Read to Achieve We have evaluated many grant-funded literacy programs. Title 1 funds have been used for providing services to low-income students, and have been traditionally used in large part to support remedial literacy programs. We see that poor reading skills and low income are very strongly connected in many educators’ minds. We’ve had principals, administrators and teachers tell us that low-income and below proficient in reading are inter-changeable. We saw that these foundational beliefs, together with lack of data skills led to confusion in implementing the Read to Achieve (RtA) program. Among other things, the RtA program allowed students who could not sit for a long test to demonstrate mastery of the content by completing a portfolio over time. This was to be used in rare cases. Students who were not proficient in reading at grade level by the end of 3rd grade were to be given more reading instruction in the summer and at the beginning of 4th grade. The idea behind this was that some students can learn to read but need more time, and instead of stopping the "how to read" at the end of 3rd grade, these students would be provided more instruction. We saw school districts that decided there was no way to know who would score proficient by the end of 3rd grade so they had their 3rd grade teachers have all kids complete the portfolios. They did this instead of teaching the core instruction. They did not know that they could tell from the Beginning of Grade (BOG) Reading scores that some/many of their kids were already proficient and many were on track to be proficient by the end of the year. We talked with several elementary school principals who told us they never looked at their BOG scores and they didn't know how to interpret them anyway. We predicted that treating all students as if they were not likely to be able to pass, instead of teaching them a standard and enriched curriculum, would result in lower scores. School staff told us that when the data showed that non-poor students needed more help on a topic, the parents would protest that the extra time was for poor kids and they didn’t want their kids getting it. In the literacy programs we evaluated, we found high-achieving poor kids getting pulled out of core curriculum for remedial work. We saw summer reading camps enroll students who were already proficient. When the school districts got the green light to use assessments, instead of using the alternative standardized reading test provided by the state, many selected tests that were not aligned to the standards, and that had no established reliability or validity. RtA included using a data system to document and monitor which literacy skills had been mastered. We saw school districts assign people to be in charge of the RtA data because of their elementary reading program skills, not their data skills. And many had no idea how to produce reports or use the data effectively. In one district that we were working with, after the first year of using the data system for RtA, we found that they had records for only one student in second grade. Something had not been set up correctly and they hadn’t noticed this because they never used the data for anything. They simply entered the data but never produced a report to inform practices, as was intended.Which beliefs are influencing his Equity Lens? Click to check your answer. B.1 Cause and Effect B.2 Expert vs. Evidence B.3 What At-Risk Means B.4 Desired Outcomes and Goals B.5 What is STEM and Why We Need to Fill STEM Pipeline Which skills are influencing his Equity Lens? Click to check your answer. S.1 Knowing What Can Be Known S.2 How to Identify Kids to Align Services S.3 How to Classify Things S.4 Working With Data S.5 Understanding Data Details S.6 Understanding Federal Data-Handling Laws BeliefsB.1 Cause and Effect Although the system used in Read to Achieve was designed to identify which literacy skills students had mastered and what they needed work on, teachers reported to us that this was "teaching to the test." One teacher reported to us that she liked to do things like have tea parties with her students, to raise their quality of life, and now she had to teach to the test instead. When we asked her if the kids were learning how to read, she paused, then answered, "Yes. But at what cost?" B.2 Expert vs. Evidence NA B3. What At-Risk Means Staff reported to us that not-low-income parents were upset when their children were identified as needing more help or to participate in summer reading programs, because they viewed extra help as being for low-income students. We saw schools that never looked at the data in the system they were using for literacy, and instead providing literacy services based on perceived income levels. B.4 Desired Outcomes and Goals Some educators we worked with seemed unaware that the program was designed to provide appropriate services until students reached the goal of being proficient. One Summer Reading program director told us that the teachers were giving the students work to do that the students were completing incorrectly, and the teachers used this to confirm that they were indeed poor readers. B.5 What is STEM and Why We Need to Fill STEM Pipeline NA SkillsS.1 Knowing What Can Be Known They didn’t know that they could use BOG reading scores to identify the students who were not on track to be proficient at the end of 3rd grade. S.2 How to Identify Kids to Align Services NA S.3 How to Classify Things NA S.4 Skill-Set Required for Working With Data Rather than have someone who understood data manage the data system that was being used, one district we worked with assigned this job to someone with reading expertise because the data was related to reading. This person was not comfortable with data or technology. S.5 Understanding Data Details NA S.6 Understanding Federal Data-Handling Laws NA
