Reading First Reading First and Interventionsand Interventions

Stuart GreenbergStuart GreenbergERRFTACERRFTAC

sgreenberg@fcrr.orgsgreenberg@fcrr.org

Georgia Reading First Conference

Acknowledgements

• ERRFTAC/FCRR• CRRFTAC• WRRFTAC

Today’s PresentationToday’s Presentation

Two Parts

1. What’s possible in our schools

2. Facilitators and Barriers

Current UnderstandingCurrent Understanding

• High quality classroom instruction can significantly reduce the numbers of children who struggle with reading

• Intervention in addition to classroom instruction is very effective.

Reading ComprehensionOne Model: A Thought To Ponder

Fundamental Skills (phonological awareness, Alphabetic Principal)

Word Reading

ReadingComprehension

Listening Comprehension

Verbal Language Skills

(Receptive & Expressive)Fluency

Intervention: A School Wide FocusIntervention: A School Wide Focus

Step 1: Quality CoreEnhanced general education classroom instruction.

Step 2 : Supportive InstructionChild receives more intense intervention in general education, presumably in small groups.

Step 3 : Intensive Intervention Intervention increases in intensity and duration. Support typically needed across years.

Evidence from one school that we can do substantially better than ever before

School Characteristics:

70% Free and Reduced Lunch (going up each year)

65% minority (mostly African-American)

Elements of Curriculum Change:

Movement to a more balanced reading curriculum beginning in 1994-1995 school year (incomplete implementation) for K-2Improved implementation in 1995-1996

Implementation in Fall of 1996 of screening and more intensive small group instruction for at-risk students

Proportion falling below the 25th

percentile in word reading ability at the end of first grade 10

20

3031.8

20.4

10.96.7

3.7

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Average Percentile 48.9 55.2 61.4 73.5 81.7for entire grade (n=105)

Hartsfield Elementary Progress over five years

Screening at beginning of first grade, with extra instruction for those in bottom 30-40%

Proportion falling below the 25th

Percentile 10

20

30

Proportion falling below the 25th

Percentile 10

20

30

31.8

20.4

10.96.7

3.7

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999Average Percentile 48.9 55.2 61.4 73.5 81.7

14.5

9.05.4 2.4

1996 1997 1998 1999

Average Percentile 58.2 67.1 74.1 81.5

Hartsfield Elementary Progress over five years

Hartsfield Elem. State Average

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Level 2Level 1

FCAT Performance in Spring, 2003FCAT Performance in Spring, 2003

AssumptionsAssumptions

• The numbers of children who appear to be struggling is related to the quality and intensity of instruction.

• Some children will require more high quality instruction in smaller groups in order to respond well.

• Some children will not respond adequately, even with the best intervention.

1.Difficulty learning to read words accurately and fluently

2. Insufficient vocabulary, general knowledge, and reasoning skills to support comprehension of written language

3. Absence or loss of initial motivation to read, or failure to develop a mature appreciation of the rewards of reading.

Potential Stumbling Blocks to Becoming a Good Reader (NRC Report, 1998)

High Quality InstructionHigh Quality Instruction

Study

Hours of Instruction

Student/

Teacher Ratio

Reading %tile for Identification of Risk Status

% of Students Still At-Risk at End of

Study

Foorman et al., 1998

174 classroom 18 5%

Mathes et al., 2001

35 Classroom

(peer tutoring)

25 7%

Allor et al, 2002

35-55 Classroom

(peer tutoring)

25 6%

Mathes et al, in press

35 Classroom

(peer tutoring or small group)

25 5%

The Impact of Intervention OnlyThe Impact of Intervention Only

StudyHours of

InstructionStudent/Teacher

RatioReading %tile for Identification of

Risk Status

% of Students Still At-Risk at End of Study

Felton, 1993

340 1:8 16 3.8%

Vellutino et al., 1996

35-65 1:1 15 4.5%

Torgesen et al., 2000

92 1:3 18 1.4%

Instruction + Intervention in First Instruction + Intervention in First GradeGrade

StudyHours of

InstructionStudent/Teacher

Ratio

Reading %tile for

Identification of Risk Status

% of Students Still At-Risk at End of Study

Mathes et al., 2005

(Responsive Intervention)

120 1:3 18 1.7%

Mathes et al., 2005

(Proactive Intervention)

120 1:3 18 .02%

Torgesen et al., 2003

120 1:3 18 .8%

Double Dose ReadingDouble Dose Reading

Core Reading Core Reading InstructionInstruction

InterventiInterventionon

Very small groups

Looking Inside The Brain ImagingLooking Inside The Brain Imaging

5 Year Olds Before Learning To 5 Year Olds Before Learning To ReadRead

Right RightLeft Left

AfterIntervention

LeftLeftRightRight

normalized

Good Intervention Normalizes Brain Good Intervention Normalizes Brain Activation PatternsActivation Patterns

Before Intervention

Answers – In a perfect worldAnswers – In a perfect world

What percentage of children require secondary intervention?

7% or less

What percentage of children don’t respond adequately to quality instruction and supportive intervention?

2% or less

How much time is need to determine if intensive intervention is warranted?

Around 30 weeks

The Real World

What are the barriers to getting these results?

Barrier 1: ExpertiseBarrier 1: Expertise

• Teaching reading is a job for an expert.

Barrier 2: InfrastructureBarrier 2: Infrastructure

• Teaching students in very small groups is more beneficial than in medium or whole groups.

• An intervention teacher can only work with 3 to 5 children during each instructional session.

• Children need to be grouped according to shared needs and groupings should be modified across the year.

• School leadership has to support small group intervention.

InfrastructureInfrastructure

Effective Model• Intervention teacher(s) provides small group

in addition to core through-out the day. • Special education, Title1, and general

education work together seamlessly.

Barrier 3:Time

Use time wisely, because every minute counts

This means

• carefully choosing instructional materials based on what research suggests is most effective.

• reducing downtime.

• Arranging instruction that increases each individual child’s time actively engaged in reading and reading related activities.

Every Minute Counts

This means

• carefully choosing instructional materials based on what research suggests is most effective.

• reducing down time.

• using strategies that increase each individual child’s time actively engaged in reading and reading related activities.

The consensus view of most important instructional features for interventions

Provide ample opportunities for guided practice of new skills

Provide a significant increase in intensity of instruction

Provide systematic cueing of appropriate strategies in context

Provide systematic and explicit instruction on whatever component skills are deficient: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension strategies

Interventions are more effective when they:

Provide appropriate levels of scaffolding as children learn to apply new skills

Each year skills and knowledge required to meet standards increases

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

Must learn to recognize many new words accurately and automatically

Must acquire many new vocabulary words

Must learn to deal with longer sentences and more complex ideas

Must be able to draw upon more extensive background knowledge

Anything you’d like to add?

That’s it – enjoy the rest of your day!