The Effects of an Intensive Early Literacy Intervention on
the Racial/Ethnic and Socio-Economic Gaps in Reading
Achievement
CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
Department of Teaching and Learning
82 Washington Square East, Suite 700
New York, NY 10003 | 212 998 5872 | 212 995 3636 fax
www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/crtl
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
The Effects of an Intensive Early Literacy Intervention on
the Racial/Ethnic and Socio-Economic Gaps in Reading
Achievement
Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, April 11-15, 2005
Ognjen Simic, Joanne LoFaso, Robert Tobias and Jane Ashdown
New York University
CRTL Research Paper Series
RP-0405-01
April 2005
Center for Research on Teaching and Learning
Department of Teaching and Learning
The Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development
New York University
© Copyright 2005 by the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
2
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
This study examines the potential of an early literacy intervention to address the reading
achievement gap among students from different racial/ethnic and socioeconomic
backgrounds in the early grades of elementary school. The treatment effects of Reading
Recovery, an individual first-grade tutoring intervention for students at-risk of literacy
failure, are estimated for diverse groups of students who received the treatment in the
1997-1998 school year. Its impact on the achievement gap is tracked longitudinally
through fifth grade using standardized achievement test results for a sample of 3,640
students from 11 urban school districts. The impact of the intervention on the
achievement gap is estimated through comparisons of the treatment group, the Reading
Recovery Group, and a control group of similarly at-risk students, the Comparison
Group. The closing of the achievement gap is observed in the short-term at the end of
first grade on Reading Recovery’s own evaluation measures. In the longer term, in
grades 3, 4, and 5, results on local and state-mandated standardized tests are mixed and
modest. The results are best viewed as comparative baseline data for more elaborate and
incisive studies of the effects of early intervention on the achievement gap.
Key Words: at-risk, closing the gap, correlates of achievement, early literacy,
intervention programs, Reading Recovery
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
3
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
After the release of Equality of Educational Opportunity (The Coleman Report
1966) four decades ago, a proliferation of research on the differences in achievement
among students from different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds has
emerged (Barton, 2004; Coleman, 1966; Mosteller & Moynihan, 1972; Jencks, 1972;
Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Barnett& Camilli, 1996; Entwisle, et al., 1988; Grissmer, et al.,
1994; The National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This body of
research is widely accepted and has recently contributed to the shaping of the
educational agenda in the United States (Barton, 2003). The “achievement gap” was
spotlighted in the political arena during the 2000 National Election and, as a result,
Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002). This legislation
mandates that education programs disaggregate their outcomes by various demographic
subgroups rather than by reporting (as in the past) averages for all students in the schools
(ETS, 2003)
Despite federal initiatives, school-based improvement programs, and public
awareness, reports have indicated that national trends in achievement have not been
reversed, and in urban areas, such as New York City (Domanico, 2002), Los Angeles
(Oakes & Wells, 1999) and Chicago (Illinois State Board of Education, 2002), the
achievement gap has even increased. For example, there is a 30 percent racial/ethnic gap
in 4th grade English test scores in New York State (New York State Department of
Education, 2002), the gap being largest in “high needs” school districts, including New
York City, while the racial/ethnic gap in Chicago schools reaches 50 percentage points.
Overall, a review of the research indicates that racial/ethnic and socioeconomic gaps,
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
4
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
which appear to have narrowed in the eighties (Grissmer et al., 1998; Wong & Lee,
1998), have widened throughout the past decade. Furthermore, New York State
Department of Education data show the achievement gap is fairly constant across
elementary and middle grades in very poor school systems where students score lower on
achievement tests in general (NYSED, 2002).
Research has repeatedly demonstrated a correlational, if not causal relationship
among race, income, and school achievement, and statistical differences between
racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups continue to exist in schools (Barton, 2003; Jencks
& Phillips, 1998; Mayer, Mullins, & Moore, 2000). In the past, studies appeared to be
more focused on the causes and consequences of the achievement gap (Coleman, 1966;
Hanushek & Kain, 1972; Jencks, 1972 ; Mosteller & Moynihan, 1972), but recently the
focus has seemed to shift towards what schools can do to reduce the achievement gap
(Darling-Hammond, 1991; Fergurson, 1998; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; McNaughton,
Phillips & McDonald, 2003; Wilkinson, 1998). In an evaluation of six popular proposals
for improving performance among African American students, Ferguson (1998) found
that supporting instructional interventions for students at-risk of failure (mainly in
elementary school) is one of the best ways to narrow the achievement gap.
This study evaluates an early literacy intervention that supplements first grade
classroom instruction for the lowest performing students. The study examines the extent
to which Reading Recovery, a short-term early literacy intervention, produces differential
outcomes for different groups of students, and the extent to which these outcomes are
maintained in the early grades of elementary school. Early interventions need scrutiny
because they have been vested with the task of addressing the achievement gap and
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
5
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
allowing children at-risk to catch-up academically (Barnett, 1987, 1995). One recent
study (Rodgers, Wang & Gomez-Belenge, 2004), drawing on results of Reading
Recovery’s internal design, indicates the potential of the Reading Recovery intervention
to restrict the opening of the racial/ethnic achievement gap in the course of first grade.
Building on this work, we further explore that potential, especially in relation to
maintaining the treatment effects in subsequent grades with respect to scores on
standardized tests of reading achievement.
BACKGROUND
The Correlates of School Achievement
A substantial body of research has attempted to address correlates of school
achievement. The most comprehensive and exhaustive study available at the present time
was conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) entitled
Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators Report (ETS, Policy Information Center, 2003
p.5). This report identifies 14 correlates of achievement and the corresponding
indicators of gaps. Several correlates associated with characteristics of schooling, and
one correlate that deals with pre-school experiences are relevant to our study, i.e. they
can be seen as potential mechanisms through which an early intervention such as Reading
Recovery may exert influence over the closing of the achievement gap. These correlates
are teacher preparation, teacher experience and attendance, class size, rigor of
curriculum, and reading to young children.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
6
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Teacher Preparation, Experience, and Attendance:
Ferguson (1998) has argued that
teachers’ perceptions, expectations, and behaviors interact with students’ beliefs and
work habits in ways that perpetuate the black-white achievement gap. Research has
clearly demonstrated that teachers who are less prepared tend to be employed in lowincome schools within minority communities. In addition, the rate of out-of-field
teaching in high-poverty schools is twice as much as in low-poverty schools (Craig &
Ingersoll, 2002). Teachers with three or fewer years of experience are more likely to be
working in schools with a high level of minority enrollment than in schools with a low
level of minority enrollment (Murnane & Phillips, 1981; Rivkin & Hanushek, 1998).
However the relationship between teacher experience and student achievement is
measured, Darling-Hammond (2000) has reported that the benefits of teacher experience
seem to level off after five years and that there are no discernable differences between a
teacher with five years experience and one with ten years experience.
Class Size: Studies of class size “provide compelling evidence that small classes in the
primary grades are educationally superior to regular-size classes (Finn, 1998, p.27).”
Findings in a study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (19992000), revealed that more than 75% of predominantly minority classrooms contained at
least 31 students whereas less than 10% contained classes of 22 students or less. Similar
findings are observed for classrooms of students with limited-English proficiency, and
students who were eligible for school lunch program.
Rigor of Curriculum. According to Chubb & Moe (1990), academic achievement is
linked to curriculum rigor. Although their findings emerged from a longitudinal study of
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
7
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
high schools and beyond, it can be argued that by offering a rigorous curriculum in the
early and elementary grades, schools can reduce the need for remedial programs and
additional support services. Furthermore, by providing a challenging program of study
early on, schools will be preparing students to meet the higher standards and expectations
necessary for success in high school and beyond.
Reading to Young Children. Snow, Burns & Griffin (1998) argue for the importance of
reading to young children as a means of language acquisition and claim it correlates with
literacy development and reading comprehension, which is fundamental to school
success. Jencks & Phillips (1998) found Pre-K and Head Start Programs that are oriented
towards the teaching of cognitive skills to be necessary in reducing the achievement gap.
Reading Recovery and the correlates of school achievement
Reading Recovery is an early identification and short-term literacy intervention
that aims to help low achieving first grade students develop competencies in reading and
writing. Specially trained teachers deliver this intervention through daily thirty-minute
lessons with one-to-one instruction. Reading Recovery tutoring supplements regular
classroom instruction with a typical series of lessons lasting between 12-20 weeks. The
goal of Reading Recovery is to help the low achieving first-grade student, who might
otherwise fall further behind his/her classmates, make accelerated progress and reach the
average performance range in reading and writing, thereby reducing the need for further
special services (Clay, 1993). Research has shown that the majority of these children are
successful, and return to the classroom with effective reading and writing strategies
(D’Agostino & Murphy, 2004; Lyons, 1998; Pinnell et al., 1994; Shanahan & Barr,
1995). This intervention’s annual evaluation design includes an examination of student
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
8
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
performance on literacy measures as well as a comparison of this performance to samples
of average first-graders and comparable groups of at-risk students.
Reading Recovery’s design can be linked to the correlates of academic
achievement in several ways. Teacher preparation is an important correlate of student
achievement (Ferguson, 1998) and teachers prepared in Reading Recovery techniques are
already certified teachers and typically have several years of teaching experience. For
Reading Recovery certification, they complete a year long graduate program including
daily clinical practice with at-risk learners.
Class size is an important factor in student achievement. Research has shown that
small classes in the primary grades are educationally superior to regular-size classes
(Finn, 1998). Since Reading Recovery tutoring is one-to-one, the low progress reader is
receiving a quality program of individual instruction five days per week. In terms of
curriculum rigor (Chubb & Moe, 1990), students who are served by Reading Recovery
receive daily, intensive and highly structured thirty-minute lessons. It is theorized that it
is through the intensity of the instruction that these low-achieving students are able to
make faster progress and ultimately “catch-up” to their classroom peers (Clay, 1991,
1993, 1998, 2001).
Lastly, research has demonstrated that reading to young children is an important
foundation of language acquisition through its observed correlate with literacy
development. In addition to reading and writing during daily lessons, Reading Recovery
students are given books, in a variety of genres, to take home every day and are
encouraged to read with a parent, guardian, or older sibling.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
9
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
The Reading Recovery intervention addresses many of the factors that impair the
literacy learning of low income and minority students. Given evidence of its positive
effects (D’Agostino & Murphy, 2004), it is reasonable to expect that Reading Recovery
has a positive differential impact upon the reading skills of these students compared to
higher income and white and Asian students. Moreover, it is expected that this early
boost in literacy will have a continuing impact upon the reading development of the low
income and minority students that were served in grade 1 two, three, and even four years
later. These differential short and longer-term effects will cumulatively serve to reduce
the achievement gap over time. The specific research questions addressed by the study
were as follows:
1. Is Reading Recovery, as a first-grade literacy intervention, effective in preventing
the reading achievement gap from opening for at-risk first grade students of
different racial/ethnic and SES backgrounds as evidenced by scores on text
reading?
2. Does the effect of Reading Recovery on the reading achievement gap persist in
3rd, 4th, and 5th grades as evidenced by scores on standardized reading tests?
With respect to these questions and after controlling for baseline levels of literacy
the study examined the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis1. The mean spring grade 1 reading achievement test scores of low income
and minority Reading Recovery students will be significantly higher statistically than
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
10
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
those of a comparison group of At-Risk peers and these differences will be greater
than those for similar groups of higher income, white and Asian students.
Hypothesis 2. The mean reading achievement test scores of the low income and
minority Reading Recovery students will continue to be higher than their At-Risk
peers at the end of grades 3, 4, and 5 and these differences will continue to be greater
than those for the similar groups of white and Asian students.
METHODS
Participants
The study involved two groups of participating students from large urban school
districts. The Reading Recovery Group consisted of children who were served in the
program for the full 12 – 20 week cycle and had successfully reached the average
performance band of their first grade classroom for reading and writing in response to
Reading Recovery services. This group represents 75% of the total group of 1,623
students who received a series of Reading Recovery tutoring lessons in school year 199798. The remaining students who were not included in this study required other
interventions, most frequently special education services. The Comparison Group were
students from the same classes as the Reading Recovery Group, but their performance
was slightly better on literacy measures at the beginning of first grade. Comparison
Group students were considered at risk for reading failure at the beginning of the school
year and were placed on a waiting list to receive Reading Recovery. Both groups were
aggregates of the samples selected from individual Reading Recovery schools in the 11
participating school districts.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
11
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
There were a total of 1,818 participants in the study. These were students for
whom archival data were available in the Reading Recovery program evaluation files and
the local school districts’ student information systems. Data were available for 911
students in the Reading Recovery Group and 907 students in the Comparison Group.
The income distribution of both groups was heavily skewed, with 783 (85.9%) of the
Reading Recovery Group eligible for free lunch, compared to 822 (90.6%) for the
Comparison Group. (See table below.) The racial/ethnic distributions of the groups
were also similar and largely minority. The respective percentages of Black and Hispanic
students were 34.9% and 39.1% in the Reading Recovery Group and 39.3% and 39.9%
for the Comparison Group. White students comprised 14.7% of the Reading Recovery
Group and 12.8% of the Comparison Group. There was a relationship between income
and race/ethnicity, with 40.3% and 53.4% of the White students eligible for free lunch in
the Reading Recovery and Comparison Groups, respectively, compared to more than
90% for the other three racial/ethnic groups. There were no significant differences in the
fall grade 1 reading test scores between the two groups overall, but there were significant
treatment group differences within income and racial/ethnic groups. These differences
were partially controlled in the analysis through covariation.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
12
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Cross Tabulation of Race and Income for the Study Sample
Treatment Group/
Income Group
White
N
%
Race/Ethnicity
Black
Asian/Pac.Isl
N
%
N
%
Hispanic
N
%
N
Totals
%
Reading Recovery
Free Lunch
Not Free Lunch
Total
54
80
134
40.3%
59.7%
14.7%
301
17
318
94.7%
5.3%
34.9%
94
9
103
91.3%
8.7%
11.3%
334
22
356
93.8%
6.2%
39.1%
783
128
911
85.9%
14.1%
100.0%
Comparison
Free Lunch
Not Free Lunch
Total
62
54
116
53.4%
46.6%
12.8%
346
10
356
97.2%
2.8%
39.3%
68
5
73
93.2%
6.8%
8.0%
346
16
362
95.6%
4.4%
39.9%
822
85
907
90.6%
9.4%
100.0%
Totals
Free Lunch
Not Free Lunch
Total
116
134
250
46.4%
53.6%
13.8%
647
27
674
96.0%
4.0%
37.1%
162
14
176
92.0%
8.0%
9.7%
680
38
718
94.7%
5.3%
39.5%
1605
213
1818
88.3%
11.7%
100.0%
Measures
Children were identified by classroom teacher recommendation and performance on
the six literacy tasks of An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay,
1993).
The Survey tasks are reported to have the ‘qualities of sound assessment
instruments with satisfactory reliabilities and validities’ (NDEC Report Writing
Guidelines, 2002). At the national level, Reading Recovery collects data from each
Reading Recovery teacher in the country. These teachers record reading test scores of
each child they serve, and submit this information to the Reading Recovery National Data
Evaluation Center at The Ohio State University, which was the source of all first-grade
data for our study. One of six literacy tasks, Letter Identification (LI), was used in
subsequent analyses as the baseline literacy measures at the entrance to first grade and as
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
13
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
the covariate in the statistical comparisons of means. The most important of the six
tasks, Text Reading Level (TRL), consisting of a series of graded booklets, was used as a
dependent measure of reading achievement at the end of first grade. The school districts
provided data from their student information system on the standardized test scores of all
study participants for the school years 1998-99 through 2001-02. The districts
administered state or city tests in English language arts to all students in grades 3 – 8
annually, with the exception of certain special education students and English language
learners. The tests were aligned with state learning standards and scored in scaled scores
and performance levels. To allow mean comparisons with adjustments for baseline
differences, scaled scores from tests that were administered to students on grade level, i.e.
students who were not held over in grade, were used as dependent measures of the
longer-term effects of Reading Recovery. Free-lunch eligibility was used as a measure of
income. Students were divided into groups that were free-lunch eligible and not freelunch eligible.
Analysis
Simple main effects were statistically examined through comparisons of means
using 95% confidence intervals. Comparisons of means were conducted on the text
reading level scores at the end of grade 1 and the mean scaled scores for the spring of
grades 3, 4, and 5. The simple main effects of Reading Recovery were investigated by
comparing means for each dependent measure for the Reading Recovery and Comparison
Groups, within each income and racial/ethnic category. All means were adjusted for
differences in baseline performance on the letter identification subtest of the Reading
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
14
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Recovery battery in fall of the first grade. In each comparison, the mean of the Reading
Recovery Group was compared to the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval
around the mean for the respective Comparison Group. The numbers of students in the
analyses for each dependent measure varied because of sample attrition due to grade
holdover, student discharge to other school systems, or missing data.
RESULTS
Short-Term Effects
Figure 1 displays the adjusted mean text reading level scores of the Reading
Recovery Group and the Comparison Group in spring of grade 1 disaggregated by
free lunch status. (For convenience, all figures and tables are displayed at the end of
the report.) The means for the Reading Recovery Group exceed the Comparison
Group for both free-lunch eligible and regular lunch students, with the mean
difference much larger for the former. The mean difference for the free-lunch group
is 9.4 raw score units (M=18.9, SD=4.33 and M=9.5, SD=7.68 for Reading Recovery
and the Comparison Groups, respectively) versus a mean difference of 5.6 raw scores
for the regular lunch group (M=19.8, SD=4.06 and M=14.2, SD=8.25, respectively).
As can be seen in Table 2, the adjusted means for the Reading Recovery Group
exceed the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the Comparison Group
means for both free-lunch groups indicating that both simple main effects for Reading
Recovery are statistically significant. However, the effect size for the impact on the
free-lunch was nearly twice that for the regular-lunch group, ES=1.22 for the former
and ES=0.65 for the latter. Both effect sizes are large and educationally meaningful.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
15
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
The mean grade 1 text level scores for the Reading Recovery Group were also
significantly higher than the Comparison Group for all four racial/ethnic groups.
(See Figure 2.) The mean differences in descending order were 9.7 for Hispanic
students, 9.1 for Black students, 6.5 for white students, and 6.3 for Asian/Pacific
Island students. The Reading Recovery Group means exceeded the upper boundary
of the 95% confidence interval for the Comparison Group for all racial/ethnic
categories. While the effect sizes for all racial/ethnic groups were large and
educationally meaningful, the effect sizes for the Hispanic and Black students
(ES=1.29 and ES=1.25, respectively) were much larger than those for Asian and
White students (ES=0.82 and ES=0.77, respectively).
Longer-Term Effects
The longer-term effects of Reading Recovery were assessed by comparisons of
means on the state and city reading, or English language arts tests in grades 3, 4, and
5 within free-lunch and racial/ethnic groups. The results of these comparisons are
displayed in Figures 3 – 8 and Tables 4 – 9. The pattern of results is consistent across
the three grades. For grades 3 – 5, the mean scaled scores of the Reading Recovery
Group were significantly larger statistically than the Comparison Group for the freelunch eligible students but not for the regular-lunch group. For the former, the mean
differences were 3.0 scaled scores in grade 3, 5.2 scaled scores in grade 4, and 4.1
scaled scores in grade 5. Although statistically significant, the effect sizes were small
(ES=0.9 in grade3, ES=0.14 in grad 4, and ES=0.13 in grade 5).
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
16
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
The data also showed a consistent pattern of results across grades for the simple
main effects of Reading Recovery within racial/ethnic groups. Reading Recovery
demonstrated statistically significant positive effects of a moderate size for Hispanic
and Black students, but not for Asian and White students. Mean scaled score
differences for Hispanic students were 7.7 scaled scores in grade 3, 10.6 scaled scores
in grade 4, and 7.2 scaled scores in grade 5. The effect sizes for these mean
differences were ES=0.23, ES= 0.28, and ES=0.23, respectively. The mean
differences for Black students followed a similar pattern, but were somewhat lower,
with mean differences of 3.6 scaled scores (ES=0.11) at grade 3, 8.1 scaled scores
(ES=0.22) at grade 4, and 7.2 scaled scores (ES=0.16) at grade 5. Conversely, the
mean scaled scores of the Comparison Group exceeded those of the Reading
Recovery Group at all three grades for regular lunch, Asian, and White students. It is
likely that the effects of income and race/ethnicity are confounded, as suggested by
the relationship between income and race/ethnicity observed in the description of the
sample (see Table 1). Interactions could not be explored due to skew in the
distribution of free lunch.
DISCUSSION
The research literature on Reading Recovery has accumulated evidence of its
positive effect upon the reading achievement of delayed learners in first grade. In
addition, recent studies have found lower special education placement and grade
holdover rates for Reading Recovery versus comparison at-risk students in 3rd, 4th and
5th grade (LoFaso, Simic & Tobias, under review). This study focused on Reading
Recovery’s promise for reducing the achievement gap, perhaps the most stubborn
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
17
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
problem facing education today. The results can be characterized as mixed and
modest. The study found that Reading Recovery had a highly statistically significant
and educationally meaningful effect upon low-income and minority students in the
short term. However, only small effects endured two, three and four years after the
intervention. The cumulative impact of these effects is unlikely to substantially
reduce the achievement gap over time.
The dissipation of the effects of early intervention programs over time is a
common phenomenon in education research. It is difficult to document longitudinally
the educational and developmental experiences that impinge on students once they
leave the early interventions they have successfully completed. This study broke new
ground by looking at the longer-term outcomes of early intervention students and
disaggregating these outcomes for low income and minority students. However, the
study used extant electronic data, thereby precluding any assessment of the quality of
schools, teachers, and instruction, and support services that they might have received
between early intervention and upper elementary school. The results of this study are
best viewed as comparative baseline data for more elaborate and incisive studies of
the effects of early intervention efforts upon the achievement gap.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
18
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Mean Text Reading Level Scores in Spring of Grade 1 by Treatment Groups and
Free Lunch Status
(adjusted for Fall of 1st Grade Letter Identification Test Scores)
25
20
19.8
18.9
15
14.2
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
9.5
10
5
0
Free Lunch
Regular Lunch
Table 1.
Mean Spring Grade 1 Reading Test Scores and Confidence Intervals by Treatment Group
and Free Lunch Status
Free Lunch
Status
Free Lunch
Regular Price
*
Treatment Group
Mean*
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
18.95
9.55
19.79
14.17
Std.
Error
.24
.22
.62
.66
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
18.48
19.42
9.11
9.98
18.58
21.01
12.87
15.47
All means in these tables are adjusted for differences in Fall letter identification scores.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
19
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Table 2
Spring Grade 1 Reading Test Scores and Confidence Intervals by Treatment Group
Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Treatment
Group
Mean
Std. Error
Asian/Pac. Islander
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
18.95
12.61
17.99
8.87
18.95
9.25
19.70
13.24
.63
.70
.36
.33
.38
.33
.60
.56
Black
Hispanic
White
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
17.71
20.19
11.24
13.98
18.28
19.70
8.22
9.52
18.21
19.69
8.60
9.89
18.52
20.89
12.13
14.34
Figure 3. Mean Standardized Reading Test Scores in Grade 3 by Treatment Groups
and Free Lunch Status
(adjusted for Fall of 1st Grade Letter Identification Test Scores)
640
634.2
635
633.1
630
625
Reading Recovery
620
Comparison Group
617.5
614.5
615
610
605
600
Free Lunch
Regular Lunch
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
20
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Table 3.
Spring Grade 3 English Language Arts Mean Scaled scores and Conference Intervals by
Treatment Group and Free Lunch Status
Free Lunch
Status
Free Lunch
Regular Price
Treatment Group
Mean
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
617.51
614.54
633.10
634.19
Std.
Error
1.33
1.37
3.50
3.94
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
614.90
620.12
611.87
617.21
626.25
639.95
626.46
641.92
Figure 4. Mean Standardized Reading Test Scores in Grade 3 by Treatment Groups and
Race/Ethnicity
(adjusted for Fall of 1st Grade Letter Identification Test Scores)
640
635.3
635
630.6
630
625
623.8
622.6
619.5
620
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
614
615
611.8
610.4
610
605
600
595
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
21
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Table 4.
Spring Grade 3 Reading Test Scores and Confidence Intervals by Treatment Group
Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Treatment
Group
Mean
Std. Error
Asian/Pac. Islander
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
622.64
623.81
614.03
610.41
619.49
611.76
630.56
635.33
3.40
3.75
2.07
2.05
2.02
2.09
3.38
3.18
Black
Hispanic
White
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
615.98
629.32
616.45
631.17
609.96
618.09
606.38
614.44
615.53
623.44
607.65
615.87
623.93
637.19
629.09
641.57
Figure 5. Mean Standardized Reading Test Scores in Grade 4 by Treatment Groups
and Free Lunch Status
(adjusted for Fall of 1st Grade Letter Identification Test Scores)
660
657.6
654.4
655
650
645
640
635
Reading Recovery
634.1
Comparison Group
628.9
630
625
620
615
610
Free Lunch
Regular Lunch
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
22
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Table 5.
Spring Grade 4 English Language Arts Mean Scaled scores and Conference Intervals by
Treatment Group and Free Lunch Status
Free Lunch
Treatment Group
Mean
Std.
95% Confidence Interval
Status
Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Free Lunch
Reading Recovery
634.14 1.60
631.00
637.28
Comparison Group
628.93 1.60
625.79
632.07
Regular Price
Reading Recovery
654.39 4.42
645.73
663.05
Comparison Group
657.63 4.77
648.27
666.98
Figure 6. Mean Standardized Reading Scores in Grade 4 By Treatment Groups and
Race/Ethnicity
(adjusted for Fall of 1st Grade Letter Identification Test Scores)
660
656.2
652
650
645.3
640.3
640
636.4
629.5
630
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
625.8
621.4
620
610
600
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
23
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Table 6.
Spring Grade 4 Reading Test Scores and Confidence Intervals by Treatment Group
Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Treatment
Group
Mean
Std. Error
Asian/Pac. Islander
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
640.34
645.32
629.51
621.45
636.40
625.78
651.96
656.17
3.92
5.31
2.57
2.41
2.37
2.42
4.23
3.84
Black
Hispanic
White
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
632.64
648.03
636.86
653.79
624.46
634.56
616.71
626.18
631.75
641.05
621.03
630.53
643.66
660.27
648.64
663.71
Figure 7. Mean Standardized Reading Test Scores in Grade 5 by Treatment Groups
and Free Lunch Status
(adjusted for Fall of 1st Grade Letter Identification Test Scores)
675
668.9
670
664.6
665
660
655
Reading Recovery
650
Comparison Group
649.4
645.3
645
640
635
630
Free Lunch
Regular Lunch
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
24
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Table 7.
Spring Grade 5 English Language Arts Mean Scaled scores and Conference Intervals by
Treatment Group and Free Lunch Status
Free Lunch
Status
Free Lunch
Regular Price
Treatment Group
Mean
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
649.41
645.36
664.57
665.89
Std.
Error
1.42
1.43
4.05
4.36
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
646.62
652.20
642.56
648.17
656.63
672.51
657.33
674.44
Table 8.
Spring Grade 5 Reading Test Scores and Confidence Intervals by Treatment Group
Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Treatment
Group
Mean
Std. Error
Asian/Pac. Islander
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
Reading Recovery
Comparison Group
659.95
663.60
644.41
639.19
649.67
642.80
663.37
665.96
3.42
3.68
2.25
2.12
2.09
2.14
3.83
3.58
Black
Hispanic
White
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
653.24
666.67
656.39
670.82
640.00
648.82
635.03
643.36
645.57
653.77
638.60
647.01
655.86
670.88
658.92
672.99
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
25
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Barton, P.E.(2004). Why Does the Achievement Gap Persist? Educational Leadership, v
62 (3).
Barton, P.E. (2003). Parsing the Achievement Gap: Baselines for tracking progress.
Princeton, NJ:Educational Testing Service.
Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and
data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Clay, M.M. (1991). Becoming Literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training.
Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1998). By Different Paths to Common Outcomes. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (2001). Change Over Time in Children’s Literacy Achievement. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools, Washington,
D.C., The Brookings Institution.
Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. From On Equality of
Educational Opportunity. Mosteller, F. & Moynihan, D.P. (eds.) New York: Vintage
Books.
Craig, J.D. & Ingersoll, R.M. (2002). All Talk, No Action: Putting an End to Out-of-Field
Teaching. Education Trust
D’Agostino, J.V. & Murphy, J.A. (2004). A Meta-Analysis of Reading Recovery in
United States Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 26 (1):23-38.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1).
Ferguson, R.F. (1998). Teachers’ Perceptions and Expectations and the Black-White Test
Score Gap. From The Black-White Test Score Gap. Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (eds.)
Washington, D.C.:The Brookings Institution.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
26
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Finn, J.D.(1998).Class Size and Student Risk: What is Known? What is Next? A paper
commissioned by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department
of Education.
Grismmer, D., Flanagan, A & Williamson, S. (1998). Why Did the Black-White Score
Gap Narrrow in the 1970’s and1980’s? From the Black-White Test Score Gap. Jencks,
C. & Phillips, M. (eds.).Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution Press.
Hanushek, E.A. & Kain, J.F. (1972). “On the value of equality of educational opportunity
as a guide to public policy.” From On Equality of Educational Opportunity . Mosteller,
F. & Moynihan, D.P. (eds.) New York: Vintage Books.
Jencks, C.S. (1972). “The coleman report and the conventional wisdom.” From On
Equality of Educational Opportunity. Mosteller, F. & Moynihan, D.P. (eds). New York:
Vintage.
Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (Eds.) (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington,
D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Lyons, C. (1998). Reading Recovery in the United States: More than a decade of data.
Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 3(1): 77-92.
Mayer, D.P., Mullins, J.E., & Moore, M.T. (2000). Monitoring School Quality: An
Indicators Report, National Center for Education Statistics, John Ralph, Project Officer,
NCES 2001-030.
Mosteller, F. & Moynihan, D.P. (Eds.) (1972) On Equality of Educational Opportunity.
New York:Vintage Books
Murnane, R.J. & Phillips, B.R. (1981). Learning by Doing, Vintage and Selection: Three
Pieces of the Puzzle Relating Teaching Experience and Teaching Performance.
Economics of Education Review, 1 (4): 453-465
National Data Evaluation Center (2002). Report Writing Guidelines. Columbus, Ohio.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). Public Library No. 107-110, 115 Statute 1425.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01
27
Effects of Early Literacy Intervention on Gaps in Reading Achievement
________________________________________________________________________
Noguera, P. (2003) City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of
Public Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pinnell, G.S., Lyons, C.A., DeFord, D.E., Bryk, A.S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing
instructional models for the literacy education of high risk first graders. Reading
Research Quarterly, 29(1): 9-39.
Rodgers E.M., Chuang, W. & Gomez-Bellenge, F.X. (2004). Closing the literacy
achievement gap with early intervention. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, April, 2004.
Shanahan, T. & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the
effects of an early instructional intervention for “at risk” learners. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30, 958-996.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A. & Kain, J.F. (1998). Teachers, Schools, and Academic
Achievement, paper presented at the Association of Public Policy Analysis and
Management, New York City, NY.
Snow, C.E., Burns, S.M. & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young
Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform.
________________________________________________________________________
CRTL Paper Presentation Series RP-0405-01