Ready-Set-Read
Pilot Summer Tutoring Initiative
Prepared
By
Dr. Marie Biggs: Professor Literacy-Reading Coordinator
Dr. Nancy Watkins: Professor Literacy
St. Petersburg College of Education
How Hard Is It To Learn To Read?
The Children Who Struggling in Reading
10 Million children have reading difficulties
Generally Children who struggle are:
- Students with Special Educational Needs
- English Language Learners (ELL)
- Experiential- Children of Poverty Snow, Burns and
Griffin (1998)
The Problem
Struggling Elementary Readers
• Children who reading below level by the end of first grade continue to struggle through the
eleventh grade ( Shaywitz, 2003).
• Low-income children enter kindergarten typically 12-14 months below norms in language
and pre-reading skills. (Snow, Burns and Griffin, 1998).
• Florida’s school readiness assessments assume all children enter with the same language and
pre-reading literacy experiences (Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading FAIR).
• Remediation for struggling readers is conducted with grade level skills/strategies-regardless
of the child’s developmental level (Allington, 2008).
• Children that enter kindergarten without strong phonemic awareness are considered “at risk”
for future literacy success (Adams, 2001).
• Children that do not meet developmental sequence of literacy skills and strategies (alphabetic
learning, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension) are often retained in grades 3 or 4.
Retention rates for Florida 16%.
Florida 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2010)
-
Fourth Grade Reading – no significant difference from 2007
36% percent proficient readers and 73% at basic level in reading
Florida Achievement Gap at Basic Reading - Black Students 82%, Hispanic Students 69%
and Free and Reduced Lunch 75%
** Race and low SES are highly correlated with academic literacy development
The Problem Continued
Summer Reading Loss
•
•
•
•
Children at risk, especially children of poverty, lose significant ground in
reading during the summer months. Allington (2011) suggests that
underserved children are “at-risk” in their reading development unless they
have the same opportunities, as their more advantaged peers. Cooper, Nye,
Charlton, Lindsay and Greathouse (1996) contend that these children need
practice and support in their reading in the summer months, otherwise, they
may:
Start school in fall three months behind where they were when they left for
summer vacation
At the end of their elementary school experience they may be over twoyears behind their more advantaged peers in reading
Summer reading loss contributes 80% to the rich/poor achievement gap.
(p.27)
The Project
Project Abstract
• St. Petersburg College, College of Education is seeking a grant to open a
Early Literacy Lab Center.
• The Early Literacy Lab Center will provide high quality early learning
experience for 40 children ages 3-5 representing “at risk” populations in
the St. Petersburg community.
• The Early Literacy Lab Center will provide free after school early literacy
tutoring for 80 K-3 children who struggle in early literacy learning.
• Literacy and Early Childhood professors will teach Early Literacy Courses
on site to the preservice teachers. Professors will model early literacy
strategies with the children and supervise the effective implementation of
said strategies by preservice teachers, thus enhancing fidelity of practice.
• The Early Literacy Lab Center will provide preservice teachers practical
hands-on experiences with children from the St. Petersburg community.
Why is the Early Literacy Center Important for Pre-K
Children
• Early intervention in the form of quality childcare shows positive
correlations with preacademic skills and language skills in children who
attended programs that engage children and families in the process of early
education (Duncan, Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Frede, 1995; Barnett, 1995).
• In fact, high-quality early childhood education has long-lasting positive
effects for children’s success in later life (Frede, 1995). There is evidence
that it impacts higher education, professional endeavors, and citizenship
(McKay, Condelli, Ganson, Barrett, McConskey, & Plantz, 1985; Galinsky
& Freidman, 1993).
• Early education in the form of quality childcare (high teacher
qualifications, low teacher–child ratios, developmentally appropriate
expectations and curriculum, and family involvement) has shown sustained
and robust gains up through Grade 3 and sustained academic performance
up to seventh grade (Lally, Mangione, Honig, & Witter, 1988; Galinsky &
Freidman, 1993).
Why is the Early Literacy Center Important for the K-3
Children who struggle in their literacy learning?
• Struggling Readers need an extra 45 minutes a day in
diagnostic/developmental reading interventions that they are not receiving
in school.
• Struggling Readers need one-on-one instruction to meet their differentiated
needs at there level that is diagnostically supported through assessments.
• Tutoring provides time to build background knowledge and experiences
through more explicit direct instruction with repeated practice
• Multi-sensory approach to reading can be provided in a one-one
instructional format.
• Provide motivation and self-esteem
• Supports Academic Language
• Connects the home and school with the literacy center.
Allington (2008).
Why is the Early Literacy Lab Center Important for
Preservice Teachers?
• Bridges the disconnect from early/emergent literacy theory to practice.
• Opportunities for hands-on experiences mentored in best research-based
practice by faculty.
• Changes the beliefs in novice teachers that all students can learn to read.
• Helps the preservice teachers to be culturally responsive in their practice.
• Connects the teacher to the community of learners and the school.
• Preservice teachers become move reflective, effective and caring
practitioners
• Pre-service teachers become self-regulated and independent learners that
will stay with them in their classroom teaching.
• Pre-service teacher, who are supervised by faculty during a hands-on
tutoring session, provide those with reading problems a high level of
professional service and grow as highly effective practitioners (Risko et
al., 2008)
Assessing Impact
• Students served by the Lab Center
–
–
–
–
Early Literacy assessments:
Phonemic Awareness, Concepts of Print and Letter Identification pre/post
Informal Reading Inventory
Oral Language Surveys
• Preservice teacher
– Surveys pre/post
– Formative/Summative evaluations
Staffing Needs
• Preschool Center Needs:
– Two certified Early Childhood Teachers
– Two paraprofessionals/instructional assistants with Associates in Early Childhood
• Tutoring Program Needs:
– Tutoring done by students eligible for reading endorsement. Supervised by a full
time Literacy Faculty.
• Administrative Needs:
– One Director
– One Assistant Director OR Curriculum Coordinator
• Maintenance staff
– Custodian/handy-person
– Kitchen Staff (serve food for children at risk)
Expenses
•
Currently in Contact with other research lab schools in the area to determine start-up and
maintenance costs, taking into account:
– Facility
• Structure
• Materials
• Overhead
• Licensures
• Accreditation
• Maintenance costs
– Faculty
• Salaries
• Benefits\
• Professional Development needs
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adams, G., Zaslow, M., & Tout, K. (2007). Early care and education for children in low-income families: Patterns of use, quality, and potential policy
implications. The Urban Institute in Child Trends. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411482_early_care.pdf
Allington, R.L. (2008) What really matters in response to intervention. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.
Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. Future of Children, 5, 25-50.
Biggs, M, C. & Watkins, N, A. (2008). Reading fluency through alternative text: Rereading with an interactive sing -to-read program embedded within a middle
school music classroom. Journal of Educational Technology.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Berlin, L., & Fuligini, A. (2000). Early childhood intervention programs: What about the family? In J. Schonkoff & S. Meissels (Eds.),
Handbook of early intervention (2nd edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Compton-Lilly, C. (2008). Teaching struggling readers: Capitalizing on diversity for effective learning. Reading Teacher, 61 (8), 668-672.
Cunningham, P. M. (2007). High poverty schools that beat the odds. Reading Teacher, 60(4), 382-385.
Cunningham, A. E, Perry, K. E. Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004) Disciplinary
Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development, 62(2), 296-318.
knowledge of k-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of 10 early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1).
Florida Department of Education http://www.fldoe.org
Frede, E. (1995). The role of program quality in producing early childhood program benefits. http://www//.acsa.edu.au/policies/earlych.htm .
Galinsky, E., & Friedman, D. (1993). Education before school: Investing in quality childcare. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.
Guthrie, J.T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil, P.B. Monsental, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.) Handbook of Reading
Research Volume III (pp. 403-422).
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40, 4-10.
Joyce, B. R., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development
Lyons, N. (1990). Dilemmas in knowing: Ethical and epistemological dimensions of teachers’ work and development. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 159180.
Lally, J., Mangoine, P., & Honig, A. (1998). The Syracuse University Family Development Research Program: Long range impact of an early intervention with
low-income children and families. In Powell, D. (Ed.), Parent education as early childhood intervention: Emerging directions in theory, research, and practice
(pp. 79-104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McKay, R., Condelli, L., Ganson, H., Barnett, B., McCouley, C., & Plantz, M. (1985). The impact of Head Start on children, families, and communities: Final
report of the Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis and Utilization Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Evaluation, Synthesis and Utilization Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
NICHD Early Childhood Research Network. (2006). Poverty and patterns of child care. In G. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Ed.), Consequences of
growing up poor (pp. 100-131). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Peisener-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M., Clifford, R., Yazejian, N., Culkin, M., Zelazo, J., Howes, C., Byler, P., Kagan, S., & Rustici, J. (2000). The
children of the cost quality and outcomes study go to school: Executive summary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank
Porter Graham Development Center.
Rasinski, T.V., Homan, S.P., & Biggs, M. C. (2009). Teaching reading fluency to struggling readers- Method, materials, and evidence. (Eds.) In
W.R.
Rimm-Kaufman, S., Pianta, R., & Cox, M. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 15, 147-166.
Rupley: A Themed Edition on Direct Instruction for Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties.
Sachs, P. (1999). Standardized minds: The high price of America’s testing culture and what we can do to change it. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Publishing.
Serna, L., Nielsen, E., Lambros, K., & Forness, S. (2000). Primary prevention with children at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders: Data on
a universal intervention for Head Start classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 70-84.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Assessment for teaching: An initiative for the profession. Phi Delta Kappa, 69, 38-44.
Singham, M. (2005). The achievement gap in U.S. education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education
Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. Editors. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Executive Summary. National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. Courtesy of National Academy Press.
Thernstrom, A., & Therstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.