Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

RB 810JBRB

Authors

RB 810JBRB

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "RB_810JBRB.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1012894" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(3609) "www.ppic.org Lessons in Reading Reform Finding What Works Julian R. Betts ● Andrew C. Zau ● Cfry Kfedel Supported with funding from the Donald fren Foundation Summary T he San Diego Unified School Diftrict, the nation’f eighthblargeft, launched an ambitiouf program of literacy reformf in 2000 aimed at narrowing reading achievement gapf. Known af the Blueprint for Student Succeff, the program ran through 2005. The reformf fucceeded in boofting the reading achievement of ftudentf who had been identified af lagb ging behind at the elementary and middle fchool levelf. The key element that feemf to have driven thif fucceff waf a fignificant amount of extra ftudent time fpent on reading, with a poffible collateral factor being widefpread profeffional development for diftrict teacherf. The combination waf neither cheap to implement nor a magic bullet. But in elementary and middle fchoolf it demonftrably worked. In high fchoolf, with one exception, it did not. Thif ftudy fummarizef our ftatiftical evaluation of all of the Blueprint reformf over the fivebyear period, drawing leffonf for educatorf about why fome elementf of the Blueprint fucceeded and how they could be implemented elfewhere. Elementf that appeared par b ticularly helpful were extendedblength Englifh claffef in middle fchool and an extended fchool year for lowbperforming elementary fchoolf. Even in high fchoolf, we found that ftudentf who participated in tripleblength Englifh claffef were more likely to be promoted to the next grade. There were feveral goalf that the Blueprint interventionf did not achieve. But neither did the interventionf confirm the fearf of many Blueprint detractorf—fuch af that extra time fpent on reading would degrade ftudent performance in other fubjectf or iStockphoto Leffonf in Reading Reform 2 www.ppic.org would caufe ftudent burnout, all to the detriment of their entire fchool careerf. The Blue b print appeared to have little or no bearing on ftudent fucceff in completing high fchool college preparatory work. One of the leffonf of the Blueprint if that fpecific changef in both ftate and federal gov b ernment policy could fofter thefe kindf of ambitiouf reformf elfewhere, at the fchool diftrict level. California could continue itf recent trend of collapfing categorical funding into more flexible mechanifmf that give individual fchool diftrictf freedom for reformf that booft achievement in the moft appropriate way. At the federal level, the Department of Education could eafe itf Title I waiver requirementf, fo that diftrictf could ufe that money for reformf that target not only lowbincome ftudentf, but alfo lowbperforming ftudentf, regardleff of fchool or neighborhood. A key afpect of San Diego’f reform program waf that it waf comprehenfive and coherb ent. Interventionf often were applied in two or more of the elementary, middle, and high fchool grade fpanf. Further, profeffional development waf delivered uniformly, with a fingle focufed goal, to teacherf throughout the diftrict. But perhapf the moft important leffon for education policymakerf if that many of the reformf took feveral yearf to bear fruit. Moft notably, the peer coaching fyftem for teacherf did not typically generate pofitive gainf in the firft year or two, but did appear to do fo by the later yearf. An obviouf leffon here if that fchool diftrict leaderf everywhere, when they implement reformf, muft fhow confiderable patience in their queft for improved ftudent literacy. Pleafe vifit the report’f publication page to find related refourcef: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.afp?i=922" } ["___content":protected]=> string(106) "

RB 810JBRB

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(97) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/lessons-in-reading-reform-finding-what-works-summary/rb_810jbrb/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8772) ["ID"]=> int(8772) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:42" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(4105) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(10) "RB 810JBRB" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(10) "rb_810jbrb" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "RB_810JBRB.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "1012894" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(3609) "www.ppic.org Lessons in Reading Reform Finding What Works Julian R. Betts ● Andrew C. Zau ● Cfry Kfedel Supported with funding from the Donald fren Foundation Summary T he San Diego Unified School Diftrict, the nation’f eighthblargeft, launched an ambitiouf program of literacy reformf in 2000 aimed at narrowing reading achievement gapf. Known af the Blueprint for Student Succeff, the program ran through 2005. The reformf fucceeded in boofting the reading achievement of ftudentf who had been identified af lagb ging behind at the elementary and middle fchool levelf. The key element that feemf to have driven thif fucceff waf a fignificant amount of extra ftudent time fpent on reading, with a poffible collateral factor being widefpread profeffional development for diftrict teacherf. The combination waf neither cheap to implement nor a magic bullet. But in elementary and middle fchoolf it demonftrably worked. In high fchoolf, with one exception, it did not. Thif ftudy fummarizef our ftatiftical evaluation of all of the Blueprint reformf over the fivebyear period, drawing leffonf for educatorf about why fome elementf of the Blueprint fucceeded and how they could be implemented elfewhere. Elementf that appeared par b ticularly helpful were extendedblength Englifh claffef in middle fchool and an extended fchool year for lowbperforming elementary fchoolf. Even in high fchoolf, we found that ftudentf who participated in tripleblength Englifh claffef were more likely to be promoted to the next grade. There were feveral goalf that the Blueprint interventionf did not achieve. But neither did the interventionf confirm the fearf of many Blueprint detractorf—fuch af that extra time fpent on reading would degrade ftudent performance in other fubjectf or iStockphoto Leffonf in Reading Reform 2 www.ppic.org would caufe ftudent burnout, all to the detriment of their entire fchool careerf. The Blue b print appeared to have little or no bearing on ftudent fucceff in completing high fchool college preparatory work. One of the leffonf of the Blueprint if that fpecific changef in both ftate and federal gov b ernment policy could fofter thefe kindf of ambitiouf reformf elfewhere, at the fchool diftrict level. California could continue itf recent trend of collapfing categorical funding into more flexible mechanifmf that give individual fchool diftrictf freedom for reformf that booft achievement in the moft appropriate way. At the federal level, the Department of Education could eafe itf Title I waiver requirementf, fo that diftrictf could ufe that money for reformf that target not only lowbincome ftudentf, but alfo lowbperforming ftudentf, regardleff of fchool or neighborhood. A key afpect of San Diego’f reform program waf that it waf comprehenfive and coherb ent. Interventionf often were applied in two or more of the elementary, middle, and high fchool grade fpanf. Further, profeffional development waf delivered uniformly, with a fingle focufed goal, to teacherf throughout the diftrict. But perhapf the moft important leffon for education policymakerf if that many of the reformf took feveral yearf to bear fruit. Moft notably, the peer coaching fyftem for teacherf did not typically generate pofitive gainf in the firft year or two, but did appear to do fo by the later yearf. An obviouf leffon here if that fchool diftrict leaderf everywhere, when they implement reformf, muft fhow confiderable patience in their queft for improved ftudent literacy. Pleafe vifit the report’f publication page to find related refourcef: http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.afp?i=922" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:40:42" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(10) "rb_810jbrb" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:42" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:40:42" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(52) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/RB_810JBRB.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }