Presented by: Office of Program Evaluation South Carolina Educational Policy Center South Carolina Reading First Survey and Achievement Results 2006-2007.

Presented by:

Office of Program Evaluation

South Carolina Educational Policy Center

South Carolina Reading First South Carolina Reading First Survey and Achievement Results Survey and Achievement Results 2006-20072006-2007

Diane MonradDiane Monrad, Ph.D. Robert JohnsoRobert Johnson, Ph.D. Tammiee Dickenson, Ph.D.Tammiee Dickenson, Ph.D. Katie Dahlke, MSW

Achievement Data for the Stanford Reading First Assessment

Administered in Fall and Spring each year Total score comprised of multiple choice and

oral fluency sections Scores are reported in three categories:

At Grade Level (AGL) Needs Additional Intervention (NAI) Needs Substantial Intervention (NSI)

Two analyses presented: Cohort analysis: Performance level results Matched analysis: Normal curve equivalent results

Fall Results for At Grade Level by Grade Level

Percentage Scoring At Grade Level in Fall

21.1%27.6%

17.3%

31.0%

21.3%25.6%

19.3%

36.2% 38.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

Perc

enta

ge

Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006

Spring Results for at Grade Level by Grade Level

Percentage Scoring At Grade Level in Spring

54.3%

44.6%49.0%

42.0%35.8%

48.9% 46.6%40.8%

51.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Per

cen

tag

e

Spring 2005 Spring 2006 Spring 2007

Fall Results for Needs Substantial Intervention by Grade Level

Percentage Scoring Needs Substantial Intervention in Fall

58.4%

37.9%

52.4%46.4%

30.4%

55.8%

44.3%

28.4%

53.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Per

cen

tag

e

Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006

Spring Results for Needs Substantial Intervention by Grade Level

Percentage Scoring Needs Substantial Intervention in Spring

22.9%

35.5%28.7%

23.1% 20.0%25.0%

29.3%22.8%

27.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Per

cen

tag

e

Spring 2005 Spring 2006 Spring 2007

Fall Results for At Grade Level by Lunch Status

Percentage AGL in Fall by Lunch Status

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06 Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06 Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06


Per

cen

tag

e

Full price Subsidized

Spring Results for At Grade Level by Lunch Status

Percentage AGL in Spring by Lunch Status

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Spr05 Spr06 Spr07 Spr05 Spr06 Spr07 Spr05 Spr06 Spr07


Pe

rce

nta

ge

Full price Subsidized

Fall Results for At Grade Level by Ethnicity

Note. The two largest ethnic groups were selected for presentation.

Percentage AGL in Fall by Ethnicity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Pe

rce

nta

ge

Caucasian African American

Spring Results for At Grade Level by Ethnicity

Note. The two largest ethnic groups were selected for presentation.

Percentage AGL in Spring by Ethnicity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Pe

rce

nta

ge

Caucasian African American

Fall Results for At Grade Level by Gender

Percentage AGL in Fall by Gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Per

cen

tag

e

Female Male

Spring Results for At Grade Level by Gender

Percentage AGL in Spring by Gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



Pe

rce

nta

ge

Female Male

Grade 1 Component Analysis in 2006-2007 School Year for At Grade Level

Percentage AGL by Component for Grade 1

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Pho

nem

icA

war

enes

s

Pho

nics

Voc

abul

ary

Dev

elop

men

t

Rea

ding

Flu

ency

Rea

ding

Com

preh

ensi

on

Spe

akin

gV

ocab

ular

y

Ora

l Rea

ding

Flu

ency

Per

cen

tag

e

Fall 06 Spring 07



0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Pho

nem

icA

war

enes

s

Pho

nics

Voc

abul

ary

Dev

elop

men

t

Rea

ding

Flu

ency

Rea

ding

Com

preh

ensi

on

Spe

akin

gV

ocab

ular

y

Ora

l Rea

ding

Flu

ency

Per

cen

tag

e

Fall 06 Spring 07



0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Pho

nem

icA

war

enes

s

Pho

nics

Voc

abul

ary

Dev

elop

men

t

Rea

ding

Flu

ency

Rea

ding

Com

preh

ensi

on

Spe

akin

gV

ocab

ular

y

Ora

l Rea

ding

Flu

ency

Per

cen

tag

e

Fall 06 Spring 07

Stanford Reading First Average NCE Scores for all Students

47.1

32.2

48.9

41.7 42.9

35.7

20

30

40

50

60

Fall 2004 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007


Test Semester

Ave

rage

NC

E S

core

s

Stanford Reading First Average NCE Scores by Lunch Status

57.8

50.4 53.0

45.7

57.0

40.2

33.2

44.640.439.5

46.7

30.1

20

30

40

50

60



Test Semester

Ave

rage

NC

E S

core

s

Full Price Lunch Free/Reduced Lunch

Stanford Reading First Average NCE Scoresby English Proficiency Status

27.5

45.736.3

41.439.844.0

35.7

47.243.041.7

49.0

32.3

20

30

40

50

60



Test Semester

Ave

rage

NC

E S

core

s

Limited English English Proficient

Implementation Survey Items

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I understand my roles andresponsibilities within the

SCRF Initiative.

I understand the goals ofthe SCRF Initiative.

I support the SCRFInitiative.

% Agree or Strongly Agree

Principal Literacy Coach Interventionist Teacher

Implementation Survey Items (cont.)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Teachers, interventionists,administrators, and the

school-based SCRF literacycoach(es) are working

together to implement theSCRF Initiative.

SLT members regularly shareimportant information with our

faculty about the SCRFInitiative.

% Agree or Strongly Agree

Principal Literacy Coach Interventionist Teacher

Professional Development Needs: The Five Components

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Phonemicawareness

Phonics

Fluency

Vocabulary

Comprehension

Teachers Interventionists Literacy Coach Principal

Additional Professional Development Needs

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Interpreting Stanford Reading First scorereports

Dominie administration

Core reading program

Effective instructional strategies to use forstudent performing below grade level

Small group instruction

Using SC English language arts standards

Teachers Interventionists Literacy Coach Principal

Professional Development Needs:Using the Dominie Assessments

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Screen for students' instructional needs

Diagnose specific needs of individual students

Monitor student progress

Make instructional decisions

Teachers Interventionists Literacy Coach

Describe one benefit of the SCRF Initiative.

Commonly cited benefits across groups:

1. Focus on assessment Increased awareness of students’

needs/strengths/weaknesses Progress monitoring; Dominie Improved use of assessments; use of assessment data to

guide instruction

2. Resources Additional books and materials Extra funding/money

3. Professional development; study groups

4. Increased collaboration

5. Learned new strategies

Benefits Identified by Teachers

21.0%18.1%

14.7%

9.1%7.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Resources Focus onassessment

Learned newstrategies or

learned informationin content areas

Support staff Improved academicperformance

Perc

enta

ge

Quotes from SCRF Teachers: Benefits of SCRF

Resources: “The books and other materials that I am provided through SCRF are an amazing benefit to my instruction and my students' learning…”

Focus on assessment: “The SCRF has been beneficial because of the wealth of information I have on each of my students. The assessments and progress monitoring have been wonderful so that we can target exactly where students are improving and struggling.”

Learned new strategies: “As a school we have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge about how children learn to read and write. I have seen this knowledge put into practice throughout our school.”

Support staff: “Our literacy coach has been so valuable to me this year. She is full of useful information & ideas whenever I am unsure. She is very encouraging & is willing to help wherever she is needed. I don't think the SCRF could have been as successful if it wasn't for her.”

Improved academic performance: “I can see improvement in the reading of students and their attitudes toward reading. Students are utilizing more strategies and achieving success.”

Benefits Identified by Interventionist

20.5%18.1%

13.3% 12.0% 10.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Extra help forstudents

Professionaldevelopment

Resources Focus onassessment

Focus onreading/Uninterrupted

block for reading

Perc

enta

ge

Quotes from SCRF Interventionists: Benefits of SCRF

Extra help for students: “The SCRF initiative benefits our children who are at risk of reading failure, and also is of great benefit to the teachers since it has helped us all to stay a best of "best practices" and what works for reaching our children.”

Professional development: “I enjoy all the professional development regional meetings and study group have been very beneficial to my students and have enriched my life”.

Resources: “wonderful resources in terms of materials”

Focus on assessment: “The SCRF initiative has benefited our school in knowing how to assess children...”

Focus on reading: “Gives the students long periods to be immersed in reading & ‘reading work’.”

Benefits Identified by Literacy Coaches

18.8% 18.8%16.7% 16.7%

12.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Increasedcollaboration

Focus onassessment


Learned newstrategies orinformation incontent areas

Improved academicperformance

Perc

enta

ge

Quotes from SCRF Literacy Coaches : Benefits of SCRF

Increased collaboration: “The SCRF initiative has helped us become a community of learners while putting the needs of children first.”

Focus on assessment: “We have more consistent use of data to inform instruction.”

Professional development: “Ongoing staff development has been phenomenal, There has been so much growth & change among my teacher. Even though some of them are taking baby steps, They are taking steps and not remaining static.”

Learned new strategies: “Teachers have learned to analyze students' reading to tailor their instruction to meet the needs of children. Teachers have learned how to find "just right" books for children by using the Dominie assessments.”

Improved academic performance: “Fewer and fewer of our kids need intervention. With good classroom instruction and good intervention we are seeing less struggling kids. After the 1st round of Reading Recovery the students for the 2nd round were only a few months below grade level.”

Benefits Identified by Principals

25.0%

18.2%

11.4% 11.4% 11.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Use of assessmentdata to guide

instruction or guideschool plans

Increasedcollaboration


Learned newstrategies or

information in contentareas

Focus onreading/Uninterrupted

block for reading

Perc

enta

ge

Quotes from SCRF Principals : Benefits of SCRF

Use of assessment data to guide instruction: “The data gathered at SCRF has helped me to prepare the School Renewal plan and it has helped me to understand how to make changes to the instructional process.”

Increased collaboration: “The SLT, SIT, and Study group sessions provide an opportunity for administrators, teachers, and coaches to discuss strategies/ideas for reading improvement.”

Professional development: “The SCRF initiative provides the opportunity for teachers to grow and to develop their proficiency as reading /literacy instructors. The initiative fosters collaboration among teachers.”

Learned new strategies: “The wealth of information learned on how to teach teaching”

Focus on reading: “I really like the uninterrupted 120 minute reading block.”

Describe one benefit of the SCRF Initiative.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Learned new strategies

Increased collaboration

Professional development

Resources

Focus on assessment

% Describing Benefit

Teacher Literacy Coach Principal Interventionist

SCRF Effectiveness Ratings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Not Effective Somewhat Effective Effective Very Effective

Perc

enta

ge

Teacher Interventionist Literacy coach Principal

83.1% of teachers rated SCRF as effective or very effective. 88.1% of interventionists rated SCRF as effective or very effective. 81.8% of literacy coaches rated SCRF as effective or very effective. 90.9% of principals rated SCRF as effective or very effective.

Questions or Comments?

Office of Program EvaluationDr. Tammiee Dickenson

(803) [email protected]

South Carolina Educational Policy CenterDr. Diane Monrad

(803) [email protected]

Presented by: Office of Program Evaluation South Carolina Educational Policy Center South Carolina Reading First Survey and Achievement Results 2006-2007.

Documents

grade level slide

gender slide

msw slide

grade level agl

lunch status slide

new strategies slide

spring results

fall results