1 / 16

Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 1 Report September 22, 2009

Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 1 Report September 22, 2009 HIGHLIGHTS. Research and Policy Support Group. FOR PRESS OFFICE – SEPTEMBER 16, 2009. Summary of Findings.

nimrod
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 1 Report September 22, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating the NYC Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot: Year 1 Report September 22, 2009 HIGHLIGHTS Research and Policy Support Group FOR PRESS OFFICE – SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

  2. Summary of Findings • By all measures, Core Knowledge Reading (CKR) students made significantly greater gains in early literacy than peer students. • Compared to peers, kindergarteners taught with the CKR program made more progress in all areas of reading tested: spelling, phonemic awareness, decoding, and comprehension. • Surveys and case studies indicate overall high levels of administrator and teacher satisfaction with the CKR Pilot, while also offering guidance for year 2 implementation and evaluation work. • Administrators would recommend program to others; teachers rate CKR more favorably than other programs. • Administrators report change in teacher practice: more data-driven instruction & teacher collaboration. • Teachers and administrators feel more positively about the Skills Strand than the Listening and Learning Strand, particularly regarding student engagement. • Teachers may need more support addressing needs of struggling readers with CKR & managing time to complete lessons.

  3. Methodology: A multi-method, longitudinal research design Focus of the Evaluation Hypothesis:Kindergarteners taught with the Core Knowledge Reading (CKR) Program will gain reading competencies at a faster rate than their peers. • YEAR 1 • Literacy Assessments (at 10 CKR schools & 10 comparison schools) • Pre- and post-test of literacy skills • Additional tests of literacy skills at end of each year • Periodic assessments throughout the year (DIBELS) • Teacher and Administrator Surveys (at 10 CKR schools): • Assesses satisfaction with and impact of CKR • Case studies (at 3 CKR schools): • Classroom observations, administrator & teacher interviews

  4. Similar Demographics at CKR and Comparison Schools Percent of Students (Number of Students for School Size) CKR Schools (N = 584) Comparison Schools (N = 307)* * N = the number of students for whom both fall and spring data were available. Note: These and other data were used to select comparison schools (data as of 2007-08 school year).

  5. Evaluation of • Literacy Gains

  6. Different Literacy Domains: Greater Gains & Higher Spring Scores for CKR Students than Comparison Students in All Literacy Domains W-J Brief Reading 6

  7. 6X Greater Literacy Gains for CKR Students than Students at Demographically Similar Comparison Schools Average Fall-Spring Gain in Scale Score Points Woodcock-Johnson (Brief Reading Test) CKR Students Significantly Higher p < .001

  8. Significantly Higher End of Year Performance on Decoding and Spelling Average Spring Scores in Woodcock-Johnson Scale Score Points CKR Students Significantly Higher p < .0001 Spelling of Sounds Subtest Word Attack Subtest

  9. At All Achievement Levels, Greater Literacy Gains for CKR Students than Students at Comparison Average Fall-Spring Gain in Scale Score Points Woodcock-Johnson (Brief Reading Test) CKR Schools Comparison Schools 9

  10. Significantly Higher Scores on End of Year Terra Nova Reading Test Average Spring Scale Score for TerraNova Overall Reading Battery CKR Students Significantly Higher p < .0001

  11. Spring Surveys & Case Studies 11 11

  12. Administrators Report Satisfaction with Program Would you recommend the CK Reading curriculum to other administrators you know? (n = 9*) Do you plan to purchase the CK Reading program when it becomes commercially available? (n = 9*) Will your Kindergarten classrooms be using the CK Reading program next year? (n = 9*) Administrators’ overall satisfaction with CK Reading (n = 10) Not No Sure 1 Somewhat 1 Not Very Yes Satisfied Satisfied Sure 3 5 4 7 Yes Yes 8 8 * One administrator did not respond to most of the survey questions. 12 12 12

  13. Teachers Report Satisfaction with Curriculum Percent of Respondents Very Satisfied • Teachers’ Views: • “The Skills Strand is really very good for the students. Their reading levels are higher this year than last year.” • At first, I felt that many teachers did not know if they agreed with teaching sounds before letter names. But by January, when teachers started to see their children reading, they became believers.” • “The Skills Strand has exceeded my expectations. I think it is the best reading program I have ever used. We are thrilled with the results. I hope it is introduced into more schools. We plan to change the sequence of the Listening Strand.” • “After seeing how well Core Knowledge Skills worked for teaching my children to read, I would have a hard time teaching any other way.” Somewhat Satisfied Much Better 86.7% Somewhat Better 66.7% Teachers’ overall opinion of CK Reading compared with other K reading programs (n = 30)b Teachers’ overall satisfaction with CK Reading (n = 30)a Number of teachers selecting the “neutral” response: question a = 3 (10%); question b = 4 (13.3%). 13 13

  14. Much More than Last Year Somewhat More Than Last Year Administrators Perceive Change in Teacher Methods Percent of Respondents 88.9% • Administrators’ Views: • “This year with Core Knowledge Reading, all of the teachers are communicating more, they discuss the pacing and delivery strategies.” • “The CK pilot has honed the professional conversation.” • “There was resistance and suspicion on the teachers part in the beginning but they are ecstatic over the results—the children are reading! “ 66.7% Discussing/ sharing ideas on teaching strategies w/ other K teachers (n = 9) b Using assessment data to drive instruction (n = 9) a Number of teachers selecting the “about the same as last year” response: question a n= 0; question b n = 2 (22.2%). 14 14

  15. Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Teachers Have Differing Views on Strands: Teachers Feel More Positively About Skills than Listening & Learning Strand Percent of Respondents Skills Strand Listening and Learning Strand 96.7% 80.0% 73.3% 46.7% 43.3% 44.8% Goals of lessons are clear (n = 30) d I have enough time to complete daily lesson (n = 29) f Students find activities engaging (n = 30) e Goals of lessons are clear (n = 30) a Students find activities engaging (n = 30) b I have enough time to complete daily lesson (n = 30) c Number of teachers selecting the “neutral” response: question a n = 0; question b n = 3 (10%); question cn = 7 (23.3%); question d n = 2 (6.7%); question e n = 6 (20%); question f n = 5 (17.2%). 15 15

  16. Much Better Somewhat Better Teachers Compare CKR with Other Programs Percent of Respondents 72.4% 71.4% 69.0% 62.9% 55.2% 41.3% Accommo-dations for different learning needs (n = 29) f Teaching content/ background knowledge (n = 29) c Ability to engage students and spark enthusiasm for reading (n = 29) e Comprehen-siveness of program (n = 27) d Teaching decoding skills (n = 29) a Sequence of instruction (n = 28) b Number of teachers selecting the “about the same” response: question a n = 3 (10.3%); question b n = 2 (7.1%); question cn = 2 (6.9%); question d n = 7 (25.9%); question e n = 6 (20.7%); question f n = 4 (13.8%). 16 16

More Related