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

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

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

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

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 ?

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)

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

Early Reading Intervention:04-Winter to Spring Growth, General Ed Kindergarten

0

10

20

30

Phon

emic

Segs

./ Le

tter N

ames

Experimental 2.5 22.5 10.5 18

Control 5 10.5 10 27

W PS S PS W L S L

Early Reading Intervention: 04-Winter to Spring Growth, Kindergarten Special Education

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Phon

emic

Seg

./Let

ter N

ames

Experimental 4 11 0 7

Control 4.5 0.5 6 26

W PS S PS W L S L

Early Reading Intervention:04-Winter to Spring Growth, First Grade General Ed

0

5

10

15

20

25

Phonem

ic S

eg./L

ette

r N

ames

Experimental 2 7 20

Control 0 3 12

Fall ORF Winter ORF Spring ORF

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

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

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

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

WRSD Kindergarten Winter/Spring Growth Phonemic Segmentations 2005-2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gains 22 17 23 19 11 25.5 21

FD/ERI FD/Non-ERI HD/ERI HD/Non-ERI HD/ERI/X2/mwf HD/ERI/X2m-f All Kind

WRSD Kindergarten Winter/Spring Growth Phonemic Segmentations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

WPS 17 37 17 26 28 10 24

SPS 39 54 40 45 39 32 44

FD/ERI FD/Non-ERI HD/ERI HD/Non-ERI HD/ERI/X2/mwf HD/ERI/X2m-f All Kind

WRSD Kindergarten Fall-Spring Growth Letter Names 2005-2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Gains 39 34 33 30 40 31.5 34

FD/ERI FD/Non-ERI HD/ERI HD/Non-ERI HD/ERI/X2/mwf HD/ERI/X2m-f All Kind

WRSD Kindergarten Fall/Spring Growth Letter Names 2005-2006

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fall Let 4 25 5 15 5 6 9

Win Let 26 48 22 35 30 27 31

Spr Let 43 59 38 45 45 39 44

FD/ERI FD/Non-ERI HD/ERI HD/Non-ERI HD/ERI/X2/mwf HD/ERI/X2m-f All Kind

WRSD Kindergarten Fall/Winter Initial Sound Fluency Growth 2005-2006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Gains 12.5 12.5 9 11 10 8 10

FD/ERI FD/Non-ERI HD/ERI HD/Non-ERI HD/ERI/X2/mwf HD/ERI/X2m-f All Kind

WRSD Kindergarten Fall/Winter Growth Initial Sound Fluency 2005-2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fall ISF 5.5 10.5 5 11 10 7 10

Win ISF 18 23 14 22 20 15 20

FD/ERI FD/Non-ERI HD/ERI HD/Non-ERI HD/ERI/X2/mwf HD/ERI/X2m-f All Kind

Description of Current Program

• What it looks like district wide

– Half day ERI– Full day ERI– Half day non-ERI– Full day non-ERI

Description of Current Program

• What it looks like district wide

• What it looks like at MM