Early Literary Success: Effective Intervention for Kindergarten Students at Risk for Reading Difficulties

1. Early Literary Success: Effective Intervention for Kindergarten Students at Risk for Reading Difficulties Washington Education Research Association 22nd Annual Washington State Assessment Conference December, 6-8 2006 SeaTac Mike Jacobsen-Assessment & Curriculum Director-White River School District Janel Keating-Director of Student Learning-White River School District Bari Olson-Para-Educator-Mountain Meadow Elementary

2. Early Intervention in Literacy: What do we know Word recognition skills at the end of first grade were strongly related to reading proficiency a the end of fourth grade- Nine of ten children who were deficient in first grade were also poor readers in fourth grade Juel (1988) Eight of ten children with severe reading problems at the end of first grade performed below the average range at the beginning of third grade Torgeson (1997) WRSD DIBELS data indicated that poor performing students in kindergarten tended to remain as poor performing students in latter grades and were often referred for LAP/Title or Special Education services

3. Early Intervention in Literacy: What do we know Felton (1993) Concluded that five elements were critical to a beginning reading program for children at risk of reading failure; 1. Direct instruction in language analysis 2. Explicit teaching of the alphabetic code 3. Reading and spelling must be taught simultaneously 4. Reading instruction must be sufficiently intense for learning to occur 5. Use of decodable words and texts enhanced automaticity

4. What Predicts Successful Reading at the Beginning of First Grade? Fathers occupational status Amount of reading by parents Preschool Parents reading to children Phonemic awareness Library membership Child’s gender Amount of time watching TV Oral language (PPVT) Knowledge of the alphabet Number of books child owns Teacher prediction of reading success

5. What Predicts Successful Reading at the Beginning of First Grade? Phoneme segmentation .62 Letter names .58 Kindergarten teacher predictions .50 Performance on the PPVT .39 Number of books child owns .25 Amount that parents read to child .25 Gender .18 Amount that parents read .11 Preschool attendance .05 Parents occupational status -.30 Library membership ?

6. Early Reading Intervention Pilot ERI-Developed through a Federal grant with University of Oregon and Bethel School District, Eugene Oregon. Purpose is to provide intensive early literacy intervention services to kindergarten students at risk for developing reading difficulties Initial research indicated that 97% of kindergarten students who were taught with ERI experienced faster achievement rates and sustained these rates into second grade ERI-30 minutes of daily, explicit instruction 15 minutes on select phonological awareness skills, alphabet understanding,and word reading 15 minutes on further development of phonological awareness writing development, and integrating phonologic awareness and orthography ( letter-sound to whole word writing)

7. Early Reading Intervention Pilot Grant awarded and training January Pilot Implemented March 42 students from Foothills/Mountain Meadow 30 General education kindergarten students- 3x per week-1:5 groups 4-Special education kindergarten students 8-General education first grade students Each experimental group had a matched control group Summary of outcomes All experimental groups significantly outgained controls on DIBELS phonemic segmentation winter to spring, Gen. ed kindergarten=W PS=2.5/S PS=22.5 to W PS=5/S PS=10.5 Statistically significant Sped=W PS=4/S PS=11 to W PS=4.5 to S PS=.5 Gen. Ed. First=W ORF=7/S ORF=20 to W ORF=3 to S PS-12 One control group outgained the experimental group in DIBELS, letter names. Gen. Ed. Kindergarten=W L=10/S L 27 to W L=10.5/S L=18

11. Early Reading Intervention Pilot Teacher evaluations Five returned, three instructional para’s and two certs Overall rating 9 on a 1-10 scale, comments on the whole were very positive-”best instructional materials I have ever used for kindergarten students”, very structured, students enjoyed the materials, looking forward to using it next year, takes considerable time for preparation, subs would have a difficult time rapidly picking it up Summary comments Strong staff support Strong empirical support in phonemic segmentation Less support in growth in letter names Limited time of pilot March-May Every other day implementation likely reduced effectiveness Students were only exposed to less than a 1/4 of the 126 units

12. Early Reading Intervention Pilot Recommendations Implement ERI systematically with low performing kindergarten students following September DIBELS screening Consider use of ERI placement test as the second level test for kindergarten students Follow ERI pilot students for next year in district CBM assessment system Identify a new ERI cohort group and implement during the 2004-2005 school year Implement ERI for special education/LAP/Title students in kindergarten/first grade who are not responding to Read Well intervention

13. Pilot Group Three Years Later Kindergarten Experimental Group=76% above 25th PR as third graders in ORF Fall 2006 Control Group=57% above 25th PR as third graders in ORF Fall 2006 First Grade Experimental Group=80% above 25th PR as fourth graders in ORF Fall 2006 Control Group=0% above 25th PR as fourth graders in ORF Fall 2006

14. Pilot Group Three Years Later Kindergarten Experimental Group=30% referred to special education next year as first graders Control Group=36% referred to special education as first graders First Grade Experimental Group=28% referred to special education as second graders Control Group=60% referred to special education as second graders

21. Description of Current Program What it looks like district wide Half day ERI Full day ERI Half day non-ERI Full day non-ERI

22. Description of Current Program What it looks like district wide What it looks like at MM