IREAD in Indiana: Law, Policy, and Practice Presented at the Indiana State University Law Conference Velinda F. Stubbs, Ph.D. April 10, 2013
Goals for our session: • Review • Indiana Code • IDOE policy interpretation of Indiana Code • District interpretation of IDOE policy • Literature regarding retention policy and practice • IREAD-3 results • Compare: Indiana and other states instituting gateway assessments • Discuss: Impact, implications, and unintended consequences of IREAD-3
IREAD-3: The Law House Enrolled Act 1367, 2010 (also known as Public Law 109 in 2010), which "requires the evaluation of reading skills for students who are in grade three beginning in the Spring of 2012 to ensure that all students can read proficiently before moving on to grade four."
IREAD-3: The Law • House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1367, also known as PL 109 in 2010: • Citations for the statutory language created in HEA 1367 (2010) are in IC 20-32-8.5:
IREAD-3: IDOE Policy Students who do not pass IREAD-3 in the spring: opportunity to retest in the summer. Students who do not pass IREAD-3 will: • continue to receive instruction in Grade 3 reading, • are officially reported as a third grader, and • take Grade 3 ISTEP+ assessment (ELA and math). • It is the responsibility of the local school to design a program that meets the learning needs of students. Retention, which is identified as a last resort in House Enrolled Act 1367 requires schools to provide students who do not pass IREAD-3 with Grade 3 reading/literacy instruction. Literacy instruction may also include other content areas, such as science and social studies. Methods of organizing students for differentiated instruction are determined locally.
IREAD-3: IDOE Policy Good Cause Exemptions 1. Students who have previously been retained two times prior to promotion to grade four (In other words, students can only be retained a maximum of two times in grades K-3 combined.). 2. Students with disabilities whose case conference committee has determined that promotion is appropriate. 3. English Learners (ELs) whose Individual Learning Plan (ILP) committee has determined that promotion is appropriate.
IREAD-3: Local Practice • Intervention: Spring intervention, Summer school, RTI Tier 2 • Retention in grade 3, grouped with age appropriate peers, reading in grade 3 • Year Two???
Retention: Review of Literature • Focus on accountability • “social promotion” • Prevalence of Retention • 2007 Survey of National Household Education revealed approximately 10% reported had been retained
Survey Says…. With an elbow partner, consider the following questions and jot down your thoughts. (2 min.) • What factors are typically considered when retaining a child? • What is the optimum age for retaining a child for it to be successful? Turn to another pair and share (3 min.)
Research Says… Factors most predictive: Race, SES Status, Gender, Reading Performance Optimum age: end of grade one Potential Negative Effects of Retention
Retention: Review of Literature • State Policy Regarding Retention / Promotion • High Stakes Assessments • CPS 1996: 1/5 third graders retained • Florida: 3% ⇨ 13% • Indiana: 85% failed on first assessment, as per IDOE 3% were retained due to IREAD
Study of one district Can passing IREAD-3 be predicted by student chronological age (age compared to peer group by quartiles), ethnicity, socio-economic status of the family, gender, type of school attending (Title I versus non-Title I) or attendance? • Analysis: Logistic regression, N = 1,719 • Low-SES status most significant predictor; Ethnicity next most significant; Attendance was significant but least significant compared to SES and Ethnicity
Can passing IREAD-3 be predicted by performance on DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators or Early Literacy Skills) and TRC (Text Reading Comprehension) level in Kindergarten, first, and second grade? • Analysis: Logistic regression, N = 1,241-1,558 • DIBELS: MOY in grade 2 and MOY and EOY in grade 1 most significant predictors • TRC: EOY and MOY in grade 2 and EOY and MOY in grade 1most significant predictors
Unintended Consequences • Fair and appropriate use of assessment? • Cultural bias • Educationally beneficial • Potential to increase risk of dropping out of school • Financial implication: $47,000,000 additional funding if 10% additional students retained , $14,1 00,000 for 3%
Implications vs. Intent The intent of HEA 1367 is to ensure every student has the opportunity for future success through literacy. The results will have a positive effect on our entire state as the need for remedial education in middle and high school is reduced and dropout rates and juvenile delinquency are lowered. In addition, HEA 1367 will help Indiana develop the highly skilled workforce needed for a strong economy. http://inschoolmatters.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/lawmaker-board-of-education-disregarded-legislative-intent-with-iread-3/
Implications • Low-SES students: • Academically oriented, HQ pre-school and Kindergarten programs • Family literacy programs • Tutoring and summer reading programs • Reading specialists • Programs to improve attendance • Early reading assessments • Early intensive interventions for students identified at risk of failure • Non-graded grouping
Implications (cont.) • Minority students • Expectations of teachers • Curriculum / pedagogy • Potential assessment bias of IREAD-3 Reallocation of Resources