Summer Reading Regression & Recoupment

1. Summer Reading Regression & Recoupment Nicole Musil February 11, 2010

2. Handout Information • Additional copies on NASP website • nicole.musil@gmail.com

3. Areas to address ESY LD Regression Current Study Procedures Results Conclusions Overview

4. School Psychologists • Serve on IEP teams, contribute to ESY decisions • How are ESY decisions made (at your school)?

5. Extended School Year • All students with disabilities must be considered • Annual data-driven team decision • Critical Skills • Regression (skill loss) • Recoupment (how long to regain lost skill)

6. ESY Decisions- Type of Data • How do we predict whether an individual will regress? • Type of data required for ESY decisions • Individual progress-monitoring data • Normative comparison

7. Learning Disability • Largest disability category • “Mild” - still need to consider ESY • Do some students with LD need ESY?

8. LD Variation • Several studies question LD construct • Difference within group • IQ range 72-120 • Achievement similar to low achievers • Is LD just low achievement? Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., Lipsey, M.W., Roberts, P.H. (2001)

9. Current Issues • Do students regress in fundamental skills? • “Year round” schools • Lengthening school year

10. Average Number of Instructional Days in School YearBy Country International Average = 193 School Days/Year SOURCE: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003

11. School Day Length • KIPP Schools • Selective Enrollment • 7:30 am- 5:00 pm (9.5 hours) • Namaste Charter • Lottery • 7:45- 4:00 (8.25 hours) • includes family breakfast, recess, P.E.

12. Current Study • What changes take place over summer? • Regression, improvement, no change • Recoupment • What factors influence regression? • LD status • Low achievement • Summer reading program

13. R-CBM • Measures change in reading fluency over short periods of time • Brief, validated as comprehensive measure of reading (grades 3-5) • Also, older students with poorer ORF skills

14. Background & Previous Research ESY, SLD, Summer Regression

15. ESY • Purpose- preventing regression • History- case law for students with more severe disabilities

16. Armstrong v. Kline (1979) • Class Action Lawsuit Decision, PA Circuit • Severe regression-recoupment disorders • Severe & Profound Impairments (cognitive) • Severe Emotional Disturbance • Autism • Physical Disabilities

17. LD & Summer Regression • Studies have shown mixed results • Tests not designed to measure progress • Repeated measures of norm-referenced • Teacher-designed tests • Grade equivalents

18. Allinder & Eicher, 1994 • Done with R-CBM • Found that students with SLD regressed • However, “recouped” skills within 6 weeks

19. Gen. Ed.- Norms • Large data sets show regression over summer • Based on benchmarks (e.g. Aimsweb) • Problem- probes more difficult 3-4th grade

20. Comparisons / Predictors • Learning disability status • Gender (more boys than girls with SLD) • Achievement level

21. Hypotheses: Regression / Recoupment • SLD > gen. ed. peers • Males = females • Low achievers may regress more

22. More Hypotheses • Summer program will prevent regression • Age / Grade • ORF increase • No differences in regression/recoupment • Regressors will recoup

23. Current Study • 137 students, one school • Low poverty rate (<1% free/reduced) • Gen Ed and LD

24. Data Collection • Pretest- end of school year • Post-test- Sept • Follow up- October • 14 regressors • ≥10% pretest score

25. Results- Summer Regression • Whole group mean increase- 2.85 WRC • Significant • One group t-test • p < .01 for increase

26. SEM • Range for probes used 9.5 to 10 WRC • Among the 44 who regressed • 27 ≤ SEM • 17 > SEM • Minimal change: 21 changed only 1-2 WRC

27. SLD status • Only 4 out of 137 students • Lower pre-test & post-test than peers • Gen. sample pre 128; post 131 • SLD 102 for both • ANOVAs insignificant

28. SLD recoupment • 1 of the 4 students with SLD regressed • Recouped significantly • Mean scores • Pre-test 142 • Post-test 124 • Follow-up 141

29. Sex Differences • Males’ ORF < Females’ for pre and post • Females 133 pre; 136 post • Males 121 pre; 124 post • ANOVAs lacked significance for pre, post, and difference • Both sexes showed similar recoupment

30. Low Achievement • Defined as < benchmark at pretest • Showed similar improvements • Benchmark 147 pre; 149 post • Low 87 pre; 90 post • ANOVAs not significant for pre/post diff.

31. Low Achievement & Recoupment • Only 3 out of 14 “regressors” low ach. • 2 of the 3 recouped (follow-up > post-test)

32. Summer Program Attendance • 17 total students • 9 improved over summer • 5 changed minimally (1-2 WRC) • 3 regressed, significantly • All 3 regressors recouped • ANOVA for pre-post change insignificant

33. Age / Grade • Average WRC increased by grade • ANOVAs significant • Pre-test alone p < 0.004 • Post-test alone p < 0.010 • ANOVA insignificant for pre-test to post-test difference

34. General Recoupment • 14 students regressed • Improved significantly after 4 weeks • Paired-samples t-test p < .000002

35. Anticipated Results • Summer program –> maintenance or improvement • Regressors recouped after 4 weeks back

36. Unexpected Results • None of the factors studies significantly impacted regression • Instead ORF increased (or changed minimally) over summer

37. Results & Conclusions • Due to size & characteristics of the sample • Low poverty rate • Few students with LD • Unknown summer activities (reading, etc) • This study’s results not necessarily generalizable!

38. Special Education ESY decisions Normative comparison General Education Summer programs “Year round” schooling Implications for Practice: Data-based decision making