This page intentionally left blank.
Reading First Implementation Study 2008-09:

Final Report

Prepared by:

Beth Gamse

Beth Boulay

Alyssa Rulf Fountain

Fatih Unlu

Kenyon Maree

Tom McCall

Rachel McCormick

Abt Associates Inc.

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

2011
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED-04-

CO-0015/0010 with Abt Associates Inc. Beth A. Yeh served as the contracting officer’s 

representative for the Reading First Implementation Study 2008-09. The views expressed herein 

do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official 

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Carmel Martin

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Stuart Kerachsky 

Director

June 2011

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce the report in whole or in part is 

granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy 

and Program Studies Service, Reading First Implementation Study 2008–09 Final Report, 

Washington, D.C., 2011.

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

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print or CD. 

For more information, contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 

202-260-0818.
Contents iii

Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... ix

The Reading First Program .................................................................................................. ix

Evaluating Reading First....................................................................................................... x

Summary of Key Findings ................................................................................................. xiii

Implementation of the Reading First Program ......................................................... xiii

Anticipated Changes to Implementation After Budget Cuts.................................... xiv

Achievement Data Limitations.................................................................................. xv

Conclusions......................................................................................................................... xv

Chapter 1: Study Overview.......................................................................................................... 1

The Reading First Program ................................................................................................... 1

Evaluations of Reading First ....................................................................................... 3

Study Design................................................................................................................ 5

The Organization of This Report .......................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program 

Elements......................................................................................................................................... 7

Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................................ 8

Measures...................................................................................................................... 9

Administration of State Reading First Programs ................................................................ 10

Characteristics of State Reading First Program Directors and Education Agencies. 11

Reading First Directors' Responsibilities and Time Spent on the Reading First 

Program...................................................................................................................... 11

State Organizational Structure and Coordination Between Offices.......................... 12

Number and Nature of Reading First Awards..................................................................... 13

Unanticipated Exits From the Program............................................................................... 15

Reading First Student Achievement Data ........................................................................... 16

Release, Distribution, and Use of Student Performance Data ................................... 17

State and Local Capacity to Use Reading First Data................................................. 18

Reading First Program in Fall 2008 .................................................................................... 20

Technical Assistance ................................................................................................. 21

Outreach to Non-RF Districts and Schools ............................................................... 23

Adoption of Reading First Practices in Non-Reading First Districts and Schools.... 25

Collaboration Among RF and Other State-Level Initiatives..................................... 28

States’ Response to Reduced Federal Funds for Reading First................................. 30

Sustainable Elements of Reading First................................................................................ 32

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 33

References.................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix 1: Reading First Coordinator, Title I State Director, Reading or Literacy 

Coordinator Telephone Interview Protocol.............................................................................. 37

Management and Leadership..................................................................................... 39
Contents iv

Reading First Funding at the State Level .................................................................. 39

Reading First Student Achievement Data.................................................................. 40

Technical Assistance from State Reading First Program .......................................... 40

Outreach and Communication with Schools and Districts........................................ 41

Diversity of Reading Programs within the State ....................................................... 41

Long Term Sustainability of Reading First ............................................................... 42

Appendix 2: State Summary Profile Worksheet..................................................................... 43

Appendix 3: Description of Interview Data Collection ........................................................... 45

Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................... 45

Approach to Analysis ................................................................................................ 45
Contents v

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Number of Years as Reading First Director, 2008....................................................................11

Exhibit 2: Numbers of Primary and Reading First Schools, by State, 2005–06 School Year...................14

Exhibit 3: Number of RF Schools, by State, 2008.....................................................................................15

Exhibit 4: RF Elements RF Directors Report Were Adopted by Non-RF Schools, 2008 .........................26

Exhibit 5: Percent of RF Directors Reporting Collaborations Between RF and Other State Programs, 

2008...........................................................................................................................................28

Exhibit 6: RF Directors’ Planned Alternative Funding Sources for Reading First Schools and Districts, 

2008...........................................................................................................................................31

Exhibit 7: Elements of RF Reported by RF Directors as Sustainable, 2008..............................................33

Exhibit A2.1: State Summary Profile Worksheet ......................................................................................44
vi Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgments vii

Acknowledgments

The Reading First Implementation Study: 2008–09 directors would like to thank the state staff 

whose participation provided the data needed to conduct this important study. Their 

contributions to the study are deeply appreciated. We are the beneficiaries of their generosity of 

time and spirit.

The listed authors of this report represent only a small part of the team involved in this project. 

We would like to acknowledge the support of the following staff in collecting data and 

contributing to data analyses: Marc Moss, Don LaLiberty, Ken Lam, Yeqin He, Melanie BrownLyons, Eddie Breaux, Marjorie Levin, Stephanie Althoff, Kristina Kliorys, Eileen Fahey, Ellen 

Bobronnikov, and James Sutcliffe (Abt Associates) and Fran Hurley, Kathe Simons, and Craig 

Nicholls (Hezel Associates). 

The study has also benefited from external technical advisors, including: 

Howard Bloom

Chris Dwyer

Barbara Foorman

Cindy Gallagher

David Kaplan

J.R. Lockwood

Carol Perez

Tim Shanahan 

Catherine Snow
viii Acknowledgments

This page intentionally left blank.
Executive Summary ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This final report presents findings from the Reading First Implementation Study: 2008–09. It 

provides information on both the implementation and sustainability of the Reading First Program 

as of late 2008, and it follows two other major studies of the program commissioned by the U.S. 

Department of Education, as required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

of 2001.

The Reading First (RF) Program was first and foremost designed to improve young students’ 

reading skills, as reading proficiency is critical to students’ success in school. Students must be 

able to read and comprehend text well in order to master subject matter taught in various content 

areas. Disproportionately large numbers of minority and economically disadvantaged children 

struggle with learning to read, and their lack of reading skill in turn results in inadequate 

academic performance. For example, about half of all fourth-grade students eligible for free- or 

reduced-price lunches read at the Below Basic level on the 2009 (and the 2007) National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading Assessment,1 whereas only 20 percent of 

fourth-graders not eligible for the lunch program read at that level (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2007, 2010).

The Reading First Program

The Reading First Program provided resources to states (and from states to selected districts and 

schools) to improve reading instruction. The funding was to be used according to the program 

statute and guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Taken together, the 

guidance and the program’s authorizing statute describe several strategies states and local 

subgrantees were to use to improve students’ reading skills (ESEA, as amended, Title I, Part B, 

Subpart 1, Section 1202 (c)(7)(A)(IV)(2); Guidance for the Reading First Program, 2002). 

First, the curricula used in classrooms must reflect scientifically based reading research on the 

essential components of effective primary grade reading instruction: 1) phonemic awareness, 2) 

decoding/phonics, 3) reading fluency, 4) vocabulary, and 5) comprehension.

Second, states may and local subgrantees must offer comprehensive professional development on 

how teachers should work with academically struggling students, as well as how teachers can 

implement research-based reading instruction.

Third, the guidance addresses procedures for diagnosis and prevention of early reading 

difficulties through a) using valid, reliable measures to screen students; b) using empirically 

 

1

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 June 18, 2010, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp#grade4).
x

validated intensive interventions to help struggling students; and c) monitoring the progress of 

students experiencing difficulties to ensure that the early interventions are indeed effective.

In April 2002, ED invited state education agencies to apply for RF grants. State applications 

submitted to ED went through an expert review process that resulted in six-year awards 

dependent on demonstration of progress and congressional appropriations. All states and 

jurisdictions except Puerto Rico were awarded RF grants. Guam and the Northern Mariana 

Islands received grants through consolidated grants to the insular areas that may have been used, 

in part, for Reading First activities. States awarded subgrants to school districts based on a 

competitive process. The program statute required states to give priority to districts and schools 

with the greatest demonstrated need, in terms of student reading proficiency and poverty status.

The Reading First Program was initially funded at approximately $1 billion per year, with grants 

to states that ranged from $518,781 to $152,898,960 per year, and that supported between 14 and 

905 schools per state, totaling nearly 6,000 RF schools in over 1,800 school districts. In fiscal 

year 2008, the last year of funding for the program, Congress reduced the RF appropriation to 

$393 million, a cut of 61 percent.

Evaluating Reading First

The program’s authorizing legislation required ED to conduct an independent evaluation of the 

RF Program. Two major evaluations of Reading First have been completed: the Reading First 

Implementation Evaluation (U.S. Department of Education, 2008 and the Reading First Impact 

Study (Gamse, Jacob, Horst, Boulay and Unlu, 2008), respectively, provided evidence about the 

implementation and the impact of the program. Findings from those two studies indicated that 

reading instruction had changed in ways consistent with key program goals and strategies.2

The Reading First Implementation Evaluation was based on a nationally representative sample of 

Reading First (n=1,092) and non-RF Title I (n=541) schools, and it focused primarily on aspects 

of implementation at the school and classroom levels by comparing schools that had begun to 

implement RF-funded practices to a set of demographically similar non-funded schools. The 

study purposively included schools that had begun to implement RF at different points in time 

(as well as non-funded schools) to learn more about how long it took schools to implement the 

program. It found that reading instruction in RF schools differed from that in non-RF Title I 

schools in several ways, based on survey responses from principals, reading coaches, and 

classroom teachers in grades K, 1, 2 and 3. RF schools devoted more time to reading instruction 

in K–3 classrooms, and were more likely to: a) have reading coaches who assisted teachers in 

implementing their reading programs; b) use reading materials aligned with scientifically based 

reading research; c) use assessments to guide instruction; d) place struggling readers into 

intervention services; and e) have their teachers participate in reading-related professional 

development. RF schools also varied considerably in their choices of instructional programs and 

 

2

See the Reading First Implementation Evaluation: Final Report and Reading First Impact Study: Final Report, 

both released by the U.S. Department of Education.
Executive Summary xi

assessments, reflecting the program’s blend of federal guidelines that could be adapted to local 

circumstances.

The Implementation Evaluation found that RF teachers reported using instructional practices 

emphasized by the Reading First Program. It also found that, over time, teachers in other 

schools increasingly reported using similar practices, and that while significant differences 

reported between the two types of schools persisted, the differences diminished between 2004–

05 and 2006–07. Reading coaches and teachers in non-RF Title I schools reported increased 

prevalence (over a two-year period) of activities aligned with the principles of Reading First, 

including: a) providing assistance to struggling readers, b) developing teacher knowledge and 

use of materials and strategies aligned with scientifically based reading research, and c) 

facilitating staff participation in professional development in the five components of reading 

instruction emphasized by Reading First (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and 

comprehension). The Implementation Evaluation found that RF teachers characterized all five 

components of reading as central to their instruction more frequently than their non-RF Title I 

counterparts. However, the large majority of teachers in both RF and non-RF Title I schools 

consistently reported that scientifically based instruction in all five components of reading 

instruction was central to their teaching. The Implementation Evaluation also examined student 

achievement in RF and non-RF Title I schools, using extant state achievement test scores in third 

and fourth grades. These analyses found statistically significant yet modest evidence that in 

some states, RF schools gained between 2 and 3 percentage points more, on average, from preRF to post-RF implementation than non-RF Title I schools on the proportion of students who 

met state standards on proficiency tests (in 12 of 24 states in grade 3, and in six of 17 states in 

grade 4).

The Reading First Impact Study was based on a rigorous quasi-experimental design, regression 

discontinuity (RD), and it included both RF (n=125) and comparison schools (n=123) in 18 sites

(17 RD and one randomized controlled trial), each of which had equal numbers of RF and 

comparison schools. It was designed primarily to assess the impact of the program on classroom 

instruction and student reading achievement. Findings about instructional practices in reading 

were based on direct observations of reading instruction in grades 1 and 2. The study found 

significant differences in classroom instruction between the RF and comparison classrooms; 

specifically, RF teachers spent significantly more instructional time on the five components of 

reading emphasized by Reading First. Both RF and comparison teachers spent significantly 

more time teaching comprehension and decoding than the other component skills.

The Impact Study also fielded surveys about instructional practices and supports, using the same 

survey items as used in the Implementation Evaluation. Survey findings indicated evidence of 

positive and statistically significant impacts on multiple practices promoted by the Reading First 

Program, including professional development in scientifically based reading instruction (SBRI), 

support from full-time reading coaches, extended amount of reading instruction, and supports 

available for struggling readers.
xii

Finally, the Impact Study examined student reading performance, and found no evidence that 

Reading First had a statistically significant impact on student reading comprehension test scores 

in grades 1, 2, or 3 across the three years of the study. The study found a statistically significant 

and positive impact on first-grade students’ decoding skills in the third year of the study, 

although that finding applied only to one grade and one of three years of data collection. Impacts 

on students’ reading achievement were based upon assessments administered directly by the

research team.

The current study, the Reading First Implementation Study: 2008–09, builds on and addresses 

issues with the prior two. The previous studies focused on school-level outcomes and not on 

districts or states, both of which played active roles in the implementation of the program. The 

current study was designed, in part, to address questions about what lessons can be learned from 

the Reading First Program. It includes an examination of ongoing or sustained implementation 

of the program (at the state level), which was a particularly salient issue because, when the 

current study began in September 2007, Congress had begun deliberations about eliminating 

funding for the program. In addition, this study sought to examine patterns of student 

achievement for students who had progressed beyond the third grade, the latest grade served by 

the program; ultimately such analyses were not feasible due to data limitations.

The current study was designed to answer two broad sets of questions, each focusing on a 

different aspect of sustainability of the program. The first set of questions includes the 

following: What are states’ planned responses to the Reading First budget reduction? and 

Which RF program elements do state-level staff believe can be sustained beyond Reading First? 

These questions address the planned and likely sustainability of the program from the 

perspective of state-level program administrators.3 The Reading First Program represented a 

significant federal investment in primary education, and even though funding for the program 

itself has since been eliminated, it may still be of interest to policymakers and educational 

practitioners to learn which specific program elements state directors believed were sustainable.

The second set of questions includes the following: Does student achievement in later grades 

differ for students exposed to Reading First in K–3 compared with students in Title I Schoolwide 

Program (SWP)4schools? and Is there evidence that patterns of student achievement observed 

for students in RF schools were also observed in students in non-RF Title I SWP schools in RF 

districts? These questions address the potential for delayed program effects on students by 

examining patterns of student performance after students have completed the targeted grades. As 

noted above, because of data limitations, the study was unable to address these questions.

 

3 Reference to states throughout this report also implicitly refers to territories and jurisdictions.

4 Title I Schoolwide Programs operate in schools in which not less that 40 percent of students are from lowincome families. See ESEA, 2001, Title I, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 1114 (a)(1)
Executive Summary xiii

In addition, because the Reading First Program encouraged funded states and districts to offer 

services, such as professional development, both to schools designated as Reading First 

subgrantee schools as well as to other (not funded) schools and districts, the question of whether 

aspects of program implementation ―spilled over‖ to all non-funded schools in RF districts has

always been important. The current study attempted to address spillover and contamination 

questions directly by asking whether the absence of effects observed in earlier evaluations of RF 

schools may have reflected spillover of practices and potentially achievement patterns in 

comparison schools. However, due to data limitations, the current study was unable to report on 

these questions.

This report therefore addresses the first set of study questions—about states’ planned responses 

to the RF budget reduction and describes state-level staff expectations about which RF program 

elements can be sustained with reduced funding levels—using interviews conducted with statelevel staff in fall 2008. At that point, some states had already experienced budget reductions and 

could therefore describe actual events, while others had yet to experience budget cuts and could 

therefore only describe anticipated changes. It is important, however, to note that interviews 

were conducted prior to the enactment of the fiscal year 2009 budget and the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). By significantly expanding Title I funding, ARRA could 

potentially alter resources and funding available to support reading programs in ways not 

anticipated by respondents.

Summary of Key Findings

Implementation of the Reading First Program

The Reading First Program provided funding for 5,880 schools in 1,809 districts across the 54 

states and territories (US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the 

District of Columbia). The Department of Education awarded Reading First funding to states 

between July 2002 and September 2003, and states subsequently awarded funds to districts. 

Because the Department of Education made awards on a rolling basis, states were at different 

points in their six-year grant cycles when interviews were conducted with state Reading First, 

Title I, and reading or literacy directors. In fall 2008, 50 percent of RF directors reported that 

their states were being affected by the 61 percent budget cuts to the RF Program in school year 

2008–09. The remaining RF directors reported they would not be affected by the budget cuts 

until the 2009–10 school year or later. As a result, responses to interview questions about the 

effects of the budget reductions were answered according to states’ (then) current funding status; 

some states were already experiencing reduced funding, and others responded by hypothesizing 

how the reduction in funding would affect them in the future.

The Reading First Program operated in a variety of departmental and organizational contexts, yet 

the states’ RF directors all described their job responsibilities similarly. Their responsibilities 

included administering competitions for RF funding, allocating RF funds, providing professional 

development, outreaching to non-RF schools, and monitoring RF evaluation data. For the 
xiv

majority of RF directors, managing the RF program represented their primary responsibility and 

occupied the majority of their professional time.

At the state level, the RF program experienced substantial changes in leadership over its six-year 

history. For example, only about 17 states (one-third) had had the same leadership over that sixyear period, and 37 states had had more than two RF directors. At the operational level, 

however, there was remarkable continuity, as 98 percent of districts awarded subgrants at the 

outset of the program were still implementing the RF program in fall 2008, and less than four 

percent of schools had exited the RF program.

The Reading First Program was designed to improve student reading achievement, specifically 

through reliance on student performance data. Almost all state interview respondents (91 

percent) reported that the RF leadership was the primary state-level user of RF data. Both RF 

state staff and other personnel reported that the overall capacity to use data had improved, 

primarily at the district and school levels. Specifically, principals and teachers in RF schools 

received and used their own school-level data. Additionally, two-thirds of state RF directors 

reported releasing data to school principals of all of their state’s RF schools. Substantial 

proportions of Reading First directors, Title I directors, and states’ reading representatives also 

reported that school capacity to use data had improved (96, 49 and 63 percent, respectively).

Reading First funds were used to support improved instruction in both RF-funded districts and 

schools as well as in non-funded districts and schools. RF directors reported that offering RFrelated professional development was the most common form of outreach to non-RF districts and 

schools, and that multiple RF practices were being adopted in non-RF districts and schools, 

including:

 Professional development (94 percent)

 Assessment and progress monitoring (63 percent)

 Materials and curricula (59 percent)

 Uninterrupted reading blocks (39 percent)

 Interventions for struggling readers (31 percent)

 Reading coaches (30 percent).

Anticipated Changes to Implementation After Budget Cuts

Over three-quarters (76 percent) of RF directors anticipated a reduction in state technical 

assistance, specifically a reduction in availability of professional development both for RF and 

non-RF districts and schools. However, many also acknowledged that several elements of 

Reading First would be worth sustaining:

 Use of reading coaches (56 percent)

 RF materials and curricula (39 percent)

 Data-driven instruction (35 percent)
Executive Summary xv

 Use of assessments (35 percent) 

 Scientifically based reading instruction (33 percent).

Approximately one-third of RF directors reported that some RF program elements would likely 

be sustained through inclusion in state standards or new literacy or early learning programs; six 

of the 54 states and territories interviewed reported plans to support additional RF cohorts of 

subgrantees. However, two-thirds (67 percent) of states anticipated that they would need 

alternative sources of funding (e.g., Title I, special education) to support their RF-related 

activities. Further, more than one-third (39 percent) of RF directors explicitly stated it was 

unrealistic to sustain RF using other state funds due to financial shortfalls in all aspects of states’ 

budgets.

Achievement Data Limitations

The study planned to use a difference in differences approach to estimate the difference between 

the actual achievement of students who had attended RF schools and their predicted 

achievement, which is based on achievement data collected both prior to RF and from students in 

non-RF schools. Data were obtained from 15 states that had collected and maintained individual 

student achievement and enrollment data over a continuous span of time that began at least one 

year before the Reading First Program was implemented in that state. The study sought to use 

data from Title I schoolwide program (SWP) schools to provide a comparison group for the RF 

schools, as the SWP schools served similar populations of students as did RF schools: students 

who were economically disadvantaged and often underperforming. However, students attending 

RF schools were consistently lower-performing, and more economically disadvantaged, on 

average, than students attending Title I SWP schools, since—by definition—RF schools were 

those schools serving the lowest-performing and most disadvantaged students in their respective 

districts. Therefore, it was not possible to construct a comparison group that was sufficiently 

well-matched to the RF study sample to support credible estimates of program impacts, and this 

report does not present any results from student achievement analyses.

Conclusions

Fall 2008 interviews with RF directors, Title I directors, and reading representatives across the 

54 states and territories suggested that state staff recognized the immediate need to cut aspects of 

their RF Programs as a result of the 61 percent budget reduction, and that without sufficient 

funding in the future, the program would eventually be dismantled. Yet states also varied in both 

their responses to actual and anticipated federal RF budget cuts and their perceptions about the 

sustainability of specific RF practices. In some states, staff reported efforts to integrate Reading 

First into ongoing reading programs or states’ Response to Intervention programs (RTI); other 

state staff predicted that RF would likely disappear without direct federal funding and leadership. 

Cross-state variation in aspects of implementation and sustainability also reflected differences in 

states’ local contexts. States differed in terms of infrastructure, leadership, resources, and 

multiple other factors that influenced program implementation and likely sustainability. Despite 
xvi

the variation, however, there were consistencies in what states reported about the program as 

implemented and its legacy.

The study’s findings are timely, as policymakers and legislators are considering strategies and 

policies for both current and future federal investments in literacy (e.g., Title I, Part A). A future

reexamination of Reading First’s implementation and rollout, as well as its focus, may contribute 

to future programs designed to improve students’ reading and academic achievement, perhaps by 

providing more information on the extent of implementation, including the role of instruction in 

specific components of reading skill.
Chapter 1: Study Overview 1

CHAPTER 1: STUDY OVERVIEW

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001 (PL 107-110) established the 

Reading First (RF) Program (Title I, Part B, Subpart 1) to address the fact that substantial 

numbers of children were not developing adequate reading skills. The overarching goal of the 

legislation was to ensure that all children could read at or above grade level by the end of third 

grade. With the exception of Title I funding, which supports general reading activities for 

children in low-income schools, the Reading First Program was substantially larger and both 

more ambitious and explicit in its guidance than any previous school-based early literacy 

initiative undertaken in the U.S.

The legislation required the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to contract with an outside 

entity to conduct an evaluation of the RF Program. ED contracted with Abt Associates Inc. to 

conduct the third national evaluation of the Reading First Program, called the Reading First 

Implementation Study: 2008-09.5This study began in fall 2007 and built upon an earlier 

implementation study.

The Reading First Program

Reading First was designed to improve young students’ reading skills, as reading proficiency is 

critical to students’ success in school.6 Students must be able to read and comprehend text well 

in order to master subject matter taught in various content areas. Disproportionately large 

numbers of minority and economically disadvantaged children struggle with learning to read, 

and their lack of reading skill in turn results in inadequate academic performance. For example, 

about half of all fourth-grade students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunches read at the 

Below Basic level on the 2009 (and the 2007) National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) Reading Assessment7 whereas only about 20 percent of fourth-graders not eligible for 

the lunch program read at that level (U.S. Department of Education, 2010; 2007).

The Reading First Program was intended to promote instructional practices that prior research 

had found effective (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 2001). Taken together, the 

guidance and the program’s authorizing statute describe several strategies states and local 

subgrantees were to use to improve students’ reading skills (ESEA, as amended, Title I, Part B, 

 

5 The other two evaluations include the Reading First Implementation Evaluation and the Reading First Impact 

Study, both conducted by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Education.

6 Note that Title I, Part A, supports reading instruction and Title I funding could therefore be used to support 

teaching essential components of reading instruction.

7

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).
2 Chapter 1: Study Overview

Subpart 1, Section 1202 (c)(7)(A)(IV)(2); Guidance for the Reading First Program, 2002). 

First, the curricula used in classrooms must reflect scientifically based reading research on the 

essential components of effective primary grade reading instruction: 1) phonemic awareness, 2) 

phonics, 3) reading fluency, 4) vocabulary, and 5) comprehension.

Second, the states may and local subgrantees must offer comprehensive teacher professional 

development on the implementation of scientifically based reading practices; states were required 

to offer comprehensive professional development on how teachers should work with 

academically struggling students as well as how teachers could implement research-based 

reading instruction.

Third, the guidance addressed procedures for diagnosis and prevention of early reading 

difficulties through a) using valid, reliable measures to screen students; b) using empirically 

validated intensive interventions to help struggling students; and c) monitoring the progress of 

students experiencing difficulties to ensure that the early interventions are indeed effective.

In April 2002, ED invited state education agencies to apply for RF grants. State applications 

submitted to ED went through an expert review process that resulted in six-year awards 

dependent on demonstration of progress and congressional appropriations. All states and 

jurisdictions except Puerto Rico were awarded RF grants.8 Guam and the Northern Mariana 

Islands received grants through consolidated grants to the insular areas that may have been used, 

in part, for Reading First activities. States then awarded subgrants to school districts based on a 

competitive process. The program statute required states to give priority to districts and schools 

with the greatest demonstrated need, in terms of student reading proficiency and poverty status.

The program began funding states (and in turn districts and schools) as of July 2002, and

program implementation began immediately.

The Reading First Program provided detailed guidance to states (and through states to districts 

and schools) about implementing the activities described above. However, states could and did 

select different instructional materials, assessments, and types and providers of professional 

development. States were able to heed the federal Reading First Guidance and simultaneously 

make decisions based on local priorities.

Initially, the Reading First Program was funded at approximately $1 billion per year, with grants 

to states that ranged from $518,781 to $152,898,960 per year, and that supported between 14 and 

905 schools per state, totaling nearly 6,000 RF schools in approximately 1,900 school districts. 

In Fiscal 2008, the last year of funding for the program, however, Congress reduced the annual 

RF budget to $393 million, a cut of 61 percent.

 

8 Guam and Northern Mariana Islands received grants through consolidated grants to the insular areas.
Chapter 1: Study Overview 3

Evaluations of Reading First

Findings from two major evaluation reports on Reading First provided evidence that reading 

instruction had changed in ways consistent with key program goals and strategies, although the 

more rigorously designed Reading First Impact Study found no evidence of statistically 

significant impacts on students’ reading comprehension, and the Reading First Implementation 

Evaluation found weak evidence of improved reading achievement but with a considerably 

weaker design.

9

 In particular, the Reading First Implementation Evaluation found that reading 

instruction in RF schools differed from that in non-RF Title I schools in several ways, based on 

survey responses from principals, reading coaches, and classroom teachers in grades K, 1, 2 and 

3. RF schools devoted more time to reading instruction in K–3 classrooms and were more likely 

to: a) have reading coaches who assisted teachers in implementing their reading programs; b) use 

reading materials aligned with scientifically based reading research; c) use assessments to guide 

instruction; d) place struggling readers into intervention services; and e) have their teachers 

participate in reading-related professional development. RF schools also varied considerably in 

their choices of instructional programs and assessments, reflecting the program’s dual emphasis 

on federal guidelines and local flexibility.

The Reading First Implementation Evaluation was based on a nationally representative sample of 

Reading First (n=1,092) and non-RF Title I (n=541) schools, and it focused primarily on aspects 

of implementation at the school and classroom levels by comparing schools that had begun to 

implement RF-funded practices to a set of demographically similar non-funded schools. The 

study purposively included schools that had begun to implement RF at different points in time 

(as well as non-funded schools) to learn more about how long it took schools to implement the 

program. It found that reading instruction in RF schools differed from that in non-RF Title I 

schools in several ways, based on survey responses from principals, reading coaches, and 

classroom teachers in grades K, 1, 2 and 3. RF schools devoted more time to reading instruction 

in K–3 classrooms and were more likely to: a) have reading coaches who assisted teachers in 

implementing their reading programs; b) use reading materials aligned with scientifically based 

reading research; c) use assessments to guide instruction; d) place struggling readers into 

intervention services; and e) have their teachers participate in reading-related professional 

development. RF schools also varied considerably in their choices of instructional programs and 

assessments, reflecting the program’s blend of federal guidelines that could be adapted to local 

circumstances.

The Implementation Evaluation found that RF teachers reported using instructional practices 

emphasized by the Reading First Program. It also found that, over time, teachers in other 

schools increasingly reported using similar practices, and that while significant differences 

reported between the two types of schools persisted, the differences diminished between 2004–

05 and 2006–07. Reading coaches and teachers in non-RF Title I schools reported increased 

prevalence (over a two-year period) of activities aligned with the principles of Reading First, 

 

9 The two reports are Reading First Implementation Evaluation Final Report and Reading First Impact Study: 

Final Report, both released by the U.S. Department of Education.
4 Chapter 1: Study Overview

including: a) providing assistance to struggling readers, b) developing teacher knowledge and 

use of materials and strategies aligned with scientifically based reading research, and c) 

facilitating staff participation in professional development in the five components of reading 

instruction emphasized by Reading First (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and 

comprehension). The Implementation Evaluation found that RF teachers characterized all five 

components of reading as central to their instruction more frequently than their non-RF Title I 

counterparts. However, the large majority of teachers in both RF and non-RF Title I schools 

consistently reported that scientifically based instruction in all five components of reading 

instruction was central to their teaching. The Implementation Evaluation also examined student 

achievement in RF and non-RF Title I schools, using extant state achievement test scores in third

and fourth grades. These analyses found statistically significant yet modest evidence that in 

some states, RF schools gained between 2 and 3 percentage points more, on average, from preRF to post-RF implementation than non-RF Title I schools on the proportion of students who 

met state standards on proficiency tests (in 12 of 24 states in grade 3, and in six of 17 states in 

grade 4).

The Reading First Impact Study was based on a rigorous quasi-experimental design, regression 

discontinuity (RD), and it included both RF (n=125) and comparison schools (n=123) in 18 sites 

(17 RD and one randomized controlled trial), each of which had equal numbers of RF and 

comparison schools. It was designed primarily to assess the impact of the program on classroom 

instruction and student reading achievement. Findings about instructional practices in reading 

were based on direct observations of reading instruction in grades 1 and 2, and findings about 

student achievement were based upon direct assessments of students by the research team.

The study found significant differences in classroom instruction between the RF and comparison 

classrooms; specifically, RF teachers spent significantly more instructional time on the five 

components of reading emphasized by Reading First. Both RF and comparison teachers spent 

significantly more time teaching comprehension and decoding than the other component skills. 

The Impact Study also fielded surveys, using the same survey items as used in the 

Implementation Evaluation. Survey findings indicated evidence of positive and statistically 

significant impacts on multiple practices promoted by the Reading First Program, including 

professional development in scientifically based reading instruction (SBRI), support from fulltime reading coaches, extended amount of reading instruction, and supports available for 

struggling readers.

The evidence about impacts on classroom instruction did not translate into observed differences 

in students’ reading comprehension. The Impact Study found no evidence that Reading First had 

a statistically significant impact on student reading comprehension test scores in grades 1, 2, or 3

across the three years of the study. The study found a statistically significant and positive impact 

on first grade students’ decoding skills in the third year of the study, although that finding 

applied only to one grade and one of three years of data collection.

In September 2007, ED’s Policy and Program Studies Service initiated the current evaluation, 

the Reading First Implementation Study: 2008—2009. The evaluation began before Congress 
Chapter 1: Study Overview 5

reduced the program’s budget and then eliminated funding altogether. Given that the program 

no longer exists, one could ask whether an evaluation of Reading First is relevant and potentially 

useful for educational policy and early reading research. While the Reading First Program itself 

has been eliminated, it is likely that there will be other federal literacy initiatives (e.g., the 

Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation legislation10), or that reauthorization of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act will include an explicit focus on literacy. There may 

be policy lessons derived from both the implementation and observed impacts of the Reading 

First Program on students’ reading comprehension that could apply to both current and future 

federal investments in literacy (e.g., Title I, Part A), particularly for programs that combine wellarticulated federal guidance with local interpretation. There may also be lessons about the 

content of the Reading First Program, which was based on a strong foundation of evidence about 

early reading instruction, yet the findings from prior research had not been tested as a coherent 

program before Reading First was launched on a national scale. The current study was designed 

to address questions about what lessons can be learned about sustainability from the Reading 

First Program. The study’s design features are summarized below.

Study Design

The study was initially designed to answer two sets of broad questions, each focusing on a 

different aspect of sustainability. The first set of questions included the following: What are 

states’ planned responses to the Reading First budget reduction? and Which RF program 

elements do state-level staff believe can be sustained beyond Reading First? These questions 

address the planned and likely sustainability of the program from the perspective of state-level 

program administrators. The Reading First Program represented a significant federal investment 

in primary education, and even though funding for the program itself has since been eliminated, 

it may still be of interest to policymakers and educational practitioners may be able to learn 

which specific program elements were deemed sustainable from state directors.

The second set of questions included the following: Does student achievement in later grades 

differ for students exposed to Reading First in K–3 compared with students in Title I Schoolwide 

Program (SWP)11 schools? and Is there evidence that patterns of student achievement observed 

for students in RF schools were also observed in non-RF Title I SWP schools in RF districts? 

These questions address the delay of program effects by examining patterns of student 

performance after students have completed the targeted grades.

The study sought to use data from Title I SWP schools to provide a comparison group. Such 

schools served similar populations of students as did RF schools: students who were 

economically disadvantaged and often underperforming. However, students attending RF 

schools were consistently lower-performing, and more economically disadvantaged, on average, 

 

10 See summary of proposed LEARN legislation at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-

2740&tab=summary.

11 Title I Schoolwide Programs operate in schools in which not less that 40 percent of students are from lowincome families. See ESEA, 2001, Title I, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 1114 (a)(1)
6 Chapter 1: Study Overview

than students attending Title I SWP schools, since—by definition—RF schools were those 

schools serving the lowest-performing and most disadvantaged students in their respective 

districts. It was therefore not possible to construct a comparison group that was sufficiently 

well-matched to the RF study sample to support credible estimates of program impacts.

State Interviews

This final report addresses questions based on interviews with state RF directors, Title I 

directors, and other state-level personnel responsible for statewide reading decisions in the fall of 

2008 (from all states and territories, including the District of Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, 

U.S. Virgin Islands and the Bureau of Indian Affairs), that received RF grants. In the fall of 

2008, the study team interviewed key state staff in all states, including the state RF director, as 

well as the state Title I director and a state reading representative. As described above, by the 

fall of 2008, the RF Program had already experienced substantial reductions in funding, and the 

program seemed likely to face elimination. With that context in mind, the interviews provided 

information about key district and state policies that affected reading instruction in both RF and 

comparison schools, as well as information about states’ responses to changes in federal support 

for Reading First. The interviews included questions on the following topics:

 Management and leadership of Reading First

 RF funding at the state level

 Relationship and coordination of Reading First with other state-level initiatives and 

programs

 Reading First Data on Student Reading Performance

 Outreach to non-Reading First districts and schools

 Variation and divergence across districts between RF and non-RF schools’ reading 

instruction

 Long term sustainability of Reading First

Interviews were completed with the state personnel responsible for overseeing the Reading First 

programs in their respective states, the 54 RF state-level directors, as well as other individuals 

with state-level responsibility for elementary reading programs and oversight of the state-level 

Title I program (47 State Title I directors and 32 state reading, language arts, or literacy 

directors, respectively). Data from state interviews were analyzed to address the topics 

summarized above, using qualitative techniques as well as some simple descriptive analyses.

The Organization of This Report

The report includes two chapters. Chapter 1 reviews the context for the study, the RF legislation, 

and the study design. Chapter 2 addresses the study’s evaluation questions about sustainability 

using findings from interviews with state Reading First and other personnel.
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 7

CHAPTER 2: STATE RESPONSES TO READING FIRST BUDGET 

REDUCTION AND SUSTAINABLE PROGRAM ELEMENTS

This chapter addresses the first set of evaluation questions: What were states’ planned responses 

to the Reading First budget reduction?, and Which RF program elements did staff believe could 

be sustained beyond Reading First funding? To answer these questions, the study conducted 

interviews with key state staff in all states, including the state Reading First directors, state 

Title I directors, and state reading or literacy directors (e.g., state reading, language arts, or 

literacy directors who had oversight of early grades’ reading instruction). Note that references to 

states throughout this report also subsume references to territories and jurisdictions, and Guam 

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

that may have been used, in part, for Reading First activities. The interviews provided 

information about key district and state policies that affected reading instruction in both RF and 

comparison schools, as well as information about states’ responses to reductions in federal 

funding for Reading First.

Key Findings 

 There was considerable variation in RF program operations, in the planned program changes as a 

result of reduced federal funding, and predictions about which elements of RF programs would likely 

be sustained.

 50 percent of RF directors were affected by federal budget cuts in fiscal year 2008–09; others were 

anticipating substantial changes in 2009–10 or later.

 76 percent of RF directors anticipated reduction in state TA (specifically in availability of professional 

development for RF and non-RF districts and schools).

 67 percent of RF directors anticipated that their states would seek alternative federal funds to support 

RF-related activities (e.g., Title I, special education funds).

 Nearly all of RF directors (91 percent) indicated that they themselves and other RF leaders were 

primary users of RF evaluation data.

 State staff reported improved capacity to use data at district and school levels.

 RF directors reported that the primary form of outreach to non-RF schools and districts was via RFrelated professional development.

 RF directors reported that a variety of teaching strategies being implemented with RF funds were 

likely to be sustained, funds permitting:

o Use of reading coaches (56 percent)

o RF materials and curricula (39 percent)

o Data-driven instruction (35 percent)

o Use of assessments (35 percent)

o Scientifically based reading instruction (33 percent)

 One-third of RF directors reported that sustaining RF elements could occur through state standards 

or new literacy or early learning programs.

 More than one-third (39 percent) of RF directors said it was unrealistic to expect that RF would be 

sustained using other state funds.
8 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements

Interviews were conducted in the fall of 2008. At the time, all state staff knew that federal 

funding for the program was sharply curtailed; however, because the program began funding 

states at different points between July 2002 and September 2003, states were at different points 

in their six-year grant cycles. Half of the states were already (in fall 2008) operating their

programs with reduced federal RF budgets; the other states were expecting reductions to take 

effect in the next school year (or even later).12 Before describing the data collection and analysis 

in more detail, the text below reviews key features of the Reading First Program that may have 

influenced states’ experiences.

The Reading First Program provided funding to states to carry out scientifically based reading 

programs that reflected both common guidance and local flexibility. The Department of 

Education issued guidance to states (which were then translated into guidelines for districts and 

schools) about how resources could be used. States could allocate funds flexibly, by allocating 

resources up to statutory maximums rather than on a strictly formulaic basis to different 

categories of spending (e.g., subgrants to districts, materials, assessments, and professional 

development). Specifically, states were required to use at least 80 percent of their award funds to 

provide subgrants to local school districts, and states could reserve up to 20 percent of their 

Reading First funds to support staff development, technical assistance to non-funded districts and 

schools, and planning, administration and reporting. Further, once the Department of Education 

approved their grant applications, states were able to make their own decisions about choices 

within given categories (e.g., which materials, reading programs, assessments, and professional 

development providers made sense in their respective local contexts). As a result, states varied 

considerably in their RF activities, programs, and resources.

Data Collection and Analysis

The following chapter outlines the approach to answering the first set of evaluation questions: 

What were states’ planned responses to the Reading First budget reduction and Which RF 

program elements did staff believe could be sustained beyond Reading First funding?

To answer these questions, the study conducted interviews with key state staff in all states, 

including the state Reading First directors, state Title I directors, and state reading or literacy

directors (see Appendix 1 for a copy of the interview protocol). The interviews provided 

information about key district and state policies that affected reading instruction in both RF and 

comparison schools, as well as information about states’ responses to reductions in federal 

funding for Reading First. The study team summarized the data gathered from these interviews 

using a combination of qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques (see Appendix 2).

There are limitations inherent to using qualitative interviewing. The precision of the information 

obtained through interviews depends on the willingness and ability of respondents to provide 

complete and accurate responses. Given the seriousness of the budgetary implications for the 

 

12 States may also have begun to experience budget issues unrelated to reductions in Reading First funding, as the 

economy nationally experienced substantial contraction in the fall of 2008.
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 9

Reading First directors—including the possibility that their positions could be eliminated—they 

likely faced more pressure than Title I or reading or literacy directors, and their responses could 

well have reflected biases related to program continuity. The study completed interviews with 

all of the Reading First directors, and only a subset of Title I and reading or literacy directors. 

Another limitation was the considerable variation in the Reading First directors’ experience and 

program knowledge. Some Reading First directors had held their positions for nearly six years; 

others for less than one year, resulting in differences in the depth and quality of their knowledge. 

The information obtained about state and district policies and responses to reductions in funding 

for the Reading First Program may have been affected by respondent experience and knowledge. 

Finally, due to the differences between states in the timing of RF awards, some were already 

implementing their Reading First Programs under the 61 percent budget reduction while others 

were anticipating the reductions. As a result, responses to questions about the effects of funding 

cuts were answered quite differently by those who could comment about actual operations than 

those who were predicting what their states would do at some point in the future.

Measures

State Profile Summaries

Prior to interviewing state staff, the study team prepared state profile summaries to organize the 

most recent data available in fall 2008 (when interviews were conducted) on states’ RF 

implementation. These data were gathered from a variety of sources: state websites, a database 

about Reading First that was maintained by the Southeast Regional Educational Laboratory 

(SEDL), previously submitted Annual Performance Reports, and other publically available 

sources of information. State websites typically had information about resources available for 

teachers and schools, upcoming (and in some instances, recently provided) professional 

development and technical assistance, assessments, and reports or results. Some state websites 

also had lists of the funded districts and schools. The SEDL website provided information about 

district award dates (last updated in June 2007). The Annual Performance Report data, 

accessible through ED, summarized information on the specific assessments each state used to 

report performance for its Reading First schools.

This pre interview data review helped prevent the collection of duplicative information from 

state staff, and allowed the study team to use interview time to efficiently verify and update the 

information already on hand. The study team created state-specific summary profile worksheets

that included information on the amount and timing of RF funding, number of districts and 

schools in each state, number of cohorts awarded, required assessments, resources available for 

RF and non-RF districts, and available reports and evaluation data (Appendix 3).

State Interview Protocol

The state interview protocols collected information through semi-structured telephone 

interviews, using a combination of scripted open-ended and follow-up prompts.

As described in more detail below, the interview questions asked about such topics as state-level 

management and leadership of Reading First, Reading First funding, the relationship and 
10 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements

coordination of Reading First with other state-level reading initiatives and programs, uses of 

Reading First data, outreach to non-Reading First districts and schools, and the long-term 

sustainability of Reading First. The state interviews intentionally included more Reading First–

specific questions for the states’ RF directors.

The state interview protocol covered the following topics:

 Management and leadership of Reading First. Background and responsibilities of the 

state coordinator.

 RF funding at the state level. How many rounds of funding states awarded to districts

or schools; whether (and if so why) any districts and schools withdrew from participation 

in RF before their funding ran out; planning for future RF funds and cohorts; staff 

stability or turnover.

 Relationship and coordination of Reading First with other state-level initiatives and 

programs. Whether and how Reading First was coordinated or integrated with other 

state-level reading-related initiatives.

 Reading First Data on Student Reading Performance. How the state prepared its RF 

data and to whom the state made it available; who used such data; decisions that were 

influenced by these data about professional development, technical assistance, district 

and school performance, future funding; observed changes and variation in state, district, 

and school capacity to use data.

 Outreach to non–Reading First districts and schools. Structure of outreach to non-RF 

districts and schools; topics of interest to non-RF districts and schools.

 Variation and divergence across districts between RF and non-RF schools’ reading 

instruction. Similarities or differences within the state’s RF districts; full scale district 

implementation of Reading First across all four grades at once or staggered 

implementation; level of flexibility for RF district-level decision-making about reading 

instruction (similarities or differences in reading instruction, requirements for a reading 

block, support from a coach, etc., at RF and non-RF schools.)

 Long term sustainability of Reading First. Aspects of the RF program that were likely 

to persist in the wake of reduced (or eliminated) RF funding.

Administration of State Reading First Programs

The following section summarizes findings on the administration of states’ Reading First 

programs, focusing on the time period prior to the budget cuts for the 54 states and jurisdictions 

that had been awarded RF grants. Data are based on telephone interviews with state RF 

directors, Title I directors, and reading representatives (state-level personnel responsible for 

statewide reading decisions).
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 11

Characteristics of State Reading First Program Directors and Education Agencies 

Length of Service 

The U.S. Department of Education began approving state-level Reading First Program 

applications in 2002. All applications, with the exception of one, were approved by the end of 

2003. Thus, 53 out of 54 RF programs had been active for five to six years in fall 2008. In 16 

states (30 percent), Reading First directors had held that position for six or more years (Exhibit 

1). RF directors in 12 states (23 percent) reported that they had been in that position for one year 

or less. Reading First directors in the remaining states, approximately half, reported being in 

their positions for two to five years. RF directors with less experience also have had less 

historical or institutional knowledge of their respective state RF program than those with more 

experience. This difference may have been reflected in their responses to interview questions 

that ask about programmatic changes over the course of the five- to six-year period. 

Exhibit 1: Number of Years as Reading First Director, 2008 

EXHIBIT READS: Twenty-three percent of the 53 responding Reading First directors reported having served as RF 

director for one year or less. 

Source: Interviews with RF and other state personnel.

Reading First Directors' Responsibilities and Time Spent on the Reading First Program 

Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of state RF directors reported spending 90 percent or more of 

their time on Reading First. Their responsibilities typically included administering competitions 

for RF funding; developing budget allocations; conducting professional development; providing 

outreach to non-RF schools; and monitoring RF evaluation data. Their specific roles ranged 

from direct involvement at the school or classroom level to oversight of external consultants or 

internal RF program staff whose primary responsibility was for a particular aspect of the 

program. Those RF directors whose portfolios included multiple program areas (in addition to 

Reading First) reported having responsibility for allied program areas, such as early literacy, 

Title I, and other literacy-related programs. 
12 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 

 Competitions for RF Funding: Most RF directors (80 percent) reported having been 

involved in the competition for the RF funding process in some capacity, as a state 

employee. Those who had not been involved had assumed their role as state RF director 

after their respective states’ grant competition had been completed. 

 Budgets and Funding Allocations: In determining budgets and funding allocations, RF 

directors’ responsibilities ranged from oversight of a grant manager or administrator 

responsible for budgeting and funding allocation to annual review and approval of state 

and school district RF budgets. 

 Professional Development Activities: Involvement of RF directors in professional 

development varied more widely than for other tasks. Reported roles included planning 

professional development activities at the state or local level; providing oversight of 

professional development providers (external contractors and/or internal RF staff); 

designing and leading professional development activities with state reading staff, school 

leaders, reading coaches or classroom teachers; training professional development 

providers as part of a ―train the trainers‖ model; coordinating professional development 

efforts with other state offices (particularly Special Education and English Learner (EL) 

offices); and communicating professional development offerings to districts and schools. 

 Outreach to non–Reading First Districts: The primary outreach activity reported by 

almost all RF directors (96 percent) was to extend invitations to professional 

development activities to non-RF personnel. The majority of RF directors actively 

recruited at non-RF schools, inviting personnel to attend RF professional development 

offerings. Others provided oversight to ensure that RF districts conducted outreach by 

making presentations or distributing newsletters. 

 Monitoring Reading First Evaluation Data: Reading First directors’ monitoring 

responsibilities included oversight of staff responsible for monitoring evaluation data; 

frequent, direct monitoring of data to plan professional development activities; 

completion of Annual Performance Reports; monitoring progress of individual schools; 

provision of technical assistance to districts and schools in how to use and interpret 

assessment results; and coordination with external evaluators. Almost half of the RF 

directors explicitly reported working with an external evaluator on monitoring evaluation 

data. 

State Organizational Structure and Coordination Between Offices 

The organization of state offices can have significant implications for interoffice communication 

and collaboration. Interviews with state RF directors, Title I directors and reading 

representatives revealed substantial variation in the organization and coordination between the 

various state offices: 

 RF offices were housed in a variety of locations within state education agencies; some 

were co-located in joint offices with Title I or with language or other federal grant 

programs, while others were stand-alone units. 
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 13

 Coordination between Reading First and other programs or offices was not a universally 

evident practice. Some states reported frequent and long-standing collaborative 

relationships between programs or offices; others reported a more ―siloed‖ environment.

Number and Nature of Reading First Awards

Reading First directors confirmed data on the RF awards in their states from the Southwest 

Educational Developmental Laboratory (SEDL) database and the ReadingFirstDataOnline 

website. The RF program provided funding for approximately 5,800 schools in 1,850 districts 

across the 54 states and territories, (American Samoa, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the District 

of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) since its inception. 

The number of RF schools ranged from 14 schools to 905 schools across states and territories

(Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3), representing between 3 and 23 percent of the primary grade schools. 

States varied both in terms of the number of schools funded and the proportion those numbers 

represented.

A number of factors determined how state and local awards were made. First, the RF legislation 

required that the amount of the RF award must equal the school’s Title I, Part A, distribution 

from the preceding fiscal year. This amount was formulaic and non-negotiable. Second, the 

school-level award had to be of sufficient size and scope to enable schools to improve reading 

instruction through adherence to the principal components of the RF program. This amount 

varied from state to state and involved factors such as student enrollment, the number of K–3 

students reading below grade level, the number of children with special education needs, and the 

number of children for whom English is not their first language. Costs related to the hiring of 

reading coaches, teacher professional development, the purchase of core and intervention reading 

materials as well as materials for diagnoses, monitoring and assessment also were considered. 

State award amounts ranged from $1,279,429 to $137,397,187 in the program’s first year, and 

from $9,113,091 to nearly $1 billion ($930,706,299) over the course of the program’s subsequent 

years.

Approximately one-third of states received grant awards for a full six years; the majority of 

states awarded local grants for two or more years. Only two states (4 percent) awarded singleyear grants. All but two states implemented their RF programs in all four grades (K–3) at once.
14 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements

Exhibit 2: Numbers of Primary and Reading First Schools, by State, 2005–06 School Year

EXHIBIT READS: Alabama has 725 primary schools and 92 RF schools; 13 percent of Alabama’s primary schools are RF.

Source: http://www.sedl.org/readingfirst/report-title1.html#chart (downloaded Oct. 3, 2007), and NCES Table Builder, at 

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/output.asp (School year 2005–06, # Schools by School level code and State) (downloaded Oct. 3, 

2007)

State

Number of 

Primary Schools

Number of Reading 

First Schools

Percent of Primary 

Schools Reading First 

Alabama 725 92 8%

Alaska 169 14 12%

American Samoa 23 23 1%

Arizona 1,116 156 7%

Arkansas 585 99 6%

California 5,676 905 6%

Bureau of Indian Affairs schools 93 27 3%

Colorado 991 81 12%

Connecticut 558 25 22%

Delaware 108 14 8%

District of Columbia 133 37 4%

Florida 1,961 584 3%

Georgia 1,280 141 9%

Hawaii 182 69 3%

Idaho 346 30 12%

Illinois 2,564 381 7%

Indiana 1,154 71 16%

Iowa 780 108 7%

Kansas 780 41 19%

Kentucky 783 73 11%

Louisiana 714 113 6%

Maine 404 25 16%

Maryland 876 39 22%

Massachusetts 1,170 88 13%

Michigan 2,164 166 13%

Minnesota 1,048 51 21%

Mississippi 449 66 7%

Missouri 1,239 114 11%

Montana 432 33 13%

Nebraska 755 29 26%

Nevada 336 27 12%

New Hampshire 299 15 20%

New Jersey 1,539 75 21%

New Mexico 472 88 5%

New York 2,516 255 10%

North Carolina 1,358 98 14%

North Dakota 287 25 11%

Ohio 2,151 113 19%

Oklahoma 967 73 13%

Oregon 660 50 13%

Pennsylvania 1,905 159 12%

Rhode Island 209 16 13%

South Carolina 633 49 13%

South Dakota 349 21 17%

Tennessee 986 74 13%

Texas 4,103 705 6%

US Virgin Islands 24 15 2%

Utah 520 23 23%

Vermont 256 16 16%

Virginia 1,182 88 13%

Washington 1,212 86 14%

West Virginia 468 42 11%

Wisconsin 1,236 56 22%

Wyoming 201 17 12%
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 15

Exhibit 3: Number of RF Schools, by State, 2008 

EXHIBIT READS: Fifteen states (28 percent) had funded between 14 and 30 RF schools. These states included Alaska, 

Delaware, New Hampshire, US Virgin Islands, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Connecticut, South Dakota, Tennessee, 

American Samoa, Utah, Maine, Nebraska and Nevada. 

Note: While not shown pictorially, the number of funded schools was between 14 and 30 for US Virgin Islands and American 

Samoa, and between 31 and 75 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Source: Interviews with RF and other state personnel.

Unanticipated Exits From the Program 

Exiting the RF program was defined as a cessation in program participation, either voluntarily or 

involuntarily. There were very few unanticipated district or school exits from the RF program. 

According to RF directors, less than 2 percent of RF-funded districts prematurely exited the 

program. 

The majority of states (42) reported that some small number of districts or schools exited 

Reading First prematurely. Most of these exits were voluntary. Funding was revoked for only 

18 districts and 55 schools. Generally, funding was revoked for two reasons: 1) poor 

implementation of the RF program, and 2) inadequate gains in reading achievement relative to 

what RF schools were expected to achieve. 
16 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 

Several state RF directors pointed out that Reading First was not an easy program to implement 

because it was relatively prescribed, requiring specific elements (e.g., a 90-minute uninterrupted 

reading block). They additionally noted that the program foundation emphasized building 

teachers’ knowledge in multiple and complex domains, including:

1. Understanding of scientifically based reading research about the five components of 

reading; 

2. Use of knowledge of scientifically based reading to evaluate and best utilize reading 

curricula; and 

3. Understanding the diagnosis and prevention of early reading difficulties through a 

range of assessment and monitoring tools. 

State, district or school-level personnel needed to ensure that professional development (often 

through RF coaches) was offered to teachers so that knowledge of these three domains was 

sufficient to carry out the RF program. In addition to the required domains, the state RF 

directors noted the requirement for more student testing and related analysis, as well as 

interpretation and reporting of test results. 

In total, 42 states reported some involuntary exits; for 26 of these, unanticipated exits from the 

RF program were so small (e.g., one or two schools), they did not have an impact on subsequent 

funding decisions. Thirteen states, however, redistributed money to already participating RF 

districts or schools. Three states (with a total of two districts and six additional individual 

schools making unanticipated exits) used the money to fund more schools. 

Thirty-four states reported a total voluntary withdrawal of seven districts and 86 additional 

individual schools from the RF program before the end of their funding cycle, predominantly due 

to school closings. In addition, eight RF directors reported that four districts and 37 schools did 

not apply for continuation funding. 

Reading First Student Achievement Data 

Assessment of students’ reading proficiency was a key requirement of the Reading First 

Program. The RF legislation required schools to use valid and reliable assessments to screen, 

diagnose students’ reading difficulties, and to measure student reading outcomes (PL. 107-110, 

Title I, Part B, Subpart 1). Eligible school districts that received RF subgrants were required to 

use funds to carry out a number of assessment-related activities including ―[s]electing and 

administering screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based instructional reading assessments‖ 

(Section 1202.c.7.A.i.).

Additionally, teachers in grades K–3 in RF schools as well as special education teachers of 

kindergarten through grade 12 were allowed to receive professional development that included 

―instruction in the use of screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based instructional reading 
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 17

assessments and other procedures that effectively identify students who may be at risk for 

reading failure or who are having difficulty reading‖ (Section 1202.c.7.A.iv.II.bb).

School districts were required to collect and summarize data ―to document the effectiveness of 

activities carried out . . .in individual schools and in the local educational agency as a whole; and 

to simulate and accelerate improvement by identifying the schools that produce significant gains 

in reading achievement‖ (Section 1202.c.7.A.v.I and II), as well as report data for all students 

and categories of students (described in Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)).

Release, Distribution, and Use of Student Performance Data 

At the state level, the RF student achievement data largely remained under the purview of the 

state RF office. Over half of RF directors (59 percent) reported that the RF student achievement 

data were shared with their state RF leadership team to support their work with schools and 

districts, and about one-third of directors (33 percent) reported making the data available to their 

state superintendent’s or commissioner’s office. One-fifth of directors (20 percent) reported 

making the data more widely available to their state departments of education, and only four 

states (7 percent) also reported sharing their RF student achievement data with their state 

legislature to help inform statewide reading initiatives and policy.

According to RF directors, student achievement data were used primarily at the school level. 

Almost three-fourths of state RF directors (72 percent) reported that the school-based coaches 

used the data with the teachers whom they coached. In all states, principals and teachers in RF 

schools received their own school-level data, and two-thirds of state RF directors also reported 

releasing the data to building principals of all of their state’s RF schools.

The RF student achievement data were sometimes made available to the public; approximately 

one-fifth of RF directors (19 percent) reported making their state’s RF achievement data public. 

Additionally, 9 percent of state RF directors specifically noted releasing the RF student 

achievement data to the media. 

Interviewees reported that RF achievement data were reviewed or used by a variety of audiences, 

from RF state leadership only (“No one else really uses the data”) to a distribution list that 

included, for example, the governor, the state board of education, task forces on reading or 

literacy, state offices of assessment, Special Education or exceptional learners, departments of 

English language learners, the School Improvement division, and the office of curriculum and 

instruction.

Ninety-three percent of RF directors reported that their RF leadership team was the primary 

state-level user of RF data. This users’ group was typically comprised of the state director, 

professional development directors, data coordinators, and technical assistance providers, all 

within the RF state office.
18 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements

More than three-fourths of RF directors (78 percent) reported that the Reading First achievement 

data were used by the state RF leadership to plan professional development and technical 

assistance for RF schools. In addition, more than half of the state RF directors (54 percent) 

reported using the Reading First student achievement data to measure school and district 

performance. Forty-three percent reported using the achievement data to determine future or 

continued funding of Reading First, and a similar proportion (41 percent) reported using these 

data to compare RF and non-RF schools.

The majority of state RF directors (89 percent) also reported that they expected districts and 

schools to use data to inform local decision-making and planning. Expected actions included 

creating local action plans, making changes in professional development and instituting other 

local policy changes.

Example Responses: Release, Distribution, and Use of Student Performance Data

“With the available data at the school level, they are expected to have the principal and coach meet with teachers to decide how 

to tweak the program to meet the needs of the students. They include that data in their plan each year when they apply for funds 

from other sources, Title V, and in their triangulation data. At the district level, they use the school reports and include them in 

their annual consolidated application. At the school level, they plan their professional development from it and target specific 

teachers.” (Reading First director)

“Districts and schools are absolutely expected to make changes in professional development and instruction as a result of the 

data. The state works closely with regional technical assistance centers in helping districts and schools write action plans for 

improvement. At the school level, the schools are expected to disaggregate their results down to the grade level and have 

conversations about those results and develop grade-level plans for improvement.” (Reading First director)

“The school day has recently been extended for all teachers, in part to allow time for teacher collaboratives. These 

collaboratives provide time for the teachers to get together and take a close look at data to see where students need help. The 

teachers want to see changes in their classrooms. Another tremendous change is the movement away from whole group 

instruction and toward differentiated instruction. By using the data, teachers know how to group students for effective small 

group instruction. By doing this, teachers can meet individual student needs instead of teaching to the middle.” (reading 

representative)

State and Local Capacity to Use Reading First Data

State Capacity 

RF directors were asked to describe their perceptions of state and local staff capacity to use RF 

data. Two-thirds of state RF directors reported that they had observed increased state capacity to 

use RF data since the program’s inception. Respondents also described Reading First as having 

provided data-based linkages between state, district, and school levels; collaboration between the 

state leadership, district leadership, and school personnel was strengthened when all could focus 

on the same readily-accessible student achievement data. Directors discussed what appeared to 

be an increased state sophistication in data manipulation and tools such as Web-based systems.
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 19

Example Response: State and Local Capacity to Use Reading First Data

“At a state level, and I don’t say this to be politically correct, we have always done a good job at looking at data. Our office has 

now done a better job of bring data to districts to make comparisons from where they are and where they want to be. These 

conversations are now tied to instruction. We have been able to help districts to have conversations about the achievement gap. 

Using the data has helped us to plan for Professional Development. We use the data to determine who needs further intervention 

through Professional Development.” (Reading First director)

The majority of RF directors (67 percent) attributed the changes in their state’s capacity to use 

data explicitly to the RF Program. The RF legislative requirements to use progress monitoring, 

diagnostic, and benchmark data often provided the states with their first opportunity to follow 

frequently collected student data so closely.

A few respondents noted that RF data efforts were being used by state assessment or

accountability offices, as well as School Improvement and Special Education divisions or 

bureaus. In these instances, the student data required by the RF initiative were used by other state 

level initiatives to measure progress toward School Improvement goals and the effectiveness of 

Special Education reading interventions. A handful of respondents linked the use of data to drive 

instruction in Reading First to the newer Response to Intervention (RTI) initiative. As part of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 legislation, RTI is a comprehensive, 

multistep process that closely monitors how students are responding to different types of services 

and instruction. RTI provides an improved process of pre-referral interventions. For example, 

one respondent stated ―RF is the rudder of the whole RTI model. Everything that came out of RF 

is in RTI. They are almost a mirror image of each other.”

Interestingly, several Title I directors attributed the increased capacity in data use to the broader 

implementation of ESEA, and several reported the alignment and coordination of RF data efforts 

with similar and/or larger data efforts throughout the state, e.g., the state superintendent’s focus 

on data, or an earlier statewide data initiative. 

District and School Capacity

Reading First directors, Title I directors and reading representatives reported that districts and 

schools appeared to have become more sophisticated consumers of data since the start of RF.
20 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements

Example Responses: District and School Capacity to Use RF Data

“There has been a tremendous difference, particularly at the school level. At first, there was a lot of resistance to the process. It 

took about a year to 18 months for the schools to realize what a great resource they had in all of this data being available. I see 

a huge change now: schools put up assessment walls to monitor progress, have collaboration meetings that include Title I and

Special Education teachers in the discussions of the data, have worked to use the data to develop specific interventions as 

needed, and are constantly updating the tiers. Now reading instruction is really data-driven in our schools.” (Reading First 

director)

“In the past five or six years we’ve seen a pretty dramatic improvement in staff ability to use data to guide decision-making, PD 

and instruction. The decisions made are based on data. Staff have a better ability to interpret and understand the data.” (Title I 

director)

“Using data has changed in so many ways. Principals also use it in terms of planning workshops, and it is down to the indicator 

level. They know exactly not just reading comprehension but specifically what aspects of reading comprehension teachers need 

help with. Their use of data is a lot more powerful than anything they did before.” (reading representative)

Reading First Program in Fall 2008

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) began funding states in July 2002 with six-year grants. 

Because ED approved states’ applications over a 15-month period (June 2002 through September 

2003) and states’ internal RF funding processes varied in length, the end date of states’ RF grants 

ranged from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009 and beyond. About half of RF directors 

interviewed in fall 2008 reported their Reading First programs already had been directly affected 

by the federal budget cuts. Interestingly, the magnitude of reduced funding varied across those 

states because some states had offset the 61 percent federal reduction with carryover monies (i.e., 

RF funding that had been allocated for, but not used, during the prior school year) and other 

funding sources. Respondents who reported that budget cuts were not yet directly affecting their

state’s RF programs anticipated reduced funding during the 2009–10 school year or later. These 

latter states generally used carryover funding from prior years or had begun RF school-level 

implementation in the 2004–05 school year.

How states chose to operationalize reduced RF funding also varied. Some states reported 

reducing program elements (either by reducing or eliminating professional development or 

technical assistance provided by the state’s RF office); other states also changed district or 

school award amounts as well. The differences in the timing of budget cuts and how states 

operationalized budget reductions clearly influenced respondents’ experiences and perceptions of 

likely sustainability of Reading First.

The following sections describe how states implemented four elements of the Reading First 

Program prior to reductions in funding (technical assistance, outreach to non-RF schools, 

adoption of RF practices in non-RF districts and schools, and collaboration among RF program 

offices and other state-level initiatives). Each section also includes a discussion of how the RF 

element was or would be affected as a result of funding reductions. Note that because some 

states had already experienced reduced budgets in fall 2008, the discussion of the effects of the 
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 21

reductions incorporates both actual and anticipated reductions in funding. The section concludes 

with a discussion of states’ responses to reduced federal funds for Reading First.

Technical Assistance

All 54 RF directors reported that their states provided some type of technical assistance to 

districts and schools, and all but three of the 54 states described providing technical assistance in 

multiple forms. The most common forms of technical assistance reported by states include 

Professional Development (PD) offerings (91 percent), school visits (69 percent) and convening 

of regularly scheduled group meetings (37 percent). The three most common forms of technical 

assistance are described below.

Professional Development. Ninety-one percent of states reported providing PD as an element of 

technical assistance. Professional development included reading academies, summer institutes, 

coach institutes, leadership institutes, and other conferences, institutes, or workshops. 

Respondents reported that these professional development offerings were intended to address the 

following topics and content areas:

 Administering Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) or other 

assessments;

 Analyzing data and making instructional decisions;

 Teaching the five essential components of reading instruction;

 Implementing a core reading program; and

 Developing coaching skills;

– Implementing Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) 

training;

– Planning interventions; and

– Targeting instruction.

Reading First directors generally characterized professional development as activities that 

occurred once or twice a year over multiple days (e.g., Summer Institutes) as more typical, 

whereas some respondents described PD offerings as occurring at various times throughout the 

year. The professional development offerings were designed primarily for classroom teachers 

and reading coaches, although some respondents mentioned that school principals were 

encouraged to attend or described additional offerings developed exclusively for school 

administrators.

RF directors reported that the following groups were direct providers of professional 

development:

 State RF staff, including the Reading First director;

 University partners; 
22 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements

 National reading experts;

 RF Technical Assistance Centers;

 Publishing companies; and

 Other organizations involved in providing materials or assessments.

Approximately one-quarter (24 percent) of states who reported offering professional 

development described offering courses as an element of their PD. Unlike institutes and 

workshops that required in-person attendance, courses were available in multiple formats, 

including in-person attendance and Internet-based applications or modules. The content of 

courses, while varied, was reported to be centered on RF principles. Only a few states reported 

that their RF courses counted toward graduate credits or endorsements on teaching credentials or 

licenses.

School Visits. Over two-thirds of RF directors (69 percent) reported that they themselves 

conducted school visits. The purpose of state-conducted school visits, as reported by RF 

directors, was to provide direct technical assistance to schools by giving feedback on classroom 

observations, discussing how to analyze and use data to make instructional decisions, attending 

grade-level meetings, holding meetings with the principal, and addressing any issues or questions 

from the school community. Some respondents reported that school visits helped them monitor 

implementation and that struggling schools would generally receive greater support. School 

visits were reported to involve administrators, reading coaches, and classroom teachers. The 

visits most often were conducted by state regional RF coordinators, sometimes called RF 

specialists, each of whom were assigned a number of schools in their geographic region. A few 

respondents indicated that these regional coordinators were associated with universities. RF 

directors in smaller states (both geographically and in terms of number of RF schools) were more 

likely to describe conducting school visits personally, in conjunction with regional coordinators 

or other RF staff.

Group Meetings. Thirty-seven percent of RF directors reported their states held regular group 

meetings and described them as occasions for convening specific groups of individuals to work 

together on areas of common interest. For example, reading coaches were brought together to 

model lessons for each other and discuss strategies to implement what they learned in trainings. 

Groups of school administrators discussed sustainability, examined budgets, looked at data, or 

learned about leading the Reading First initiative within the school. Some group meetings were 

designed to bring together all levels of staff involved in Reading First, including district staff, 

principals, reading coaches, and classroom teachers. Topics for these broader group meetings 

included discussing data and conducting book studies. Such meetings generally occurred 

quarterly, with some of the larger meetings only occurring annually or bi-annually. Group 

meetings primarily were facilitated by state RF staff, including the RF director and regional 

specialists.
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 23

Changes in Technical Assistance Resulting from Budget Cuts

While approximately half of RF directors had already had to adjust activities to align with budget 

reductions, more than three-quarters (76 percent) of RF directors expected the Reading First 

budget reduction to limit the overall technical assistance and RF professional development their 

states would be able to provide. At that time, cost had been the primary reason for reduction 

across all types of technical assistance. With the anticipated budget reductions, respondents 

cited that RF staffing levels could not be maintained, as the expenses of hiring external 

consultants or travel costs for providers or participants to attend trainings or conduct visits could 

not be sustained. A few states reported that they would maintain some aspects of their 

professional development offerings because they believed they were important and valuable 

opportunities for their teachers, either by making changes in their providers (e.g., from experts or 

consultants to state RF staff or experienced reading coaches), or continuing professional 

development with support from another state-level reading initiative.

Some RF directors specifically noted that the budget cuts would have a negative impact on 

professional development in the form of course work (both a reduction in development of new 

course work offerings and availability of existing course work); others reported that online 

courses and modules that had already been developed would continue to be a component in 

sustaining professional development activities. RF directors described alternative means of 

reaching out to and facilitating group meetings, using online meetings, newsletters, or email. 

Although a few states reported that they would maintain the frequency of school visits, others 

reported plans to maintain frequent contact with schools via email, phone, or videoconferencing. 

Respondents indicated that while such use of technology had cost-saving benefits over travel, 

they generally did not consider it an adequate substitute for on-site support through visits.

Outreach to Non-RF Districts and Schools

The majority (83 percent) of state RF directors reported inviting non-RF personnel to participate 

in professional development trainings that were provided in-person and hosted by the state or 

districts or that was offered as course work made accessible to all online. States appeared to be 

following the Reading First legislation that allowed staff in non-RF schools to participate in RFsponsored professional development. Most states did indicate professional development 

opportunities were open to all staff.

Forty-one percent of states described outreach as a district-level responsibility or effort, while the 

remaining states monitored district outreach efforts from the state office. One method of 

outreach described by state RF directors included implementing RF elements across all schools 

in RF-funded districts; alternatively, non-RF schools within districts that housed RF schools 

extended opportunities for staff in non-RF schools to visit and observe RF schools or receive 

some assistance from RF reading coaches. State Reading First directors commented that it may 

have been less likely that RF practices were being implemented in districts with no RF schools, 

especially in the states where outreach was primarily a district-level responsibility or effort.
24 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements

Alternative means of outreach discussed by state RF directors included the following:

 School visits to help implement RF practices more broadly (five states);

 Presentations (in-person, radio programs, and press releases) by state RF staff (five 

states);

 Websites with RF information (e.g., about scientifically based reading research and 

curricular materials such as lesson plans, planning maps, literary schedules) (five states);

 Providing materials to non-RF schools (three states); and

 Disseminating regular newsletters to provide information about Reading First, reading 

instruction, and upcoming events (two states).

State RF directors were asked to describe their approaches to RF outreach. The following three 

methods were most frequently mentioned:

1. Approximately one-quarter of RF directors discussed spreading RF principles to as many 

schools as possible, prioritizing outreach to non-RF schools from the outset;

2. Over half of RF directors indicated they focused initially on implementing RF practices 

in RF-funded schools and gradually spread RF practices to non-RF schools, once the RF 

schools were up and running; and

3. Less than one-quarter of RF directors said they focused their attention primarily on 

implementing RF practices in RF-funded schools and where possible/cost-effective 

opened up RF-related opportunities to non-RF schools.

States encountered challenges to providing outreach to non-RF districts and schools; 

approximately three-fourths (74 percent) of RF directors reported challenges to outreach. The 

most frequently cited challenges were:

 Inability to meet demand due to lack of capacity, funds, or space at professional 

development offerings;

 Travel distance;

 Lack of understanding by non-RF school staff that they were eligible to attend Reading 

First events;

 Additional demands on schools’ time;

 Coordinating with other offices; and

 Disparities in knowledge between RF and non-RF school staff (e.g., knowledge gaps that 

required RF staff to tailor training to non-RF schools, the inability to gather as much or 

the same type of data from non-RF schools).
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 25

Despite these challenges to outreach, one-third (33 percent) of RF directors explicitly mentioned 

that non-RF districts and schools made requests to the state Reading First office for outreach. 

About half of those respondents described requests for specific professional development or 

training, and the other half described requests from non-RF districts and schools to learn more 

about the elements of the RF program, including: choosing a core program, implementing 

assessments, structuring a reading block, conducting classroom observations of reading 

instruction, and improving reading teaching strategies.

Changes in Outreach to Non-RF Districts and Schools Resulting from Budget Cuts

Respondents anticipated the budget cuts would have similar effects on both RF and non-RF 

districts and schools. Because RF-sponsored professional development was available to all 

schools, all staff would therefore receive less professional development. Four respondents noted 

that non-RF districts and schools would likely experience significant reductions in resources 

after budget cuts, because limited resources might serve to limit participation to only RF district 

and school staff or result in states instituting fee-for-service policies for non-RF participants. 

Similarly, another four respondents mentioned that previously available stipends, scholarships, 

or professional development travel grants for non-RF districts and schools would likely be 

reduced or cut entirely after budget reductions.

Adoption of Reading First Practices in Non-Reading First Districts and Schools

States reported making efforts to provide opportunities for non-RF districts and schools to 

participate in Reading First activities. State RF directors identified a number of key 

programmatic elements of RF when describing spillover of RF principles and practices to nonRF schools (See Exhibit 4). It is important to note that when state personnel reported that certain 

practices had been adopted by their states’ non-RF schools, they did not necessarily define how 

common the practices were in their non-RF schools (i.e., what percentage of non-RF schools had 

adopted these practices) as they were focusing their attention on RF implementation in the

schools receiving RF funding. Therefore, it is important for the reader to keep in mind that 

according to state RF directors, the following practices reportedly had spread to some, but not 

necessarily all, of the non-RF schools in the state. Whenever available, data on the percentage of 

non-RF schools in the state involved in adoption of RF principles and practices are reported.
26 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 

Exhibit 4: RF Elements RF Directors Report Were Adopted by Non-RF Schools, 2008 

EXHIBIT READS: Eighty-one percent of states reported that professional development was a practice being adopted by 

non-RF districts and schools. 

Note: Data were available for 54 states. 

Source: Interviews with RF and other state personnel.

Professional Development. Over four-fifths (83 percent) of RF directors mentioned professional 

development when describing their states’ outreach activities; similarly, 81 percent of RF 

directors referenced professional development again when describing spillover. 

Assessments and Progress Monitoring. Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of states reported that 

non-RF schools used RF assessments. Nearly half of these respondents (44 percent) also 

reported that these non-RF schools used data from assessments to determine instruction. 

Materials and Curricula. Over half (59 percent) of states reported that RF materials and 

curricula were adopted in non-RF districts and schools in their states. Respondents commonly 

mentioned core reading programs; a handful also indicated that non-RF schools in their state 

utilized supplementary or intervention materials related to RF. A few respondents noted that 

non-RF schools used ―scientifically based‖ reading programs.

Uninterrupted Reading Block. More than one-third (39 percent) of states reported that 

uninterrupted reading blocks were implemented by non-RF schools in their state. Respondents 

indicated that the use of uninterrupted reading blocks was fairly widespread across non-RF 

schools, and that the practice was ―fairly popular‖ or found ―in all schools.‖ Some respondents 

mentioned that a dedicated reading block was already mandated as part of state legislation or as 

part of a larger reading initiative with similar principles as RF. 

Interventions for Struggling Readers. Nearly a third of respondents (31 percent) reported that 

non-RF schools in their states implemented special interventions for struggling readers. These 

responses described differentiated or tiered instruction as part of the interventions to support 

struggling readers in non-RF schools. 

Reading Coaches. About one-third of respondents (30 percent) reported that non-RF schools in 

their state used reading coaches. Respondents reported that the use of reading coaches was 
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 27

facilitated at the district-level, saying, for example, “Lots of districts have done a really good job 

of reallocating funds to support an internal facilitator (AKA coach) position because they see it’s 

working in RF schools.” Respondents noted that district funding, Title I funds, or other funds 

were often sources for fiscal support of reading coaches in non-RF schools. 

Changes in Adoption of Reading First Practices in Non-Reading First Districts and Schools 

Resulting from Funding Reductions 

Many Reading First directors, in particular, observed that the support for and spread of RF-like 

practices in non-RF schools would decrease once budget cuts were implemented because states 

would have to reduce the amount of professional development provided. As one respondent 

explained, this concern was exacerbated by turnover of teachers who had RF-related training and 

the influx of teachers who had not had the training: 

Example Response: Anticipated Changes to Adoption of RF Practices in Non-RF District and Schools

“Once the program is curtailed, the positive effects of the program—of having this focus on reading instruction in Reading First 

and non-Reading First schools—could also be curtailed. With the loss of money, the biggest impact will be in the professional 

development for teachers. If the professional development goes away, new teachers won’t have exposure to the same heavy 

focus on reading instruction. We might all lose some of that focus. The efficacy of individual teachers in conveying that 

knowledge (the components of reading instruction) to students will be impacted.” (Title I director)

Conversely, other respondents expressed a slightly more positive view of their state’s capacity to 

sustain the implementation of RF principles and practices in non-RF schools, noting that when 

people find something that works, they will find a way to sustain it despite lack of funding. Yet 

others indicated that implementation of some RF-like practices does not require funds, inferring 

that sustainability need not always be directly linked to funding availability. Nevertheless, while 

non-RF schools could, to some extent, address sustainability at the school-level, respondents 

indicated that state and district support for adoption of their RF practices was an important 

component of sustainability in non-RF schools, and that such support would likely decrease 

under a reduced (or nonexistent) budget. 

Some states also indicated that spillover would continue in cases where the state reading 

initiative(s) or frameworks were founded in or shared RF elements. 
28 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 

Collaboration Among RF and Other State-Level Initiatives 

This section describes collaboration and integration between Reading First and other state-level 

offices and programs, as well as anticipated changes in collaboration between RF and other 

programs given the reduction in federal funding for Reading First. In this section, responses are 

reported at the state level.13

Collaborations between state RF programs and other state-level initiatives were commonplace 

across the 54 states and territories. All RF directors reported that their RF offices collaborated 

with at least one other program and/or initiative at the state level. Some initiatives were 

frequently named as collaborative partners. Exhibit 5 presents the percentage of states that 

indicated collaborations with various state-level initiatives or programs. 

Exhibit 5: Percent of RF Directors Reporting Collaborations Between RF and Other State 

Programs, 2008 

 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty-five states (65 percent) reported collaborating with the Special Education program(s) in their 

state. 

Note: Data were available for 54 states. 

* Higher education generally meant one or more university partners rather than a higher education department or office within 

the state department of education 

* Title II refers to programs funded through Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Title II supports the 

preparation, training and recruiting of high quality teachers and principals. 

* Title III refers to programs funded through Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which addresses 

programs for language instruction for limited English proficient and immigrant students. 

Source: Interviews with RF and other state personnel.

13 While interviews were conducted with the Reading First director, Title I director, and literacy leader in each 

state, the data in this section are reported at the state level. In order to move from the multiple responses given 

within a state to a state-level summary, responses from the interviewees within each state were combined. A 

response was included in the state-level response if it was given by at least one respondent in the state. 

 It is important to note, however, that about one-fifth of the 47 Title I directors and 32 reading representatives 

interviewed individually responded ―I don’t know‖ to all or most of the questions about collaborative partners.
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 29

Some RF programs’ collaborations were driven by the RF legislation. For example, the 

legislation required that Special Education (SPED) teachers attend RF professional development, 

and SPED collaborations often involved providing professional development for SPED teachers. 

Additionally, a number of Higher Education partners assisted states in providing the professional 

development and technical assistance required by the RF legislation. 

Example Responses: Collaboration among EDs and Other State-Level Initiatives 

“[RF] is working together with resource teachers in providing PD to the SPED folks. SPED folks help the classroom teachers 

with reading or they have their own classrooms in reading ... [RF] also worked with SPED to tailor assessments to the SPED 

population. They are working with SPED on progress monitoring, that is, to have the students tracked day by day, week by 

week, year by year.” (reading representative)

“The Reading First and Title I Directors meet every week to make sure we are aligning and leveraging each other's funds and 

programs and discussed how to use Title I funds to support Reading First work once Reading First funds end.” (Title I director)

While all states reported that their RF program had collaborative partners in other state-level 

initiatives and programs, the nature, intensity, and focus of these collaborations varied notably 

from partner to partner and state to state. Some respondents reported that their collaborations 

consisted primarily of periodic meetings; other respondents noted that they saw or emailed their 

collaborative partners on a daily basis to ensure constant sharing of information. Additionally, 

some collaborations were described as having been continuous since the inception of RF, while 

others had only been in place for a few months. It is important to note that some respondents 

characterized their collaborations as joint endeavors between RF and other initiatives, whereas 

other respondents described collaborations in terms of keeping their partners informed of their 

program developments. There were also pragmatic and compliance-related aspects of some 

collaborations, including, for example, working with Title I to ensure that federal funds were 

used appropriately. 

Challenges to Collaboration. Respondents discussed challenges encountered in endeavoring to 

or collaborating with other state-level initiatives and programs. In most states (81 percent), 

respondents described having encountered one or more challenges in forming collaborations. 

The most frequently mentioned challenges include: inability to collaborate with a specific entity; 

lack of time; and ―silo‖ mentality in some departments. 
30 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements

Example Responses: Challenges to Collaboration

Inability to collaborate with a specific entity:

“...[W]orking with Higher Ed has really been the most challenging. Philosophically, they’re still in the Whole Language and 

Balanced Literacy Era; they’ve done their life’s work on this. To switch over [to SBRR] would be very contradictory to what 

they’ve done professionally.” (reading representative)

“RF hasn’t gotten much positive press at the national level, so people hesitate to come to the table.” (Reading First director)

Lack of time:

“Time. It is not that people aren’t willing or open, it’s just that in every given day there are so many hours. And everyone has lots 

of their own pieces to take care of.” (Title I director)

Prevailing “silo” mentality:

“At the beginning I believe there was an attempt to collaborate with other offices, but with many bureaucracies, there is ’siloing’ of 

responsibilities, heavy focus on compliance, and low staff.” (Title I director)

Changes in Collaborations Resulting from Budget Cuts

About two-thirds of respondents commented specifically about the changes they anticipated in 

RF-related collaborations as a result of the 61 percent reduction of federal funding for Reading 

First. Most of these respondents noted that collaborations would likely decrease with reduced 

funding. Interestingly, however, a small group of respondents predicted that collaboration would 

actually increase because partners would have to take on more RF-related responsibilities.

States’ Response to Reduced Federal Funds for Reading First

The reduction in federal funding led RF directors to explore multiple measures to support the 

currently funded districts and schools. Respondents described efforts to seek alternative funding 

sources, strategies and challenges to sustaining Reading First and plans for future cohorts.

Alternative Funding Sources

Two-thirds (67 percent) of RF directors reported that their states planned to find alternative 

federal or state funding sources to help support RF districts and schools. Exhibit 6 presents some 

of the cited alternative funding sources.

It is important to note that while the majority of states were in the process of implementing or 

planning strategies to help sustain RF in late 2008 by using one or more of the aforementioned 

funding sources, more than one-quarter of RF directors explicitly said that their respective states 

did not have plans to find other funds to sustain RF.
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 31

Exhibit 6: RF Directors’ Planned Alternative Funding Sources for Reading First Schools and 

Districts, 2008 

EXHIBIT READS: Fifty-six percent of states reported that they planned to utilize Title I funds as an alternative funding 

source for Reading First schools and districts in their state. 

Note: Data were available for 53 of 54 states. 

* Title V refers to programs funded through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act promoting informed parental choice 

and innovative programs. 

Source: Interviews with RF and other state personnel.

Strategies to Support RF 

A variety of strategies were being employed or developed by states to sustain Reading First 

principles once funding was eliminated. States described using one or more of the following 

approaches to sustainability under a reduced budget: 

 Focus limited resources on fewer schools; 

 Spread resources to as many schools as possible; and/or

 Primarily fund school-level RF program elements, while reducing or eliminating statelevel spending on professional development and technical assistance. 

Less than one-fifth of states reported planning to focus their funding on school-level aspects of 

the program, reducing their technical support and provision of professional development from 

the state RF office. One of these states reported: 

Example Response: Focus Funding on School-level Elements of RF

“...The year-to-year level of schools’ grant amount is not reduced from what the first cohort of schools received. The real 

drawback...is not in the funding level, it is that the state-provided professional development, technical assistance, and perhaps 

evaluation are really having trouble with funding, and these schools will probably not get the same level of assistance as the first 

cohort of schools.” (Reading First director)
32 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 

Other strategies mentioned by states included: 

 Hosting sustainability workshops or trainings to educate districts and schools about 

methods they could employ to help ensure continuation of RF program and practices 

(e.g., having outside experts share sustainability approaches; discussing best practices for 

ensuring sustainability; learning about pilot studies from schools whose funding has 

ended; and meeting individually with schools to discuss their unique situations); 

 Testifying at the state legislature on behalf of RF to share the program’s successes and 

ask for earmark funding for continuation of RF; 

 Planning to incorporate elements of RF into future expenditures; 

 Using technology to replace face-to-face RF trainings and communications in order to 

reach more participants using fewer resources; and 

 Incorporating the elements of RF into a new program that would replicate RF policies 

and practices statewide. 

Sustainable Elements of Reading First 

Reading First directors were asked about methods by which their states were sustaining elements 

of Reading First, and to describe which of those elements were most sustainable given budget 

reductions. Approximately one-third of RF directors (30 percent) explicitly referenced the 

inclusion of RF program elements into state standards or new literacy or early learning programs 

as a method by which Reading First would be sustained. The elements of Reading First that state 

RF directors reported could be sustained after the budget cuts were implemented are grouped 

into ten elements below (Exhibit 7).14

Reading First directors discussed numerous elements of the RF program they planned to 

continue implementing post-funding. Over one-third of directors discussed sustaining the use of 

reading coaches, RF materials and curricula, data-driven instruction, use of assessments, and 

scientifically based reading instruction. Those RF elements that appeared less likely to be 

sustained included data teams and reading instruction leadership teams. RF directors noted, 

however, that the sustainability of any of these elements was not guaranteed due to the role 

districts and schools play in ensuring that RF elements would continue to be used by schools. In 

discussing the most commonly cited sustainable practice, the use of reading coaches in schools, 

respondents emphasized that this was often a district-level decision, and given cost concerns with 

maintaining non-teaching staff, they expected this practice to be scaled back or eliminated. 

Additionally, 22 percent of respondents commented that the uninterrupted reading blocks might 

become shorter. 

 

14 Category percentages were calculated based on respondents’ report of one or more elements within a category.
Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 33

Exhibit 7: Elements of RF Reported by RF Directors as Sustainable, 2008 

EXHIBIT READS: Thirty states (56 percent) reported that they believed the use of Reading Coaches was a sustainable 

element of Reading First. 

Note: Data were available for 53 of 54 states 

Source: Interviews with RF and other state personnel.

Summary 

Interviews with state staff also revealed considerable variation in (then) current RF program 

operations, as well as in the planned program changes as a result of reduced federal funding. 

The RF directors offered different predictions about which elements of their RF programs would 

likely be sustained. Reading First directors from 27 states and territories (50 percent) reported 

that their states already had experienced the effects of the 61 percent cut in fiscal year 2008–09. 

Reading First directors from the remaining 22 states for whom data were available (41 percent) 

reported they would not be affected by the budget cuts until fiscal year 2009–10 or later. 

The interviews also illustrated that RF directors had experienced challenges in their efforts to 

implement the RF program. Almost three-quarters (74 percent) of RF directors reported having 

encountered impediments to outreach, including inability to meet the demand from non-RF 

districts and schools, lack of awareness among non-RF districts and schools about the 

availability of Reading First professional development, additional demands on their time, 

difficulty in coordinating between offices, and knowledge disparities between RF and non-RF 

staff. Over three-quarters of RF directors (81 percent) also reported challenges to collaboration 

with other programs or initiatives such as differences in philosophy for collaboration, lack of 

time to collaborate, and a ―silo‖ mentality across various state offices. 

All Reading First directors reported providing technical assistance to their RF program schools. 

Almost all (91 percent) reported providing professional development as an element of technical 
34 Chapter 2: State Responses to Reading First Budget Reduction and Sustainable Program Elements 

assistance, 69 percent reported conducting school visits, and 37 percent reported convening 

regular group meetings. Most Reading First directors (83 percent) reported offering RF 

professional development as the most common form of outreach to non-RF districts and schools. 

Less commonly cited forms of outreach included school visits, presentations, newsletters, and 

other RF-related materials. States also reported that a variety of RF practices were being adopted 

by non-RF districts and schools, including use of: professional development (94 percent), 

assessment and progress monitoring (63 percent), materials and curricula (59 percent), 

uninterrupted reading block (39 percent), interventions for struggling readers (31 percent), and 

reading coaches (30 percent). 

State staff anticipated changes to their RF programs as a result of the federal budget cuts for 

Reading First. Over three-quarters of RF directors (76 percent) anticipated that the reduction in 

federal funds would result in less state technical assistance. Reading First directors also 

anticipated that the federal budget cuts would affect the availability of professional development 

availability for Reading First and, to a greater degree, non-RF districts and schools. States also 

anticipated that the existing collaborations between RF and other state programs or initiatives 

would decrease. Sixty-seven percent of states reported efforts to seek alternative sources of 

funding for their RF programs (e.g., Title I and special education monies) to address the federal 

reduction in funds for Reading First. However, more than one-third of states (39 percent) 

explicitly noted that sustaining Reading First with other state funds was unrealistic, because 

states were experiencing budget shortfalls in all areas. 

The elements of Reading First that respondents believed would most likely to be sustained were 

the use of reading coaches, RF materials and curricula, data-driven instruction, use of 

assessments and scientifically based reading instruction. Additionally, although only six states 

reported plans for additional RF cohorts, approximately one-third of RF directors mentioned that 

RF program elements would likely be included in state standards or new literacy or early 

learning programs. 
References 35

REFERENCES

Gamse, B.C., R.T. Jacob, M. Horst, B. Boulay. and F. Unlu. Reading First Impact Study Final 

Report (NCEE 2009-4038). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 

2008.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 107th Congress, 2nd sess., Jan. 8, 2002, Public Law 107-110.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, ESEA, 2002, Title 1, Part B, Subpart 1–Reading First 

provisions.

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002). 

Guidance for the Reading First Program. Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Education. The Nation’s Report Card: Reading, 2007 (NCES 2007-496). 

Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, 2007.

U.S. Department of Education. The Nation’s Report Card: Reading, 2009 (NCES 2010-458). 

Washington, D.C: Institute of Education Sciences, 2010.

U.S. Department of Education. Reading First Implementation Evaluation Final Report. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service, 2008.
36 References

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix 1: Interview Protocol 37

APPENDIX 1: READING FIRST COORDINATOR, TITLE I STATE 

DIRECTOR, READING OR LITERACY COORDINATOR 

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

The text below represents instructions to researchers:

Each Reading First coordinator, Title I state director, and reading/literacy director will have 

received a cover letter describing the topics for the interview. Each interviewer will have 

thoroughly reviewed available data (e.g., state websites, summaries of prior interviews from first 

Implementation Study, information from SEDL and/or Program Office on number of RF districts 

and schools) prior to each interview.

The questions are numbered below. The bulleted items represent sub-topics or prompts to use if 

necessary. Questions with an asterisk will only be asked of Reading First Directors.

The text below represents the script that was read by researchers to interview respondents:

o Name:

o State:

o Position/Title:

Abt Associates and its partner Hezel Associates are conducting a national study of the 

implementation and sustainability of the Reading First (RF) program. As part of this study, we 

are collecting data from Reading First, Title I, and Elementary Reading/Curriculum Directors to 

learn about the ongoing implementation and sustainability of the Reading First Program in your 

state. State personnel will be interviewed once in the fall of 2008.

This conversation will include questions about management and monitoring of RF, funding 

decisions, especially given recent federal budget cuts to the Reading First Program, technical 

assistance, how Reading First interacts with other reading initiatives in your state, use of student 

reading achievement data, and outreach to non-RF schools and districts.

We will be taking notes during our conversation, and may use a tape-recorder to ensure 

accuracy. If you do not wish this conversation to be taped, let us know and we will not use one. 

Your responses will be used to create a state interview summary, and as a result, we cannot 

assure confidentiality; however, all information from your state (and other states) will be 

presented only in the aggregate, and no individuals or states will be identified by name. If you 

have any further questions that we may not be able to answer about this evaluation or this 

conversation, please contact Marianne Beauregard, the director of Abt Associates’ Institutional 

Review Board, at (617) 349-2852, or Beth Gamse, the Abt project director of this study at 617-

349-2808. Please note these are toll calls.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a 

collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid 

OMB control number for this information collection is 1875-New. The time required to 

complete this information collection is estimated to average one hour per response, including the 

time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete
38 Appendix 1: Interview Protocol

and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of 

the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. 

Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4537. If you have comments or concerns 

regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Beth 

Franklin, Policy and Program Studies Services, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, S.W., office 6W219, Washington, D.C. 20202.

Do you have any questions before we begin?
Appendix 1: Interview Protocol 39

Management and Leadership

1) How long have you served as your state’s director of RF/Title I/Reading-Literacy director?

2) What are your RF-related job responsibilities (past and/or current) *

 Competitions for RF funding (selection process, making grant awards)

 Budget allocations at state level, at local level

 Professional development

 Outreach to non-RF schools

 Monitoring RF evaluation data

 Other

 Job responsibilities and approximate percentage of time for RF/Title I vs other 

responsibilities beyond RF/Title I/Reading-Literacy

3) Your organizational/management and reporting structure

 Describe the organization chart for Reading First/Title I/Reading/Literacy in the state (to 

whom do you report and who reports to you); describe coordination of state-level reading 

initiatives.

Reading First Funding at the State Level

The following questions ask about Reading First funding in your state, both in terms of what has 

already been funded and in terms of planning for future cohorts under a reduced federal budget.

4) Number and nature of RF awards to date in your state*

 Average school-level award amount, number of schools funded to date, average duration of 

grant awards, how award amounts are determined e.g., is funding based on student 

enrollment, an equivalent amount for each funded school, other) state minimum/maximum 

level award

5) In your state, did most districts and schools implement the RF program in all four grades at 

once or did they roll out the program one grade at a time?* (If the latter, could you estimate 

the approximate percentages of districts/schools that rolled out RF implementation?)

6) Describe any unanticipated exits from participation in Reading First for districts/schools 

within your state (e.g., have any districts and/or schools had funding revoked or voluntarily 

withdrawn from participation in Reading First, has your state added any new cohorts midcycle?), and whether they have had an impact on subsequent funding decisions.*

7) Describe your state’s response to the 61% reduction of federal funds for Reading First.

a) What changes do you anticipate in terms of funding levels and grant duration?*

b) What are your plans to find other federal and state funding sources for awarded 

districts and schools?

c) Describe efforts to work with other State-level employees about increasing spending on 

reading (for example, Special Education or Title I coordinators)?

d) What are your plans for any additional RF cohorts?*
40 Appendix 1: Interview Protocol

Reading First Student Achievement Data

In this section I will ask you about student achievement data analysis, use, and dissemination.

8) Who is responsible for preparing data on student performance in RF schools and to whom 

are these data released or distributed? *

9) Who at the state level uses RF student achievement data and for which purposes? (e.g., 

planning professional development, technical assistance, assessing core and supplemental 

materials, assessing districts and school performance, determining future funding, 

comparing RF and non-RF schools and districts)

10) What are expected district- or school-level actions as a result of published/released data 

(e.g., changes in professional development, assessment, instruction)?

11) Describe changes you have observed (since your state began to implement RF) in state, 

district, and school capacity to use RF data.

Technical Assistance from State Reading First Program

Next, I will ask you questions about various elements of the RF program both BEFORE the budget cuts 

were implemented and how you anticipate these RF elements will be affected AFTER the budget cuts are 

implemented.

12) Describe technical assistance provided by your office to RF district and school staff (e.g., 

nature, frequency, support for, coordination of, participants, changes to). TA includes 

both PD activities and specific help to choose and implement core, supplemental, and 

intervention programs, administering assessments, using data to determine effectiveness of 

programs, etc.*

a) BEFORE the RF budget cuts

b) How do you anticipate the TA your office provides will be affected AFTER the RF 

budget cuts are implemented
Appendix 1: Interview Protocol 41

Outreach and Communication with Schools and Districts

13) Describe your state’s outreach to non-RF districts and schools. (e.g., what information and 

support were non-RF districts and schools asking for and what was provided?)*

a) BEFORE the budget cuts*

b) How do you anticipate your state’s outreach to non-RF districts and schools will be 

affected AFTER the budget cuts are implemented*

c) What challenges have you experienced as a result of your state’s outreach to non-RF 

districts and schools and do you anticipate these will change after the budget cuts are 

implemented?*

 Prioritization of non-grantee districts and schools for outreach

 Methods used to inform and engage non-RF schools and districts(with whom do you 

communicate)

 Level of participation of non-RF districts and schools in RF-sponsored conferences, 

professional development, TA, other activities

14) Describe coordination between RF and other state-level initiatives and programs (e.g., 

higher education, special education, ELL, etc.)

a) BEFORE the budget cuts

b) How do you anticipate your relationship with other state-level initiatives and programs 

will be affected AFTER the budget cuts are implemented

c) What challenges have you experienced in coordination with other state-level initiatives 

and programs and do you anticipate these will change after the budget cuts are 

implemented?

Diversity of Reading Programs within the State

15) The Department of Education's RF Program Office is interested in learning how many RFfunded districts in each state have reading instruction that is distinctly different across RFand non-RF schools. Can you please tell me if you have the following, and if so, which 

districts: *

 Districts where the reading program is not the same for RF and non-RF schools

 Districts where the required assessments differ between RF and non-RF schools

 Districts where the requirement for a 90-minute reading block differs for RF and non-RF 

schools

 Districts where reading coaches are differentially available to RF and non-RF schools 

 Districts where reading-related professional development opportunities differ for RF and 

non-RF schools

 Districts where the methods for identifying struggling readers and interventions differ for 

RF and non-RF schools
42 Appendix 1: Interview Protocol

Long Term Sustainability of Reading First

16) What evidence have you seen that RF practices are being adopted in non-RF districts and 

schools (e.g., commonalities in use of materials, professional development topics, uses of 

assessments)?

a) BEFORE the budget cuts were implemented

b) How do you anticipate these adopted RF practices will be affected AFTER budget cuts 

are implemented?

17) Which elements of Reading First you believe will be sustained and why, given the 61% cut 

to the budget for the Reading First Program in fiscal year 2008.

 Which aspects of reading instruction currently practiced in RF schools will remain?

Thank you for participating in this interview.
Appendix 2: State Summary Profile Worksheet 43

APPENDIX 2: STATE SUMMARY PROFILE WORKSHEET

The state summary profile worksheet (see Exhibit A2.1 on next page) was a tool used by interviewers on 

the study team to record relevant information about individual states prior to contacting interviewees; 

such information was obtained from individual state applications for Reading First funding, state Reading 

First websites, federal websites about Reading First, and posted state documents. The purpose was to 

organize information about each state in one document that interviewers could review before conducting 

interviews. Completing this form also reduced the burden on interviewees, as they were asked to confirm 

the accuracy of information about their respective state programs. In addition to the specific information 

to be filled in on the worksheet, interviewers recorded additional notes or comments for each section to 

collect as much background information as possible from public data and records.
44 Appendix 2: State Summary Profile Worksheet

Exhibit A2.1: State Summary Profile Worksheet

State Summary Sheet

State:

State Award Date:

State Award Amount:

Number of RF Districts:

Number of RF Schools:

Number of Cohorts of Districts/Schools Funded:

Additional comments or notes on State Summary:

Assessments Required 

List Names and Grade Levels of Required Assessments:

Additional comments or notes on Assessments:

Resources Available from State to RF Districts and Schools (Posted on state websites)

Circle yes or no for each item below to indicate availability:

Professional development opportunities: Yes or No

Professional development providers: Yes or No

Materials: Yes or No

Assessments: Yes or No

Other resources: Yes or No

Additional comments or notes on resources available from the state to RF districts and schools:

Evaluation Data or Reports (Posted on state websites)

Circle yes or no to indicate whether data or reports are listed or downloadable: Yes or No

Additional comments or notes on evaluation data or reports available:

Notes:

1 Data on Reading First awards and number of districts and schools obtained from http://www.sedl.org/readingfirst/reportawards.html

2 Data on individual states obtained from each state’s Department of Education or Reading First website.

Sources: State websites and interviews with RF and/or other state personnel.
Appendix 3: Description of Interview Data Collection 45

APPENDIX 3: DESCRIPTION OF INTERVIEW DATA COLLECTION

Data Collection Procedures

Senior researchers conducted telephone interviews with state staff in the fall of 2008. Before 

data collection, the researchers participated in a training session to ensure that all interviewers 

shared a common understanding of the study background, objectives, design, and schedule; the 

purpose of the state director interviews; each question in the interview protocol and associated 

probing questions; the logistics of scheduling and conducting interviews; the calendar for data 

collection, analytic meetings and analyses; and data security, data recording, and submission 

procedures.

Prior to conducting the state director interviews, the study team sent a packet of materials to each 

state’s RF, Title I and reading or literacy director that included an introductory letter signed by 

an ED official, a study fact sheet, and a brief overview of the key questions and topics to be 

discussed in the telephone interview. State personnel received these read-ahead materials so they 

could compile any extant information that could be useful in answering the interview questions. 

Researchers individually scheduled telephone interviews with each state-level respondent.

Approach to Analysis

Data Management and Organization

Each question and sub-question on the interview protocol corresponded to a topic of interest for 

addressing the evaluation question and was assigned a topic code. This preliminary coding 

scheme was programmed into NVivo, a qualitative analysis software program used to annotate 

and organize the information produced from the interviews. Once an interview was complete, 

the interviewer’s notes were transcribed, edited, reviewed, and formatted by topic code. The 

interview data were then imported into the software, which organized them across interviews 

according to these topic codes (e.g., how states used data, outreached to non-funded districts, 

coordinated with other reading initiatives). Once organized, the analysis team reviewed the 

information in each topic code to determine whether the preliminary topic codes were at an 

appropriate level of specificity and to revise them as necessary.

Data Coding

In the first phase of analysis, information classified under each topic code was reviewed to assess 

its relevance to that topic code. That is, information collected in response to one question, and 

hence initially coded under that question’s topic code, was reviewed to determine whether it 

would more appropriately be linked to other questions or topic codes, and reclassified as needed. 

The analysis benefited from the inherent flexibility of the software, which accommodated the 

addition of new topic codes and cross-linking or modifying coding schemes while analyses were 

in process. This flexibility allowed for a more in-depth analysis of initial findings, as well as 

provided a mechanism for coding new findings as they emerged.
46 Appendix 3: Description of Interview Data Collection

The second phase of analysis required coders to carefully review the content of text categorized 

within a topic code to look for content driven themes. Individual interview responses were 

grouped together according to like answers. Where appropriate, quantitative data were also 

coded.

To ensure consistency during both phases of coding, all coders received training on the initial 

coding scheme and met during the coding process to discuss questions and interpretations of how 

the data should be coded. Coding discrepancies that arose were resolved via consensus during 

regular team meetings at which staff reviewed the data, identified and refined major themes, and 

revised coding schemes as necessary.

Data Analysis

After the analysis team had reviewed the interview data, documents were combined into a single 

master database and parsed by content topic to produce reports. Each report contained all 

information on a given topic and was sorted by interviewee or state characteristics (e.g., director 

type, years of RF funding), allowing for greater analytical freedom and power within a structured 

analysis. The data were characterized by the extent to which themes were raised by different 

groups within each topic. Responses were then summarized qualitatively and quantitatively for 

reporting, and quotes were selected if they helped to illustrate key points or better articulate a 

particular finding.