Search

Since the 2012/13 school year Florida law has required the 100 lowest performing elementary schools in reading to extend the school day by one hour to provide supplemental reading instruction. In 2014 the law was broadened to include the 300 elementary schools with the lowest reading performance. A previous study of the state's first two cohorts of 100 lowest performing schools found that observed growth in school reading performance after one to two years of implementing the extended school day policy did not exceed what would have been expected because of natural variation (Folsom et al., 2016). The current study follows up on that study by describing the location, demographic characteristics, and school reading performance of the 300 lowest performing schools and analyzing how the lowest performing schools implemented the extended school day policy (for example, the methods used to add the extra hour, staffing, and delivery of instruction). As with Folsom et al. (2016), the current study was based on a request from the Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast Improving Literacy Alliance and Improving Low-Performing Schools Alliance--both of which have Florida Department of Education administrators as members. Based on publicly available data and survey and interview data collected by the Florida Department of Education, the study found: (1) The lowest performing elementary schools were located in 31 of Florida's 65 school districts and in all five regions of the state. The lowest performing elementary schools were smaller on average than other elementary schools and enrolled a larger proportion of racial/ethnic minority students and students eligible for the federal school lunch program. Ninety-nine percent of the lowest performing elementary schools were Title I schools; (2) On average, the school reading performance of the lowest performing elementary schools was 1.8 standard deviations below that of other elementary schools at the end of 2013/14 (the year they were identified as lowest performing) and 1.5 standard deviations below that of other elementary schools at the end of 2014/15 (after implementing the extended school day policy for one or more years); (3) The elementary schools that implemented the extended school day policy reported using a variety of strategies such as increasing reading instruction time each day, increasing staff, providing professional development for teachers, and providing instruction in the extra hour that differed from instruction during the rest of the day; and (4) Participants identified indirect benefits of implementation, including perceived student gains. Interviewees attributed these gains not to the extra hour of instruction but to improvements that occurred in conjunction with it, such as professional development and curricular and pedagogic changes. However, the empirical analyses could not demonstrate whether student gains actually occurred. Barriers to implementation identified by interviewees included lack of resources and issues around logistical planning, such as short timelines. The following are appended: (1) Data and methodology; (2) Florida Department of Education compliance survey and structured interview protocol; (3) Supplemental tables of school characteristics, school reading performance, and survey responses; and (4) Supplemental statistical tests of significance for school characteristics and implementation of extended school day policy in 2014/15. [For the previous study, "School Reading Performance and the Extended School Day Policy in Florida. REL 2016-141," see ED566657.]

The implementation of effective instructional materials, such as a core reading program, by a qualified teacher is an important part of improving students' reading achievement. But selecting those instructional materials can be time-consuming. Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Southeast created this rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 to help educators assess how consistent instructional materials (including core reading programs and reading intervention programs) are with the scientific research on reading instruction. This document suggests procedures for using the rubric to review instructional materials and inform decisions at the state, district, or school level about reading/language arts instructional materials for grades K-5. Members of the Improving Literacy Research Alliance from the Florida Department of Education requested the rubric to assist in their instructional materials review process. Educators in other states may also find the rubric to be beneficial. Calculating inter-rater reliability is appended.

Florida law requires the 100 lowest performing elementary schools in reading to extend the school day by one hour to provide supplemental reading instruction. This study found that those schools were smaller than other elementary schools and served a higher proportion of racial/ethnic minority students and students eligible for the school lunch program. The lowest performing schools reported increasing the number of minutes of reading instruction provided to students, increasing staff, and providing instruction in the extra hour that differed from instruction during the rest of the day. When growth in performance is measured, initially low scores generally rise, even in the absence of an intervention, because of natural year-to-year variations. While average school reading performance improved among the lowest performing schools, the increase did not exceed the small year-to-year variations expected when measuring initially low student performance. Appended are: (1) Supplemental tables of school characteristics, school reading performance, and survey responses; (2) Florida Department of Education 100 lowest performing elementary schools in reading extended school day reading instruction plans compliance survey; (3) Data and methodology; and (4) Supplemental statistical tests of significance for school characteristics and implementation of extended school day policy.