Summer Reading Explorers (SREP) 2013 Results & 2014 Planning

1. Summer Reading Explorers (SREP)2013 Results & 2014 Planning 3/19/14

2. Goals for Today’s Meeting • Review results from SREP 2013 • Discuss implications for SREP 2014 • Planning for SREP 2014 • Introduce SREP team • Discuss components of SREP 2014 • Review enrollment documents • Schedule planning site visits • Discuss early testing opportunities in afterschool programs

3. 2013 SREP Pilot Design Random assignment of sites to compare effects of different reading enhancements for rising kindergarten and rising first grade students: • Family Engagement – 21 sites; n=398 not enrolled in Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) sites; n=99 enrolled in CDF • Small Group Read-along– 25 sites; n=393 • Small Group Tutoring– 24 sites; n=425 • 1,315 children consented to participate • Analyses conducted with 1,148 children who had complete testing data

4. Summer 2013: Where Did Children Start? *Percentages reflect Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores for all children across the three reading enhancement groups

5. Did the SREP result in improved reading for rising kindergarten and first graders? YES! • On average, across all three reading enhancement groups, children improved in their oral reading fluency skills over the summer • Even in the Family Engagement group on average, where no small group services were added, children showed gains in oral reading fluency

6. Did children receiving small group reading enhancements show greater gains than those in the family engagement sites? YES!Did the tutoring small group enhancement work better than the read-along small group? YES!

7. 2013 Results

8. What worked best for children who started at the frustrational level?  Tutoring small groups! • Overall, tutoring resulted in significantly greater improvement in letter sound fluency (75% score improvement) than both read-along and family engagement groups • A greater percentage of children in tutoring moved up from frustrational to instructional and mastery levels than in read-along and family engagement groups

10. How was the program received by providers? Were there differences among the three conditions in satisfaction?  YES! • As summarized in previous presentation, overall providers at read-along and tutoring sites were more satisfied with their programming than providers at family engagement sites

11. How was the program received by parents? Were there differences among the three groups in satisfaction?  YES! Parents in all groups reported high satisfaction with all aspects of the program, reporting that they and their children benefitted from the program.

12. Did parents attend the School Readiness Workshops?  NOT TOO MUCH… • While parent satisfaction was high, parent engagement in School Readiness Workshops offered twice during the summer was relatively poor

13. Was one reading enhancement more effectively implemented than others?  YES! • Tutors provided a greater number of sessions than read-along volunteers (Ave for Read-along = 15.3; for Tutoring = 18.8) • Significant variability in volunteer read-along schedules and skill level, resulting in less consistent intervention implementation • Tutors much more effective at conducting accurate assessments and more accountable for program outcomes

14. Overall 2013 Results Summary • All kids showed gains over the summer • Overall, tutoring resulted in greater growth for both rising kindergarten and rising first graders • Highest need children (those starting at frustrational level) showed greater gains from tutoring • Children in the tutoring small groups received a greater number of sessions than volunteer-led read-aloud groups • Parents reported high satisfaction, but had low attendance at School Readiness workshops

15. Proposed Plan for SREP 2014 • Bring small group tutoring to all sites (no more pilot testing or random assignment) • Incorporate differentiated instruction, with small group tutoring for children having more trouble (those in green) • Add rising second graders

16. Proposed Plan for SREP 2014 • FIU to hire, train, supervise, and deploy tutoring staff; coordination of intervention and literacy activities at site • Nova to coordinate assessment and observation of universal literacy at all sites • Hope for Miami to coordinate Literacy Festivals and recruitment of volunteers for 1x per week 1:1 read-along with children in the frustrational range who are not exposed to frequent home literacy

17. 2014 Program Components • Sites continue to provide one hour daily reading block per Trust contract • During the summer, Nova and FIU teams will come out to observe your reading activity 2-3 times to better understand what is being offered • SREP will conduct evaluations of children’s current reading and learning skills, giving providers and parents feedback; connecting families with further reading assistance after program ends if needed • All children: Pre, Mid, Post ORF letter names and letter sounds • Children who fall into the Instructional and Frustrational categories will also received a receptive vocabulary evaluation • Children in the Frustrational categories will also receive a secondary Can’t Do/Won’t Do evaluation and untimed reading skills evaluation

18. 2014 Program Components • Small group (4-5 children) reading tutoring with a structured program, 30 minutes/day, 4 days/week for 6 weeks of camp by FIU reading tutors for children who have not yet mastered their early reading skills • Rising K & 1st: children at instructional and frustrational levels • Rising 2nd: children at frustrational level • One-to-one book reading for children with frustrational/ below average reading skills, 10-15 minutes/day, 1 day/ week for 6 weeks of camp by trained reading volunteers • Parent literacy engagement activities, including on site school readiness workshops held two times over the summer, and regional literacy festivals, each with free book giveaways • Reading reward program for children in small groups – monitored by tutoring and supervisory staff • Lending library for children in small groups – monitored by tutoring, volunteer, and supervisory staff

19. Points of Discussion • Enhancements to family engagement activities (i.e., School Readiness Workshops) and coordination with sites • Enhancements to Program Welcome Activities • Enhancements to assessment process and early coordination with sites for pretesting • Early coordination with current afterschool providers for pretesting • Timely score returns to providers

20. Planning Ahead! • Signing your MOU • Scheduling your site visit: • We will schedule this with you today • We need to know your estimated number of children in each age group – and languages needed for consent forms. We will bring all the copies you need to your site visit  • Preparing for your site visit (i.e., items needed at meeting): • Program’s Daily Schedule • Summer schedule (with fieldtrip dates, etc.) • Discuss and problem-solve locations for small groups and mentoring • Primary contact people (if known) for summer • Dates for enrollment days to help facilitate SREP enrollment • Plan for coordination of consent form collection • Dates for testing • Dates for SREP staff coming on site before program • Dates for Parent School Readiness Meetings, languages needed for meeting, and ideas for improving attendance • Ideas for improving any other issues from last program year