff on a range of topics (92 percent vs. 83 percent), organizing 

professional development (87 percent vs. 67 percent), and facilitating grade-level meetings 

(67 percent vs. 47 percent). On the other hand, reading coaches in Title I schools were 

significantly more likely than Reading First reading coaches to report that provision of direct 

reading instruction to students is absolutely central to their work (63 percent vs. 29 percent). 

The role of the “reading coach” in many Title I schools thus seems to be more like the 

traditional “reading specialist,” with more emphasis on directly teaching students reading. 

2 4

49

2 13

19

21

4 7 9

87 94

68

30

91

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Facilitate grade level

meetings

Provide direct

reading instruction to

students

Provide training/

professional

development in

reading materials,

strategies, and

assessments

Coach staff on a

range of topics

Organize

professional

development for K–3

teachers

Percent

...Not central (1 or 2) ...Somewhat central (3) ...Absolutely central (4 or 5)

Teacher Support Activities
Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 75 

Exhibit 6.3 

Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Various Teacher Support Activities in RF 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

New Reading 

First Schools 

Mature Reading 

First Schools 

Title I 

Reading Activity/ Schools 

Centrality of the Activity Percent Percent Percent 

Facilitate grade-level meetings 

...Not central (1 or 2) 11% 14% 30%* 

...Somewhat central (3) 20 19 23 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 69 67* 47 

Coach staff on a range of topics 

...Not central (1 or 2) 3 2 3 

...Somewhat central (3) 7* 6 14* 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 91 92* 83 

Provide direct reading instruction to students 

...Not central (1 or 2) 44 52* 28 

...Somewhat central (3) 24 19 19 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 32 29 53* 

Organize professional development for K–3 

teachers 

...Not central (1 or 2) 5 3 15* 

...Somewhat central (3) 7 10 18* 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 88 87* 67 

Provide training/professional development in 

reading materials, strategies, and assessments 

...Not central (1 or 2) 2 2 5* 

...Somewhat central (3) 5 3 9* 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 93 95* 87 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Question B4. 

Weight: Reading coach. 

Weighted respondents: 1,630 new RF reading coaches, 2,124 mature Reading First reading coaches, 6,727 reading 

coaches in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 0.4 to 2.1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 67 percent of reading coaches in mature RF schools rate facilitating grade-level meetings as “central” to 

their work, compared with 47 percent of reading coaches in Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤

.05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between mature RF and 

Title I schools. 

Turning to administrative support activities (Exhibit 6.4), more than 85 percent of the reading 

coaches in the total population of RF schools characterized two activities as absolutely central 

to their work: compilation of reading assessment data (88 percent), and administration and 

coordination of reading assessments (87 percent). Only about one-third of the reading coaches 

in the total population of RF schools reported facilitation of family literacy activities (34 

percent) or provision of sub time for teachers to observe experienced teachers (33 percent) as 

absolutely central to their work. This finding is not surprising, because these two activities are 

not part of the Reading First guidelines for the reading coach’s role. 

Nearly all of the reading coaches in the total population of RF schools characterized one 

activity that did not fall into the “teacher support” or “administrative support” categories 
76 Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 

(Exhibit 6.4) as absolutely central to their role: participation in professional development (96 

percent). 

Exhibit 6.4 

Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Administrative and School Support Activities 

Related to the Reading Programs in Reading First Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Question B4. 

Weight: Reading coach. 

Weighted respondents: 3,754 RF reading coaches. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 0.3 to 1.7 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 5 percent of reading coaches at RF schools reported administering and coordinating reading assessments as “not 

central” to their work; 8 percent reported it as “somewhat central”; and 87 percent reported it as “absolutely central.” 

Note: Percents may not always add up to 100 due to rounding. 

The star (*) indicates an “administrative support activity.” 

Reading coaches in mature RF schools were significantly more likely than their Title I 

counterparts to report that the following administrative support activities were absolutely 

central to their work (Exhibit 6.5): compiling reading assessment data (88 percent vs. 67 

percent), and administering or coordinating reading assessments (86 percent vs. 67 percent). A 

majority of reading coaches in both RF and Title I schools reported that participating in school 

leadership team meetings and managing reading instruction materials were absolutely central 

to their work. In addition, significantly more reading coaches in mature RF schools 

characterized participating in professional development (97 percent vs. 89 percent) as 

absolutely central to their work. 

11

40

9 5 5

42

8 8

14

26

17

26

3

87 88

34 33

97

77 72

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Administer/

coordinate

reading

assessments*

Compile

reading

assessment

data*

Participate in

school

leadership

team meetings

Facilitate or

coordinate

family literacy

activities*

Order/manage

reading

instruction

materials*

Participate in

professional

development

provided by the

district, state or

other

consultants

Provide sub

time for

teachers to

observe

experienced

teachers*

Percent

...Not central (1 or 2) ...Somewhat central (3) ...Absolutely central (4 or 5)

Administrative and School Support Activities
Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 77 

Exhibit 6.5 

Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Administrative and School Support 

Activities, in RF and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

New Reading 

First 

Schools 

Mature 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Reading Activity/ Schools 

Centrality of the Activity Percent Percent Percent 

Administer/coordinate reading assessments 

...Not central (1 or 2) 4% 6%* 14% 

...Somewhat central (3) 8 8* 19 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 88 86* 67 

Compile reading assessment data 

...Not central (1 or 2) 5 4* 14 

...Somewhat central (3) 7 8* 19 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 88 88* 67 

Facilitate or coordinate family literacy activities 

...Not central (1 or 2) 38 42 39 

...Somewhat central (3) 27 24 28 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 34 34 33 

Order/manage reading instruction materials 

...Not central (1 or 2) 11 11 15 

...Somewhat central (3) 13 20 15 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 76 69 70 

Provide sub time for teachers to observe other 

more experienced teachers* 

...Not central (1 or 2) 40 43 56* 

...Somewhat central (3) 24 27 18* 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 36 30 26 

Participate in school leadership team meetings 

...Not central (1 or 2) 9 9 12 

...Somewhat central (3) 14 15 13 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 78 76 75 

Participate in professional development provided 

by the district, state or other consultants 

...Not central (1 or 2) 0 1* 4 

...Somewhat central (3) 3 3* 7 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 96 97* 89 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Question B4. 

Weight: Reading coach. 

Weighted respondents: 1,630 reading coaches in new RF schools, 2,124 reading coaches in mature RF schools, 6,727 

reading coaches in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 0.3 to 1.6 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 86 percent of reading coaches in RF schools rate administering/coordinating reading assessments as 

“central” to their work, compared with 67 percent of reading coaches in Title I schools. This difference is statistically 

significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and 

Title I schools. 

Coaching Activities Undertaken by Reading Coaches 

Reading coaches also were asked about the importance of different coaching activities to their 

work (Exhibit 6.6). In general, reading coaches in the total population of Reading First 

schools thought that all coaching activities were important, and rated the activities an average 
78 Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 

of 4.2 on a five-point scale (1 = not central and 5 = absolutely central). Six of 10 coaching 

activities were perceived as absolutely central to at least 85 percent of the reading coaches; 

these activities included helping teachers to interpret assessment results (93 percent), to design 

strategies for struggling readers (91 percent), to use the core reading program (89 percent), 

and to assess the effectiveness of strategies for struggling readers (87 percent); these activities 

also included observing and providing feedback to teachers (85 percent), and assisting 

teachers to form instructional groups (84 percent). The coaching activity characterized as least 

central—though deemed central by approximately half (51 percent) of the coaches—was 

reviewing teachers’ lesson plans and providing feedback. 

Reading coaches in mature RF schools were significantly more likely than reading coaches in 

Title I schools to report that all of these coaching activities were absolutely central to their 

work (Exhibit 6.7), with two exceptions: helping teachers monitor the effectiveness of 

strategies for struggling readers (88 percent vs. 83 percent); and reviewing lesson plans and 

providing feedback (25 percent vs. 22 percent). 
Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 79

Exhibit 6.6 Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Activities Supporting Teachers’ Instruction in Reading First SchYear Mean score for 10 items 4.2 Source: Reading Coach Survey, Question B5. Weight: Reading coach. Weighted respondents: 11,378 RF reading coaches. Nonresponse rates across survey items: 0.5 to 1.5 percent. Exhibit reads: 76 percent of reading coaches in RF schools rated giving demonstration lessons using core/supplemental materials as “absolutely cenpercent rated it as “not central.” 

7 3 4 4 2 3 10

17

9 10 11

7 9

14 18

76

89 84 87

75 73

11

85 91

0

20406080

100

Percent

...Not central (1 or 2) ...Somew hat central (3) ...Absolutely ce

Give 

demonstration 

lessons using 

core/ 

supplemental 

materials

Assist 

teachers in 

using the 

core 

program

Observe and 

provide 

feedback to 

teachers

Assist 

teachers in 

forming 

instructional 

groups

Help teachers 

design 

strategies for 

struggling 

readers

Help teachers 

assess 

effectiveness 

of strategies 

for struggling 

readers

Give 

demonstrations 

on assessment 

administration 

and scoring

Plan reading 

instruction 

with teachers

R

te

pl

p

fe

7 3 4 4 2 3 10

17

9 10 11

7 9

14 18

76

89 84 87

75 73

11

85 91

0

20406080

100

Percent

...Not central (1 or 2) ...Somew hat central (3) ...Absolutely ce

Give 

demonstration 

lessons using 

core/ 

supplemental 

materials

Assist 

teachers in 

using the 

core 

program

Observe and 

provide 

feedback to 

teachers

Assist 

teachers in 

forming 

instructional 

groups

Help teachers 

design 

strategies for 

struggling 

readers

Help teachers 

assess 

effectiveness 

of strategies 

for struggling 

readers

Give 

demonstrations 

on assessment 

administration 

and scoring

Plan reading 

instruction 

with teachers

R

te

pl

p

fe
80 Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 

Exhibit 6.7 

Reading Coaches’ Ratings of the Importance of Activities Supporting Teachers’ 

Instruction in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Coaching Activity/ Schools 

Centrality of the Activity Percent Percent 

Give demonstration lessons with core/supplemental materials 

...Not central (1 or 2) 5% 13%* 

...Somewhat central (3) 16 13 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 79* 70 

Assist teachers in using the core program 

...Not central (1 or 2) 2 9* 

...Somewhat central (3) 9 13 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 89* 77 

Observe and provide feedback to teachers 

...Not central (1 or 2) 4 17* 

...Somewhat central (3) 12 13 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 84* 69 

Assist teachers in forming instructional groups 

...Not central (1 or 2) 4 12* 

...Somewhat central (3) 11 20* 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 85* 68 

Help teachers design strategies for struggling readers 

...Not central (1 or 2) 3 4 

...Somewhat central (3) 6 11 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 90* 86 

Help teachers monitor the effectiveness of strategies for 

struggling readers 

 

...Not central (1 or 2) 4 7 

...Somewhat central (3) 9 11 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 88 83 

Give demonstrations on assessment administration/scoring 

...Not central (1 or 2) 13 18* 

...Somewhat central (3) 16 26* 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 71* 56 

Plan reading instruction with teachers 

...Not central (1 or 2) 9 13 

...Somewhat central (3) 17 24 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 73* 64 

Review teachers’ lesson plans & provide feedback 

...Not central (1 or 2) 54 57 

...Somewhat central (3) 21 21 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 25 22 

Help teachers in interpreting assessment results 

...Not central (1 or 2) 2 10* 

...Somewhat central (3) 3 17* 

...Absolutely central (4 or 5) 94* 72 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Question B5. 

Weight: Reading coach. 

Weighted respondents: 2,113 RF reading coaches, 6,701 reading coaches in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 0.5 to 1.2 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 79 percent of reading coaches at RF schools rated giving demonstration lessons with 

core/supplemental materials as “absolutely central” to their work, compared with 70 percent of reading coaches 

in Title I schools (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and 

Title I schools. 
Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 81 

Responsibility for Oversight of Reading Activities 

Principals in Reading First schools (new and mature) were asked to indicate what entity is 

responsible for supporting and providing oversight of classroom reading activities—the state, the 

school district, or the school. The responses show that school personnel, including the principal 

or reading coach, were almost always solely responsible or jointly responsible, along with 

district and state personnel, for all forms of oversight of reading activities. Only rarely were 

district or state personnel solely responsible for reading oversight. In about 90 percent of the total 

population of RF schools, school principals and reading coaches were either solely or jointly 

responsible for monitoring the implementation of the reading program, for reviewing teachers’ 

lesson plans, for reviewing student progress in reading, for interpreting assessment results, for 

providing feedback to teachers about reading instruction, and for selecting professional 

development topics and opportunities. 

In general, mature Reading First and non-RF Title I schools differ in the assignment of 

responsibility for reading activities oversight (Exhibit 6.8). School staff alone, or school staff in 

combination with district staff, were significantly more likely to be responsible for monitoring 

the implementation of reading programs in Title I schools than in mature RF schools, in which 

the responsibility was more likely to be shared among school, district, and state staff. 

Additionally, RF schools were significantly more likely to report shared responsibility among 

school, district, and state staff for interpreting assessment results, giving feedback to teachers 

about reading instruction, and selecting reading professional development topics and 

opportunities; Title I schools, however, were significantly more likely to report responsibility 

shared between just school and district personnel for those activities. For example, reading 

coaches in Title I schools were somewhat more likely to report having the support of their 

principals than were reading coaches in RF schools. The difference, while statistically 

significant, is small.44 

Furthermore, mature RF schools were significantly more likely to share responsibility among 

school, district, and state staff in reviewing teachers’ reading lesson plans and reviewing 

individual students’ progress in reading. This general trend of more state involvement in Reading 

First schools reflects the structure of the Reading First program, which requires states to be 

involved in designing and overseeing the Reading First program in grantee schools. 

 

44 Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale of one to five how accurately the statement “Reading 

coaches have the support of the principal” (Question H1)” describes their school. The average response was 

4.43 for RF schools and 4.60 for Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 
82 Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 

Exhibit 6.8 

Responsibility for Oversight of Reading Activities in Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Reading Oversight Activity/ Schools 

Responsible Party Percent Percent 

Monitoring implementation of reading program 

...School alone is responsible 32% 48%* 

...School and district are jointly responsible 28 38* 

...School, district and state are jointly responsible 33 8* 

...Other combinations 7 7 

Review of Teachers’ reading lesson plans 

...School alone is responsible 91 89 

...School and district are jointly responsible 3 6 

...School, district and state are jointly responsible 2* 0 

...Other combinations 3 5 

Review individual students’ progress in reading 

...School alone is responsible 64 65 

...School and district are jointly responsible 18 22 

...School, district and state are jointly responsible 13* 6 

...Other combinations 5 7 

Interpretation of assessment results 

...School alone is responsible 40 40 

...School and district are jointly responsible 35 42* 

...School, district and state are jointly responsible 21* 12 

...Other combinations 5 6 

Feedback to teachers about reading instruction 

...School alone is responsible 72 70 

...School and district are jointly responsible 14 23* 

...School, district and state are jointly responsible 8 4* 

...Other combinations 6 4 

Selection of reading professional development topics 

and opportunities 

 

...School alone is responsible 27 33 

...School and district are jointly responsible 45 52* 

...School, district and state are jointly responsible 18* 4 

...Other combinations 10 12 

Source: Principal Survey, Question D5. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 3,866 RF principals, 14, 485 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 0.3 to 1.5 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 32 percent of RF schools reported that school personnel alone are responsible for monitoring the 

implementation of the reading program, compared to 48 percent of Title I schools. This difference is statistically 

significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

schools. 
Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 83 

Role of the School Principal in the Evaluation of K–3 Reading 

Instruction 

School principals were asked how they evaluated the K–3 reading instruction in their schools. 

The most common form of evaluation in the total population of Reading First schools was 

informal evaluation through observation, done at least weekly by 64 percent of the principals. 

There were few significant differences between mature Reading First and Title I schools in 

principals’ evaluations of K–3 reading instruction (Exhibit 6.9). Principals in mature Reading 

First schools were significantly more likely than Title I school principals to observe classroom 

reading instruction at least weekly (64 percent vs. 46 percent); RF principals were also 

significantly more likely than Title I principals to meet monthly with groups of teachers to 

discuss strategies for improving reading instruction. 
84 Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 

Exhibit 6.9 

Percentage of Reading First Schools and Title I Schools in Which K–3 Reading Instruction 

Was Evaluated by the Principal, by Mode and Frequency of Evaluation, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First 

Schools 

Title I 

Mode of Evaluation/ Schools 

Frequency of Evaluation Percent Percent 

Observed classroom reading instruction informally 

...Not at all 0% 0% 

...1–4 times this year 6 15* 

...5–8 times this year 14 15 

...Once a month 17 23* 

...Once a week or more 64* 46 

Observed classroom reading instruction using an 

evaluation form 

 

...Not at all 4 7* 

...1–4 times this year 38 44 

...5–8 times this year 19 15 

...Once a month 22 18 

...Once a week or more 18 15 

Met with teachers individually to discuss strategies for 

improving reading instruction 

 

...Not at all 4 5 

...1– 4 times this year 32 35 

...5– 8 times this year 22 21 

...Once a month 27 24 

...Once a week or more 16 15 

Met with groups of teachers to discuss strategies for 

improving reading instruction 

 

...Not at all 2 3 

...1–4 times this year 18 28* 

...5–8 times this year 21 24 

...Once a month 40* 30 

...Once a week or more 18 15 

Source: Principal Survey, Question D6. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 3,866 RF principals, 14, 485 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: < 1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 14 percent of principals in RF schools reported observing classroom reading instruction informally 5– 8 

times this year, compared to 15 percent of principals in Title I schools. This difference is not statistically significant. 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

schools. 

Summary 

Overall, it appears that teachers in RF schools have more support for their reading instruction 

than teachers in non-RF Title I schools. One element of classroom support is access to a reading 

coach, whose main role is to help teachers develop their skills as reading instructors. As required 

by most states, nearly all RF schools reported having a reading coach, which was significantly 

more than was true for non-RF Title I schools (98 percent vs. 60 percent). Reading coaches in 
Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 85 

mature Reading First schools were significantly more likely than their non-RF Title I 

counterparts to report that many teacher support and coaching activities recommended for 

reading coaches were absolutely central to their work. They were, correspondingly, less likely 

than reading coaches in non-RF Title I schools, to identify as central the provision of direct 

reading instruction to students (29 percent vs. 53 percent). At the same time, RF reading coaches 

were also significantly more likely than reading coaches in non-RF Title I schools, to rate several 

administrative activities as absolutely central to their work. 

The state was significantly more involved in oversight of school reading programs, including 

monitoring implementation (33 percent45 percent vs. 8 percent), interpretation of reading 

assessment results (21 percent vs. 12 percent), and selecting professional development topics in 

reading (18 percent vs. 4 percent), in RF schools than in non-RF Title I schools. However, 

school personnel (including the principal or reading coach) were also nearly always involved in 

oversight activities in both RF and non-RF Title I schools, and sometimes were solely 

responsible for oversight activities, such as reviewing teachers’ lesson plans in reading and 

providing feedback to teachers about reading instruction. In addition, nearly all states have 

developed guidelines for monitoring and evaluating the RF programs. 

 

45 Percents are for the category “state, district and school are jointly responsible.” It was extremely rare for the 

state to be solely responsible for any of these activities. 
86 Chapter 6: Oversight and Classroom Support Activities 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 87 

Chapter 7: Professional Development 

The RF program provides funds to be used at the state and local levels to (1) ensure that 

research-based reading programs and materials are used to teach students in K–3, (2) increase 

access and quality of professional development of all teachers who teach K–3 students, thereby 

ensuring that they have effective skills for teaching reading, and (3) help prepare classroom 

teachers to screen, identify, and overcome barriers to students’ ability to read on grade level by 

the end of third grade. Taken together, these goals indicate that Reading First aims to strengthen 

teacher knowledge about teaching reading. 

The RF legislation provides several strategies to meet this objective, one of which addresses 

teacher professional development focused on scientifically based reading practices. This focus on 

professional development reflects the view that reading research currently provides a strong, 

evidence-based understanding of how to teach reading effectively in the early grades, 

particularly to children who are struggling academically. The legislation specifies that states 

offer comprehensive professional development to help teachers work with these students, as well 

as to enrich the overall quality of reading instruction. It also calls for building teachers’ working 

knowledge of the reading research base at conceptual and operational levels (e.g., understanding 

conceptual principles as well as knowing how to sequence practices mostly effectively to impact 

children’s development of reading skills). 

Professional development provided through Reading First should reflect current research on 

reading instruction and the use of scientifically based reading instructional techniques. The 

underlying intention is that through participation in research-based professional development, 

teachers will better be able to meet the needs of all of their K–3 students, including struggling 

readers. Survey responses indicate that teachers in Reading First schools are being offered and 

are attending a wide range of professional development activities that cover myriad topics related 

to teaching reading. It is important to note that some professional development 

opportunities offered as part of Reading First are available to all K–3 teachers in the state 

regardless of whether or not their school is receiving RF funds. Therefore, the Title I 

survey responses could reflect staff participation in these opportunities. 

States have a central role in the development and provision of both statewide and district-level 

professional development for RF schools. RF coordinators in 33 states reported that the state 

chooses and organizes all statewide professional development (PD) efforts for Reading First. 

State staff also play a key role in selecting PD topics for local or district-based professional 

development for RF schools. 

States have implemented a variety of PD delivery systems for offering teachers professional 

development. The majority of states’ professional development plans include a “train-thetrainer” model where state-level trainers (other state agency staff, or a group contracted by the 

state) train representatives from districts and schools—such as reading coaches and a team of 

classroom teachers—who, in turn, train other teachers and reading-related staff in their districts 
88 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

and schools. Other state plans included regional staff-led trainings for teams from each school. 

These regional systems have often been coupled with distance learning supports, such as 

listservs, to bolster regional training once teachers return to their classrooms, because direct 

contact with the school-based staff is limited. Still other states have forged strong relationships 

with their state university systems, resulting in professional development offerings that are based 

on this collaboration. Courses are often held at university campuses but designed by both faculty 

and state education agency personnel to meet SBRR (or other) content needs related to RF 

implementation. 

Many states have offered specialized training to district and school staff according to 

professional roles. For example, states first trained district reading specialists, then offered 

training to school-level reading coaches, and then trained all K–3 reading and classroom 

teachers. State directors, as part of their RF state plan, indicated that this approach “triaged” the 

most important individuals for the implementation of the Reading First plan so that district-level 

reading staff, for example, who have a larger role in RF implementation—including 

accountability for school-level implementation—are trained before classroom teachers receive 

training. 

This chapter summarizes findings related to five aspects of professional development including: 

a) the structure of activities (e.g., workshops, conferences); b) specific design features (e.g., 

availability of stipends, required attendance); c) activities related to the five dimensions of 

reading instruction; d) activities related to teaching strategies for reading instruction, and e) 

direct classroom support to teachers for teaching reading (e.g., classroom demonstrations, 

coaching). 

The Structure of Professional Development Activities Attended by 

Teachers 

RF teachers reported participating in significantly more professional development activities than 

did Title I teachers. This is corroborated by the reading coach reports; significantly more RF 

coaches reported that sufficient time is allotted for professional development than did reading 

coaches in Title I schools.46 Virtually all RF teachers (94 percent) attended either half- or fullday workshops compared to 81 percent of Title I teachers (see Exhibit 7.1). Further, RF 

teachers, on average, spent significantly more hours participating in professional development 

activities than did Title I teachers (40 hours vs. 24 hours). There were no significant differences 

between RF and Title I teachers in attendance at conferences or college courses. 

 

46 Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale from one to five how accurately the statement “sufficient 

time during the school day is allotted for professional development,” (Question H1) describes their school. The 

average response in RF schools was 3.17 and 2.80 in Title I schools. This difference is statistically significant. 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 89 

Exhibit 7.1 

Structure of Professional Development Activities Attended by Teachers in Mature 

Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers 

Percent Percent 

Half-day workshops 73%* 65% 

Full-day workshops 76* 53 

Any workshop 94* 81 

College courses 17 14 

Conferences 29 26 

Mean Mean 

Number of workshops 5.5* 3.4 

Number of total hours in 

attendance across all activities 

39.5* 24.1 

Source: Teacher survey, Question D1. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 63,530 RF teachers, 205,375 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rate across survey items: 3.2 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Reading First teachers reported attending more half-day professional development workshops 

than Title I teachers during the last school year (73 percent vs. 65 percent). This difference is statistically 

significant (p ≤ .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between 

teachers in RF and Title I schools. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.1 for grade-level statistics.

The Specific Design Features of Professional Development 

Teachers, principals, and reading coaches in RF schools reported that most of the school-based 

teacher professional development opportunities were led by well-established facilitators, were 

held at a convenient location, and were required (Exhibit 7.2). Also, a substantial proportion of 

the activities provided teachers with some incentive to participate in the form of release time 

(45–60 percent), stipends (41–49 percent), or graduate credits (about 20 percent). It is likely that 

professional development activities with these characteristics result in meaningful learning and 

training opportunities for participants (Corcoran, 1995; Corcoran, et al., 2003; Garet, et al., 1999; 

Learning First Alliance, 2003). 

There were several differences among teachers, principals, and reading coaches in how they 

characterized the professional development activities. Teachers and reading coaches were much 

less likely than principals to report that the professional development a) provided teachers with 

options (32, 32, and 70 percent, respectively), b) provided follow-up activities (49, 57, and 71 

percent, respectively), or c) provided release time for teachers (44, 50, and 60 percent, 

respectively). Principals were also more likely than teachers or reading coaches to report that the 

principal attended the activities (70, 55, and 59 percent, respectively). 
90 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

Exhibit 7.2 

Characteristics of the Professional Development Activities Reading First Teachers Attended in 

the Last Year, as Reported by Teachers, Principals and Reading Coaches, 2004–05 School 

Year 

RF Teachers 

RF Reading 

Coaches RF Principals 

Professional development activities that: Percent Percent Percent 

are led by trainers or facilitators who have a 

well-established reputation 

76% 84% 88% 

are held in a convenient location (e.g., at 

school) 

73 82 84 

require teachers to attend 77 78 80 

use a team-based approach (i.e., joint training 

of people who work together) 

69 73 78 

were attended by the principal 55 59 70 

provide follow-up activities 49 57 71 

include release time for participating teachers 44 50 60 

provide a stipend 41 44 49 

provide teachers options among which to 

choose 

32 32 70 

offer graduate college credits 23 21 21 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D3; Reading Coach Survey, Question F3; Principal Survey, Question F1. 

Weight: Teacher, reading coach and principal. 

Weighted respondents: 63,300 RF teachers, 3,724 RF reading coaches and 3,863 RF principals. 

Nonresponse rate across survey items and respondent types: 0.9 to 6.5 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Reading First reading coaches reported that 84 percent of the professional development activities offered to 

teachers were given by trainers or facilitators who have a well-established reputation.

There were statistically significant differences between RF and Title I teachers’ reports of the 

features of professional development they received (Exhibit 7.3). In general, these findings are 

corroborated by the responses of reading coaches and principals. The professional 

development received by RF teachers, as compared with Title I teachers, was significantly 

more likely to offer incentives to participants in the form of stipends (40 percent vs. 20 

percent), release time (43 percent vs. 33 percent), or graduate credits (25 percent vs. 14 

percent). Additionally, there were three other features of the professional development received 

by RF teachers that may improve the overall quality and success of the activity. First, the 

activity was more likely to be conducted by a trainer with a well-established reputation (75 

percent vs. 65 percent). Second, professional development offerings were more likely to be 

held in a convenient location (73 percent vs. 62 percent). Third, the professional 

development was more likely to have provided follow-up activities (48 percent vs. 35 

percent), which is a central theme of the Reading First Program (Guidance for the Reading 

First Program, 2002, page 26) and improves the chances that the activity will positively 

affect reading instruction. 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 91 

It is also worth noting that teachers reported that the principal attended only about half of the 

professional development activities attended by teachers. As the principal is the instructional 

leader in the school, we might have expected this percentage to be higher in RF programs. 

Exhibit 7.3 

Specific Features of Professional Development Activities Differences Between Teachers in 

Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year. 

25

33

40

48

52

67

74

73

75

43

100 80 60 40 20 0 

32

20

33

35

46

53

57

62

65

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

 

Percent Percent 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D3. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 37,130 RF teachers, 196,522 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rate across survey items: 3.5 to 7.3 percent. 

Exhibit Reads: Reading First teachers reported that 75 percent of the professional development activities offered to 

teachers were given by trainers or facilitators who have a well-established reputation, compared with 65 percent of the 

activities attended by Title I teachers. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between teachers in RF 

and Title I schools. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.3 for additional statistics. 

Were given by wellestablished trainers 

RF Teachers Title I Teachers

Were held in 

convenient location 

Required teachers 

 to attend 

Used team-based 

approach 

Were attended by 

principal 

Provided follow-up 

activities 

Included release 

 time 

Provided a stipend 

Provided teachers 

with options

Offered graduate 

college credits 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

Specific 

Features of PD 

Differences between RF 

and Title I Teachers 
92 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

Professional Development Related to the Five Dimensions of Reading 

At the core of Reading First are the five dimensions of reading instruction that have been 

identified in scientifically based reading research: phonemic awareness, decoding, vocabulary 

development, fluency, and comprehension. Mastery of these reading skills is critical to becoming 

a successful reader. By definition, reading programs in Reading First schools must include these 

five dimensions of effective reading instruction, integrated into a coherent instructional design. 

This means that teachers should be trained explicitly in these five dimensions as well as in 

teaching strategies for adapting these practices to the varying needs and circumstances of their 

students. Successful implementation of the selected reading programs depends on well-designed 

professional development activities that address these topics. 

Teachers’ Participation in Professional Development on the Five Dimensions of 

Reading 

Exhibit 7.4 (right panel) presents the grade-level mean percentage of teachers who received 

professional development in each of the reading dimensions for RF and Title I teachers. 47

Across all grades, RF teachers were significantly more likely than their Title I school 

counterparts to have participated in professional development activities focused on at least 

one of the five dimensions of reading instruction. 

• More than 90 percent of RF first grade teachers received professional development in 

phonemic awareness and decoding, compared with about 70 percent of Title I 

teachers. The same pattern holds even for the third grade, a grade in which more than 

three-fourths of RF teachers received professional development in these topics, 

compared with about 50 percent of Title I teachers. 

• With regard to vocabulary development, the grade-level means range from 67 to 78 

percent for RF teachers, compared with a range of 49 to 56 percent for Title I 

teachers. 

• Similarly, more than 85 percent of RF teachers at each of the grades received 

professional development in reading comprehension, compared with about 75 percent 

of Title I teachers at each grade. 

 

47 Five composite variables were constructed to summarize teacher responses to these subskill items; each 

composite represents teacher responses aggregated to one of the five “dimension” levels. If a teacher indicated 

participation in at least one professional development activity within a particular dimension, that teacher’s 

composite value for that particular dimension was computed as “1”. 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 93 

Exhibit 7.4 

Teacher Participation in Professional Development Activities Related to the Five Dimensions of 

Reading: Teachers in Mature Reading First Schools and Title I Schools, The Range of Grade-Level 

Percents, 2004–05 School Year 

Perceived PD Needs PD Participation 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D4. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 38,249 RF teachers, 201,290 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across respondents: 1.9 percent. For the analysis of PD needs, an additional 16 percent of the responses were 

excluded because the respondents provided more than five responses, the limit specified in the survey directions. 

Exhibit reads: The grade-level means for RF teachers showing their participation in professional development in phonemic awareness 

range from 75 to 92 percent in grades K–3. This compares with a range of 50 to 74 percent for Title I teachers. At each grade, RF 

teachers received significantly more professional development on this topic than did Title I teachers. Notes: Each bar represents the 

range of the grade-level means computed for each item. 

For each grade level, a significant difference (p < .05) between RF teachers and Title I teachers is indicated by the grade level symbol 

(i.e., K, 1, 2, 3). For example, if kindergarten, second grade, and third grade showed significant differences between RF teachers and 

Title I teachers, then ”K23” would be presented. 

The fluency analysis is limited to teachers in first, second, and third grades. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.4 for the grade-level means and additional statistics. 

There were no statistically significant differences between RF and Title I teachers in their 

perceived needs for additional professional development in decoding, fluency building and 

comprehension (Exhibit 7.4, left panel). However, there were differences in teachers’ 

perceived need for additional professional development in phonemic awareness instruction; 

kindergarten and third-grade Title I teachers were more likely than their RF counterparts 

to indicate a need for additional training in these dimensions (kindergarten: 62 percent vs. 52 

percent; third grade: 35 percent vs. 24 percent). Additionally, about one-half of RF kindergarten 

teachers indicated a need for more training in teaching vocabulary, compared with 41 percent of 

Title I kindergarten teachers. 

Reading First

Title I

Key

Phonemic 

Awareness

Decoding

Vocabulary

Fluency 

Building

Comprehension

K123

K123

K123

123

K123

K3

K

Statistically 

Significant at 

p < .05

Statistically 

Significant at 

p < .05

Phonemic 

Awareness

Decoding

Vocabulary

Fluency 

Building

Comprehension

K123

K123

K123

123

K123

K3

K

Statistically 

Significant at 

p < .05

Statistically 

Significant at 

p < .05
94 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

Teacher Ratings of Their Preparedness to Teach the Five Dimensions of Reading 

The objective of professional activities related to the dimensions of reading is to strengthen 

teachers’ knowledge of these component skills, thereby improving their teaching of reading. The 

majority of RF teachers, whether in newly funded or mature schools, feel well prepared to 

provide instruction in the five dimensions of reading. About three-fourths of the teachers feel 

well prepared to teach phonemic awareness48 and about two-thirds feel well prepared to teach the 

other dimensions. This means there are substantial numbers of teachers who do not rate 

themselves as well prepared to provide this type of instruction. This is not surprising in 

newly funded schools that are in the early stages of implementing their professional development 

plan. Of the teachers who rated themselves as well prepared to teach a specific reading 

dimension, almost all (85–95 percent) have received professional development on the specific 

dimension. Conversely, the teachers who rated themselves as not well prepared, were less likely 

to have reported participating in professional development on that topic (61 versus 79 percent). 

Across all five dimensions of reading, RF teachers across grades, on average, rated 

themselves as significantly better prepared to teach than did Title I teachers (Exhibit 7.5). 

Mean scores ranged from 3.83 on fluency to 4.13 on phonemic awareness for RF teachers, 

compared with a range of 3.40 to 3.66 for Title I teachers. This corresponds to results 

described earlier—that RF teachers reported receiving more professional development than did 

Title I teachers, across all of these components of reading instruction. 

Exhibit 7.5 

Preparedness to Teach Five Dimensions of Reading: Teachers in Mature Reading First and 

Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

RF Teachers Title I Teachers 

Dimension Mean Mean 

Phonemic Awareness 4.13* 3.66 

Decoding 3.86* 3.35 

Vocabulary 3.79* 3.40 

Comprehension 3.80* 3.54 

Fluency 3.83* 3.40 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D6. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 37,683 RF teachers, 189,901 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 6.1 to 6.6 percent. 

Exhibit reads: RF teachers rated themselves as better prepared (on a five-point scale) to teach phonemic awareness than 

did Title I teachers (4.13 vs. 3.66, p ≤ .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between teachers in RF 

and Title I schools. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.5 for grade-level statistics. 

 

48 The analysis focused on phonemic awareness includes kindergarten and first-grade teachers only, because it is 

at these grades where the skill is heavily emphasized 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 95 

Principals’ and Reading Coaches’ Participation in Professional Development on 

the Five Dimensions of Reading 

RF principals and reading coaches were significantly more likely to have participated in 

professional development than their Title I counterparts across all five dimensions of 

reading, with a 15-percentage point difference for principals, and 30-percentage point 

difference for reading coaches (Exhibit 7.6). These findings provide further evidence that the 

implementation of Reading First is resulting in a strong emphasis, at the school level, on the 

importance of providing reading programs that help students master these five key dimensions of 

reading. 

Exhibit 7.6 

Professional Development Related to the Five Dimensions of Reading Attended by 

Principals and Reading Coaches in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 

School Year 

Reading First Schools Title I Schools 

Dimension Percent Percent 

Principal Participation 

Phonemic Awareness 79%* 63% 

Decoding 72* 58 

Vocabulary 80* 66 

Comprehension 84* 67 

Fluency 83* 75 

Reading Coach Participation 

Essential Components of Reading 90* 60 

Source: Principal Survey, Question F2a-e; Reading Coach Survey, Question G1f. 

Weight: Principal, reading coach. 

Weighted respondents: 2,182 RF principals, 14,259 Title I principals and 11,428 reading coaches. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items and respondents: 0.0 to 4.8 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 79 percent of principals in RF schools participated in professional development in phonemic 

awareness, compared with 63 percent of principals in Title I schools. The difference is statistically significant (p ≤

.05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between teachers in 

RF and Title I schools. 

Professional Development Related to General Teaching Strategies 

The Reading First legislation specifies that professional development activities should also 

provide teachers with “information on instructional materials, programs and approaches based on 

scientifically based reading research” {Section 1202, D}. This information will (hypothetically) 

help teachers implement sound, research-based instructional practices that are most likely to help 

students develop mastery of the five dimensions of reading. 

Teachers’ Participation in Professional Development on General Teaching 

Strategies 

Teachers in Reading First schools were asked whether they had participated in professional 

development focused on 1) using materials and teaching strategies, 2) grouping, 3) assessment of 
96 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

students, 4) how to help struggling readers, and 5) organization and planning. They were also 

asked to report in which of these topics they felt they needed additional professional 

development. Results are presented for these five categories of professional development topics 

in Exhibits 7.7a-d. 

Teachers in RF schools reported receiving professional development in a variety of topics related 

to materials and teaching strategies (Exhibit 7.7a). Most RF teachers (82 percent) reported 

receiving professional development in how to use their core reading programs, and the majority 

(60 percent) have received professional development in how to use reading research to guide 

instruction; indeed, this is one of the central aims of the Reading First legislation. Only 11 

percent of RF teachers reported the need for additional professional development in this area. 

It is also noteworthy that substantial numbers of RF teachers received professional development 

in using children’s literature (53 percent) and integrating reading and writing instruction (59 

percent). In addition, about 20 percent of RF teachers perceived a need for additional 

professional development in using children’s literature and 30 percent indicated a need for more 

professional development in integrating reading and writing instruction. These teaching 

strategies, however, are not considered to be salient aspects of an effective Reading First 

program. 

Exhibit 7.7a 

Teacher Professional Development on Materials and Teaching Strategies in Reading First Schools, 

2004–05 School Year 

38

82

53 60 62

51

59

11 7

21

7

17

30 26

0

20

40

60

80

100

How to use

the core

reading

program

How to use

children's

literature to

teach

children

How to use

reading

research to

guide content

of instruction

How the core

reading

program

incorporates

research

principles

How to use

the

supplemental

reading

program(s)

How to

integrate

reading and

writing

instruction

Strategies for

teaching

reading to

ELLs

Percent Percent RF Teachers-PD-Received

Percent RF Teachers- PD-Need

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 59,728 RF teachers. 

Nonresponse rate: 8.3 percent. For the analysis of PD needs, an additional 26 percent of the responses were excluded because the 

respondents provided more than five responses, the limit specified in the survey directions. 

Exhibit reads: 84 percent of RF teachers reported receiving professional development in how to use the core reading program; 7 

percent reported needing additional professional development on this topic. 

Notes; If teachers provided more than five topics in which they need PD, their responses were excluded from the analysis. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.7a for grade-level statistics on these items. 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 97 

Almost three-quarters of RF teachers reported receiving professional development on 

administering assessments and using the information to guide instruction (Exhibit 7.7b); this is a 

central tenet of Reading First, as noted in the Guidance for the Reading First Program: that “a 

high-quality reading program also includes assessment strategies for diagnosing student needs 

and measuring student progress as well as a professional development plan that ensures teachers 

have the skills necessary to implement the program effectively and meet the reading needs of 

individual students” (2002, page 6). Further, very few RF teachers reported needing additional 

training in these topics. It is important to note, however, that only about one-half of RF teachers 

(45 percent) reported receiving professional development in how to diagnose reading problems. 

Yet this is the topic most often perceived by RF teachers (38 percent) as one in which they need 

additional professional development. 

Almost half (45 percent) of RF teachers reported receiving professional development in learning 

styles, and almost a quarter (22 percent) felt they needed more professional development in this 

area. This again, is a topic that is not central to the Reading First program. 

Exhibit 7.7b 

Teacher Professional Development on Grouping and Assessment in Reading First Schools, 

2004–05 School Year 

45

66

45

74 76

22 23

38

4

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

Learning styles How to organize

small group

instruction

How to diagnose

reading

problems

How to

administer

assessments

How to interpret

and use

assessment data

to guide

instruction

Percent

Percent RF Teachers-PD-Received

Percent RF Teachers- PD-Need

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 59,728 RF teachers. 

Nonresponse rate: 8.3 percent. For the analysis of PD needs, an additional 26 percent of the responses were excluded 

because the respondents provided more than five responses, the limit specified in the survey directions. 

Exhibit reads: 48 percent of RF teachers reported receiving professional development in learning styles; 22 percent 

reported needing additional professional development on this topic. 

Note: See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.7b, for grade-level statistics on these items. 

Grouping Assessment 
98 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

More RF teachers reported needing additional professional development in topics related to 

helping struggling readers master specific instructional content (see Exhibit 7.7c) rather than the 

broader topic of how their reading programs incorporate research principles (Exhibit 7.7a). 

Teachers reported wanting more training in how to help struggling readers with decoding (25 

percent), comprehension (30 percent), and motivation (30 percent). 

Exhibit 7.7c 

Teacher Professional Development on Struggling Readers in Reading First Schools, 2004–05 

School Year 

61 59 57

45

24 25

31

18

30

42

0

20

40

60

80

100

How to help

struggling readers

with decoding

How to help

struggling readers

with vocabulary

 How to help

struggling readers

with

comprehension

 How to motivate

readers

Strategies for

teaching reading

to students with

diagnosed

learning

disabilities

Percent Percent RF Teachers-PD-Received

Percent RF Teachers- PD-Need

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 59,728 RF teachers. 

Nonresponse rate: 8.3 percent. For the analysis of PD needs, an additional 26 percent of the responses were excluded because 

the respondents provided more than five responses, the limit specified in the survey directions. 

Exhibit reads: 64 percent of RF teachers reported receiving professional development in how to help struggling readers, with 

decoding; 25 percent reported needing additional professional development on this topic. 

Note: See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.7c for grade level statistics on these items. 

Approximately two-thirds of RF teachers reported receiving professional development on how to 

use content standards for curriculum planning and teaching and how to align their curriculum 

and instruction with assessments. This indicates that many RF teachers are being given guidance 

in how to use content standards and assessments to inform their instruction. 

In general, only small proportions of RF teachers perceived the need for additional professional 

development in areas related to organization and planning (Exhibit 7.7d). For instance, under 10 

percent of teachers wanted more training in how to use state or district content standards (7 

percent) or alignment of instruction with assessments (8 percent); perhaps this reflects the fact 

that teachers feel they have little influence in these areas. Again, teachers were more likely to 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 99 

report needing additional training on topics that focus on specific techniques and strategies, such 

as how to work with parents, and classroom management (22 and 16 percent). 

Exhibit 7.7d 

Teacher Professional Development on Organization and Planning in Reading First Schools, 

2004–05 School Year 

66 63

31

54

7

22

8

16

0

20

40

60

80

100

How to use

state/district content

standards for

curriculum planning

and teaching

How to align reading

curriculum and

instruction with

state/district

assessments

How to work with

parents

Classroom

management

Percent Percent RF Teachers-PDReceived

Percent RF Teachers- PD-Need

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 59,728 RF teachers. 

Nonresponse rate: 8.3 percent. For the analysis of PD needs, an additional 26 percent of the responses were excluded 

because the respondents provided more than five responses, the limit specified in the survey directions. 

Exhibit reads: 69 percent of RF teachers reported receiving professional development in how to use state or district content 

standards for curriculum planning and teaching, 7 percent reported needing additional professional development on this topic. 

Note: See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.7d for grade-level statistics on these items. 

In order to summarize teachers’ reported professional development, we constructed two types of 

scores. First, we calculated the proportion of teachers who reported receiving professional 

development on any of the topics in a given category. Second, we calculated the average number

of topics in which teachers reported receiving professional development. We then used these 

summary measures to compare the professional development activities of RF and Title I teachers 

(Exhibit 7.8). 

Across all professional development topic areas related to reading instruction, RF teachers 

were significantly more likely than Title I teachers to have reported receiving professional 

development on at least one topic in each of the five categories. For example, 92 percent of 

RF teachers received professional development about at least one type of teaching strategy 

in the last year compared with 75 percent of Title I teachers. On average, RF teachers 

received professional development in four, and Title I teachers in three areas within this topic. 

Generally, this pattern of differences holds across the other areas of professional development. 
100 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

Large proportions of RF and Title I teachers indicated the need for more training to work 

with struggling readers. In fact, significantly more Title I than RF teachers indicated such 

a need (76 percent vs. 60 percent). Many teachers, both RF and Title I who indicated a need for 

additional training on this topic had already received some training this year in working with 

struggling readers (76 and 60 percent). 

There were no meaningful (or statistically significant) differences between RF and Title I 

teachers in terms of their perceived professional development needs in the other broad topic 

areas: teaching strategies, grouping, assessment, and planning. 

Exhibit 7.8 

Professional Development in Teaching Strategies in Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Teachers 

Reading First Title I 

Percent Percent 

Teaching strategies 95%* 83% 

Grouping 73* 62 

Assessment 85* 67 

Struggling readers 78* 64 

Organization/ planning 80* 75 

Number of Professional Development 

Activities Mean Mean 

Teaching strategies 4.12* 3.10 

Grouping 1.12* 0.95 

Assessment 1.96* 1.48 

Struggling readers 2.53* 1.94 

Organization/ planning 2.20* 1.96 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 38,187 RF teachers, 196,060 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 1.1 to 3.7 percent

Exhibit reads: 92 percent of RF teachers compared to 75 percent of Title I teachers, received professional development 

in at least one instructional strategy. RF teachers attended a mean of 4.12 professional development activities in 

teaching strategies, compared to 3.10 for Title I teachers. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Notes: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between teachers in 

RF and Title I schools. 

See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.8 for additional statistics. 

Principals’ Participation in Professional Development on General Teaching 

Strategies 

Principals were asked about the professional development they received in the previous year as 

well as their perceived needs for additional professional development. Exhibit 7.9 summarizes 

RF principals’ participation in professional development activities across several topic areas. 

Most principals participated in professional development activities related to teaching strategies 

(92 percent) and assessment (90 percent). Principals were more likely to participate in activities 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 101 

related to teaching strategies than the other topic areas; on average their experiences covered 

about four different topics related to teaching strategies. On average, RF principals reported 

participating in 8.24 of 10 topic areas.49 

Exhibit 7.9 

Reading First Principals’ Participation in Professional Development in 

Teaching Strategies, 2004–05 School Year

RF Principals 

Topics Percent 

Teaching strategies 91% 

Evaluation 77 

Assessment 90 

Struggling readers 70 

Organization/ planning 76 

Composite Measure Mean 

 Diversity of PD Topics 8.24 

Number of Professional Development 

Activities Mean 

Teaching strategies 4.00 

Grouping 2.00 

Assessment 2.32 

Struggling readers 2.57 

Organization/ planning 2.39 

Source: Principal Survey, Question F2. 

Weight: Principal. 

Weighted respondents: 3,829 RF principals. 

Nonresponse rate: 2.0 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 92 percent of RF principals participated in professional development on teaching 

strategies. 

Note: See Appendix C, Exhibit C.7.9 for principal participation rates on specific activities within 

each topic area.

RF principals participated in a wider variety of professional development activities related 

to teaching strategies and the five dimensions of reading instruction than did principals in 

Title I schools (Exhibit 7.10). RF principals attended a significantly greater variety of 

professional development activities related to general teaching strategies (e.g., how to use 

the core reading program, how to use research to guide instruction) than did Title I 

principals (3.75 vs. 3.24). This same pattern holds for professional development related to 

assessment, evaluation, and working with struggling readers. There were no statistically 

significant differences between RF and Title I principals in the variety of professional 

development activities focused on organization, management, and support.

 

49 To measure the diversity of professional development activities and topics for principals, we constructed a 

composite measure. This composite measure has a scale of 0-10, and it incorporates two kinds of professional 

development: those related to the five dimensions (each represented by one point), and those related to the five 

topic areas discussed above 1) teaching strategies, 2) evaluation, 3) assessment, 4) struggling readers, and 5) 

organization and planning. 
102 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

These findings suggest that principals in RF schools have been provided with more 

comprehensive and targeted support related to comprehensive reading instruction. 

Exhibit 7.10 

Professional Development Events Attended by Principals in Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools: Summary and Composite Measures, 2004–05 School Year

Number of Events Attended by Principals 

Reading First Schools Title I Schools 

General Topics Mean Mean 

Teaching strategies 3.75* 3.24 

Assessment 2.17* 1.96 

Struggling readers 2.41* 1.98 

Organization, management, and 

support 2.26 2.31 

Evaluation 1.85* 1.42 

Source: Principal Survey, Question F2. 

Weight: Principal.

Weighted respondents: 2,167 RF principals, 13,783 Title I principals. 

Nonresponse rates across respondents: 2.0 to 6.1 percent. 

Exhibit reads: Principals in RF schools reported attending, on average, 3.75 professional development activities about 

teaching strategies, compared with 3.24 for Title I principals. The difference in means is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and 

Title I schools.

Reading Coaches’ Participation in Professional Development on General 

Teaching Strategies 

Reading coaches provide ongoing professional development to teachers both in modeling 

effective instructional practice and in providing overall support to teachers’ efforts to implement 

their reading programs. Indeed, the guidance for the Reading First Program states that, “delivery 

mechanisms [for professional development] should include the use of coaches and other teachers 

of reading who provide feedback as instructional strategies are put into practice” (2002, page 

26). Therefore, it is critical that coaches receive the support and training in how to effectively 

guide teachers and provide them with feedback regarding their teaching. 

Across all fifteen topics (Exhibit 7.11), reading coaches in RF schools were significantly 

more likely to have received professional development than reading coaches in Title I 

schools (differences ranging from 13 percentage points to 30 percentage points). The scores 

of RF coaches, on average, are higher than those of reading coaches in Title I schools. RF 

reading coaches were considerably more likely to have received professional development on 

how to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and explicit than reading coaches in 

Title I schools (78 percent vs. 52 percent). The same pattern holds for professional development 

in using assessment data to form instructional groups (90 percent vs. 68 percent), and how to 

plan instruction for struggling students (75 percent vs. 57 percent), and helping teachers with the 

essential components of scientifically based reading instruction (90 percent vs. 60 percent). In 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 103 

summary, reading coaches in RF schools appear to be better prepared to support the teachers in 

their schools in implementing their reading instruction than coaches in Title I schools. 

Exhibit 7.11 

Topics Addressed in Professional Development Offered to Reading Coaches in Mature 

Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year

Reading Coaches 

Reading First Title I Topic Percent Percent 

1. How to use reading assessment data to guide instruction 94%* 79% 

2. What are the types of assessments: screening, diagnostic, 

progress monitoring, and outcome 

85* 55 

3. How to use assessment data to form instructional groups 90* 68 

4. How to provide constructive feedback to teachers 86* 65 

5. How to establish credibility with teachers 76* 45 

6. Essential components of scientifically based reading instruction 90* 62 

7. What is the role of the reading coach in fostering change 84* 55 

8. How to plan instructional interventions for struggling students 75* 58 

9. Classroom management within the literacy block time 57* 47 

10. How to conduct effective grade level meetings 60* 36 

11. How to help teachers identify appropriate instructional materials 61* 45 

12. How to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and 

explicit 

78* 57 

13. How to conduct demonstration lessons 68* 55 

14. How to conduct classroom observations 79* 54 

15. How to provide onsite professional development 66* 55 

Source: Reading Coach survey, Question G1. 

Weight: Reading coach. 

Weighted respondents: 2,025 RF reading coaches, 6,727 reading coaches in Title I schools. 

Nonresponse rate across survey items: 5 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 94 percent of Reading First reading coaches reported that professional development in using reading 

assessment data to guide instruction was offered to reading coaches in the last year, compared to 79 percent of reading 

coaches in Title I schools. The difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and 

Title I schools. 

Direct Classroom Support to Teachers for Improving Reading 

Instruction 

Teachers are often provided ongoing, direct support and feedback for their classroom teaching, 

above and beyond formal professional development. This includes attendance at grade-level 

meetings, help using assessment results to plan instruction, classroom demonstrations, 

observation of other teachers and peer study groups, and availability of support from reading 

coaches to improve instruction, among others. Teachers were asked to report whether or not they 

had received any of these types of support during the previous school year. 
104 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

Across several types of direct support, a greater proportion of RF teachers reported 

receiving assistance with their reading instruction than did Title I teachers (Exhibit 7.12). 

Support for using assessment to guide instruction is significantly stronger in RF schools. 

• Eighty-nine percent of RF teachers received help in interpreting assessment data, 

compared with only 69 percent of Title I teachers. 

• Two-thirds of RF teachers indicated that they received help in using diagnostic tests with 

their students, compared with less than half of Title I teachers (66 percent vs. 49 percent). 

• Almost all RF teachers (91 percent) reported receiving support for using assessment data 

to determine topics that require additional instruction; this compares with about threequarters of the Title I teachers (76 percent). 

These findings align with a critical element of Reading First—using students’ performance on 

reading tests to identify students at risk of failure and to modify reading instruction accordingly. 

Exhibit 7.12 also displays information about the availability of the various types of direct support 

for teachers’ reading programs, many of which are simply not available in Title I schools. For 

example, one-third of the teachers in Title I schools indicate that both coaching by a reading 

coach and diagnostic testing assistance is not available. 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 105 

Exhibit 7.12 

Direct Support for Reading Instruction for Teachers in Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Teachers 

Support Received 

Support Not Available at My 

School 

Reading 

First Title I 

Reading 

First Title I 

Type of Support Percent Percent Percent Percent 

Coaching by reading coach in programs, 

materials or strategies 

86%* 50% 3% 32%* 

Coaching from fellow teacher 58* 47 18 26* 

Peer study group for group study 47* 32 41 55* 

Demonstrations in my classroom 51* 29 15 41* 

Observations of other teachers 38* 32 24 34* 

Diagnostic testing help from a reading coach 

or specialist for individual students 

66* 49 12 30* 

Intervention service help from a reading 

coach or specialist for individual students 

60* 52 14 27* 

Interpretation of assessment data 89* 68 3 16* 

Grade level meetings devoted to reading 91* 76 6 17* 

Using assessment data to determine topics 

that require additional instruction 

91* 76 3 16* 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D2. 

Weight: Teacher. 

Weighted respondents: 38,217 RF teachers, 201,724 Title I teachers. 

Nonresponse rates across survey items: 1.0 to 3.0 percent. 

Exhibit reads: 86 percent of RF teachers have received assistance from a reading coach; this compares with 50 percent for 

Title I teachers. This difference is statistically significant (p ≤ .05). 

Note: The stars (*) indicate that there is a statistically significant difference (i.e., p-value ≤ .05) between RF and Title I 

schools. 

Many states require RF schools to have reading coaches on staff to provide mentoring and 

guidance to K–3 teachers as they implement their reading instruction. Indeed, RF coaches 

reported that teachers were given more time to be coached about their reading instruction from a 

reading coach50 and agreed more strongly that teachers sought their help to improve reading 

instruction than coaches in Title I schools.51 Most K–3 teachers (86 percent) reported that they 

 

50 Reading coaches indicated on a scale from “not at all” to “once a week or more” how much time was formally 

set aside for teachers to be coached about reading instruction by a reading coach. The average response for RF 

coaches was 4.01, corresponding to “once a month” whereas the average response for reading coaches in Title I 

schools was 2.35, corresponding most closely to “1–4 times per year.” This difference is statistically 

significant. 

51 Reading coaches were asked to indicate on a scale from one to five how accurately the statement “K–3 teachers 

seek the assistance of the reading coach to improve their reading instruction,” (Question H1) describes their 

school. The average response in RF schools was 3.93 and 3.76 in Title I schools. This difference is statistically 

significant. 
106 Chapter 7: Professional Development 

have received help from a reading coach about teaching strategies and instructional materials. 

About two-thirds of teachers indicated having received assistance in completing diagnostic 

assessments of students; interestingly, 10 percent of the teachers indicate that such assistance is 

not available in their school, which is not what one might hypothesize to be characteristic of RF 

schools. This may reflect the fact that in many schools, teachers do not administer diagnostic 

tests; therefore, in these schools, reading coaches do not provide teachers with this kind of 

support. 

To summarize the kinds of support teachers receive, we constructed a composite measure, 

Overall Support; that includes five supporting activities particularly salient to Reading First: 1) 

interpretation of assessment data, 2) classroom demonstrations, 3) grade-level meetings devoted 

to reading, 4) coaching or mentoring from a reading coach, and 5) use of assessment data to 

identify skills that need additional instruction or practice. Scores on Overall Support range from 

0–5, reflecting one point for each type of support teachers reported having received. On average, 

RF teachers reported receiving more types of direct support for their reading instruction than did 

teachers in Title I schools (4.1 vs. 3.5). 

Summary 

Professional development focused on scientifically based reading practices is central to the 

Reading First program. The objective of this professional development is to strengthen teachers’ 

knowledge about reading instruction and thereby improve their teaching quality and 

effectiveness. The findings provide consistent evidence that professional development for 

multiple aspects of reading instruction have been provided to RF principals, reading coaches, and 

teachers. This assistance includes both professional development related to instruction in the 

five dimensions of reading instruction as well as about overall teaching strategies. Further, the 

findings illuminate striking differences in professional development practice between RF and 

Title I schools. 

Significantly more Reading First teachers reported attending professional development 

workshops related to reading than did non-RF Title I teachers (94 percent vs. 81 percent). RF 

teachers, on average, reported having spent significantly more time attending professional 

development activities—conferences, workshops, college courses—in the past year than did 

teachers in non-RF Title I schools (40 hours vs. 24 hours). 

Professional development activities attended by RF teachers, as compared with non-RF Title I 

teachers, were significantly more likely to: 

• Offer incentives for participation, such as stipends (40 percent vs. 20 percent), release 

time (43 percent vs. 33 percent), or graduate credits (25 percent vs. 14 percent). 

• Be conducted by well-established and experienced trainers (75 percent vs. 65 

percent). 

• Require teachers to attend (74 percent vs. 57 percent). 

• Use a team-based approach (67 percent vs. 53 percent). 
Chapter 7: Professional Development 107 

RF principals, reading coaches and teachers reported having participated in significantly more 

professional development activities to improve their knowledge of the five dimensions of reading 

instruction than did Title I teachers. For example, significantly more RF than Title I teachers 

received professional development in phonemic awareness (90 percent vs.70 percent). RF 

teachers rated themselves (on a five-point scale) as significantly better prepared to teach the 

following skills than did Title I teachers: phonemic awareness, 4.13 vs. 3.66; decoding, 3.86 vs. 

3.35; vocabulary, 3.79 vs. 3.40; comprehension, 3.80 vs. 3.54; and fluency, 3.83 vs. 3.40. 

RF teachers were significantly more likely than teachers in Title I schools to report having 

received professional development assistance on administering and using assessments (85 

percent vs. 67 percent), interpreting assessment data (90 percent vs. 68 percent), and using 

diagnostic tests to guide instruction (66 percent vs. 49 percent). 

Reading coaches and principals also received professional development to support them in their 

roles. RF reading coaches were significantly more likely than their non-RF Title I counterparts 

to report having received professional development assistance on how to help teachers make 

reading instruction systematic and explicit (78 percent vs. 52 percent), and on the essential 

components of SBRR instruction (90 percent vs. 60 percent). Both of these topics are central to 

the Reading First program. 
108 Chapter 7: Professional Development 
Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 109 

Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 

This interim report of the Reading First Implementation Evaluation addresses the following 

questions: 

1. How is the Reading First program implemented in districts and schools? 

2. How does reading instruction differ in Reading First schools and non-grantee Title I 

schools? 

The findings presented in this interim report provide some initial evidence that the Reading First 

Program is being implemented in districts and schools as intended by the legislation, specifically, 

in terms of the implementation of effective K–3 reading programs in schools. Below, we discuss 

each of these findings in more detail. 

Reading Instruction in Reading First Schools and Non-RF Title I 

Schools 

Reading First schools appear to be implementing the major features of the program as intended 

by the legislation. States and districts have been providing appropriate supports, particularly in 

terms of professional development related to reading, and the selection and use of assessments to 

inform instruction. Reading First schools have established instructional environments to support 

SBRR-based reading instruction, providing adequate time for reading instruction and using 

effective instructional materials and strategies. 

The reading programs being implemented in K–3 classrooms in Reading First and non-RF Title I 

schools appear to be different on a variety of components as follows: 

• Instructional Time. More time was spent teaching reading in RF schools than in 

Title I schools. Virtually all RF schools (98 percent) had a reading block (i.e., a time 

period that was formally scheduled for teaching reading) at each of grades K through 

3, significantly more than the 92 percent of classrooms in grades 1–3 and 88 percent 

of kindergartens that had reading blocks in Title I schools. Reading First schools 

reported, on average, a significantly longer reading block than did Title I schools (by 

about 15 minutes per day). Further, teachers in RF schools reported that, on average, 

they spent significantly more time on reading than did teachers in Title I schools—a 

difference of about 19 minutes per day, or almost 100 minutes per week. Teachers in 

RF schools were also significantly more likely than teachers in non-RF Title I schools 
110 Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 

to report that they had increased the amount of time spent on reading from the 2003–

04 to the 2004–05 school years (61 percent vs. 35 percent).52 

• Instructional Materials. Reading First schools were significantly more likely than 

Title I schools to have changed the materials used for reading instruction by adopting 

a new core reading program (39 percent vs. 16 percent), a new program for struggling 

readers (74 percent vs. 43 percent), or a new reading assessment (71 percent vs. 36 

percent). Reading instructional activities and strategies in RF schools appear to be 

aligned with the tenets of the Reading First program. Further, RF teachers across all 

grades (K–3) rated materials as central to their instruction a greater proportion of 

SBRR-aligned practices than did teachers in Title I schools: These statistically 

significant differences were modest in size (e.g., second grade: 76 percent vs. 72 

percent), although the difference for kindergarten teachers was somewhat larger (77 

percent vs. 68 percent). 

• Instructional Strategies. RF teachers rated as central to their instruction a 

significantly higher proportion of scientifically based practices related to instruction 

the five dimensions of reading than did teachers in Title I schools: For example, 1) 

RF kindergarten and first-grade teachers rated as central to their instruction a 

significantly higher proportion of scientifically based practices for teaching phonemic 

awareness and decoding than did teachers in Title I schools; and 2) RF third-grade 

teachers rated as central to their instruction a significantly higher proportion of 

scientifically based practices in teaching vocabulary and fluency than did their Title I 

counterparts. However, there were no differences between RF and Title I teachers in 

their centrality ratings related to teaching comprehension skills. 

• Assessments. Reading First schools received significantly more external, 

nonfinancial assistance than did Title I schools in selecting assessment instruments 

(76 percent vs. 56 percent) and interpreting assessment results (82 percent vs. 70 

percent). RF teachers were significantly more likely to report having regularly 

scheduled, formal time set aside to use assessment data to plan instruction (84 percent 

vs. 74 percent). Across different types of direct support activities, a significantly 

larger proportion of RF teachers reported receiving assistance in administering 

assessments and using the information to guide instruction (85 percent vs. 67 

percent); interpreting assessment data (90 percent vs. 68 percent), and using 

diagnostic tests (66 percent vs. 49 percent), than did teachers in Title I schools. 

• Professional development. RF staff received significantly more professional 

development than did Title I staff. A significantly larger proportion of RF teachers 

reported having attended reading-related professional development workshops than 

did Title I teachers (94 percent vs. 81 percent). Further, RF teachers reported that, on 

average, during the last year, they spent significantly more hours attending these 

 

52 For this comparison, we used the newly funded RF schools since the mature RF schools may have already 

increased their instructional time in their first year of implementation, 2002–03. That said, about 45 percent of 

the mature RF schools did increase their instructional time in the 2004–05 school year. 
Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 111 

professional development activities than did Title I teachers (40 hours vs. 24 hours). 

RF teachers were more likely to have received professional development in 

instruction in the five dimensions of reading as well as in overall teaching strategies. 

Indeed, RF teachers reported feeling better prepared to teach the five dimensions of 

reading than their Title I counterparts. 

These findings provide some initial evidence to suggest that the reading programs being 

implemented in grades to K–3 students in RF schools are meeting the objectives of the Reading 

First Program. 

Limitations 

As described in Chapter 1, there are several limitations to the findings presented in this report. 

First, the data sources (primarily surveys) represent respondents’ self-reported subjective 

perceptions and judgments about the implementation of their reading programs. Second, the 

Reading First legislation requires states to provide professional development in scientifically 

based reading instruction to all K–3 teachers, not only the teachers in schools that receive RF 

funding; this may reduce the potential to find large differences between RF and non-RF Title I 

schools. Third, many states require RF schools, not Title I schools, to have a reading coach; in 

fact, reading coaches in Title I schools are classroom teachers or reading specialists. We 

addressed this shortcoming by limiting the Title I group of reading coaches to those respondents 

who reported that they routinely engage in the activities used to define the responsibilities of a 

reading coach. Nevertheless, any observed differences between RF and reading coaches in 

Title I schools should be interpreted with somewhat more caution than observed differences 

between other respondent categories. 

The fourth limitation concerns the comparability of the Title I school sample. We constructed 

this sample purposefully to provide a context within which to understand the implementation of 

reading programs in Reading First schools. Comparisons between RF and Title I samples can be 

made, yet because the Title I school sample was not matched in any way to the RF school 

sample, it cannot be assumed to be equivalent to RF school sample. Although we have reported 

significant differences between the reading programs in RF and Title I schools, we must exercise 

caution when interpreting these observed differences. These differences cannot be attributed to 

the RF program. 

Future Activities 

This interim report presented findings primarily based on the spring 2005 survey data collection 

from principals, teachers, and reading coaches. The second wave of data collection will be 

conducted in 2007 and will provide information to address several questions not answered in this 

report: 
112 Chapter 8: Summary and Conclusions 

• How does reading instruction differ in RF schools and non-grantee Title I schools as 

RF schools’ implementation efforts mature over time? 

• Does student achievement improve in schools with Reading First funds? 

• Is there any relationship between how schools implement Reading First and changes 

in reading achievement? 

The findings will be included in the final report to be published in the summer of 2008. 
References 113 

References 

Corcoran, T.B. (1995). Transforming Professional Development for Teachers: A Guide for State 

Policymakers. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association. 

Corcoran, T.B., S. McVay, and K. Riordan (2003). Getting It Right: The MISE Approach to 

Professional Development, Research Report Series RR-055). Philadelphia, Pa.: Consortium for 

Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. 

Garet, M.S., B.F. Birman, A,C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. Herman, and K.S. Yoon, (1999). 

Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. 

Learning First Alliance (2000). Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide. 

Washington, D.C. 

National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to 

Read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its 

Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development, National Institutes of Health. 

Snow, C.S., S.M. Burns, and P. Griffin (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young 

Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading, 2005, (NCES 

Publication No. 2006-4511) Washington D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences. 
114 References 
Appendix A A-1 

Appendix A 

The Study Samples and the 

Sampling Weights 
A-2 Appendix A 

Appendix A: The Study Samples and the Sampling 

Weights 

The School Sample 

The study’s evaluation questions require sampling from three distinct groups of schools: (1) 

new RF schools (schools funded in January 2004 or later), (2) mature RF schools (schools 

funded on or before Dec. 31, 2003), and (3) non–Reading First Title I, schoolwide project 

(SWP) schools—schools in which at least 40 percent of the students are eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunches. We limited the Title I sample to SWP schools because that is the 

population from which Reading First schools are typically drawn. Each of these three groups 

was sampled to yield a nationally representative sample. To identify the populations of 

Reading First and Title I schools from which to select the study samples, we constructed 

sampling frames using data provided by the U.S. Department of Education.1 Schools that did 

not have at least three of the target grades (K–3) were excluded. This section describes the 

selection of Reading First and 550 Title I schools. 

Reading First Schools 

We sampled and subsequently recruited equal numbers (550) of two types of Reading First 

schools—newly funded, and mature Reading First schools. These two samples are large 

enough to compute subgroup population level estimates. The two samples (new and mature) 

represent schools in different phases of implementation; this designation was based on 

Reading First Program guidelines to states for their annual performance reports specifying 

that for “schools receiving grants between July 1 and December 31 of any reporting period, 

the current school year will be considered in the first year of implementation.” Therefore, 

schools awarded sub-grants before Dec. 31, 2003 were designated as mature schools for the 

spring 2005 data collection, when they were at least in their second year of implementation. 

All other RF schools were classified as new. 

In order to ensure that the new and mature samples of RF schools were representative of their 

respective populations, we stratified each group of RF schools into four census regions and 

four levels of school size, in which size represents the number of students in each school; this 

process created 16 strata. All Reading First schools under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) were included in our sample in a 17th stratum. We sorted the schools 

within each stratum by state and urbanicity (four levels) to ensure that each sample provides 

 

1

 The Southwestern Educational Development Laboratory is maintaining a database for the U.S. Department 

of Education that tracks awards of Reading First grants and sub-grants to states, districts, and schools. 

Also, the U.S. Department of Education is conducting a national evaluation of Title I schools and has 

provided us with the sampling frame used on that study. 
Appendix A A-3 

a systematic representation on these demographic characteristics. Finally, we selected a 

systematic sample of schools from each stratum. 

Exhibit A.1 summarizes the recruitment of the RF school sample. As of mid-October 2004, 

3,911 RF schools nationwide met the criteria for inclusion in the sample frame.2

 Of these 

schools, we then selected 1,143 schools for recruitment into the study. A sample of 1,098 

schools agreed to participate in the study. Most schools (1,033, or 94 percent) have all four 

target grades.

Exhibit A.1 

Recruitment of Reading First Schools Based on October 2004 Data 

Source: Data Collection Receipt Tracking File.

 

2

 The population of RF schools is based on a database maintained by Southwestern Educational 

Development Laboratory. Abt obtained this database in October 2004, in time to construct the sampling 

frames, then select and recruit the samples of RF schools. The complete population of RF schools at that 

time was 4,352; however, schools were removed from the frame for one of five reasons: 1) if they did not 

have three of the four target grades; 2) if they are in the RF Impact Study; 3); if they are private schools, 

both because the composition of the student body is qualitatively different (i.e., primarily self selected) than 

the composition of students in public schools, and because program operations in private schools are not 

held to the same policies as program operations in public schools; 4) if they are located in American 

Samoa; or 5) they were no longer RF schools. 

Population of 

RF Schools

3,911

Population of 

RF Schools

3,911

Schools Selected 

for Recruitment

1,143

Schools Selected 

for Recruitment

1,143

Ineligible 

Schools

45

Ineligible 

Schools

45

Schools 

Successfully 

Recruited

1,098

Schools 

Successfully 

Recruited

1,098

Schools with All 

Target Grades

1,033

• 515 New

• 518 Mature

Schools with All 

Target Grades

1,033

• 515 New

• 518 Mature

Schools with 3 

Target Grades

65

• 35 New

• 30 Mature

Schools with 3 

Target Grades

65

• 35 New

• 30 Mature

Population of 

RF Schools

3,911

Population of 

RF Schools

3,911

Schools Selected 

for Recruitment

1,143

Schools Selected 

for Recruitment

1,143

Ineligible 

Schools

45

Ineligible 

Schools

45

Schools 

Successfully 

Recruited

1,098

Schools 

Successfully 

Recruited

1,098

Schools with All 

Target Grades

1,033

• 515 New

• 518 Mature

Schools with All 

Target Grades

1,033

• 515 New

• 518 Mature

Schools with 3 

Target Grades

65

• 35 New

• 30 Mature

Schools with 3 

Target Grades

65

• 35 New

• 30 Mature
A-4 Appendix A 

After conducting the data collection, we used principals’ survey responses to verify and 

correct, if necessary, the classification of RF schools as new or mature. Approximately 88 

percent of these schools were correctly classified as new or mature. Most classification errors 

reflected inaccurate designations as mature; principals’ survey responses showed that 

because their schools were in their first year of implementation, they should be classified as 

“new.” 

Title I Schools 

We recruited a nationally representative sample of 551 non–Reading First Title I, SWP 

schools. To identify the appropriate population of Title I schools, we relied on the Common 

Core of Data (CCD)—a database that contains relevant demographic information on all 

schools nationwide. At the time we drew the sample, the CCD included data from the 2002–

03 school year. 

Exhibit A.2 summarizes the recruitment of the Title I school sample. A total of 14,684 

Title I, SWP schools had at least three of the four target grades. We constructed the same 16 

strata (geographic region by school size) used for the RF school sample, then sorted by state 

and urbanicity. For the purpose of selecting the Title I sample, we did not create a separate 

stratum for the BIA schools; rather, BIA schools were distributed across the 16 strata. We 

selected 718 Title I schools for potential recruitment into the study. A small percentage of 

schools were ineligible because they a) did not have at least three target grades, b) were 

closed, or c) were no longer Title I schools. About 9 percent, or 67 schools, refused to 

participate in the study. Additionally, 53 schools, despite repeated communication, never 

explicitly either refused or agreed to participate in the study. We successfully recruited 551 

schools into the study; most (91 percent) have the four target grades. 
Appendix A A-5 

Exhibit A.2 

Recruitment of Title I Schools 

Source: Data Collection Receipt Tracking File.

Data from new and mature RF schools allows us to answer the descriptive question about 

Reading First implementation in districts and schools. Data from mature RF schools and 

Title I schools allows us to compare the reading programs implemented in these groups of 

schools. 

The Principal, Reading Coach, and Teacher Samples 

We obtained complete teacher rosters (grades K–3) from each school successfully recruited 

into the study. Each school’s principal was included in the evaluation. Similarly, all reading 

coaches, typically one per school, were included in the evaluation sample. 

To construct the teacher sample, we randomly selected one teacher in each of grades K–3. 

Some study schools have fewer than four teachers in the sample because the school only has 

three of the four target grades (i.e., a K–2 school), or because the school has only combined 

classrooms (i.e., K–1, 1–2, 2–3). Exhibit A.3 displays the teacher and reading coach samples 

for the 1,649 schools recruited into the study. In total, there are 6,466 teachers and 1,346 

Population of 

Title I Schools

14,684

Population of 

Title I Schools

14,684

Schools Selected 

for Recruitment

718

Schools Selected 

for Recruitment

718

Ineligible/ 

Closed 

Schools

47

Ineligible/ 

Closed 

Schools

47

Schools Successfully 

Recruited

551

Schools Successfully 

Recruited

551

Schools Never 

Finalized

53

Schools Never 

Finalized

53

Schools with All 4 

Target Grades

504

Schools with All 4 

Target Grades

504

Schools with 3 

Target Grades

47

Schools with 3 

Target Grades

47

Schools that 

Refused

67

Schools that 

Refused

67

Population of 

Title I Schools

14,684

Population of 

Title I Schools

14,684

Schools Selected 

for Recruitment

718

Schools Selected 

for Recruitment

718

Ineligible/ 

Closed 

Schools

47

Ineligible/ 

Closed 

Schools

47

Schools Successfully 

Recruited

551

Schools Successfully 

Recruited

551

Schools Never 

Finalized

53

Schools Never 

Finalized

53

Schools with All 4 

Target Grades

504

Schools with All 4 

Target Grades

504

Schools with 3 

Target Grades

47

Schools with 3 

Target Grades

47

Schools that 

Refused

67

Schools that 

Refused

67
A-6 Appendix A 

reading coaches in the sample of recruited schools. Almost all (99 percent) of the RF schools 

have a reading coach. Only half (52 percent) in the Title I schools designated someone as a 

reading coach. 

Exhibit A.3 

Principal, Reading Coach, and Teacher Samples 

Potential Respondent Samples 

Type of 

Respondent 

Reading First 

Schools Title I Schools Total 

Teachers 

 Kindergarten 1,081 542 1,623 

 1st grade 1,088 545 1,633 

 2nd grade 1,087 541 1,628 

 3rd grade 1,058 524 1,582 

Total teachers 4,314 2,152 6,466 

 

Reading coaches 1,060 286 1,346 

Principals 1,098 551 1,649 

Source: Data Collection Receipt Tracking File.

Response Rates. All but six RF schools and 10 Title I schools (1,092, and 541, respectively) 

returned at least one survey. Exhibit A.4 presents response rates at the school and individual 

respondent levels. About 88 percent of the schools returned completed surveys for all the 

selected respondents within their schools; another 8 percent of schools completed all but one 

of the surveys and only 17 schools, or 1 percent, were nonrespondents, returning no surveys. 

Response rates were slightly higher for Reading First schools compared to Title I schools; 97 

percent of Reading First schools were either complete or missing only one survey, compared 

to 94 percent for Title I schools. It is important to note here, that Reading First schools are 

required, as part of their acceptance of a sub-grant to participate in a national evaluation. No 

corresponding requirement existed for the Title I schools. 

The response rate across all types of respondents and all schools is 96 percent. Of 9,460 

potential respondents, 9,076 individuals returned completed surveys. For teachers in 

Reading First schools response rates are approximately 96 percent across the four grade 

levels, compared to 94 percent in Title I schools. 
Appendix A A-7 

Exhibit A.4 

Survey Data Collection Response Rates for Reading First and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year 

 Total Reading First Title I 

Response Rate Response Rate Response Rate 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Response Status 

Complete 1,441 88% 978 89% 463 84% 

Almost complete 139 8 85 8 54 10 

Partial 53 3 29 3 24 4 

Nonrespondents 16 1 6 1 10 2 

Total 1,649 100 1,098 100 551 100 

 

Type of Respondent 

Principal 1,574 95% 1,057 96% 517 94% 

Teacher—K 1,563 96 1,054 98 509 94 

Teacher—1st 1,557 95 1,043 96 514 94 

Teacher—2nd 1,559 96 1,048 96 511 94 

Teacher—3rd 1,506 95 1,013 96 493 94 

Reading coach 1,318 98 1,045 97 272 95 

Total 9,076 96 6,260 97 2,816 94 

Source: Data Collection Receipt Tracking File.

Sampling Weights 

School-level Weights 

The construction of the school weights is based on the complete recruitment sample of 1,861 schools 

(1,143 Reading First and 718 Title I schools). Based on the stratification described above, schools 

from each stratum were weighted to represent that stratum’s population of schools and then adjusted 

for nonresponse and ineligibility. This school-level weight was constructed for the 1,633 schools 

(1,092 RF and 541 Title I) that returned at least one survey. The same method was used to construct 

weights for principals and for reading coaches. Because we have principal surveys from 1,574 rather 

than 1,633 schools, and reading coach surveys from 1,318 schools rather than 1,633 schools, these 

weights were adjusted for non-response at the principal and reading coach levels. 

Teacher-level Weights 

We constructed teacher weights for these analyses for two reasons. First, some questions on the 

teacher surveys ask about classroom rather than school activities, and because we have a national 

sample of classrooms in RF and Title I schools, we want to be able to generalize to this classroom 

population. Second, we have only 1 teacher respondent per grade per school; this teacher represents 

the population of teachers in that school at that grade. That population can vary substantially—from 

one teacher to 10 or 12 teachers. If we applied the school weights to teacher responses, all teachers’ 

responses would have equal weight, regardless of the actual numbers of teachers at that grade level. 

For these reasons, we constructed a set of teacher weights that allow us to generate estimates for the 

population of RF and Title I teachers at each of the four target grades (K–3). 
A-8 Appendix A 

The teacher weights were constructed to represent the number of teachers in their school at their 

grade level. These weights were also adjusted to include teachers who teach multiple grades in their 

school. The “within-school” teacher weights are multiplied by the school-level weight in order to 

represent the population of teachers across all RF and Title I schools. For example, if a first grade 

teacher in our sample were in a school with three other first grade teachers, her ‘within-school’ 

weight would be four. If the school-level weight for this school were five, then teacher-level weight 

would be 20 (five * four). As shown in Exhibit A.5, the study sample of RF teachers represents over 

65,000 teachers in the population of RF schools, and the Title I teacher sample represents 203,659 

teachers. 

Exhibit A.5 

Weighted Estimates of the Population of Teachers in Reading First and 

Title I Schools, by Grade 

 Weighted Number of Teachers 

Grade Level Reading First Title I 

 Kindergarten 15,780 49,453 

 1st grade 17,385 54,327 

 2nd grade 16,396 51,540 

 3rd grade 15,685 48,339 

Total 65,246 203,659 

Source: Abt Associates SAS Analytic datasets.
Appendix B B-1 

Appendix B 

Survey Instruments 
B-2 Appendix B 
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers B-3 

Reading First Implementation Study 

Grade 1 Teacher Survey

The U.S. Department of Education’s Policy and Program Studies Service has contracted with Abt 

Associates Inc. to conduct a national evaluation of K-3 reading instruction in Reading First and Title I 

schools. A sample of 1100 Reading First schools and a comparison group of 550 Title I schools, have 

been selected to participate in this study. The principal, reading coach, and a selected sample of K-3 

teachers from each participating school are being asked to complete a survey. Participants will help 

inform the U.S. Department of Education, Congress, policymakers, practitioners, and researchers about 

how K-3 reading instruction is implemented in schools and what strategies teachers use to provide highquality, evidence-based reading instruction in grades K-3. 

OMB Number: 1875-0232

Expiration Date: 10/31/07 

Abt ID# // Barcode here.... 
B-4 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers Appendix B 

The survey will take you approximately 30 minutes to complete. Although your participation in the 

survey is entirely voluntary, we strongly encourage you to participate. There are no job-related or other 

consequences for not participating. You may also choose to answer some questions on the survey and not 

others—although we urge you to complete as many questions as possible. 

All responses to the survey will be kept confidential. All individual identifying information will be used 

only by persons on the research team. Information such as school location (state), participants’ general 

job titles, grades they teach, and gender will be included in the study data files to be submitted to the 

Department of Education. However, participants’ names will be stripped from all analysis data files and 

data files to be submitted to the Department of Education. We will not report any data about individual 

classrooms—all information will be reported at the grade and school levels. Neither your school nor your 

district will have access to any of the completed surveys at any time. 

Please return your completed survey to Abt Associates in the enclosed stamped, pre-addressed mailing 

envelope. If you decline to participate, simply do not return the survey in the mail. 

Thank you for your cooperation with this survey! 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless such a collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control 

number for this information collection is 1875-0232. The time required to complete this information 

collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time to review instruction, 

search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information 

collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for 

improving this form, please write to: Policy and Program Studies Service, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20202.

Instructions

Unless otherwise noted, your responses should reflect your experiences during the 2004-2005 school 

year in the school to which this survey was sent. 

 Please complete all questions; each question includes directions for recording your answer. 

 You are sometimes told to skip over some questions in the survey. When this happens, you will 

see an arrow with a note that tells you what question to answer like this: 

1 Yes 

2 No → Skip to E4 

 If you have any questions about how to complete the survey, please call: 

____________________. This is a free call and will connect you with our expert interviewers 

who can assist you. 

Additional Information
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers B-5 

A. Your Background and Experience 

A1. Including this year, how long have you been a teacher? If less than one year, please enter ‘1’ 

Enter # of years below... 

a. Total number of years as a teacher _________ years 

b. Number of years teaching in grades K-3 _________ years 

c. Number of years teaching at this school _________ years 

d. Number of years teaching reading 

(either separately or as part of regular classroom instruction) _________ years 

A2. What grade(s) are you currently teaching? (Check all that apply) 

1 Kindergarten

2 First grade

3 Second grade

4 Third grade 

95 Other (Please specify): ________________________ 

A3. Describe your certification status. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you 

currently hold in this state? (Check one) 

1 Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate

2 Probationary certificate (issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a 

probationary period).

3 Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the 

state calls an “alternative certification program.”

4 Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or 

passage of a test before regular certification can be obtained). 

5 Waiver or emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who 

must complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching). 

6 I do not have any of the above certifications in this state. → Skip to A4 

A3a. If certified, identify the area(s): (Check all that apply) 

1 Elementary education

2 Early childhood education

3 Reading 

4 Special education

5 Bilingual / ESOL/ESL education 

95 Other (Please specify): ____________________________
B-6 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers Appendix B 

A4. What is the highest degree you have obtained as of December 2004? (Please check one)

1 Bachelors

2 Bachelors + additional courses

3 Masters

4 Masters + additional courses 

5 Doctorate 

95 Other (Please specify): ________________________ 

A5. How well do you feel your pre-service teacher training prepared you to teach each of the 

following dimensions of reading? 

Pre-service teacher training refers to training you received before you became certified and began 

teaching. For those who began their teacher career through an alternative certification or emergency 

certification program, and began teaching before they were certified, pre-service teacher training refers 

to the training you received to become fully certified.

Please choose a ‘1’ if you were ‘not at all prepared’ to teach the dimension and a ‘5’ if you were 

‘extremely well prepared.’ 

Check only one box for each item... 

Not at all 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Extremely 

well prepared 

a. Phonemic awareness 11 12 13 14 15

b. Decoding 11 12 13 14 15

c. Vocabulary 11 12 13 14 15

d. Comprehension 11 12 13 14 15

e. Fluency building 11 12 13 14 15
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers B-7 

B. Characteristics of Your Students 

In answering the remainder of the survey, include ALL of the students to whom you teach reading, 

whether you teach reading on your own in a self-contained classroom, to a group that includes students 

from other classes, or to more than one group of students. 

Enter # below ... 

B1. What is the total number of students to whom you currently teach reading? # _________ 

B2. How many groups do these students represent? For example, if you teach all of these students 

during a single reading block you should consider them one group. If you teach some students in 

one reading block, and the rest of the students in another reading block, you should consider 

them two groups. 

# _________ 

B3. How many of these students are English Language Learners (ELLs), also referred to as Limited 

English Proficient (LEP) or English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) students? 

(e.g., Spanish, Portuguese) 

# _________ 

Enter # below ... 

B4. Number of ELL students whose home language is Spanish. # _________ 

B5. How many of your reading students are also special education students with IEP’s who receive 

special education services in reading? # _________ 

B6. How many of your reading students receive intervention services in reading from you or another 

teacher or tutor? Reading Intervention is a program designed for struggling readers to be 

used only with struggling readers in addition to the core-reading program. # _________ 

B7. How many of your students are reading at or above the approximate level expected for their 

grade? # _________ 
B-8 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers Appendix B 

C. Instruction and Assessment in Reading 

C1. Last week, approximately how many minutes per day did you devote to reading instruction? 

Include only reading instruction and not other language arts such as writing, spelling. Fill in the 

chart for each day last week with your best estimate of the number of minutes... 

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 

# _______ min. / day # _______ min. / day # _______ min. / day # _______ min. / day # _______ min. / day 

C2. Has the average number of minutes you spend each day this year teaching reading increased, 

remained the same, or decreased from last year (2003-2004)? (Please check one) 

1 I did not teach reading last year

2 Decreased

3 Remained the same

4 Increased 

C3. How often during this school year is time regularly scheduled and formally set aside during the 

school day for Grade 1 teachers to: 

Check only one box for each item ... 

Not at all 1-4 times 5-8 times Once a 

month 

Once a 

week or 

more 

Occurs 

only 

informally, 

as needed 

a. Collaborate on reading lesson planning and 

instruction. 

11 12 13 14 15 16

b. Observe reading instruction in other 

classrooms. 

11 12 13 14 15 16

c. Use assessment data to plan instruction. 11 12 13 14 15 16

d. Participate in coaching with or be coached 

about reading by other teachers. 

11 12 13 14 15 16

e. Be coached about my reading instruction by 

a reading coach (see below). 

11 12 13 14 15 16

f. Coordinate reading interventions for 

struggling readers with special education 

staff. 

11 12 13 14 15

16

g. Coordinate reading interventions for 

struggling readers with ELL staff. 

11 12 13 14 15 16

(Check if no ELLs) 11

NOTE: A reading coach is a staff member whose primary role is to provide ongoing training and support to 

classroom teachers in the delivery of effective reading instruction. This assistance may include planning instruction, 

providing demonstration lessons, observing and providing feedback, using assessment results to guide instruction, etc. 
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers B-9 

C4. Please describe your use of the following reading instructional activities this year. 

• Check column A ONLY if the instructional activity is one that you use frequently when you teach 

reading or one on which you rely heavily in your reading instruction. 

• Check column B if you use the instructional activity, but it is a small part of your teaching, and not 

one you use frequently. It might be an activity that you use if there is time, but it is not one on which 

you rely heavily for your reading instruction. 

• Check column C if the activity is not one you use in your reading instruction.

Check only one box for each item... 

A 

Central to my 

reading 

instruction 

B 

Small part of 

my reading 

instruction 

C 

Not Part of my 

reading 

instruction 

a. I provide feedback on errors as students read orally. 11 12 13

b. Students read texts that are easy to decode. 11 12 13

c. Students read silently. 11 12 13

d. Students reread familiar stories. 11 12 13

Reading 

text

e. Students select books from the library for 

independent reading. 

11 12 13

 f. I develop language experience stories with my class. 11 12 13

g. Pairs of students read aloud together. 11 12 13

h. Students read aloud with expression and proper 

phrasing. 

11 12 13

i. Students reread to find facts to answer questions. 11 12 13

j. Class creates story maps. 11 12 13

Reading 

text

k. I listen to students read aloud without correcting 

errors. 

11 12 13

l. Students isolate sounds in words that I say. 11 12 13

m. Students practice naming letters. 11 12 13

n. Students blend phonemes to form words. 11 12 13

o. Students practice reading high frequency words for 

automaticity. 

11 12 13

p. Students use knowledge of root words, prefixes, and 

suffixes to decode new words. 

11 12 13

q. I stop students while reading and have them selfcorrect misidentified words. 

11 12 13

r. Students use pictures to identify unknown words. 11 12 13

s. I teach decoding skills while reading stories. 11 12 13

t. Students practice writing words as separate syllables. 11 12 13

Work 

with 

sounds 

and 

words

u. I teach decoding skills with word families. 11 12 13
B-10 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers Appendix B 

C4. CONTINUED. Please describe your use of the following reading instructional activities this 

year. 

• Check column A ONLY if the instructional activity is one that you use frequently when you teach 

reading or one on which you rely heavily in your reading instruction. 

• Check column B if you use the instructional activity, but it is a small part of your teaching, and not 

one you use frequently. It might be an activity that you use if there is time, but it is not one on which 

you rely heavily for your reading instruction. 

• Check column C if the activity is not one you use in your reading instruction. 

Check only one box for each item...

A 

Central to 

my reading 

instruction 

B 

Small part of 

my reading 

instruction 

C 

Not Part of my 

reading 

instruction 

v. I engage students in rhyming games and songs. 11 12 13

w. Students retell stories in sequence and identify 

characters and main events. 

11 12 13

x. I read stories aloud to students. 11 12 13

y. Students write stories using invented spelling. 11 12 13

z. I discuss new and unusual words before reading. 11 12 13

aa. Students write vocabulary words in sentences. 11 12 13

Other 

Techniques

bb. Students read stories they have written to others. 11 12 13

cc. Students make predictions while reading stories. 11 12 13

dd. Students use dictionaries to find word meanings. 11 12 13

ee. Students are given time to read on their own for 

enjoyment. 

11 12 13

ff. Students develop questions about text material. 11 12 13

Other Skills

gg. Students act out story as a play. 11 12 13

C5. Have you eliminated any activities in the above lists that you did last year? If so, which ones 

have you eliminated? 

 ______________________________________________________________________________ 

(Please identify by letter) 
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers B-11 

C6. Please describe your use of the following teaching strategies and materials this year. 

• Check column A ONLY if the item is one that you use frequently or one on which you rely heavily in your reading 

instruction. 

• Check column B if you use the item, but it is a small part of your teaching, and not one you use frequently. It may be 

an approach you use if there is time, but it is not one on which you rely heavily. 

• Check column C if the item is not one you use in your reading instruction.

Check only one box for each item...

A 

Central to 

my reading 

instruction 

B 

Small part of 

my reading 

instruction 

C 

Not Part of 

my reading 

instruction 

a. Provide time in reading block for skill practice on own. 11 12 13

b. Provide materials for at-home practice of skills introduced in 

class. 

11 12 13

c. Provide extra reading instructional time for struggling 

students. 

11 12 13

d. Include writing opportunities in reading instruction. 11 12 13

e. Build spelling practice into reading instruction. 11 12 13

Instruction

f. Develop reading skills through science and social studies. 11 12 13

g. Teach whole class reading lessons. 11 12 13

h. Work one-to-one with students on reading. 11 12 13

i. Work with small groups of students. 11 12 13

j. Group students based on skill levels. 11 12 13

k. Group students based on mixed abilities (cooperative 

groups). 

11 12 13

Grouping

l. Pair strong readers with those with weaker skills. 11 12 13

m. Use core reading series. 11 12 13

n. Use supplementary reading materials. 11 12 13

o. Use children’s trade books. 11 12 13

p. Use books that are easy to decode. 11 12 13

q. Use books with patterned predictable language. 11 12 13

r. Use separate intervention materials for some students. 11 12 13

s. Use reading software/technology. 11 12 13

Reading 

materials 

t. Use teacher-made materials. 11 12 13

u. Use test results to organize instructional groups. 11 12 13

v. Use informal reading inventories. 11 12 13

w. Use tests to determine progress on skills. 11 12 13

x. Use tests to determine who can benefit from the core 

reading series. 

11 12 13

y. Use diagnostic tests to identify students who need reading 

intervention services. 

11 12 13

z. Use screening tests to identify students who need a 

supplementary reading program. 

11 12 13

Assessments

aa. Conduct miscue analysis, analyzing errors students make 

while reading aloud. 

11 12 13
B-12 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers Appendix B 

C7. Which specific formal or informal assessment(s) do you find most useful for the following 

purposes? 

List below up to three names of assessments for each purpose... 

Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Assessment 3 

a. Placement and/or grouping students 1 

__________________ 2 __________________ 3 __________________ 

b. Determining student mastery of skills 1 

__________________ 2 __________________ 3 __________________ 

c. Identifying the core deficits of 

struggling students 

1 

__________________ 2 __________________ 3 __________________ 

C8. What materials are used with English Language Learners (ELLs) to whom you teach reading? 

 (Check all that apply) 

1 Do not teach ELLs →Skip to C9

2 Core reading program materials in the native language of the ELL

3 ELL students use the same materials as other students

4 Core reading program materials, plus supplementary/intervention resources written in the 

ELL’s native language 

5 Core reading program materials, plus supplementary/intervention resources written in English 

especially for ELLs 

6 Alternative core reading program materials in English geared toward the instructional level of 

the ELL

95 Other (Please specify): _______________________________________

C9. What additional supports have students who are struggling readers received in the last month? 

 Check whether or not your students who are struggling readers received each of the supports 

during the past month. 

Check only one box for each 

Supports for Struggling Readers item... 

Received Did not receive 

a. Diagnostic assessment to determine core deficits. 11 12

b. Extra practice in the classroom with phonemic awareness. 11 12

c. Extra practice in the classroom with decoding. 11 12

d. Extra practice in the classroom with fluency. 11 12

e. Extra practice in the classroom with comprehension. 11 12

f. Extra instructional time. 11 12

g. Placement in materials that supplement the core reading 

program. 

11 12

h. Placement in different level of core reading program. 11 12

i. Placement in separate core reading program. 11 12

j. Placement in special intervention program. 11 12
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers B-13 

C9. CONTINUED. Additional supports have students who are struggling readers received in the last 

month? Check whether or not your students who are struggling readers received each of the 

supports during the past month. 

Check only one box for each item 

Supports for Struggling Readers ... 

Received Did not receive 

k. Work with tutor on one-to-one basis 11 12

l. Work with reading specialist on one-to-one basis 11 12

m. Work with reading specialist in small group. 11 12

n. Work with more advanced peer. 11 12

o. Special materials for parents to provide practice. 11 12

C10. What additional supports have students who are struggling readers received in the last month? 

Check whether or not your students who are struggling readers received each of the supports 

during the past month. 

Check only one box for each item ... 

Supports for Struggling Readers Received Did not 

receive 

N/A, no 

ELL’s 

a. If English language learner(s), English as a Second Language 

instruction. 

11 12 18

b. If English language learner(s), provide reading instruction in home 

language. 

11 12 18

c. If English language learner(s), in classroom help in reading from 

ELL teacher. 

11 12 18

D. Professional Development in Reading for K-3 Teachers 

D1. During the current school year, including summer 2004, in how many of each of the following 

types of professional development activities in reading have you participated? Please count each 

activity only once. What is the total number of hours you spent in these activities? 

First, write in the number of activities of each type in which you have been engaged. Then, write the 

total number of hours you spent in these activities. Mark 0 if you participated in none. 

Enter # below...

# of 

Different 

workshops

Total hours

a. Attended short, stand-alone training or workshop in reading (half-day or less) #_______ #_______ 

b. Attended longer institute or workshop in reading (more than half-day) #_______ #_______ 

c. Attended a college course in reading (include any courses you are currently attending) #_______ #_______ 

d. Attended a college course in reading (include any courses you are currently attending) #_______ #_______ 

e. Attended a conference about reading (might include multiple short offerings) #_______ #_______ 
B-14 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers Appendix B 

D2. Below is a list of professional development activities that are often used to provide ongoing, 

direct support to teachers for teaching reading. 

• In the first column, please indicate whether you have received any of the following types of 

assistance/support for teaching during the current school year, including summer 2004? 

• If you did not receive that type of support, please indicate whether the support was available, 

but you did not receive it (column 2), or if it was not available at your school (column 3). 

Check only one box for each item ... 

Types of assistance 

I received this year 

Available, but I 

did not receive 

Not available at 

my school 

a. Coaching or mentoring by reading coach in programs, 

materials, or strategies. 

11 12 13

b. Coaching or mentoring from fellow teacher. 11 12 13

c. Peer study group or collegial circle for group study. 11 12 13

d. Demonstrations in my classroom. 11 12 13

e. Observations of other teachers. 11 12 13

f. Diagnostic testing help from a reading coach or specialist 

for individual students. 

11 12 13

g. Intervention service help from a reading coach or specialist 

for individual students. 

11 12 13

h. Interpretation of assessment data. 11 12 13

i. Grade level meetings devoted to reading. 11 12 13

j. Using assessment data to determine topics that require 

additional instruction or practice. 

11 12 13

D3. During the current school year, including summer 2004, approximately how many of the 

reading professional development activities for K-3 teachers? Please choose the category that 

most closely describes your professional development. 

Check only one box for each item... 

None OneQuarter 

OneHalf ThreeQuarters All 

a. require teachers to attend? 11 12 13 14 15

b. were also attended by the principal? 11 12 13 14 15

c. provide teachers options among which to choose? 11 12 13 14 15

d. provide a stipend? 11 12 13 14 15

e. provide follow-up activities? 11 12 13 14 15

f. include release time for participating teachers? 11 12 13 14 15

g. offer graduate college credits? 11 12 13 14 15

h. are held in a convenient location (e.g., activities held at school)? 11 12 13 14 15

i. use a team-based approach (joint training of people who work 

together)? 

11 12 13 14 15

j. are given by trainers or facilitators who have a well-established 

reputation? 

11 12 13 14 15
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers B-15 

D4. Below is a list of topics that are often covered in professional development activities designed to 

provide teachers with new information about the content of reading instruction. 

• In column A, identify the topics that were addressed in professional development activities in which 

you participated during the current school year, including summer 2004.

• In column B, please identify 5 topics in which you would like more professional development, whether 

or not this school’s professional development activities have covered these topics.

• Please check all that apply in column A, and 5 choices in column B.

Professional development is defined as any activity in which a teacher has learned about reading or 

reading instruction. This includes school-based workshops, meetings with reading coaches, and 

meetings with a study group of other teachers.

CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY 

INDICATE NO 

MORE THAN 5 

TOPICS 

A. Topics 

addressed in 

professional 

development 

B. Topics in which 

I’d like more 

professional 

development 

a. Building phonological awareness, e.g. rhymes, dividing 

spoken language into sentences, words, syllables 

11 12

b. Identifying, adding, deleting sounds in spoken words 13 14

Phonemic 

Awareness 

c. Blending phonemes to form words 11 12

d. Teaching letter-sound correspondence 13 14

e. Teaching letter patterns (blends, digraphs, diphthongs) 11 12

f. Using syllable patterns to read words 13 14

Decoding 

g. Teaching component parts: roots, prefixes, suffixes 11 12

h. Teaching use of dictionary, thesaurus 13 14

Vocabulary i. Direct teaching of vocabulary words and their meaning 11 12

j. Antonyms and synonyms 13 14

k. Teaching sight words 11 12

Fluency l. Guided oral reading 13 14

m. Encouraging expression while reading 11 12

n. Setting motivation/asking prediction/preview questions 13 14

o. Constructing information about character, setting, and main 

events 

11 12

p. Summarizing main ideas in narrative and informational text 13 14

q. Self-monitoring strategies 11 12

r. Asking questions at different levels (literal, inferential) 13 14

Comprehension 

s. Strategies for organizing text structure, e.g. story maps 11 12

Other t. Other topic in the dimensions of reading. (Please specify: ) 

_______________________________________________ 13 14
B-16 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers Appendix B 

D5. Below is a list of topics that are often covered in professional development activities that are 

designed to provide teachers with new information about teaching strategies used during reading 

instruction. 

• In column A, identify the topics that were addressed in professional development activities in 

which you participated during the current school year, including summer 2004. 

• Then, in column B, please identify 5 topics in which you would like more professional 

development, whether or not this school’s professional development activities have covered these 

topics. 

• Please check all that apply in column A, and 5 choices in column B. 

CHECK ALL 

THAT APPLY 

INDICATE NO 

MORE THAN 5 

TOPICS 

Topic A. Topics 

addressed in 

professional 

development. 

B. Topics in which 

I’d like more 

professional 

development 

a. How to use the core reading program 11 12

b. How to use children’s literature to teach reading 13 14

c. How to use reading research to guide content of instruction 11 12

d. How the core reading program incorporates research principles 13 14

e. How to use the supplemental reading program(s) 11 12

f. How to integrate reading and writing instruction 13 14

Teaching 

Strategies 

g. Strategies for teaching reading to ELLs 11 12

h. Learning styles 13 14

Grouping i. How to organize small group instruction 11 12

j. How to diagnose reading problems 13 14

Assessment k. How to administer assessments 11 12

l. How to interpret and use assessment data to guide instruction 13 14

m. How to help struggling readers with decoding 11 12

n. How to help struggling readers with vocabulary 13 14

o. How to help struggling readers with comprehension 11 12

p. How to motivate readers 13 14

Struggling 

Readers 

q. Strategies for teaching reading to students with diagnosed 

learning disabilities 

11 12

r. How to use state/district content standards for curriculum 

planning and teaching 

13 14

s. How to align reading curriculum and instruction with 

state/district assessments 

11 12

t. How to work with parents 13 14

u. Classroom management 11 12

Organization/ 

planning 

v. Other (Please specify): _____________________ 13 14
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers B-17 

D6. How well do you feel the professional development activities in which you participated during 

the current school year (including summer, 2004) prepared you to teach each of the following 

dimensions of reading? Please choose a ‘1’ if you were ‘not at all prepared’ to teach the 

dimension and a ‘5’ if you were ‘extremely well prepared.’

Check only one box for each item ...

Not at all 

prepared

Somewhat 

well prepared

Extremely 

well prepared

a. Phonemic awareness 11 12 13 14 15

b. Decoding 11 12 13 14 15

c. Vocabulary 11 12 13 14 15

d. Comprehension 11 12 13 14 15

e. Fluency building 11 12 13 14 15

E1. Support for Teaching Reading 

E1. Who provides you with feedback about your teaching of reading? (Check all that apply.)

1 Principal

2 Assistant Principal

3 School reading coach (staff member whose primary role is to provide ongoing training and 

support to teachers in the delivery of effective reading instruction)

4 Peer coach 

5 Mentor teacher 

6 District reading coach

7 External reading coach (e.g., university, regional, or state professional development or 

technical assistance provider)

8 Students in my class

9 No one provides feedback

95 Other (Please specify): _______________________________________ 

E2. Is there a school-based reading coach at your school? 

1 Yes

2 No 
B-18 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers Appendix B 

E3. What responsibilities does your principal or your reading coach have in the reading program? 

 (Check all that apply.) 

Check all that apply for each item ... 

Principal’s 

responsibility 

Reading Coach 

responsibility 

Other person’s 

responsibility 

Don’t 

Know 

a. Selects core reading materials 11 12 13 18

b. Selects supplemental reading materials (for use with the 

whole class) 

11 12 13 18

c. Selects intervention materials (for use with struggling 

readers) 

11 12 13 18

d. Selects reading assessment instruments 11 12 13 18

e. Monitors implementation of the reading program 11 12 13 18

f. Models effective reading instructional strategies in 

classroom (demonstration lessons) 

11 12 13 18

g. Provides feedback to teachers about reading instruction 11 12 13 18

h. Reviews individual students’ progress in reading 11 12 13 18

i. Assists teachers in using reading assessment data to make 

instructional decisions 

11 12 13 18

j. Leads grade level team meetings for reading 11 12 13 18

k. Reviews teachers’ reading lesson plans 11 12 13 18

E4. The next set of statements is about your reading program. Please indicate the extent to which you 

agree or disagree with each statement. 

Check only one box for each item ... 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

a. I feel I need to make changes in the methods I use to teach children 

to read. 

11 12 13 14

b. Other faculty/staff members have helped me to understand the 

difficulties that some children have in learning to read. 

11 12 13 14

c. I have benefited from opportunities to learn more about methods 

for teaching reading. 

11 12 13 14

d. The children in my class are making satisfactory progress in 

learning to read. 

11 12 13 14

e. I do not have sufficient materials to teach reading effectively. 11 12 13 14

f. I do not understand why some children learn to read easily while 

other children struggle to learn basic reading skills. 

11 12 13 14

g. The reading coach supports my efforts to teach reading effectively. 11 12 13 14

h. I have a good understanding of how children acquire language and 

literacy skills. 

11 12 13 14

i. I wish I had more opportunities to discuss how to teach reading 

with other teachers. 

11 12 13 14
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers B-19 

E4. CONTINUED. The next set of statements is about your reading program. Please indicate the 

extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. 

Check only one box for each item ...

Strongly 

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

j. I know the current reading skill levels of all my students. 11 12 13 14

k. I know how to assess the progress of my students in reading. 11 12 13 14

l. I have changed my methods of teaching reading as a result of 

professional development in reading. 

11 12 13 14

E5. If there is anything else that you would like to tell us, please do so. 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. We appreciate your willingness to describe your 

reading program. Please return your survey in the enclosed envelope to: 

Brenda Rodriguez, Senior Survey Director 

RF Implementation Study

Abt Associates Inc. 

55 Wheeler Street 

Cambridge, MA 02138 
B-20 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Grade 1 Teachers Appendix B 

This is a placeholder for your back cover of the booklet – it should be blank! 
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals B-21 

Reading First Implementation Study 

Principal Survey 

The U.S. Department of Education’s Policy and Program Studies Service has contracted with Abt 

Associates Inc. to conduct a national evaluation of K-3 reading instruction in Reading First and Title I 

schools. A sample of 1100 Reading First schools and a comparison group of 550 Title I schools, have 

been selected to participate in this study. The principal, reading coach, and a selected sample of K-3 

teachers from each participating school are being asked to complete a survey. Participants will help 

inform the U.S. Department of Education, Congress, policymakers, practitioners, and researchers about 

how K-3 reading instruction is implemented in schools and what strategies teachers use to provide highquality, evidence-based reading instruction in grades K-3. 

OMB Number: 1875-0232

Expiration Date: 10/31/07 

Abt ID / barcode here 

Rf version 
B-22 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals Appendix B 

Additional Information 

The survey will take you approximately 30 minutes to complete. Although your participation in the 

survey is entirely voluntary, we strongly encourage you to participate. There are no job-related or other 

consequences for not participating. You may also choose to answer some questions on the survey and not 

others—although we urge you to complete as many questions as possible. 

All responses to the survey will be kept confidential. All individual identifying information will be used 

only by persons on the research team. Information such as school location (state), participants’ general 

job titles, grades they teach, and gender will be included in the study data files to be submitted to the 

Department of Education. However, participants’ names will be stripped from all analysis data files and 

data files to be submitted to the Department of Education. We will not report any data about individual 

classrooms—all information will be reported at the grade and school levels. Neither your school nor your 

district will have access to any of the completed surveys at any time. 

Please return your completed survey to Abt Associates in the enclosed stamped, pre-addressed mailing 

envelope. If you decline to participate, simply do not return the survey in the mail. 

Thank you for your cooperation with this survey! 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless such a collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this 

information collection is 1875-0232. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to 

average 30 minutes per response, including the time to review instruction, search existing data resources, and gather 

the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the 

accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: Policy and Program Studies 

Service, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20202.

Instructions 

Unless otherwise noted, your responses should reflect your experiences during the 2004-2005 school 

year in the school to which this survey was sent. 

 Please complete all questions; each question includes directions for recording your answer. 

 You are sometimes told to skip over some questions in the survey. When this happens, you will 

see an arrow with a note that tells you what question to answer like this: 

1 Yes 

2 No → Skip to E4 

 If you have any questions about how to complete the survey, please call: 

____________________. This is a free call and will connect you with our expert interviewers 

who can assist you. 
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals B-23 

Background Information on You and Your School 

A1. Including this year, how many years have you been at this school in this position? 

(If less than one year, please enter ‘1’)

 ____________Years 

A2. Including this year, what is the total number of years you have served as a principal? 

(If less than one year, please enter ‘1’) ____________Years 

A3. Please provide the following information about students in your school for the current 

year (2004-2005): 

a. Total number of students currently enrolled _________ Students 

b. Percentage of students who were new to the school at the beginning of this year, 

including both incoming and continuing kindergarten students (but excluding pre-K 

students) 

________ % 

c. Percentage of students who have left the school at any point during the year, including the 

summers between school years, excluding those who have left having completed the 

highest grade available at your school (i.e., mobility rate) 

________ % 

d. Average attendance rate ________ % 

e. Percentage of students in your school who are English Language Learners (ELL) ________ % 

A4. Please indicate the number of children currently enrolled in Grades K-3 in your 

school: 

a. Kindergarten _________ Students 

b. First grade _________ Students 

c. Second grade _________ Students 

d. Third grade _________ Students 

A5. Compared to 5 years ago, has student enrollment in your school increased, decreased, or 

remained stable? 

1 Decreased

2 Remained stable

3 Increased 

4 Not applicable (school is new)

A6. Please indicate the approximate percentage of students in each grade who: 

Enter % below for each grade level ... 

In 2004-2005, the percentage of students who... K 1 2 3 

a. participate in interventions for struggling readers ________ % ________ % ________ % ________ % 

b. receive special education services ________ % ________ % ________ % ________ % 

c. receive ESL instruction ________ % ________ % ________ % ________ % 

d. receive reading instruction in a language other 

than English ________ % ________ % ________ % ________ % 

e. read at or above grade level ________ % ________ % ________ % ________ % 

 
B-24 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals Appendix B 

A7. On what information did you primarily base your estimate for question 6e? 

 (Please check only one) 

1 report cards

2 teacher estimates

3 placement in core reading series 

4 state tests 

5 other tests 

6 informal inventories 

7 Other (Please specify): ________________________ 

A8. How many classroom teachers are assigned to grades K-3 this year (2004-05)? Please include regular 

education classes only. 

Grade Level Enter # of classroom teachers below... 

K #________

1 #________

2 #________

3 #________

Other K-3 teachers (e.g., combination classrooms): #________

A9. How many special education teachers are assigned to students in grades K-3? 

 _____________ teachers 

A10. Please indicate the number of classroom teachers for grades K-3 who are: 

Insert # below ... 

a. Veteran teachers with more than ten years of teaching experience # __________ 

b. Experienced teachers with four to ten years of teaching experience # __________ 

c. New teachers with one to three years of teaching experience # __________ 

d. Total # __________ 

A11. Please indicate the number of classroom teachers for grades K-3 who are: 

Insert # below ... 

a. Certified teachers with elementary, reading, early childhood, or other related state 

certification # __________ 

b. Teachers with probationary, provisional, or other temporary teaching certification 

(includes all teachers working towards full certification) # __________ 

c. Emergency teachers without teaching certification # __________ 

d. Total K-3 teachers # __________ 
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals B-25 

A12. Please indicate the number of classroom teachers for grades K-3 who are considered highly qualified. 

Highly qualified teachers have full state certification, at least a bachelor’s degree, and proven knowledge in the 

subject that they teach. 

 Number of K-3 teachers who are highly qualified #_______ 

A13. How many of each type of reading support personnel does your school have for grades K-3? 

Type Insert # below ... 

a. Certified non-classroom teachers, including special education teachers, Title I 

teachers, and reading coaches or specialists # __________ 

b. Instructional aides or assistants (during school day) # __________ 

c. Tutors (before or after school) # __________ 

A14. How many certified staff positions has your school added this year (such as a reading coach) to 

support reading instruction in Grades K-3? If no positions were added, write 0.

Number of staff positions added: # ___________ 

A15. If your school has a reading coach, from what funding source(s) is that person supported? 

(Check all that apply.) 

Reading coach is a staff member whose primary role is to provide ongoing training and 

support to classroom teachers in the delivery of effective reading instruction. This assistance 

may include planning instruction, providing demonstration lessons, observing and providing 

feedback, using assessment results to guide instruction, etc. 

1 Do not have a reading coach 

2 Title I 

3 Reading First 

4 State/local funds 

5 Other (Please specify):________________________________________ 

A16. Did your school make “adequate yearly progress” in reading/language arts on the basis of 2003-

04 test scores, according to NCLB accountability provisions? (Please check only one)

“Adequate yearly progress” (AYP) is the amount of yearly improvement each school is expected to 

make. Each state is responsible for defining AYP and for determining the methods used to measure 

AYP. 

1 Yes 

2 No 

8 Not sure/don’t know 
B-26 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals Appendix B 

B. Resources and Support for Your School’s Reading Program 

B1. What sources of funding are being or have been used to support your school’s reading program this year 

(2004–2005)? (Check all that apply)

1 District general funds 

2 State funds for reading programs 

3 State textbook funds

4 Title I 

5 Title II (Professional development to improve teacher quality)

6 Title III (Professional development for ELL teachers)

7 Comprehensive School Reform

8 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

9 Reading First

10 Professional development funds 

11 Private grants 

95 Other (Please specify): ________________ 

Enter Answer Below... 

B2. When did your school first receive funding from Reading First? 

______/______(month/year) 

B3. What is the expected duration of your Reading First grant? 

 _____________ years 

B4. When did your school first begin Reading First professional development 

activities? ______/______(month/year) 

B5. When did your school first begin implementation of Reading First 

instructional activities in the classroom? ______/______(month/year) 

B6. What is the amount of the Reading First grant for your school this year 

(2004–05)? $ __________,000
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals B-27 

B7. Beyond financial support, has your school received external assistance this year (from district, 

state, publisher, university expert, etc.) implementing any of the following K-3 reading program 

activities? 

Check one box for each item... 

YES NO

a. Selecting instructional programs/materials 1 2

b. Selecting assessment instruments 1 2

c. Selecting professional development providers 1 2

d. Conducting classroom observation 1 2

e. Conducting demonstration lessons 1 2

f. Interpreting assessment results 1 2

g. Recruiting staff with reading expertise, e.g. teachers, coaches 1 2

h. Setting up intervention programs for struggling readers 1 2

i. Planning professional development 1 2

j. Providing technical assistance in implementing core reading program 1 2

k. Providing technical assistance for using supplementary reading materials 1 2

l. Conducting needs assessment for professional development 1 2

m. Diagnosing needs of struggling readers 1 2

n. Reviewing reading program effectiveness 1 2

o. Leading teacher study groups 1 2

C. Reading Instructional Materials 

C1. Which core reading program is being used to teach reading in each of Grades K–3 at this school? 

Core Reading Program is one that provides a comprehensive program of instruction on a daily 

basis in all aspects of reading. 

Please indicate the publisher, title, and publication year for the program used in each grade. 

Publisher Title Year Published 

a. Kindergarten 

_________________________ _______________________________ ___________ 

b. Grade 1 

_________________________ _______________________________ ___________ 

c. Grade 2 

_________________________ _______________________________ ___________ 

d. Grade 3 

_________________________ _______________________________ ___________ 
B-28 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals Appendix B 

C2. Do K-3 teachers use supplementary reading materials with the students to whom they teach 

reading? 

If yes, for which components of reading were the supplementary reading materials selected? 

Supplementary Reading Materials provide additional instruction in a targeted area of reading to 

all students. Do not include materials that are used only with struggling readers. Include teachermade materials, if applicable. 

Check one box for each item... 

YES NO

If YES: (Select any options that apply). 

Kindergarten 

 

1 2 

1 Phonemic awareness

2 Phonics 

3 Fluency 

4 Vocabulary 

5 Comprehension 

7 Other

8 I don’t know 

0 No particular area

Grade 1 

 

1 2 

1 Phonemic awareness

2 Phonics 

3 Fluency 

4 Vocabulary 

5 Comprehension 

7 Other

8 I don’t know 

0 No particular area

Grade 2 

 

1 2 

1 Phonemic awareness

2 Phonics 

3 Fluency 

4 Vocabulary 

5 Comprehension 

7 Other

8 I don’t know 

0 No particular area

Grade 3 

 

1 2 

1 Phonemic awareness

2 Phonics 

3 Fluency 

4 Vocabulary 

5 Comprehension 

7 Other

8 I don’t know 

0 No particular area
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals B-29 

D. Instructional Time 

D1. How often this year is time set-aside during the school day for K-3 teachers to: 

Check one box for each item ... 

Not at all 

1-4 times 

this school 

year 

5-8 times 

this school 

year 

Once a 

month 

Once a 

week or 

more 

a. Collaborate on reading lesson planning and 

instruction 1 2 3 4 5

b. Observe reading instruction in other classrooms 1 2 3 4 5

c. Use assessment data to plan instruction 1 2 3 4 5

d. Participate in coaching with or be coached 

about reading by other teachers 1 2 3 4 5

e. Be coached about reading instruction by a 

reading coach 1 2 3 4 5

f. Coordinate reading interventions for struggling 

readers with special education staff 1 2 3 4 5

g. Coordinate reading interventions for struggling 

readers with ELL staff 1 2 3 4 5

(Check if no ELLs) 1

D2. Please indicate for which grades your school has a scheduled reading block. A reading block is 

the time period that is formally scheduled for teaching reading. 

If yes, please indicate for how many minutes the reading block is scheduled. 

 Does your school have a reading block in: 

Yes 

Scheduled number 

of minutes No 

Kindergarten 1 2

First grade 1 2

Second grade 1 2

Third grade 1 2

D3. On average, how many total minutes per day (including the reading block) are devoted this year

to 

 classroom reading instruction (not just reading activities) for students in Grades K-3? 

Please provide the number of minutes per day for each grade. 

a. Kindergarten _________________ min / day 

b. First grade _________________ min / day 

c. Second grade _________________ min / day 

d. Third grade _________________ min / day 
B-30 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals Appendix B 

D4. For which of the following activities are state staff, district staff, the principal, and the school 

reading coach responsible? 

For each activity, check all that apply... 

State District Principal 

School’s 

reading 

coach 

N/A 

a. Selection of a specific core reading program 1 2 3 4 5

b. Selection of supplemental reading program 

materials (for use with the whole class) 1 2 3 4 5

c. Selection of intervention reading program materials 

(for use with struggling readers) 1 2 3 4 5

d. Selection of reading assessment instruments 1 2 3 4 5

D5. This year, for which of the following activities are state staff, district staff, the principal, and the 

school reading coach responsible? 

For each activity, check all that apply... 

Activities State District Principal 

School’s 

reading 

coach 

N/A 

a. Monitoring implementation of reading program 1 2 3 4 5

b. Review of teachers’ reading lesson plans 1 2 3 4 5

c. Review individual students’ progress in reading 1 2 3 4 5

d. Interpretation of assessment results 1 2 3 4 5

e. Feedback to teachers about reading instruction 1 2 3 4 5

f. Selection of reading professional development 

topics and opportunities 1 2 3 4 5

D6. This school year, how often have you, as principal, evaluated K–3 reading instruction using the 

following methods? 

Check only one box for each item ... 

Not at all 

1-4 times 

this school 

year 

5-8 times 

this school 

year 

Once a 

month 

Once a 

week or 

more 

a. Observed classroom reading instruction informally 1 2 3 4 5

b. Observed classroom reading instruction using an 

evaluation form 1 2 3 4 5

c. Met with teachers individually to discuss strategies 

for improving reading instruction 1 2 3 4 5

d. Met with groups of teachers to discuss strategies 

for improving reading instruction 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals B-31 

D7. Has your school made any of the following changes to your reading program that took effect at 

the beginning of the current school year (2004-2005)? 

Check only one box for each item ... 

YES NO

a. Adopted a new core reading program 1 2

b. Added a new intervention program for struggling readers 1 2

c. Added new supplementary materials 1 2

d. Added new materials for ELLs 1 2

e. Adopted new reading assessments 1 2

f. Other (Please specify): 

________________________________________ 1 2

D8. Which of the following methods has your school used this year to assess the effectiveness of 

reading instruction for Grades K-3? (Check all that apply.)

1 It is not assessed 

2 Observation by reading coach

3 Observation by school principal 

4 Observation by external consultant or evaluator

5 Discussion at grade-level meetings 

6 Progress monitoring assessments 

7 Norm-referenced test data or state assessments (e.g., ITBS, SAT-9, State benchmark 

exams)

95 Other (Please specify): ________________ 
B-32 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals Appendix B 

E. Reading Interventions for Struggling Readers 

E1. What methods has your school used to meet the needs of at-risk or struggling readers? For each 

method listed below, please check whether or not you use the method at your school. 

Reading Intervention is a program designed for struggling readers to be used only with struggling 

readers in addition to the core-reading program.

Check only one box for 

each item ... Methods of meeting needs of struggling readers Use this 

method Not used 

a. Use separate program materials in interventions 1 2

b. Use core reading program with supplemental materials 1 2

c. Use core reading program only 1 2

d. Use reading materials written in students’ home language 1 2

Materials 

e. Use alternative materials designed for English learners 1 2

f. A certified reading specialist provides additional direct instruction 

to struggling readers, individually or in small groups. 1 2

g. The classroom teacher provides additional direct instruction to 

struggling readers, individually or in small groups. 1 2

h. The classroom teacher provides additional opportunities for 

reading skill practice for struggling readers (e.g., partner reading, 

peer tutors, audio tapes, computer programs) 

1 2

i. A certified specialist provides recommendations to classroom 

teachers on accommodations for struggling readers. (Indicate 

which type of specialist.) 

A special education teacher 1 2

A bilingual/ESL teacher 1 2

Other (Please specify): _______________________________ 1 2

j. Trained aides or volunteers work with students under the direction 

of the classroom teacher during the school day. 1 2

k. Trained aides or volunteers work with students in a before or after 

school program. 1 2

l. Untrained aides or volunteers work with students under the 

direction of the classroom teacher during the school day. 1 2

Staff 

activities 

m. Untrained aides or volunteers work with students in a before or 

after school program. 1 2
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals B-33 

E2. Which of the following methods has your school used this year to identify students for reading 

 interventions in Grades K-3? 

Check one box for each item... 

Method of identifying students

Use this method Not used 

a. Standardized achievement test scores in reading 1 2

b. Scores on tests that are part of the reading program 1 2

c. Screening test scores in reading 1 2

d. Diagnostic test scores in reading 1 2

e. Progress monitoring test scores in reading 1 2

f. Documented classroom observations 1 2

g. Teacher recommendations 1 2

h. Other school staff recommendations 1 2

i. Requests from parents 1 2

j. Reading coach recommendation 1 2

k. Other (Please specify): ______________________________________ 1 2

E3. Are reading intervention services (e.g., a reading specialist) available this year to children who 

need them? (Check ‘no’ if there are no children who need intervention services)

1 Yes 

2 No

 

 E3a. If yes, What was the average wait for reading intervention services? 

 _____ school days. (Please enter ‘zero’ if there is no wait for services)
B-34 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals Appendix B 

F. Professional Development in Reading 

F1. During the current school year, including summer 2004, approximately how many of the 

reading professional development activities available to K-3 teachers: 

• Please choose the category that most closely describes your professional development. 

Check only one box for each item ... 

None 

OneQuarter One-Half ThreeQuarters All 

a. require teachers to attend? 1 2 3 4 5

b. did you also attend? 1 2 3 4 5

c. provide teachers options among which they 

choose? 1 2 3 4 5

d. provide a stipend? 1 2 3 4 5

e. provide follow-up activities? 1 2 3 4 5

f. include release time for participating teachers? 1 2 3 4 5

g. offer graduate college credits? 1 2 3 4 5

h. are held in a convenient location (e.g., activities 

held at school)? 1 2 3 4 5

i. use a team-based approach (joint training of 

people who work together)? 1 2 3 4 5

j. are given by trainers or facilitators who have a 

well-established reputation? 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals B-35 

F2. Below is a list of topics that are often covered in professional development activities that are designed for 

building administrators. 

• In column A, identify the topics that were addressed in professional development activities in which you 

participated since July 1st of the current school year. 

• Then, in column B, please identify 5 topics in which you would like more professional development, whether 

or not your school’s professional development activities have covered these topics.

CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY ... 

CHECK NO MORE 

THAN 5 TOPICS ... 

Topic A. 

Topics addressed in 

professional 

development 

B. 

Topics in which I 

would like more 

professional 

development 

a. Phonemic Awareness 1 2

b. Decoding 3 4

c. Vocabulary 1 2

d. Fluency 3 4

Content of 

Reading 

Instruction 

e. Comprehension 1 2

f. How to use the core reading program 3 4

g. How to use children’s literature to teach reading 1 2

h. How to use reading research to guide content of 

instruction 3 4

i. How the core reading program incorporates research 

principles 1 2

j. How to use the supplemental reading program 3 4

k. How to integrate reading and writing instruction 1 2

Teaching 

Strategies 

l. Strategies for teaching reading to ELLs 3 4

m. How to evaluate a core reading program 1 2

n. How to evaluate reading instruction 3 4

o. How to coach teachers in reading instruction 1 2

Evaluation 

p. How to manage reading personnel 3 4

q. How to diagnose reading problems 1 2

Assessment r. How to administer assessments 3 4

s. How to interpret and use assessment data to guide 

instruction 1 2

t. How to help struggling readers with decoding 3 4

u. How to help struggling readers with vocabulary 1 2

v. How to help struggling readers with comprehension 3 4

w. How to motivate readers 1 2

Struggling 

Readers

x. Strategies for teaching reading to students with diagnosed 

learning disabilities 3 4
B-36 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of RF School Principals Appendix B 

F2. CONTINUED - Below is a list of topics that are often covered in professional development activities that are 

 designed for building administrators. 

• In column A, identify the topics that were addressed in professional development activities in which you 

participated since July 1st of the current school year. 

• Then, in column B, please identify 5 topics in which you would like more professional development, whether 

or not your school’s professional development activities have covered these topics. 

CHECK ALL 

THAT APPLY ... 

CHECK NO MORE 

THAN 5 TOPICS ... 

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) 

Topic 

A. 

Topics addressed in 

professional 

development 

B. 

Topics in which I’d like 

more professional 

development. 

y. How to select reading materials 1 2

z. How to use content standards for curriculum planning and 

teaching 3 4

aa. How to select reading assessments 1 2

bb. Alignment of reading curriculum and instruction with 

state/district assessments 3 4

cc. How to work with parents 1 2

Organization, 

management 

and support 

dd. Classroom management 3 4

Other ee. Other (Please specify): _______________________ 1 2

F3. Please indicate who participated in the completion of this questionnaire. (Check all that apply.)

1 Principal 

2 Assistant or vice principal 

3 District reading coordinator 

5 School-based reading coach 

6 Classroom teacher(s) 

7 School secretary 

95 Other (Please specify): ________________________ 

F4. If there is anything else that you would like to tell us about your school’s reading program, please 

do so. 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

Thank you very much for completing the survey. Please return your survey in the enclosed envelope 

addressed to: Brenda Rodriguez, Senior Survey Director, Abt Associates Inc., Attn: RF 

Implementation, 55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches B-37 

Reading First Implementation Study 

Reading Coach Survey

The U.S. Department of Education’s Policy and Program Studies Service has contracted with Abt 

Associates Inc. to conduct a national evaluation of K-3 reading instruction in Reading First and Title I 

schools. A sample of 1100 Reading First schools and a comparison group of 550 Title I schools, have 

been selected to participate in this study. The principal, reading coach, and a selected sample of K-3 

teachers from each participating school are being asked to complete a survey. Participants will help 

inform the U.S. Department of Education, Congress, policymakers, practitioners, and researchers about 

how K-3 reading instruction is implemented in schools and what strategies teachers use to provide highquality, evidence-based reading instruction in grades K-3. 

OMB Number: 1875-0232

Expiration Date: 10/31/07 

Abt ID / barcode here 
B-38 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches Appendix B 

Additional Information 

The survey will take you approximately 30 minutes to complete. Although your participation in the 

survey is entirely voluntary, we strongly encourage you to participate. There are no job-related or other 

consequences for not participating. You may also choose to answer some questions on the survey and not 

others—although we urge you to complete as many questions as possible. 

All responses to the survey will be kept confidential. All individual identifying information will be used 

only by persons on the research team. Information such as school location (state), participants’ general 

job titles, grades they teach, and gender will be included in the study data files to be submitted to the 

Department of Education. However, participants’ names will be stripped from all analysis data files and 

data files to be submitted to the Department of Education. We will not report any data about individual 

classrooms—all information will be reported at the grade and school levels. Neither your school nor your 

district will have access to any of the completed surveys at any time. 

Please return your completed survey to Abt Associates in the enclosed stamped, pre-addressed mailing 

envelope. If you decline to participate, simply do not return the survey in the mail. 

Thank you for your cooperation with this survey! 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection 

of information unless such a collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control 

number for this information collection is 1875-0232. The time required to complete this information 

collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time to review instruction, 

search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information 

collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for 

improving this form, please write to: Policy and Program Studies Service, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20202.

Instructions 

Unless otherwise noted, your responses should reflect your experiences during the 2004-2005 school 

year in the school to which this survey was sent. 

 Please complete all questions; each question includes directions for recording your answer. 

 You are sometimes told to skip over some questions in the survey. When this happens, you will 

see an arrow with a note that tells you what question to answer like this: 

1 Yes 

2 No → Skip to E4 

 If you have any questions about how to complete the survey, please call: 

____________________. This is a free call and will connect you with our expert interviewers 

who can assist you. 
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches B-39 

A. Your Background and Experience 

Reading coach is a staff member whose primary role is to provide ongoing training and 

support to school staff in the delivery of effective reading instruction.

Enter # below... 

A1. Including this year, for how many years have you been the K–3 reading coach for this school? 

 (If less than one year, enter 1.) ______ years 

A2. Including this year, for how many years have you worked at this school in any capacity? 

 (If less than one year, enter 1.) ______ years 

A3. Including this year, how many years of classroom experience do you have, as either a teacher 

and/or reading coach? (If less than one year, enter 1). 

a. Number of years of experience ______ years 

b. Number of years of experience in grades K-3 ______ years 

c. Number of years of experience at this school ______ years 

d. Number of years teaching or coaching reading ______ years 

A4. What is your job title? 

________________________________________

A5. Describe your certification status. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you 

currently hold in this state? (Check one) 

1 Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate

2 Probationary certificate (issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a 

probationary period).

3 Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the 

state calls an “alternative certification program.”

4 Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or 

passage of a test before regular certification can be obtained). 

5 Waiver or emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who 

must complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching). 

6 I do not have any of the above certifications in this state. → Skip to A6 

A5a. If certified, identify the area(s): (Check all that apply) 

1 Elementary education

2 Early childhood education

3 Reading 

4 Special education

5 Bilingual / ESOL / ESL education 

95 Other (Please specify): ____________________________ 
B-40 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches Appendix B 

A6. For what grades at this school are you currently providing coaching to staff? (Check all that 

apply.)

1 Kindergarten 

2 First grade 

3 Second grade

4 Third grade 

5 Self-contained K-3 special education classes 

95 Other (Please specify):________________________________________ 

B. Coach Responsibilities 

Enter number 

below... 

B1. This school year, for how many schools do you serve as the reading coach (including this 

school)? _________ Schools 

B2. This school year, for how many teachers do you serve as the reading coach (include all 

teachers in all schools)? _________ Teachers 

B3. Approximately what percentage of your time do you spend as the K–3 reading coach for 

this school? ___________ % 

B4. How central is each of the following activities to your work this year (since July 1st) at this 

school? 

Please rate the activity a “1” if you do not do the activity or if it is not at all central to your role as the literacy 

coach. Rate the activity a “5” if it is absolutely central or critical to your work. 

Check only one box for each item... 

Activity Do not do 

or not at 

all central 

Somewhat 

central 

Absolutely 

central 

a. Administering/coordinating reading assessments 11 12 13 14 15

b. Compiling reading assessment data for teachers 11 12 13 14 15

c. Facilitating grade level meetings 11 12 13 14 15

d. Participating in school leadership team meetings 11 12 13 14 15

e. Facilitating or coordinating family literacy activities 11 12 13 14 15

f. Ordering/managing reading instruction materials 11 12 13 14 15

g. Ordering/managing reading instruction materials 11 12 13 14 15

h. Participating in professional development provided by 

the district, state or other consultants 11 12 13 14 15

i. Providing sub time for teachers to observe other more 

experienced teachers 11 12 13 14 15

j. Providing direct reading instruction to students 11 12 13 14 15

k. Providing training/professional development in reading 

materials, strategies, and assessments 11 12 13 14 15

l. Coaching staff on a range of topics (note: specific 

coaching activities are asked about in the next item) 11 12 13 14 15

m. Organizing professional development for K-3 teachers 11 12 13 14 15

n. Other (Please specify): _________________________ 11 12 13 14 15
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches B-41 

B5. When you coach K-3 staff, how central has each of the following activities been to your work 

this year (since July 1st)? 

Please rate the activity a “1” if you do not do the activity or if it is not at all central to your role as the 

literacy coach. Rate the activity a “5” if it is absolutely central or critical to your work.

Check only one box for each item... 

Coaching Activity Do not do 

or not at 

all central 

Somewhat 

central 

Absolutely 

central 

a. Giving demonstration lessons using core or supplemental 

materials 

11 12 13 14 15

b. Assisting teachers in using the core program 11 12 13 14 15

c. Observing and providing feedback to teachers 11 12 13 14 15

d. Assisting teachers in forming instructional groups 11 12 13 14 15

e. Assisting teachers in designing strategies for addressing 

the needs of struggling readers 

11 12 13 14 15

f. Assisting teachers with monitoring the effectiveness of 

strategies addressing the needs of struggling readers 

11 12 13 14 15

g. Giving demonstrations on assessment administration and 

scoring 

11 12 13 14 15

h. Planning reading instruction with teachers 11 12 13 14 15

i. Reviewing teachers’ lesson plans and providing feedback 11 12 13 14 15

j. Assisting teachers in interpreting assessment results 11 12 13 14 15

C. Reading Instructional Materials 

C1. Which core reading program is being used to teach reading in each of Grades K–3 at this 

school? 

A Core Reading Program is one that provides a comprehensive program of instruction on a daily 

basis in all aspects of reading. 

 

Please indicate the publisher, title, and publication year for the program used in each 

grade. 

Publisher Title Year Published 

a. 

Kindergarten 

______________________ _____________________________ _____________ 

b. Grade 1 

______________________ _____________________________ _____________ 

c. Grade 2 ______________________ _____________________________ _____________ 

d. Grade 3 ______________________ _____________________________ _____________ 
B-42 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches Appendix B 

C2. Do K-3 teachers use supplementary reading materials with the students to whom they teach 

reading? 

If yes, for which components of reading were the supplementary reading materials selected? 

Supplementary Reading Materials provide additional instruction in a targeted area of reading to 

all students. Do not include materials that are used only with struggling readers. Include teachermade materials, if applicable. 

Check one box for each item... 

YES NO

If YES: (Select any options that apply). 

Kindergarten 

 

1 2 

1 Phonemic awareness

2 Phonics 

3 Fluency 

4 Vocabulary 

5 Comprehension 

7 Other

8 I don’t know 

0 No particular area

Grade 1 

 

1 2 

1 Phonemic awareness

2 Phonics 

3 Fluency 

4 Vocabulary 

5 Comprehension 

7 Other

8 I don’t know 

0 No particular area

Grade 2 

 

1 2 

1 Phonemic awareness

2 Phonics 

3 Fluency 

4 Vocabulary 

5 Comprehension 

7 Other

8 I don’t know 

0 No particular area

Grade 3 

 

1 2 

1 Phonemic awareness

2 Phonics 

3 Fluency 

4 Vocabulary 

5 Comprehension 

7 Other

8 I don’t know 

0 No particular area

C3. Has your school made any of the following changes to your reading program that took effect at 

the beginning of the current school year (2004-2005)? 

Indicate ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each item ... 

Yes No 

a. Adopted a new core reading program 11 12

b. Added a new intervention program for struggling readers 11 12

c. Added new supplementary materials 11 12

d. Added new materials for ELLs 11 12

e. Adopted new reading assessments 11 12

f. Other (Please specify): _______________________ 11 12
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches B-43 

D. Instructional Time 

D1. How often during this school year is time regularly scheduled and formally set aside during the school 

day for K-3 teachers to: 

Check only one box for each item... 

Not at all 1-4 times 5-8 times Once a 

month 

Once a 

week or 

more 

Occurs 

only 

informally, 

as needed 

a. Collaborate on reading lesson planning and 

instruction 

11 12 13 14 15 16

b. Observe reading instruction in other 

classrooms 

11 12 13 14 15 16

Use assessment data to plan instruction 11 12 13 14 15 16

d. Participate in coaching with or be coached 

about reading by other teachers 

11 12 13 14 15 16

e. Be coached about reading instruction by a 

reading coach 

11 12 13 14 15 16

f. Coordinate reading interventions for struggling 

readers with special education staff 

11 12 13 14 15 16

g. Coordinate reading interventions for 

struggling readers with ELL staff 

11 12 13 14 15 16

Check if no ELLs 11

D2. Please indicate for which grades your school has a scheduled reading block. If yes, please 

indicate for how many minutes the reading block is scheduled. A reading block is the time 

period that is formally scheduled for teaching reading. Does your school have a reading block in: 

Yes 

Scheduled 

number of 

minutes No 

a. Kindergarten 1 2

b. First grade 1 2

c. Second grade 1 2

d. Third grade 1 2

D3. On average, how many total minutes per day (including the reading block) are devoted this year

to classroom reading instruction for students in Grades K-3? 

Please provide the number of minutes per day for each 

grade... 

a. Kindergarten _______ min. / day 

b. First grade _______ min. / day 

c. Second grade _______ min. / day 

d. Third grade _______ min. / day 
B-44 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches Appendix B 

E. Reading Interventions for Struggling Readers 

E1. What methods has your school used to meet the needs of at-risk or struggling readers? For each 

method listed below, please check whether or not you use the method at your school. 

A Reading Intervention is a program designed for struggling readers to be used only with struggling 

readers in addition to the core-reading program. 

Check one for each item 

... Methods for meeting needs of struggling readers Use this 

method Not used 

a. Use separate program materials in interventions 11 12

b. Use core reading program with supplemental materials 11 12

c. Use core reading program only 11 12

d. Use reading materials written in students’ home language 11 12

Materials 

e. Use alternative materials designed for English learners 11 12

f. A certified reading specialist provides additional direct instruction to 

struggling readers, individually or in small groups. 

11 12

g. The classroom teacher provides additional direct instruction to 

struggling readers, individually or in small groups. 

11 12

h. The classroom teacher provides additional opportunities for reading 

skill practice for struggling readers (e.g., partner reading, peer 

tutors, audio tapes, computer programs) 

11 12

i. A certified specialist provides recommendations to classroom 

teachers on accommodations for struggling readers. (Indicate 

which type of specialist.)

A special education teacher 11 12

A bilingual/ESL teacher 11 12

Other (Please specify): _______________________________ 11 12

j. Trained aides or volunteers work with students under the direction 

of the classroom teacher during the school day. 

11 12

k. Trained aides or volunteers work with students in a before or after 

school program. 

11 12

l. Untrained aides or volunteers work with students under the direction 

of the classroom teacher during the school day. 

11 12

Staff 

activities 

m. Untrained aides or volunteers work with students in a before or 

after school program. 

11 12
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches B-45 

F. Professional Development in Reading for K-3 Teachers 

F1. Below is a list of topics that are often covered in professional development activities designed to 

provide teachers with new information about the content of reading instruction. 

• In column A, identify the topics that were addressed in K-3 teachers’ professional development activities 

during the current school year, including summer 2004. 

• In column B, please identify 5 topics in which you think teachers need more professional development, 

whether or not this school’s professional development activities have covered these topics. 

• Please check all that apply in column A, and 5 choices in column B.

Professional development is defined as any activity in which a teacher has learned about reading or reading instruction. This 

includes school-based workshops, meetings with reading coaches, and meetings with a study group of other teachers.

CHECK ALL 

THAT APPLY 

INDICATE NO 

MORE THAN 5 

TOPICS 

Topic A. 

Topics addressed 

in professional 

development for 

teachers 

B. 

Topics in which 

teachers need 

more 

professional 

development 

a. Building phonological awareness, e.g. rhymes, dividing 

spoken language into sentences, words, syllables 1 2

b. Identifying, adding, deleting sounds in spoken words 3 4

Phonemic 

Awareness 

c. Blending phonemes to form words 1 2

e. Teaching letter-sound correspondence 3 4

f. Teaching letter patterns (blends, digraphs, diphthongs) 1 2

g. Using syllable patterns to read words 3 4

Decoding 

h. Teaching component parts: roots, prefixes, suffixes 1 2

j. Teaching use of dictionary, thesaurus 3 4

k. Direct teaching of vocabulary words and their meaning Vocabulary 1 2

l. Antonyms and synonyms 3 4

n. Teaching sight words 1 2

o. Guided oral reading Fluency 3 4

p. Encouraging expression while reading 1 2

r. Setting motivation/asking prediction/preview questions 3 4

s. Constructing information about character, setting, and main 

events 1 2

t. Summarizing main ideas in narrative and informational text 3 4

u. Self-monitoring strategies 1 2

v. Asking questions at different levels (literal, inferential) 1 2

w. Strategies for organizing text structure, e.g. story maps 3 4

Comprehension 

x. Shared book conversations 1 2

Other y. Other topic in the 5 dimensions of reading. (Please specify:) 

____________________________________ 3 4
B-46 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches Appendix B 

F2. Below is a list of topics that are often covered in professional development activities that are 

designed to provide teachers with new information about teaching strategies used during 

reading instruction. 

• In column A, identify the topics that were addressed in K-3 teachers’ professional development 

activities during the current school year, including summer 2004. 

• Then, in column B, please identify 5 topics in which teachers need more professional development, 

whether or not this school’s professional development activities have covered these topics.

• Please check all that apply in column A, and 5 choices in column B.

CHECK ALL 

THAT APPLY 

INDICATE NO MORE 

THAN 5 TOPICS 

Topic

A. 

Topics addressed in 

professional 

development for 

teachers 

B. 

Topics in which 

teachers need more 

professional 

development 

a. How to use the core reading program 1 2

b. How to use children’s literature to teach reading 3 4

c. How to use reading research to guide content of 

instruction 1 2

d. How the core reading program incorporates research 

principles 3 4

e. How to use the supplemental reading program(s) 1 2

f. How to integrate reading and writing instruction 3 4

Teaching 

Strategies 

g. Strategies for teaching reading to ELLs 1 2

h. Learning styles 3 4

Grouping i. How to organize small group instruction 1 2

j. How to diagnose reading problems 3 4

k. How to administer assessments Assessment 1 2

l. How to interpret and use assessment data to guide 

instruction 3 4

m. How to help struggling readers with decoding 1 2

n. How to help struggling readers with vocabulary 3 4

o. How to help struggling readers with comprehension 1 2

p. How to motivate readers 3 4

Struggling 

Readers 

q. Strategies for teaching reading to students with 

diagnosed learning disabilities 1 2

r. How to use state/district content standards for curriculum 

planning and teaching 3 4

s. How to align reading curriculum and instruction with 

state/district assessments 1 2

t. How to work with parents 3 4

Organization/ 

planning 

u. Classroom management 1 2

Other v. Other (Please specify): ___________________ 3 4
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches B-47 

F3. During the current school year, including summer 2004, approximately how many of the reading 

professional development activities available to K-3 teachers: (Please choose the category that 

most closely describes K-3 teachers’ professional development.) 

Check only one box for each item ... 

None OneQuarter 

One 

Half 

ThreeQuarters All 

a. Require teachers to attend? 11 12 13 14 15

b. Were attended by the principal? 11 12 13 14 15

c. Provide teachers options among which they can choose? 11 12 13 14 15

d. Provide a stipend? 11 12 13 14 15

e. Provide follow-up activities? 11 12 13 14 15

f. Include release time for participating teachers? 11 12 13 14 15

g. Offer graduate college credits? 11 12 13 14 15

h. Are held in a convenient location (e.g. at school)? 11 12 13 14 15

i. Use a team-based approach (joint training of people who 

work together)? 

11 12 13 14 15

j. Are given by trainers or facilitators who have a wellestablished reputation? 

11 12 13 14 15
B-48 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches Appendix B 

G. Professional Development for Reading Coaches 

G1. Below is a list of professional development topics for reading coaches in which you may have 

participated. 

• In column A, identify any topics that were addressed in reading coaches’ professional development 

activities during the current school year, including summer 2004. 

• Then, in column B, please identify no more than 3 topics in which you would like more professional 

development, whether or not this school’s professional development activities have covered these topics. 

• Please check all that apply in column A, and 3 choices in column B. 

CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY 

CHECK NO MORE 

THAN 3 TOPICS 

Topics A. Topics addressed in 

professional 

development for 

reading coaches 

B. Topics in which 

you’d like more 

professional 

development 

a. How to use reading assessment data to guide instruction. 1 2

b. What are the types of assessments: screening, diagnostic, progress 

monitoring, and outcome. 3 4

c. How to use assessment data to form instructional groups. 1 2

d. How to provide constructive feedback to teachers. 3 4

e. How to establish credibility with teachers. 1 2

f. Essential components of scientifically based reading instruction. 3 4

g. What is the role of the reading coach in fostering change. 1 2

h. How to plan instructional interventions for struggling students. 3 4

i. Classroom management within the literacy block time. 1 2

j. How to conduct effective grade level meetings. 3 4

k. How to help teachers identify appropriate instructional materials. 1 2

l. How to help teachers make reading instruction systematic and 

explicit. 3 4

m. How to conduct demonstration lessons. 1 2

n. How to conduct classroom observations. 3 4

o. How to provide onsite professional development. 1 2

p. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 3 4
Appendix B Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches B-49 

H. Reading Instruction 

H1. This item asks you to describe your school using the statements below. Please read each 

statement, and indicate whether the statement is a good description of your school on a scale from 

a “Very inaccurate” description of your school to a “Very accurate” description of your school. 

Check one box for each item... 

In this school ... Very 

inaccurate 

 Very 

accurate 

a. K-3 teachers are knowledgeable about scientifically based reading 

instruction. 

11 12 13 14 15

b. K-3 teachers are motivated to improve reading instruction. 11 12 13 14 15

c. Reading instruction in K-3 classrooms is aligned with the state 

reading/language arts content standards. 

11 12 13 14 15

d. There is a school-wide focus on reading and language arts. 11 12 13 14 15

e. K-3 teachers are experienced with the core reading program. 11 12 13 14 15

f. K-3 teachers are experienced with supplemental reading materials. 11 12 13 14 15

g. K-3 teachers are experienced with reading intervention materials and 

strategies. 

11 12 13 14 15

h. K-3 classrooms have ample, high quality instructional materials. 11 12 13 14 15

i. Teachers use a variety of instructional materials to fill in gaps in the 

core program. 

11 12 13 14 15

j. The core reading program is aligned with scientifically based reading 

research. 

11 12 13 14 15

k. Supplemental reading materials are aligned with scientifically based 

reading research. 

11 12 13 14 15

l. Reading intervention materials are aligned with scientifically based 

reading research. 

11 12 13 14 15

m. The reading coach has the support of the school principal. 11 12 13 14 15

n. K-3 teachers seek the assistance of the reading coach to improve their 

reading instruction. 

11 12 13 14 15

o. Sufficient time during the school day is allotted for reading instruction. 11 12 13 14 15

p. Sufficient time during the school day is allotted for teacher planning. 11 12 13 14 15

q. K-3 teachers collaborate and plan for reading instruction. 11 12 13 14 15

r. Sufficient time during the school day is allotted for professional 

development. 

11 12 13 14 15

s. Sufficient time during the school day is allotted for professional 

development. 

11 12 13 14 15

t. Reading assessments are used to screen students for reading difficulties. 11 12 13 14 15

u. Diagnostic assessments are used to identify strengths and weaknesses 

of struggling readers. 

11 12 13 14 15

v. Reading assessments are used to monitor student progress. 11 12 13 14 15

x. Assessment data are used to group students for instruction. 11 12 13 14 15

y. Assessment data are used to guide and/or modify instruction. 11 12 13 14 15

z. The district provides direction concerning reading instruction. 11 12 13 14 15

aa. The state provides direction concerning reading instruction. 11 12 13 14 15

bb. K-3 teachers make an effort to involve parents in their children’s 

reading instruction. 

11 12 13 14 15
B-50 Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Survey of Reading Coaches Appendix B 

I. Conclusions and Recommendations 

I1. What are the most significant changes this school made this year in K–3 reading instruction? 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

I2. What are the most significant obstacles you encountered this year in your efforts to work with this 

school to improve reading instruction? 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

 

I3. If there is anything else that you would like to tell us, please do so. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. We appreciate your willingness to describe your 

reading program. Please return your survey in the enclosed envelope to: 

Brenda Rodriguez, Senior Survey Director 

RF Implementation Study 

Abt Associates Inc. 

55 Wheeler Street 

Cambridge, MA 02138 
Appendix C C-1 

Appendix C 

Back-up Exhibits
C-2 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.2.a 

Percent of Staff that Are in Their Current Reading First and Title I Schools for Three Years or 

Less, 2004–05 School Year

23

29

15

20 21 23

18

29

15 18 19 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

1st year in this

school

2-3 years in

this school

1st year in this

school

2-3 years in

this school

1st year in this

school

2-3 years in

this school

Percent

Reading First

Title I

 Principals Teachers Reading Coaches 

Source: Principal Reading Coach and Teacher Surveys, Question A1. 

Exhibit C.2.c 

Sources of Funding for K–3 Reading Programs in the Total Population of Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First Schools Title I Schools 

Source of Funding Percent Percent p-value 

Title I 91% 97% .000 

District general funds 79 87 .000 

State funds for reading programs 49 52 .334 

State textbook funds 41 48 .014 

Professional development funds 43 48 .038 

Title II 38 42 .134 

Title III 24 21 .153 

21st Century Learning Centers 17 14 .129 

Comprehensive school reform 10 10 .992 

Private grants 8 15 .000 

Other 10 11 .576 

School Size (all schools) 

...1–249 students 

...250–499 students 

...500–749 students 

...750+ students 

5.1 sources 

4.6 sources 

4.9 sources 

5.3 sources 

5.4 sources 

4.5 sources 

4.3 sources 

4.4 sources 

4.4 sources 

4.9 sources 

.000 

.190 

.001 

.000 

.086 

Source: Principal Survey, Question B1.
Appendix C C-3 

Exhibit C.3.5 

Responsibility for Selection of Reading Materials in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year 

Mature Reading First Title I 

Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Selection of a specific core reading program 

State 30% 2.1 18% 1.6 .000 

District 88 1.5 83 1.6 .012 

Principal 33 2.2 38 2.1 .096 

School's reading coach 26 2.1 18 1.6 .001 

Selection of supplemental reading program 

materials

State 18 1.8 6 1.0 .000 

District 61 2.3 56 2.2 .071 

Principal 66 2.3 68 2.1 .458 

School's reading coach 66 2.2 40 2.2 .000 

Selection of intervention reading program 

materials (for use with struggling readers)

 

State 18 1.8 5 0.9 .000 

District 64 2.3 56 2.2 .012 

Principal 62 2.3 70 2.0 .017 

School's reading coach 67 2.2 43 2.2 .000 

Source: Principal Survey, Question D4. 
C-4 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.3.6.a 

Core Reading Programs Used by less than 1 Percent of Reading First Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

 Reading First Schools 

Percentage of Schools in Sample that 

Use the Program Publisher Program 

< 1% Benchmark Benchmark phonetics 

Caron-Dellosa Unspecified 

 Hampton Brown Phonics and Friends 

Heinemann Fountas Pinnel units of study 

 Houghton Mifflin Invitation to Literacy 

John Hopkins Unspecified 

 McGraw-Hill Breakthrough to Literacy 

 Spotlight on Literacy 

Mondo Mondo Book Shop 

 Saxon Saxon Phonics 

Scholastic Guided Reading 

Literacy Place 

 Scott Foresman Celebrate Reading 

 Lectura 

Waterford Waterford Early Reading 

 Wright Group Unspecified 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Principal Survey Question C1.

Exhibit C.3.6.b 

Core Reading Programs Used by less than 1 Percent of Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year

 Title I Schools 

Percentage of Schools in Sample that 

Use the Program Publisher Program 

< 1% Addison Wesley Unspecified 

America's Choice America's Choice 

 Benchmark Benchmark phonetics 

Hampton Brown Phonics and Friends 

 Houghton Mifflin Lectura 

 Soar 2 Success 

 Literacy Experience 

Language Circle Project Read 

 Literacy First Unspecified 

McGraw-Hill New View 

Other 

Breakthrough to Literacy 

 Metro Early Reading 

Owens Unspecified 

 Pearson Learning Group Unspecified 

 Sing, Spell, Read & Write 

Scholastic Guided Reading 

Source: Reading Coach Survey, Principal Survey Question C1.
Appendix C C-5 

Exhibit C.3.7 

Materials Used with English Language Learners (ELLs) in Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First 

Teachers 

Title I 

Teachers 

Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Do not teach ELLs 

Kindergarten 36% .03 53% .03 .000 

1st grade 34 .02 52 .03 .000 

2nd grade 34 .02 51 .03 .000 

3rd grade 39 .03 54 .03 .000 

Among those who teach ELLs: 

Core reading program in native language 

Kindergarten 10 .02 14 .03 .254 

1st grade 10 .02 15 .03 .179 

2nd grade 15 .03 12 .03 .513 

3rd grade 12 .03 9 .02 .427 

ELL students use same materials as other 

students 

 

Kindergarten 78 .03 84 .03 .157 

1st grade 72 .03 75 .03 .513 

2nd grade 74 .03 70 .04 .517 

3rd grade 72 .03 74 .03 .560 

Core and supplemental materials in native 

language 

Kindergarten 10 .02 16 .03 .145 

1st grade 12 .02 14 .03 .494 

2nd grade 15 .03 12 .02 .506 

3rd grade 21 .03 16 .03 .264 

Core and supplemental materials in English 

especially for ELLs 

 

Kindergarten 57 .04 30 .04 .000 

1st grade 55 .04 42 .04 .013 

2nd grade 61 .04 45 .04 .002 

3rd grade 66 .04 46 .04 .000 

Alternative core materials in English geared 

toward the instructional level of ELLs 

Kindergarten 23 .03 19 .03 .346 

1st grade 27 .03 26 .03 .798 

2nd grade 25 .03 23 .03 .639 

3rd grade 33 .04 30 .04 .479 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C8. 
C-6 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.4.2 

Teachers’ Use of Supports Used to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers in RF and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Teacher 

Reading First Title I 

Type of Support Grade Percent 

Standard. 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

K 75% 0.025 59% 0.025 0.000 

1 78 0.025 69 0.023 0.006 

2 72 0.026 65 0.025 0.082 

Diagnostic assessment to 

determine core deficits 

3 70 0.027 61 0.025 0.023 

K 98 0.006 97 0.007 0.122 

1 95 0.013 93 0.012 0.386 

2 92 0.015 89 0.016 0.155 

Extra practice in the 

classroom with phonemic 

awareness 

3 85 0.019 74 0.022 0.000 

K 97 0.008 92 0.013 0.004 

1 97 0.010 95 0.011 0.241 

2 95 0.011 93 0.012 0.192 

Extra practice in the 

classroom with decoding 

3 92 0.014 83 0.019 0.000 

K 80 0.023 78 0.021 0.529 

1 92 0.016 90 0.015 0.386 

2 96 0.011 93 0.013 0.098 

Extra practice in the 

classroom with fluency 

3 97 0.010 90 0.015 0.000 

K 83 0.021 85 0.017 0.584 

1 89 0.019 91 0.014 0.392 

2 90 0.017 92 0.014 0.478 

Extra practice in the 

classroom with 

comprehension 

3 93 0.016 94 0.011 0.772 

K 90 0.017 86 0.017 0.107 

1 86 0.021 84 0.018 0.356 

2 84 0.022 85 0.018 0.591 

Extra instructional time 

3 83 0.022 83 0.019 0.874 

K 70 0.025 62 0.025 0.025 

1 73 0.025 73 0.022 0.968 

2 72 0.026 68 0.024 0.195 

Placement in materials that 

supplement core reading 

program 

3 74 0.025 66 0.024 0.023 

K 44 0.027 48 0.026 0.278 

1 51 0.027 56 0.025 0.207 

2 47 0.028 49 0.026 0.585 

Placement in different level 

of core reading program 

3 46 0.029 44 0.026 0.530 

K 19 0.021 24 0.022 0.124 

1 23 0.023 25 0.023 0.375 

2 23 0.023 26 0.022 0.332 

Placement in separate core 

reading program 

3 22 0.024 31 0.025 0.013 

K 54 0.027 45 0.026 0.013 

1 66 0.027 65 0.024 0.877 

2 70 0.026 61 0.025 0.008 

Placement in special 

intervention program 

3 68 0.027 60 0.025 0.046 

K 59 0.027 64 0.024 0.209 

1 60 0.028 63 0.024 0.376 

2 57 0.028 66 0.024 0.028 

Work with tutor on one-toone basis 

3 54 0.028 60 0.025 0.092 

K 20 0.022 17 0.020 0.289 

1 27 0.024 37 0.025 0.004 

2 30 0.025 37 0.026 0.063 

Work with reading 

specialist on one-to-one 

basis 

3 33 0.026 36 0.025 0.492 

K 34 0.026 31 0.024 0.459 

1 48 0.027 53 0.026 0.178 

2 48 0.028 53 0.026 0.183 

Work with reading 

specialist in small group 

3 51 0.028 58 0.026 0.102 

Work with more advanced K 79 0.023 74 0.021 0.178 

peer 1 76 0.024 77 0.021 0.829 
Appendix C C-7 

Exhibit C.4.2 

Teachers’ Use of Supports Used to Meet the Needs of Struggling Readers in RF and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Teacher 

Reading First Title I 

Type of Support Grade Percent 

Standard. 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

2 83 0.022 77 0.021 0.091 

3 81 0.022 73 0.024 0.017 

K 71 0.025 75 0.021 0.189 

1 69 0.025 67 0.024 0.591 

2 59 0.028 56 0.026 0.396 

Special materials for 

parents to provide practice 

3 47 0.029 52 0.026 0.255 

K 74 0.032 73 0.035 0.792 

1 79 0.029 76 0.031 0.474 

2 75 0.032 73 0.033 0.715 

If English language 

learner(s), ESL instruction 

3 74 0.034 73 0.033 0.794 

K 27 0.032 32 0.038 0.276 

1 24 0.031 24 0.032 0.905 

2 20 0.030 27 0.033 0.112 

If English language 

learner(s), provide reading 

instruction in home 

language 3 17 0.028 22 0.034 0.214 

K 61 0.036 53 0.039 0.143 

1 66 0.034 55 0.038 0.031 

2 66 0.035 55 0.037 0.023 

If English language 

learner(s), in classroom 

help in reading from ELL 

teacher 3 63 0.038 57 0.038 0.331 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question (C9.
C-8 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.4.6 

Amount of Time Teachers in Reading First and Title I Schools Set Aside to Coordinate 

Interventions with Staff, 2004–05 School Year 

Teacher 

Reading First Title I 

Coordination with: Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Special Education staff 

K 51% 0.028 44% 0.025 0.045 

1 42 0.028 34 0.024 0.055 

2 36 0.027 30 0.023 0.007 

Not at all 

3 32 0.026 34 0.025 0.615 

K 17 0.020 26 0.022 0.126 

1 27 0.025 28 0.023 0.593 

2 28 0.025 33 0.024 0.126 

Infrequently (monthly or less) 

3 32 0.027 32 0.025 0.953 

K 9 0.016 7 0.013 0.405 

1 11 0.017 9 0.014 0.353 

2 11 0.016 9 0.015 0.541 

Weekly 

3 13 0.019 15 0.017 0.350 

K 22 0.023 23 0.022 0.727 

1 20 0.022 28 0.022 0.020 

2 25 0.025 28 0.024 0.398 

Informally as needed 

3 23 0.024 19 0.020 0.162 

ELL staff 

K 45 0.037 39 0.037 0.245 

1 34 0.035 31 0.035 0.521 

2 34 0.035 31 0.036 0.462 

Not at all 

3 33 0.037 33 0.038 0.931 

K 24 0.032 28 0.037 0.433 

1 34 0.035 28 0.033 0.171 

2 32 0.035 29 0.035 0.540 

Infrequently (monthly or less) 

3 30 0.036 35 0.038 0.318 

K 13 0.023 9 0.022 0.224 

1 11 0.021 14 0.026 0.480 

2 12 0.024 15 0.029 0.443 

Weekly 

3 12 0.024 10 0.021 0.612 

K 18 0.029 24 0.034 0.167 

1 20 0.027 27 0.034 0.088 

2 21 0.029 25 0.033 0.379 

Informally as needed 

3 25 0.032 22 0.033 0.501 

Source: Teacher Survey, Questions C3F and C3G.
Appendix C C-9 

Exhibit C.5.1 

Assistance for K–3 Reading Assessment Activities in Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

 Reading First 

Teachers Title I Teachers 

Assessment Activity Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Selecting assessment instruments 76% 2.14 56% 2.22 .000 

 

Interpreting assessment results 82 1.89 70 2.02 .000 

Source: Principal Survey, Question B2. 

Exhibit C.5.2 

Responsibility for Reading Assessment Activities in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 

2004–05 School Year 

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers Assessment Activity 

Person(s) Responsible Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Selecting assessment instruments 

State staff 51% 2.41 30% 2.01 .000 

District staff 78 2.00 80 1.75 .472 

Principal 40 2.36 52 2.22 .000 

School’s reading coach 38 2.33 32 2.06 .044 

 

Interpreting assessment results 

State staff 24 2.07 13 1.51 .000 

District staff 56 2.43 57 2.20 .697 

Principal 89 1.48 90 1.34 .817 

School’s reading coach 92 1.28 51 2.16 .000 

Source: Principal Survey, Questions D4 and D5. 
C-10 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.5.3a 

Types of Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature Reading First and 

Title I Kindergarten Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b

Reading First 

Teachers 

Title I Teachers

Assessment Purpose 

Type of Assessment

Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Placing or grouping of students 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 34 2.76 23 2.29 .003 

District assessment c 9 1.66 5 1.21 .094 

Standardized assessment 48 2.75 40 2.70 .053 

State-specific assessment 17 1.95 16 2.02 .961 

Informal assessments 33 2.75 40 2.68 .055 

Not able to categorize 38 2.87 46 2.75 .039 

Determining student mastery of skills

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 42 2.86 27 2.44 .000 

District assessment 10 1.85 6 1.24 .057 

Standardized assessment 39 2.54 37 2.62 .471 

State-specific assessment 13 1.81 16 1.94 .359 

Informal assessments 34 2.78 46 2.67 .003 

Not able to categorize 39 2.88 44 2.68 .202 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 33 2.79 22 2.33 .001 

District assessment 10 1.89 5 1.22 .034 

Standardized assessment 46 2.70 37 2.64 .019 

State-specific assessment 14 1.83 15 1.99 .597 

Informal assessments 29 2.69 45 2.69 .000 

Not able to categorize 36 2.88 41 2.74 .181 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C7. 

a

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not add up to 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to three 

assessments per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, then that assessment 

was counted only once (e.g., if the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency test and the DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 

test were used to place or group students, then the DIBELS was counted only once for that purpose). 

b We were not able to categorize 35–40 percent of teachers’ responses. “Not able to categorize” includes responses that were 

too vague to be coded (e.g., assessment, test, eight-weeks, benchmarks, letter names, decoding, rubric, pretest, quarterly test, 

skill test, fluency); responses that accounted for less than 1 percent of the total frequency (e.g., MGLS, parent reading, KIA); 

and responses that were not discernable (e.g., ELLA stands for Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas or the English Language 

and Literacy Assessment). 

c

 In order to be grouped as a “district assessment,” the teacher had to clearly label it as a district test. 
Appendix C C-11 

Exhibit C.5.3b 

Types of Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature Reading First and 

Title I 1st-grade Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b

Reading First 

Teachers Title I Teachers Assessment Purpose 

Type of Assessment Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Placing or grouping of students 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 35 2.84 26 2.21 .008 

District assessment c 3 1.06 3 0.89 .775 

Standardized assessment 52 2.72 49 2.65 .399 

State-specific assessment 14 1.81 15 1.79 .763 

Informal assessments 29 2.70 41 2.61 .001 

Not able to categorize 34 2.78 37 2.52 .488 

Determining student mastery of skills 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 54 2.92 42 2.56 .003 

District assessment 2 0.83 2 0.59 .501 

Standardized assessment 38 2.62 34 2.59 .362 

State-specific assessment 13 1.77 12 1.64 .841 

Informal assessments 28 2.63 39 2.62 .002 

Not able to categorize 39 2.93 41 2.57 .532 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 41 2.94 29 2.45 .002 

District assessment 1 0.61 1 0.58 .901 

Standardized assessment 45 2.59 41 2.68 .247 

State-specific assessment 15 1.91 17 1.84 .650 

Informal assessments 24 2.50 43 2.70 .000 

Not able to categorize 36 2.93 39 2.57 .403 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C7. 

a

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not add up to 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to three 

assessments per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, then that assessment 

was counted only once (e.g., if the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency test and the DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 

test were used to place or group students, then the DIBELS was counted only once for that purpose). 

b We were not able to categorize 35–40 percent of teachers’ responses. “Not able to categorize” includes responses that were 

too vague to be coded (e.g., assessment, test, eight-weeks, benchmarks, letter names, decoding, rubric, pretest, quarterly test, 

skill test, fluency); responses that accounted for less than 1 percent of the total frequency (e.g., MGLS, parent reading, KIA); 

and responses that were not discernable (e.g., ELLA stands for Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas or the English Language 

and Literacy Assessment). 

c

 In order to be grouped as a “district assessment,” the teacher had to clearly label it as a district test. 
C-12 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.5.3c 

Types of Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature Reading First and 

Title I 2nd-grade Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b

Reading First Title I

Assessment Purpose 

Type of Assessment Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Placing or grouping of students 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 40% 2.85 33% 2.52 .074 

District assessment c 3 0.98 5 1.18 .144 

Standardized assessment 53 2.68 49 2.72 .338 

State-specific assessment 16 1.93 11 1.61 .078 

Informal assessments 25 2.51 36 2.63 .002 

Not able to categorize 35 2.76 35 2.64 .944 

Determining student mastery of skills 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 55 2.92 46 2.67 .034 

District assessment 4 1.13 4 1.01 .985 

Standardized assessment 30 2.51 30 2.51 .903 

State-specific assessment 14 1.80 9 1.50 .016 

Informal assessments 28 2.65 35 2.64 .057 

Not able to categorize 39 2.92 46 2.72 .075 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 42 2.92 30 2.53 .003 

District assessment 2 0.77 3 0.97 .266 

Standardized assessment 40 2.70 36 2.67 .311 

State-specific assessment 15 1.82 15 1.94 .956 

Informal assessments 27 2.65 37 2.77 .006 

Not able to categorize 39 2.86 41 2.81 .689 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C7. 

a

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not add up to 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to three 

assessments per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, then that assessment 

was counted only once (e.g., if the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency test and the DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 

test were used to place or group students, then the DIBELS was counted only once for that purpose). 

b We were not able to categorize 35–40 percent of teachers’ responses. “Not able to categorize” includes responses that were 

too vague to be coded (e.g., assessment, test, eight-weeks, benchmarks, letter names, decoding, rubric, pretest, quarterly test, 

skill test, fluency); responses that accounted for less than 1 percent of the total frequency (e.g., MGLS, parent reading, KIA); 

and responses that were not discernable (e.g., ELLA stands for Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas or the English Language 

and Literacy Assessment). 

c

 In order to be grouped as a “district assessment,” the teacher had to clearly label it as a district test. 
Appendix C C-13 

Exhibit C.5.3d 

Types of Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature Reading First and 

Title I 3rd-grade Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b

Assessment Purpose Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers

Type of Assessment

Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Placing or grouping of students 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 33% 2.81 27% 2.33 .070 

District assessment c 4 1.14 6 1.29 .326 

Standardized assessment 48 2.70 41 2.61 .076 

State-specific assessment 13 1.92 11 1.63 .403 

Informal assessments 24 2.55 28 2.55 .208 

Not able to categorize 37 2.93 45 2.69 .062 

Determining student mastery of skills 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 52 3.00 41 2.69 .003 

District assessment 4 1.16 6 1.32 .367 

Standardized assessment 28 2.45 23 2.34 .175 

State-specific assessment 16 2.12 13 1.77 .315 

Informal assessments 26 2.65 37 2.62 .004 

Not able to categorize 39 2.96 49 2.79 .018 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students 

Formal assessments 

Core or supplementary program assessment 38 2.95 28 2.48 .006 

District assessment 4 1.02 5 1.29 .391 

Standardized assessment 37 2.72 30 2.58 .089 

State-specific assessment 14 2.01 13 1.83 .625 

Informal assessments 26 2.74 34 2.72 .041 

Not able to categorize 35 2.97 50 2.87 .000 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C7. 

a

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not add up to 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to three assessments

per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, then that assessment was counted only

once (e.g., if the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency test and the DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency test were used to place 

or group students, then the DIBELS was counted only once for that purpose). b We were not able to categorize 35–40 percent of teachers’ responses. “Not able to categorize” includes responses that were too 

vague to be coded (e.g., assessment, test, eight-weeks, benchmarks, letter names, decoding, rubric, pretest, quarterly test, skill 

test, fluency); responses that accounted for less than 1 percent of the total frequency (e.g., MGLS, parent reading, KIA); and 

responses that were not discernable (e.g., ELLA stands for Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas or the English Language and 

Literacy Assessment). 

c

 In order to be grouped as a “district assessment,” the teacher had to clearly label it as a district test. 
C-14 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.5.4a 

Types of Specific Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature Reading 

First and Title I Kindergarten Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers Assessment Purpose 

Type of Assessment Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Placing or grouping of students 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 8% 1.50 16% 2.06 .001 

DIBELS 43 2.51 13 1.83 .000 

DRA 6 1.27 13 1.72 .001 

STAR Reading 2 0.77 3 0.81 .377 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment d 26 2.59 32 2.54 .128 

Running records or miscue analysis e 8 1.53 10 1.71 .232 

Determining student mastery of skills

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 6 1.16 17 2.03 .000 

DIBELS 33 2.41 12 1.73 .000 

DRA 3 0.88 11 1.71 .000 

STAR Reading 1 0.55 2 0.66 .234 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 31 2.70 41 2.67 .013 

Running records or miscue analysis 4 1.19 7 1.25 .068 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 8 1.50 19 2.20 .000 

DIBELS 34 2.50 12 1.71 .000 

DRA 4 1.01 10 1.59 .001 

STAR Reading 1 0.61 2 0.78 .239 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 24 2.58 38 2.67 .000 

Running records or miscue analysis 6 1.41 10 1.69 .033 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C7. 

a

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not add up to 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to three 

assessments per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, then that assessment 

was counted only once (e.g., if the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency test and the DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 

test were used to place or group students, then the DIBELS was counted only once for that purpose). 

b

 We were not able to categorize 35–40 percent of teachers’ responses. “Not able to categorize” includes responses that were 

too vague to be coded (e.g., assessment, test, eight-weeks, benchmarks, letter names, decoding, rubric, pretest, quarterly test, 

skill test, fluency); responses that accounted for less than 1 percent of the total frequency (e.g., MGLS, parent reading, KIA); 

and responses that were not discernable (e.g., ELLA stands for Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas or the English Language 

and Literacy Assessment).
Appendix C C-15 

Exhibit C.5.4b 

Types of Specific Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature Reading First 

and Title I 1st-grade Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers

Assessment Purpose 

Type of Assessment Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Placing or grouping of students 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 7% 1.45 9% 1.57 .336 

DIBELS 38 2.53 10 1.53 .000 

DRA 15 1.90 25 2.22 .000 

STAR Reading 6 1.35 11 1.58 .007 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment d 15 2.13 16 1.80 .616 

Running records or miscue analysis e 15 2.08 29 2.46 .000 

Determining student mastery of skills 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 4 1.02 9 1.62 .006 

DIBELS 30 2.37 7 1.35 .000 

DRA 7 1.33 15 1.88 .000 

STAR Reading 3 1.10 8 1.46 .017 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 19 2.21 23 2.19 .179 

Running records or miscue analysis 11 1.90 19 2.25 .004 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 4 1.14 13 1.83 .000 

DIBELS 39 2.46 12 1.75 .000 

DRA 8 1.49 16 1.94 .001 

STAR Reading 2 0.84 6 1.22 .022 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 12 1.93 20 2.14 .005 

Running records or miscue analysis 13 1.96 26 2.47 .000 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C7. 

a

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not add up to 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to three assessments

per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, then that assessment was counted only

once (e.g., if the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency test and the DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency test were used to place 

or group students, then the DIBELS was counted only once for that purpose). b We were not able to categorize 35–40 percent of teachers’ responses. “Not able to categorize” includes responses that were too 

vague to be coded (e.g., assessment, test, eight-weeks, benchmarks, letter names, decoding, rubric, pretest, quarterly test, skill test, 

fluency); responses that accounted for less than 1 percent of the total frequency (e.g., MGLS, parent reading, KIA); and responses 

that were not discernable (e.g., ELLA stands for Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas or the English Language and Literacy 

Assessment). 
C-16 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.5.4c 

Types of Specific Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature Reading First 

and Title I 2nd-grade Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers

Assessment Purpose 

Type of Assessment Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Placing or grouping of students 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 3% 1.25 5% 1.54 .310 

DIBELS 41 2.54 9 1.55 .000 

DRA 12 1.76 25 2.29 .000 

STAR Reading 7 1.41 17 1.79 .000 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment d 15 2.12 19 2.13 .204 

Running records or miscue analysis e 12 1.82 21 2.33 .004 

Determining student mastery of skills 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 3 1.22 4 1.15 .474 

DIBELS 23 2.21 6 1.30 .000 

DRA 6 1.19 14 1.97 .000 

STAR Reading 3 0.87 8 1.31 .002 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 23 2.51 25 2.43 .596 

Running records or miscue analysis 7 1.38 14 2.05 .005 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 5 1.49 5 1.17 .904 

DIBELS 30 2.41 10 1.67 .000 

DRA 9 1.49 18 2.16 .001 

STAR Reading 2 0.80 9 1.50 .000 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 15 2.10 21 2.39 .075 

Running records or miscue analysis 14 2.05 22 2.43 .006 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C7. 

a

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not add up to 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to three assessments

per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, then that assessment was counted only

once (e.g., if the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency test and the DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency test were used to place 

or group students, then the DIBELS was counted only once for that purpose). b We were not able to categorize 35–40 percent of teachers’ responses. “Not able to categorize” includes responses that were too 

vague to be coded (e.g., assessment, test, eight-weeks, benchmarks, letter names, decoding, rubric, pretest, quarterly test, skill 

test, fluency); responses that accounted for less than 1 percent of the total frequency (e.g., MGLS, parent reading, KIA); and 

responses that were not discernable (e.g., ELLA stands for Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas or the English Language and 

Literacy Assessment). 
Appendix C C-17 

Exhibit C.5.4d 

Types of Specific Assessments (Formal and Informal) Reported as Useful by Mature Reading 

First and Title I 3rd-grade Teachers, by Assessment Purpose, 2004–05 School Year a b 

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers

Assessment Purpose 

Type of Assessment Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Placing or grouping of students 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 2% 0.56 4% 0.99 .062 

DIBELS 35 2.49 7 1.25 .000 

DRA 12 1.75 17 1.97 .045 

STAR Reading 9 1.71 19 2.00 .000 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment d 18 2.36 16 2.10 .501 

Running records or miscue analysis e 6 1.29 15 2.18 .000 

Determining student mastery of skills 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 3 1.00 5 1.26 .228 

DIBELS 19 2.03 3 0.95 .000 

DRA 4 1.03 8 1.59 .050 

STAR Reading 4 1.27 8 1.41 .034 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 25 2.64 31 2.59 .088 

Running records or miscue analysis 2 0.67 8 1.72 .003 

Identifying the core deficits of struggling students 

Formal assessments 

Clay Observational Survey 3 0.98 5 1.27 .108 

DIBELS 28 2.41 7 1.34 .000 

DRA 9 1.59 11 1.78 .412 

STAR Reading 4 1.36 9 1.59 .012 

Informal assessments 

Classroom-based assessment 20 2.53 23 2.46 .364 

Running records or miscue analysis 8 1.63 14 2.08 .050 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C7. 

a

 Percentages by grade or assessment purpose will not add up to 100 percent. Teachers were asked to list up to three assessments

per purpose. If a teacher listed the same assessment more than once for the same purpose, then that assessment was counted only

once (e.g., if the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency test and the DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency test were used to 

place or group students, then the DIBELS was counted only once for that purpose). 

b

 We were not able to categorize 35–40 percent of teachers’ responses. “Not able to categorize” includes responses that were too

vague to be coded (e.g., assessment, test, eight-weeks, benchmarks, letter names, decoding, rubric, pretest, quarterly test, skill 

test, fluency); responses that accounted for less than 1 percent of the total frequency (e.g., MGLS, parent reading, KIA); and 

responses that were not discernable (e.g., ELLA stands for Early Learning Literacy in Arkansas or the English Language and 

Literacy Assessment). 
C-18 Appendix C 

 

Exhibit C.5.5 

Regularly Scheduled and Formal Time Set Aside for Grade-Level Teachers to Use 

Assessment Data to Plan Instruction, Range across Grade Levels for Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year

Reading First 

Teachers Title I Teachers

Frequency of Time Set Aside Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

K 27% 2.49 24% 2.26 .366 

1 29 2.43 25 2.21 .214 

2 25 2.25 25 2.42 .964 

Once a week or more 

3 27 2.49 24 2.15 .391 

 

K 21 2.32 12 1.67 .002 

1 21 2.28 14 1.76 .024 

2 24 2.42 16 1.83 .006 

Once a month 

3 21 2.28 14 1.77 .019 

 

K 10 1.75 9 1.61 .610 

1 12 2.04 9 1.52 .162 

2 11 1.87 8 1.38 .130 

5–8 times 

3 14 2.13 9 1.67 .042 

 

K 21 2.22 25 2.21 .174 

1 25 2.42 28 2.29 .390 

2 23 2.37 28 2.30 .100 

1–4 times 

3 27 2.61 28 2.33 .617 

 

K 10 1.89 11 1.61 .672 

1 4 1.07 12 1.79 .000 

2 6 1.32 11 1.66 .007 

Not at all 

3 4 1.03 15 1.89 .000 

 

K 11 1.80 18 2.02 .003 

1 9 1.70 13 1.62 .187 

2 12 1.86 12 1.63 .798 

Informally, only as needed 

3 7 1.40 10 1.62 .158 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C3.
Appendix C C-19 

Exhibit C.5.6 

Teachers’ Use of Assessment-Related Teaching Strategies, Range across Grade Levels for 

Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year

Reading First 

Teachers Title I Teachers 

Assessment-Related Teaching 

Strategy Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

K 84% 2.15 67% 2.31 .000 

1 85 2.06 79 2.00 .064 

2 82 2.23 75 2.21 .037 

Use test results to organize 

instructional groups 

3 81 2.34 70 2.35 .001 

 

K 55 2.78 60 2.48 .171 

1 62 2.70 68 2.32 .138 

2 54 2.83 62 2.51 .023 

Use informal reading inventories 

3 53 2.79 55 2.60 .704 

 

K 82 2.14 73 2.12 .003 

1 88 1.82 80 1.93 .005 

2 83 2.03 78 2.17 .092 

Use tests to determine progress on 

skills 

3 86 2.09 79 2.16 .034 

 

K 54 2.83 35 2.48 .000 

1 52 2.82 49 2.50 .531 

2 56 2.81 47 2.53 .025 

Use tests to determine who can 

benefit from the core reading series 

3 54 2.86 47 2.61 .080 

 

K 72 2.52 52 2.50 .000 

1 77 2.39 69 2.32 .014 

2 76 2.48 67 2.36 .015 

Use diagnostic tests to identify 

students who need reading 

intervention services 

3 74 2.59 69 2.36 .122 

 

K 50 2.77 40 2.53 .010 

1 51 2.75 55 2.54 .357 

2 52 2.81 49 2.55 .489 

Use screening tests to identify 

students who need a supplementary 

reading program 

3 51 2.78 49 2.61 .598 

 

K 36 2.71 42 2.58 .099 

1 56 2.76 63 2.41 .057 

2 55 2.81 56 2.57 .721 

Conduct miscue analysis, analyzing 

errors students make while reading 

aloud 

3 52 2.82 48 2.62 .259 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question C6.
C-20 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.7.1

Structure of Professional Development Activities Attended by Teachers in Mature Reading First 

and Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers 

Mean # 

Workshops

Mean # 

Hours

Mean # 

Workshops

Mean # 

Hours

Workshop 

p-value 

Hours 

p-value 

D1a. Short workshops 

 Grade: K 3.88 10.51 2.60 6.45 0.0025 0.0020 

 1 4.34 10.74 2.51 7.01 0.0000 0.0025 

 2 4.14 10.49 2.12 5.71 0.0000 0.0000 

 3 3.99 9.84 2.68 6.82 0.0000 0.0030 

D1b. Long workshops 

 Grade: K 2.31 24.78 1.34 11.14 0.0000 0.0000 

 1 1.80 21.99 2.65 13.42 0.0041 0.0000 

 2 2.00 23.27 1.16 9.86 0.0000 0.0000 

 3 2.19 22.31 1.14 9.59 0.0000 0.0000 

D1c. College course in 

reading 

 

 Grade: K 0.42 10.10 0.35 8.22 0.4948 0.6137 

 1 0.41 7.11 0.44 7.40 0.7572 0.8715 

 2 0.69 8.03 0.21 4.82 0.0130 0.1592 

 3 0.48 6.99 0.61 7.31 0.5908 0.8916 

D1d. Conference about 

reading 

 

 Grade: K 0.81 5.82 0.73 3.14 0.6302 0.0021 

 1 0.67 5.09 0.69 3.89 0.8659 0.1376 

 2 0.71 6.17 0.55 2.79 0.1869 0.0010 

 3 0.99 6.81 0.50 3.79 0.0049 0.0139 

Source: Teacher survey, Question D1. 
Appendix C C-21 

Exhibit C.7.3 

Specific Features of Professional Development Activities Differences between Teachers in 

Mature Reading First and Title I Schools. 2004–05 School Year 

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers 

Specific Features Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

Required teachers to attend 74% 1.07 57% 1.33 0.000 

Were attended by the 

principal 

52 1.35 46 1.25 0.000 

Provided teachers with 

options 

33 1.27 32 1.04 0.542 

Provided a stipend 40 1.41 20 1.11 0.000 

Provided follow-up activities 48 1.30 34 1.09 0.000 

Included release time 43 1.35 33 1.16 0.000 

Offered graduate college 

credits 

25 1.20 14 0.80 0.000 

Were held in convenient 

location 

73 1.11 62 1.20 0.000 

Used team-based approach 67 1.06 53 1.20 0.000 

Were given by wellestablished trainers 75 1.06 65 1.17 0.000 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D3. 
C-22 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.7.4 

Teacher Participation in Professional Development Activities Related to the Five 

Dimensions of Reading: Teachers in Mature Reading First and Title I Schools, 2004–05 

School Year 

PD Participation 

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers 

Dimension Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

K 92% 0.016 74% 0.022 0.000 

1 89 0.018 70 0.023 0.000 

2 82 0.021 53 0.026 0.000 

Phonemic 

Awareness 

3 75 0.025 50 0.026 0.000 

K 91 0.015 72 0.023 0.000 

1 86 0.019 68 0.023 0.000 

2 85 0.019 57 0.026 0.000 

Decoding 

3 81 0.022 54 0.026 0.000 

K 67 0.027 49 0.026 0.000 

1 72 0.025 50 0.025 0.000 

2 77 0.023 52 0.026 0.000 

Vocabulary 

3 78 0.023 56 0.026 0.000 

1 87 0.020 73 0.022 0.000 

2 88 0.019 67 0.024 0.000 

Fluency 

3 84 0.022 66 0.024 0.000 

K 87 0.019 76 0.021 0.000 

1 85 0.019 75 0.021 0.001 

2 90 0.016 73 0.023 0.000 

Comprehension 

3 88 0.018 74 0.022 0.000 

Perceived PD Needs

K 51 0.033 62 0.030 0.020 

1 25 0.027 31 0.026 0.093 

2 31 0.032 38 0.030 0.105 

Phonemic 

Awareness 

3 24 0.031 35 0.030 0.009 

K 71 0.030 75 0.026 0.276 

1 45 0.032 45 0.029 0.867 

2 38 0.033 41 0.030 0.495 

Decoding 

3 34 0.035 38 0.030 0.375 

K 50 0.033 41 0.030 0.029 

1 52 0.032 52 0.029 0.937 

2 49 0.034 41 0.030 0.095 

Vocabulary 

3 46 0.036 42 0.032 0.308 

1 61 0.031 56 0.030 0.266 

2 46 0.033 54 0.030 0.073 

Fluency 

3 49 0.034 49 0.031 0.956 

K 71 0.031 71 0.028 0.845 

1 75 0.028 81 0.022 0.087 

2 81 0.026 77 0.027 0.227 

Comprehension 

3 82 0.025 81 0.025 0.786 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D4. 
Appendix C C-23 

Exhibit C.7.5 

Preparedness to Teach Five Dimensions of Reading: Teachers in Reading First and 

Title I Schools, 2004–05 School Year

Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers 

Dimension Grade Mean 

Standard 

Error Mean 

Standard 

Error p-value 

K 4.17 0.052 3.66 0.067 0.000 

1 4.09 0.051 3.66 0.066 0.000 

2 3.73 0.060 3.22 0.070 0.000 

Phonemic 

Awareness 

3 3.52 0.067 2.95 0.070 0.000 

K 3.99 0.055 3.47 0.067 0.000 

1 4.06 0.054 3.61 0.064 0.000 

2 3.78 0.059 3.30 0.069 0.000 

Decoding 

3 3.60 0.066 2.99 0.075 0.000 

K 3.81 0.057 3.33 0.067 0.000 

1 3.77 0.059 3.46 0.064 0.000 

2 3.74 0.057 3.43 0.067 0.001 

Vocabulary 

3 3.84 0.056 3.37 0.066 0.000 

K 3.81 0.058 3.46 0.061 0.000 

1 3.79 0.058 3.55 0.061 0.000 

2 3.77 0.058 3.57 0.064 0.023 

Comprehension 

3 3.82 0.056 3.55 0.067 0.002 

K 3.65 0.066 3.25 0.067 0.000 

1 3.73 0.064 3.45 0.064 0.002 

2 3.87 0.058 3.38 0.068 0.000 

Fluency Building 

3 3.88 0.059 3.38 0.068 0.000 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D6. 

Exhibit C.7.7a 

Teacher Professional Development on Materials and Teaching Strategies in Reading First 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error 

Received Professional Development 

overall 84% 0.008 

K 84 0.014 

1 84 0.013 

2 85 0.016 

Using the core reading program 

3 82 0.014 

overall 56 0.010 

K 64 0.019 

1 51 0.019 

2 58 0.019 

Using children’s literature to teach 

reading 

3 52 0.020 

overall 62 0.011 

K 64 0.019 

1 59 0.020 

2 64 0.018 

Using reading research to guide 

content of instruction 

3 62 0.019 

overall 64 0.010 

K 67 0.018 

1 63 0.019 

2 66 0.018 

How the core reading program 

incorporates research principles 

3 61 0.020 

overall 51 0.010 

K 47 0.019 

1 49 0.019 

2 57 0.019 

Using the supplemental reading 

programs 

3 53 0.020 

Teaching 

Strategies 

Integrating reading and writing overall 62 0.011 
C-24 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.7.7a 

Teacher Professional Development on Materials and Teaching Strategies in Reading First 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error 

K 63 0.019 

1 60 0.019 

2 63 0.019 

instruction 

3 61 0.019 

overall 41 0.011 

K 42 0.019 

1 39 0.018 

2 44 0.019 

Strategies for teaching reading to 

ELLs 

3 41 0.019 

Need Additional Professional Development in This 

Topic 

 

K 7 0.011 

1 8 0.012 

2 6 0.010 

Using the core reading program 

3 8 0.014 

K 16 0.017 

1 22 0.019 

2 23 0.021 

Using children’s literature to teach 

reading 

3 22 0.021 

K 12 0.017 

1 12 0.015 

2 9 0.013 

Using reading research to guide 

content of instruction 

3 11 0.016 

K 6 0.013 

1 6 0.011 

2 7 0.012 

How the core reading program 

incorporates research principles 

3 7 0.015 

K 21 0.020 

1 17 0.018 

2 17 0.017 

Using the supplemental reading 

programs 

3 21 0.020 

K 28 0.021 

1 28 0.021 

2 34 0.023 

Integrating reading and writing 

instruction 

3 31 0.023 

K 24 0.019 

1 25 0.019 

2 28 0.022 

Teaching 

Strategies 

Strategies for teaching reading to 

ELLs 

3 29 0.023 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5. 
Appendix C C-25 

Exhibit C.7.7b 

Teacher Professional Development on Grouping and Assessment in Reading First 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error 

Received Professional Development 

overall 48% 0.010 

K 51 0.019 

1 45 0.019 

2 50 0.020 

Learning styles 

3 45 0.020 

overall 69 0.010 

K 66 0.019 

1 69 0.019 

2 72 0.018 

Grouping 

Organizing small group instruction 

3 67 0.020 

overall 49 0.010 

K 45 0.019 

1 46 0.019 

2 54 0.020 

Diagnosing reading problems 

3 49 0.020 

overall 76 0.009 

K 74 0.018 

1 74 0.017 

2 79 0.016 

Administering assessments 

3 76 0.017 

overall 78 0.008 

K 75 0.017 

1 77 0.016 

2 81 0.015 

Assessment 

Interpreting and using assessment 

data to guide instruction 

3 77 0.017 

Need Additional Professional Development in This 

Topic 

 

K 25 0.020 

1 20 0.018 

2 23 0.020 

Learning styles 

3 20 0.020 

K 25 0.020 

1 21 0.019 

2 23 0.021 

Grouping 

Organizing small group instruction 

3 24 0.022 

K 40 0.023 

1 41 0.022 

2 36 0.023 

Diagnosing reading problems 

3 33 0.024 

K 5 0.009 

1 3 0.007 

2 3 0.008 

Administering assessments 

3 5 0.011 

K 11 0.013 

1 11 0.013 

2 9 0.013 

Assessment 

Interpreting and using assessment 

data to guide instruction 

3 12 0.016 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5.
C-26 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.7.7c 

Teacher Professional Development on Struggling Readers in Reading First Schools, 2004–

05 School Year 

Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error 

Received Professional Development 

overall 64% 0.010 

K 59 0.019 

1 66 0.019 

2 68 0.018 

Helping struggling readers with 

decoding 

3 61 0.020 

overall 62 0.010 

K 57 0.019 

1 61 0.019 

2 68 0.018 

Helping struggling readers with 

vocabulary 

3 63 0.019 

overall 60 0.010 

K 56 0.019 

1 58 0.019 

2 64 0.019 

Helping struggling readers with 

comprehension 

3 59 0.020 

overall 48 0.010 

K 48 0.019 

1 47 0.019 

2 50 0.020 

Motivating readers 

3 47 0.020 

overall 28 0.009 

K 26 0.017 

1 25 0.016 

2 33 0.019 

Struggling 

Readers 

Teaching reading to students with 

learning disabilities 

3 29 0.018 

Need Additional Professional Development 

K 33 0.022 

1 27 0.020 

2 21 0.019 

Helping struggling readers with 

decoding 

3 19 0.020 

K 15 0.016 

1 21 0.019 

2 18 0.018 

Helping struggling readers with 

vocabulary 

3 18 0.019 

K 24 0.020 

1 33 0.022 

2 33 0.022 

Helping struggling readers with 

comprehension 

3 33 0.024 

K 26 0.020 

1 28 0.021 

2 33 0.023 

Motivating readers 

3 32 0.023 

K 42 0.023 

1 43 0.023 

2 43 0.024 

Struggling 

Readers 

Teaching reading to students with 

learning disabilities 

3 38 0.024 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5.
Appendix C C-27 

Exhibit C.7.7d 

Teacher Professional Development on Organization and Planning in Reading First

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error 

Received Professional Development in This Topic 

overall 68% 0.010 

K 68 0.018 

1 66 0.019 

2 71 0.017 

Using state/district content 

standards for curriculum planning 

and teaching 

3 69 0.018 

overall 66 0.010 

K 65 0.019 

1 63 0.019 

2 69 0.018 

Aligning reading curriculum and 

instruction with state/district 

assessments 

3 66 0.019 

overall 35 0.010 

K 34 0.018 

1 30 0.018 

2 38 0.019 

Working with parents 

3 36 0.020 

overall 56 0.011 

K 54 0.019 

1 54 0.020 

2 60 0.019 

Organization/ 

Planning 

Classroom management 

3 57 0.020 

Need Additional Professional Development in This 

Topic 

 

K 8 0.014 

1 6 0.011 

2 7 0.012 

Using state/district content 

standards for curriculum planning 

and teaching 

3 7 0.012 

K 8 0.012 

1 8 0.013 

2 9 0.013 

Aligning reading curriculum and 

instruction with state/district 

assessments 

3 9 0.012 

K 24 0.021 

1 22 0.019 

2 20 0.019 

Working with parents 

3 22 0.020 

K 17 0.018 

1 17 0.016 

2 14 0.017 

Organization/ 

Planning 

Classroom management 

3 17 0.020 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5.
C-28 Appendix C 

Exhibit C.7.8 

Professional Development in Teaching Strategies in Mature Reading First and Title I 

Schools, 2004–05 School Year 

 Reading First Teachers Title I Teachers 

Topics Grade Percent 

Standard 

Error Percent 

Standard 

Error p-value 

K 92% 0.015 72% 0.022 0.000 

1 90 0.016 71 0.022 0.000 

2 92 0.016 71 0.023 0.000 

Teaching 

Strategies 

3 89 0.018 74 0.022 0.000 

K 64 0.027 49 0.025 0.000 

1 65 0.027 50 0.025 0.000 

2 66 0.026 52 0.026 0.000 

Grouping 

3 65 0.028 45 0.026 0.000 

K 82 0.023 64 0.024 0.000 

1 83 0.020 62 0.024 0.000 

2 89 0.018 68 0.023 0.000 

Assessment 

3 84 0.020 64 0.025 0.000 

K 69 0.026 54 0.025 0.000 

1 73 0.025 60 0.024 0.000 

2 79 0.022 53 0.026 0.000 

Struggling 

Readers 

3 76 0.024 54 0.026 0.000 

K 62 0.027 56 0.025 0.115 

1 60 0.027 53 0.025 0.052 

2 67 0.026 53 0.026 0.000 

Organization/ 

Planning 

3 67 0.027 57 0.026 0.009 

Source: Teacher Survey, Question D5.
Appendix C C-29 

Exhibit C.7.9 

RF Principals’ Participation in Professional Development in Teaching Strategies in 

Reading First Schools, 2004–05 School Year

Professional Development Topic Percent Standard Error 

Phonemic Awareness 84% 0.013 

Decoding 78 0.014 

Vocabulary 84 0.013 

Fluency 87 0.012 

Content of Reading 

Instruction 

Comprehension 86 0.012 

How to use the core reading program 75 0.014 

How to use children’s literature to 

teach reading 

43 0.016 

How to use reading research to guide 

content of instruction 

63 0.016 

How the core reading program 

incorporates research principles 

62 0.016 

How to use the supplemental reading 

program 

56 0.016 

How to integrate reading and writing 

instruction 

58 0.017 

Teaching Strategies 

Strategies for teaching reading to 

ELLs 

43 0.016 

How to evaluate a core reading 

program 

42 0.016 

How to evaluate reading instruction 66 0.016 

How to coach teachers in reading 

instruction 

52 0.017 

Evaluation 

How to manage reading personnel 40 0.016 

How to diagnose reading problems 50 0.017 

How to administer assessments 67 0.016 

Assessment 

How to interpret and use assessment 

data to guide instruction 

84 0.012 

How to help struggling readers with 

decoding 

58 0.017 

How to help struggling readers with 

vocabulary 

63 0.016 

How to help struggling readers with 

comprehension 

60 0.017 

How to motivate readers 48 0.017 

Struggling Readers 

Strategies for teaching reading to 

students with diagnosed learning 

disabilities 

35 0.016 

How to select reading materials 36 0.016 

How to use content standards for 

curriculum planning and teaching 

57 0.017 

How select reading assessments 32 0.015 

Alignment of reading curriculum and 

instruction state/district assessments 

61 0.016 

How to work with parents 36 0.016 

Organization, 

Management and 

Support 

Classroom management 47 0.017 

 Other 7 0.014 

Source: Principal Survey, Question F2. 
C-30 Appendix C 
Appendix D D-1 

Appendix D 

The Construct Matrix 
D-2 Appendix D

Exhibit D.1 Construct Variables for Analysis of Survey Data 

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

Support for Struggling Readers 

b. Extra practice with phonemic awareness c. Extra practice with decoding/phonics 

Support for Struggling Readersa

Grade 1 Teacher Survey, C9 

d. Extra practice with fluency 

Dichotomous 1 = “Received” 0 = “Did not receive” 

High Fidelity (SBRR) Reading Instruction—KINDERGARTEN (K) 

bb. I discuss meaning of new and unusual words dd. Students give definitions for words 

KINDERGARTEN High Fidelity Vocabulary Instruction 

K Teacher Survey, C4 

ee. Students tell opposites of words 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio

a We created two versions of several constructs: a ‘strict’ version and a more ‘relaxed’ version. Our hope is to use the ‘strict’ version o

believe these represent the highest quality activities. However, it could be the case that we find little variation across these strict consample of new RF schools. Therefore, the more relaxed versions may be more appropriate for analysis as they allow for more variati
Appendix D D-3

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

High Fidelity (SBRR) Reading Instruction—KINDERGARTEN (K) (continued) 

b. I conduct story discussions with small groups of 

students 

c. I read stories to small groups of students g. Students orally answer questions about stories they 

have heard 

h. Students read texts that are easy to decode k. Students create story maps based on stories read aloud y. Students retell stories in sequence and identify 

characters and main events 

KINDERGARTEN High Fidelity Comprehension Instruction 

K Teacher Survey, C4 

gg. Students make predictions while reading stories 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio

a. I read stories aloud to the whole class e. I develop language experience stories with my class f. Students read aloud their own written dictation l. I teach phonemic awareness skills while reading stories q. Students practice naming letters v. I teach sight words cc. Students tell opposites of words 

KINDERGARTEN Non-SBRR Instruction 

K Teacher Survey, C4 

hh. Students use dictionaries to find word meanings 

Three-level ordina1 = “Central to my reading instruction2 = “Small part of reading instruction3 = “Not part of my reading instruction

m. Students isolate first sounds in words that I say n. Students isolate final sounds in words that I say o. Students isolate middle sounds in words that I say p. Students blend sounds with rhyming words r. Students match sounds with letters s. Students blend sounds to form words 

KINDERGARTEN High Fidelity Phonemic Awareness/Phonics Instruction 

K Teacher Survey, C4 

t. I practice identifying sounds and syllables in spoken words by 

clapping and counting 

Three-level ordina1 = “Central to my reading instruction2 = “Small part of reading instruction3 = “Not part of my reading instruction
D-4 Appendix D

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

High Fidelity (SBRR) Reading Instruction—KINDERGARTEN (K) (continued) 

a. Provide time in reading block for skill practice on own c. Provide extra reading instructional time for struggling 

readers 

i. Work with small groups of students j. Group students based on skill levels m. Use core reading series n. Use supplementary reading materials r. Use separate intervention materials for some students u. Use test results to organize instructional groups w. Use tests to determine progress on skills 

KINDERGARTEN High Fidelity Teaching Strategies 

K Teacher Survey, C6 

y. Use diagnostic tests to identify students who need 

reading intervention services 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio

High Fidelity (SBRR) Reading Instruction—GRADE 1 GRADE 1 High d. Students reread familiar stories Fidelity Fluency Instruction 

Grade 1 Teacher Survey, C4 

h. Students read aloud with expression and proper 

phrasing 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio

GRADE 1 High Fidelity Vocabulary Instruction (No construct—only individual item) 

Grade 1 Teacher Survey, C4 

z. I discuss new and unusual words before reading Three-level ordin

1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio
Appendix D D-5

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

High Fidelity (SBRR) Reading Instruction—GRADE 1 (continued) 

c. Students read silently m. Students practice naming letters p. Students use knowledge of root words, prefixes, and 

suffices to decode new words 

r. Students use pictures to identify unknown words 

GRADE 1 NonSBRR Instruction Grade 1 Teacher 

Survey, C4 

s. I teach decoding skills while reading stories 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio

i. Students reread to find facts to answer questions w. Students retell stories in sequence and identify 

characters and main events 

cc. Students make predictions while reading stories 

GRADE 1 High Fidelity Comprehension Instruction 

Grade 1 Teacher Survey, C4 

ff. Students develop questions about text material 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio
D-6 Appendix D

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

High Fidelity (SBRR) Reading Instruction—GRADE 1 (continued) 

l. Students isolate sounds in words that teachers say n. Students blend phonemes to form words 

GRADE 1 High Fidelity Phonemic Awareness/Phonics Instruction 

Grade 1 Teacher Survey, C4 

u. Teaches decoding/phonics skills with word families 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio

a. Provide time in reading block for skill practice on own c. Provide extra reading instructional time for struggling 

readers 

i. Work with small groups of students j. Group students based on skill levels m. Use core reading series n. Use supplementary reading materials r. Use separate intervention materials for some students u. Use test results to organize instructional groups w. Use tests to determine progress on skills 

GRADE 1 High Fidelity Teaching Strategies 

Grade 1 Teacher Survey, C6 

y. Use diagnostic tests to identify students who need 

reading intervention services 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio
Appendix D D-7

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

High Fidelity (SBRR) Reading Instruction—GRADE 2/3 GRADE 2/3 High d. Students reread familiar stories Fidelity Fluency Instruction 

Grade 2/3 Teacher Survey, C4 

g. I listen to students read aloud without correcting errors 

Three-level ordina1 = “Central to my reading instruction2 = “Small part of reading instruction3 = “Not part of mreading instruction

t. Students work with prefixes and suffixes to change the 

meaning of words 

x. Students learn vocabulary through study of antonyms, 

synonyms, and homonyms 

GRADE 2/3 High Fidelity Vocabulary Instruction 

Grade 2/3 Teacher Survey, C4 

bb. I discuss new and unusual words before reading 

Three-level ordina1 = “Central to my reading instruction2 = “Small part of reading instruction3 = “Not part of mreading instruction
D-8 Appendix D

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

High Fidelity (SBRR) Reading Instruction—GRADE 2/3 (continued) 

a. Students read texts that are easy to decode c. Students read aloud unfamiliar texts f. Students read silently o. I teach decoding skills while reading stories p. Students memorize sight words v. Students use context clues to identify unknown words z. Students write vocabulary words in sentences 

GRADE 2/3 NonSBRR Instruction Grade 2/3 Teacher 

Survey, C4 

aa. Students use dictionaries to find word meanings 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio

b. Students reread to locate information i. Students confirm or revise predictions after reading j. Students generate their own questions about text 

material 

k. Students identify their comprehension break-downs and 

use fix-up strategies with a partner 

l. Students orally summarize main events in stories and 

informational texts 

bb. I discuss new and unusual words before reading 

GRADE 2/3 High Fidelity Comprehension Instruction 

Grade 2/3 Teacher Survey, C4 

dd. Students identify story structure and elements 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio
Appendix D D-9

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

High Fidelity (SBRR) Reading Instruction—GRADE 2/3 (continued) 

n. Students decode multi-syllabic words in isolation q. Students read irregularly spelled words and non-words 

GRADE 2/3 High Fidelity Phonemic Awareness/Phonics Instruction 

Grade 2/3 Teacher Survey, C4 

s. Students use knowledge of root woods, prefixes, and 

suffixes to decode new words 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio

a. Provide time in reading block for skill practice on own c. Provide extra reading instructional time for struggling 

readers 

i. Work with small groups of students j. Group students based on skill levels m. Use core reading series n. Use supplementary reading materials r. Use separate intervention materials for some students u. Use test results to organize instructional groups w. Use tests to determine progress on skills 

GRADE 2/3 High Fidelity Teaching Strategies 

Grade 2/3 Teacher Survey, C6 

y. Use diagnostic tests to identify students who need 

reading intervention services 

Three-level ordin1 = “Central to mreading instructio2 = “Small part oreading instructio3 = “Not part of mreading instructio
D-10 Appendix D

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

Professional Development (PD) for Teachers (Applies to all grade levels) 

a. Coaching or mentoring by reading coach in programs, 

materials, or strategies 

d. Demonstrations in my classroom h. Interpretation of assessment data i. Grade-level meetings devoted to reading 

Diversity of Professional Development Support 

Teacher Survey, D2 

j. Using assessment data to determine topics that require 

additional instruction or practice 

Three level ordin1 = “Received thtype of assistanc2 = “Available, bdid not receive” 3 = “Not availablat my school” 

a. Building phonological awareness b. Identifying, adding, deleting sounds in spoken words 

Received PD in Phonemic Awareness 

Teacher Survey, D4 

c. Blending phonemes to form words 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

d. Teaching letter-sound correspondence e. Teaching letter patterns f. Using syllable patterns to read words 

Received PD in Decoding 

Teacher Survey, D4 

g. Teaching component parts 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

h. Teaching use of dictionary, thesaurus i. Direct teaching of vocabulary words and meaning 

Received PD in Vocabulary 

Teacher Survey, D4 

j. Antonyms and synonyms 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 
Appendix D D-11

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

Professional Development (PD) for Teachers (continued) 

k. Teaching sight words l. Guided oral reading 

Received PD in Fluency 

Teacher Survey, D4 

m. Encouraging expression while reading 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

n. Setting motivation/asking prediction/preview questions o. Constructing information about character, setting, and 

main events 

p. Summarizing main ideas in narrative and informational 

text 

q. Self-monitoring strategies r. Asking questions at different levels (literal, inferential) 

Received PD in Comprehension 

Teacher Survey, D4 

s. Strategies for organizing text structure, e.g. story maps 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

a – c. Received PD in phonemic awareness construct (see 

above) 

d – g. Received PD in decoding/phonics construct (see above) h – j. Received PD in vocabulary construct (see above) k – m. Received PD in fluency construct (see above) 

Diversity of PD Topics Received 

Teacher Survey, D4 

n – s. Received PD in comprehension construct (see above) 

Each construct is scored as 0 or 1“Received PD” o“Did not Receive PD.” 
D-12 Appendix D

Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

Professional Development (PD) for Building Administrators 

a. Phonemic Awareness b. Decoding/Phonics c. Vocabulary d. Fluency 

Received PD in Reading Instruction Content 

Principal Survey, F2 

e. Comprehension 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

f. How to use the core reading program h. How to use reading research to guide content of 

instruction 

i. How the core reading program incorporates research 

principals 

j. How to use the supplemental reading program 

Received PD in Teaching Strategies 

Principal Survey, F2 

l. Strategies for teaching reading to ELLs 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

m. How to evaluate a core reading program n. How to evaluate reading instruction o. How to coach teachers in reading instruction 

Received PD in Evaluation 

Principal Survey, F2 

p. How to manage reading personnel 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 
Appendix D D-13

 Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

Professional Development for Building Administrators (continued)

q. How to diagnose reading problems r. How to administer assessments 

Received PD in Assessment 

Principal Survey, F2 

s. How to interpret and use assessment data to guide 

instruction 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

t. How to help struggling readers with decoding/phonics u. How to help struggling readers with vocabulary v. How to help struggling readers with comprehension 

Received PD for Struggling Readers 

Principal Survey, F2 

x. Strategies for teaching reading to students with 

diagnosed learning disabilities 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

y. How to select reading materials aa. How to select reading assessments bb. Alignment of reading curriculum and instruction with 

state/district assessments 

Received PD in Organization, Management, and Support 

Principal Survey, F2 

dd. Classroom management 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

a – e. Received PD in content of reading instruction construct 

(see above) 

f – l. Received PD in teaching strategies construct (see 

above) 

m – p. Received PD in evaluation construct (see above) q – s. Received PD in assessment construct (see above) t – x. Received PD for struggling readers construct (see 

above) 

Diversity of PD Topics Received 

Principal Survey, F2 

y – dd. Received PD in organization, management, and support 

construct (see above) 

Each construct is scored as 1 = “Received PD” o0 = “Did not Receive PD” except a-e, whicscored as 0 to 5—the sum of conteareas teachers “Received PD” (individually scoras 0 or 1) 
D-14 Appendix D

 Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

Professional Development for Reading Coaches 

a. How to use reading assessment data to guide 

instruction 

c. How to use assessment data to form instructional 

groups 

f. Essential components of SBR instruction h. How to plan instructional interventions for struggling 

readers 

j. How to conduct effective grade level meetings l. How to help teachers make reading instruction 

systematic and explicit 

m. How to construct demonstration lessons 

Diversity of PD Topics Received—Reading Coach Skills 

Reading Coach Survey, G1 

n. How to conduct classroom observations 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

b. What are the types of assessments: screening, 

diagnostic, progress, monitoring, and outcome 

d. How to provide constructive feedback to teachers e. How to establish credibility with teachers g. What is the role of the reading coach in fostering changei. Classroom management within the literacy block time k. How to help teachers identify appropriate instructional 

methods 

Diversity of PD Topics Received—General Coaching Skills 

Reading Coach Survey, G1 

o. How to provide onsite professional development 

Dichotomous 1 = “Topic addressed in Professional Development” 0 = “Topic not addressed” 

Reading Coach ActivitiesReading Coach Activities 

Reading Coach Survey, B5 

a.-j. List of coaching activities 5 item Likert sca

1 = “do not do or not at all central” 5 = “absolutely central” 
Appendix D D-15

 Construct Survey 

Question 

Survey 

Item 

Survey Description Item Scale 

Role of Reading Coach

c. Facilitating grade level meetings j. Providing training/professional development in reading 

materials, strategies, and assessments 

k. Coaching staff on a range of topics l. Organizing professional development for K–3 teachers 

Reading Coach Role—TeacherSupport Tasks 

Reading Coach Survey, B4 

i. Providing direct reading instruction to students 

5 item Likert sca1 = “do not do or not at all central” 5 = “absolutely central” 

a. Administering/coordinating reading assessments b. Compiling reading assessment data for teachers e. Facilitating or coordinating family literacy activities f. Ordering/managing reading instruction materials 

Reading Coach Role—Administrative Tasks 

Reading Coach Survey, B4 

h. Providing sub time for teachers to observe other more 

experienced teachers 

5 item Likert sca1 = “do not do or not at all central” 5 = “absolutely central” 
D-16 Appendix D 
Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote 

educational excellence throughout the nation.

www.ed.gov