Reading First (RF) is the signature program of the No Child Left Behind legislation. All 50 states and the District of Columbia participate. The US Department of Education recently released its interim report on the implementation of the Reading First program throughout the country's elementary schools.

In our continuing series, Strategies will provide essential highlights of this report. In this fifth article, we focus on reading assessment by Reading First teachers.

No Child Left Behind and Reading First legislation requires schools to assess students for screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring, and outcome purposes in the five core dimensions of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and fluency. The Reading First program does not support any specific assessment but requires the reading assessments selected by states, districts, and/or schools to be "psychometrically strong and aligned with instruction."

Selection of Reading Assessments
Seventy-six percent of Reading First principals reported their schools received assistance selecting assessment instruments as compared to only 56 percent of non-Reading First (non-RF)Title I principals. Reading First and Title I principals were equally likely to report that the district was responsible for selecting assessment instruments (about 80 percent), while RF principals were significantly more likely to identify the state as responsible for selection of assessment instruments (52 percent vs. 30 percent).

Types of Reading Assessments
There were significant differences in the types of assessments used in both RF and non-RF Title I schools. Reading First teachers were more likely to report formal assessments, whereas non-RF Title I teachers named informal assessments. Most teachers in both Reading First and non-RF Title I schools named at least one assessment that they found useful in placing or grouping students (90 percent), determining student mastery of skills (89 percent), and identifying the core deficits of struggling students (85 percent). However, for each assessment purpose, RF teachers were more likely than non-RF Title I teachers to identify assessments from the core or supplementary reading program (e.g., for determining student mastery of skills, 50 percent vs. 38 percent), and standardized tests (e.g., for grouping purposes, 50 percent vs. 44 percent), such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) (e.g., for identifying the core deficits of struggling readers, 33 percent vs. 10 percent).

Interpretation of Assessment Results
Eighty-two percent of Reading First principals (as compared to only 70 percent of the non-RF Title I principals) reported their schools received assistance interpreting assessment results. Nearly all principals (90%) in both RF and non-RF Title I schools identified themselves as responsible for interpreting assessment results. However, in RF schools, reading coaches were significantly more likely to be involved in interpreting test results than were coaches in non-RF Title I schools (92 percent vs. 51 percent).

Across grade levels, significantly more RF teachers reported having regular time set aside at least once a month to use assessment data to plan instruction than did teachers in non-RF Title I schools (48 percent vs. 38 percent). 

Classroom Application of Reading Assessment Results
According to the Department of Education's report, more than 75 percent of teachers across grade levels K-3 in mature Reading First schools used assessment-related teaching strategies reflecting key principles of the Reading First policy. Eighty-three percent used test results to organize instructional groups (as compared to 73% in Title I schools); 85 percent used tests to determine progress on skills (as compared to 78 percent in Title I schools); and three-quarters (75%) used diagnostic tests to identify students who need reading intervention services (as compared to 65 percent in Title I schools). For each purpose, the difference between the RF and non-RF Title I schools was statistically significant.

In a recently awarded project, Hezel Associates will assist Abt Associates on the continued evaluation of a nationwide Reading First implementation.

Read the DOE's Executive Summary and report here: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/readingfirst-interim/readingfirst.pdf