mcginnis
Thu, 03/14/2024 - 17:43
Edited Text
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY ON HIGH SCHOOL
LEARNING OUTCOMES
A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Tracy Elizabeth Smith
Pennsylvania Western University
July 2023
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
© Copyright
Tracy E. Smith
All Rights Reserved
July 2023
ii
iii
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Pennsylvania Western University
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education
We hereby approve the capstone of
Tracy Elizabeth Smith
Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education
12JUL2023
Dr. Peter J. Aiken
Superintendent, Central York School District
Doctoral Capstone Faculty Committee Chair
Dr. Jamie P. Giaquinto
Principal, Parkland School District
Doctoral Capstone External Committee Member
iv
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Dedication
“I touch the future. I teach.”
Christa McAuliffe
This capstone research project is dedicated to my family, the loves of my life:
My parents, James and Lois Smith, who were my first and best teachers;
My husband, Bruce, the rock of the family and my true north for over 30 years;
My son, James, who always makes me so proud to be his mom.
v
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Acknowledgments
“A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.”
Henry Adams
I would like to acknowledge the wonderful committee members for this project,
Dr. Peter Aiken, Central York School District Superintendent (Chair), and Dr. Jamie
Giaquinto, Cetronia Elementary School Principal (External Committee Member).
PennWest Librarian William Denny also provided valuable assistance with the
research process. I could not have asked for better advisors; all set a high bar for
academic excellence. For their many hours of wise counsel, I am grateful.
In my career, I have had the good fortune to work with excellent educational
leaders who have supported me in this and other endeavors. They lead by the power of
their example and have always pushed me to reach higher as a result: Richard Sniscak,
Dr. Pamela Kelly, and Dr. Victor Lesky.
This project would not have been possible without the support of many Parkland
staff who assisted me along the way, always with grace and kindness: Dr. Mark
Madson, Kelly Kester, Shaheeda Shivji, Lauren Will, Elizabeth Duld, and Thomas
Derhammer. I also appreciate all the Parkland principals, curriculum administrators,
and teachers who helped with the study. A special thanks to Ed Kobus who worked his
technical magic to extract the large amounts of data necessary for this longitudinal
research project. Parkland School District has many assets, but first and foremost is the
caliber of its people.
Finally, I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Peter Capolupo for his vision and
inspiration that broadened my understanding of the impact of elementary literacy.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
vi
Table of Contents
Dedication
iv
Acknowledgements
v
List of Tables
vii
List of Figures
ix
Abstract
xi
CHAPTER I. Introduction
1
CHAPTER II. Literature Review
6
CHAPTER III. Methodology
44
CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results
68
CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations
93
References
109
APPENDIX A. PIRLS Questionnaire
121
APPENDIX B. Volunteer Consent Form
135
APPENDIX C. IRB Approval Letter
136
APPENDIX D. Parkland Approval Letter
137
APPENDIX E. Top 5 Parkland Courses/Course Types by Reading Proficiency Level
138
APPENDIX F. PIRLS Open-Ended Responses
141
APPENDIX G. Data Analyst Certifications
143
vii
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
List of Tables
Table 1.
A Comparison of Speech Versus Reading
13
Table 2.
Parkland’s 2020-2021 Student Population Overview
48
Table 3.
Population Overview of Third-Grade Students from
49
Testing Years 2009, 2010, and 2011
Table 4.
Change in Cohort Population Demographics from
51
2009, 2010, 2011 to 2017, 2018, 2019
Table 5.
Parkland High School Course Types
52
Table 6.
Parkland High School Course Requirements
53
Table 7.
Longitudinal Study Data Dictionary
61
Table 8.
Breakdown of Number of Students by Third-Grade
69
Reading Proficiency Level
Table 9.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency
70
Levels on Eighth-Grade Instructional Reading Levels
Table 10.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on
76
Number of Students Taking Advanced Placement Co
Table 11.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on
Additional Subgroups (AP)
77
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
viii
List of Tables (Cont’d)
Table 12.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency
77
Levels on Number of Students Taking Project Lead
the Way (PLTW) Courses
Table 13.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels
80
on Additional Subgroups
Table 14.
2002 PVAAS Academic Growth Measures
Table 15.
Imagination Library Costs – Parkland School District
98
104
ix
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Early Reader Profile
15
Figure 2.
2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Results
33
Figure 3.
Mean Income in 2017 by Level of Income (USD 2020)
41
Figure 4.
Explanatory Design Approach Using Quantitative and Qualitative Data
55
Figure 5.
Cyclical Nature of Action Research
56
Figure 6.
Data Analysis and Data Normalization Cycle
57
Figure 7.
Data Normalization Using Microsoft Power BI
59
Figure 8.
Microsoft Power BI Table Joins
60
Figure 9.
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (no filters)
63
Figure 10.
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (filtered by testing year)
64
Figure 11.
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (filtered by school and student gender)
64
Figure 12.
StatCrunch Data Analysis – Third Grade and Eighth Grade Reading Data
71
Figure 13.
All Cohorts – All Students – STAR Eighth Grade IRL
72
Figure 14.
All Cohorts – Eighth Grade IRL of Economically Disadvantaged Students
72
Figure 15.
All Cohorts – Eighth Grade IRL of Students with IEPs
73
Figure 16.
All Cohorts – Third Grade Reading Proficiency (Basic and Below Basic)
73
And Eighth Grade IRL
Figure 17.
All Cohorts – Eighth Grade IRL for Students Not Proficient in
Third Grade Reading and Economically Disadvantaged
74
x
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
List of Figures (Cont’d)
Figure 18.
All Cohorts – Students Enrolled in AP Courses (2017, 2018, and 2019)
75
Figure 19.
All Cohorts – Students Enrolled in PLTW Courses (2017, 2018, and 2019)
82
Figure 20.
Grade Level Taught of PIRLS Participants
82
Figure 21.
Years of Teaching Experience of PIRLS Participants
83
Figure 22.
Teachers Who Were at Parkland in 2009, 2010, and 2011
83
Figure 23.
Most Popular Instructional Practices for Teaching Reading
88
Figure 24.
PIRLS Study – Key Numbers
89
Figure 25.
Stanford Study – 2009 to 2016
95
Figure 26.
Hours of Formal Literacy Professional Development –2021 to 2023
97
Figure 27.
Stanford Study – Impact of the Pandemic – 2019 to 2022
100
Figure 28.
Imagination Library Locations Within Pennsylvania
103
Figure 29.
ExcelinEd (2003) Analysis of State Early Literacy Efforts
105
xi
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Abstract
Third grade is regarded as a milestone year. From kindergarten to second grade, students
learn to read, but from grades three and beyond students read to learn. This longitudinal
mixed methods research study examines the impact of third-grade reading proficiency
(as measured by the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment) on later high school
learning outcomes. Specifically, the study tracks three cohorts of third-grade students
from 2009, 2010, and 2011, examines the eighth-grade instructional reading level (IRL)
of these students five years later, then analyzes the types of courses these students
enrolled in three years later as students at Parkland High School in 2017, 2018, and
2019, respectively. The focus is on the number of students enrolled in Advanced
Placement and Project Lead the Way courses, both college-level courses considered to
be among the most rigorous offered by the Parkland School District in Allentown,
Pennsylvania. The quantitative analysis determined there was a strong positive
correlation between third-grade reading proficiency level and the enrollment of students
in these programs. In addition, Parkland elementary teachers participated in the Progress
in International Reading and Literacy Study (PIRLS) to provide qualitative data on
Parkland’s early literacy program by examining the specific teaching techniques,
strategies, and resources Parkland’s elementary teachers use on a daily or weekly basis.
The combined datasets provide a more complete picture of Parkland’s early literacy
program and its impact on students throughout their academic career at Parkland School
District.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
1
CHAPTER I
Introduction
In 2013, when a team of Parkland teachers and administrators was in the
process of researching full-day kindergarten, they paid a visit to a Pennsylvania
school district in suburban Philadelphia whose Superintendent touted himself as
being a literacy leader. As evidence, the group was able to tour the District’s new K-1
literacy center which had won national awards for its design and academic
programming. In his comments to Parkland staff, the Superintendent spoke at length
about his District’s changing demographics and rapidly growing student population. In
his view, building a solid foundation where all students could continue to be successful
required a focus on ensuring students reach proficiency in reading by third grade. He
cited examples of how establishing literacy as a districtwide goal had impacted the
District’s graduation rate and overall student achievement.
His words made an impression. In 2014, when the Parkland School District
embarked on a plan to add full-day kindergarten, Parkland administrators stressed the
importance of students reading by third grade as one of the reasons in support of full-day
kindergarten. When asked by the Board to provide evidence, the team pulled a snapshot
of data from the third-grade class of 2005, looking at how those students who were not
proficient in reading - as measured by the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
(PSSA) - fared eight years later, in 2013, when it came to taking more rigorous
coursework such as the District’s Advanced Placement (AP) high school courses.
While not formal research, the numbers from this data snapshot revealed fewer than one
percent of students who were not proficient in reading by third grade later enrolled
in more advanced courses, far less than the number of students that was the norm.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
2
Now the Parkland School District is facing demographic changes similar to that
suburban Philadelphia school district visited more than ten years ago. Parkland’s
enrollment in 2022-2023 was 9,852 students, up more than 400 students from five years
prior. Over 32 percent of the District’s students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, a
number that has seen steady increases over the last several years, rising from nine percent
in 2007. This number is closely monitored since there is a body of research that shows
poverty can negatively impact a child’s early language acquisition skills (Kainz &
Vernon, 2007) although Parkland has established support to help mitigate its impact.
While the demographics may have changed, the District’s mission remains the
same: to ensure a quality education rich in academics, arts, and athletic opportunities to
address the needs of the whole child, and to make sure these opportunities for learning
are available to all students. This action research project is designed to formally study the
impact of elementary literacy on student access to the array of academic opportunities at
Parkland High School.
Research Questions
1.
How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later student enrollment
in high school Advanced Placement (AP) courses?
2.
How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later student enrollment
in high school Project Lead the Way courses?
3.
What instructional practices and beliefs are common among Parkland’s
elementary staff in schools which have consistently high levels of students reaching
reading proficiency by third grade as measured by the PSSA?
These questions will provide both quantitative and qualitative data to help the
District better understand the relationship between elementary student achievement and
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
3
its later impact on students’ access to academic opportunities as students at Parkland
High School. They will also help identify factors that may lead to higher levels of
students reading by third grade in the first place.
Data Collection
This mixed-methods action research project uses an explanatory sequential design
approach. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed separately
with findings from the qualitative research used to augment the quantitative research.
To answer research questions one and two, quantitative data from the third grade
PSSA exam results from three cohorts of students during testing years 2009, 2010, and
2011 were correlated against Pennsylvania Information Management System (PIMS)
data collections for those same students eight years later (2017, 2018, and 2019) using
Microsoft Power Business Intelligence (more commonly referred to as Power BI), Excel,
and other data analysis tools.
District instructional reading level data from the STAR progress monitoring tool, as
well as high school data on course enrollment, were used to measure student
performance at both the elementary and secondary levels.
Lastly, to answer research question three, a qualitative case study was conducted
that surveyed teachers in five of the nine Parkland elementary schools. The
comprehensive questionnaire used for the study helped to determine if the educational
background, understanding of literacy instruction, instructional time spent on literacy,
access to resources, and teaching methodologies of teachers made an impact on the
building’s ability to achieve a high percentage of students who demonstrated reading
proficiency by third grade. All data collected was electronic and housed on secure servers
using a two-factor authentication process.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
The questions for the qualitative case study survey came from the 2016 Progress
in International Reading Literacy Survey (PIRLS) questionnaire. As noted by the
National Center for Educational Statistics (n.d.), “it is designed to measure school and
teacher practices related to instruction” and has been used by schools worldwide since
2001, with a high degree of reliability. The questionnaire was completed by Parkland’s
K-4 teachers and required between 15 and 30 minutes to complete electronically. The
full survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. Teachers had the option to
complete the survey; it was not required. The Volunteer Consent Form (Appendix B)
outlines the consent process in more detail. The results from both the quantitative and
qualitative studies were analyzed and merged at the end to identify patterns and
address the original action research questions.
Last spring and summer the researcher completed both Google and IBM
professional data analyst certifications (Appendix G) to prepare for the extensive data
analysis that was involved with this project. In addition to creating specific tables of data
related to the research questions outlined above, the longitudinal data from three cohorts
of students were presented using Microsoft Power BI data visualization tools to create
an interactive data dashboard with natural language query capabilities. This enabled
the Parkland administrators to visualize and analyze the information to derive insights
from each of the three cohorts studied to determine if there are any consistent trends.
This also allowed the principals to focus on their buildings’ specific data and analyze the
strengths or weaknesses of their existing literacy programs more easily. Thanks to the
leadership of the elementary principals, the elementary schools are surprisingly in
lockstep with each other, and this level of data analysis helped reveal specific literacy
teaching beliefs and practices common among the schools.
4
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
5
Financial Implications
The financial implications for this research project are minimal given the District
has had a focus on elementary literacy for several years, with a significant investment in
teacher training on the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling
(LETRS) program, a scientifically based literacy approach. The District is in the process
of upgrading its current elementary English/Language Arts curriculum as part of the
normal five-year curriculum review cycle. The District has also recently adopted the
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) program to deepen its understanding of best
practices to promote literacy instruction in grades K, 1, and 2, an initiative that will have
some financial impact. There may be costs involved with securing substitute teachers for
building teams who will be involved in analyzing the data as a result of this study. Also,
the District’s emphasis on literacy may lead to a shifting of Title I funds for school
support, especially in the area of Title I assistants.
The District is fortunate to have a partnership with Lehigh Valley Reads, a local
non-profit organization comprised of community leaders from school, business, and local
government. Lehigh Valley Reads provides parents with literacy resources to help them
prepare their children for not only school but a lifetime of learning, and there is currently
no cost to the District to tap into the resources this organization provides.
Parkland School District has a solid literacy program. This can be seen in the nine
Parkland elementary schools that serve over 4300 students from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, yet all schools consistently have students who score above
average as measured by the state PSSA English/Language Arts exams. This longitudinal
research study will show what impact this strong literacy foundation had on students
years later in their academic careers once enrolled at Parkland High School.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
6
CHAPTER II
Literature Review
Reading, ‘Riting, and ‘Rithmetic. Based on a colloquial phrase coined at the
beginning of the 19th century (Burrus, 2014), the “3 R’s” were the foundational subjects
of the American public education system. More than 200 years later, these subjects
(now referred to as Reading, Writing, and Mathematics), remain the focus of
elementary education. However, much has changed over the last 200 years,
including the understanding of reading and the role literacy plays in a person’s ability
to successfully engage in school, the job market, and society. This chapter serves to
explore the research regarding the history of early childhood literacy in the United
States, the factors that impact a child’s ability to read, and the effects of literacy and
illiteracy on children and society at large.
History of Early Childhood Literacy
Reading is one of the highest achievements of human intelligence. Many other
species communicate, but none have anything like reading and writing (Seidenberg,
2013). Written language is an invention unique to humanity, dating back to 5000 B. C.
when the Mesopotamians developed cuneiform, a logo or picture-based form of writing
using clay tablets. A few hundred years later the Egyptians followed suit with a more
elaborate but still picture-based form of written language called hieroglyphics. These
languages were created as a way to record speech in a longer-lasting form (Seidenberg,
2013).
There is a relationship between speaking, writing, and thinking. Our ability to
record spoken ideas led to more advanced thinking and expanded human vocabulary past
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
the ability to be properly expressed by pictures alone (Seidenberg, 2013). Hence the
development of an alphabet, with characters – not pictures - representing sounds that
could be used to express words. This seemingly small shift has had profound implications
for how reading is taught since “while reading is a foundational skill, it is not a natural
one” (Luscombe, 2022, para. 7).
The English alphabet consists of 26 letters that can be combined to form 44
sounds. These 44 sounds can be combined to create more than 15,000 syllables and an
endless world of words (Chall, 1967; Luscombe, 2022). According to Luscombe (2022):
Ideally, children figure out what the letter string says at about the same
moment a word they already know crystallizes into view. And after a
couple of those "aha" moments, usually starting in first and second
grade, when nicky reveals itself as ‘nice’ or ka-heef transforms into
‘chief,’ the word seems to move into permanent memory. (para. 7)
Thus, learning to read is the product of exposure to a robust vocabulary coupled with
sophisticated decoding skills.
Yet there are multiple schools of thought on how best to teach reading, with two
sides currently divided into those who support more explicit phonemic instruction
(Moats, 2019) and those who favor “balanced” teaching of literacy where learning to read
occurs through a more organic process requiring less direct instruction (Calkins, 2016).
Some of the confusion comes from a lack of a single definition for balanced
literacy. According to Hanford (2018), although it does usually include some phonics,
balanced literacy has been criticized “for paying insufficient attention to explicit,
systematic instruction which some students require” (p. 5). Most of the 600 teachers
questioned in a 2019 Education Week survey indicated they used a balanced literacy
7
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
approach, but they also specified they spent at least some instructional time on phonics
“for a median of 31 minutes a day” although teachers indicated the phonics instruction
they delivered did not always follow a systemic process (Education Week Research
Center, 2020, p. 10).
The debate about how reading should be taught is not new. Indeed, it goes back
almost as far as reading instruction itself. According to Flesch (1955), “until the 1930s
the traditional method of teaching reading to American children was phonics” (p. 27).
Parents, guardians, or teachers would help a child learn to master the sounds associated
with the 26 letters of the alphabet and the corresponding 44 phonemes. Advocates of
this approach argued that the “key to learning to read was in deciphering the alphabetic
code” (Flesch, 1955, p. 105). Flesch’s 1955 book, Why Johnny Can’t Read, highlights
the impact of this shift in reading instruction and sparked the debate that has pingponged between the two sides ever since.
To settle the issue, in 1997 Congress convened a 14-member National Reading
Panel involving school administrators, working teachers, and scientists to evaluate
existing research and evidence to identify the best ways of teaching children to read.
Their review of the research and examination of best practices was exhaustive, spanning
the course of over two years. On April 13, 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP)
concluded its work and submitted its final report, the 449-page Teaching Children to
Read: An Evidenced Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading
and Its Implications for Reading Instruction.
The report recommended five components of a quality literacy program
(phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), with phonemic
awareness (PA) yielding the most impact in their meta-analysis of instructional practices
8
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
9
that had a significant effect on reading achievement. The 2000 NRP report concluded that
phonics instruction is the key to learning to read, phonemic awareness is the lock, and the
two work best when combined in a scaffolded approach:
Phonemes are the smallest units composing spoken language. For example, the
words "go" and "she" each consist of two sounds or phonemes. Phonemes are
different from letters that represent phonemes in the spelling of words. Instruction
in phonemic awareness (PA) involves teaching children to focus on and
manipulate phonemes in spoken syllables and words. PA instruction is frequently
confused with phonics instruction, which entails teaching students how to use
letter-sound relations to read or spell words. PA instruction qualifies as phonics
instruction when it involves teaching children to blend or segment the sounds in
words using letters. (p. 19)
The NRP report, though comprehensive and widely lauded, did not settle the
debate about reading instruction. There was concern that students and teachers would not
be enthusiastic about an approach to reading instruction that was too phonetically based.
Many educators still insisted learning to read was a natural process and that a holistic
“balanced literacy” approach would be better at inspiring a lifelong love of reading. The
result, according to Shanahan (2020), was that “balanced literacy came to mean
whatever anybody wanted it to. Schools did not have to buy expensive new
curriculums. Districts did not have to retrain their teachers. Teachers could add some
lessons on phonics, but they didn’t have to hit reset on the way they taught” (p. 239).
This explains why some educators embraced Lucy Calkins’ book, The Art of
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Teaching Reading, published in 2001 as a counterweight to the National Reading Panel
findings. Calkins, a Columbia University professor, created the Units of Study reading
curriculum that in 2018 was used in about a third of American classrooms (Hanford,
2018). Until 2022, Units of Study emphasized the “three-cueing” approach to reading,
where students learn to decipher unfamiliar words through pictures and context clues
(Calkins, 2001). The balanced literacy approach is also appealing because it promotes
student autonomy, allowing students to choose their own books to spark a love of
reading. Calkins’ balanced literacy curriculum and teaching methodology helped
establish Columbia University as a preeminent teacher’s college, and her approach was
the predominant pre-service teacher training model used by New York City schools.
However, the 2010 Anne E. Casey Foundation research report, “Early Warning!
Why Reading by Third Grade Matters,” sounded the alarm that elementary reading
instruction was still not hitting the mark, and with dire consequences. Citing the results of
the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the report (Feister, 2010)
revealed only 17 percent of low-income students and 33 percent of all students tested
were proficient in reading by third grade. The research report was one of the first widely
published studies to focus on the importance of reading by third grade. Students in grades
K-3 learn to read, but students from grades 4 through high school read to learn,
solidifying reading’s impact on mathematics, science, social studies, and all other courses
students engage in via reading (Feister, 2010).
What are the consequences for missing the Reading by Grade 3 (RBG3)
benchmark? Early Warning cites data that students who are unable to read by the end of
third grade are four times more likely not to graduate, with the odds worsening for those
10
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
11
students from low-income households, who are six times more likely not to graduate. The
cost to society for each of these high school dropouts was calculated to be $260,000 per
child based on 2009 dollars (Sum et al., 2009). The cost of lost opportunities for millions
of American students? Immeasurable.
In 2013, the Anne E. Casey Foundation issued a follow-up to its earlier work
titled Early Warning Confirmed. The report reiterated and updated the original 2010
Early Warning report’s findings, providing a renewed sense of urgency for the country to
sharpen its focus on early childhood literacy. Early Warning Confirmed identified five
specific research-based factors that impact a child’s ability to read: 1) a child’s readiness
for school; 2) chronic absence from school; 3) summer learning loss; 4) family stressors
that interfere with learning; and 5) quality reading instruction based on current researchbased strategies outlined by the National Reading Panel (Feister, 2013, p. 21). The report
emphasized the gap in 2011 NAEP reading scores – 29 points – between students from
low-income families and those from more affluent households, stressing the unfortunate
irony that unless these students were eventually able to learn to read so they could
graduate from high school, they were likely to repeat the cycle of poverty with their own
children (Feister, 2013).
Early Warning Confirmed framed literacy as an equity issue, challenging but not
unsolvable (Feister, 2013). It highlighted the literacy-focused initiatives that developed
between 2010 and 2013, such as the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading, a national
movement that galvanized 350 school districts (representing 8 million students in 34
states) to commit to having students reach reading proficiency by third grade. The
campaign continues its work to this day, and its website, gradelevelreading.net, is a
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
clearinghouse of resources for teachers, administrators, parents, and non-profit
organizations who want to help raise the bar for literacy achievement in their local
communities (Feister, 2013).
One outcome of the work of the National Reading Panel and the Anne E. Casey
Foundation was an expanded awareness of the importance of elementary literacy, not
only among educators but scientists as well, who were increasingly interested in what had
been dubbed the “science of reading.” A case in point is neuroscientist and
psycholinguist, Mark Seidenberg, who launched his 2017 book, Language at the Speed of
Sight. Seidenberg’s book traced the research on the origins of language development and
the impact of learning to read on the human brain. His findings shed new light on the
relationship between speech and reading. As Seidenberg (2017) stated, “We read with our
eyes but the starting point for reading is speech” (p. 20).
Seidenberg proved his point through a survey of world languages that showed oral
speech always precedes written language; the reverse is never true. His research
confirmed that there is a strong reciprocal relationship between speech and print. It is the
beginning reader’s primary task to make the connection between the speech he or she
uses and hears, and the written words on the page. Writing encodes spoken language. The
process of reading decodes the words on the page so the reader can “hear” the words
again, either spoken aloud or most often quietly as they read to themselves. In this model
of how children learn to read, speech and language acquisition play a critical role in the
reading process.
Table 1 lists other findings that reveal how speech and reading are interconnected,
yet distinct (Seidenberg, 2017, p. 25):
12
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
13
Table 1
A Comparison of Speech Versus Reading
Speech
Reading
Speech evolved in the species.
Reading is a cultural artifact; not all
cultures read.
Speech is universal; in the absence of a
Reading proficiency varies widely from
speech impediment, everyone learns to
state to state, even county to county.
speak.
Children learn how to speak through
Reading is taught through informal
interactions with other language users.
interactions with parents or guardians like
bedtime stories or more formal instruction
at school.
Speech is fast fading and can be messy
Writing was developed to transcend the
with wide variations of inflection and
impermanence of speech, enabling a
tone. Listeners are at the mercy of the
passage to be read repeatedly. It has
speaker.
structure, grammar, and punctuation.
Readers control the speed at which they
absorb written words.
Seidenberg’s research, with its emphasis on the relationship between spoken
language and reading, supported the National Reading Panel’s case for phonemic
awareness. As Seidenberg (2017) stated, “Learning to treat spoken language as if it were
composed of phonemes is an important step to learning how to read an alphabetic writing
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
14
system” (p. 38). Enlisting cognitive science, Seidenberg looked at which specific areas of
the brain are involved during the reading process. He analyzed thousands of CT images,
which showed a surprising amount of the brain “lights up” during the reading process as
synapses from both the left and right sides of the brain engage.
Seidenberg also detailed the cognitive science behind dyslexia, an often
misunderstood developmental reading disorder affecting as many as one in five readers
(Moats, 2019). Seidenberg’s research clarified that dyslexia is not a vision problem that
causes readers to see letters in reverse, but a language processing issue where readers
struggle to make the necessary connections between speech and written words
(Seidenberg, 2017). Students with dyslexia are usually of average or above-average
intelligence. As Shaywitz (2021) stated, “…dyslexia is an island of weakness in a
sea of strengths” (p. 82).
While Seidenberg’s work shed light on the basic mechanisms that support skilled
reading and the causes of reading impairment - making visible what happens in the brain
during the process - the science of reading had to be linked to the science of teaching in
order to make an impact in the classroom. As noted by Shanahan (2020):
The cognitive and neuropsychological studies that Seidenberg examined on how
readers read words are an important part of the science of reading instruction but
not just or even mainly because they are high-quality studies. These studies are
valuable because they have contributed to our understanding of reading
instruction through their consistency with the findings of extensive instructional
experiments that have demonstrated consistently and overwhelmingly that explicit
and systematic teaching of decoding is beneficial. (p.7)
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Shanahan appreciated the cognitive science validating the pedagogy reforms he
helped promote 17 years earlier in the 2010 National Reading Panel’s report. But it was
Harvard researcher and educator Louisa Moats who eventually built the bridge between
the science and pedagogy of reading. In her 2019 journal article, Structured Literacy:
Effective Instruction for Students with Dyslexia and Related Reading Difficulties, Moats
confirmed the critical need to use phonemic awareness in early literacy instruction with
students, particularly those experiencing dyslexia. Her belief was that the immersion
method of reading instruction does not work with these students, yet she was
optimistic that student reading deficits could be overcome through effective teaching.
Moats was encouraged by research (Figure 1) estimating that “95 percent of
elementary students, regardless of background, are cognitively capable of learning to
read when they receive sufficient direct instruction on the foundational skills of
reading.”
Figure 1
Early Reader Profile
Note. From the report Narrowing the Third-Grade Reading Gap (EAB, 2019, p.7)
15
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Structured literacy is the term Moats coined for systemic, explicit instruction that
focuses on language processing skills by building phonemic awareness. Moats believed
structured literacy benefited all students but was especially critical in order for struggling
readers to be successful (Moats, 2019). She developed a teacher training program,
Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS), based on these
concepts. Teachers who completed the full training regimen and implemented the LETRS
strategies - with a focus on explicit instruction on decoding strategies - showed positive
results, especially with students that had in the past experienced significant reading
difficulties (Hanford, 2018). Moats’ work provided teachers with detailed instructional
strategies that could help students with reading difficulties decipher the relationship
between spoken and written language, thus making the cognitive research of Seidenberg
something that could be tangibly implemented in an elementary classroom.
A meta-analysis of 235 research studies showed the effectiveness of structured
literacy, indicating that phonemic awareness played a “pivotal” role in reading
development (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2012, p. 10). Yet the balanced literacy approach, with
its three-cueing system and only some phonemic awareness skill-building, was reported
by 72 percent of teachers in the 2019 Education Week survey as the predominant
instructional methodology used in most American classrooms (Education Week Research
Center, 2020). In her 2020 journal article, Teaching Reading IS Rocket Science: What
Expert Teachers Of Reading Should Know And Be Able To Do, Moats (2020) responded
to what she thought was at the root of the disconnect. Acknowledging that the body of
evidence to guide the practice of teaching was “stronger than it has ever been,” Moats
(2020) also added:
Unfortunately, much of this research is not yet included in teacher preparation
16
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
17
programs, widely used curricula, or professional development, so it should come
as no surprise that typical classroom practices often deviate substantially from
what is recommended by our most credible sources. As a result, reading
achievement is not as strong as it should be for most students, and the
consequences are particularly dire for students from the least advantaged families
and communities. (p.1)
So where do things stand now? The pendulum does seem to have swung back to a
more structured literacy approach to reading, one where phonemic awareness and
decoding skills are foundational for all students, although balanced literacy may be used
to supplement reading opportunities for those students who demonstrate consistent
progress with the development of foundational reading skills (Burkins & Yates, 2022).
Mississippi school districts mandated intensive LETRS training for its K-3
teachers, despite fears that a presumably “dry” phonics-based curriculum may not only
extinguish a love of learning but a love of teaching (Hanford, 2020). Fortunately, that did
not happen. Teachers became excited when they could see the proverbial lightbulbs going
on for students who had previously struggled. In 2020, in what has been called the
“Mississippi Miracle,” the state had the highest NAEP gains in the country (Luscombe,
2022); once the lowest, their fourth-grade students are now posting scores on par with the
national average.
Change, especially in education, happens slowly – then all at once. In a nod to the
2010 Early Warning report, most states, including Pennsylvania (via its Future Ready
Index), now monitor third-grade reading proficiency as a measure of student success.
Recognizing that quality instruction lies at the root of affecting significant change,
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
18
from 2013 through 2022 26 states have enacted laws requiring the use of “evidencebased” reading instruction, an umbrella term that includes programs based on the science
of reading, structured literacy, or the simple view of reading (Luscombe, 2022). And in
January 2022, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed legislation (HB 2045),
through a unanimous vote, requiring all pre-service teachers to complete professional
development in the science of reading.
Impacts on Early Childhood Literacy
As of 2020 in Pennsylvania, compulsory schooling does not begin until a child
reaches six years old, but a child’s education, in reality, begins as soon as they are born
(Sahakian et al., 2022). Early childhood is a critical period for brain development, with
birth to age two being the fastest growth period according to recent cognitive research
(Sahakian et al., 2022). Richter et al. (2021) confirmed “children’s brain volumes
double during their first year and reach 80–90% of their adult sizes by age 3” (p. 2).
Although growth continues through adolescence and the brain remains open to
new knowledge throughout the course of one’s lifetime, the early stage is critical for
neurodevelopment, cognition, learning, and behavior. “To optimize typical development, it
is important to seize the critical period for early educational activities and to make this
experience of good quality, thus ensuring the best outcomes in the future” (Sahakian et
al., 2022, p.5).
These findings were confirmed by Dicataldo and Roch (2022) in their research on
the impact of toddlers’ engagement in language activities and the impact on language
acquisition. Dicataldo and Roch (2022) noted the most intensive period of language
development is during the first years of life, during which the brain is developing
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
19
rapidly. “Research has shown that children from disadvantaged households who received
high-quality stimulation at a young age grew into adults who earned an average of 25%
more than those who did not receive these interventions” (Dicataldo & Roch, 2022, p.1).
Their research surfaced the impact of the home environment on a child’s early language
acquisition, with positive correlations between higher levels of maternal education and
future higher performance on standardized tests (Dicataldo & Roch, 2022, p. 5).
Both of these studies referenced the landmark Hart and Risley report, Early
Catastrophe: The Thirty Million Word Gap by Age 3. Researchers Hart and Risley
entered the homes of 42 families from various socioeconomic backgrounds over a
period of four years to assess the ways in which daily exchanges between a parent and
child shape language and vocabulary development (Hart & Risley, 2003). Their findings
broke new ground, documenting as much as a 30 million word gap - or 300 percent
difference - between children from affluent families and children from low-income
families (Hart & Risley, 2003). The study found that between 86 and 98 percent of a
child’s vocabulary was derived from their parents or guardians (Hart & Risley, 2003).
Going further, the study found children from low-income families were exposed to 616
words per hour, while children from middle to high-come families were exposed to
2152 words per hour (Hart & Risley, 2003). Follow-up studies have shown that these
differences in interactive language experiences can have lasting effects on a child’s
performance later in life (Dicataldo & Roch, 2022).
What the research has made clear is that parents and guardians – not school
districts – are a child’s first teachers, and they should be made aware of the importance of
cultivating their child’s language acquisition. While it is not necessary for parents to
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
20
“teach” reading per se, or for a child to know how to read prior to coming to school, it is
helpful for a child to have an adult read to them prior to entering school, or at a minimum
be exposed to language frequently, whether it’s through talking, reading, or even singing
(Brown et al., 2019). According to Hart and Risley (2003):
Within a child’s early life, the caregiver is responsible for most, if not all,
social simulation, and consequently language and communication
development. How parents and/or guardians interact with their children is of
great consequence given it lays an important foundation, impacting the way
the children process future information many years down the road. (p. 3)
Engaged parenting makes a difference in a child’s school readiness (Pasini, 2018).
It's somewhat like a relay race, in that the more parents and/or guardians can help their
child progress with the cognitively challenging task of language acquisition from birth to
age five, the greater the likelihood that educators will be able to take the baton and help
the child reach the next leg of the language acquisition journey: learning to read. That is
why Pasini (2018) advocated for a collective impact approach to address the problem of
illiteracy. Collective impact is where organizations rally around a single issue to address
a social challenge that no one agency or group could successfully address alone (Pasini,
2018). In her case study, Pasini highlighted the San Mateo Big Lift project in which
parents, libraries, and over 30 other community groups successfully united in their efforts
to tackle the challenge of having children read by third grade (Pasini, 2018).
The Big Lift project serves seven of the neediest school districts in San Mateo
County, impacts more than 4000 children, and focuses on what project leaders have
defined as their “four pillars” (Pasini, 2018, p. 609):
•
High-quality preschool for 2000 children;
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
•
21
Summer learning programs for 1200 kindergarten through grade 2
children;
•
Targeted attendance messages to the families of the 4000 participating
children;
•
Parent engagement programs such as Raise a Reader and other programs.
The Big Lift program has produced tangible results, with students who participated in the
summer learning programs gaining up to 1.5 months of learning as opposed to the
traditional 2 months loss (a net gain of 3.5 months), and 97 percent of parents reporting
they would recommend the Big Lift Inspiring Summers program to other parents (Pasini,
2018, p. 614). Less tangible but still important benefits have come from the partnerships,
connections, and shared focus of the community as a result of this initiative.
Part of the success of Big Lift was its ability to engage both children and parents.
Parent engagement programs like Big Lift that provide mentoring can have a significant
effect on a child’s language development and overall cognitive development (Brown et al.,
2019). Family literacy or home literacy programs involve family members participating
in literacy activities within the home environment and can have many positive effects
beyond language acquisition, including expanded background knowledge, improved
socialization, and a greater sense of belonging within the family and community (Brown
et al., 2019, p. 64). “Involving parents in their child’s literacy development has been
identified as one of the most important supports for a child’s academic success” (Brown
et al., 2019, p. 66).
There are a variety of strategies to support parents as their child’s first teacher. In
some communities, pediatricians - often the first point of contact for new parents - are
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
22
starting to provide newborn parents with books and reading tips through programs like
Reach Out and Read (Thakur et al., 2016). In some communities like Charlotte, North
Carolina, and the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania (via lehighvalleyreads.org), parents can
sign up for a free texting service called Parent Powered to have research-based child
development strategies sent to their phones several times a week. Some communities
offer free access to digital book libraries such as World Reader, or book delivery
services, such as the Imagination Library, where parents can register at no cost to have an
age-appropriate book sent to their home monthly, from the time their child is born until
they reach five years old, resulting in the development of a home library of up to 60 highquality books before the child enters school.
The Imagination Library, funded by the Dolly Parton Foundation, has distributed
over 200 million books in the United States since the program’s inception in 1995. In their
research study of the Imagination Library, Ridzi et al. (2016) showed that the program
has a positive effect. The study examined 2,741 incoming kindergarteners in the Syracuse
Area School District and assessed their readiness using the AimsWeb Letter Naming
Fluency (LNF) test in the fall of 2013 and 2014. The results? A significantly higher
number of students (29 percent) who consistently used the program over a period of three
years were proficient on the LNF test, even when accounting for demographic
differences (Ridzi et al., 2016, p. 16). The Imagination Library is currently available in
47 Pennsylvania communities, including Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Lancaster, Kutztown,
Wyoming Valley, and Carbon County (Imagination Library, n.d.). Nationally, Governor
Gavin Newsom recently signed a law enabling all preschool California children to
participate in the program, joining seven other states that also offer the program.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Ridzi’s findings were confirmed by Silinskas et al. (2020) in their journal article,
Home Literacy Activities and Children’s Reading Skills. The longitudinal study found
“the frequency of shared reading and teaching of reading at home” directly correlated
with an increase in independent reading one year later (Silinskas et al., 2020). Children
who engaged in reading activities at home with their parents became more confident and
overall better readers who went on to read more on their own. As for the format of the
books being read – print or digital – Kulikova (2019) found in her meta-analysis of the
benefits and drawbacks of each format that the overall difference in impact on a child’s
reading proficiency was not statistically significant, with a tilt to print books since parents
were more likely to engage in reading a print book with their child versus on a device,
thus promoting the parent-child bond. A longitudinal study by Capotosto (2022)
tracked the types of books in low-income homes, noting that it was not only the
presence of books but the availability of age-appropriate books that made a difference
in students’ later testing in third grade. Students from the study who scored proficient
or above had access to books that were at or below their reading level, while students
who were below proficiency either lacked access to books or had books that were too
difficult for them to successfully read at home (Capotosto, 2022).
In 2002, the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) was convened to study
synthesized research regarding early childhood development from birth to age 5,
including the impact of a child’s home environment. Timothy Shanahan, a leading
member of the 1997 National Reading Panel and co-author of its subsequent report,
Teaching Children to Read (2000), was also involved in this similarly expansive effort.
The primary goal of the report was to “identify interventions, parenting activities, and
23
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
instructional practices that promote the development of children’s early literacy skills”
(National Early Literacy Panel, 2008, p. 14).
After extensive analysis, the panel issued its 2008 report, Developing Early
Literacy, which identified six variables or precursors with a medium to high correlation
to a child’s later conventional literacy skill development such as word recognition and
decoding (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008, p. 59). These six skills are:
alphabet knowledge (AK): knowledge of the names and sounds associated with
printed letters;
phonological awareness (PA): the ability to detect, manipulate, or analyze the
auditory aspects of spoken language (including the ability to distinguish or
segment words, syllables, or phonemes), independent of meaning;
rapid automatic naming (RAN) of letters or digits: the ability to rapidly name a
sequence of random letters or digits;
RAN of objects or colors: the ability to rapidly name a sequence of repeating
random sets of pictures of objects (e.g., “car,” “tree,” “house,” “man”) or colors;
writing or writing name: the ability to write letters in isolation on request or to
write one’s own name;
phonological memory: the ability to remember spoken information for a short
period of time (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008, p. 60).
While parents can help their children acquire these skills, especially if they are
provided information or coaching, these skills are often explicitly taught in early
childhood education programs (Peisner-Feinberg, 2020). Several studies have examined
the impact of early childhood education, sometimes referred to as “PreK” and its impact
on school readiness and future learning outcomes.
24
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
“More than 10 million children who live below the poverty threshold attend public
PreK-12 schools, and over 1 million of these children attend public pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten” (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2017). According to AlleeHerndon and Roberts (2018), “especially in early childhood, poverty poses the single
greatest threat to children’s well-being and educational equity” (p. 5). They advocate
for quality PreK programs that include purposeful play opportunities such as
storytelling accompanied by opportunities for students to talk and draw about what they
hear; games and puzzles that build executive function; and dancing and music that build
gross motor functions. These purposeful play activities, Allee-Herndon and Roberts
(2018) point out, are also beneficial to children in the early primary grades of
elementary school (p. 7).
In Pennsylvania, there is a state-funded Pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds
called Pennsylvania Pre-K Counts (PA PKC). The goal of PA PKC is to help reduce
educational disparities by providing high-quality pre-kindergarten for children who
lack opportunities or reside in environments that place them at risk of school failure.
In studying 52 school districts that participate in PA PKC, Peisner-Feinberg (2020)
documented evidence to support that the program makes a difference in preparing
children for school. Overall, the study found positive learning outcomes for math and
language arts, regardless of demographics. Further, for children who participated in PA
PKC, “these effects were equivalent to an increase of approximately 5 months of learning
for vocabulary, 4 months for math problem-solving skills, and 5 months for knowledge of
math concepts” (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2022, p. 26).
The Parent-Child Home Program (www.parentchildplus.org) is another program
25
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
available to select low-income families in Pennsylvania. This program involves having
early childhood educators enter directly into homes to work with parents and children
twice a week. The results are promising, with longitudinal data showing 84 percent
of participating children later reach grade-level reading targets and graduate from
high school (Hanna & Graham, 2022). The findings suggest that both PA PKC and
Parent- Child Home programs offer children from at-risk homes in Pennsylvania an
important buffer and head start to ensure their readiness for kindergarten.
Although kindergarten is not required in Pennsylvania, according to
Pennsylvania School Code 51.62 (Admission of Students), students as young as 4 years
7 months old may attend a full or half-day kindergarten program if it is available at
their local public school district, charter school, or cyber charter school. Fortunately,
according to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (n.d.), there are 428 school
districts in Pennsylvania (out of 500) that offer full-day kindergarten programs,
although it is important to note this includes school districts that offer half-day
kindergarten with a full-day option for select students.
According to Giaquinto (2015), “Pennsylvania kindergarten policies at both the
state and local levels differ significantly, including areas such as availability, length of
the day, entry assessments, quality of instruction, class size, funding, teacher preparation
and licensure, and curriculum” (p.1). The end result is not all five-year-olds attend
kindergarten and those who do attend may be in kindergarten for varying times and learn
different things. In his study of two rural school districts in Lehigh County, Giaquinto
(2015) found the students in full-day kindergarten outperformed the students in half-day
kindergarten in reading fluency as measured by DIBELS, in all areas except for one,
26
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
although there were tangible positive results found in both full and half-time kindergarten
programs.
These findings were confirmed by a longitudinal research study from Stanley et al.
(2017), that used DIBELS to establish baseline reading fluency skills for kindergarten
students and the Simple View of Reading (SVR) as a framework for deciphering the
results. In the SVR framework, language comprehension and decoding skills provide the
foundation for reading comprehension (Moats, 2019).
In this study, researchers investigated the correlation between several DIBELS
reading fluency indicators with kindergarten students (n=3180) against the students’ later
reading comprehension scores in third and tenth grade. The findings lent plausibility to
the SVR framework, indicating that kindergarten students’ decoding skills correlate to the
students’ third-grade and even tenth-grade reading comprehension abilities. The
researchers suggested greater attention should be paid to students’ decoding skills even as
early as kindergarten or PreK, pointing to countries such as Finland where parents of
young children are provided research-based phonemic awareness games. These games
not only develop language skills but identify at-risk students and students who may have
dyslexia (Stanley et al., 2017, p. 150). An example is GraphoGame
(https://www.educationfinland.fi/member/graphogame) available in 250 languages,
including English and Spanish.
The relationship between a child’s ability to read and the quality of instruction they
receive is also well documented. In their study, Brokamp et al. (2018) showed that
teachers who were able to stay focused on core concepts, used data successfully to target
interventions, and motivated students to read more (especially texts that grew their
27
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
28
knowledge base) had students who were successfully able to reach grade-level proficiency
in reading (p. 1). An ancillary benefit was that as students’ reading ability improved so
did their behavior (Brokamp et al., 2018).
These findings were confirmed in a qualitative study reviewing the process of two
schools that were transitioning from a balanced literacy instructional approach to a
science of reading approach. Warren (2019) stated that teachers who were more
inclined to adopt the science of reading approach were provided access to an
instructional coach, someone who could provide feedback on their instruction. Teachers
were also motivated to use this new methodology after they saw their students’ reading
skills improve. These early adopters were then able to influence other teachers within
their school to follow suit, even teachers who had been firmly committed to the balanced
literacy approach (Warren, 2019). This echoed the advice of Moats (2020), who
emphasized that learning how to teach reading is a complex task, one that requires a
systemic process, encouragement, coaching, patience, and time. School districts that have
been successful with transitioning to the science of reading approach often have at least
one staff member - a lead teacher, reading specialist, or principal – who is skilled in the
methodology and can provide teachers with support.
In a 2018 mixed methods study that tested the reading knowledge of 42 Texas
principals and interviewed the staff and principals on their leadership abilities, Baker
(2003), outlined the behaviors of principals that consistently led to higher levels of
reading achievement (p. 103):
1. The ability to empower strong reading teachers and support their efforts as they
do their job. As one administrator commented during an interview (“…leadership
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
is not found in the principal alone”) (p. 103).
2. The principal needs at least a rudimentary understanding of reading instruction,
although they do not need to be experts (p 103).
3. Autonomy or shared decision-making was consistently modeled by successful
principals (p. 104).
4. Successful principals earmarked resources for professional development, and they
participated in professional development activities with their staff. They could
and did model effective teaching practices for the staff as appropriate (p. 104).
5. Visibility and accessibility were also identified as key features of strong effective
leaders (p. 105).
6. The principal is the main catalyst for change. Although he or she does not need to
be viewed as the source of all instructional knowledge, the principal is the lead
champion for maintaining a building culture and climate that consistently
reaffirms a belief that all children can learn. (p. 105).
Looking at teachers’ perceptions of what is behind the literacy success of a highperforming school was the concept behind the 2019 qualitative study by Georgiou
et al. Their research solicited the opinions of all language arts teachers from a
Canadian school that had consistently high reading scores as measured by
standardized tests. The teachers’ comments were then reviewed by the principal and
reading specialist for their respective feedback (Georgiou et al., 2019).
To what did the teachers attribute their school’s success with reading?
Comments like “a school-wide focus on improving reading”; “weekly collaborative
teams focused on job-embedded professional development”; “common formative
29
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
assessments given by grade level teams”; and “common team planning time” received
the highest scores (Georgiou et al., 2019, p. 5). The principal, in his review of the
teacher’s responses, commented that the teachers in his building were a very collegial
group with a strong esprit de corp. As he noted “one teacher’s struggle becomes
everyone’s problem,” and teachers in his building would routinely venture into each
other’s classrooms (Georgiou et al., 2019, p. 11).
Skilled teachers, working with an encouraging principal in a collaborative,
student-centered environment, with classrooms rich in knowledge-building literacy
resources, were cited as the most important elements of the school’s high literacy scores
(Georgiou et al., 2019). These factors superseded even the amount of instructional time
spent on teaching English/Language Arts in third grade based on the results of a 2017
study that cross-referenced student achievement scores on the New Jersey Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (NJAKS) against the instructional time New Jersey school districts
in New Jersey reported on the annual state report card. “Through statistical analysis
using simultaneous multiple regressions, as well as hierarchical regressions, it was found
that the amount of instructional time for a school did not have a statistically significant
impact on student achievement” (Telischak, 2016, p. 134), demonstrating it is not the
quantity but the quality of instruction that makes a difference.
Research studies found that other factors such as technology, classroom libraries,
and school libraries also had an impact on student reading achievement. A 2016
quantitative experimental design study found first through third-grade students who used
the Lexia Reading Core5 software program made significant gains on the NWEA MAP
assessment (17 points) as compared to students in the control group who did not use the
30
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
software and saw only a five-point gain (Taylor et al., 2018). Larger comparative
increases were noted in students who had special needs or were from low-income
households. The general requirement was 60 minutes per week in order for the program
to be successful.
Another technology that showed promise for reading instruction was voice
amplification systems. Voice amplification systems provide mild to moderate volume
increase and more even distribution of a teacher’s voice in the classroom. This
technology is especially important in the primary classroom where much of the
instruction is spoken, and gaining phonemic awareness requires the ability of students to
hear the teacher clearly. An experimental design study showed a slight (2.8 percent)
improvement in first-grade reading scores in classrooms that used voice amplification
systems versus those that did not use the technology (Millett & Purcell, 2010). A
comprehensive meta-analysis of 21 studies reviewing voice amplification systems found
positive effects on student learning with the caveat that factors such as a child’s
background, location in the classroom, overall classroom layout, and tonal quality of the
teacher’s voice need to be taken into consideration (Mealings, 2022).
Finally, multiple studies have confirmed the impact of a school library on student
reading outcomes. Students from a random sampling of 39 Ohio schools participated in a
qualitative survey about their school’s library, with 99.4 percent reporting they felt the
library played a role in helping them become better learners (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2001, p.
50). In addition, students who were able to check out at least one book a week, or
participated in a library’s summer learning program, experienced the most benefit
from their school library (Roman & Fiore, 2010). As stated by Bogel (2006) “school
libraries play an active and important role in student learning and achievement” (p. 51).
31
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Effects of Early Childhood Literacy
For elementary students, third grade is a gateway year. It is where the pivot begins
from learning to read to reading to learn. For students who have reached reading
proficiency, the door to further learning opportunities opens wider; for those who are still
struggling to learn to read, the doorway begins to narrow (EAB, 2019).
There are several reasons for this. An influential textbook by Emmett Betts
published 70 years ago, Foundations of Reading Instruction, established three levels of
reading for students: independent, instructional, and frustration (Shanahan, 2020). Texts
that may be too easy for developing readers (independent level) or too difficult
(frustration level) do not lead to higher levels of academic growth. Ideally, the texts that
students read are at an instructional level, where they are not too difficult for a student to
read, especially with the assistance of a skilled teacher. Instructional texts force the
student to stretch and grow, but not become discouraged.
The problem, as illustrated in the 2019 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) results - sometimes referred to as the “nation’s report card” - is that
only 34 percent of the 294,000 fourth-grade students tested were proficient in reading
(NAEP, 2022). While this is an increase from the 29 percent seen in 1992, as
illustrated in Figure 2 the pandemic has reduced even the small gains made over the last
three decades in reading as reported by NAEP (2022). The gap between the number of
students Moats (2020) stated should be able to read (95 percent) and the number of
American students who actually are reading on grade level by fourth grade is
significant and persistent.
32
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
33
Figure 2
2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Results
Although ideally students are provided challenging texts that force them to stretch
and expand their reading skills (Shanahan, 2020), too many students who are below grade
level for reading can find their textbooks incomprehensible (National Conference of
State Legislatures, 2019). This problem is compounded since many of the supports found
in the early primary grades for struggling readers are no longer in place for students once
they leave elementary school. Yet the current system of secondary instruction in most
subjects is heavily text-based, designed on the assumption that by fourth grade the
majority of students are skilled readers.
This is consistent with studies linking third-grade reading proficiency with
achievement in other subjects. In a 2020 longitudinal study of over 350K students,
researchers found a statistically significant relationship established between students’
reading proficiency in primary grades and later achievement in mathematics, although it
is interesting to note that the study did not show the reverse; strong math skills in early
grades did not necessarily correlate to the development of strong reading skills (Hübner
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
et al., 2022). Specifically, “the largest change in mathematics achievement predicted by
reading was found for average or above-average reading achievement levels in
combination with low mathematics achievement levels” (Hübner et al., 2022, p. 24).
Poor reading comprehension manifests itself in not only reduced learning but also
overall student engagement. As students become less able to learn via their textbooks,
some students may even start to display negative classroom behaviors. But the opposite is
also true. As noted by Brokamp et al. (2018), in a study of 66 third-grade classrooms and
593 third-grade students, “the higher the students’ reading fluency level is at the
beginning of Grade 3, the better their task-focused behavior, emotional stability, and
compliant behavior are at the end of Grade 3” (p. 7). This relationship was confirmed by
research from the ABCD Project, a well-known longitudinal study, which showed that
reading for pleasure is one of the most cognitively rewarding activities that children can
engage in, resulting in not only smarter but happier children, with fewer behavioral issues
and mental health benefits that extend into adolescence (Sahakian et al., 2022, p. 16).
Beyond other grade-level subjects, current studies have linked reading
performance at the elementary level to reading comprehension in middle school and high
school: “79% of the variance in high school reading ability can be accounted for by
intensity of foundational skills instruction in 1st grade” (EAB, 2019, p. 20). This concept
is aligned with the Simple View of Reading (SVR), which looks at reading
comprehension as the result of a student’s ability to decode words (and automatically
recognize words on sight) coupled with the ability to apply correct meaning to the words.
For example, it is not enough for a student to be able to recognize the word “light” - they
must also be able to understand what the word means given the context in which it is
34
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
35
written. Extracting meaning from words on a page is the purpose of reading. Decoding
alone is not enough to create meaning, but it is a powerful start. The research shows a
student’s ability to decode words as an emergent reader influences the student’s future
reading comprehension skills (EAB, 2019).
This was confirmed by a longitudinal study that reviewed the link between 3100
Florida students’ third-grade Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores against the students’
later tenth-grade reading comprehension achievement results as measured by the state
Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR). The analysis found that thirdgrade ORF scores were a strong predictor of tenth-grade FAIR assessment outcomes, and
elementary students with strong reading fluency skills were more apt to become high
school students with better reading comprehension skills (Stanley et al., 2017).
The findings from this study aligned with the 2020 National Center for Analysis
of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research (CALDER) report, Assessing the Accuracy
of Elementary School Test Scores as Predictors of Students’ High School Outcomes.
Using panel data spanning grades 3-12 from three states (North Carolina, Massachusetts,
and Washington), the CALDER study investigated the link between third-grade state test
results and three specific high school learning outcomes: 1) tenth-grade state test scores;
2) the probability of taking advanced math courses; and 3) high school graduation
(Goldhaber et al., 2020). Their findings showed that the state test results from third grade
had almost as much predictive value in determining high school outcomes as the state test
results from eighth grade in determining later high school outcomes.
This held true across state lines but not across socio-economic levels (Goldhaber
et al., 2020, p. 2). The CALDER study provided quantitative evidence of the role poverty
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
plays in reducing the gains made possible by elementary reading mastery.
An economically disadvantaged student (EDS) in third grade lowers the
student’s predicted position in the high school math distribution by 5.8
percentile points; the predicted probability of taking an advanced course in
high school by 9.7 percentile points; and the predicted probability of graduation
by 10.2 percentage points” (Goldhaber et al., 2020, p. 3).
This data does not negate the importance of early childhood literacy. On the contrary, it
shows how critical a strong academic foundation is for students to have a chance at
overcoming the burdens of poverty (Goldhaber et al., 2020, p. 24).
These findings are in alignment with previous research studies cited by the Anne
E. Casey Foundation, Early Warning (2010) and Early Warning Confirmed (2013), and a
third report from 2011, How Third Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence
Graduation. In this report, the findings from a longitudinal study tracked 4,000 students
in New York, demonstrating those who did not read proficiently by third grade were four
times more likely to leave school without a diploma than proficient readers:
For the worst readers, those who couldn’t master even the basic skills by third
grade, the rate is nearly six times greater. While these struggling readers account
for about a third of the students, they represent more than three-fifths of those
who eventually drop out or fail to graduate on time. What’s more, the study shows
that poverty has a powerful influence on graduation rates. The combined effect of
reading poorly and living in poverty puts these children in double jeopardy.
(Hernandez et al., 2011, p. 3)
A 2019 study, A Quantitative Research Study on the Future Impacts of Third
36
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
37
Grade Reading, sought to replicate the findings from the Anne E. Casey reports for
students in Utah. In this longitudinal study tracking students from 2010 to 2019, Dalton
looked at the relationship between third-grade reading test scores and the alignment with
eighth-grade state assessment results, eleventh-grade ACT scores, and graduation rates.
The findings:
Nearly nine of 10 students in the exceed expectations category on the third-grade
reading assessment graduated high school as compared to only six in 10 who did
not meet the expectations.
Economically disadvantaged students in all three reading categories had
graduation rates nearly 10 points lower when compared to students from less
financially distressed families.
Seventy-five percent of students who scored in the exceeds expectations category
took the SAT or ACT compared to only 25 percent of students in the does not
meet expectations category. (Dalton, 2019, p. 18)
These data suggest correlations exist between third-grade reading proficiency and
future academic success as measured by common performance benchmarks. But what
impact does third-grade reading have on a student’s access to future coursework?
Although there appears to be a clear throughline between early childhood literacy and
graduation rates, is there a similar connection between early childhood literacy and the
type of courses in which students enroll in high school? The impact of early childhood
literacy and its impact on high school learning opportunities, the focus of this study, is
not as heavily researched, perhaps due to a lack of longitudinal data and the disparities
that exist in high school programming.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
A 2010 longitudinal study of 26,000 students attending Chicago Public Schools
examined the connection between third-grade reading and later high school outcomes.
The report, Third Grade Reading: How Is It Related to High School Performance and
College Enrollment, had several findings:
Fewer than 20 percent of students who were below grade level in third grade
attended college, compared to about a third of students who were at grade level,
and nearly 60 percent of students who were reading above grade level (Lesnick et
al., 2010, p. 2).
There was a strong correlation (r=0.67) between students’ reading proficiency in
third grade and eighth grade (Lesnick et al., 2010, p. 20). This is particularly
important for Chicago Public Schools since students who meet certain academic
and attendance requirements in eighth grade have their choice of which high
school to attend. The study showed that higher-performing eighth-grade students
chose higher-performing high schools.
There were marked differences in high school attendance among the students who
were either below grade level, at grade level, or above grade level in reading in
third grade. Students who were below grade level averaged 15 days absent per
semester; students at grade level averaged nine days absent per semester; students
who were above grade level averaged five days absent per semester (Lesnick et
al., 2010, p. 41).
Another 2010 study, High Achievement on Advanced Placement Exams: The
Relationship of School-level Contextual Factors to Performance, looked at the factors
which influence student performance on Advanced Placement (AP) course exams. AP
38
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
courses are often a metric in determining the rigor of a high school’s academic program.
The study indicated poverty did play a role in the number of students enrolled in AP
courses, with high-poverty school districts offering fewer AP opportunities than more
affluent school districts (Burney, 2010). The study cited Adelman’s 1999 longitudinal
research which indicated that having even one high school AP course on their transcript
nearly doubled the chances of a student graduating from college (Burney, 2010, p. 116).
These findings aligned with a later 2008 study, Who's Taking the Advanced
Placement Courses and How Are They Doing: A Statewide Two-Year Study, that
examined AP testing results in all Texas high school campuses from 2004-05 and 200506. Despite the AP Board’s statement on equitable practices, the study posited that
Texas students of color and economically disadvantaged students were not enrolled in
AP courses in percentages equal to the local school’s general population (Moore &
Slate, 2008). The authors of the study stated “We contend that all students should have
equal access to AP classes and AP exams. Unequal access here simply adds to the
inequities already present in today’s schools and society. We believe that schools can do
better” (Moore & Slate, 2008, p. 64).
Much is expected of schools because what happens in school has a broader
societal impact. Early Warning (2010) was one of the first studies to show the effect of
early childhood literacy on graduation rates. Students who do not graduate high school
are eight times more likely to be incarcerated (Renbarger et al., 2019), which helps
explain why 85 percent of teens in juvenile detention programs and 70 percent of
adults who are incarcerated are functionally illiterate as measured by the Program for the
International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) and reported by the National
39
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
40
Center for Educational Statistics (2019). According to Rothwell (2020), both the NCES data
and a 2020 Gallup research study showed 20 percent of American adults are functionally
illiterate, equivalent to the PIAAC level 0 or 1.
Based on NCES data, 54 percent of U.S. adults 16 to 74 years old - about 130
million people – are functionally literate but lack proficiency, reading at or below the
equivalent of a sixth-grade level (Rothwell, 2020, p. 3). They are at PIAAC level 2 or
below, with most having only the ability to complete simple forms and read basic texts.
As stated by Rothwell (2020), “this has dollars and cents implications because literacy is
correlated with several important outcomes such as personal income, employment
levels, health, and overall economic growth” (p. 4). Figure 3 illustrates the difference in
mean annual income based on PIAAC literacy levels (0-5) in US 2020 dollars.
Figure 3
Mean Income in 2017 by Level of Literacy (USD 2020)
Note. From the report Assessing the Economic Gains of Eradicating Illiteracy
(Rothwell, 2020, p. 3)
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
41
Not reading by third grade has a clear ripple effect in middle school, high
school, and beyond. British A. Robinson, President and CEO of the Barbara Bush
Foundation, an organization dedicated to combating illiteracy, stated: “America’s low
literacy crisis is largely ignored, historically underfunded and woefully underresearched, despite being one of the great solvable problems of our time” (Nietzel,
2020, p. 3).
Summary
A review of the literature on the relationship between early childhood literacy and
later high school learning outcomes is both disappointing and hopeful. It is
disappointing that a number of scientific studies have confirmed most students can read
if given the proper instruction and support (EAB, 2019). Yet, as indicated by the 2022
NAEP results, the majority of the nation’s students – more than 2/3 of fourth and eighth
graders tested – are still not proficient in reading (NAEP, 2022). The hope lies in that
although no one panacea will ensure a child eventually becomes literate, research shows
there are several factors that can have a measurable impact on a child’s ability to read,
regardless of demographics or zip code (Seidenberg, 2017).
What would the environment look like for a child who has a high probability of
reading by third grade and achieving later high school success? Research shows:
•
They would have parents or guardians that understand that their newborn
child’s mind is like a sponge, with the most rapid rates of brain
development occurring from birth to age two (Sahakian et al., 2022).
•
Parents or guardians would use this valuable time period to read or
simply talk to their child, exposing them to copious amounts of language
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
and knowledge as their child’s first teacher, recognizing children learn
to read with their ears first (Hart & Risley, 2003); (Seidenberg, 2017).
•
Parents and guardians of newborns and toddlers would have access to
reading/literacy resources to help them such as their pediatrician (Thakur
et al., 2016), public libraries (Roman & Fiore, 2010), and age-appropriate
books for their own home libraries (Ridzi et al., 2016).
•
Young children would have access to quality PreK (Peisner-Feinberg et al.,
2022) and kindergarten programs (Giaquinto, 2015), with all
kindergarten students screened for dyslexia (Moats, 2019); (Shaywitz,
2021).
•
Once in school, the child would learn the five essential reading skills as
defined by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 2000).
•
If a child is struggling to read, a teacher knowledgeable in the science of
reading would provide appropriate interventions to help the child
eventually “crack the code” (Moats, 2020). This would include having
the child read books designed to stretch and grow both his or her
emergent reading skills (Shanahan, 2020) and background knowledge
(Wexler, 2020).
•
By the end of third grade, the child should be proficient in reading so
they can continue to “read to learn” during the next several years of their
academic journey, hopefully becoming lifelong learners in the process
(Feister, 2010).
42
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
The reading proficiency of the child in third grade will most likely
determine his or her reading comprehension skills in eighth grade, which
in turn is linked to the child’s likelihood of success in high school and
beyond (Lesnick et al., 2010).
43
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
44
CHAPTER III
Methodology
A review of the literature made clear the importance of early childhood literacy
and the pivotal milestone of third-grade reading (Feister, 2010). It also confirmed the
need for a systemic, collective impact approach to early childhood literacy. The research
established that children begin the process of language acquisition from the time they are
born (Sahakian et al., 2022), and there are numerous opportunities for learning prior to a
child entering school, whether at home (Hart & Risley, 2003), at public libraries (Roman
& Fiore, 2010), or through a PreK learning center (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2022). Once
in school, research studies confirmed the need for high-quality literacy instruction
(Moats, 2019) using a systemic approach that includes phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, 2000), with access to knowledge-building books written at an
appropriate instructional level (Wexler, 2020).
The effects of not reaching the third-grade reading milestone were also clear, with
research demonstrating the impact on a child’s social and emotional health (Brokamp et
al., 2018), the likelihood of graduating from high school (Feister, 2010), attending
college (Lesnick et al., 2010), and future earnings potential (Nietzel, 2020).
What the research did not make as clear was the effect of early childhood literacy
on the coursework students had access to later in their academic careers as high school
students. Although there were longitudinal studies that demonstrated, for example, the
correlation between first-grade Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores and later high school
reading comprehension ability (Stanley et al., 2017), or the relationship between third-
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
45
grade test scores, enrollment in advanced high school math courses, and tenth-grade
standardized test scores (Goldhaber et al., 2020), these studies provided data tangential
to the main focus of this study: the relationship between third-grade reading proficiency
and later access to high school AP and PLTW courses. The need to have access to
longitudinal data spanning a period of at least eight years, coupled with the wide range of
course offerings in American high schools, may have limited the amount of research in
this area. It is challenging to make an apples-to-apples comparison from one school
district to the next. Yet it is important to understand the factors that may enhance or
preclude equitable student access to high school learning opportunities.
Purpose
The purpose of this action-research project is to examine what relationship exists
between early childhood literacy (as measured by the third-grade PSSA) and later access
to high school learning opportunities using the following research questions:
1. How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later student enrollment in
high school Advanced Placement (AP) courses?
2. How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later student enrollment in
high school Project Lead the Way courses?
3. What instructional practices and beliefs are common among Parkland’s
elementary staff in schools which have consistently high levels of students
reaching reading proficiency by third grade as measured by the PSSA?
Parkland School District offers diverse and rigorous educational programs that
enable students to engage in more than 160 electives and earn college credit while still in
high school. Parkland High School has three Project Lead the Way (PLTW) career
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
pathways (Biomedical Science, Computer Science, and Engineering) and 30 Advanced
Placement (AP) courses. Based on the 2022 AP test results, 82 percent of students who
took 769 AP tests achieved a score of three or higher, the qualifying score for most
colleges to accept AP courses for college credit (Parkland School District, 2022b). Dual
enrollment opportunities are available through Seton Hall University, and juniors and
seniors also have the option to enroll in Lehigh Carbon Community College (LCCC) and
graduate from Parkland High School with both a high school diploma and an associate
degree from LCCC. In 2022, the District reported more than 400 students participated
in a dual enrollment opportunity, and 96 percent of seniors graduated from Parkland
High School (Parkland School District, 2023). This research project is in keeping with
the District’s philosophy of excellence through equity, one that holds high expectations
for the success of all students reinforced through strong student support programs.
Settings and Participants
The Parkland School District is located in the region known as the Lehigh Valley,
the third-largest metropolitan area in Pennsylvania. The Lehigh Valley region of eastern
Pennsylvania is made up of Lehigh and Northampton counties and is home to the three
cities of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton, as well as numerous townships and
boroughs. According to the Parkland School District (2023), the region’s largest
employers are ADP, Air Products, Amazon, B. Braun Medical, Crayola, Lehigh
University, Mack Trucks, Olympus, and two hospital systems, Lehigh Valley Health
Network, St. Luke’s University Health Network, and Parkland School District itself, with
the District employing almost 1500 employees during the 2021-2022 school year.
46
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
47
The 72 square miles of the Parkland School District encompass three townships
with a total population of approximately 60,000. The District’s wide socio-economic
range results from bordering the city of Allentown on the southeast and extending to
farmland at the western and northern extremities. The District currently has one high
school (grades 9-12); two middle schools (grades 6-8); and nine elementary schools
(grades K-5). Parkland is experiencing rapid population growth, with two new
elementary schools built since 2010.
Diversity is a key strength of the District. According to the Parkland School
District (2023), the district had 9,694 students at the end of the 2021-2022 school year,
comprised of students from families that speak 39 different languages. Table 2
provides a demographic overview of the 2022-2023 student population:
Table 2
Parkland’s 2022-2023 Student Population Overview
Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch
32%
Receiving Special Education Services
15%
Receiving Gifted Education Services
5%
Number of English Language Learners
322
Diversity of Study Body:
White
60%
Hispanic
18%
Asian/Pacific Islander
13%
Black
5%
Multi-racial
4%
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
48
Archived PSSA exam data from testing years 2009, 2010, and 2011 for all
Parkland elementary schools, third-grade students only, was used to enable a comparison
of these third-grade students’ progress eight years later as students at Parkland High
School in academic years 2017, 2018, and 2019. Table 3 provides a demographic
overview of these three cohorts of third-grade students from PSSA testing years 2009,
2010, and 2011:
Table 3
Population Overview of Third-Grade Students from Testing Years 2009, 2010, and 2011
Eligible for
Free/Reduced
Lunch
IEP
(not gifted)
Diversity of
Student Population
2009
Total
Number
of
Students
673
12.9%
19.6%
2010
708
16.6%
20.5%
2011
700
16.5%
19.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander–7.7%
Black – 2.8%
Hispanic – 6.9%
Native American –0.7%
White – 81.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander–
10.5%
Black – 4%
Hispanic – 5.9%
Native American –0.2%
White – 79.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander–9.4%
Black – 2.8%
Hispanic – 6.5%
Multiracial – 1.1%
Native American –0.3%
White – 79.7%
The student population numbers in this table do not reflect the entire third-grade student
numbers since those special education students with the most significant cognitive needs
(less than 2 percent) qualified for the Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment
(PASA), a modified version of the PSSA that is a required accommodation in accordance
with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic
It should be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic, which shut down all
Pennsylvania schools in March 2020, caused the cancellation of PSSA and Keystone
exam testing in the Spring of 2020. Most Pennsylvania school districts, including
Parkland, transitioned from fully face-to-face instruction to fully online instruction, then
to various hybrid models of instruction, then back to fully face-to-face instruction, all
within the course of a single calendar year. PSSA and Keystone exam testing in 2021
yielded lower than typical test results for Parkland and most Pennsylvania school
districts, as per a statement by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (Hanna &
Graham, 2022), so 2019 is the last academic year to yield a valid longitudinal comparison
for this research study. Although the student population data reveal changes in Parkland’s
demographic composition over the course of the duration of the study (2009 through
2019) - with increases in the number of students eligible for the free or reduced lunch
program and decreases in the special education student population - these changes are not
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cohort Population Changes Over Time
It should also be noted that the third-grade students from 2009, 2010, and 2011
who stayed in the district long enough to enroll at Parkland High School were fewer than
the number of students in the original cohorts (673, 708, and 700, respectively). Some
Parkland students moved out of the area during this time while others chose to enroll in
the charter, cyber charter, and non-public schools within the Lehigh Valley. Table 4
represents the composition of students who were in the District consistently from third
through eleventh grade.
49
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
50
Table 4
Change in Cohort Population Demographics from 2009/2010/2011 to 2017/2018/2019
Cohort
Number
of
Students
2009/2017
673/535
Eligible for
Free or
Reduced
Lunch
12.9%/10.6%
2010/2018
708/553
16.6%/12.5%
2011/2019
700/558
16.5%/13.6%
IEP
(not gifted)
Diversity of
StudentPopulation
19.6%/19.3% Asian/Pacific Islander–7.7%/7.8%
Black – 2.8%/2.2%
Hispanic – 6.9%/5.6%
Native American–
0.7%/0.7%
White – 81.7%/83.5%
20.5%/17.7% Asian/Pacific Islander–10.5%/10%
Black – 4%/3.4%
Hispanic – 5.9%/5%
Native American–0.2%/0.1%
White – 79.3%/81.1%
19.4%/18.3% Asian/Pacific Islander–9.4%/9%
Black – 2.8%/3.0%
Hispanic – 6.5%/6.0%
Multiracial – 1.1%/0.7%
Native American–
0.3%/0.2%
White – 79.7%/81.0%
In looking at this data, there were 673 third-grade students in 2009 but only 535
students remained in the cohort by 11th grade; there were 708 third-grade students in
2010 but only 553 students remained in the cohort by 11th grade; and there were 700
third-grade students in 2011 but only 558 remained in the cohort by 11th grade. It is these
smaller populations of students – those that remained at Parkland throughout their
elementary, middle, and high school years – that were analyzed to determine what
courses these students enrolled in at Parkland High School.
Parkland High School Academic Programs
Parkland High School has a capacity of 3200 students and current enrollment
shows the school has a population of 3200 students (Parkland School District, 2023),
making it the fifth-largest high school in the state. Parkland High School’s focus on
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
51
personalized learning, whether it is through participation in Academics, Arts, or
Athletics (referred to as the district’s “three pillars”) is a purposeful effort to help
students discover their niche despite the large size of the school. Table 5 describes the
types of courses offered at Parkland High School (Parkland School District, 2022a).
Table 5
Parkland High School Course Types
Course Level
Description
AP= Advanced Placement
Parkland offers 30 AP courses in the areas of English,
science, social studies, math, art, and music. Courses
offer rigorous, college-level study following the
College Board’s curricula.
HRS = Honors
Honors courses are designed to offer a greater depth
of study at an accelerated pace.
GHP = Gifted/High Potential
These courses in English, math, science and social
studies use advanced research skills and higher-level
course materials.
CP= College Preparatory
These courses are moderately paced and are designed
for students considering continuing education.
CEW=Career/Education/Work
These courses provide required courses for students
Readiness
enrolled part-time at LCTI.
APPL= Applied (note:
Applied courses provided direct support and
Applied courses were
remediation for students who may have struggled with
discontinued in 2017)
traditional coursework.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
PLTW= Project Lead the Way
52
Project Lead the Way offers rigorous, hands-on
experience. Parkland offers three PLTW pathways in
Engineering, Computer Science, and Biomedical
Science. Each pathway consists of four courses.
Certain PLTW courses qualify for college credit.
AP/PLTW= course
There is one course, AP Computer Science Principles,
categorized as counting
that qualifies for both AP credit and PLTW course
towards both AP and Project
credit.
Lead the Way credit
LCTI (Lehigh County
Courses for students enrolled full-time at LCTI.
Technical Institute)
Cyber (Parkland Cyber
Online course options are available for students as
Academy)
needed.
While the research questions for this study focus on the overall profile of students
enrolled in AP and PLTW courses, considered some of Parkland’s most rigorous course
offerings, the research study also examines the top courses based on student
enrollment at Parkland High School as correlated to students past third-grade reading
proficiency levels. This broader survey includes the range of course types offered at the
high school level in order to answer questions that may arise as a result of the data. Did a
third-grade student’s reading proficiency impact the courses he or she took as a student at
Parkland High School? Were there other factors that may have also been at play? The
structure of this research study will enable an analysis of these questions as well.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
53
The types of courses students enroll in may vary, but Parkland High School has
consistent graduation requirements that all students must meet. According to the
Parkland School District (2022a), students are required to take a minimum of 24.25
credits over the course of four years of study (Table 6):
Table 6
2022-2023 Parkland High School Course Requirements
English
4.0 Credits
Science
4.0 Credits
(Note: Biology is required of all students)
Social Studies
3.0 Credits
Mathematics
3.0 Credits
Health/Physical Education/
1.25 Credits
Driver’s Education
Career Explorations
.5 Credits
Electives
8.5 Credits (with some requirements)
PIRLS Study Participants
The quantitative portion of the study provides a longitudinal overview of
students’ academic progress, while the qualitative survey of current grade K-5 teachers
helps connect student progress to instructional practice, thus providing a more complete
picture of Parkland’s early literacy program from 2009 to the present.
The questions for the qualitative case study survey came from the 2016 Progress
in International Reading Literacy Survey (PIRLS) questionnaire. As noted on the
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
National Center for Educational Statistics website (n.d.), the survey “is designed to
measure school and teacher practices related to instruction” and has been used by schools
worldwide since 2001, with a high degree of reliability. The questionnaire was completed
by Parkland’s K-5 teachers and required between 15 and 30 minutes to complete
electronically. The full survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. Teachers had the
option to complete the survey; it was not required. The Volunteer Consent Form
(Appendix B) outlines the consent process in more detail.
In addition, the research project received approval from the PennWest University
Institutional Review Board (IRB) on September 11, 2022 (Appendix C), allowing the
project to be completed within the timeframe of September 12, 2022, through September
11, 2023. In addition, Dr. Mark Madson, current Parkland Superintendent of Schools,
granted permission for the research study, including the use of archived student data and
the survey of current Parkland staff, within the parameters set forth in his letter dated
August 3, 2022 (Appendix D). The next section outlines the research plan to use both
quantitative from the longitudinal research study and qualitative data from the PIRLS
questionnaire to identify patterns and address the original action research questions.
Research Plan
As stated by Mertler (2021), “standardized test data is routinely used but should be
offset by other types of data” (p. 248). This research project relies primarily on quantitative
data - including but not limited to standardized test data - enhanced by qualitative data,
therefore the research methodology is best described as an explanatory sequential design
approach. In this approach, the design begins with the collection and analysis of quantitative
data followed by the collection of qualitative data to answer any questions the quantitative
data alone may not be able to address (Figure 4).
54
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Figure 4
Explanatory Design With Quantitative and Qualitative Data (Mertler, 2021, p. 145)
In this research project, quantitative data provided the initial information on the
types of courses third-grade students enrolled in eight years later as students at Parkland
High School, enabling deeper analysis of any patterns or trends that may be related to a
student’s reading proficiency level (Advanced, Proficient, Basic, or Below Basic). In
addition, qualitative data from the PIRLS survey answered questions related to the early
childhood literacy beliefs and practices of Parkland’s K-5 elementary literacy teachers.
Parkland’s early literacy programs are excellent, based on PSSA test results and the
District’s own local assessments. This qualitative data helped address questions related to
how early childhood literacy instruction takes place in Parkland classrooms and why
teachers favor certain instructional literacy practices over others. In addition, patterns and
trends were able to emerge from the survey regarding how instructional practices or
resources compare and contrast among Parkland’s elementary schools.
This research plan also follows the guidelines outlined in Introduction to
Education Research (Mertler, 2021) in which Mertler emphasizes the cyclical nature of
action research, one in which reflection is built into the process. The research questions
are designed to prompt additional questions and a deeper inquiry into the topic of the
impact of early childhood literacy. Figure 5 visualizes the process:
55
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Figure 5
Cyclical Nature of Action Research (Mertler, 2021, p. 166)
Data Normalization and Analysis Process
The cyclical nature of action research parallels the data normalization process the
researcher encountered in the IBM and Google data scientist certification programs
(Appendix G). Data normalization ensures that data is not only accurate but clear and
consistent, with a focus on the user’s ability to effectively analyze the data for further
inquiry. The steps involved in data normalization (Figure 6) include: 1) defining the
questions; 2) gathering the data; 3) preparing the data; 4) analyzing the data; and 5)
visualizing the data, with reflection built into the process at every stage.
56
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
57
Figure 6
Data Normalization and Analysis Process
Define
Questions
Gather
Data
Visualize
Data
Prepare
Data
Analyze
Data
Defining the questions. The data normalization process starts with the end in
mind by examining the questions the researcher is trying to answer. The research
questions for this study are:
1.
How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later
student enrollment in high school Advanced Placement (AP) courses?
(quantitative)
2.
How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later
student enrollment in high school Project Lead the Way courses?
(quantitative)
3.
What instructional practices and beliefs are common
among Parkland’s elementary staff in schools which have consistently
high levels of students reaching reading proficiency by third grade as
measured by the PSSA? (qualitative)
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Gathering the data. The next step in the process is to determine the best sources
of data to answer the research questions. For the first two research questions, Parkland
provided four tables of data from the District’s data warehouse, Performance Matters: 1)
PSSA state testing data from testing years 2009, 2010, and 2011; 2) local reading
assessment (STAR) data that provides the instructional reading level (IRL) for eighthgrade students during testing years 2014, 2015, and 2016; 3) high school Keystone state
assessment data for Biology, Literature, and Algebra for testing years 2017, 2018, and
2019; and 4) high school course enrollment and course grade data for student enrollment
years 2017, 2018, and 2019. The district provided more data than was technically needed
to answer the research questions, but the additional STAR and Keystone data helped
create a throughline of academic achievement for students enrolled in the district from
third grade through eleventh grade, as well as allow comparison of results from both state
and local assessments, adding another layer of validity to the process.
For the third research question, the PIRLS questionnaire was distributed to
Parkland K-5 teachers within the timeframe of March 10, 2023 (an in-service day)
through April 11, 2023 (the day following Parkland’s spring break). The responses from
this 34-question survey were automatically tabulated into a comma-separated value
(CSV) file which was then imported into Excel for further analysis, making the process
of data gathering more streamlined as compared to the longitudinal portion of this study.
Analyzing the data. Before any insights could be derived from the data, a
thorough process of cleaning (also referred to as data normalization) was completed in
order to ensure the validity and accuracy of the results. In this case, the PSSA data files
had more than 100 columns of data and needed to be reduced to only the data necessary
58
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
to conduct the research. In addition, it was important that each table of information have
a primary key, a field of unique data that would serve as the common denominator among
all four tables of data. Parkland assigns a unique student identification number (student
ID), to each student upon enrollment, and this student ID field served as the primary key
to link all the tables together (Figure 7). In this stage of the process, fields of data are
also examined to determine distinct and unique values. For example, there are four
distinct PSSA proficiency levels (Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic) but if
there was only one student who achieved the proficiency level of Advanced then that
value would also be considered unique. Microsoft Power BI has several tools to
simplify the process of identifying distinct and unique values within a dataset, as well
as identify any errors that may be within the data:
Figure 7
Data Normalization Using Microsoft Power BI
59
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Preparing the data. Once the data normalization process is complete, the data is
prepared for further analysis which makes the results clear to not only the researcher but
anyone who may eventually use the data. Preparing the data for this study involved
linking the four tables of information Parkland provided and triangulating that data with
the information provided by the PIRLS questionnaire. Microsoft Power BI has the ability
to link disparate data files together (Figure 8), again simplifying the process rather
than having to use additional tools such as SQL or Microsoft Access. This process
enabled a longitudinal look at a Parkland student’s academic journey from elementary
school, to middle school, to high school.
Figure 8
Microsoft Power BI Table Joins
60
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
61
It is also common practice, especially when preparing data for quantitative
analysis by a wider audience, to construct a data dictionary (Table 7) so the end-user
is clear on what the data values for each field (or column) of data represent.
Table 7
Data Dictionary for Quantitative Data Analysis
Table Name
Fields
2009-2011 Student PSSA Data –
1. Student_ID (primary key)
Third-Grade Reading
2. Subject (Reading)
3. Grade Level (3)
4. Year Tested (2009, 2010, 2011)
5. School Tested
6. Scaled Score (range 1000 to 1928)
7. Proficiency Level: Adv=Advanced;
Pro=Proficiency; Bas=Basic;
Bel=Below Basic;
8. Ethnicity (1= Native American;
2=Asian/Pacific Islander; 3=Black;
4=Hispanic; 5=White;
6=Multiracial)
9. IEP (not gifted) – Y=Yes, N=No
10. Economically Disadvantaged –Y=Yes, N=No
11. Gender–F=Female, M=Male
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
62
2014 – 2016 Student Grade 8
1. Student_ID (primary key)
IRL (Instructional Reading
2. Test Year – 2014, 2015, 2016
Level) Data
3. Student_Score (range 1.1 to 13)
4. Grade_Level (roundedStudent_Score,
range 1 to 13)
2013– 2019
1. Student_ID (primary key)
Keystone Literature Exam Data
2. Grade (11)
3. Scaled Score (range 1385 to 1712)
4. Best Performance Level –Adv=
Advanced; Pro=Proficient;
Bas=Basic; Bel=Below Basic
2017 – 2019
1. Student_ID (primary key)
Report Card Exams and
2. School Year (2017, 2018, 2019)
Final Grades Data
3. Grade Level (9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
4. Course Number (range 0 to 1000)
5. Course Name
6. Course Department
7. Course Type (AP=Advanced
Placement; HRS=Honors;
GHP=Gifted/High Potential;
CP=College Preparatory;
CEW=Career/Education/Work Ready
8. Final Grade (A, B, C, D, F, I, W)
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Visualizing the data. Reporting the results of the data analysis is the last step in
the process, but it should be noted this will most likely not close the book on the subject,
but rather lead to additional questions in keeping with the iterative and ongoing nature of
action research (Mertler, 2021). To enhance the inquiry process, a data dashboard for the
quantitative analysis portion of this research project was constructed using Microsoft
Power BI. Microsoft Power BI provides a number of options for visualizing data and has
the advantage of being interactive, so the end-user can derive insights based on his or her
background and understanding of the information. It is also a straightforward process
to modify the layout, create multi-page reports, and update the original data using this
tool. Figures 9, 10, and 11 depict examples that demonstrate how a single data
dashboard can yield several insights from the same set of data.
Figure 9
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (no filters)
63
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Figure 10
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (filtered by testing year (2010) and PSSA proficiency level
(Below Basic))
Figure 11
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (filtered by school (Cetronia) and student gender (female))
64
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
The student data can be further disaggregated through filters based on school
building and student demographic information such as ethnicity and gender. The more
filters an end-user applies, the smaller the subset of results that are produced. Clicking
anywhere outside one of the charts removes the filters and brings back the original data,
making it easy to perform multiple queries. This data dashboard approach also enables a
comparison of other factors that may have an impact on students’ high school learning
outcomes. For example, it was possible to look at not only the relationship between
reading proficiency and enrollment in AP courses but also if a student’s socioeconomic
status or having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) played a role in AP course
enrollment.
In keeping with the explanatory sequential research design, qualitative data
from the PIRLS study was later added to this quantitative data dashboard. To
triangulate the two sets of data, a question was added to the PIRLS study to identify
those teachers who were working in the District during 2009, 2010, and 2011 school
years.
Validity and Data Integrity
According to Mertler (2021), “Quality research must meet standards of sound
practice” (p. 167). Every effort has been made to ensure this research study meets those
standards, with a focus on the practices put forth by Hendricks (2016) in her book,
Improving Schools Through Action Research: A Reflective Practice Approach:
Credibility – results are accurate and truthful;
Transferability – results can be shared with others;
Dependability – the study can be replicated;
Confirmability – the results of the research are free of bias.
65
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
In addition to the data normalization process used for the longitudinal data study
portion of this research project, the PIRLS questionnaire was distributed via a secure
process to ensure data validation. Using Adobe Acrobat Pro, each question response was
labeled so the results could be further analyzed in Microsoft Power BI or Excel. Teachers
received the Volunteer Consent Form (Appendix B) for the PIRLS questionnaire via
email, entered their name and email address if they chose to participate, and after form
submission received a link to the PIRLS questionnaire. Upon completion of the PIRLS
questionnaire, teachers received a confirmation email with a copy of the completed
survey. These extra steps helped validate the identity of the teacher completing the survey
without invalidating the anonymity of the teacher’s responses.
In the process of collating the data, the researcher discovered a few anomalies that
will also be noted in the data findings portion of this research project. Parkland has added
two new elementary schools recently, Fred J. Jaindl Elementary, which opened in
2010, and Veterans Memorial Elementary, which opened in 2021. Since the data
dashboard only summarizes data from 2009 through 2019, Veterans Memorial
Elementary does not appear and data for Fred J. Jaindl Elementary does not appear until
2011. Pennsylvania did not add the Keystone Literature exam until 2010, so it does not
appear in the 2009 data. Parkland has had the Project Lead the Way Engineering
pathway for almost 20 years, but only recently added the Project Lead the Way
Computer Science and Biomedical Science pathways in 2018 and 2019, respectively,
which may have had an effect on the number of PLTW courses taken in these pathways.
Finally, the district decided to phase out Applied courses at Parkland High School in an
effort to consolidate the number of academic tracks, so Applied courses do not appear
as options after 2017.
66
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
67
Summary
In 2014, when Parkland School District was in the process of completing a
cost/benefit analysis of adding Full-Day Kindergarten (FDK), a group of administrators,
the researcher included, surmised that FDK was an important cornerstone for helping
students reach reading proficiency by third grade, with potential for even longer-term
impact. Part of the analysis included looking at third-grade PSSA reading data from 2005
to see what, if any, relationship existed between reading proficiency in third grade and
student access to AP courses eight years later in 2013. That single data snapshot analyzed
in 2014 showed that less than one percent of students who were not proficient on the
PSSA reading exam later went on to take AP courses at Parkland High School, far less
than the norm, based on the District's Parkland High School Profile and the researcher's
own data analysis.
Fast forward to today, this mixed methods research project is similarly focused on
the impact of third-grade reading proficiency on later access to coursework at Parkland
High School, but this time examines not one but three different cohorts of student data to
determine whether the 2014 results were an anomaly or part of a consistent pattern. In
addition, this research project has looked at both quantitative and qualitative data in order
to consider other factors such as student demographics or instructional practices which
also play a role in overall student literacy success. The end result is a much fuller picture
of Parkland’s early literacy program, from 2009 to the present, and the impact early
literacy has had on Parkland students’ high school learning outcomes.
The next chapter reviews how both quantitative and qualitative data were used to
answer the original research questions, as well as other findings that emerged as a result
of this explanatory sequential research project.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis and Results
To gain a more complete picture of the impact of Parkland’s early literacy
program on later student enrollment in high school courses, a mixed methods
approach was used that relied primarily on longitudinal data from three cohorts of
third-grade students tested in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (n=1646), and the courses these
students took eight years later while enrolled at Parkland High School in 2017, 2018,
and 2019, respectively. The data tables used for the quantitative portion of the study
were the third-grade PSSA reading assessment results, the eighth-grade STAR
instructional reading level (IRL) results, a district-provided file that tracked all high
school course enrollments from 2017 to 2019, and the high school Keystone
Literature assessment results. These files, once linked together using Microsoft
Power BI, provided a more complete trajectory of a student’s academic journey
based on the proficiency level achieved on the third-grade PSSA reading exam.
To understand the context for the third-grade reading PSSA results, the
Progress in International Reading and Literacy Study (PIRLS) was used to gather
qualitative feedback from current Parkland elementary teachers about their
instructional practices and beliefs related to early childhood literacy. In keeping with
the explanatory sequential approach to data analysis, the PIRLS data provided
insights about Parkland’s early literacy program that the quantitative data alone could
not fully address.
Data Analysis
In Pennsylvania, students who achieve a proficiency level of Proficient or
Advanced are considered to be proficient in that subject area. Conversely, students who
68
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
69
achieve a proficiency level of Basic or Below Basic are considered not proficient in the
subject area tested: “A student performing at the Basic level demonstrates limited
comprehension of literary and informational texts” (Pennsylvania Department of
Education, n.d.). Based on these criteria, statewide reading proficiency levels on the
PSSA, as reported by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, were as follows:
•
in 2009, 67% of Pennsylvania third-grade students were Proficient in reading;
•
in 2010, 70% of Pennsylvania third-grade students were Proficient in reading;
•
in 2011, 72% of Pennsylvania third-grade students were Proficient in reading.
By comparison, in 2009, 87.7% of Parkland students were Proficient in Reading while
12.3% of students were Not Proficient. In 2010, 85.2% of Parkland students were
Proficient in Reading while 14.8% of students were Not Proficient. In 2011, 84.4% of
Parkland students were Proficient in Reading while 15.6% of students were Not Proficient
(Table 8). The average of the cohorts combined was 85.7% of students Proficient in
Reading while 14.3% of students were Not Proficient in Reading.
Table 8
Breakdown of Number of Students by Third-Grade Reading Proficiency Level
ThirdGrade
Reading
Proficiency
Level
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below Basic
All (Combined)
2009 Cohort
Number of
Students/
Percent
of Total
194/36.2%
275/51.5%
27/5.04%
39/7.28%
535
2010 Cohort
Number of
Students/
Percent
of Total
208/37.6%
263/47.6%
45/8.1%
37/6.7%
553
2011 Cohort
Number of
Students/
Percent
of Total
195/34.9%
276/49.5%
43/7.7%
44/7.8%
558
All Cohorts
Number of
Students/
Percent
of Total
597/36.26%
814/49.45%
115/6.98%
120/7.20%
1646
This baseline is important to establish since Parkland had proportionally fewer students to
begin with who were Basic or Below Basic and this is a factor to consider when looking at
the number of students who eventually took AP and PLTW courses.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
70
Another factor to consider is the eighth-grade instructional reading level (as measured
by the local STAR IRL assessment) which shows the reading level of Parkland students a
few months before they began enrolling in their first classes as future ninth graders at
Parkland High School. As stated in the CALDER study, Assessing the
Accuracy of Elementary School Test Scores as Predictors of Students’ High School
Outcomes, “in particular both third and eighth-grade tests are statistically significant in
the same model for both advanced course-taking and high school graduation”
(Goldhaber, 2020, p. 16). This longitudinal study, spanning nine years, three states, and
over 200K students, concluded that state test results from third grade had almost as much
predictive value in determining advanced course-taking (r=.94) as the state test results
from eighth grade (Goldhaber et al., 2020, p. 23).
Results
Using Microsoft Power BI, the descriptive analysis in Table 9 confirms the
relationship between median and average third and eighth-grade instructional
reading levels (IRL), with consistency among the three cohorts.
Table 9
Impact of 3rd-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on 8th-Grade Instructional Reading Levels
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency
Level
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below Basic
2009 Cohort
Median/
Average
IRL
11/10.69
8/8.82
6/6.23
4/4.40
2010 Cohort
Median/
Average
IRL
11/10.80
7/8.818
6/6.27
5/5.0
2011 Cohort
Median/
Average
IRL
11/10.77
8/8.28
6/6.21
5/4.8
All Cohorts
Median/
Average
IRL
11/10.77
8/8.3
6/6.24
5/5.05
Parkland third-grade students who were Advanced in reading as measured by the third-grade
PSSA were, on average, at a tenth-grade reading level five years later in eighth grade.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
71
Students who were Proficient in third grade were at grade level in eighth grade. Students who
were at a Basic reading proficiency level in third grade were at a sixth-grade reading level on
average as eighth graders, or two years below grade level. Finally, students who were at a
Below Basic proficiency level were, on average, at a fourth or fifth-grade reading level as
eight grade students, or at least three grade levels below grade level.
To verify the accuracy of the analysis generated by the Microsoft Power BI data
dashboard, the data was also calculated using a web-based statistical analysis tool called
StatCrunch, which yielded comparable results. Although this required converting all the
descriptive data to a numerical format, StatCrunch was an additional tool for triangulating
the data analysis results from Microsoft PowerBI and for calculating the Pearson
correlation coefficient. In this case, StatCrunch confirmed a strong positive relationship
between third-grade PSSA reading exam results and eighth-grade instructional reading
levels (r=.86), which is considered statistically significant (Mertler, 2021, p. 119).
Figure 12
StatCrunch Data Analysis –Third Grade PSSA Proficiency Level and Eighth Grade IRL
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
72
The following charts examine the relationship between the STAR eighth-grade
IRL and third-grade reading proficiency. They also compare these criteria against other
factors such as being economically disadvantaged or receiving special education services
through an IEP (generalized, not gifted). Figure 13 shows that the data from all cohorts (no
filter applied for subgroups) indicates that the median eighth-grade IRL of all eighthgrade students (n=1646) was a ninth-grade median IRL, with an average IRL of 8.82, or
overall Parkland’s eighth-grade students were above grade level in reading.
Figure 13
All Cohorts – All Students – STAR 8th Grade IRL (Median and Average)
Figure 14
All Cohorts – 8th Grade IRL of Economically Disadvantaged Students
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
When disaggregated by the subgroup of students who are considered economically
73
disadvantaged (n=202), Figure 14 shows the average instructional reading level dropped a
full grade level with a similar decline noted in the subgroup of students with individualized
education plans (n=303), as shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15
All Cohorts –Eighth-grade IRL of Students with IEPs
However, students who were Basic or Below Basic in third-grade reading proficiency
(Figure 16) had an even steeper decline in reading level. The data reveals not being
proficient in reading by third grade was more impactful to students’ eighth-grade
instructional reading level than being economically disadvantaged or requiring an IEP.
Figure 16
All Cohorts – Third Grade Reading Proficiency (Basic and Below Basic) and Eighth Grade IRL
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
74
Figure 17 shows that Parkland students who were in both subgroups (n=202) had, on
average, a fifth-grade median IRL in eighth grade. These students were therefore at least
three years below the average IRL of the Parkland student population as a whole shortly
before they scheduled their first high school courses. These results echo the findings of
the Double Jeopardy report (Hernandez, 2011) that outlined the academic impact on
students who were both economically disadvantaged and not proficient in reading by
third grade. Students in the Double Jeopardy report (n=3975) were six times more
likely to not graduate high school without targeted support (Hernandez, 2011).
Figure 17
All Cohorts - 8th Grade IRL for Students Not Proficient in Third Grade Reading and
Economically Disadvantaged
In sum, both the descriptive and statistical data established a strong relationship exists
between third-grade reading proficiency levels and the corresponding eighth-grade
instructional reading level. Parkland students who were at an Advanced or Proficient level
in third grade were more likely to be at or above grade level in reading by eighth grade, a
critical point in a student’s academic career as it is the time when students prepare for
their first high school course selections. This data provides an important baseline prior
to reviewing the additional findings that address research questions one and two.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
75
Research Question One
This section focuses on the first research question: How does third-grade reading
proficiency impact later student enrollment in high school Advanced Placement (AP)
courses? AP courses are considered college-level, and many students eventually take AP
final exams in order to receive college credit for their work by receiving a score of three
or higher (out of five). Based on the Parkland High School Profile (2023), in 2022, 82%
of students who took 769 AP tests achieved a score of three or higher, and 29%
achieved a maximum score of five. When looking at all cohorts, 733 of the 1646
students (44%) took at least one AP course with many students taking several of
Parkland’s 30 AP courses. These students (Figure 18), who were enrolled at Parkland
from grades three through twelve, were overall strong readers, with an average eighthgrade instructional reading level of 10.29.
Figure 18
All Cohorts – Students Enrolled in AP Courses (2017, 2018, and 2019)
Of the 733 students who took AP courses, 715 were either Advanced or Proficient in
reading by third grade. Conversely, only 18 of the 1646 students (or 1.09%) who were
Basic or Below Basic in reading by third grade eventually took AP courses.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
76
Table 10
Impact of 3rd-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on Number of Students Enrolled in
Advanced Placement (AP) Courses
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below Basic
All (Combined)
2009
Cohort
Students
Taking
AP
Courses
(2017)
155
103
3
2
262/535
2010
Cohort
Students
Taking
AP
Courses
(2018)
152
94
7
3
256/553
2011
Cohort
Students
Taking
AP
Courses
(2019)
132
80
3
0
215/558
All
Cohorts
Students
Taking
AP
Courses
439
276
12
6
733/1646
Analyzing the data further, when looking at the 2009 cohort, five of the 535 students who were
not proficient in reading (0.93%) went on to take AP courses; the 2010 cohort had 10 of 553
students (1.8%) take AP courses; and the 2011 cohort had three out of 588 students (0.53%)
take AP courses. These numbers are lower than the original percentage of students from these
cohorts who were not proficient in reading – 12.3%, 14.8%, and 15.6%, respectively.
The StatCrunch correlation coefficient shows a statistically significant relationship
between the number of students taking AP courses and third-grade reading proficiency (r=.81).
This number is lower than the CALDER study analysis of the relationship between advanced
course-taking and third-grade proficiency (r=.94) (Goldhaber, 2020, p. 23), but that is perhaps
because the CALDER study looked at only advanced courses and this study focused more
narrowly on AP and PLTW courses, which are both advanced and college-level courses.
It is important to note that correlation does not equal causation (Mertler, 2021, p.
119). The correlation between third-grade reading proficiency and the number of AP
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
77
courses taken does not mean that one causes the other. However, the correlation between
third-grade reading proficiency and the number of AP courses taken does suggest there is
a relationship between the two variables. This relationship could be due to a number of
factors, such as the fact that students who are more proficient in reading are more likely
to be exposed to challenging academic material, which could lead them to take AP
courses. Table 11 provides a descriptive analysis of the relationship between students
who took AP courses and other student subgroups.
Table 11
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on Additional Subgroups (AP)
Overall Student
Demographics
Economically
Disadvantaged
IEP
Female
Mal
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black
Hispanic
Native American
White
2009 Cohort
# of Students
Taking AP
Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
# of Students
Taking AP
Courses
(2018)
10
18
2011 Cohort
# of
Students
Taking AP
Courses
(2019)
12
All Cohorts
# of Students
Taking AP
Courses
(2017– 2019)
32
142
120
34
28
121
135
43
20
124
91
39
80
387
346
116
2
8
3
215
5
12
1
195
3
11
0
160
10
31
4
570
40
Earlier analysis showed students who were economically disadvantaged or had IEPs had,
on average, higher eighth-grade IRLs than students who were not proficient in reading as
third-graders (seventh-grade IRL versus sixth-grade IRL). Here we see a proportionately
higher number of students from these subgroups went on to take AP courses:
40/1646 economically disadvantaged students (2.43%);
80/1646 students with IEPS (4.8%);
18/1646 students who were not proficient in third-grade reading (1.09%).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
78
Research Question Two
This section focuses on the second research question: How does third-grade reading
proficiency impact later student enrollment in high school Project Lead the Way (PLTW)
courses? PLTW courses are considered college-level, and many students eventually take
PLTW final exams in order to receive college credit for their work, granted by the
Rochester Institute of Technology and other colleges and universities. Parkland currently
offers three PLTW tracks: 1) Engineering; 2) Biomedical Science; and 3) Computer
Science. Parkland High School has offered PLTW Engineering for more than 20 years,
while PLTW Biomedical Science and PLTW Computer Science programs were added in
the last five years. Each program consists of at least four courses culminating in a
Capstone course. Parkland students who took these courses were overall strong readers,
with an average eighth-grade instructional reading level of 10.35.
Figure 19
All Cohorts – Students Enrolled in PLTW Courses (2017, 2018, and 2019)
Of the 253 students who took PLTW courses, 240 were either Advanced or Proficient in
reading by third grade. Conversely, only 13 of the 1646 students (or 0.78%) who were
Basic or Below Basic in reading by third grade eventually went out to take PLTW courses.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
79
Table 12
Impact of 3rd-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on Number of Students Taking
Project Lead the Way (PLTW) Courses
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency
Level
Advanced
Proficiency
Basic
Below Basic
All (Combined)
2009 Cohort
Number of
StudentsTaking
PLTW
Courses
22
16
2
0
40/535
2010 Cohort
Number of
Students
Taking PLTW
Courses
66
33
4
1
99/553
2011 Cohort
Number of
Students
Taking PLTW
Courses
68
44
4
2
114/558
All Cohorts
Number of
Students
Taking PLTW
Courses
153
87
8
5
253 /1646
Analyzing the data from Table 12 further, when looking at the 2009 cohort, two of the 535
students who were not proficient in reading (0.37%) went on to take PLTW courses; the
2010 cohort had five of 553 students (0.9%) take PLTW courses; and the 2011 cohort
had six out of 588 students (1.07%) take PLTW courses. These numbers are much lower
proportionately than the original percentage of students from these cohorts who were not
proficient in reading – 12.3%, 14.8%, and 15.6%, respectively.
The StatCrunch correlation coefficient shows a statistically significant relationship
between the number of students taking PLTW courses and third-grade reading proficiency
(r=.73). This number is lower than the CALDER study analysis of the relationship between
advanced course-taking and third-grade proficiency (r=.94) (Goldhaber, 2020, p.23), but
that is perhaps because the CALDER study looked at advanced courses and this study focused
more narrowly on AP and PLTW courses, which are both advanced and college-level courses.
However, both findings are statistically significant.
Again, it is important to note that correlation does not equal causation (Mertler,
2021, p. 119). The correlation between third-grade reading proficiency and the number of
PLTW courses taken does not mean that one causes the other. One important factor is that
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
80
there are fewer PLTW courses than AP courses, primarily because the additional PLTW
tracks (Computer Science and Biomedical) were not added to Parkland's course catalog
options until 2018 and 2019, respectively. However, the correlation between third-grade
reading proficiency and the number of PLTW courses taken is statistically significant and
does suggest that there is a positive relationship between the two variables. Table 13
provides a descriptive analysis of the relationship between students who took PLTW
courses and other student subgroups.
Table 13
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on Additional Subgroups (PLTW)
Overall
Student
Demographics
Economically
Disadvantaged
IEP
Female
Male
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black
Hispanic
Native American
White
2009 Cohort
Students
Taking
PLTW
Courses
1
2010 Cohort
Students
Taking
PLTW
Courses
5
2011 Cohort
Students
Taking
PLTW
Courses
9
All Cohorts
Students
Taking
PLTW
Courses
15
8
8
32
4
11
33
66
19
11
53
61
29
30
94
159
52
1
2
0
33
2
5
0
73
1
3
1
80
4
10
1
186
Earlier analysis showed students who were economically disadvantaged or had IEPs had,
on average, higher eighth-grade IRLs than students who were not proficient in reading as
third graders (seventh grade versus sixth grade). Here we see a proportionately higher
number of students from these subgroups went on to take PLTW courses:
15/1646 economically disadvantaged students (0.90%);
30/1646 students with IEPS (1.8%);
13/1646 students who were not proficient in third-grade reading (0.78%).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Research Question Three
The quantitative data analysis indicated a strong positive relationship between
reading proficiency and the number of students taking Advanced Placement or Project
Lead the Way courses. And in all three years where the PSSA reading data was
examined (2009, 2010, and 2011), Parkland scores were above the State average. This
section addresses the question: What instructional practices and beliefs are common
among Parkland’s elementary staff in schools which have consistently high levels of
students reaching reading proficiency by third grade as measured by the PSSA?
The 2016 Progress in International Reading Literacy Survey (PIRLS)
questionnaire was used for the qualitative portion of this research study. As noted on the
National Center for Educational Statistics website (n.d.), “it is designed to measure
school and teacher practices related to reading instruction” and has been used by
schools worldwide since 2001, with a high degree of reliability.”
The PIRLS study (Appendix A) is comprised of 34 questions, but many of the
questions consist of multiple parts, so in total the questionnaire measured 125 data points
with several open-ended questions included. The questions are organized into 8 sections
labeled as follows: 1) About You; 2) School Environment; 3) About Being a Teacher; 4)
About Teaching Reading; 5) Computer and Library Resources: 6) Homework; 7)
Assessing Reading; and 8) Final Thoughts (open-ended questions). The largest section,
and the one most relevant to addressing the research question regarding instructional
practices, was section 4, About Teaching Reading. This section asked teachers several
specific questions regarding the instructional practices, strategies, and resources they use
on a consistent basis.
81
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
82
The PIRLS study is a research-based tool, originally created in 2001 by the
National Center for Educational Statistics with oversight by the United States
Department of Education. It is usually updated and administered every five years to
school districts that choose to participate. The PIRLS study took approximately 30
minutes to complete, and 41 teachers representing five of the nine Parkland elementary
schools (or 20.19% of Parkland’s total elementary teaching staff) volunteered to
participate. As illustrated in Figure 20 there was representation across grade levels K-4:
Five of the 41 teachers (12%) teach Kindergarten;
Ten of the 41 teachers (24%) teach First Grade;
Nine of the 41 teachers (22%) teach Second Grade;
Twelve of the 41 teachers (29%) teach Third Grade;
Five of the 41 teachers (12%) teach Fourth Grade.
Figure 20
Grade Level Taught of PIRLS Participants
According to Dr. Pamela Kelly, the Director of Human Resources at Parkland, 100% of
Parkland elementary teachers are highly qualified based on the standards set forth by the
Pennsylvania Department of Education. In addition, all but one of the teachers who
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
83
completed the survey indicated they had a master’s degree. Based on the response to the
first part of Question 3 (Figure 21), the teachers who participated in the study were an
experienced group, well-versed in Parkland’s early literacy program. In response to the
second part of Question 3, “Were you a teacher at Parkland during the years 2009, 2010,
and 2011?,” the majority of the teacher (36/41 responses or 88%) indicated they were
teaching at Parkland during the time corresponding to the third-grade testing data that was
analyzed in the quantitative portion of the study (Figure 22).
Figure 21
Years of Teaching Experience of PIRLS Participants
Figure 22
Teachers Who Were at Parkland in 2009, 2010, and 2011
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
84
In qualitative research, researchers aim to gather in-depth insights, perspectives, and
experiences from a smaller number of participants. This approach allows for a deeper
understanding of the research topic but may not involve large sample sizes typically
associated with quantitative research. Generally, qualitative studies involve smaller sample
sizes, ranging from as few as 5 to as many as 30 participants, although there can be
exceptions (Mertler, 2021). As stated by Mertler (2021), “It is important to note that the
focus in qualitative research is on the richness and depth of the data rather than the number
of responses. Researchers prioritize the quality of the information gathered rather than the
quantity of participants” (p. 210).
The depth of the questions, coupled with the responses from this experienced
group of elementary teachers, provided a comprehensive answer to the third research
question: What instructional practices and beliefs are common among Parkland’s
elementary staff in schools which have consistently high levels of students reaching
reading proficiency by third grade as measured by the PSSA?
PIRLS Question 20: When you have reading instruction and/or do reading activities
with the students, how often do you do the following?
Read aloud to students:
o Every day or almost every day – 37/41 responses or 90.2%;
o Once or Twice a Week - 4/41 responses or 9.8%;
Ask students to read aloud:
o Every day or almost every day - 31/41 responses or 75.61%;
o Once or twice a week - 8/41responses or 19.51%;
o Once or twice a month - 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Ask students to read silently on their own:
o Every day or almost every day - 39/41 responses or 95.13%;
o Once or twice a week - 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Teach students strategies for decoding sounds and words:
o Every day or almost every day – 27/41 responses or 65.85%;
o Once or twice a week – 12/41 responses or 29.26%;
o Once or twice a month – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Teach new students new vocabulary systematically:
o Every day or almost every day – 14/41 responses or 34.14%;
o Once or twice a week – 27/41 responses or 65.85%;
Teach students how to summarize the main ideas:
o Every day or almost every day – 9/41 responses or 21.95%;
o Once or twice a week – 16/41 responses or 39.02%;
o Once or twice a month – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Teach or model skimming or scanning strategies
o Once or twice a week – 17/41 responses or 41.46%;
o Once or twice a month – 12/41 responses or 29.26%;
o Never or almost never – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Provide reading materials that match the students’ interests:
o Every or almost every lesson – 7/41 responses or 17.07%;
o About half the lessons – 16/41 responses or 39.02%;
o Some lessons – 18/41 responses or 43.90%;
Provide materials that are appropriate for the reading level of
the students:
o Every or almost every lesson – 27/41 responses or 65.85%;
o About half the lessons – 14/41 responses or 34.14%;
Link new content to students’ prior knowledge:
o Every lesson or almost every lesson – 27/41 responses or 65.85%;
o About half the lessons – 14/41 responses or 34.14%;
Encourage students to develop their understanding of the text:
o Every or almost every lesson – 37/41 responses or 90.24%;
o About half the lessons – 4/41 responses or 9.76%;
85
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Encourage student discussion of texts:
o Every or almost every lesson – 37/41 responses or 90.24%;
o About half the lessons – 4/41 responses or 9.76%;
Give students time to read books of their own choosing:
o Every or almost every lesson – 23/41 responses or 56.09%;
o About half the lessons – 6/41 responses or 14.6%;
o Some of the lessons – 11/41 responses or 26.82%;
Give individualized feedback to each student:
o Every day or almost every day – 23/41 responses or 56.09%;
o About half the lessons – 10/41 responses or 24.39%;
o Some of the lessons – 8/41 responses or 19.51%;
Have students locate information within the text:
o Every day or almost every day – 41/41 or 100%;
Have students identify the main ideas of what they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 25/41 responses or 60.97%;
o Once or twice a week – 16/41 responses or 39.02%;
Have students explain or support their understanding of what they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 35/41 responses or 85.36%;
o Once or twice a week – 6/41 responses or 14.63%;
Have students compare what they have read with experiences they have had:
o Every day or almost every day – 23/41 responses or 56.09%;
o Once or twice a week – 14/41 responses or 34.14%;
o Once or twice a month – 4/41 responses or 9.76%%;
Have students compare what they have read with other things they have
read:
o Every day or almost every day – 15/41 responses or 36.58%;
o Once or twice a week – 18/41 responses or 43.90%
o Once or twice a month – 8/41 responses or 19.51%;
86
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Have students make predictions about what will happen next in the text:
o Every day or almost every day – 29/41 responses or 70.73%;
o Once or twice a week – 10/41 responses or 24.39%;
o Once or twice a month – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Have students make generalizations and draw inferences based on what they have
read:
o Every day or almost every day – 21/41 responses or 51.21%;
o Once or twice a week – 18/41 responses or 43.90%;
o Once or twice a month – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Have students write something about or in response to something they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 13/41 responses or 31.70%;
o Once or twice a week – 20/41 responses or 48.78%;
o Once or twice a month – 8/41 responses or 19.51%;
Have students talk with each other about what they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 21/41 responses or 51.21%;
o Once or twice a week – 16/41 responses or 39.02%;
o Once or twice a month – 4/41 responses or 9.75%;
Have students work independently on an assigned plan or goal:
o Always or almost always – 7/41 responses or 17.07%;
o Often – 21/41 responses or 51.21%;
o Sometimes – 11/41 responses or 26.83%;
o Never – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Have students take a written test or quiz about what they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 4/41 responses or 9.75%;
o Once or twice a week – 18/41 responses or 43.90%;
o Once or twice a month – 19/41 responses or 46.34%;
87
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
There was surprising consistency to some responses regarding the specific
88
instructional strategies Parkland teachers use to teach reading, regardless of building or
even grade level. It speaks to the experience, training, and skill level of the teachers. The
number of different strategies and resources the teachers use on a regular basis confirmed
the complexity of teaching reading, or as Moats (2020) stated: “Teaching reading IS
rocket science. But it is also established science, with clear specific, practical
instructional strategies that all teachers should be taught and supported in using” (p.1).
Figure 23 illustrates the top instructional strategies that Parkland elementary
teachers indicated they used either every day or almost every day:
Figure 23
Most Popular Instructional Practices for Teaching Reading
Additional strategies that were widely used by teachers either every day or almost every
day included having students explain what they have read (85%) and asking students to
read aloud (75%). Teachers were also asked to provide open-ended responses relative to
their class size, the number of instructional minutes they spend weekly on reading
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
89
instruction, and the amount of time they provide students for pleasure reading weekly.
Figure 24 provides an overview of these key numbers:
Figure 24
PIRLS Study – Key Numbers
Finally, teachers were asked at the end of the survey to provide a response to the openended question: What have you found most beneficial in learning about and providing
effective early literacy instruction while at Parkland School District? Below are a few of
their responses (the full list can be found in Appendix F):
“I feel like as an effective kindergarten teacher I am always working on
researching and learning the new and best ways to help my students learn and
grow. When I explicitly teach in a structured way with both whole and small
groups, I find I get the best results with my students.” [Respondent 2]
“It's important to start early and to read TO the children, as well as listen to them
read. Too many children are not read to and I see a decline in their interest in
reading/books.” [Respondent 13]
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
90
“I have found that LETRS and Heggerty have improved my students' phonemic
awareness which helps them become better readers.” [Respondent 6]
“A focus on phonemic awareness has helped my students grow. This district gets
reading instruction. It is a priority in my building.” [Respondent 16]
Discussion
The qualitative findings from the PIRLS study outlined a number of instructional strategies
that a majority of Parkland teachers use consistently. The average amount of time teachers
indicated they spend on English/Language Arts instruction - 647 minutes weekly - was also
significant. Library time is important at Parkland, with 100% of teachers indicating they
maintain a classroom library for their students and also have their class go to the school library
every week. Additional data surfaced that speaks to the culture and climate of the schools:
•
The average elementary class size was 21;
•
100 percent of teachers responded they felt safe at their school;
•
Most teachers (88 percent) have been at Parkland for at least 12 years;
•
Students are provided, on average, 51 minutes for pleasure reading weekly.
As one teacher (Respondent 20) stated, “Reading is important in this school.” And the beliefs
of teachers matter. While there are many factors that contribute to a student’s success,
research suggests that, among school-related factors, teachers are most impactful (Chetty et
al., 2014).
The PIRLS data overall showed that Parkland has a high-quality teaching staff that
feels supported and is provided with regular professional development opportunities and
access to quality teaching materials. These qualitative factors have played and continue to play
a role in Parkland’s above-average reading proficiency levels. This is important since the
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
91
quantitative data affirmed that third-grade reading proficiency levels had a cascading
effect, later impacting eighth-grade students’ instructional reading levels and eventually
the number of students enrolled in advanced high school courses.
The amount of quantitative and qualitative data used in this mixed-methods study
was considerable. Every effort was made to extrapolate the data most relevant to the original
research questions, to grab the signal from the proverbial noise. Therefore, not all data
collated for this project is included in the final research report. However, there is data that
is still important to understanding the impact of Parkland’s early literacy program. This data
can be found in Appendix E (Top 5 Courses and Course Types Students Enrolled in 2017,
2018, and 2019, Organized by Third-Grade Proficiency Level) and Appendix F (PIRLS
Open-Ended Responses).
Summary
Although it stands to reason that a student’s reading ability would affect the types of
courses the student enrolls in, the persistent and statistically significant nature of the
relationship between third-grade reading levels and later access to advanced courses was
surprising. In 2014, when the District first reviewed data to look at the correlation, it wasn’t
definitive if the results – only one percent of students who were not proficient in third-grade
reading later enrolled in AP courses – were an anomaly or a trend. Now, having
examined three additional cohorts of students, all of which produced similar results with
not only AP but PLTW courses as well, the answer is clear.
In the process of conducting this research study, two additional trends emerged: 1)
the relationship between third-grade reading proficiency levels and eighth-grade IRL; and 2)
lack of reading proficiency can be even more impactful to students long-term than other
historically determinant factors such as being economically disadvantaged.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
92
However, while the study was able to answer some key questions, in keeping with
the nature of action research, it also raised others. These opportunities for reflection and
future study will be explored in the next and final chapter.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
93
CHAPTER V
Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter concludes the study by summarizing the key research findings in
relation to the research aims and questions, as well as the value and contribution
thereof. It also reviews the limitations of the study, provides recommendations as a
result of the study, and proposes areas for future research.
The original research questions sought to look at the relationship between thirdgrade reading proficiency levels as measured by the Pennsylvania System of School
Assessment (PSSA) and their relationship to student enrollment in advanced high school
courses as represented by Advanced Placement (AP) and Project Lead the Way (PLTW)
courses, both college-level rigor. In addition, teacher feedback on the Progress in
International Reading and Literacy Study (PIRLS) was used to answer questions about
instructional practices Parkland teachers use to develop elementary-grade readers.
Through this study, the quantitative data illustrating the impact of third-grade reading
proficiency was complemented by qualitative data showing the instructional practices,
resources, and environment that contribute to Parkland’s elementary literacy program.
The combined datasets provided a more complete picture of Parkland’s elementary
literacy program and its impact on high school learning outcomes.
Key Findings
The focus on third grade as a key year in academic development was validated
by the CALDER study, Assessing the Accuracy of Elementary School Test Scores as
Predictors of Students’ High School Outcomes (Goldhaber et al., 2020):
We conclude that early student struggles on state tests are a credible
warning signal for schools and systems that make the case for additional
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
94
academic support in the near term, as opposed to assuming that additional
years of instruction are likely to change a student’s trajectory. Educators
and families should take third-grade test results seriously and respond
accordingly; while they may not be determinative, they provide a strong
indication of the path a student is on. (p. 22)
The CALDER study – analyzing nine years of panel data from three different states
(North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Washington) - later concluded that third-grade
standardized test results had almost as much predictive power as eighth-grade test results
in ascertaining which third-grade students would eventually take advanced courses in high
school (r=.94) (Goldhaber et al., 2020, p.23). In a similar fashion, the research study at
Parkland affirmed a strong relationship between third-grade PSSA reading proficiency
levels and eighth-grade STAR instructional reading levels (r=.86), as well as statistically
significant relationships between third-grade reading proficiency and enrollment in high
school AP courses (r=.81) and PLTW courses (r=.73).
In addition, students enrolled in either AP or PLTW courses were – on average –
at a tenth-grade instructional reading level when tested in eighth grade, or at least two
grade levels higher than the average of their peers. Conversely, students who were not
proficient in reading by third grade were – on average – at a sixth-grade reading level in
eighth grade, or at least two years below the average IRL when tested in eighth grade.
These students subsequently enrolled in both AP and PLTW courses at much lower rates
than their peers, averaging approximately one percent enrollment rates for both AP and
PLTW courses. However, overall Parkland had higher than average third-grade reading
proficiency scores (87.7% in 2009, 85.2% in 2010, and 84.4% in 2011) which likely
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
95
contributed to the high levels of students that participated in advanced courses at
Parkland High School from 2017 to 2019. Figure 25 shows the results of a Stanford
study released in April 2023 (edopportunity.org) that confirmed these high achievement
levels were not due solely to Parkland’s above-average socioeconomic level:
Figure 25
Stanford Study – Impact of Socioeconomic Levels on Academic Performance
2009 to 2018 – Parkland School District
The study analyzed national and state testing data from 2009 to 2018, comparing the
performance of school districts across the country relative to the school district’s socioeconomic level. The analysis found that during this timeframe Parkland School District
compared favorably to school districts with similar socioeconomic status, achieving
higher test scores, with test scores improving at a faster-than-average rate. Learning rates
were also higher, with students learning 16.1 percent more each grade than the United
States average (Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, 2023).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
96
The third research question addressed the instructional strategies, practices,
policies, and beliefs that contributed to these above-average test scores. The quantitative
section of this study, encompassing research questions one and two, addressed the “what”
aspect, while the qualitative data analysis from research question three shed light on the
“how.” Parkland starts by ensuring all teachers are highly qualified as measured by the
Pennsylvania Department of Education state standards. The results of the PIRLS study
demonstrated there is an emphasis placed on literacy at the elementary level, as
evidenced by the average amount of literacy-focused instructional time allotted per
week (more than 600 minutes) with students provided an average of 51 minutes per
week for personal leisure reading. In addition, there is a classroom library in every
classroom, and scheduled library time for classes every week.
With regards to staffing, every Parkland elementary school has a building
principal, library/media specialist, and a reading specialist. And despite a rapidly growing
student population, the District tries to follow a policy of no more than 22 students in
kindergarten to second-grade classrooms, and no more than 25 students in third through
fifth-grade classrooms. Adherence to this policy could be seen in the average class size of
21 students for the teachers who participated in the study.
Instructionally, there were a number of practices that Parkland teachers do every
day or almost every day, with 100 percent of PIRLS participants indicating they regularly
have students locate information within the text and 90 percent responding they regularly
encourage student understanding of the text and discussion of the text. As shown in
Figure 26, all teachers have recently received professional development specific to the
topic of literacy instruction, in addition to regular grade-level meetings, which may
explain, in part, the consistency found in teachers’ instructional practices.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
97
Figure 26
Hours of Formal Literacy Professional Development in the Last Two Years
Though the PIRLS data provided a large quantity of useful information, it is difficult to
define precisely what contributed most to Parkland’s overall success with elementary
literacy. It is likely a combination of many factors, with the PIRLS study simply scratching
the surface. However, thanks to the longitudinal data accessible in Pennsylvania, the
outcomes of Parkland’s focus on early literacy are easier to pinpoint.
The CALDER report noted that “today more than half of the states still do not
have easy access to detailed longitudinal data spanning third grade to graduation”
(Goldhaber et al., 2020, p. 3). Fortunately, since 2010 Pennsylvania has maintained a
longitudinal database of student academic and related data called the Pennsylvania
Information Management System, or PIMS. Some of this data is accessible to the public
through two sites, the Future Reading Index (futurereadypa.org) and the Pennsylvania
Value-Added Assessment System (PVAAS), available at pvaas.sas.com. The PVAAS data
portal provides information on students’ academic growth, with the expectation that
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
98
students should achieve at least a year’s worth of academic growth in a given school year
in the subjects that are measured (English/Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science).
As shown in Table 14, in 2022 Parkland had strong PVAAS growth indicators “well
above” a year’s worth of growth in English/Language Arts grades four through eight.
Table 14
2022 PVAAS Academic Growth Measures for Parkland School District
Limitations
As noted in this study, the ability to read alters not only a child’s access to print
information but their behavior and disposition (Brokamp); ability to fully participate in
future learning opportunities (Goldhaber et al., 2020; Lesnick et al., 2010); potential
financial earnings (Nietzel, 2020); and overall quality of life. Given the impact of thirdgrade reading, it is worth uncovering any factors that have either a positive or adverse
effect on students’ reading abilities. The PIRLS questionnaire did provide some
information, but it also pointed to areas for additional review. Although teachers from
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
99
five of the nine Parkland elementary schools participated in the PIRLS study, it would be
worthwhile to have a broader discussion with all elementary schools about what does and
does not work when it comes to helping students read. Constructively, the District has
recently adopted the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) program to deepen its
understanding of best practices to promote early literacy instruction in grades K, 1, and 2.
The PIRLS qualitative data is a snapshot of where teachers are currently with
their instructional practice, which of course is not determinant of where they were in
2009, 2010, and 2011. This is another limitation of the study. However, 36 out of the 41
teachers who participated in the PIRLS survey (or 88 percent) had been teachers at
Parkland during 2009, 2010, and 2011, providing some measure of triangulation between
the quantitative and qualitative datasets. In addition, as noted the data from the 2023
Stanford University study confirmed Parkland had positive learning outcomes during the
timeframe 2009 through 2018, just prior to the pandemic.
These positive learning outcomes continued post-pandemic, as evidenced by a
second study released by Stanford University in April 2023 which examined the impact
of the pandemic on student learning by analyzing national and state testing data from
2019 through 2022 (Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, 2023). The
Stanford data shows that although Parkland’s reading scores declined by 0.16 of a
grade level from 2019 to 2022, the overall reading scores in 2022 were still 2.33 grade
levels higher than the United States average (Figure 27). Although not correlative,
Parkland’s strong reading achievement pre-pandemic likely helped the District maintain
a high level of student performance post-pandemic. It is another discovery from this
study that warrants further investigation.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
100
Figure 27
Stanford Study – Impact of the Pandemic on Reading Achievement – 2019 to 2022
The Stanford data confirms the pandemic did have at least some impact on
Parkland’s reading and math scores, which is why the longitudinal timeframe for the
quantitative study is 2009 through 2019. Ideally, the timeframe would have run through
the 2022-2023 school year to align the data as closely as possible with the recent PIRLS
data, but the pandemic put school districts and teachers in less-than-ideal conditions.
Another limitation can be found in the nature of longitudinal studies. It proved
useful to analyze three cohorts of students for this study: third graders from 2009, 2010,
and 2011 whose total population among the three cohorts was 2081 students. However, by
focusing on the group of students who were at Parkland from third through eleventh
grades (n=1646), results from students who were at Parkland in third grade but later left
the District (n=435) were not considered. This may have been a factor in the high
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
101
number of students enrolled in AP courses (733/1646 students from all three cohorts, or
44.35 percent). By comparison, in a typical year at Parkland High School between 25
and 36 percent of students enroll in at least one AP course. It warrants further study to
see if transiency also plays a role in student access to advanced high school courses.
Implications for Practice
By several measures, Parkland has a strong early literacy program. It is working
to improve further through the addition of programs like ECRI and by strengthening
relationships with parents and community partners. Parkland recognizes the power of
collective impact. Having students reach reading proficiency by third grade is somewhat
like a relay race, and the further ahead students are when they enroll with the District the
easier it is to have students reach that critical milestone. Raising awareness of the
importance of early childhood literacy for parents, guardians, and child-care providers in
the birth to age five space is, therefore, an important part of the learning-to-read process.
Accordingly, Parkland has recently had meetings with local PreK providers to
analyze the Kindergarten Entry Inventory (KEI) data that the District captures
electronically during its kindergarten screening process. By partnering with local PreK
providers and providing them with the KEI data, these PreK educators can see the impact
of their own instructional programs and can adjust, if needed, so that their curricula and
instructional goals are more closely aligned with that of the District. This strategy has the
backing of research, which suggests an early focus on literacy has long-term benefits:
“79% of the variance in high school reading ability can be accounted for by intensity of
foundational skills instruction in 1st grade” (EAB, 2019, p. 20).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
102
Although children do not need to know how to read prior to starting
kindergarten, having exposure to language early and often is helpful. Early childhood is a
critical period for brain development, with birth to age two being the fastest growth
period according to recent cognitive research (Sahakian et al., 2022).
Currently, the District provides parent workshops through a program called Parent
University, and also targeted elementary parent workshops with funding from the Title
I federal grant program. Through its partnership with Lehigh Valley Reads, parents of
PreK children can sign up for weekly tips from a texting service called Parent Powered
that promotes literacy in the home. World Reader, a digital library of hundreds of books,
is another free service provided by Lehigh Valley Reads.
While access to digital books is helpful, according to Kulikova (2019), access to
print books for young children is preferable. Unfortunately, according to Buehler and
Guignard (2019) “sixty-one percent of low-income families do not have access to print
books in the home” (p. 16). However, the District could tap into services such as the
Imagination Library that would provide parents in the Parkland community with the
ability to have books delivered directly to the home monthly from birth to age five, with
the potential to build a home library of 60 books by the time the child reaches
kindergarten.
According to its website, the Imagination Library is currently accessible to ten
percent of American children, and there are several research studies that have concluded
the service has a strong positive literacy effect on children, especially when it is used for a
period of at least two years (Ridzi et al., 2016). Presently, there are 47 locations that offer
the service in the state of Pennsylvania, including several that border the Parkland School
District in Lehigh County as shown by the areas shaded in light blue (Figure 28).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
103
Figure 28
Imagination Library Locations within Pennsylvania (as of June, 2023)
There is a cost of $2.20 per book for the service (which includes mailing), with funding
usually provided by a local foundation or other non-profit agency. For example, in
Pennsylvania, 13 of the 47 sites that provide the Imagination Library service are managed
by the local United Way. Students in Carbon County, which borders the District to the
north, are able to enroll in the service through a partnership between St. Luke’s
University Hospital and the Carbon County Community Foundation. In this way, as
soon as a child is born the parents are provided information and resources about early
literacy at the nexus of care. Some school districts, such as Kutztown, offer the service
through their own local foundation. According to the Imagination Library website’s
cost estimator, based on the District zip codes Parkland currently has 4754 students
under the age of five who could take advantage of this service (Table 15).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Table 15
Imagination Library Costs – Parkland School District – Years 1 through 5
Using a sliding scale, if eligible children in the Parkland community currently under the
age of five were to enroll in the service, the annual cost would be $73,426 dollars.
However, since Parkland currently has partnerships with St. Luke’s University Hospital
and the United Way of the Greater Lehigh Valley, there is potential to have costs
defrayed or absorbed by these non-profit organizations. Parkland’s own non-profit
foundation could help contribute as part of a cost-sharing initiative with these
organizations.
At the State level, Pennsylvania has made recent strides in the area of Teacher
Preparation and Policy (Figure 29). Last year Pennsylvania passed HB 2045 that
requires all pre-service teachers to learn about the science of reading starting in the
2024-2025 school year. However, Pennsylvania is one of only nine states that does
not require universal or dyslexia screening in kindergarten (ExcelinEd, 2023) .
104
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Figure 29
105
ExcelinEd (2023) Analysis of Progress in State Early Literacy Efforts
Finally, although several states have adopted policies promoting structured literacy,
there is still confusion regarding which curricula and instructional strategies best promote the
development of strong readers. In 1997, the National Reading Panel was convened to unify
the country around best practices in reading instruction. Three years later, the NRP issued
its landmark report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the
Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction.
Twenty-three years later, it may be time to convene a similar group, one that brings
together PreK-12 educators, researchers, cognitive scientists, parents, and community
partners, to make recommendations and provide a clear blueprint on how to address the
learning gaps in reading that effect too many American children and prevent them from
reaching their potential.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
106
Considerations for Future Research
The District provided a great deal of data for this project, but to stay within the
scope of the project, unfortunately not all of it was used. However, the data invites further
exploration. For example, it may be worthwhile to examine the grades of students
enrolled in advanced high school courses and analyze these student performance
indicators in light of the students’ original third-grade reading proficiency level.
Given the longitudinal data the District maintains, it would be interesting to see
if the findings from the original Early Warning report (Feister, 2010) – namely that
students who were not reading by third grade were four times as likely not to graduate
– is also a pattern at Parkland, or if the District finds any link between early literacy and
graduation rates.
Student factors such as being economically disadvantaged or having an IEP have
been reviewed in this study, but the data dashboard constructed for this research project
enables the District to analyze the impact of other factors related to access to advanced
high school courses, such as ethnicity or gender. In addition, each elementary school has
the ability to analyze its own longitudinal student data (with the exception as noted of
Veterans Memorial Elementary, Parkland’s newest school, which opened in 2020 and
thus was outside the window of this study).
Other student-related factors not captured in the data dashboard, such as the
social-emotional health of a child, are also worthy of consideration in relation to
literacy. The District has invested considerable time and energy into ensuring children
who have experienced trauma have additional support. Given this focus, it may be
worthwhile for the District to study what impact trauma may have on a student’s ability
to learn to read, or, conversely, if illiteracy contributes to a student's trauma.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
107
In a similar vein, some of the research studies reviewed cited the impact of
learning to read on student behavior, with evidence that student behavior improves in
tandem with improvements in students’ literacy skills (Brokamp, 2018; Sahakian,
2022). In light of this research, it may be worthwhile for the District to analyze if
teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists, or principals note a similar
correlation.
In the PIRLS study, several teachers commented on the impact of the LETRS and
Heggerty programs on their instructional practice. LETRS (Language Essentials for
Teachers of Reading and Spelling) is a scientifically based literacy approach developed
by Dr. Louisa Moats that the District has made a considerable investment in providing
teacher training. Heggerty is a curriculum for developing phonemic awareness that
complements the LETRS training. Both programs were implemented almost ten years
ago, so it would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study to determine the efficacy of
these programs.
Finally, this capstone research study could serve as a framework for other school
districts to examine what happens to students after third grade who continue to struggle as
readers, and the impact low literacy has on a child's academic trajectory.
Closing Statement
In studying the learning outcomes for three cohorts of students at Parkland School
District, with an examination of the connection between third-grade, eighth-grade, and
eleventh-grade milestones, the evidence confirms not only the importance of third-grade
reading but also the many factors that play a role in the development of a strong early
literacy foundation, most notably the role of educators.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
108
Educators can have a ripple effect on students, something they may not always
immediately realize. Yet the impact is profound, extending beyond grades and potentially
changing a child’s educational path.
It is understandable, therefore, that the original inspiration for this research project
came from an educator, former Springfield School District Superintendent Dr. James
Capolupo, and the site visit a group of Parkland educators made to the Springfield Literacy
Center almost a decade ago.
Springfield Literacy Center has won many awards for its innovative design. Some
of its architectural elements, such as having the library as the central hub of the building
and prominent use of outdoor learning areas, can be found in two of Parkland’s elementary
schools: Veterans Memorial Elementary School (which opened in August, 2020), and the
newly renovated Schnecksville Elementary School (which opened in August, 2022).
Dr. Capolupo himself has won numerous awards for his leadership, including
National Superintendent of the Year (2014) and Pennsylvania Superintendent of the Year
(2015). When interviewed in 2021, however, Dr. Capolupo cited as his top
accomplishment that “every student who started in his district in kindergarten and stayed
through fourth grade, read on grade level” (Bjorkgren, 2021, para. 28).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
109
References
Allee-Herndon, K., & Roberts, S. (2018, October 30). Neuroeducation and early
elementary teaching: Retrospective innovation for promoting growth with
students living in poverty. International Journal of the Whole Child, 3(2),
4-18. https://libjournals.mtsu.edu/index.php/ijwc/article/view/1136
Baker, B. (2003). Early literacy: An examination of the principal behaviors that impact
reading achievement. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4439/
North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital.
Bjorkgren, D. (2021, August 31). Former school superintendent to serve as trustee at
P.I.T. VISTA Today. https://vista.today/2021/08/former-superintendent-p-i-t-trustee/
Bogel, G. (2006, December 8). School libraries play an active, transformational role in
student learning and achievement. Evidence-Based Library and Information
Practice, 1(4), 49-53. https://doi.org/10.18438/b8hs3g
Brokamp, S. K., Houtveen, A. A. M., & van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2018, January 15).
The relationship among students’ reading performance, their classroom
behavior, and teacher skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(1),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1411878
Brown, C., Schell, R., & Denton, R. (2019). Family literacy coaching: Partnering with
parents for reading success. School Community Journal, 29(1), 63–86.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1219795
Buehler, V., & Guignard, G. (2019). 3 by 3: Grade-level reading by the end of third grade.
Volta Voices, 26(3), 14–20. https://www.agbell.org/Portals/26/PDFs/JulySeptember- 2019-compressed-1.pdf?ver=2019-08-30-142820-970
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
110
Burkins, J., & Yates, K. (2022). Shifting the balance: 6 ways to bring the science of reading
into the balanced literacy classroom (paperback). Stenhouse Publishers.
Burney, V. H. (2010). High achievement on advanced placement exams: The relationship
of school-level contextual factors to performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2),
116–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355972
Burrus, D. (2014). Is the US workforce prepared to thrive in the past or in the future?
E- Learning and Digital Media, 11(4), 314–322.
https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.4.314
Calkins, L. M. C. (2001). The art of teaching reading. Longman.
Calkins, L. (2016, June 29). Growing extraordinary writers: Leadership decisions to raise
the level of writing across a school and a district. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 7–
18. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1499
Capotosto, L. (2022). Do third-grade students from low-income families have access to
‘just right’ books? Results from a home visit study. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 22(1), 96–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420911132
Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. D., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II:
Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. The American Economic
Review, 104(9), 2633–2679. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633
Dalton, L. B. (2019). A quantitative research case study of the future impacts of thirdgrade reading [Doctoral dissertation, William Howard Taft University].
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Dicataldo, R., & Roch, M. (2022, January 4). How does toddlers’ engagement in literacy
activities influence their language abilities? International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 526-541.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010526
EAB. (2019). Narrowing the third-grade reading gap: Embracing the science of reading.
https://www.idaontario.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EAB-2019Narrowing-the-Third-Grade-Reading-Gap_research-briefing.pdf
Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University. (2023). The Educational
Opportunity Project at Stanford.
https://edopportunity.org/explorer/#/map/none/districts/avg/ses/all/12/40.63/75.57/4218510,40.63,-75.572
Education Week Research Center (2020, January). Early Reading Instruction:
Results of a national survey https://www.edweek.org/researchcenter/research-center-reports/early-reading-instruction-results-of-anational-survey
ExcelinEd. (2023, February). Comprehensive early literacy policy: A state-by-state
analysis of fundamental principles. earlyliteracymatters.org.
https://excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/
ExcelinEd_PolicyToolkit_EarlyLiteracy_StatebyStateAnalysi s_2021.pdf
Feister, L. (2010, January). Early warning: Why reading by third-grade matters. 1–62.
https://www.aecf.org/resources/early-warning-why-reading-by-the-end-of-thirdgrade-matters
111
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
112
Feister, L. (2013, November). Early warning confirmed: A research update on third-grade
reading. Anne E. Casey Foundation. https://www.aecf.org/resources/earlywarning-confirmed
Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read. Random House Publishing.
Future Ready PA Index. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://futurereadypa.org/. September 26,
2022.
Georgiou, G., Kushnir, G., Parrila, R. (2019). Moving the needle on literacy: Lessons
learned from a school where literacy rates have improved over time. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 66(3), 347-359.
Giaquinto, J. (2015). An investigation of differences in reading achievement of students
who attend full-day kindergarten versus half-day kindergarten using DIBELS
NEXT [PhD dissertation, Seton Hall University].
Goldhaber, D., Wolff, M., Daly, T., & National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data
in Education Research (CALDER). (2020). Assessing the accuracy of elementary
school test scores as predictors of students' high school outcomes.
https://caldercenter.org/publications/assessing-accuracy-elementary-school-testscores-predictors-students%E2%80%99-high-school
Hanford, E. (2018, September 10). Hard words: Why American kids aren’t being taught
to read. APM Reports. https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hardwords-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read
Hanford, E. (2020, August). What the words say: Many kids struggle with reading – and
children of color are far less likely to get the help they need. APM Reports.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2020/08/06/what-the-words-say
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Hanna, M., & Graham, K. A. (2022, March 5). Scores on Pa. standardized tests fell in
2021, but many students didn’t take them. https://www.inquirer.com.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pssa-results-2021-keystones-standardized-tests20220304.html
Hendricks, C. (2016). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice
approach. Pearson.
Hernandez, D. J., & Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third
grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation.
https://www.aecf.org/resources/double-jeopardy
Hübner, N., Merrell, C., Cramman, H., Little, J., Bolden, D., & Nagengast, B.
(2022). Reading to learn? The co‐development of mathematics and reading
during primary school. Child Development, 93(6), 1760-1776.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13817
Imagination Library. (n.d.) Retrieved from imaginationlibrary.com September 22 2022
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age
3. American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.
Kainz, K., & Vernon, F. L. (2007). The ecology of early reading development for
children in poverty. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 407–427.
https://doi.org/10.1086/518621
Kulikova, N. (2019, September 20). Children’s reading with digital books: Past moving
quickly to the future. Child Development Perspectives, 13(4), 208–214.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12339
113
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
114
Lesnick, J., Goerge, R. M., Smithgall, C., & Gwynne, J. (2010). Reading on grade level in
third grade: How is it related to high school performance and college
enrollment? A longitudinal analysis of third-grade students in Chicago in 199697 and their educational outcomes. A Report to the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
https://www.chapinhall.org/wpcontent/uploads/Reading_on_Grade_Level_111710.pdf
Luscombe, B. (2022, August). Inside the massive effort to change the way kids are taught
to read. Time, Inc. https://time.com/6205084/phonics-science-of-readingteachers/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Mealings, K. (2022, June 2). A review of the effect of classroom sound-field
amplification on children in primary school. American Journal of Audiology,
31(2), 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_aja-21-00240
Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S.-A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their
role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2),
322–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744
Mertler, C. A. (2021). Introduction to educational research. SAGE Publications.
Millett P., & Purcell N. (2010). Effect of sound field amplification on grade 1 reading
outcomes. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology, 34(1),
17–24.
Moats, L. (2019). Structured literacy: Effective instruction for students with dyslexia and
related reading difficulties. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(2), 9–
11. https://www.DyslexiaDA.org
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
115
Moats, L. (2020). Teaching reading IS rocket science: What expert teachers should know
and be able to do. American Educator, 44(2).
https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2020/moats
Moore, G. W., & Slate, J. R. (2008). Who’s taking the advanced placement courses and
how are they doing: A statewide two-year study. The High School Journal, 92(1),
56–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40660788
National Assessment of Educational Progress (2022). NAEP report card: 2022 NAEP
Reading Assessment. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
National Center for Children in Poverty (2017). Basic Facts About Low-Income Children.
https://www.nccp.org/publication/basic-facts-about-low
-income-children-children-under-9-years-2016/
National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.). Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/
National Center for Educational Statistics (2019). NCES adult literacy data based on 2019
PIAAC assessment results. (2019). https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp
National Conference of State Legislatures (2019). Research and Policy.
https://www.ncsl.org/research
National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2012). Developing early literacy: Report of the
National Early Literacy Panel. United State Department of Education.
https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/findings
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Nietzel, M. T. (2020, September 9). Low literacy levels among U.S. adults could be
costing the economy $2.2 Trillion a year. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-literacy-levelsamong-us-adults-could-be-costing-the-economy-22-trillion-ayear/?sh=5bdf769d4c90
Parkland School District (2022a). Parkland High School Course Catalog.
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1671216889/parklandsdorg/b3iqemwft5ivn
ulonqft/hs_course_selection.pdf
Parkland School District. (2022b). Parkland High School Profile.
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1664995702/parklandsdorg/tlxqf0bb7mp8d
omwwsok/PHS-Profile.pdf
Parkland School District (2023). Parkland School District Profile.
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1677604276/parklandsdorg/f55qy0godom8
8q28sm4u/District-Profile.pdf
Pasini, N. (2018, August 18). A collective impact approach to the reading achievement
gap. Journal of Library Administration, 58(6), 605–616.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2018.1491186
Peisner-Feinberg, E., Soliday Hong, S., Yazejian, N., Zadrozny, S., & Burchinal,
M. (2020). Kindergarten impacts of the Pennsylvania Pre-K Counts
program: A statewide evaluation. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina, School of Education and Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Institute. https://fpg.unc.edu/publications/kindergarten-impacts-pennsylvania-prek-counts-program-statewide-evaluation
116
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Pennsylvania Department of Education (n.d.) PSSA English Language Arts
Performance Level Descriptors.
https://www.stateboard.education.pa.gov/Documents/About%20the%20Boar
d/Board%20Actions/2018/PSSA%20English%20Language%20Arts%20Perf
ormance%20Level%20Descriptors%20Approved.pdf
Renbarger, R., Rivera, G., & Sulak, T. (2019). What predicts literacy, numeracy, and
problem-solving for incarcerated individuals? A PIAAC examination. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 58(3), 199–219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1582575
Richter, L. M., Behrman, J. R., Britto, P., Cappa, C., Cohrssen, C., Cuartas, J., Daelmans,
B., Devercelli, A. E., Fink, G., Fredman, S., Heymann, J., Boo, F. L., Lu, C.,
Lule, E., McCoy, D. C., Naicker, S. N., Rao, N., Raikes, A., Stein, A., . . .
Yoshikawa, H. (2021). Measuring and forecasting progress in education: what
about early childhood? NPJ Science of Learning, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00106-7
Ridzi, F., Sylvia, M., Qiao, X., & Craig, J. (2016, November 23). The Imagination
Library program and kindergarten readiness. Journal of Applied Social Science,
11(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724416678023
Roman, S., & Fiore, C. D. (2010). Do public library summer reading programs close
the achievement gap? The Journal of the Association for Library Service to
Children, 8(3), 27–31.
https://discovery.ebsco.com/c/356ple/viewer/pdf/rnel6dpubf
117
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
118
Rothwell, J. (2020). Assessing the economic gains of eradicating illiteracy nationally and
regionally in the United States. Gallup, Inc. https://www.barbarabush.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/BBFoundation_GainsFromEradicatingIlliteracy_9_8.pdf
Sahakian, B. J., Langley, C., Yang, A., Jiang, Y., Zhao, X., Li, C., Cheng, W., & Feng, J.
(2022, February 28). Early childhood reading for pleasure: Evidence from the
ABCD Study for benefits to cognitive performance and mental health and
associated changes in brain structure. MedRXiv.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.27.22271550
Seidenberg, M. (2013, October). The science of reading and its educational
implications. Language Learning and Development, 9(4), 331–360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812017
Seidenberg, M. (2017, January 3). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so
many can’t, and what can be done about it (1st ed.). Basic Books.
Shanahan, T. (2020, July). Limiting children to books they can already read: Why it
reduces their opportunity to learn. American Federation of Teachers.
https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2020/shanahan
Shanahan, T. (2020, September). What constitutes a science of reading instruction?
Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349
Shaywitz, S. (2021). Dyslexia in the 21st century. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 34(2),
80-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000670
Silinskas, G., Sénéchal, M., Torppa, M., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2020, July 2). Home
literacy activities and children’s reading skills, independent reading, and interest
in literacy activities from kindergarten to grade 2. Frontiers in Psychology,
11(5), 484-489. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01508
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
119
Stanley, C. T., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. (2017, September 6). A longitudinal
investigation of direct and indirect links between reading skills in kindergarten
and reading comprehension in tenth grade. Reading and Writing, 31(1), 133–153.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9777-6
Sum, A., Khatiwada, I., & McLaughlin, J. (2009, October). The consequences of
dropping out of high school. [Doctoral Dissertation, Center for Labor Market
Studies, Northeastern University].
https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/downloads/neu:376324
Taylor, D. B., Handler, L. K., FitzPatrick, E., & Whittingham, C. E. (2020, April 20).
The device in the room: Technology’s role in third-grade literacy instruction.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(4), 515–533.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1747577
Telischak, M. (2016). The influence of instructional time on student achievement in
grades 3, 4, and 5 in language arts and mathematics on the 2011 New Jersey
Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK). [PhD Dissertation, Seton Hally
University]. Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs).
https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2239
Thakur, K., Sudhanthar, S., Sigal, Y., & Mattarella, N. (2016). Improving early childhood
literacy and school readiness through Reach Out and Read (ROR) program. BMJ
Quality Improvement Reports, 5(1)
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u209772.w4137
Todd, R., & Kuhlthau, C. (2001, May 1). Student learning through Ohio school libraries,
Part 1: How effective school libraries help students. School Libraries Worldwide,
11(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.29173/slw6958
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Warren, B. (2019). Closing the science-to-practice gap for reading instruction: A case
study of two schools transitioning from balanced literacy to scientifically based
reading instruction [Doctoral Dissertation, Cardinal Stritch University].
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2132048367
Wexler, N. (2020). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education
system--and how to fix it. Van Haren Publishing
120
APPENDIX A
PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Submit Form
Reset
PROGRESS IN INTERNATIONAL READING LITERACY STUDY
Teacher Questionnaire
National Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education
550 12th St., SW, 4th floor
Washington, DC 20
© IEA, 2015
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the U.S. Department
of Education, is authorized to conduct this study under the Education Sciences
Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA 2002, 20 U.S.C., § 9543). The data are being collected
for NCES by RTI International, a nonprofit research organization based in North
Carolina. The collected data may be used only for statistical purposes and may not
be disclosed or used, in identifiable form, for any other purpose except as required
by law (ESRA 2002, 20 U.S.C., § 9573). The collected information will be combined
across respondents to produce statistical reports.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB
control number. The valid OMB control number for this voluntary survey is 1850-0645. The time required to complete this survey is estimated to average 35 minutes
per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the survey. If you have any
comments or concerns regarding the accuracy of the time estimate(s), suggestions for improving the form, or the status of your individual submission of this form,
write directly to: Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), National Center for Education Statistics, PCP, 550 12th St., SW, 4th floor, Washington, DC
20 .
OMB No. 1850-0645, Approval Expires 11/30/2017.
Teacher Questionnaire APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
ar land School i trict has agreed to
It is estimated that you will need approximately
participate in PIRLS (Progress in International
to 30 minutes to complete this questionnaire. We
Reading Literacy Study), an educational research
appreciate the time and effort that this takes and thank
project sponsored
you for your cooperation and contribution.
enn e t ni er it
o ha e an
e tion or concern plea e eel
ree to contact the ollo in people o er eein the
n addition plea e e a are that an
in ormation pro ided ill remain anon mo
are loo in at a
re earch t d :
e
re ate data onl in order to
anal e ar land c rrent literac pro ram
PIRLS measures trends in student achievement
rac Smith (principal re earcher):
S
penn e t ed
r ame Gia
into:
ia
into par land d or
r eter i en: ai en penn e t ed
in reading and studies differences in national
education systems in more than 50 countries in
han
o
order to help improve teaching and learning
worldwide.
This questionnaire is addressed to teachers of
elementar students, and seeks information about
ppro ed
the enn l ania
n tit tional e ie
e tern ni er it
oard hi appro al i e ecti e
September 12, 2022 and e pire September 11, 2023.
teachers’ academic and professional backgrounds,
classroom resources, instructional practices, and
attitudes toward teaching. It is important that you
answer each question carefully so that the
information that you provide reflects your situation
as accurately as possible.
PIRLS 2016
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
About You
1
5
What grade(s) do you currently teach?
A. During your college or university education, what
was your major or main area(s) of study?
Fifth Grade
Check one circle for each line.
Yes
No
2
At which Parkland school do you teach?
Ironton
3
How many years of teaching experience do you have?
A
b) Education—Secondary ------------------------- A
c) English ------------------------------------------- A
d) Other --------------------------------------------- A
a) Education—Primary/Elementary --------------
A
A
A
A
B. As part of your formal education and/or training,
to what extent did you study the following areas?
Check one circle for each line.
Not at all
Less than 5
Overview or introduction
to topic
Please check this box if you were a teacher at Parkland
during the years 2009, 2010, OR 2011:
It was an area
of emphasis
a) English ------------------------- A
b) Literature ---------------------- A
c) Pedagogy/teaching reading -- A
d) Educational psychology ------- A
4
What is the highest level of formal education you have
completed?
Check one circle only.
e) Remedial reading -------------- A
f) Reading theory ---------------- A
g) Special education -------------- A
Did not complete high school --- A
h) Second language learning ---- A
Completed high school --- A
i) Assessment methods
in reading ---------------------- A
Completed a 2-year college
or university degree
(i.e., Associate’s degree) --- A
j)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
Early childhood education ----- A A A
Completed a 4-year college or
university degree
(i.e., Bachelor’s degree) --- A
Completed a Master’s degree,
postgraduate certificate program
(e.g., teaching), or professional
degree (e.g., law, medicine, dentistry) --- A
Completed a doctorate
(Ph.D. or Ed.D) --- A
Teacher Questionnaire
2
School Emphasis on
Academic Success
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
6
7
In the past two years, how many hours in total have
you spent in formal professional development (e.g.,
workshops, seminars, lesson studies, etc.) that dealt
directly with reading or teaching reading (e.g.,
reading theory, instructional methods)?
How would you characterize each of the following
within your school?
Check one circle for each line.
Very high
High
Check one circle only.
A
Less than 6 hours --- A
6–15 hours --- A
16–35 hours --- A
More than 35 hours --- A
Medium
None ---
3
Teacher Questionnaire
Low
Very
low
a) Teachers’ understanding of
the school’s curricular goals --- A
A A A A
b) Teachers’ degree of
success in implementing
the school’s curriculum -------- A
A A A A
c) Teachers’ expectations
for student achievement ------ A
A A A A
d) Teachers’ ability to
inspire students ---------------- A
A A A A
e) Collaboration between school
leadership (including master
teachers) and teachers to
plan instruction ---------------- A
A A A A
f) Parental involvement
in school activities ------------- A
A A A A
g) Parental commitment to
ensure that students are
ready to learn ------------------ A
A A A A
h) Parental expectations for
student achievement ---------- A
A A A A
i) Parental support for
student achievement ---------- A
A A A A
j) Students’ desire to do
well in school ------------------ A
A A A A
k) Students’ ability to reach
school’s academic goals ------- A
A A A A
l) Students’ respect for
classmates who excel
academically ------------------- A
A A A A
School Environment
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
About Being a Teacher
8
9
Thinking about your current school, indicate the
extent to which you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements.
How often do you have the following types of
interactions with other teachers?
Check one circle for each line.
Check one circle for each line.
Very often
Agree a lot
Often
Agree a little
Sometimes
Disagree a little
Never or
almost never
Disagree
a lot
a) This school is located in
a safe neighborhood ---------- A
A A A
b) I feel safe at this school -------- A A A A
c) This school’s security policies
and practices are sufficient ---- A
A A A
d) The students behave in an
orderly manner ---------------- A
A A A
e) The students are respectful
of the teachers ----------------- A
A A A
f) The students respect
school property ---------------- A
A A A
g) This school has clear rules
about student conduct -------- A
A A A
h) This school's rules are
enforced in a fair and
consistent manner ------------- A
A A A
a) Share what I have
learned about my
teaching experiences ---------- A
A A A
b) Observe another classroom
to learn more about teaching - A
A A A
c) Work together to
improve how to teach a
particular topic ---------------- A
A A A
d) Work with teachers from
other schools on the
curriculum --------------------- A
A A A
e) Work with teachers from
other grades to ensure
continuity in learning --------- A
A A A
10
How often do you feel the following way
about being a teacher?
Check one circle for each line.
Very often
Often
Sometimes
Never or
almost never
a) I am content with my
profession as a teacher -------- A
A A A
b) I find my work full of
meaning and purpose --------- A
A A A
c) I am enthusiastic
about my job ------------------- A
A A A
d) My work inspires me ----------- A A A A
e) I am proud of the work I do --- A A A A
Teacher Questionnaire
4
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
About Teaching Reading to the PIRLS Class
11
15
A. How many students are in this class?
_____________ students
In your view, to what extent do the following limit
how you teach this class?
Check one circle for each line.
Write in the number.
Not at all
Some
B. How many of the students in #11A are in
third grade?
_____________ third grade students
Write in the number.
a) Students lacking prerequisite
knowledge or skills ------------ A
A A
b) Students suffering from
lack of basic nutrition ---------- A
A A
c) Students suffering from
not enough sleep -------------- A
12
How many of your students experience
difficulties understanding spoken English?
_____________ students in this class
Write in the number.
13
A. How many students need remedial instruction
in reading?
_____________
Write in the number.
B. How many of the students in #13A receive
remedial instruction in reading?
Write in the number.
14
How many students in the class are advanced
readers?
_____________
Write in the number.
5
A lot
Teacher Questionnaire
A
d) Students absent from class ---- A A
e) Disruptive students ------------ A A
f) Uninterested students --------- A A
A
A
A
A
g) Students with mental,
emotional, or psychological
impairment -------------------- A
A A
h) Lack of support for using
information technology ------- A
A A
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
16
18
In a typical week, how much time do you spend on
English language instruction and/or activities with
the students?
When you have reading instruction and/or do
reading activities, how often do you organize
students in the following ways?
Include instruction or activities in reading, writing,
speaking, literature, and other language skills.
Check one circle for each line.
Always or almost always
Often
_____________ minutes per week
Sometimes
Write in the number of minutes per week.
Please convert the number of hours into minutes.
Never
a) I teach reading as a
whole-class activity ----------- A
17
Regardless of whether or not you have formally
scheduled time for reading instruction, in a typical
week about how much time do you spend on
reading instruction and/or activities with the
students?
Include things you do across curriculum areas and
during formally scheduled time for reading instruction.
A A A
b) I create same-ability groups -- A A A A
c) I create mixed-ability groups -- A A A A
d) I use individualized
instruction for reading --------- A
A A A
e) Students work independently
on an assigned plan or goal --- A
A A A
_____________ minutes per week
Write in the number of minutes per week.
Please convert the number of hours into minutes.
Teacher Questionnaire
6
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
About Teaching Reading to the PIRLS Class
19
20
When you have reading instruction and/or do
reading activities with the students, how often
do you have the students read the following
types of text (in print or digitally)?
When you have reading instruction and/or do
reading activities with the students, how often
do you do the following?
Check one circle for each line.
Check one circle for each line.
Every day or almost every day
Every day or almost every day
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a
month
Once or twice a
month
Never or
almost never
A. Literary Reading Materials
a) Short stories (e.g., fables, fairy
tales, action stories, science
fiction, detective stories) ------ A
a) Read aloud to students -------- A
b) Ask students to read aloud
A A A
b) Longer fiction books with
chapters ------------------------ A
A A A
c) Plays --------------------------- A A A A
B. Informational Reading
Materials
7
Never or
almost never
a) Nonfiction subject area
books or textbooks ------------ A
A A A
b) Longer nonfiction books with
chapters ------------------------ A
A A A
c) Nonfiction articles that
describe and explain about
things, people, events, or
how things work
(e.g., newspaper articles,
brochures) ---------------------- A
A A A
Teacher Questionnaire
A A A
--- A A A A
c) Ask students to read silently
on their own ------------------- A
A A A
d) Teach students strategies for
decoding sounds and words -- A
A A A
e) Teach students new
vocabulary systematically ----- A
A A A
f) Teach students how to
summarize the main ideas ---- A
A A A
g) Teach or model skimming
or scanning strategies --------- A
A A A
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
21
22
How often do you do the following in teaching
reading to this class?
Check one circle for each line.
How often do you ask the students to do the
following things to help develop reading
comprehension skills or strategies?
Check one circle for each line.
Every or almost every lesson
About half the lessons
Every day or almost every day
Some lessons
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a
month
Never
a) Provide reading materials
that match the
students’ interests -------------- A
A A A
b) Provide materials that are
appropriate for the reading
levels of individual students --- A
Never or
almost never
a) Locate information within
the text ------------------------ A
A A A
A A A
b) Identify the main ideas
of what they have read -------- A
A A A
c) Link new content to
students’ prior knowledge ----- A
A A A
d) Encourage students to
develop their understandings
of the text ---------------------- A
c) Explain or support their
understanding of what they
have read ---------------------- A
A A A
A A A
e) Encourage student discussions
of texts ------------------------- A
d) Compare what they have
read with experiences they
have had ----------------------- A
A A A
A A A
e) Compare what they have
read with other things they
have read ---------------------- A
A A A
f) Make predictions about
what will happen next in the
text they are reading ---------- A
A A A
g) Make generalizations and
draw inferences based on
what they have read ----------- A
A A A
h) Describe the style or
structure of the text they
have read ---------------------- A
A A A
i) Determine the author’s
perspective or intention ------- A
A A A
f) Encourage students to
challenge the opinion
expressed in the text ---------- A
A A A
g) Use multiple perspectives
(among students and texts)
to enrich understanding ------- A
A A A
h) Give students time to read
books of their own choosing -- A
A A A
i) Give individualized feedback
to each student ---------------- A
A A A
Teacher Questionnaire
8
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Computer and Library Resources
24
23
After students have read something, how often do
you ask them to do the following?
Check one circle for each line.
A. Do the students in this class have computers
(including tablets) available to use for their
reading lessons?
Check one circle only.
Every day or almost every day
A
No --- A
Yes ---
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a
month
Never or
almost never
a) Write something about or
in response to what they
have read ---------------------- A
b) Answer oral questions
about or orally summarize
what they have read ----------- A
c) Talk with each other about
what they have read ----------- A
d) Take a written quiz or test
about what they have read ---- A
A A A
(If No, go to #25)
If Yes,
B. What access do the students have to computers?
Check one circle for each line.
Yes
A A A
A A A
A A A
No
a) Each student has a computer -------------------
A A
b) The class has computers that students
can share -----------------------------------------
A A
c) The school has computers that the class
can use sometimes ------------------------------
A A
C. How often do you do the following computer
activities during reading lessons?
Check one circle for each line.
Every day or almost every day
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a
month
Never or
almost
never
9
Teacher Questionnaire
a) Ask students to read
digital texts -------------------- A
A A A
b) Teach students strategies
for reading digital texts ------- A
A A A
c) Teach students to be
critical when reading on
the Internet -------------------- A
A A A
d) Ask students to look up
information (e.g., facts,
definitions, etc.) --------------- A
A A A
e) Ask students to research
a particular topic
or problem --------------------- A
A A A
f) Ask students to write
stories or other texts ---------- A
A A A
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
26
25
A. Do you have a library or reading corner in your
classroom?
How often do you take or send the students to a
library other than your classroom library?
Check one circle only.
A
No --- A
Yes ---
(If No, go to #26 )
If Yes,
Check one circle only.
A
Once or twice a month --- A
A few times a year --- A
Never or almost never --- A
At least once or twice a week ---
B. About how many books are in your classroom
library?
Check one circle only.
A
26–50 --- A
51–100 --- A
More than 100 --- A
0–25 ---
C. About how many magazines with different titles
are in your classroom library?
Check one circle only.
A
1–2 --- A
3–5 --- A
More than 5 --- A
0 ---
D. How often do you give the students in your
class time to use the classroom library or
reading corner?
Check one circle only.
A
Once or twice a week --- A
Once or twice a month --- A
Never or almost never --- A
Every day or almost every day ---
E. Can the students borrow books from the classroom
library or reading corner to take home?
Check one circle only.
A
No --- A
Yes ---
Teacher Questionnaire
10
Reading Homework
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Reading Difficulties
27
30
How often do you assign reading as part of
homework (for any subject)?
Are the following resources available to you to work
with students who have difficulty with reading?
Check one circle only.
I do not assign reading
for homework ---
Check one circle for each line.
Always
A
Sometimes
(Go to #30)
Never
a) A specialized professional
(e.g., reading specialist,
speech therapist) -------------- A
A
1 or 2 times a week --- A
3 or 4 times a week --- A
Every day --- A
Less than once a week ---
A A
b) A teacher-aide ----------------- A A A
c) An adult/parent volunteer ---- A A A
28
In general, how much time do you expect students
to spend on homework involving reading (for any
subject) each time you assign it?
Check one circle only.
A
16–30 minutes --- A
31–60 minutes --- A
More than 60 minutes --- A
31
What do you usually do if a student begins to fall
behind in reading?
Check one circle for each line.
Yes
15 minutes or less ---
No
29
How often do you do the following with the reading
homework assignments for this class?
Check one circle for each line.
Always or almost always
Sometimes
Never or
almost never
11
a) Correct assignments and give
feedback to students ---------- A
A A
b) Discuss the homework
in class ------------------------- A
A A
c) Monitor whether or not the
homework was completed ---- A
A A
Teacher Questionnaire
a) I have the student work with a specialized
professional (e.g., reading specialist,
speech therapist) --------------------------------
A A
b) I wait to see if performance improves with
maturation ---------------------------------------
A A
c) I spend more time working on reading
individually with that student ------------------
A A
d) I ask the parents to help the student
with reading -------------------------------------
A A
e) I recommend that the student be
enrolled in a special reading program ----------
A A
Assessing Reading
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
32
How much emphasis do you place on the
following sources to monitor students’
progress in reading?
Check one circle for each line.
Major emphasis
Some emphasis
Little or no
emphasis
a) Assessment of students’
ongoing work ------------------ A
A A
b) Classroom tests (for
example, teacher-made
or textbook tests) -------------- A
A A
c) State or district
achievement tests ------------- A
A A
3
Approximately h
each week
Please write in the number of minutes per week.
34
What have you found most beneficial in learning
about and providing effective early literacy
instruction while at Parkland School District?
Teacher Questionnaire
12
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Thank You
Thank you for the thought, time, and effort you have put into completing
this questionnaire. It is greatly appreciated!
Appendix B
Volunteer Consent Form
Voluntary Consent Form – Pennsylvania Western University
Dear Parkland Faculty Member:
You are being asked to participate in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). PIRLS
measures trends in student achievement in reading and studies differences in national education
systems in more than 50 countries in order to help improve teaching and learning worldwide.
Participation in this survey is optional and there will be no penalty if you choose not to participate. In
addition, please be aware that any information provided will remain anonymous. We are looking at
aggregate data only to analyze Parkland's current elementary literacy programs. It will help the district
make progress towards the goal of having students reach reading proficiency.
What will I be asked to do if I take part in this study?
This questionnaire is addressed to teachers of elementary students and seeks information about
teachers’ academic and professional backgrounds, classroom resources, instructional practices, and
attitudes toward teaching. It is important that you answer each question carefully so that the
information that you provide reflects your situation as accurately as possible. The questionnaire may be
completed electronically and will take approximately 15 to 30 minutes to complete. All data collected
will be securely housed and accessible only by the researcher. All information provided will be kept
confidential.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, please contact the primary researcher, Tracy Smith, at
mailto:SMI7306@pennwest.edu or 484.357-8722. If you would like to talk to someone other than the
primary researcher, please contact Dr. Peter Aiken, the PennWest faculty member overseeing the
research project, via email at aiken@pennwest.edu.
Acknowledgment and Consent
Any questions I have about participating in this study have been answered. I agree to take part in this
study, and I understand that taking part is voluntary and that I may change my mind at any time without
penalty. By providing my name and initials below, I agree to participate in the completion of the PIRLS
questionnaire study.
Name (Print): _____________________________________Date: _________________________
Signature: _____________________________________________________________________
Approved by the Pennsylvania Western University Institutional Review Board. This approval is effective
09/12/2022 and expires 09/11/2023.
APPENDIX C
IRB APPROVAL LETTER
Institutional Review Board
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.
Dear Tracy,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled
“The Impact of Elementary Literacy on High School Learning Outcomes”
(Proposal #PW22-035) has been approved by the Pennsylvania Western
University Institutional Review Board as submitted.
The effective date of approval is 09/12/2022 and the expiration date is
09/11/2023. These dates must appear on the consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly
regarding any of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study
(additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before they are
implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are
necessitated by any events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of
09/11/2023, you must file additional information to be considered for
continuing review. Please contact instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Melissa Sovak, PhD.
Chair, Institutional Review Board
APPENDIX D
DISTRICT APPROVAL LETTER
APPENDIX E
Top 5 Types of Courses and Courses Taken in 2017, 2018, and 2019
(Organized by Third-Grade Reading Proficiency Level)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Advanced)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2017)
Advanced
Placement
Gifted/
High Potential
College
Preparatory
Honors
All Cohorts
Top 5 Types of
Courses
Gifted/
High Potential
Honors
College
Preparatory
Project Lead the
Way
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2018)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Honors
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2019)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Honors
All Cohorts
Top 5 Types of
Courses
Advanced
Placement
LCTI (part-time)
Advanced
Placement
LCTI (part-time)
Advanced
Placement
LCTI (part-time)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2017)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2019)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
LCTI (part-time)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Types of
Courses
Learning Support
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2018)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Learning Support
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
LCTI (full-time)
LCTI (part-time)
LCTI (part-time)
Learning Support
Learning Support
Applied
LCTI (full-time)
Honors
LCTI (part-time)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2017)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Advanced
Placement
Honors
LCTI (part-time)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Basic)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2019)
Honors
Gifted/
High Potential
College
Preparatory
Advanced
Placement
Project Lead
The Way
Project Lead
The Way
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Proficient)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2018)
Gifted/
High Potential
Advanced
Placement
Honors
Advanced
Placement
College
Preparatory
Project Lead
the Way
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Honors
APPENDIX E
Top 5 Types of Courses and Courses Taken in 2017, 2018, and 2019
(Organized by Third-Grade Reading Proficiency Level)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency
Level
(Below Basic)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Types of
Courses
College
Preparatory
Learning
Support
Applied
College
Preparatory
Learning Support
College
Preparatory
Learning Support
LCTI (part-time)
College
Preparatory
Learning
Support
LCTI (part-time)
LCTI (parttime)
Work
Experience
LCTI (full-time)
Seminar
Applied
Career/Education/
Work Ready
LCTI (full-time)
Career/Education/
Work Ready
LCTI (full-time)
It should be noted that neither Advanced Placement (AP) nor Project Lead the Way
(PLTW) courses appear in the top 5 types of courses taken by high school students who
were either at a third-grade reading level of Basic or Below Basic in 2009, 2010, or 2011.
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Advanced)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Courses
Economics
GHP
Economics GHP
Biology
Honors
English 3
Language Arts
AP
American
Government
GHP
English
Literature and
Composition AP
World Studies
GHP
American
Government
GHP
American
Studies 2
GHP
World Studies
GHP
English 2
Honors
English 3
Language Arts
AP
World Studies
GHP
English 3
Language Arts
AP
English 3
Language Arts
AP
American
Studies 1
GHP
American
Studies 2
GHP
Precalculus
Honors
English 3
GHP
Economics
GHP
APPENDIX E
Top 5 Types of Courses and Courses Taken in 2017, 2018, and 2019
(Organized by Third-Grade Reading Proficiency Level)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Proficient)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Basic)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Below Basic)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Courses
Economics CP
Economics CP
Algebra 1 CP
World Study CP
World Study CP
American
Government CP
English 4 CP
American
Government CP
World Study
CP
Geometry CP
World Study
CP
Geometry CP
English 1 CP
English 3 CP
Geometry CP
Chemistry CP
English 3 CP
English 4 CP
American Study
1 CP
Economics CP
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Courses
American
Government CP
English 3 CP
English 4 CP
Algebra 1 CP
English 3 CP
English 3 CP
Biology CP
World Study CP
Economics CP
Economics CP
English 1 CP
Geometry CP
World Study CP
World Study CP
Algebra 2 CP
Chemistry CP
Algebra 2 CP
American
Studies 1 CP
Earth Science CP
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Courses
Study Skills 11
Algebra 2 CP
Study Skills 9
World Study CP
Economics CP
World Study CP
Biology CP
English 3 CP
English 4 CP
American
Government CP
Economics CP
Algebra 1 CP
Algebra 2 CP
Algebra 2 CP
Study Skills 11
English 4 CP
English 3 CP
Biology CP
Study Skills 12
American
Government 12
Biology CP
APPENDIX F
PIRLS Open-Ended Responses
PIRLS Question 34: What have you found most beneficial in learning about and
providing effective early literacy instruction while at Parkland School District?
Specific instruction using grade-level resources that provide clear guidance on how to
implement current topics has been beneficial. For example, discussing text structure and
completing TDA's were not part of my undergraduate training, and it is essential that this
training is provided by PSD. [Respondent 1]
I feel like as an effective kindergarten teacher I am always working on researching and
learning the new and best ways to help my students learn and grow. When I explicitly
teach in a structured way with both whole and small groups, I find I get the best results
with my students. [Respondent 2]
The sound wall we have posted in the rooms help students read and learn new words to
help improve comprehension and also reading and writing fluency. [Respondent 3]
Sound walls and LETRS [Respondent 4]
Science of Reading pd [Respondent 5]
I have found that LETRS and Heggerty have improved my students' phonemic awareness
which helps them become better readers. [Respondent 6]
Using a variety of genres and levels so that all students might have success. Also,
reading to them and with them EVERY day is beneficial while discussing the story and
vocabulary. These are just a few of the many ways early literacy instruction benefits our
Parkland students. [Respondent 7]
The district provides teachers with professional development that is current. Some things
can be implemented in the classroom right away, and we are provided with resources to
help with implementation. [Respondent 8]
LETRS training and a structured literacy program [Respondent 9]
I think the introduction to the science of reading and future training in this area will be
very beneficial and an effective form of explicit instruction for students. [Respondent 10]
It is not one size fits all. Resources are very good. [Respondent 11]
The Heggerty program we have implemented as well as LETRS training have been the
most beneficial. [Respondent 12]
It's important to start early and to read TO the children, as well as listen to them read.
Too many children are not read to and I see a decline in their interest in reading/books.
PSD does not have any time "built" into the curriculum for teacher choice read-alouds,
but I set aside 15 minutes every single day to do so. Every year, my students say it's their
favorite time of day. I can incorporate so many comprehension & vocab skills &
strategies during that time & they are a captive audience! [Respondent 13]
I have found the LETRS training beneficial to understand how/why students read how
they do. Our reading specialist is extremely helpful when working with all types of
student abilities. [Respondent 14]
We are encouraged to differentiate instruction. The information and support from our
reading specialist is excellent. [Respondent 15]
I always feel encouraged by my building principal and the staff here is collegial, which
helps. We are focused on helping all students learn to read.
A focus on phonemic awareness has helped my students grow. This district gets reading
instruction. It is a priority in my building. [Respondent 16]
Heggerty was an excellent addition! [Respondent 17]
APPENDIX F
PIRLS Open-Ended Responses
We have support and quality PD. [Respondent 18]
We have many resources and the focus in the primary grades is on developing strong
readers through the science of reading. [Respondent 19]
I enjoy the professional development on literacy instruction and appreciate the time
to review student data. Reading is important in this school. [Respondent 20]
I feel supported if I have students who are struggling to learn how to read through my
colleagues, support staff, and principal. [Respondent 21]
It should be noted that PIRLS Question 34 was optional, not required.
Not every teacher who completed the PIRLS questionnaire chose to answer this question.
APPENDIX G
DATA ANALYST CERTIFICATIONS
8 Courses
Jun 1, 2021
Tracy Elizabeth Smith
has successfully completed the online, non-credit Professional
Certificate
Foundations: Data, Data,
Everywhere
Ask Questions to Make
Data-Driven Decisions
Prepare Data for
Exploration
Process Data from Dirty to
Clean
Analyze Data to Answer
Questions
Share Data Through the Art
of Visualization
Google Data Analytics
Those who earn the Google Data Analytics Professional Certificate
have completed eight courses, developed by Google, that include
hands-on, practice-based assessments and are designed to prepare
them for introductory-level roles in Data Analytics. They are competent
in tools and platforms including spreadsheets, SQL, Tableau, and R.
They know how to prepare, process, analyze, and share data for
thoughtful action.
Data Analysis with R
Programming
Google Data Analytics
Capstone: Complete a Case
Study
The online specialization named in this certificate may draw on material from courses taught on-campus, but the included
courses are not equivalent to on-campus courses. Participation in this online specialization does not constitute enrollment
at this university. This certificate does not confer a University grade, course credit or degree, and it does not verify the
identity of the learner.
Verify this certificate at:
https://coursera.org/verify/profession
al-cert/LZ2NBE9KZWBT
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY ON HIGH SCHOOL
LEARNING OUTCOMES
A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Tracy Elizabeth Smith
Pennsylvania Western University
July 2023
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
© Copyright
Tracy E. Smith
All Rights Reserved
July 2023
ii
iii
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Pennsylvania Western University
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education
We hereby approve the capstone of
Tracy Elizabeth Smith
Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education
12JUL2023
Dr. Peter J. Aiken
Superintendent, Central York School District
Doctoral Capstone Faculty Committee Chair
Dr. Jamie P. Giaquinto
Principal, Parkland School District
Doctoral Capstone External Committee Member
iv
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Dedication
“I touch the future. I teach.”
Christa McAuliffe
This capstone research project is dedicated to my family, the loves of my life:
My parents, James and Lois Smith, who were my first and best teachers;
My husband, Bruce, the rock of the family and my true north for over 30 years;
My son, James, who always makes me so proud to be his mom.
v
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Acknowledgments
“A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.”
Henry Adams
I would like to acknowledge the wonderful committee members for this project,
Dr. Peter Aiken, Central York School District Superintendent (Chair), and Dr. Jamie
Giaquinto, Cetronia Elementary School Principal (External Committee Member).
PennWest Librarian William Denny also provided valuable assistance with the
research process. I could not have asked for better advisors; all set a high bar for
academic excellence. For their many hours of wise counsel, I am grateful.
In my career, I have had the good fortune to work with excellent educational
leaders who have supported me in this and other endeavors. They lead by the power of
their example and have always pushed me to reach higher as a result: Richard Sniscak,
Dr. Pamela Kelly, and Dr. Victor Lesky.
This project would not have been possible without the support of many Parkland
staff who assisted me along the way, always with grace and kindness: Dr. Mark
Madson, Kelly Kester, Shaheeda Shivji, Lauren Will, Elizabeth Duld, and Thomas
Derhammer. I also appreciate all the Parkland principals, curriculum administrators,
and teachers who helped with the study. A special thanks to Ed Kobus who worked his
technical magic to extract the large amounts of data necessary for this longitudinal
research project. Parkland School District has many assets, but first and foremost is the
caliber of its people.
Finally, I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Peter Capolupo for his vision and
inspiration that broadened my understanding of the impact of elementary literacy.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
vi
Table of Contents
Dedication
iv
Acknowledgements
v
List of Tables
vii
List of Figures
ix
Abstract
xi
CHAPTER I. Introduction
1
CHAPTER II. Literature Review
6
CHAPTER III. Methodology
44
CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results
68
CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations
93
References
109
APPENDIX A. PIRLS Questionnaire
121
APPENDIX B. Volunteer Consent Form
135
APPENDIX C. IRB Approval Letter
136
APPENDIX D. Parkland Approval Letter
137
APPENDIX E. Top 5 Parkland Courses/Course Types by Reading Proficiency Level
138
APPENDIX F. PIRLS Open-Ended Responses
141
APPENDIX G. Data Analyst Certifications
143
vii
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
List of Tables
Table 1.
A Comparison of Speech Versus Reading
13
Table 2.
Parkland’s 2020-2021 Student Population Overview
48
Table 3.
Population Overview of Third-Grade Students from
49
Testing Years 2009, 2010, and 2011
Table 4.
Change in Cohort Population Demographics from
51
2009, 2010, 2011 to 2017, 2018, 2019
Table 5.
Parkland High School Course Types
52
Table 6.
Parkland High School Course Requirements
53
Table 7.
Longitudinal Study Data Dictionary
61
Table 8.
Breakdown of Number of Students by Third-Grade
69
Reading Proficiency Level
Table 9.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency
70
Levels on Eighth-Grade Instructional Reading Levels
Table 10.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on
76
Number of Students Taking Advanced Placement Co
Table 11.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on
Additional Subgroups (AP)
77
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
viii
List of Tables (Cont’d)
Table 12.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency
77
Levels on Number of Students Taking Project Lead
the Way (PLTW) Courses
Table 13.
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels
80
on Additional Subgroups
Table 14.
2002 PVAAS Academic Growth Measures
Table 15.
Imagination Library Costs – Parkland School District
98
104
ix
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Early Reader Profile
15
Figure 2.
2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Results
33
Figure 3.
Mean Income in 2017 by Level of Income (USD 2020)
41
Figure 4.
Explanatory Design Approach Using Quantitative and Qualitative Data
55
Figure 5.
Cyclical Nature of Action Research
56
Figure 6.
Data Analysis and Data Normalization Cycle
57
Figure 7.
Data Normalization Using Microsoft Power BI
59
Figure 8.
Microsoft Power BI Table Joins
60
Figure 9.
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (no filters)
63
Figure 10.
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (filtered by testing year)
64
Figure 11.
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (filtered by school and student gender)
64
Figure 12.
StatCrunch Data Analysis – Third Grade and Eighth Grade Reading Data
71
Figure 13.
All Cohorts – All Students – STAR Eighth Grade IRL
72
Figure 14.
All Cohorts – Eighth Grade IRL of Economically Disadvantaged Students
72
Figure 15.
All Cohorts – Eighth Grade IRL of Students with IEPs
73
Figure 16.
All Cohorts – Third Grade Reading Proficiency (Basic and Below Basic)
73
And Eighth Grade IRL
Figure 17.
All Cohorts – Eighth Grade IRL for Students Not Proficient in
Third Grade Reading and Economically Disadvantaged
74
x
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
List of Figures (Cont’d)
Figure 18.
All Cohorts – Students Enrolled in AP Courses (2017, 2018, and 2019)
75
Figure 19.
All Cohorts – Students Enrolled in PLTW Courses (2017, 2018, and 2019)
82
Figure 20.
Grade Level Taught of PIRLS Participants
82
Figure 21.
Years of Teaching Experience of PIRLS Participants
83
Figure 22.
Teachers Who Were at Parkland in 2009, 2010, and 2011
83
Figure 23.
Most Popular Instructional Practices for Teaching Reading
88
Figure 24.
PIRLS Study – Key Numbers
89
Figure 25.
Stanford Study – 2009 to 2016
95
Figure 26.
Hours of Formal Literacy Professional Development –2021 to 2023
97
Figure 27.
Stanford Study – Impact of the Pandemic – 2019 to 2022
100
Figure 28.
Imagination Library Locations Within Pennsylvania
103
Figure 29.
ExcelinEd (2003) Analysis of State Early Literacy Efforts
105
xi
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Abstract
Third grade is regarded as a milestone year. From kindergarten to second grade, students
learn to read, but from grades three and beyond students read to learn. This longitudinal
mixed methods research study examines the impact of third-grade reading proficiency
(as measured by the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment) on later high school
learning outcomes. Specifically, the study tracks three cohorts of third-grade students
from 2009, 2010, and 2011, examines the eighth-grade instructional reading level (IRL)
of these students five years later, then analyzes the types of courses these students
enrolled in three years later as students at Parkland High School in 2017, 2018, and
2019, respectively. The focus is on the number of students enrolled in Advanced
Placement and Project Lead the Way courses, both college-level courses considered to
be among the most rigorous offered by the Parkland School District in Allentown,
Pennsylvania. The quantitative analysis determined there was a strong positive
correlation between third-grade reading proficiency level and the enrollment of students
in these programs. In addition, Parkland elementary teachers participated in the Progress
in International Reading and Literacy Study (PIRLS) to provide qualitative data on
Parkland’s early literacy program by examining the specific teaching techniques,
strategies, and resources Parkland’s elementary teachers use on a daily or weekly basis.
The combined datasets provide a more complete picture of Parkland’s early literacy
program and its impact on students throughout their academic career at Parkland School
District.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
1
CHAPTER I
Introduction
In 2013, when a team of Parkland teachers and administrators was in the
process of researching full-day kindergarten, they paid a visit to a Pennsylvania
school district in suburban Philadelphia whose Superintendent touted himself as
being a literacy leader. As evidence, the group was able to tour the District’s new K-1
literacy center which had won national awards for its design and academic
programming. In his comments to Parkland staff, the Superintendent spoke at length
about his District’s changing demographics and rapidly growing student population. In
his view, building a solid foundation where all students could continue to be successful
required a focus on ensuring students reach proficiency in reading by third grade. He
cited examples of how establishing literacy as a districtwide goal had impacted the
District’s graduation rate and overall student achievement.
His words made an impression. In 2014, when the Parkland School District
embarked on a plan to add full-day kindergarten, Parkland administrators stressed the
importance of students reading by third grade as one of the reasons in support of full-day
kindergarten. When asked by the Board to provide evidence, the team pulled a snapshot
of data from the third-grade class of 2005, looking at how those students who were not
proficient in reading - as measured by the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment
(PSSA) - fared eight years later, in 2013, when it came to taking more rigorous
coursework such as the District’s Advanced Placement (AP) high school courses.
While not formal research, the numbers from this data snapshot revealed fewer than one
percent of students who were not proficient in reading by third grade later enrolled
in more advanced courses, far less than the number of students that was the norm.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
2
Now the Parkland School District is facing demographic changes similar to that
suburban Philadelphia school district visited more than ten years ago. Parkland’s
enrollment in 2022-2023 was 9,852 students, up more than 400 students from five years
prior. Over 32 percent of the District’s students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, a
number that has seen steady increases over the last several years, rising from nine percent
in 2007. This number is closely monitored since there is a body of research that shows
poverty can negatively impact a child’s early language acquisition skills (Kainz &
Vernon, 2007) although Parkland has established support to help mitigate its impact.
While the demographics may have changed, the District’s mission remains the
same: to ensure a quality education rich in academics, arts, and athletic opportunities to
address the needs of the whole child, and to make sure these opportunities for learning
are available to all students. This action research project is designed to formally study the
impact of elementary literacy on student access to the array of academic opportunities at
Parkland High School.
Research Questions
1.
How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later student enrollment
in high school Advanced Placement (AP) courses?
2.
How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later student enrollment
in high school Project Lead the Way courses?
3.
What instructional practices and beliefs are common among Parkland’s
elementary staff in schools which have consistently high levels of students reaching
reading proficiency by third grade as measured by the PSSA?
These questions will provide both quantitative and qualitative data to help the
District better understand the relationship between elementary student achievement and
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
3
its later impact on students’ access to academic opportunities as students at Parkland
High School. They will also help identify factors that may lead to higher levels of
students reading by third grade in the first place.
Data Collection
This mixed-methods action research project uses an explanatory sequential design
approach. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed separately
with findings from the qualitative research used to augment the quantitative research.
To answer research questions one and two, quantitative data from the third grade
PSSA exam results from three cohorts of students during testing years 2009, 2010, and
2011 were correlated against Pennsylvania Information Management System (PIMS)
data collections for those same students eight years later (2017, 2018, and 2019) using
Microsoft Power Business Intelligence (more commonly referred to as Power BI), Excel,
and other data analysis tools.
District instructional reading level data from the STAR progress monitoring tool, as
well as high school data on course enrollment, were used to measure student
performance at both the elementary and secondary levels.
Lastly, to answer research question three, a qualitative case study was conducted
that surveyed teachers in five of the nine Parkland elementary schools. The
comprehensive questionnaire used for the study helped to determine if the educational
background, understanding of literacy instruction, instructional time spent on literacy,
access to resources, and teaching methodologies of teachers made an impact on the
building’s ability to achieve a high percentage of students who demonstrated reading
proficiency by third grade. All data collected was electronic and housed on secure servers
using a two-factor authentication process.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
The questions for the qualitative case study survey came from the 2016 Progress
in International Reading Literacy Survey (PIRLS) questionnaire. As noted by the
National Center for Educational Statistics (n.d.), “it is designed to measure school and
teacher practices related to instruction” and has been used by schools worldwide since
2001, with a high degree of reliability. The questionnaire was completed by Parkland’s
K-4 teachers and required between 15 and 30 minutes to complete electronically. The
full survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. Teachers had the option to
complete the survey; it was not required. The Volunteer Consent Form (Appendix B)
outlines the consent process in more detail. The results from both the quantitative and
qualitative studies were analyzed and merged at the end to identify patterns and
address the original action research questions.
Last spring and summer the researcher completed both Google and IBM
professional data analyst certifications (Appendix G) to prepare for the extensive data
analysis that was involved with this project. In addition to creating specific tables of data
related to the research questions outlined above, the longitudinal data from three cohorts
of students were presented using Microsoft Power BI data visualization tools to create
an interactive data dashboard with natural language query capabilities. This enabled
the Parkland administrators to visualize and analyze the information to derive insights
from each of the three cohorts studied to determine if there are any consistent trends.
This also allowed the principals to focus on their buildings’ specific data and analyze the
strengths or weaknesses of their existing literacy programs more easily. Thanks to the
leadership of the elementary principals, the elementary schools are surprisingly in
lockstep with each other, and this level of data analysis helped reveal specific literacy
teaching beliefs and practices common among the schools.
4
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
5
Financial Implications
The financial implications for this research project are minimal given the District
has had a focus on elementary literacy for several years, with a significant investment in
teacher training on the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling
(LETRS) program, a scientifically based literacy approach. The District is in the process
of upgrading its current elementary English/Language Arts curriculum as part of the
normal five-year curriculum review cycle. The District has also recently adopted the
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) program to deepen its understanding of best
practices to promote literacy instruction in grades K, 1, and 2, an initiative that will have
some financial impact. There may be costs involved with securing substitute teachers for
building teams who will be involved in analyzing the data as a result of this study. Also,
the District’s emphasis on literacy may lead to a shifting of Title I funds for school
support, especially in the area of Title I assistants.
The District is fortunate to have a partnership with Lehigh Valley Reads, a local
non-profit organization comprised of community leaders from school, business, and local
government. Lehigh Valley Reads provides parents with literacy resources to help them
prepare their children for not only school but a lifetime of learning, and there is currently
no cost to the District to tap into the resources this organization provides.
Parkland School District has a solid literacy program. This can be seen in the nine
Parkland elementary schools that serve over 4300 students from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, yet all schools consistently have students who score above
average as measured by the state PSSA English/Language Arts exams. This longitudinal
research study will show what impact this strong literacy foundation had on students
years later in their academic careers once enrolled at Parkland High School.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
6
CHAPTER II
Literature Review
Reading, ‘Riting, and ‘Rithmetic. Based on a colloquial phrase coined at the
beginning of the 19th century (Burrus, 2014), the “3 R’s” were the foundational subjects
of the American public education system. More than 200 years later, these subjects
(now referred to as Reading, Writing, and Mathematics), remain the focus of
elementary education. However, much has changed over the last 200 years,
including the understanding of reading and the role literacy plays in a person’s ability
to successfully engage in school, the job market, and society. This chapter serves to
explore the research regarding the history of early childhood literacy in the United
States, the factors that impact a child’s ability to read, and the effects of literacy and
illiteracy on children and society at large.
History of Early Childhood Literacy
Reading is one of the highest achievements of human intelligence. Many other
species communicate, but none have anything like reading and writing (Seidenberg,
2013). Written language is an invention unique to humanity, dating back to 5000 B. C.
when the Mesopotamians developed cuneiform, a logo or picture-based form of writing
using clay tablets. A few hundred years later the Egyptians followed suit with a more
elaborate but still picture-based form of written language called hieroglyphics. These
languages were created as a way to record speech in a longer-lasting form (Seidenberg,
2013).
There is a relationship between speaking, writing, and thinking. Our ability to
record spoken ideas led to more advanced thinking and expanded human vocabulary past
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
the ability to be properly expressed by pictures alone (Seidenberg, 2013). Hence the
development of an alphabet, with characters – not pictures - representing sounds that
could be used to express words. This seemingly small shift has had profound implications
for how reading is taught since “while reading is a foundational skill, it is not a natural
one” (Luscombe, 2022, para. 7).
The English alphabet consists of 26 letters that can be combined to form 44
sounds. These 44 sounds can be combined to create more than 15,000 syllables and an
endless world of words (Chall, 1967; Luscombe, 2022). According to Luscombe (2022):
Ideally, children figure out what the letter string says at about the same
moment a word they already know crystallizes into view. And after a
couple of those "aha" moments, usually starting in first and second
grade, when nicky reveals itself as ‘nice’ or ka-heef transforms into
‘chief,’ the word seems to move into permanent memory. (para. 7)
Thus, learning to read is the product of exposure to a robust vocabulary coupled with
sophisticated decoding skills.
Yet there are multiple schools of thought on how best to teach reading, with two
sides currently divided into those who support more explicit phonemic instruction
(Moats, 2019) and those who favor “balanced” teaching of literacy where learning to read
occurs through a more organic process requiring less direct instruction (Calkins, 2016).
Some of the confusion comes from a lack of a single definition for balanced
literacy. According to Hanford (2018), although it does usually include some phonics,
balanced literacy has been criticized “for paying insufficient attention to explicit,
systematic instruction which some students require” (p. 5). Most of the 600 teachers
questioned in a 2019 Education Week survey indicated they used a balanced literacy
7
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
approach, but they also specified they spent at least some instructional time on phonics
“for a median of 31 minutes a day” although teachers indicated the phonics instruction
they delivered did not always follow a systemic process (Education Week Research
Center, 2020, p. 10).
The debate about how reading should be taught is not new. Indeed, it goes back
almost as far as reading instruction itself. According to Flesch (1955), “until the 1930s
the traditional method of teaching reading to American children was phonics” (p. 27).
Parents, guardians, or teachers would help a child learn to master the sounds associated
with the 26 letters of the alphabet and the corresponding 44 phonemes. Advocates of
this approach argued that the “key to learning to read was in deciphering the alphabetic
code” (Flesch, 1955, p. 105). Flesch’s 1955 book, Why Johnny Can’t Read, highlights
the impact of this shift in reading instruction and sparked the debate that has pingponged between the two sides ever since.
To settle the issue, in 1997 Congress convened a 14-member National Reading
Panel involving school administrators, working teachers, and scientists to evaluate
existing research and evidence to identify the best ways of teaching children to read.
Their review of the research and examination of best practices was exhaustive, spanning
the course of over two years. On April 13, 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP)
concluded its work and submitted its final report, the 449-page Teaching Children to
Read: An Evidenced Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading
and Its Implications for Reading Instruction.
The report recommended five components of a quality literacy program
(phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), with phonemic
awareness (PA) yielding the most impact in their meta-analysis of instructional practices
8
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
9
that had a significant effect on reading achievement. The 2000 NRP report concluded that
phonics instruction is the key to learning to read, phonemic awareness is the lock, and the
two work best when combined in a scaffolded approach:
Phonemes are the smallest units composing spoken language. For example, the
words "go" and "she" each consist of two sounds or phonemes. Phonemes are
different from letters that represent phonemes in the spelling of words. Instruction
in phonemic awareness (PA) involves teaching children to focus on and
manipulate phonemes in spoken syllables and words. PA instruction is frequently
confused with phonics instruction, which entails teaching students how to use
letter-sound relations to read or spell words. PA instruction qualifies as phonics
instruction when it involves teaching children to blend or segment the sounds in
words using letters. (p. 19)
The NRP report, though comprehensive and widely lauded, did not settle the
debate about reading instruction. There was concern that students and teachers would not
be enthusiastic about an approach to reading instruction that was too phonetically based.
Many educators still insisted learning to read was a natural process and that a holistic
“balanced literacy” approach would be better at inspiring a lifelong love of reading. The
result, according to Shanahan (2020), was that “balanced literacy came to mean
whatever anybody wanted it to. Schools did not have to buy expensive new
curriculums. Districts did not have to retrain their teachers. Teachers could add some
lessons on phonics, but they didn’t have to hit reset on the way they taught” (p. 239).
This explains why some educators embraced Lucy Calkins’ book, The Art of
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Teaching Reading, published in 2001 as a counterweight to the National Reading Panel
findings. Calkins, a Columbia University professor, created the Units of Study reading
curriculum that in 2018 was used in about a third of American classrooms (Hanford,
2018). Until 2022, Units of Study emphasized the “three-cueing” approach to reading,
where students learn to decipher unfamiliar words through pictures and context clues
(Calkins, 2001). The balanced literacy approach is also appealing because it promotes
student autonomy, allowing students to choose their own books to spark a love of
reading. Calkins’ balanced literacy curriculum and teaching methodology helped
establish Columbia University as a preeminent teacher’s college, and her approach was
the predominant pre-service teacher training model used by New York City schools.
However, the 2010 Anne E. Casey Foundation research report, “Early Warning!
Why Reading by Third Grade Matters,” sounded the alarm that elementary reading
instruction was still not hitting the mark, and with dire consequences. Citing the results of
the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the report (Feister, 2010)
revealed only 17 percent of low-income students and 33 percent of all students tested
were proficient in reading by third grade. The research report was one of the first widely
published studies to focus on the importance of reading by third grade. Students in grades
K-3 learn to read, but students from grades 4 through high school read to learn,
solidifying reading’s impact on mathematics, science, social studies, and all other courses
students engage in via reading (Feister, 2010).
What are the consequences for missing the Reading by Grade 3 (RBG3)
benchmark? Early Warning cites data that students who are unable to read by the end of
third grade are four times more likely not to graduate, with the odds worsening for those
10
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
11
students from low-income households, who are six times more likely not to graduate. The
cost to society for each of these high school dropouts was calculated to be $260,000 per
child based on 2009 dollars (Sum et al., 2009). The cost of lost opportunities for millions
of American students? Immeasurable.
In 2013, the Anne E. Casey Foundation issued a follow-up to its earlier work
titled Early Warning Confirmed. The report reiterated and updated the original 2010
Early Warning report’s findings, providing a renewed sense of urgency for the country to
sharpen its focus on early childhood literacy. Early Warning Confirmed identified five
specific research-based factors that impact a child’s ability to read: 1) a child’s readiness
for school; 2) chronic absence from school; 3) summer learning loss; 4) family stressors
that interfere with learning; and 5) quality reading instruction based on current researchbased strategies outlined by the National Reading Panel (Feister, 2013, p. 21). The report
emphasized the gap in 2011 NAEP reading scores – 29 points – between students from
low-income families and those from more affluent households, stressing the unfortunate
irony that unless these students were eventually able to learn to read so they could
graduate from high school, they were likely to repeat the cycle of poverty with their own
children (Feister, 2013).
Early Warning Confirmed framed literacy as an equity issue, challenging but not
unsolvable (Feister, 2013). It highlighted the literacy-focused initiatives that developed
between 2010 and 2013, such as the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading, a national
movement that galvanized 350 school districts (representing 8 million students in 34
states) to commit to having students reach reading proficiency by third grade. The
campaign continues its work to this day, and its website, gradelevelreading.net, is a
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
clearinghouse of resources for teachers, administrators, parents, and non-profit
organizations who want to help raise the bar for literacy achievement in their local
communities (Feister, 2013).
One outcome of the work of the National Reading Panel and the Anne E. Casey
Foundation was an expanded awareness of the importance of elementary literacy, not
only among educators but scientists as well, who were increasingly interested in what had
been dubbed the “science of reading.” A case in point is neuroscientist and
psycholinguist, Mark Seidenberg, who launched his 2017 book, Language at the Speed of
Sight. Seidenberg’s book traced the research on the origins of language development and
the impact of learning to read on the human brain. His findings shed new light on the
relationship between speech and reading. As Seidenberg (2017) stated, “We read with our
eyes but the starting point for reading is speech” (p. 20).
Seidenberg proved his point through a survey of world languages that showed oral
speech always precedes written language; the reverse is never true. His research
confirmed that there is a strong reciprocal relationship between speech and print. It is the
beginning reader’s primary task to make the connection between the speech he or she
uses and hears, and the written words on the page. Writing encodes spoken language. The
process of reading decodes the words on the page so the reader can “hear” the words
again, either spoken aloud or most often quietly as they read to themselves. In this model
of how children learn to read, speech and language acquisition play a critical role in the
reading process.
Table 1 lists other findings that reveal how speech and reading are interconnected,
yet distinct (Seidenberg, 2017, p. 25):
12
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
13
Table 1
A Comparison of Speech Versus Reading
Speech
Reading
Speech evolved in the species.
Reading is a cultural artifact; not all
cultures read.
Speech is universal; in the absence of a
Reading proficiency varies widely from
speech impediment, everyone learns to
state to state, even county to county.
speak.
Children learn how to speak through
Reading is taught through informal
interactions with other language users.
interactions with parents or guardians like
bedtime stories or more formal instruction
at school.
Speech is fast fading and can be messy
Writing was developed to transcend the
with wide variations of inflection and
impermanence of speech, enabling a
tone. Listeners are at the mercy of the
passage to be read repeatedly. It has
speaker.
structure, grammar, and punctuation.
Readers control the speed at which they
absorb written words.
Seidenberg’s research, with its emphasis on the relationship between spoken
language and reading, supported the National Reading Panel’s case for phonemic
awareness. As Seidenberg (2017) stated, “Learning to treat spoken language as if it were
composed of phonemes is an important step to learning how to read an alphabetic writing
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
14
system” (p. 38). Enlisting cognitive science, Seidenberg looked at which specific areas of
the brain are involved during the reading process. He analyzed thousands of CT images,
which showed a surprising amount of the brain “lights up” during the reading process as
synapses from both the left and right sides of the brain engage.
Seidenberg also detailed the cognitive science behind dyslexia, an often
misunderstood developmental reading disorder affecting as many as one in five readers
(Moats, 2019). Seidenberg’s research clarified that dyslexia is not a vision problem that
causes readers to see letters in reverse, but a language processing issue where readers
struggle to make the necessary connections between speech and written words
(Seidenberg, 2017). Students with dyslexia are usually of average or above-average
intelligence. As Shaywitz (2021) stated, “…dyslexia is an island of weakness in a
sea of strengths” (p. 82).
While Seidenberg’s work shed light on the basic mechanisms that support skilled
reading and the causes of reading impairment - making visible what happens in the brain
during the process - the science of reading had to be linked to the science of teaching in
order to make an impact in the classroom. As noted by Shanahan (2020):
The cognitive and neuropsychological studies that Seidenberg examined on how
readers read words are an important part of the science of reading instruction but
not just or even mainly because they are high-quality studies. These studies are
valuable because they have contributed to our understanding of reading
instruction through their consistency with the findings of extensive instructional
experiments that have demonstrated consistently and overwhelmingly that explicit
and systematic teaching of decoding is beneficial. (p.7)
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Shanahan appreciated the cognitive science validating the pedagogy reforms he
helped promote 17 years earlier in the 2010 National Reading Panel’s report. But it was
Harvard researcher and educator Louisa Moats who eventually built the bridge between
the science and pedagogy of reading. In her 2019 journal article, Structured Literacy:
Effective Instruction for Students with Dyslexia and Related Reading Difficulties, Moats
confirmed the critical need to use phonemic awareness in early literacy instruction with
students, particularly those experiencing dyslexia. Her belief was that the immersion
method of reading instruction does not work with these students, yet she was
optimistic that student reading deficits could be overcome through effective teaching.
Moats was encouraged by research (Figure 1) estimating that “95 percent of
elementary students, regardless of background, are cognitively capable of learning to
read when they receive sufficient direct instruction on the foundational skills of
reading.”
Figure 1
Early Reader Profile
Note. From the report Narrowing the Third-Grade Reading Gap (EAB, 2019, p.7)
15
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Structured literacy is the term Moats coined for systemic, explicit instruction that
focuses on language processing skills by building phonemic awareness. Moats believed
structured literacy benefited all students but was especially critical in order for struggling
readers to be successful (Moats, 2019). She developed a teacher training program,
Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS), based on these
concepts. Teachers who completed the full training regimen and implemented the LETRS
strategies - with a focus on explicit instruction on decoding strategies - showed positive
results, especially with students that had in the past experienced significant reading
difficulties (Hanford, 2018). Moats’ work provided teachers with detailed instructional
strategies that could help students with reading difficulties decipher the relationship
between spoken and written language, thus making the cognitive research of Seidenberg
something that could be tangibly implemented in an elementary classroom.
A meta-analysis of 235 research studies showed the effectiveness of structured
literacy, indicating that phonemic awareness played a “pivotal” role in reading
development (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2012, p. 10). Yet the balanced literacy approach, with
its three-cueing system and only some phonemic awareness skill-building, was reported
by 72 percent of teachers in the 2019 Education Week survey as the predominant
instructional methodology used in most American classrooms (Education Week Research
Center, 2020). In her 2020 journal article, Teaching Reading IS Rocket Science: What
Expert Teachers Of Reading Should Know And Be Able To Do, Moats (2020) responded
to what she thought was at the root of the disconnect. Acknowledging that the body of
evidence to guide the practice of teaching was “stronger than it has ever been,” Moats
(2020) also added:
Unfortunately, much of this research is not yet included in teacher preparation
16
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
17
programs, widely used curricula, or professional development, so it should come
as no surprise that typical classroom practices often deviate substantially from
what is recommended by our most credible sources. As a result, reading
achievement is not as strong as it should be for most students, and the
consequences are particularly dire for students from the least advantaged families
and communities. (p.1)
So where do things stand now? The pendulum does seem to have swung back to a
more structured literacy approach to reading, one where phonemic awareness and
decoding skills are foundational for all students, although balanced literacy may be used
to supplement reading opportunities for those students who demonstrate consistent
progress with the development of foundational reading skills (Burkins & Yates, 2022).
Mississippi school districts mandated intensive LETRS training for its K-3
teachers, despite fears that a presumably “dry” phonics-based curriculum may not only
extinguish a love of learning but a love of teaching (Hanford, 2020). Fortunately, that did
not happen. Teachers became excited when they could see the proverbial lightbulbs going
on for students who had previously struggled. In 2020, in what has been called the
“Mississippi Miracle,” the state had the highest NAEP gains in the country (Luscombe,
2022); once the lowest, their fourth-grade students are now posting scores on par with the
national average.
Change, especially in education, happens slowly – then all at once. In a nod to the
2010 Early Warning report, most states, including Pennsylvania (via its Future Ready
Index), now monitor third-grade reading proficiency as a measure of student success.
Recognizing that quality instruction lies at the root of affecting significant change,
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
18
from 2013 through 2022 26 states have enacted laws requiring the use of “evidencebased” reading instruction, an umbrella term that includes programs based on the science
of reading, structured literacy, or the simple view of reading (Luscombe, 2022). And in
January 2022, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed legislation (HB 2045),
through a unanimous vote, requiring all pre-service teachers to complete professional
development in the science of reading.
Impacts on Early Childhood Literacy
As of 2020 in Pennsylvania, compulsory schooling does not begin until a child
reaches six years old, but a child’s education, in reality, begins as soon as they are born
(Sahakian et al., 2022). Early childhood is a critical period for brain development, with
birth to age two being the fastest growth period according to recent cognitive research
(Sahakian et al., 2022). Richter et al. (2021) confirmed “children’s brain volumes
double during their first year and reach 80–90% of their adult sizes by age 3” (p. 2).
Although growth continues through adolescence and the brain remains open to
new knowledge throughout the course of one’s lifetime, the early stage is critical for
neurodevelopment, cognition, learning, and behavior. “To optimize typical development, it
is important to seize the critical period for early educational activities and to make this
experience of good quality, thus ensuring the best outcomes in the future” (Sahakian et
al., 2022, p.5).
These findings were confirmed by Dicataldo and Roch (2022) in their research on
the impact of toddlers’ engagement in language activities and the impact on language
acquisition. Dicataldo and Roch (2022) noted the most intensive period of language
development is during the first years of life, during which the brain is developing
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
19
rapidly. “Research has shown that children from disadvantaged households who received
high-quality stimulation at a young age grew into adults who earned an average of 25%
more than those who did not receive these interventions” (Dicataldo & Roch, 2022, p.1).
Their research surfaced the impact of the home environment on a child’s early language
acquisition, with positive correlations between higher levels of maternal education and
future higher performance on standardized tests (Dicataldo & Roch, 2022, p. 5).
Both of these studies referenced the landmark Hart and Risley report, Early
Catastrophe: The Thirty Million Word Gap by Age 3. Researchers Hart and Risley
entered the homes of 42 families from various socioeconomic backgrounds over a
period of four years to assess the ways in which daily exchanges between a parent and
child shape language and vocabulary development (Hart & Risley, 2003). Their findings
broke new ground, documenting as much as a 30 million word gap - or 300 percent
difference - between children from affluent families and children from low-income
families (Hart & Risley, 2003). The study found that between 86 and 98 percent of a
child’s vocabulary was derived from their parents or guardians (Hart & Risley, 2003).
Going further, the study found children from low-income families were exposed to 616
words per hour, while children from middle to high-come families were exposed to
2152 words per hour (Hart & Risley, 2003). Follow-up studies have shown that these
differences in interactive language experiences can have lasting effects on a child’s
performance later in life (Dicataldo & Roch, 2022).
What the research has made clear is that parents and guardians – not school
districts – are a child’s first teachers, and they should be made aware of the importance of
cultivating their child’s language acquisition. While it is not necessary for parents to
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
20
“teach” reading per se, or for a child to know how to read prior to coming to school, it is
helpful for a child to have an adult read to them prior to entering school, or at a minimum
be exposed to language frequently, whether it’s through talking, reading, or even singing
(Brown et al., 2019). According to Hart and Risley (2003):
Within a child’s early life, the caregiver is responsible for most, if not all,
social simulation, and consequently language and communication
development. How parents and/or guardians interact with their children is of
great consequence given it lays an important foundation, impacting the way
the children process future information many years down the road. (p. 3)
Engaged parenting makes a difference in a child’s school readiness (Pasini, 2018).
It's somewhat like a relay race, in that the more parents and/or guardians can help their
child progress with the cognitively challenging task of language acquisition from birth to
age five, the greater the likelihood that educators will be able to take the baton and help
the child reach the next leg of the language acquisition journey: learning to read. That is
why Pasini (2018) advocated for a collective impact approach to address the problem of
illiteracy. Collective impact is where organizations rally around a single issue to address
a social challenge that no one agency or group could successfully address alone (Pasini,
2018). In her case study, Pasini highlighted the San Mateo Big Lift project in which
parents, libraries, and over 30 other community groups successfully united in their efforts
to tackle the challenge of having children read by third grade (Pasini, 2018).
The Big Lift project serves seven of the neediest school districts in San Mateo
County, impacts more than 4000 children, and focuses on what project leaders have
defined as their “four pillars” (Pasini, 2018, p. 609):
•
High-quality preschool for 2000 children;
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
•
21
Summer learning programs for 1200 kindergarten through grade 2
children;
•
Targeted attendance messages to the families of the 4000 participating
children;
•
Parent engagement programs such as Raise a Reader and other programs.
The Big Lift program has produced tangible results, with students who participated in the
summer learning programs gaining up to 1.5 months of learning as opposed to the
traditional 2 months loss (a net gain of 3.5 months), and 97 percent of parents reporting
they would recommend the Big Lift Inspiring Summers program to other parents (Pasini,
2018, p. 614). Less tangible but still important benefits have come from the partnerships,
connections, and shared focus of the community as a result of this initiative.
Part of the success of Big Lift was its ability to engage both children and parents.
Parent engagement programs like Big Lift that provide mentoring can have a significant
effect on a child’s language development and overall cognitive development (Brown et al.,
2019). Family literacy or home literacy programs involve family members participating
in literacy activities within the home environment and can have many positive effects
beyond language acquisition, including expanded background knowledge, improved
socialization, and a greater sense of belonging within the family and community (Brown
et al., 2019, p. 64). “Involving parents in their child’s literacy development has been
identified as one of the most important supports for a child’s academic success” (Brown
et al., 2019, p. 66).
There are a variety of strategies to support parents as their child’s first teacher. In
some communities, pediatricians - often the first point of contact for new parents - are
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
22
starting to provide newborn parents with books and reading tips through programs like
Reach Out and Read (Thakur et al., 2016). In some communities like Charlotte, North
Carolina, and the Lehigh Valley in Pennsylvania (via lehighvalleyreads.org), parents can
sign up for a free texting service called Parent Powered to have research-based child
development strategies sent to their phones several times a week. Some communities
offer free access to digital book libraries such as World Reader, or book delivery
services, such as the Imagination Library, where parents can register at no cost to have an
age-appropriate book sent to their home monthly, from the time their child is born until
they reach five years old, resulting in the development of a home library of up to 60 highquality books before the child enters school.
The Imagination Library, funded by the Dolly Parton Foundation, has distributed
over 200 million books in the United States since the program’s inception in 1995. In their
research study of the Imagination Library, Ridzi et al. (2016) showed that the program
has a positive effect. The study examined 2,741 incoming kindergarteners in the Syracuse
Area School District and assessed their readiness using the AimsWeb Letter Naming
Fluency (LNF) test in the fall of 2013 and 2014. The results? A significantly higher
number of students (29 percent) who consistently used the program over a period of three
years were proficient on the LNF test, even when accounting for demographic
differences (Ridzi et al., 2016, p. 16). The Imagination Library is currently available in
47 Pennsylvania communities, including Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Lancaster, Kutztown,
Wyoming Valley, and Carbon County (Imagination Library, n.d.). Nationally, Governor
Gavin Newsom recently signed a law enabling all preschool California children to
participate in the program, joining seven other states that also offer the program.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Ridzi’s findings were confirmed by Silinskas et al. (2020) in their journal article,
Home Literacy Activities and Children’s Reading Skills. The longitudinal study found
“the frequency of shared reading and teaching of reading at home” directly correlated
with an increase in independent reading one year later (Silinskas et al., 2020). Children
who engaged in reading activities at home with their parents became more confident and
overall better readers who went on to read more on their own. As for the format of the
books being read – print or digital – Kulikova (2019) found in her meta-analysis of the
benefits and drawbacks of each format that the overall difference in impact on a child’s
reading proficiency was not statistically significant, with a tilt to print books since parents
were more likely to engage in reading a print book with their child versus on a device,
thus promoting the parent-child bond. A longitudinal study by Capotosto (2022)
tracked the types of books in low-income homes, noting that it was not only the
presence of books but the availability of age-appropriate books that made a difference
in students’ later testing in third grade. Students from the study who scored proficient
or above had access to books that were at or below their reading level, while students
who were below proficiency either lacked access to books or had books that were too
difficult for them to successfully read at home (Capotosto, 2022).
In 2002, the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) was convened to study
synthesized research regarding early childhood development from birth to age 5,
including the impact of a child’s home environment. Timothy Shanahan, a leading
member of the 1997 National Reading Panel and co-author of its subsequent report,
Teaching Children to Read (2000), was also involved in this similarly expansive effort.
The primary goal of the report was to “identify interventions, parenting activities, and
23
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
instructional practices that promote the development of children’s early literacy skills”
(National Early Literacy Panel, 2008, p. 14).
After extensive analysis, the panel issued its 2008 report, Developing Early
Literacy, which identified six variables or precursors with a medium to high correlation
to a child’s later conventional literacy skill development such as word recognition and
decoding (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008, p. 59). These six skills are:
alphabet knowledge (AK): knowledge of the names and sounds associated with
printed letters;
phonological awareness (PA): the ability to detect, manipulate, or analyze the
auditory aspects of spoken language (including the ability to distinguish or
segment words, syllables, or phonemes), independent of meaning;
rapid automatic naming (RAN) of letters or digits: the ability to rapidly name a
sequence of random letters or digits;
RAN of objects or colors: the ability to rapidly name a sequence of repeating
random sets of pictures of objects (e.g., “car,” “tree,” “house,” “man”) or colors;
writing or writing name: the ability to write letters in isolation on request or to
write one’s own name;
phonological memory: the ability to remember spoken information for a short
period of time (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008, p. 60).
While parents can help their children acquire these skills, especially if they are
provided information or coaching, these skills are often explicitly taught in early
childhood education programs (Peisner-Feinberg, 2020). Several studies have examined
the impact of early childhood education, sometimes referred to as “PreK” and its impact
on school readiness and future learning outcomes.
24
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
“More than 10 million children who live below the poverty threshold attend public
PreK-12 schools, and over 1 million of these children attend public pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten” (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2017). According to AlleeHerndon and Roberts (2018), “especially in early childhood, poverty poses the single
greatest threat to children’s well-being and educational equity” (p. 5). They advocate
for quality PreK programs that include purposeful play opportunities such as
storytelling accompanied by opportunities for students to talk and draw about what they
hear; games and puzzles that build executive function; and dancing and music that build
gross motor functions. These purposeful play activities, Allee-Herndon and Roberts
(2018) point out, are also beneficial to children in the early primary grades of
elementary school (p. 7).
In Pennsylvania, there is a state-funded Pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds
called Pennsylvania Pre-K Counts (PA PKC). The goal of PA PKC is to help reduce
educational disparities by providing high-quality pre-kindergarten for children who
lack opportunities or reside in environments that place them at risk of school failure.
In studying 52 school districts that participate in PA PKC, Peisner-Feinberg (2020)
documented evidence to support that the program makes a difference in preparing
children for school. Overall, the study found positive learning outcomes for math and
language arts, regardless of demographics. Further, for children who participated in PA
PKC, “these effects were equivalent to an increase of approximately 5 months of learning
for vocabulary, 4 months for math problem-solving skills, and 5 months for knowledge of
math concepts” (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2022, p. 26).
The Parent-Child Home Program (www.parentchildplus.org) is another program
25
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
available to select low-income families in Pennsylvania. This program involves having
early childhood educators enter directly into homes to work with parents and children
twice a week. The results are promising, with longitudinal data showing 84 percent
of participating children later reach grade-level reading targets and graduate from
high school (Hanna & Graham, 2022). The findings suggest that both PA PKC and
Parent- Child Home programs offer children from at-risk homes in Pennsylvania an
important buffer and head start to ensure their readiness for kindergarten.
Although kindergarten is not required in Pennsylvania, according to
Pennsylvania School Code 51.62 (Admission of Students), students as young as 4 years
7 months old may attend a full or half-day kindergarten program if it is available at
their local public school district, charter school, or cyber charter school. Fortunately,
according to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (n.d.), there are 428 school
districts in Pennsylvania (out of 500) that offer full-day kindergarten programs,
although it is important to note this includes school districts that offer half-day
kindergarten with a full-day option for select students.
According to Giaquinto (2015), “Pennsylvania kindergarten policies at both the
state and local levels differ significantly, including areas such as availability, length of
the day, entry assessments, quality of instruction, class size, funding, teacher preparation
and licensure, and curriculum” (p.1). The end result is not all five-year-olds attend
kindergarten and those who do attend may be in kindergarten for varying times and learn
different things. In his study of two rural school districts in Lehigh County, Giaquinto
(2015) found the students in full-day kindergarten outperformed the students in half-day
kindergarten in reading fluency as measured by DIBELS, in all areas except for one,
26
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
although there were tangible positive results found in both full and half-time kindergarten
programs.
These findings were confirmed by a longitudinal research study from Stanley et al.
(2017), that used DIBELS to establish baseline reading fluency skills for kindergarten
students and the Simple View of Reading (SVR) as a framework for deciphering the
results. In the SVR framework, language comprehension and decoding skills provide the
foundation for reading comprehension (Moats, 2019).
In this study, researchers investigated the correlation between several DIBELS
reading fluency indicators with kindergarten students (n=3180) against the students’ later
reading comprehension scores in third and tenth grade. The findings lent plausibility to
the SVR framework, indicating that kindergarten students’ decoding skills correlate to the
students’ third-grade and even tenth-grade reading comprehension abilities. The
researchers suggested greater attention should be paid to students’ decoding skills even as
early as kindergarten or PreK, pointing to countries such as Finland where parents of
young children are provided research-based phonemic awareness games. These games
not only develop language skills but identify at-risk students and students who may have
dyslexia (Stanley et al., 2017, p. 150). An example is GraphoGame
(https://www.educationfinland.fi/member/graphogame) available in 250 languages,
including English and Spanish.
The relationship between a child’s ability to read and the quality of instruction they
receive is also well documented. In their study, Brokamp et al. (2018) showed that
teachers who were able to stay focused on core concepts, used data successfully to target
interventions, and motivated students to read more (especially texts that grew their
27
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
28
knowledge base) had students who were successfully able to reach grade-level proficiency
in reading (p. 1). An ancillary benefit was that as students’ reading ability improved so
did their behavior (Brokamp et al., 2018).
These findings were confirmed in a qualitative study reviewing the process of two
schools that were transitioning from a balanced literacy instructional approach to a
science of reading approach. Warren (2019) stated that teachers who were more
inclined to adopt the science of reading approach were provided access to an
instructional coach, someone who could provide feedback on their instruction. Teachers
were also motivated to use this new methodology after they saw their students’ reading
skills improve. These early adopters were then able to influence other teachers within
their school to follow suit, even teachers who had been firmly committed to the balanced
literacy approach (Warren, 2019). This echoed the advice of Moats (2020), who
emphasized that learning how to teach reading is a complex task, one that requires a
systemic process, encouragement, coaching, patience, and time. School districts that have
been successful with transitioning to the science of reading approach often have at least
one staff member - a lead teacher, reading specialist, or principal – who is skilled in the
methodology and can provide teachers with support.
In a 2018 mixed methods study that tested the reading knowledge of 42 Texas
principals and interviewed the staff and principals on their leadership abilities, Baker
(2003), outlined the behaviors of principals that consistently led to higher levels of
reading achievement (p. 103):
1. The ability to empower strong reading teachers and support their efforts as they
do their job. As one administrator commented during an interview (“…leadership
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
is not found in the principal alone”) (p. 103).
2. The principal needs at least a rudimentary understanding of reading instruction,
although they do not need to be experts (p 103).
3. Autonomy or shared decision-making was consistently modeled by successful
principals (p. 104).
4. Successful principals earmarked resources for professional development, and they
participated in professional development activities with their staff. They could
and did model effective teaching practices for the staff as appropriate (p. 104).
5. Visibility and accessibility were also identified as key features of strong effective
leaders (p. 105).
6. The principal is the main catalyst for change. Although he or she does not need to
be viewed as the source of all instructional knowledge, the principal is the lead
champion for maintaining a building culture and climate that consistently
reaffirms a belief that all children can learn. (p. 105).
Looking at teachers’ perceptions of what is behind the literacy success of a highperforming school was the concept behind the 2019 qualitative study by Georgiou
et al. Their research solicited the opinions of all language arts teachers from a
Canadian school that had consistently high reading scores as measured by
standardized tests. The teachers’ comments were then reviewed by the principal and
reading specialist for their respective feedback (Georgiou et al., 2019).
To what did the teachers attribute their school’s success with reading?
Comments like “a school-wide focus on improving reading”; “weekly collaborative
teams focused on job-embedded professional development”; “common formative
29
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
assessments given by grade level teams”; and “common team planning time” received
the highest scores (Georgiou et al., 2019, p. 5). The principal, in his review of the
teacher’s responses, commented that the teachers in his building were a very collegial
group with a strong esprit de corp. As he noted “one teacher’s struggle becomes
everyone’s problem,” and teachers in his building would routinely venture into each
other’s classrooms (Georgiou et al., 2019, p. 11).
Skilled teachers, working with an encouraging principal in a collaborative,
student-centered environment, with classrooms rich in knowledge-building literacy
resources, were cited as the most important elements of the school’s high literacy scores
(Georgiou et al., 2019). These factors superseded even the amount of instructional time
spent on teaching English/Language Arts in third grade based on the results of a 2017
study that cross-referenced student achievement scores on the New Jersey Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (NJAKS) against the instructional time New Jersey school districts
in New Jersey reported on the annual state report card. “Through statistical analysis
using simultaneous multiple regressions, as well as hierarchical regressions, it was found
that the amount of instructional time for a school did not have a statistically significant
impact on student achievement” (Telischak, 2016, p. 134), demonstrating it is not the
quantity but the quality of instruction that makes a difference.
Research studies found that other factors such as technology, classroom libraries,
and school libraries also had an impact on student reading achievement. A 2016
quantitative experimental design study found first through third-grade students who used
the Lexia Reading Core5 software program made significant gains on the NWEA MAP
assessment (17 points) as compared to students in the control group who did not use the
30
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
software and saw only a five-point gain (Taylor et al., 2018). Larger comparative
increases were noted in students who had special needs or were from low-income
households. The general requirement was 60 minutes per week in order for the program
to be successful.
Another technology that showed promise for reading instruction was voice
amplification systems. Voice amplification systems provide mild to moderate volume
increase and more even distribution of a teacher’s voice in the classroom. This
technology is especially important in the primary classroom where much of the
instruction is spoken, and gaining phonemic awareness requires the ability of students to
hear the teacher clearly. An experimental design study showed a slight (2.8 percent)
improvement in first-grade reading scores in classrooms that used voice amplification
systems versus those that did not use the technology (Millett & Purcell, 2010). A
comprehensive meta-analysis of 21 studies reviewing voice amplification systems found
positive effects on student learning with the caveat that factors such as a child’s
background, location in the classroom, overall classroom layout, and tonal quality of the
teacher’s voice need to be taken into consideration (Mealings, 2022).
Finally, multiple studies have confirmed the impact of a school library on student
reading outcomes. Students from a random sampling of 39 Ohio schools participated in a
qualitative survey about their school’s library, with 99.4 percent reporting they felt the
library played a role in helping them become better learners (Todd & Kuhlthau, 2001, p.
50). In addition, students who were able to check out at least one book a week, or
participated in a library’s summer learning program, experienced the most benefit
from their school library (Roman & Fiore, 2010). As stated by Bogel (2006) “school
libraries play an active and important role in student learning and achievement” (p. 51).
31
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Effects of Early Childhood Literacy
For elementary students, third grade is a gateway year. It is where the pivot begins
from learning to read to reading to learn. For students who have reached reading
proficiency, the door to further learning opportunities opens wider; for those who are still
struggling to learn to read, the doorway begins to narrow (EAB, 2019).
There are several reasons for this. An influential textbook by Emmett Betts
published 70 years ago, Foundations of Reading Instruction, established three levels of
reading for students: independent, instructional, and frustration (Shanahan, 2020). Texts
that may be too easy for developing readers (independent level) or too difficult
(frustration level) do not lead to higher levels of academic growth. Ideally, the texts that
students read are at an instructional level, where they are not too difficult for a student to
read, especially with the assistance of a skilled teacher. Instructional texts force the
student to stretch and grow, but not become discouraged.
The problem, as illustrated in the 2019 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) results - sometimes referred to as the “nation’s report card” - is that
only 34 percent of the 294,000 fourth-grade students tested were proficient in reading
(NAEP, 2022). While this is an increase from the 29 percent seen in 1992, as
illustrated in Figure 2 the pandemic has reduced even the small gains made over the last
three decades in reading as reported by NAEP (2022). The gap between the number of
students Moats (2020) stated should be able to read (95 percent) and the number of
American students who actually are reading on grade level by fourth grade is
significant and persistent.
32
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
33
Figure 2
2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Results
Although ideally students are provided challenging texts that force them to stretch
and expand their reading skills (Shanahan, 2020), too many students who are below grade
level for reading can find their textbooks incomprehensible (National Conference of
State Legislatures, 2019). This problem is compounded since many of the supports found
in the early primary grades for struggling readers are no longer in place for students once
they leave elementary school. Yet the current system of secondary instruction in most
subjects is heavily text-based, designed on the assumption that by fourth grade the
majority of students are skilled readers.
This is consistent with studies linking third-grade reading proficiency with
achievement in other subjects. In a 2020 longitudinal study of over 350K students,
researchers found a statistically significant relationship established between students’
reading proficiency in primary grades and later achievement in mathematics, although it
is interesting to note that the study did not show the reverse; strong math skills in early
grades did not necessarily correlate to the development of strong reading skills (Hübner
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
et al., 2022). Specifically, “the largest change in mathematics achievement predicted by
reading was found for average or above-average reading achievement levels in
combination with low mathematics achievement levels” (Hübner et al., 2022, p. 24).
Poor reading comprehension manifests itself in not only reduced learning but also
overall student engagement. As students become less able to learn via their textbooks,
some students may even start to display negative classroom behaviors. But the opposite is
also true. As noted by Brokamp et al. (2018), in a study of 66 third-grade classrooms and
593 third-grade students, “the higher the students’ reading fluency level is at the
beginning of Grade 3, the better their task-focused behavior, emotional stability, and
compliant behavior are at the end of Grade 3” (p. 7). This relationship was confirmed by
research from the ABCD Project, a well-known longitudinal study, which showed that
reading for pleasure is one of the most cognitively rewarding activities that children can
engage in, resulting in not only smarter but happier children, with fewer behavioral issues
and mental health benefits that extend into adolescence (Sahakian et al., 2022, p. 16).
Beyond other grade-level subjects, current studies have linked reading
performance at the elementary level to reading comprehension in middle school and high
school: “79% of the variance in high school reading ability can be accounted for by
intensity of foundational skills instruction in 1st grade” (EAB, 2019, p. 20). This concept
is aligned with the Simple View of Reading (SVR), which looks at reading
comprehension as the result of a student’s ability to decode words (and automatically
recognize words on sight) coupled with the ability to apply correct meaning to the words.
For example, it is not enough for a student to be able to recognize the word “light” - they
must also be able to understand what the word means given the context in which it is
34
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
35
written. Extracting meaning from words on a page is the purpose of reading. Decoding
alone is not enough to create meaning, but it is a powerful start. The research shows a
student’s ability to decode words as an emergent reader influences the student’s future
reading comprehension skills (EAB, 2019).
This was confirmed by a longitudinal study that reviewed the link between 3100
Florida students’ third-grade Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores against the students’
later tenth-grade reading comprehension achievement results as measured by the state
Florida Assessment for Instruction in Reading (FAIR). The analysis found that thirdgrade ORF scores were a strong predictor of tenth-grade FAIR assessment outcomes, and
elementary students with strong reading fluency skills were more apt to become high
school students with better reading comprehension skills (Stanley et al., 2017).
The findings from this study aligned with the 2020 National Center for Analysis
of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research (CALDER) report, Assessing the Accuracy
of Elementary School Test Scores as Predictors of Students’ High School Outcomes.
Using panel data spanning grades 3-12 from three states (North Carolina, Massachusetts,
and Washington), the CALDER study investigated the link between third-grade state test
results and three specific high school learning outcomes: 1) tenth-grade state test scores;
2) the probability of taking advanced math courses; and 3) high school graduation
(Goldhaber et al., 2020). Their findings showed that the state test results from third grade
had almost as much predictive value in determining high school outcomes as the state test
results from eighth grade in determining later high school outcomes.
This held true across state lines but not across socio-economic levels (Goldhaber
et al., 2020, p. 2). The CALDER study provided quantitative evidence of the role poverty
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
plays in reducing the gains made possible by elementary reading mastery.
An economically disadvantaged student (EDS) in third grade lowers the
student’s predicted position in the high school math distribution by 5.8
percentile points; the predicted probability of taking an advanced course in
high school by 9.7 percentile points; and the predicted probability of graduation
by 10.2 percentage points” (Goldhaber et al., 2020, p. 3).
This data does not negate the importance of early childhood literacy. On the contrary, it
shows how critical a strong academic foundation is for students to have a chance at
overcoming the burdens of poverty (Goldhaber et al., 2020, p. 24).
These findings are in alignment with previous research studies cited by the Anne
E. Casey Foundation, Early Warning (2010) and Early Warning Confirmed (2013), and a
third report from 2011, How Third Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence
Graduation. In this report, the findings from a longitudinal study tracked 4,000 students
in New York, demonstrating those who did not read proficiently by third grade were four
times more likely to leave school without a diploma than proficient readers:
For the worst readers, those who couldn’t master even the basic skills by third
grade, the rate is nearly six times greater. While these struggling readers account
for about a third of the students, they represent more than three-fifths of those
who eventually drop out or fail to graduate on time. What’s more, the study shows
that poverty has a powerful influence on graduation rates. The combined effect of
reading poorly and living in poverty puts these children in double jeopardy.
(Hernandez et al., 2011, p. 3)
A 2019 study, A Quantitative Research Study on the Future Impacts of Third
36
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
37
Grade Reading, sought to replicate the findings from the Anne E. Casey reports for
students in Utah. In this longitudinal study tracking students from 2010 to 2019, Dalton
looked at the relationship between third-grade reading test scores and the alignment with
eighth-grade state assessment results, eleventh-grade ACT scores, and graduation rates.
The findings:
Nearly nine of 10 students in the exceed expectations category on the third-grade
reading assessment graduated high school as compared to only six in 10 who did
not meet the expectations.
Economically disadvantaged students in all three reading categories had
graduation rates nearly 10 points lower when compared to students from less
financially distressed families.
Seventy-five percent of students who scored in the exceeds expectations category
took the SAT or ACT compared to only 25 percent of students in the does not
meet expectations category. (Dalton, 2019, p. 18)
These data suggest correlations exist between third-grade reading proficiency and
future academic success as measured by common performance benchmarks. But what
impact does third-grade reading have on a student’s access to future coursework?
Although there appears to be a clear throughline between early childhood literacy and
graduation rates, is there a similar connection between early childhood literacy and the
type of courses in which students enroll in high school? The impact of early childhood
literacy and its impact on high school learning opportunities, the focus of this study, is
not as heavily researched, perhaps due to a lack of longitudinal data and the disparities
that exist in high school programming.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
A 2010 longitudinal study of 26,000 students attending Chicago Public Schools
examined the connection between third-grade reading and later high school outcomes.
The report, Third Grade Reading: How Is It Related to High School Performance and
College Enrollment, had several findings:
Fewer than 20 percent of students who were below grade level in third grade
attended college, compared to about a third of students who were at grade level,
and nearly 60 percent of students who were reading above grade level (Lesnick et
al., 2010, p. 2).
There was a strong correlation (r=0.67) between students’ reading proficiency in
third grade and eighth grade (Lesnick et al., 2010, p. 20). This is particularly
important for Chicago Public Schools since students who meet certain academic
and attendance requirements in eighth grade have their choice of which high
school to attend. The study showed that higher-performing eighth-grade students
chose higher-performing high schools.
There were marked differences in high school attendance among the students who
were either below grade level, at grade level, or above grade level in reading in
third grade. Students who were below grade level averaged 15 days absent per
semester; students at grade level averaged nine days absent per semester; students
who were above grade level averaged five days absent per semester (Lesnick et
al., 2010, p. 41).
Another 2010 study, High Achievement on Advanced Placement Exams: The
Relationship of School-level Contextual Factors to Performance, looked at the factors
which influence student performance on Advanced Placement (AP) course exams. AP
38
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
courses are often a metric in determining the rigor of a high school’s academic program.
The study indicated poverty did play a role in the number of students enrolled in AP
courses, with high-poverty school districts offering fewer AP opportunities than more
affluent school districts (Burney, 2010). The study cited Adelman’s 1999 longitudinal
research which indicated that having even one high school AP course on their transcript
nearly doubled the chances of a student graduating from college (Burney, 2010, p. 116).
These findings aligned with a later 2008 study, Who's Taking the Advanced
Placement Courses and How Are They Doing: A Statewide Two-Year Study, that
examined AP testing results in all Texas high school campuses from 2004-05 and 200506. Despite the AP Board’s statement on equitable practices, the study posited that
Texas students of color and economically disadvantaged students were not enrolled in
AP courses in percentages equal to the local school’s general population (Moore &
Slate, 2008). The authors of the study stated “We contend that all students should have
equal access to AP classes and AP exams. Unequal access here simply adds to the
inequities already present in today’s schools and society. We believe that schools can do
better” (Moore & Slate, 2008, p. 64).
Much is expected of schools because what happens in school has a broader
societal impact. Early Warning (2010) was one of the first studies to show the effect of
early childhood literacy on graduation rates. Students who do not graduate high school
are eight times more likely to be incarcerated (Renbarger et al., 2019), which helps
explain why 85 percent of teens in juvenile detention programs and 70 percent of
adults who are incarcerated are functionally illiterate as measured by the Program for the
International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) and reported by the National
39
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
40
Center for Educational Statistics (2019). According to Rothwell (2020), both the NCES data
and a 2020 Gallup research study showed 20 percent of American adults are functionally
illiterate, equivalent to the PIAAC level 0 or 1.
Based on NCES data, 54 percent of U.S. adults 16 to 74 years old - about 130
million people – are functionally literate but lack proficiency, reading at or below the
equivalent of a sixth-grade level (Rothwell, 2020, p. 3). They are at PIAAC level 2 or
below, with most having only the ability to complete simple forms and read basic texts.
As stated by Rothwell (2020), “this has dollars and cents implications because literacy is
correlated with several important outcomes such as personal income, employment
levels, health, and overall economic growth” (p. 4). Figure 3 illustrates the difference in
mean annual income based on PIAAC literacy levels (0-5) in US 2020 dollars.
Figure 3
Mean Income in 2017 by Level of Literacy (USD 2020)
Note. From the report Assessing the Economic Gains of Eradicating Illiteracy
(Rothwell, 2020, p. 3)
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
41
Not reading by third grade has a clear ripple effect in middle school, high
school, and beyond. British A. Robinson, President and CEO of the Barbara Bush
Foundation, an organization dedicated to combating illiteracy, stated: “America’s low
literacy crisis is largely ignored, historically underfunded and woefully underresearched, despite being one of the great solvable problems of our time” (Nietzel,
2020, p. 3).
Summary
A review of the literature on the relationship between early childhood literacy and
later high school learning outcomes is both disappointing and hopeful. It is
disappointing that a number of scientific studies have confirmed most students can read
if given the proper instruction and support (EAB, 2019). Yet, as indicated by the 2022
NAEP results, the majority of the nation’s students – more than 2/3 of fourth and eighth
graders tested – are still not proficient in reading (NAEP, 2022). The hope lies in that
although no one panacea will ensure a child eventually becomes literate, research shows
there are several factors that can have a measurable impact on a child’s ability to read,
regardless of demographics or zip code (Seidenberg, 2017).
What would the environment look like for a child who has a high probability of
reading by third grade and achieving later high school success? Research shows:
•
They would have parents or guardians that understand that their newborn
child’s mind is like a sponge, with the most rapid rates of brain
development occurring from birth to age two (Sahakian et al., 2022).
•
Parents or guardians would use this valuable time period to read or
simply talk to their child, exposing them to copious amounts of language
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
and knowledge as their child’s first teacher, recognizing children learn
to read with their ears first (Hart & Risley, 2003); (Seidenberg, 2017).
•
Parents and guardians of newborns and toddlers would have access to
reading/literacy resources to help them such as their pediatrician (Thakur
et al., 2016), public libraries (Roman & Fiore, 2010), and age-appropriate
books for their own home libraries (Ridzi et al., 2016).
•
Young children would have access to quality PreK (Peisner-Feinberg et al.,
2022) and kindergarten programs (Giaquinto, 2015), with all
kindergarten students screened for dyslexia (Moats, 2019); (Shaywitz,
2021).
•
Once in school, the child would learn the five essential reading skills as
defined by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 2000).
•
If a child is struggling to read, a teacher knowledgeable in the science of
reading would provide appropriate interventions to help the child
eventually “crack the code” (Moats, 2020). This would include having
the child read books designed to stretch and grow both his or her
emergent reading skills (Shanahan, 2020) and background knowledge
(Wexler, 2020).
•
By the end of third grade, the child should be proficient in reading so
they can continue to “read to learn” during the next several years of their
academic journey, hopefully becoming lifelong learners in the process
(Feister, 2010).
42
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
The reading proficiency of the child in third grade will most likely
determine his or her reading comprehension skills in eighth grade, which
in turn is linked to the child’s likelihood of success in high school and
beyond (Lesnick et al., 2010).
43
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
44
CHAPTER III
Methodology
A review of the literature made clear the importance of early childhood literacy
and the pivotal milestone of third-grade reading (Feister, 2010). It also confirmed the
need for a systemic, collective impact approach to early childhood literacy. The research
established that children begin the process of language acquisition from the time they are
born (Sahakian et al., 2022), and there are numerous opportunities for learning prior to a
child entering school, whether at home (Hart & Risley, 2003), at public libraries (Roman
& Fiore, 2010), or through a PreK learning center (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2022). Once
in school, research studies confirmed the need for high-quality literacy instruction
(Moats, 2019) using a systemic approach that includes phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, 2000), with access to knowledge-building books written at an
appropriate instructional level (Wexler, 2020).
The effects of not reaching the third-grade reading milestone were also clear, with
research demonstrating the impact on a child’s social and emotional health (Brokamp et
al., 2018), the likelihood of graduating from high school (Feister, 2010), attending
college (Lesnick et al., 2010), and future earnings potential (Nietzel, 2020).
What the research did not make as clear was the effect of early childhood literacy
on the coursework students had access to later in their academic careers as high school
students. Although there were longitudinal studies that demonstrated, for example, the
correlation between first-grade Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores and later high school
reading comprehension ability (Stanley et al., 2017), or the relationship between third-
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
45
grade test scores, enrollment in advanced high school math courses, and tenth-grade
standardized test scores (Goldhaber et al., 2020), these studies provided data tangential
to the main focus of this study: the relationship between third-grade reading proficiency
and later access to high school AP and PLTW courses. The need to have access to
longitudinal data spanning a period of at least eight years, coupled with the wide range of
course offerings in American high schools, may have limited the amount of research in
this area. It is challenging to make an apples-to-apples comparison from one school
district to the next. Yet it is important to understand the factors that may enhance or
preclude equitable student access to high school learning opportunities.
Purpose
The purpose of this action-research project is to examine what relationship exists
between early childhood literacy (as measured by the third-grade PSSA) and later access
to high school learning opportunities using the following research questions:
1. How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later student enrollment in
high school Advanced Placement (AP) courses?
2. How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later student enrollment in
high school Project Lead the Way courses?
3. What instructional practices and beliefs are common among Parkland’s
elementary staff in schools which have consistently high levels of students
reaching reading proficiency by third grade as measured by the PSSA?
Parkland School District offers diverse and rigorous educational programs that
enable students to engage in more than 160 electives and earn college credit while still in
high school. Parkland High School has three Project Lead the Way (PLTW) career
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
pathways (Biomedical Science, Computer Science, and Engineering) and 30 Advanced
Placement (AP) courses. Based on the 2022 AP test results, 82 percent of students who
took 769 AP tests achieved a score of three or higher, the qualifying score for most
colleges to accept AP courses for college credit (Parkland School District, 2022b). Dual
enrollment opportunities are available through Seton Hall University, and juniors and
seniors also have the option to enroll in Lehigh Carbon Community College (LCCC) and
graduate from Parkland High School with both a high school diploma and an associate
degree from LCCC. In 2022, the District reported more than 400 students participated
in a dual enrollment opportunity, and 96 percent of seniors graduated from Parkland
High School (Parkland School District, 2023). This research project is in keeping with
the District’s philosophy of excellence through equity, one that holds high expectations
for the success of all students reinforced through strong student support programs.
Settings and Participants
The Parkland School District is located in the region known as the Lehigh Valley,
the third-largest metropolitan area in Pennsylvania. The Lehigh Valley region of eastern
Pennsylvania is made up of Lehigh and Northampton counties and is home to the three
cities of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton, as well as numerous townships and
boroughs. According to the Parkland School District (2023), the region’s largest
employers are ADP, Air Products, Amazon, B. Braun Medical, Crayola, Lehigh
University, Mack Trucks, Olympus, and two hospital systems, Lehigh Valley Health
Network, St. Luke’s University Health Network, and Parkland School District itself, with
the District employing almost 1500 employees during the 2021-2022 school year.
46
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
47
The 72 square miles of the Parkland School District encompass three townships
with a total population of approximately 60,000. The District’s wide socio-economic
range results from bordering the city of Allentown on the southeast and extending to
farmland at the western and northern extremities. The District currently has one high
school (grades 9-12); two middle schools (grades 6-8); and nine elementary schools
(grades K-5). Parkland is experiencing rapid population growth, with two new
elementary schools built since 2010.
Diversity is a key strength of the District. According to the Parkland School
District (2023), the district had 9,694 students at the end of the 2021-2022 school year,
comprised of students from families that speak 39 different languages. Table 2
provides a demographic overview of the 2022-2023 student population:
Table 2
Parkland’s 2022-2023 Student Population Overview
Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch
32%
Receiving Special Education Services
15%
Receiving Gifted Education Services
5%
Number of English Language Learners
322
Diversity of Study Body:
White
60%
Hispanic
18%
Asian/Pacific Islander
13%
Black
5%
Multi-racial
4%
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
48
Archived PSSA exam data from testing years 2009, 2010, and 2011 for all
Parkland elementary schools, third-grade students only, was used to enable a comparison
of these third-grade students’ progress eight years later as students at Parkland High
School in academic years 2017, 2018, and 2019. Table 3 provides a demographic
overview of these three cohorts of third-grade students from PSSA testing years 2009,
2010, and 2011:
Table 3
Population Overview of Third-Grade Students from Testing Years 2009, 2010, and 2011
Eligible for
Free/Reduced
Lunch
IEP
(not gifted)
Diversity of
Student Population
2009
Total
Number
of
Students
673
12.9%
19.6%
2010
708
16.6%
20.5%
2011
700
16.5%
19.4%
Asian/Pacific Islander–7.7%
Black – 2.8%
Hispanic – 6.9%
Native American –0.7%
White – 81.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander–
10.5%
Black – 4%
Hispanic – 5.9%
Native American –0.2%
White – 79.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander–9.4%
Black – 2.8%
Hispanic – 6.5%
Multiracial – 1.1%
Native American –0.3%
White – 79.7%
The student population numbers in this table do not reflect the entire third-grade student
numbers since those special education students with the most significant cognitive needs
(less than 2 percent) qualified for the Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment
(PASA), a modified version of the PSSA that is a required accommodation in accordance
with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic
It should be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic, which shut down all
Pennsylvania schools in March 2020, caused the cancellation of PSSA and Keystone
exam testing in the Spring of 2020. Most Pennsylvania school districts, including
Parkland, transitioned from fully face-to-face instruction to fully online instruction, then
to various hybrid models of instruction, then back to fully face-to-face instruction, all
within the course of a single calendar year. PSSA and Keystone exam testing in 2021
yielded lower than typical test results for Parkland and most Pennsylvania school
districts, as per a statement by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (Hanna &
Graham, 2022), so 2019 is the last academic year to yield a valid longitudinal comparison
for this research study. Although the student population data reveal changes in Parkland’s
demographic composition over the course of the duration of the study (2009 through
2019) - with increases in the number of students eligible for the free or reduced lunch
program and decreases in the special education student population - these changes are not
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cohort Population Changes Over Time
It should also be noted that the third-grade students from 2009, 2010, and 2011
who stayed in the district long enough to enroll at Parkland High School were fewer than
the number of students in the original cohorts (673, 708, and 700, respectively). Some
Parkland students moved out of the area during this time while others chose to enroll in
the charter, cyber charter, and non-public schools within the Lehigh Valley. Table 4
represents the composition of students who were in the District consistently from third
through eleventh grade.
49
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
50
Table 4
Change in Cohort Population Demographics from 2009/2010/2011 to 2017/2018/2019
Cohort
Number
of
Students
2009/2017
673/535
Eligible for
Free or
Reduced
Lunch
12.9%/10.6%
2010/2018
708/553
16.6%/12.5%
2011/2019
700/558
16.5%/13.6%
IEP
(not gifted)
Diversity of
StudentPopulation
19.6%/19.3% Asian/Pacific Islander–7.7%/7.8%
Black – 2.8%/2.2%
Hispanic – 6.9%/5.6%
Native American–
0.7%/0.7%
White – 81.7%/83.5%
20.5%/17.7% Asian/Pacific Islander–10.5%/10%
Black – 4%/3.4%
Hispanic – 5.9%/5%
Native American–0.2%/0.1%
White – 79.3%/81.1%
19.4%/18.3% Asian/Pacific Islander–9.4%/9%
Black – 2.8%/3.0%
Hispanic – 6.5%/6.0%
Multiracial – 1.1%/0.7%
Native American–
0.3%/0.2%
White – 79.7%/81.0%
In looking at this data, there were 673 third-grade students in 2009 but only 535
students remained in the cohort by 11th grade; there were 708 third-grade students in
2010 but only 553 students remained in the cohort by 11th grade; and there were 700
third-grade students in 2011 but only 558 remained in the cohort by 11th grade. It is these
smaller populations of students – those that remained at Parkland throughout their
elementary, middle, and high school years – that were analyzed to determine what
courses these students enrolled in at Parkland High School.
Parkland High School Academic Programs
Parkland High School has a capacity of 3200 students and current enrollment
shows the school has a population of 3200 students (Parkland School District, 2023),
making it the fifth-largest high school in the state. Parkland High School’s focus on
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
51
personalized learning, whether it is through participation in Academics, Arts, or
Athletics (referred to as the district’s “three pillars”) is a purposeful effort to help
students discover their niche despite the large size of the school. Table 5 describes the
types of courses offered at Parkland High School (Parkland School District, 2022a).
Table 5
Parkland High School Course Types
Course Level
Description
AP= Advanced Placement
Parkland offers 30 AP courses in the areas of English,
science, social studies, math, art, and music. Courses
offer rigorous, college-level study following the
College Board’s curricula.
HRS = Honors
Honors courses are designed to offer a greater depth
of study at an accelerated pace.
GHP = Gifted/High Potential
These courses in English, math, science and social
studies use advanced research skills and higher-level
course materials.
CP= College Preparatory
These courses are moderately paced and are designed
for students considering continuing education.
CEW=Career/Education/Work
These courses provide required courses for students
Readiness
enrolled part-time at LCTI.
APPL= Applied (note:
Applied courses provided direct support and
Applied courses were
remediation for students who may have struggled with
discontinued in 2017)
traditional coursework.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
PLTW= Project Lead the Way
52
Project Lead the Way offers rigorous, hands-on
experience. Parkland offers three PLTW pathways in
Engineering, Computer Science, and Biomedical
Science. Each pathway consists of four courses.
Certain PLTW courses qualify for college credit.
AP/PLTW= course
There is one course, AP Computer Science Principles,
categorized as counting
that qualifies for both AP credit and PLTW course
towards both AP and Project
credit.
Lead the Way credit
LCTI (Lehigh County
Courses for students enrolled full-time at LCTI.
Technical Institute)
Cyber (Parkland Cyber
Online course options are available for students as
Academy)
needed.
While the research questions for this study focus on the overall profile of students
enrolled in AP and PLTW courses, considered some of Parkland’s most rigorous course
offerings, the research study also examines the top courses based on student
enrollment at Parkland High School as correlated to students past third-grade reading
proficiency levels. This broader survey includes the range of course types offered at the
high school level in order to answer questions that may arise as a result of the data. Did a
third-grade student’s reading proficiency impact the courses he or she took as a student at
Parkland High School? Were there other factors that may have also been at play? The
structure of this research study will enable an analysis of these questions as well.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
53
The types of courses students enroll in may vary, but Parkland High School has
consistent graduation requirements that all students must meet. According to the
Parkland School District (2022a), students are required to take a minimum of 24.25
credits over the course of four years of study (Table 6):
Table 6
2022-2023 Parkland High School Course Requirements
English
4.0 Credits
Science
4.0 Credits
(Note: Biology is required of all students)
Social Studies
3.0 Credits
Mathematics
3.0 Credits
Health/Physical Education/
1.25 Credits
Driver’s Education
Career Explorations
.5 Credits
Electives
8.5 Credits (with some requirements)
PIRLS Study Participants
The quantitative portion of the study provides a longitudinal overview of
students’ academic progress, while the qualitative survey of current grade K-5 teachers
helps connect student progress to instructional practice, thus providing a more complete
picture of Parkland’s early literacy program from 2009 to the present.
The questions for the qualitative case study survey came from the 2016 Progress
in International Reading Literacy Survey (PIRLS) questionnaire. As noted on the
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
National Center for Educational Statistics website (n.d.), the survey “is designed to
measure school and teacher practices related to instruction” and has been used by schools
worldwide since 2001, with a high degree of reliability. The questionnaire was completed
by Parkland’s K-5 teachers and required between 15 and 30 minutes to complete
electronically. The full survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. Teachers had the
option to complete the survey; it was not required. The Volunteer Consent Form
(Appendix B) outlines the consent process in more detail.
In addition, the research project received approval from the PennWest University
Institutional Review Board (IRB) on September 11, 2022 (Appendix C), allowing the
project to be completed within the timeframe of September 12, 2022, through September
11, 2023. In addition, Dr. Mark Madson, current Parkland Superintendent of Schools,
granted permission for the research study, including the use of archived student data and
the survey of current Parkland staff, within the parameters set forth in his letter dated
August 3, 2022 (Appendix D). The next section outlines the research plan to use both
quantitative from the longitudinal research study and qualitative data from the PIRLS
questionnaire to identify patterns and address the original action research questions.
Research Plan
As stated by Mertler (2021), “standardized test data is routinely used but should be
offset by other types of data” (p. 248). This research project relies primarily on quantitative
data - including but not limited to standardized test data - enhanced by qualitative data,
therefore the research methodology is best described as an explanatory sequential design
approach. In this approach, the design begins with the collection and analysis of quantitative
data followed by the collection of qualitative data to answer any questions the quantitative
data alone may not be able to address (Figure 4).
54
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Figure 4
Explanatory Design With Quantitative and Qualitative Data (Mertler, 2021, p. 145)
In this research project, quantitative data provided the initial information on the
types of courses third-grade students enrolled in eight years later as students at Parkland
High School, enabling deeper analysis of any patterns or trends that may be related to a
student’s reading proficiency level (Advanced, Proficient, Basic, or Below Basic). In
addition, qualitative data from the PIRLS survey answered questions related to the early
childhood literacy beliefs and practices of Parkland’s K-5 elementary literacy teachers.
Parkland’s early literacy programs are excellent, based on PSSA test results and the
District’s own local assessments. This qualitative data helped address questions related to
how early childhood literacy instruction takes place in Parkland classrooms and why
teachers favor certain instructional literacy practices over others. In addition, patterns and
trends were able to emerge from the survey regarding how instructional practices or
resources compare and contrast among Parkland’s elementary schools.
This research plan also follows the guidelines outlined in Introduction to
Education Research (Mertler, 2021) in which Mertler emphasizes the cyclical nature of
action research, one in which reflection is built into the process. The research questions
are designed to prompt additional questions and a deeper inquiry into the topic of the
impact of early childhood literacy. Figure 5 visualizes the process:
55
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Figure 5
Cyclical Nature of Action Research (Mertler, 2021, p. 166)
Data Normalization and Analysis Process
The cyclical nature of action research parallels the data normalization process the
researcher encountered in the IBM and Google data scientist certification programs
(Appendix G). Data normalization ensures that data is not only accurate but clear and
consistent, with a focus on the user’s ability to effectively analyze the data for further
inquiry. The steps involved in data normalization (Figure 6) include: 1) defining the
questions; 2) gathering the data; 3) preparing the data; 4) analyzing the data; and 5)
visualizing the data, with reflection built into the process at every stage.
56
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
57
Figure 6
Data Normalization and Analysis Process
Define
Questions
Gather
Data
Visualize
Data
Prepare
Data
Analyze
Data
Defining the questions. The data normalization process starts with the end in
mind by examining the questions the researcher is trying to answer. The research
questions for this study are:
1.
How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later
student enrollment in high school Advanced Placement (AP) courses?
(quantitative)
2.
How does third-grade reading proficiency impact later
student enrollment in high school Project Lead the Way courses?
(quantitative)
3.
What instructional practices and beliefs are common
among Parkland’s elementary staff in schools which have consistently
high levels of students reaching reading proficiency by third grade as
measured by the PSSA? (qualitative)
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Gathering the data. The next step in the process is to determine the best sources
of data to answer the research questions. For the first two research questions, Parkland
provided four tables of data from the District’s data warehouse, Performance Matters: 1)
PSSA state testing data from testing years 2009, 2010, and 2011; 2) local reading
assessment (STAR) data that provides the instructional reading level (IRL) for eighthgrade students during testing years 2014, 2015, and 2016; 3) high school Keystone state
assessment data for Biology, Literature, and Algebra for testing years 2017, 2018, and
2019; and 4) high school course enrollment and course grade data for student enrollment
years 2017, 2018, and 2019. The district provided more data than was technically needed
to answer the research questions, but the additional STAR and Keystone data helped
create a throughline of academic achievement for students enrolled in the district from
third grade through eleventh grade, as well as allow comparison of results from both state
and local assessments, adding another layer of validity to the process.
For the third research question, the PIRLS questionnaire was distributed to
Parkland K-5 teachers within the timeframe of March 10, 2023 (an in-service day)
through April 11, 2023 (the day following Parkland’s spring break). The responses from
this 34-question survey were automatically tabulated into a comma-separated value
(CSV) file which was then imported into Excel for further analysis, making the process
of data gathering more streamlined as compared to the longitudinal portion of this study.
Analyzing the data. Before any insights could be derived from the data, a
thorough process of cleaning (also referred to as data normalization) was completed in
order to ensure the validity and accuracy of the results. In this case, the PSSA data files
had more than 100 columns of data and needed to be reduced to only the data necessary
58
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
to conduct the research. In addition, it was important that each table of information have
a primary key, a field of unique data that would serve as the common denominator among
all four tables of data. Parkland assigns a unique student identification number (student
ID), to each student upon enrollment, and this student ID field served as the primary key
to link all the tables together (Figure 7). In this stage of the process, fields of data are
also examined to determine distinct and unique values. For example, there are four
distinct PSSA proficiency levels (Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic) but if
there was only one student who achieved the proficiency level of Advanced then that
value would also be considered unique. Microsoft Power BI has several tools to
simplify the process of identifying distinct and unique values within a dataset, as well
as identify any errors that may be within the data:
Figure 7
Data Normalization Using Microsoft Power BI
59
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Preparing the data. Once the data normalization process is complete, the data is
prepared for further analysis which makes the results clear to not only the researcher but
anyone who may eventually use the data. Preparing the data for this study involved
linking the four tables of information Parkland provided and triangulating that data with
the information provided by the PIRLS questionnaire. Microsoft Power BI has the ability
to link disparate data files together (Figure 8), again simplifying the process rather
than having to use additional tools such as SQL or Microsoft Access. This process
enabled a longitudinal look at a Parkland student’s academic journey from elementary
school, to middle school, to high school.
Figure 8
Microsoft Power BI Table Joins
60
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
61
It is also common practice, especially when preparing data for quantitative
analysis by a wider audience, to construct a data dictionary (Table 7) so the end-user
is clear on what the data values for each field (or column) of data represent.
Table 7
Data Dictionary for Quantitative Data Analysis
Table Name
Fields
2009-2011 Student PSSA Data –
1. Student_ID (primary key)
Third-Grade Reading
2. Subject (Reading)
3. Grade Level (3)
4. Year Tested (2009, 2010, 2011)
5. School Tested
6. Scaled Score (range 1000 to 1928)
7. Proficiency Level: Adv=Advanced;
Pro=Proficiency; Bas=Basic;
Bel=Below Basic;
8. Ethnicity (1= Native American;
2=Asian/Pacific Islander; 3=Black;
4=Hispanic; 5=White;
6=Multiracial)
9. IEP (not gifted) – Y=Yes, N=No
10. Economically Disadvantaged –Y=Yes, N=No
11. Gender–F=Female, M=Male
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
62
2014 – 2016 Student Grade 8
1. Student_ID (primary key)
IRL (Instructional Reading
2. Test Year – 2014, 2015, 2016
Level) Data
3. Student_Score (range 1.1 to 13)
4. Grade_Level (roundedStudent_Score,
range 1 to 13)
2013– 2019
1. Student_ID (primary key)
Keystone Literature Exam Data
2. Grade (11)
3. Scaled Score (range 1385 to 1712)
4. Best Performance Level –Adv=
Advanced; Pro=Proficient;
Bas=Basic; Bel=Below Basic
2017 – 2019
1. Student_ID (primary key)
Report Card Exams and
2. School Year (2017, 2018, 2019)
Final Grades Data
3. Grade Level (9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
4. Course Number (range 0 to 1000)
5. Course Name
6. Course Department
7. Course Type (AP=Advanced
Placement; HRS=Honors;
GHP=Gifted/High Potential;
CP=College Preparatory;
CEW=Career/Education/Work Ready
8. Final Grade (A, B, C, D, F, I, W)
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Visualizing the data. Reporting the results of the data analysis is the last step in
the process, but it should be noted this will most likely not close the book on the subject,
but rather lead to additional questions in keeping with the iterative and ongoing nature of
action research (Mertler, 2021). To enhance the inquiry process, a data dashboard for the
quantitative analysis portion of this research project was constructed using Microsoft
Power BI. Microsoft Power BI provides a number of options for visualizing data and has
the advantage of being interactive, so the end-user can derive insights based on his or her
background and understanding of the information. It is also a straightforward process
to modify the layout, create multi-page reports, and update the original data using this
tool. Figures 9, 10, and 11 depict examples that demonstrate how a single data
dashboard can yield several insights from the same set of data.
Figure 9
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (no filters)
63
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Figure 10
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (filtered by testing year (2010) and PSSA proficiency level
(Below Basic))
Figure 11
Longitudinal Data Dashboard (filtered by school (Cetronia) and student gender (female))
64
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
The student data can be further disaggregated through filters based on school
building and student demographic information such as ethnicity and gender. The more
filters an end-user applies, the smaller the subset of results that are produced. Clicking
anywhere outside one of the charts removes the filters and brings back the original data,
making it easy to perform multiple queries. This data dashboard approach also enables a
comparison of other factors that may have an impact on students’ high school learning
outcomes. For example, it was possible to look at not only the relationship between
reading proficiency and enrollment in AP courses but also if a student’s socioeconomic
status or having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) played a role in AP course
enrollment.
In keeping with the explanatory sequential research design, qualitative data
from the PIRLS study was later added to this quantitative data dashboard. To
triangulate the two sets of data, a question was added to the PIRLS study to identify
those teachers who were working in the District during 2009, 2010, and 2011 school
years.
Validity and Data Integrity
According to Mertler (2021), “Quality research must meet standards of sound
practice” (p. 167). Every effort has been made to ensure this research study meets those
standards, with a focus on the practices put forth by Hendricks (2016) in her book,
Improving Schools Through Action Research: A Reflective Practice Approach:
Credibility – results are accurate and truthful;
Transferability – results can be shared with others;
Dependability – the study can be replicated;
Confirmability – the results of the research are free of bias.
65
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
In addition to the data normalization process used for the longitudinal data study
portion of this research project, the PIRLS questionnaire was distributed via a secure
process to ensure data validation. Using Adobe Acrobat Pro, each question response was
labeled so the results could be further analyzed in Microsoft Power BI or Excel. Teachers
received the Volunteer Consent Form (Appendix B) for the PIRLS questionnaire via
email, entered their name and email address if they chose to participate, and after form
submission received a link to the PIRLS questionnaire. Upon completion of the PIRLS
questionnaire, teachers received a confirmation email with a copy of the completed
survey. These extra steps helped validate the identity of the teacher completing the survey
without invalidating the anonymity of the teacher’s responses.
In the process of collating the data, the researcher discovered a few anomalies that
will also be noted in the data findings portion of this research project. Parkland has added
two new elementary schools recently, Fred J. Jaindl Elementary, which opened in
2010, and Veterans Memorial Elementary, which opened in 2021. Since the data
dashboard only summarizes data from 2009 through 2019, Veterans Memorial
Elementary does not appear and data for Fred J. Jaindl Elementary does not appear until
2011. Pennsylvania did not add the Keystone Literature exam until 2010, so it does not
appear in the 2009 data. Parkland has had the Project Lead the Way Engineering
pathway for almost 20 years, but only recently added the Project Lead the Way
Computer Science and Biomedical Science pathways in 2018 and 2019, respectively,
which may have had an effect on the number of PLTW courses taken in these pathways.
Finally, the district decided to phase out Applied courses at Parkland High School in an
effort to consolidate the number of academic tracks, so Applied courses do not appear
as options after 2017.
66
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
67
Summary
In 2014, when Parkland School District was in the process of completing a
cost/benefit analysis of adding Full-Day Kindergarten (FDK), a group of administrators,
the researcher included, surmised that FDK was an important cornerstone for helping
students reach reading proficiency by third grade, with potential for even longer-term
impact. Part of the analysis included looking at third-grade PSSA reading data from 2005
to see what, if any, relationship existed between reading proficiency in third grade and
student access to AP courses eight years later in 2013. That single data snapshot analyzed
in 2014 showed that less than one percent of students who were not proficient on the
PSSA reading exam later went on to take AP courses at Parkland High School, far less
than the norm, based on the District's Parkland High School Profile and the researcher's
own data analysis.
Fast forward to today, this mixed methods research project is similarly focused on
the impact of third-grade reading proficiency on later access to coursework at Parkland
High School, but this time examines not one but three different cohorts of student data to
determine whether the 2014 results were an anomaly or part of a consistent pattern. In
addition, this research project has looked at both quantitative and qualitative data in order
to consider other factors such as student demographics or instructional practices which
also play a role in overall student literacy success. The end result is a much fuller picture
of Parkland’s early literacy program, from 2009 to the present, and the impact early
literacy has had on Parkland students’ high school learning outcomes.
The next chapter reviews how both quantitative and qualitative data were used to
answer the original research questions, as well as other findings that emerged as a result
of this explanatory sequential research project.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis and Results
To gain a more complete picture of the impact of Parkland’s early literacy
program on later student enrollment in high school courses, a mixed methods
approach was used that relied primarily on longitudinal data from three cohorts of
third-grade students tested in 2009, 2010, and 2011 (n=1646), and the courses these
students took eight years later while enrolled at Parkland High School in 2017, 2018,
and 2019, respectively. The data tables used for the quantitative portion of the study
were the third-grade PSSA reading assessment results, the eighth-grade STAR
instructional reading level (IRL) results, a district-provided file that tracked all high
school course enrollments from 2017 to 2019, and the high school Keystone
Literature assessment results. These files, once linked together using Microsoft
Power BI, provided a more complete trajectory of a student’s academic journey
based on the proficiency level achieved on the third-grade PSSA reading exam.
To understand the context for the third-grade reading PSSA results, the
Progress in International Reading and Literacy Study (PIRLS) was used to gather
qualitative feedback from current Parkland elementary teachers about their
instructional practices and beliefs related to early childhood literacy. In keeping with
the explanatory sequential approach to data analysis, the PIRLS data provided
insights about Parkland’s early literacy program that the quantitative data alone could
not fully address.
Data Analysis
In Pennsylvania, students who achieve a proficiency level of Proficient or
Advanced are considered to be proficient in that subject area. Conversely, students who
68
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
69
achieve a proficiency level of Basic or Below Basic are considered not proficient in the
subject area tested: “A student performing at the Basic level demonstrates limited
comprehension of literary and informational texts” (Pennsylvania Department of
Education, n.d.). Based on these criteria, statewide reading proficiency levels on the
PSSA, as reported by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, were as follows:
•
in 2009, 67% of Pennsylvania third-grade students were Proficient in reading;
•
in 2010, 70% of Pennsylvania third-grade students were Proficient in reading;
•
in 2011, 72% of Pennsylvania third-grade students were Proficient in reading.
By comparison, in 2009, 87.7% of Parkland students were Proficient in Reading while
12.3% of students were Not Proficient. In 2010, 85.2% of Parkland students were
Proficient in Reading while 14.8% of students were Not Proficient. In 2011, 84.4% of
Parkland students were Proficient in Reading while 15.6% of students were Not Proficient
(Table 8). The average of the cohorts combined was 85.7% of students Proficient in
Reading while 14.3% of students were Not Proficient in Reading.
Table 8
Breakdown of Number of Students by Third-Grade Reading Proficiency Level
ThirdGrade
Reading
Proficiency
Level
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below Basic
All (Combined)
2009 Cohort
Number of
Students/
Percent
of Total
194/36.2%
275/51.5%
27/5.04%
39/7.28%
535
2010 Cohort
Number of
Students/
Percent
of Total
208/37.6%
263/47.6%
45/8.1%
37/6.7%
553
2011 Cohort
Number of
Students/
Percent
of Total
195/34.9%
276/49.5%
43/7.7%
44/7.8%
558
All Cohorts
Number of
Students/
Percent
of Total
597/36.26%
814/49.45%
115/6.98%
120/7.20%
1646
This baseline is important to establish since Parkland had proportionally fewer students to
begin with who were Basic or Below Basic and this is a factor to consider when looking at
the number of students who eventually took AP and PLTW courses.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
70
Another factor to consider is the eighth-grade instructional reading level (as measured
by the local STAR IRL assessment) which shows the reading level of Parkland students a
few months before they began enrolling in their first classes as future ninth graders at
Parkland High School. As stated in the CALDER study, Assessing the
Accuracy of Elementary School Test Scores as Predictors of Students’ High School
Outcomes, “in particular both third and eighth-grade tests are statistically significant in
the same model for both advanced course-taking and high school graduation”
(Goldhaber, 2020, p. 16). This longitudinal study, spanning nine years, three states, and
over 200K students, concluded that state test results from third grade had almost as much
predictive value in determining advanced course-taking (r=.94) as the state test results
from eighth grade (Goldhaber et al., 2020, p. 23).
Results
Using Microsoft Power BI, the descriptive analysis in Table 9 confirms the
relationship between median and average third and eighth-grade instructional
reading levels (IRL), with consistency among the three cohorts.
Table 9
Impact of 3rd-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on 8th-Grade Instructional Reading Levels
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency
Level
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below Basic
2009 Cohort
Median/
Average
IRL
11/10.69
8/8.82
6/6.23
4/4.40
2010 Cohort
Median/
Average
IRL
11/10.80
7/8.818
6/6.27
5/5.0
2011 Cohort
Median/
Average
IRL
11/10.77
8/8.28
6/6.21
5/4.8
All Cohorts
Median/
Average
IRL
11/10.77
8/8.3
6/6.24
5/5.05
Parkland third-grade students who were Advanced in reading as measured by the third-grade
PSSA were, on average, at a tenth-grade reading level five years later in eighth grade.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
71
Students who were Proficient in third grade were at grade level in eighth grade. Students who
were at a Basic reading proficiency level in third grade were at a sixth-grade reading level on
average as eighth graders, or two years below grade level. Finally, students who were at a
Below Basic proficiency level were, on average, at a fourth or fifth-grade reading level as
eight grade students, or at least three grade levels below grade level.
To verify the accuracy of the analysis generated by the Microsoft Power BI data
dashboard, the data was also calculated using a web-based statistical analysis tool called
StatCrunch, which yielded comparable results. Although this required converting all the
descriptive data to a numerical format, StatCrunch was an additional tool for triangulating
the data analysis results from Microsoft PowerBI and for calculating the Pearson
correlation coefficient. In this case, StatCrunch confirmed a strong positive relationship
between third-grade PSSA reading exam results and eighth-grade instructional reading
levels (r=.86), which is considered statistically significant (Mertler, 2021, p. 119).
Figure 12
StatCrunch Data Analysis –Third Grade PSSA Proficiency Level and Eighth Grade IRL
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
72
The following charts examine the relationship between the STAR eighth-grade
IRL and third-grade reading proficiency. They also compare these criteria against other
factors such as being economically disadvantaged or receiving special education services
through an IEP (generalized, not gifted). Figure 13 shows that the data from all cohorts (no
filter applied for subgroups) indicates that the median eighth-grade IRL of all eighthgrade students (n=1646) was a ninth-grade median IRL, with an average IRL of 8.82, or
overall Parkland’s eighth-grade students were above grade level in reading.
Figure 13
All Cohorts – All Students – STAR 8th Grade IRL (Median and Average)
Figure 14
All Cohorts – 8th Grade IRL of Economically Disadvantaged Students
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
When disaggregated by the subgroup of students who are considered economically
73
disadvantaged (n=202), Figure 14 shows the average instructional reading level dropped a
full grade level with a similar decline noted in the subgroup of students with individualized
education plans (n=303), as shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15
All Cohorts –Eighth-grade IRL of Students with IEPs
However, students who were Basic or Below Basic in third-grade reading proficiency
(Figure 16) had an even steeper decline in reading level. The data reveals not being
proficient in reading by third grade was more impactful to students’ eighth-grade
instructional reading level than being economically disadvantaged or requiring an IEP.
Figure 16
All Cohorts – Third Grade Reading Proficiency (Basic and Below Basic) and Eighth Grade IRL
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
74
Figure 17 shows that Parkland students who were in both subgroups (n=202) had, on
average, a fifth-grade median IRL in eighth grade. These students were therefore at least
three years below the average IRL of the Parkland student population as a whole shortly
before they scheduled their first high school courses. These results echo the findings of
the Double Jeopardy report (Hernandez, 2011) that outlined the academic impact on
students who were both economically disadvantaged and not proficient in reading by
third grade. Students in the Double Jeopardy report (n=3975) were six times more
likely to not graduate high school without targeted support (Hernandez, 2011).
Figure 17
All Cohorts - 8th Grade IRL for Students Not Proficient in Third Grade Reading and
Economically Disadvantaged
In sum, both the descriptive and statistical data established a strong relationship exists
between third-grade reading proficiency levels and the corresponding eighth-grade
instructional reading level. Parkland students who were at an Advanced or Proficient level
in third grade were more likely to be at or above grade level in reading by eighth grade, a
critical point in a student’s academic career as it is the time when students prepare for
their first high school course selections. This data provides an important baseline prior
to reviewing the additional findings that address research questions one and two.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
75
Research Question One
This section focuses on the first research question: How does third-grade reading
proficiency impact later student enrollment in high school Advanced Placement (AP)
courses? AP courses are considered college-level, and many students eventually take AP
final exams in order to receive college credit for their work by receiving a score of three
or higher (out of five). Based on the Parkland High School Profile (2023), in 2022, 82%
of students who took 769 AP tests achieved a score of three or higher, and 29%
achieved a maximum score of five. When looking at all cohorts, 733 of the 1646
students (44%) took at least one AP course with many students taking several of
Parkland’s 30 AP courses. These students (Figure 18), who were enrolled at Parkland
from grades three through twelve, were overall strong readers, with an average eighthgrade instructional reading level of 10.29.
Figure 18
All Cohorts – Students Enrolled in AP Courses (2017, 2018, and 2019)
Of the 733 students who took AP courses, 715 were either Advanced or Proficient in
reading by third grade. Conversely, only 18 of the 1646 students (or 1.09%) who were
Basic or Below Basic in reading by third grade eventually took AP courses.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
76
Table 10
Impact of 3rd-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on Number of Students Enrolled in
Advanced Placement (AP) Courses
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Below Basic
All (Combined)
2009
Cohort
Students
Taking
AP
Courses
(2017)
155
103
3
2
262/535
2010
Cohort
Students
Taking
AP
Courses
(2018)
152
94
7
3
256/553
2011
Cohort
Students
Taking
AP
Courses
(2019)
132
80
3
0
215/558
All
Cohorts
Students
Taking
AP
Courses
439
276
12
6
733/1646
Analyzing the data further, when looking at the 2009 cohort, five of the 535 students who were
not proficient in reading (0.93%) went on to take AP courses; the 2010 cohort had 10 of 553
students (1.8%) take AP courses; and the 2011 cohort had three out of 588 students (0.53%)
take AP courses. These numbers are lower than the original percentage of students from these
cohorts who were not proficient in reading – 12.3%, 14.8%, and 15.6%, respectively.
The StatCrunch correlation coefficient shows a statistically significant relationship
between the number of students taking AP courses and third-grade reading proficiency (r=.81).
This number is lower than the CALDER study analysis of the relationship between advanced
course-taking and third-grade proficiency (r=.94) (Goldhaber, 2020, p. 23), but that is perhaps
because the CALDER study looked at only advanced courses and this study focused more
narrowly on AP and PLTW courses, which are both advanced and college-level courses.
It is important to note that correlation does not equal causation (Mertler, 2021, p.
119). The correlation between third-grade reading proficiency and the number of AP
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
77
courses taken does not mean that one causes the other. However, the correlation between
third-grade reading proficiency and the number of AP courses taken does suggest there is
a relationship between the two variables. This relationship could be due to a number of
factors, such as the fact that students who are more proficient in reading are more likely
to be exposed to challenging academic material, which could lead them to take AP
courses. Table 11 provides a descriptive analysis of the relationship between students
who took AP courses and other student subgroups.
Table 11
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on Additional Subgroups (AP)
Overall Student
Demographics
Economically
Disadvantaged
IEP
Female
Mal
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black
Hispanic
Native American
White
2009 Cohort
# of Students
Taking AP
Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
# of Students
Taking AP
Courses
(2018)
10
18
2011 Cohort
# of
Students
Taking AP
Courses
(2019)
12
All Cohorts
# of Students
Taking AP
Courses
(2017– 2019)
32
142
120
34
28
121
135
43
20
124
91
39
80
387
346
116
2
8
3
215
5
12
1
195
3
11
0
160
10
31
4
570
40
Earlier analysis showed students who were economically disadvantaged or had IEPs had,
on average, higher eighth-grade IRLs than students who were not proficient in reading as
third-graders (seventh-grade IRL versus sixth-grade IRL). Here we see a proportionately
higher number of students from these subgroups went on to take AP courses:
40/1646 economically disadvantaged students (2.43%);
80/1646 students with IEPS (4.8%);
18/1646 students who were not proficient in third-grade reading (1.09%).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
78
Research Question Two
This section focuses on the second research question: How does third-grade reading
proficiency impact later student enrollment in high school Project Lead the Way (PLTW)
courses? PLTW courses are considered college-level, and many students eventually take
PLTW final exams in order to receive college credit for their work, granted by the
Rochester Institute of Technology and other colleges and universities. Parkland currently
offers three PLTW tracks: 1) Engineering; 2) Biomedical Science; and 3) Computer
Science. Parkland High School has offered PLTW Engineering for more than 20 years,
while PLTW Biomedical Science and PLTW Computer Science programs were added in
the last five years. Each program consists of at least four courses culminating in a
Capstone course. Parkland students who took these courses were overall strong readers,
with an average eighth-grade instructional reading level of 10.35.
Figure 19
All Cohorts – Students Enrolled in PLTW Courses (2017, 2018, and 2019)
Of the 253 students who took PLTW courses, 240 were either Advanced or Proficient in
reading by third grade. Conversely, only 13 of the 1646 students (or 0.78%) who were
Basic or Below Basic in reading by third grade eventually went out to take PLTW courses.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
79
Table 12
Impact of 3rd-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on Number of Students Taking
Project Lead the Way (PLTW) Courses
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency
Level
Advanced
Proficiency
Basic
Below Basic
All (Combined)
2009 Cohort
Number of
StudentsTaking
PLTW
Courses
22
16
2
0
40/535
2010 Cohort
Number of
Students
Taking PLTW
Courses
66
33
4
1
99/553
2011 Cohort
Number of
Students
Taking PLTW
Courses
68
44
4
2
114/558
All Cohorts
Number of
Students
Taking PLTW
Courses
153
87
8
5
253 /1646
Analyzing the data from Table 12 further, when looking at the 2009 cohort, two of the 535
students who were not proficient in reading (0.37%) went on to take PLTW courses; the
2010 cohort had five of 553 students (0.9%) take PLTW courses; and the 2011 cohort
had six out of 588 students (1.07%) take PLTW courses. These numbers are much lower
proportionately than the original percentage of students from these cohorts who were not
proficient in reading – 12.3%, 14.8%, and 15.6%, respectively.
The StatCrunch correlation coefficient shows a statistically significant relationship
between the number of students taking PLTW courses and third-grade reading proficiency
(r=.73). This number is lower than the CALDER study analysis of the relationship between
advanced course-taking and third-grade proficiency (r=.94) (Goldhaber, 2020, p.23), but
that is perhaps because the CALDER study looked at advanced courses and this study focused
more narrowly on AP and PLTW courses, which are both advanced and college-level courses.
However, both findings are statistically significant.
Again, it is important to note that correlation does not equal causation (Mertler,
2021, p. 119). The correlation between third-grade reading proficiency and the number of
PLTW courses taken does not mean that one causes the other. One important factor is that
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
80
there are fewer PLTW courses than AP courses, primarily because the additional PLTW
tracks (Computer Science and Biomedical) were not added to Parkland's course catalog
options until 2018 and 2019, respectively. However, the correlation between third-grade
reading proficiency and the number of PLTW courses taken is statistically significant and
does suggest that there is a positive relationship between the two variables. Table 13
provides a descriptive analysis of the relationship between students who took PLTW
courses and other student subgroups.
Table 13
Impact of Third-Grade PSSA Reading Proficiency Levels on Additional Subgroups (PLTW)
Overall
Student
Demographics
Economically
Disadvantaged
IEP
Female
Male
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black
Hispanic
Native American
White
2009 Cohort
Students
Taking
PLTW
Courses
1
2010 Cohort
Students
Taking
PLTW
Courses
5
2011 Cohort
Students
Taking
PLTW
Courses
9
All Cohorts
Students
Taking
PLTW
Courses
15
8
8
32
4
11
33
66
19
11
53
61
29
30
94
159
52
1
2
0
33
2
5
0
73
1
3
1
80
4
10
1
186
Earlier analysis showed students who were economically disadvantaged or had IEPs had,
on average, higher eighth-grade IRLs than students who were not proficient in reading as
third graders (seventh grade versus sixth grade). Here we see a proportionately higher
number of students from these subgroups went on to take PLTW courses:
15/1646 economically disadvantaged students (0.90%);
30/1646 students with IEPS (1.8%);
13/1646 students who were not proficient in third-grade reading (0.78%).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Research Question Three
The quantitative data analysis indicated a strong positive relationship between
reading proficiency and the number of students taking Advanced Placement or Project
Lead the Way courses. And in all three years where the PSSA reading data was
examined (2009, 2010, and 2011), Parkland scores were above the State average. This
section addresses the question: What instructional practices and beliefs are common
among Parkland’s elementary staff in schools which have consistently high levels of
students reaching reading proficiency by third grade as measured by the PSSA?
The 2016 Progress in International Reading Literacy Survey (PIRLS)
questionnaire was used for the qualitative portion of this research study. As noted on the
National Center for Educational Statistics website (n.d.), “it is designed to measure
school and teacher practices related to reading instruction” and has been used by
schools worldwide since 2001, with a high degree of reliability.”
The PIRLS study (Appendix A) is comprised of 34 questions, but many of the
questions consist of multiple parts, so in total the questionnaire measured 125 data points
with several open-ended questions included. The questions are organized into 8 sections
labeled as follows: 1) About You; 2) School Environment; 3) About Being a Teacher; 4)
About Teaching Reading; 5) Computer and Library Resources: 6) Homework; 7)
Assessing Reading; and 8) Final Thoughts (open-ended questions). The largest section,
and the one most relevant to addressing the research question regarding instructional
practices, was section 4, About Teaching Reading. This section asked teachers several
specific questions regarding the instructional practices, strategies, and resources they use
on a consistent basis.
81
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
82
The PIRLS study is a research-based tool, originally created in 2001 by the
National Center for Educational Statistics with oversight by the United States
Department of Education. It is usually updated and administered every five years to
school districts that choose to participate. The PIRLS study took approximately 30
minutes to complete, and 41 teachers representing five of the nine Parkland elementary
schools (or 20.19% of Parkland’s total elementary teaching staff) volunteered to
participate. As illustrated in Figure 20 there was representation across grade levels K-4:
Five of the 41 teachers (12%) teach Kindergarten;
Ten of the 41 teachers (24%) teach First Grade;
Nine of the 41 teachers (22%) teach Second Grade;
Twelve of the 41 teachers (29%) teach Third Grade;
Five of the 41 teachers (12%) teach Fourth Grade.
Figure 20
Grade Level Taught of PIRLS Participants
According to Dr. Pamela Kelly, the Director of Human Resources at Parkland, 100% of
Parkland elementary teachers are highly qualified based on the standards set forth by the
Pennsylvania Department of Education. In addition, all but one of the teachers who
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
83
completed the survey indicated they had a master’s degree. Based on the response to the
first part of Question 3 (Figure 21), the teachers who participated in the study were an
experienced group, well-versed in Parkland’s early literacy program. In response to the
second part of Question 3, “Were you a teacher at Parkland during the years 2009, 2010,
and 2011?,” the majority of the teacher (36/41 responses or 88%) indicated they were
teaching at Parkland during the time corresponding to the third-grade testing data that was
analyzed in the quantitative portion of the study (Figure 22).
Figure 21
Years of Teaching Experience of PIRLS Participants
Figure 22
Teachers Who Were at Parkland in 2009, 2010, and 2011
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
84
In qualitative research, researchers aim to gather in-depth insights, perspectives, and
experiences from a smaller number of participants. This approach allows for a deeper
understanding of the research topic but may not involve large sample sizes typically
associated with quantitative research. Generally, qualitative studies involve smaller sample
sizes, ranging from as few as 5 to as many as 30 participants, although there can be
exceptions (Mertler, 2021). As stated by Mertler (2021), “It is important to note that the
focus in qualitative research is on the richness and depth of the data rather than the number
of responses. Researchers prioritize the quality of the information gathered rather than the
quantity of participants” (p. 210).
The depth of the questions, coupled with the responses from this experienced
group of elementary teachers, provided a comprehensive answer to the third research
question: What instructional practices and beliefs are common among Parkland’s
elementary staff in schools which have consistently high levels of students reaching
reading proficiency by third grade as measured by the PSSA?
PIRLS Question 20: When you have reading instruction and/or do reading activities
with the students, how often do you do the following?
Read aloud to students:
o Every day or almost every day – 37/41 responses or 90.2%;
o Once or Twice a Week - 4/41 responses or 9.8%;
Ask students to read aloud:
o Every day or almost every day - 31/41 responses or 75.61%;
o Once or twice a week - 8/41responses or 19.51%;
o Once or twice a month - 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Ask students to read silently on their own:
o Every day or almost every day - 39/41 responses or 95.13%;
o Once or twice a week - 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Teach students strategies for decoding sounds and words:
o Every day or almost every day – 27/41 responses or 65.85%;
o Once or twice a week – 12/41 responses or 29.26%;
o Once or twice a month – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Teach new students new vocabulary systematically:
o Every day or almost every day – 14/41 responses or 34.14%;
o Once or twice a week – 27/41 responses or 65.85%;
Teach students how to summarize the main ideas:
o Every day or almost every day – 9/41 responses or 21.95%;
o Once or twice a week – 16/41 responses or 39.02%;
o Once or twice a month – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Teach or model skimming or scanning strategies
o Once or twice a week – 17/41 responses or 41.46%;
o Once or twice a month – 12/41 responses or 29.26%;
o Never or almost never – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Provide reading materials that match the students’ interests:
o Every or almost every lesson – 7/41 responses or 17.07%;
o About half the lessons – 16/41 responses or 39.02%;
o Some lessons – 18/41 responses or 43.90%;
Provide materials that are appropriate for the reading level of
the students:
o Every or almost every lesson – 27/41 responses or 65.85%;
o About half the lessons – 14/41 responses or 34.14%;
Link new content to students’ prior knowledge:
o Every lesson or almost every lesson – 27/41 responses or 65.85%;
o About half the lessons – 14/41 responses or 34.14%;
Encourage students to develop their understanding of the text:
o Every or almost every lesson – 37/41 responses or 90.24%;
o About half the lessons – 4/41 responses or 9.76%;
85
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Encourage student discussion of texts:
o Every or almost every lesson – 37/41 responses or 90.24%;
o About half the lessons – 4/41 responses or 9.76%;
Give students time to read books of their own choosing:
o Every or almost every lesson – 23/41 responses or 56.09%;
o About half the lessons – 6/41 responses or 14.6%;
o Some of the lessons – 11/41 responses or 26.82%;
Give individualized feedback to each student:
o Every day or almost every day – 23/41 responses or 56.09%;
o About half the lessons – 10/41 responses or 24.39%;
o Some of the lessons – 8/41 responses or 19.51%;
Have students locate information within the text:
o Every day or almost every day – 41/41 or 100%;
Have students identify the main ideas of what they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 25/41 responses or 60.97%;
o Once or twice a week – 16/41 responses or 39.02%;
Have students explain or support their understanding of what they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 35/41 responses or 85.36%;
o Once or twice a week – 6/41 responses or 14.63%;
Have students compare what they have read with experiences they have had:
o Every day or almost every day – 23/41 responses or 56.09%;
o Once or twice a week – 14/41 responses or 34.14%;
o Once or twice a month – 4/41 responses or 9.76%%;
Have students compare what they have read with other things they have
read:
o Every day or almost every day – 15/41 responses or 36.58%;
o Once or twice a week – 18/41 responses or 43.90%
o Once or twice a month – 8/41 responses or 19.51%;
86
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Have students make predictions about what will happen next in the text:
o Every day or almost every day – 29/41 responses or 70.73%;
o Once or twice a week – 10/41 responses or 24.39%;
o Once or twice a month – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Have students make generalizations and draw inferences based on what they have
read:
o Every day or almost every day – 21/41 responses or 51.21%;
o Once or twice a week – 18/41 responses or 43.90%;
o Once or twice a month – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Have students write something about or in response to something they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 13/41 responses or 31.70%;
o Once or twice a week – 20/41 responses or 48.78%;
o Once or twice a month – 8/41 responses or 19.51%;
Have students talk with each other about what they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 21/41 responses or 51.21%;
o Once or twice a week – 16/41 responses or 39.02%;
o Once or twice a month – 4/41 responses or 9.75%;
Have students work independently on an assigned plan or goal:
o Always or almost always – 7/41 responses or 17.07%;
o Often – 21/41 responses or 51.21%;
o Sometimes – 11/41 responses or 26.83%;
o Never – 2/41 responses or 4.87%;
Have students take a written test or quiz about what they have read:
o Every day or almost every day – 4/41 responses or 9.75%;
o Once or twice a week – 18/41 responses or 43.90%;
o Once or twice a month – 19/41 responses or 46.34%;
87
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
There was surprising consistency to some responses regarding the specific
88
instructional strategies Parkland teachers use to teach reading, regardless of building or
even grade level. It speaks to the experience, training, and skill level of the teachers. The
number of different strategies and resources the teachers use on a regular basis confirmed
the complexity of teaching reading, or as Moats (2020) stated: “Teaching reading IS
rocket science. But it is also established science, with clear specific, practical
instructional strategies that all teachers should be taught and supported in using” (p.1).
Figure 23 illustrates the top instructional strategies that Parkland elementary
teachers indicated they used either every day or almost every day:
Figure 23
Most Popular Instructional Practices for Teaching Reading
Additional strategies that were widely used by teachers either every day or almost every
day included having students explain what they have read (85%) and asking students to
read aloud (75%). Teachers were also asked to provide open-ended responses relative to
their class size, the number of instructional minutes they spend weekly on reading
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
89
instruction, and the amount of time they provide students for pleasure reading weekly.
Figure 24 provides an overview of these key numbers:
Figure 24
PIRLS Study – Key Numbers
Finally, teachers were asked at the end of the survey to provide a response to the openended question: What have you found most beneficial in learning about and providing
effective early literacy instruction while at Parkland School District? Below are a few of
their responses (the full list can be found in Appendix F):
“I feel like as an effective kindergarten teacher I am always working on
researching and learning the new and best ways to help my students learn and
grow. When I explicitly teach in a structured way with both whole and small
groups, I find I get the best results with my students.” [Respondent 2]
“It's important to start early and to read TO the children, as well as listen to them
read. Too many children are not read to and I see a decline in their interest in
reading/books.” [Respondent 13]
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
90
“I have found that LETRS and Heggerty have improved my students' phonemic
awareness which helps them become better readers.” [Respondent 6]
“A focus on phonemic awareness has helped my students grow. This district gets
reading instruction. It is a priority in my building.” [Respondent 16]
Discussion
The qualitative findings from the PIRLS study outlined a number of instructional strategies
that a majority of Parkland teachers use consistently. The average amount of time teachers
indicated they spend on English/Language Arts instruction - 647 minutes weekly - was also
significant. Library time is important at Parkland, with 100% of teachers indicating they
maintain a classroom library for their students and also have their class go to the school library
every week. Additional data surfaced that speaks to the culture and climate of the schools:
•
The average elementary class size was 21;
•
100 percent of teachers responded they felt safe at their school;
•
Most teachers (88 percent) have been at Parkland for at least 12 years;
•
Students are provided, on average, 51 minutes for pleasure reading weekly.
As one teacher (Respondent 20) stated, “Reading is important in this school.” And the beliefs
of teachers matter. While there are many factors that contribute to a student’s success,
research suggests that, among school-related factors, teachers are most impactful (Chetty et
al., 2014).
The PIRLS data overall showed that Parkland has a high-quality teaching staff that
feels supported and is provided with regular professional development opportunities and
access to quality teaching materials. These qualitative factors have played and continue to play
a role in Parkland’s above-average reading proficiency levels. This is important since the
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
91
quantitative data affirmed that third-grade reading proficiency levels had a cascading
effect, later impacting eighth-grade students’ instructional reading levels and eventually
the number of students enrolled in advanced high school courses.
The amount of quantitative and qualitative data used in this mixed-methods study
was considerable. Every effort was made to extrapolate the data most relevant to the original
research questions, to grab the signal from the proverbial noise. Therefore, not all data
collated for this project is included in the final research report. However, there is data that
is still important to understanding the impact of Parkland’s early literacy program. This data
can be found in Appendix E (Top 5 Courses and Course Types Students Enrolled in 2017,
2018, and 2019, Organized by Third-Grade Proficiency Level) and Appendix F (PIRLS
Open-Ended Responses).
Summary
Although it stands to reason that a student’s reading ability would affect the types of
courses the student enrolls in, the persistent and statistically significant nature of the
relationship between third-grade reading levels and later access to advanced courses was
surprising. In 2014, when the District first reviewed data to look at the correlation, it wasn’t
definitive if the results – only one percent of students who were not proficient in third-grade
reading later enrolled in AP courses – were an anomaly or a trend. Now, having
examined three additional cohorts of students, all of which produced similar results with
not only AP but PLTW courses as well, the answer is clear.
In the process of conducting this research study, two additional trends emerged: 1)
the relationship between third-grade reading proficiency levels and eighth-grade IRL; and 2)
lack of reading proficiency can be even more impactful to students long-term than other
historically determinant factors such as being economically disadvantaged.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
92
However, while the study was able to answer some key questions, in keeping with
the nature of action research, it also raised others. These opportunities for reflection and
future study will be explored in the next and final chapter.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
93
CHAPTER V
Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter concludes the study by summarizing the key research findings in
relation to the research aims and questions, as well as the value and contribution
thereof. It also reviews the limitations of the study, provides recommendations as a
result of the study, and proposes areas for future research.
The original research questions sought to look at the relationship between thirdgrade reading proficiency levels as measured by the Pennsylvania System of School
Assessment (PSSA) and their relationship to student enrollment in advanced high school
courses as represented by Advanced Placement (AP) and Project Lead the Way (PLTW)
courses, both college-level rigor. In addition, teacher feedback on the Progress in
International Reading and Literacy Study (PIRLS) was used to answer questions about
instructional practices Parkland teachers use to develop elementary-grade readers.
Through this study, the quantitative data illustrating the impact of third-grade reading
proficiency was complemented by qualitative data showing the instructional practices,
resources, and environment that contribute to Parkland’s elementary literacy program.
The combined datasets provided a more complete picture of Parkland’s elementary
literacy program and its impact on high school learning outcomes.
Key Findings
The focus on third grade as a key year in academic development was validated
by the CALDER study, Assessing the Accuracy of Elementary School Test Scores as
Predictors of Students’ High School Outcomes (Goldhaber et al., 2020):
We conclude that early student struggles on state tests are a credible
warning signal for schools and systems that make the case for additional
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
94
academic support in the near term, as opposed to assuming that additional
years of instruction are likely to change a student’s trajectory. Educators
and families should take third-grade test results seriously and respond
accordingly; while they may not be determinative, they provide a strong
indication of the path a student is on. (p. 22)
The CALDER study – analyzing nine years of panel data from three different states
(North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Washington) - later concluded that third-grade
standardized test results had almost as much predictive power as eighth-grade test results
in ascertaining which third-grade students would eventually take advanced courses in high
school (r=.94) (Goldhaber et al., 2020, p.23). In a similar fashion, the research study at
Parkland affirmed a strong relationship between third-grade PSSA reading proficiency
levels and eighth-grade STAR instructional reading levels (r=.86), as well as statistically
significant relationships between third-grade reading proficiency and enrollment in high
school AP courses (r=.81) and PLTW courses (r=.73).
In addition, students enrolled in either AP or PLTW courses were – on average –
at a tenth-grade instructional reading level when tested in eighth grade, or at least two
grade levels higher than the average of their peers. Conversely, students who were not
proficient in reading by third grade were – on average – at a sixth-grade reading level in
eighth grade, or at least two years below the average IRL when tested in eighth grade.
These students subsequently enrolled in both AP and PLTW courses at much lower rates
than their peers, averaging approximately one percent enrollment rates for both AP and
PLTW courses. However, overall Parkland had higher than average third-grade reading
proficiency scores (87.7% in 2009, 85.2% in 2010, and 84.4% in 2011) which likely
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
95
contributed to the high levels of students that participated in advanced courses at
Parkland High School from 2017 to 2019. Figure 25 shows the results of a Stanford
study released in April 2023 (edopportunity.org) that confirmed these high achievement
levels were not due solely to Parkland’s above-average socioeconomic level:
Figure 25
Stanford Study – Impact of Socioeconomic Levels on Academic Performance
2009 to 2018 – Parkland School District
The study analyzed national and state testing data from 2009 to 2018, comparing the
performance of school districts across the country relative to the school district’s socioeconomic level. The analysis found that during this timeframe Parkland School District
compared favorably to school districts with similar socioeconomic status, achieving
higher test scores, with test scores improving at a faster-than-average rate. Learning rates
were also higher, with students learning 16.1 percent more each grade than the United
States average (Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, 2023).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
96
The third research question addressed the instructional strategies, practices,
policies, and beliefs that contributed to these above-average test scores. The quantitative
section of this study, encompassing research questions one and two, addressed the “what”
aspect, while the qualitative data analysis from research question three shed light on the
“how.” Parkland starts by ensuring all teachers are highly qualified as measured by the
Pennsylvania Department of Education state standards. The results of the PIRLS study
demonstrated there is an emphasis placed on literacy at the elementary level, as
evidenced by the average amount of literacy-focused instructional time allotted per
week (more than 600 minutes) with students provided an average of 51 minutes per
week for personal leisure reading. In addition, there is a classroom library in every
classroom, and scheduled library time for classes every week.
With regards to staffing, every Parkland elementary school has a building
principal, library/media specialist, and a reading specialist. And despite a rapidly growing
student population, the District tries to follow a policy of no more than 22 students in
kindergarten to second-grade classrooms, and no more than 25 students in third through
fifth-grade classrooms. Adherence to this policy could be seen in the average class size of
21 students for the teachers who participated in the study.
Instructionally, there were a number of practices that Parkland teachers do every
day or almost every day, with 100 percent of PIRLS participants indicating they regularly
have students locate information within the text and 90 percent responding they regularly
encourage student understanding of the text and discussion of the text. As shown in
Figure 26, all teachers have recently received professional development specific to the
topic of literacy instruction, in addition to regular grade-level meetings, which may
explain, in part, the consistency found in teachers’ instructional practices.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
97
Figure 26
Hours of Formal Literacy Professional Development in the Last Two Years
Though the PIRLS data provided a large quantity of useful information, it is difficult to
define precisely what contributed most to Parkland’s overall success with elementary
literacy. It is likely a combination of many factors, with the PIRLS study simply scratching
the surface. However, thanks to the longitudinal data accessible in Pennsylvania, the
outcomes of Parkland’s focus on early literacy are easier to pinpoint.
The CALDER report noted that “today more than half of the states still do not
have easy access to detailed longitudinal data spanning third grade to graduation”
(Goldhaber et al., 2020, p. 3). Fortunately, since 2010 Pennsylvania has maintained a
longitudinal database of student academic and related data called the Pennsylvania
Information Management System, or PIMS. Some of this data is accessible to the public
through two sites, the Future Reading Index (futurereadypa.org) and the Pennsylvania
Value-Added Assessment System (PVAAS), available at pvaas.sas.com. The PVAAS data
portal provides information on students’ academic growth, with the expectation that
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
98
students should achieve at least a year’s worth of academic growth in a given school year
in the subjects that are measured (English/Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science).
As shown in Table 14, in 2022 Parkland had strong PVAAS growth indicators “well
above” a year’s worth of growth in English/Language Arts grades four through eight.
Table 14
2022 PVAAS Academic Growth Measures for Parkland School District
Limitations
As noted in this study, the ability to read alters not only a child’s access to print
information but their behavior and disposition (Brokamp); ability to fully participate in
future learning opportunities (Goldhaber et al., 2020; Lesnick et al., 2010); potential
financial earnings (Nietzel, 2020); and overall quality of life. Given the impact of thirdgrade reading, it is worth uncovering any factors that have either a positive or adverse
effect on students’ reading abilities. The PIRLS questionnaire did provide some
information, but it also pointed to areas for additional review. Although teachers from
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
99
five of the nine Parkland elementary schools participated in the PIRLS study, it would be
worthwhile to have a broader discussion with all elementary schools about what does and
does not work when it comes to helping students read. Constructively, the District has
recently adopted the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) program to deepen its
understanding of best practices to promote early literacy instruction in grades K, 1, and 2.
The PIRLS qualitative data is a snapshot of where teachers are currently with
their instructional practice, which of course is not determinant of where they were in
2009, 2010, and 2011. This is another limitation of the study. However, 36 out of the 41
teachers who participated in the PIRLS survey (or 88 percent) had been teachers at
Parkland during 2009, 2010, and 2011, providing some measure of triangulation between
the quantitative and qualitative datasets. In addition, as noted the data from the 2023
Stanford University study confirmed Parkland had positive learning outcomes during the
timeframe 2009 through 2018, just prior to the pandemic.
These positive learning outcomes continued post-pandemic, as evidenced by a
second study released by Stanford University in April 2023 which examined the impact
of the pandemic on student learning by analyzing national and state testing data from
2019 through 2022 (Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, 2023). The
Stanford data shows that although Parkland’s reading scores declined by 0.16 of a
grade level from 2019 to 2022, the overall reading scores in 2022 were still 2.33 grade
levels higher than the United States average (Figure 27). Although not correlative,
Parkland’s strong reading achievement pre-pandemic likely helped the District maintain
a high level of student performance post-pandemic. It is another discovery from this
study that warrants further investigation.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
100
Figure 27
Stanford Study – Impact of the Pandemic on Reading Achievement – 2019 to 2022
The Stanford data confirms the pandemic did have at least some impact on
Parkland’s reading and math scores, which is why the longitudinal timeframe for the
quantitative study is 2009 through 2019. Ideally, the timeframe would have run through
the 2022-2023 school year to align the data as closely as possible with the recent PIRLS
data, but the pandemic put school districts and teachers in less-than-ideal conditions.
Another limitation can be found in the nature of longitudinal studies. It proved
useful to analyze three cohorts of students for this study: third graders from 2009, 2010,
and 2011 whose total population among the three cohorts was 2081 students. However, by
focusing on the group of students who were at Parkland from third through eleventh
grades (n=1646), results from students who were at Parkland in third grade but later left
the District (n=435) were not considered. This may have been a factor in the high
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
101
number of students enrolled in AP courses (733/1646 students from all three cohorts, or
44.35 percent). By comparison, in a typical year at Parkland High School between 25
and 36 percent of students enroll in at least one AP course. It warrants further study to
see if transiency also plays a role in student access to advanced high school courses.
Implications for Practice
By several measures, Parkland has a strong early literacy program. It is working
to improve further through the addition of programs like ECRI and by strengthening
relationships with parents and community partners. Parkland recognizes the power of
collective impact. Having students reach reading proficiency by third grade is somewhat
like a relay race, and the further ahead students are when they enroll with the District the
easier it is to have students reach that critical milestone. Raising awareness of the
importance of early childhood literacy for parents, guardians, and child-care providers in
the birth to age five space is, therefore, an important part of the learning-to-read process.
Accordingly, Parkland has recently had meetings with local PreK providers to
analyze the Kindergarten Entry Inventory (KEI) data that the District captures
electronically during its kindergarten screening process. By partnering with local PreK
providers and providing them with the KEI data, these PreK educators can see the impact
of their own instructional programs and can adjust, if needed, so that their curricula and
instructional goals are more closely aligned with that of the District. This strategy has the
backing of research, which suggests an early focus on literacy has long-term benefits:
“79% of the variance in high school reading ability can be accounted for by intensity of
foundational skills instruction in 1st grade” (EAB, 2019, p. 20).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
102
Although children do not need to know how to read prior to starting
kindergarten, having exposure to language early and often is helpful. Early childhood is a
critical period for brain development, with birth to age two being the fastest growth
period according to recent cognitive research (Sahakian et al., 2022).
Currently, the District provides parent workshops through a program called Parent
University, and also targeted elementary parent workshops with funding from the Title
I federal grant program. Through its partnership with Lehigh Valley Reads, parents of
PreK children can sign up for weekly tips from a texting service called Parent Powered
that promotes literacy in the home. World Reader, a digital library of hundreds of books,
is another free service provided by Lehigh Valley Reads.
While access to digital books is helpful, according to Kulikova (2019), access to
print books for young children is preferable. Unfortunately, according to Buehler and
Guignard (2019) “sixty-one percent of low-income families do not have access to print
books in the home” (p. 16). However, the District could tap into services such as the
Imagination Library that would provide parents in the Parkland community with the
ability to have books delivered directly to the home monthly from birth to age five, with
the potential to build a home library of 60 books by the time the child reaches
kindergarten.
According to its website, the Imagination Library is currently accessible to ten
percent of American children, and there are several research studies that have concluded
the service has a strong positive literacy effect on children, especially when it is used for a
period of at least two years (Ridzi et al., 2016). Presently, there are 47 locations that offer
the service in the state of Pennsylvania, including several that border the Parkland School
District in Lehigh County as shown by the areas shaded in light blue (Figure 28).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
103
Figure 28
Imagination Library Locations within Pennsylvania (as of June, 2023)
There is a cost of $2.20 per book for the service (which includes mailing), with funding
usually provided by a local foundation or other non-profit agency. For example, in
Pennsylvania, 13 of the 47 sites that provide the Imagination Library service are managed
by the local United Way. Students in Carbon County, which borders the District to the
north, are able to enroll in the service through a partnership between St. Luke’s
University Hospital and the Carbon County Community Foundation. In this way, as
soon as a child is born the parents are provided information and resources about early
literacy at the nexus of care. Some school districts, such as Kutztown, offer the service
through their own local foundation. According to the Imagination Library website’s
cost estimator, based on the District zip codes Parkland currently has 4754 students
under the age of five who could take advantage of this service (Table 15).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Table 15
Imagination Library Costs – Parkland School District – Years 1 through 5
Using a sliding scale, if eligible children in the Parkland community currently under the
age of five were to enroll in the service, the annual cost would be $73,426 dollars.
However, since Parkland currently has partnerships with St. Luke’s University Hospital
and the United Way of the Greater Lehigh Valley, there is potential to have costs
defrayed or absorbed by these non-profit organizations. Parkland’s own non-profit
foundation could help contribute as part of a cost-sharing initiative with these
organizations.
At the State level, Pennsylvania has made recent strides in the area of Teacher
Preparation and Policy (Figure 29). Last year Pennsylvania passed HB 2045 that
requires all pre-service teachers to learn about the science of reading starting in the
2024-2025 school year. However, Pennsylvania is one of only nine states that does
not require universal or dyslexia screening in kindergarten (ExcelinEd, 2023) .
104
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Figure 29
105
ExcelinEd (2023) Analysis of Progress in State Early Literacy Efforts
Finally, although several states have adopted policies promoting structured literacy,
there is still confusion regarding which curricula and instructional strategies best promote the
development of strong readers. In 1997, the National Reading Panel was convened to unify
the country around best practices in reading instruction. Three years later, the NRP issued
its landmark report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the
Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction.
Twenty-three years later, it may be time to convene a similar group, one that brings
together PreK-12 educators, researchers, cognitive scientists, parents, and community
partners, to make recommendations and provide a clear blueprint on how to address the
learning gaps in reading that effect too many American children and prevent them from
reaching their potential.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
106
Considerations for Future Research
The District provided a great deal of data for this project, but to stay within the
scope of the project, unfortunately not all of it was used. However, the data invites further
exploration. For example, it may be worthwhile to examine the grades of students
enrolled in advanced high school courses and analyze these student performance
indicators in light of the students’ original third-grade reading proficiency level.
Given the longitudinal data the District maintains, it would be interesting to see
if the findings from the original Early Warning report (Feister, 2010) – namely that
students who were not reading by third grade were four times as likely not to graduate
– is also a pattern at Parkland, or if the District finds any link between early literacy and
graduation rates.
Student factors such as being economically disadvantaged or having an IEP have
been reviewed in this study, but the data dashboard constructed for this research project
enables the District to analyze the impact of other factors related to access to advanced
high school courses, such as ethnicity or gender. In addition, each elementary school has
the ability to analyze its own longitudinal student data (with the exception as noted of
Veterans Memorial Elementary, Parkland’s newest school, which opened in 2020 and
thus was outside the window of this study).
Other student-related factors not captured in the data dashboard, such as the
social-emotional health of a child, are also worthy of consideration in relation to
literacy. The District has invested considerable time and energy into ensuring children
who have experienced trauma have additional support. Given this focus, it may be
worthwhile for the District to study what impact trauma may have on a student’s ability
to learn to read, or, conversely, if illiteracy contributes to a student's trauma.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
107
In a similar vein, some of the research studies reviewed cited the impact of
learning to read on student behavior, with evidence that student behavior improves in
tandem with improvements in students’ literacy skills (Brokamp, 2018; Sahakian,
2022). In light of this research, it may be worthwhile for the District to analyze if
teachers, guidance counselors, school psychologists, or principals note a similar
correlation.
In the PIRLS study, several teachers commented on the impact of the LETRS and
Heggerty programs on their instructional practice. LETRS (Language Essentials for
Teachers of Reading and Spelling) is a scientifically based literacy approach developed
by Dr. Louisa Moats that the District has made a considerable investment in providing
teacher training. Heggerty is a curriculum for developing phonemic awareness that
complements the LETRS training. Both programs were implemented almost ten years
ago, so it would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study to determine the efficacy of
these programs.
Finally, this capstone research study could serve as a framework for other school
districts to examine what happens to students after third grade who continue to struggle as
readers, and the impact low literacy has on a child's academic trajectory.
Closing Statement
In studying the learning outcomes for three cohorts of students at Parkland School
District, with an examination of the connection between third-grade, eighth-grade, and
eleventh-grade milestones, the evidence confirms not only the importance of third-grade
reading but also the many factors that play a role in the development of a strong early
literacy foundation, most notably the role of educators.
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
108
Educators can have a ripple effect on students, something they may not always
immediately realize. Yet the impact is profound, extending beyond grades and potentially
changing a child’s educational path.
It is understandable, therefore, that the original inspiration for this research project
came from an educator, former Springfield School District Superintendent Dr. James
Capolupo, and the site visit a group of Parkland educators made to the Springfield Literacy
Center almost a decade ago.
Springfield Literacy Center has won many awards for its innovative design. Some
of its architectural elements, such as having the library as the central hub of the building
and prominent use of outdoor learning areas, can be found in two of Parkland’s elementary
schools: Veterans Memorial Elementary School (which opened in August, 2020), and the
newly renovated Schnecksville Elementary School (which opened in August, 2022).
Dr. Capolupo himself has won numerous awards for his leadership, including
National Superintendent of the Year (2014) and Pennsylvania Superintendent of the Year
(2015). When interviewed in 2021, however, Dr. Capolupo cited as his top
accomplishment that “every student who started in his district in kindergarten and stayed
through fourth grade, read on grade level” (Bjorkgren, 2021, para. 28).
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
109
References
Allee-Herndon, K., & Roberts, S. (2018, October 30). Neuroeducation and early
elementary teaching: Retrospective innovation for promoting growth with
students living in poverty. International Journal of the Whole Child, 3(2),
4-18. https://libjournals.mtsu.edu/index.php/ijwc/article/view/1136
Baker, B. (2003). Early literacy: An examination of the principal behaviors that impact
reading achievement. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4439/
North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital.
Bjorkgren, D. (2021, August 31). Former school superintendent to serve as trustee at
P.I.T. VISTA Today. https://vista.today/2021/08/former-superintendent-p-i-t-trustee/
Bogel, G. (2006, December 8). School libraries play an active, transformational role in
student learning and achievement. Evidence-Based Library and Information
Practice, 1(4), 49-53. https://doi.org/10.18438/b8hs3g
Brokamp, S. K., Houtveen, A. A. M., & van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2018, January 15).
The relationship among students’ reading performance, their classroom
behavior, and teacher skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(1),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1411878
Brown, C., Schell, R., & Denton, R. (2019). Family literacy coaching: Partnering with
parents for reading success. School Community Journal, 29(1), 63–86.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1219795
Buehler, V., & Guignard, G. (2019). 3 by 3: Grade-level reading by the end of third grade.
Volta Voices, 26(3), 14–20. https://www.agbell.org/Portals/26/PDFs/JulySeptember- 2019-compressed-1.pdf?ver=2019-08-30-142820-970
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
110
Burkins, J., & Yates, K. (2022). Shifting the balance: 6 ways to bring the science of reading
into the balanced literacy classroom (paperback). Stenhouse Publishers.
Burney, V. H. (2010). High achievement on advanced placement exams: The relationship
of school-level contextual factors to performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2),
116–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355972
Burrus, D. (2014). Is the US workforce prepared to thrive in the past or in the future?
E- Learning and Digital Media, 11(4), 314–322.
https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2014.11.4.314
Calkins, L. M. C. (2001). The art of teaching reading. Longman.
Calkins, L. (2016, June 29). Growing extraordinary writers: Leadership decisions to raise
the level of writing across a school and a district. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 7–
18. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1499
Capotosto, L. (2022). Do third-grade students from low-income families have access to
‘just right’ books? Results from a home visit study. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 22(1), 96–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420911132
Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. D., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II:
Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. The American Economic
Review, 104(9), 2633–2679. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633
Dalton, L. B. (2019). A quantitative research case study of the future impacts of thirdgrade reading [Doctoral dissertation, William Howard Taft University].
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Dicataldo, R., & Roch, M. (2022, January 4). How does toddlers’ engagement in literacy
activities influence their language abilities? International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 526-541.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010526
EAB. (2019). Narrowing the third-grade reading gap: Embracing the science of reading.
https://www.idaontario.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EAB-2019Narrowing-the-Third-Grade-Reading-Gap_research-briefing.pdf
Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University. (2023). The Educational
Opportunity Project at Stanford.
https://edopportunity.org/explorer/#/map/none/districts/avg/ses/all/12/40.63/75.57/4218510,40.63,-75.572
Education Week Research Center (2020, January). Early Reading Instruction:
Results of a national survey https://www.edweek.org/researchcenter/research-center-reports/early-reading-instruction-results-of-anational-survey
ExcelinEd. (2023, February). Comprehensive early literacy policy: A state-by-state
analysis of fundamental principles. earlyliteracymatters.org.
https://excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/
ExcelinEd_PolicyToolkit_EarlyLiteracy_StatebyStateAnalysi s_2021.pdf
Feister, L. (2010, January). Early warning: Why reading by third-grade matters. 1–62.
https://www.aecf.org/resources/early-warning-why-reading-by-the-end-of-thirdgrade-matters
111
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
112
Feister, L. (2013, November). Early warning confirmed: A research update on third-grade
reading. Anne E. Casey Foundation. https://www.aecf.org/resources/earlywarning-confirmed
Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read. Random House Publishing.
Future Ready PA Index. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://futurereadypa.org/. September 26,
2022.
Georgiou, G., Kushnir, G., Parrila, R. (2019). Moving the needle on literacy: Lessons
learned from a school where literacy rates have improved over time. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 66(3), 347-359.
Giaquinto, J. (2015). An investigation of differences in reading achievement of students
who attend full-day kindergarten versus half-day kindergarten using DIBELS
NEXT [PhD dissertation, Seton Hall University].
Goldhaber, D., Wolff, M., Daly, T., & National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data
in Education Research (CALDER). (2020). Assessing the accuracy of elementary
school test scores as predictors of students' high school outcomes.
https://caldercenter.org/publications/assessing-accuracy-elementary-school-testscores-predictors-students%E2%80%99-high-school
Hanford, E. (2018, September 10). Hard words: Why American kids aren’t being taught
to read. APM Reports. https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hardwords-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read
Hanford, E. (2020, August). What the words say: Many kids struggle with reading – and
children of color are far less likely to get the help they need. APM Reports.
https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2020/08/06/what-the-words-say
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Hanna, M., & Graham, K. A. (2022, March 5). Scores on Pa. standardized tests fell in
2021, but many students didn’t take them. https://www.inquirer.com.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/pssa-results-2021-keystones-standardized-tests20220304.html
Hendricks, C. (2016). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice
approach. Pearson.
Hernandez, D. J., & Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third
grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation.
https://www.aecf.org/resources/double-jeopardy
Hübner, N., Merrell, C., Cramman, H., Little, J., Bolden, D., & Nagengast, B.
(2022). Reading to learn? The co‐development of mathematics and reading
during primary school. Child Development, 93(6), 1760-1776.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13817
Imagination Library. (n.d.) Retrieved from imaginationlibrary.com September 22 2022
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age
3. American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.
Kainz, K., & Vernon, F. L. (2007). The ecology of early reading development for
children in poverty. The Elementary School Journal, 107(5), 407–427.
https://doi.org/10.1086/518621
Kulikova, N. (2019, September 20). Children’s reading with digital books: Past moving
quickly to the future. Child Development Perspectives, 13(4), 208–214.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12339
113
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
114
Lesnick, J., Goerge, R. M., Smithgall, C., & Gwynne, J. (2010). Reading on grade level in
third grade: How is it related to high school performance and college
enrollment? A longitudinal analysis of third-grade students in Chicago in 199697 and their educational outcomes. A Report to the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
https://www.chapinhall.org/wpcontent/uploads/Reading_on_Grade_Level_111710.pdf
Luscombe, B. (2022, August). Inside the massive effort to change the way kids are taught
to read. Time, Inc. https://time.com/6205084/phonics-science-of-readingteachers/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Mealings, K. (2022, June 2). A review of the effect of classroom sound-field
amplification on children in primary school. American Journal of Audiology,
31(2), 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_aja-21-00240
Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S.-A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their
role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2),
322–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744
Mertler, C. A. (2021). Introduction to educational research. SAGE Publications.
Millett P., & Purcell N. (2010). Effect of sound field amplification on grade 1 reading
outcomes. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology, 34(1),
17–24.
Moats, L. (2019). Structured literacy: Effective instruction for students with dyslexia and
related reading difficulties. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(2), 9–
11. https://www.DyslexiaDA.org
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
115
Moats, L. (2020). Teaching reading IS rocket science: What expert teachers should know
and be able to do. American Educator, 44(2).
https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2020/moats
Moore, G. W., & Slate, J. R. (2008). Who’s taking the advanced placement courses and
how are they doing: A statewide two-year study. The High School Journal, 92(1),
56–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40660788
National Assessment of Educational Progress (2022). NAEP report card: 2022 NAEP
Reading Assessment. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
National Center for Children in Poverty (2017). Basic Facts About Low-Income Children.
https://www.nccp.org/publication/basic-facts-about-low
-income-children-children-under-9-years-2016/
National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.). Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/
National Center for Educational Statistics (2019). NCES adult literacy data based on 2019
PIAAC assessment results. (2019). https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp
National Conference of State Legislatures (2019). Research and Policy.
https://www.ncsl.org/research
National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2012). Developing early literacy: Report of the
National Early Literacy Panel. United State Department of Education.
https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/findings
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Nietzel, M. T. (2020, September 9). Low literacy levels among U.S. adults could be
costing the economy $2.2 Trillion a year. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-literacy-levelsamong-us-adults-could-be-costing-the-economy-22-trillion-ayear/?sh=5bdf769d4c90
Parkland School District (2022a). Parkland High School Course Catalog.
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1671216889/parklandsdorg/b3iqemwft5ivn
ulonqft/hs_course_selection.pdf
Parkland School District. (2022b). Parkland High School Profile.
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1664995702/parklandsdorg/tlxqf0bb7mp8d
omwwsok/PHS-Profile.pdf
Parkland School District (2023). Parkland School District Profile.
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1677604276/parklandsdorg/f55qy0godom8
8q28sm4u/District-Profile.pdf
Pasini, N. (2018, August 18). A collective impact approach to the reading achievement
gap. Journal of Library Administration, 58(6), 605–616.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2018.1491186
Peisner-Feinberg, E., Soliday Hong, S., Yazejian, N., Zadrozny, S., & Burchinal,
M. (2020). Kindergarten impacts of the Pennsylvania Pre-K Counts
program: A statewide evaluation. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina, School of Education and Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Institute. https://fpg.unc.edu/publications/kindergarten-impacts-pennsylvania-prek-counts-program-statewide-evaluation
116
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Pennsylvania Department of Education (n.d.) PSSA English Language Arts
Performance Level Descriptors.
https://www.stateboard.education.pa.gov/Documents/About%20the%20Boar
d/Board%20Actions/2018/PSSA%20English%20Language%20Arts%20Perf
ormance%20Level%20Descriptors%20Approved.pdf
Renbarger, R., Rivera, G., & Sulak, T. (2019). What predicts literacy, numeracy, and
problem-solving for incarcerated individuals? A PIAAC examination. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 58(3), 199–219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1582575
Richter, L. M., Behrman, J. R., Britto, P., Cappa, C., Cohrssen, C., Cuartas, J., Daelmans,
B., Devercelli, A. E., Fink, G., Fredman, S., Heymann, J., Boo, F. L., Lu, C.,
Lule, E., McCoy, D. C., Naicker, S. N., Rao, N., Raikes, A., Stein, A., . . .
Yoshikawa, H. (2021). Measuring and forecasting progress in education: what
about early childhood? NPJ Science of Learning, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00106-7
Ridzi, F., Sylvia, M., Qiao, X., & Craig, J. (2016, November 23). The Imagination
Library program and kindergarten readiness. Journal of Applied Social Science,
11(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724416678023
Roman, S., & Fiore, C. D. (2010). Do public library summer reading programs close
the achievement gap? The Journal of the Association for Library Service to
Children, 8(3), 27–31.
https://discovery.ebsco.com/c/356ple/viewer/pdf/rnel6dpubf
117
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
118
Rothwell, J. (2020). Assessing the economic gains of eradicating illiteracy nationally and
regionally in the United States. Gallup, Inc. https://www.barbarabush.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/BBFoundation_GainsFromEradicatingIlliteracy_9_8.pdf
Sahakian, B. J., Langley, C., Yang, A., Jiang, Y., Zhao, X., Li, C., Cheng, W., & Feng, J.
(2022, February 28). Early childhood reading for pleasure: Evidence from the
ABCD Study for benefits to cognitive performance and mental health and
associated changes in brain structure. MedRXiv.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.27.22271550
Seidenberg, M. (2013, October). The science of reading and its educational
implications. Language Learning and Development, 9(4), 331–360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812017
Seidenberg, M. (2017, January 3). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so
many can’t, and what can be done about it (1st ed.). Basic Books.
Shanahan, T. (2020, July). Limiting children to books they can already read: Why it
reduces their opportunity to learn. American Federation of Teachers.
https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2020/shanahan
Shanahan, T. (2020, September). What constitutes a science of reading instruction?
Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349
Shaywitz, S. (2021). Dyslexia in the 21st century. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 34(2),
80-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000670
Silinskas, G., Sénéchal, M., Torppa, M., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2020, July 2). Home
literacy activities and children’s reading skills, independent reading, and interest
in literacy activities from kindergarten to grade 2. Frontiers in Psychology,
11(5), 484-489. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01508
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
119
Stanley, C. T., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. (2017, September 6). A longitudinal
investigation of direct and indirect links between reading skills in kindergarten
and reading comprehension in tenth grade. Reading and Writing, 31(1), 133–153.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9777-6
Sum, A., Khatiwada, I., & McLaughlin, J. (2009, October). The consequences of
dropping out of high school. [Doctoral Dissertation, Center for Labor Market
Studies, Northeastern University].
https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/downloads/neu:376324
Taylor, D. B., Handler, L. K., FitzPatrick, E., & Whittingham, C. E. (2020, April 20).
The device in the room: Technology’s role in third-grade literacy instruction.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(4), 515–533.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1747577
Telischak, M. (2016). The influence of instructional time on student achievement in
grades 3, 4, and 5 in language arts and mathematics on the 2011 New Jersey
Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK). [PhD Dissertation, Seton Hally
University]. Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs).
https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2239
Thakur, K., Sudhanthar, S., Sigal, Y., & Mattarella, N. (2016). Improving early childhood
literacy and school readiness through Reach Out and Read (ROR) program. BMJ
Quality Improvement Reports, 5(1)
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u209772.w4137
Todd, R., & Kuhlthau, C. (2001, May 1). Student learning through Ohio school libraries,
Part 1: How effective school libraries help students. School Libraries Worldwide,
11(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.29173/slw6958
IMPACT OF ELEMENTARY LITERACY
Warren, B. (2019). Closing the science-to-practice gap for reading instruction: A case
study of two schools transitioning from balanced literacy to scientifically based
reading instruction [Doctoral Dissertation, Cardinal Stritch University].
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2132048367
Wexler, N. (2020). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education
system--and how to fix it. Van Haren Publishing
120
APPENDIX A
PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Submit Form
Reset
PROGRESS IN INTERNATIONAL READING LITERACY STUDY
Teacher Questionnaire
National Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education
550 12th St., SW, 4th floor
Washington, DC 20
© IEA, 2015
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the U.S. Department
of Education, is authorized to conduct this study under the Education Sciences
Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA 2002, 20 U.S.C., § 9543). The data are being collected
for NCES by RTI International, a nonprofit research organization based in North
Carolina. The collected data may be used only for statistical purposes and may not
be disclosed or used, in identifiable form, for any other purpose except as required
by law (ESRA 2002, 20 U.S.C., § 9573). The collected information will be combined
across respondents to produce statistical reports.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB
control number. The valid OMB control number for this voluntary survey is 1850-0645. The time required to complete this survey is estimated to average 35 minutes
per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the survey. If you have any
comments or concerns regarding the accuracy of the time estimate(s), suggestions for improving the form, or the status of your individual submission of this form,
write directly to: Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), National Center for Education Statistics, PCP, 550 12th St., SW, 4th floor, Washington, DC
20 .
OMB No. 1850-0645, Approval Expires 11/30/2017.
Teacher Questionnaire APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
ar land School i trict has agreed to
It is estimated that you will need approximately
participate in PIRLS (Progress in International
to 30 minutes to complete this questionnaire. We
Reading Literacy Study), an educational research
appreciate the time and effort that this takes and thank
project sponsored
you for your cooperation and contribution.
enn e t ni er it
o ha e an
e tion or concern plea e eel
ree to contact the ollo in people o er eein the
n addition plea e e a are that an
in ormation pro ided ill remain anon mo
are loo in at a
re earch t d :
e
re ate data onl in order to
anal e ar land c rrent literac pro ram
PIRLS measures trends in student achievement
rac Smith (principal re earcher):
S
penn e t ed
r ame Gia
into:
ia
into par land d or
r eter i en: ai en penn e t ed
in reading and studies differences in national
education systems in more than 50 countries in
han
o
order to help improve teaching and learning
worldwide.
This questionnaire is addressed to teachers of
elementar students, and seeks information about
ppro ed
the enn l ania
n tit tional e ie
e tern ni er it
oard hi appro al i e ecti e
September 12, 2022 and e pire September 11, 2023.
teachers’ academic and professional backgrounds,
classroom resources, instructional practices, and
attitudes toward teaching. It is important that you
answer each question carefully so that the
information that you provide reflects your situation
as accurately as possible.
PIRLS 2016
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
About You
1
5
What grade(s) do you currently teach?
A. During your college or university education, what
was your major or main area(s) of study?
Fifth Grade
Check one circle for each line.
Yes
No
2
At which Parkland school do you teach?
Ironton
3
How many years of teaching experience do you have?
A
b) Education—Secondary ------------------------- A
c) English ------------------------------------------- A
d) Other --------------------------------------------- A
a) Education—Primary/Elementary --------------
A
A
A
A
B. As part of your formal education and/or training,
to what extent did you study the following areas?
Check one circle for each line.
Not at all
Less than 5
Overview or introduction
to topic
Please check this box if you were a teacher at Parkland
during the years 2009, 2010, OR 2011:
It was an area
of emphasis
a) English ------------------------- A
b) Literature ---------------------- A
c) Pedagogy/teaching reading -- A
d) Educational psychology ------- A
4
What is the highest level of formal education you have
completed?
Check one circle only.
e) Remedial reading -------------- A
f) Reading theory ---------------- A
g) Special education -------------- A
Did not complete high school --- A
h) Second language learning ---- A
Completed high school --- A
i) Assessment methods
in reading ---------------------- A
Completed a 2-year college
or university degree
(i.e., Associate’s degree) --- A
j)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
Early childhood education ----- A A A
Completed a 4-year college or
university degree
(i.e., Bachelor’s degree) --- A
Completed a Master’s degree,
postgraduate certificate program
(e.g., teaching), or professional
degree (e.g., law, medicine, dentistry) --- A
Completed a doctorate
(Ph.D. or Ed.D) --- A
Teacher Questionnaire
2
School Emphasis on
Academic Success
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
6
7
In the past two years, how many hours in total have
you spent in formal professional development (e.g.,
workshops, seminars, lesson studies, etc.) that dealt
directly with reading or teaching reading (e.g.,
reading theory, instructional methods)?
How would you characterize each of the following
within your school?
Check one circle for each line.
Very high
High
Check one circle only.
A
Less than 6 hours --- A
6–15 hours --- A
16–35 hours --- A
More than 35 hours --- A
Medium
None ---
3
Teacher Questionnaire
Low
Very
low
a) Teachers’ understanding of
the school’s curricular goals --- A
A A A A
b) Teachers’ degree of
success in implementing
the school’s curriculum -------- A
A A A A
c) Teachers’ expectations
for student achievement ------ A
A A A A
d) Teachers’ ability to
inspire students ---------------- A
A A A A
e) Collaboration between school
leadership (including master
teachers) and teachers to
plan instruction ---------------- A
A A A A
f) Parental involvement
in school activities ------------- A
A A A A
g) Parental commitment to
ensure that students are
ready to learn ------------------ A
A A A A
h) Parental expectations for
student achievement ---------- A
A A A A
i) Parental support for
student achievement ---------- A
A A A A
j) Students’ desire to do
well in school ------------------ A
A A A A
k) Students’ ability to reach
school’s academic goals ------- A
A A A A
l) Students’ respect for
classmates who excel
academically ------------------- A
A A A A
School Environment
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
About Being a Teacher
8
9
Thinking about your current school, indicate the
extent to which you agree or disagree with each of
the following statements.
How often do you have the following types of
interactions with other teachers?
Check one circle for each line.
Check one circle for each line.
Very often
Agree a lot
Often
Agree a little
Sometimes
Disagree a little
Never or
almost never
Disagree
a lot
a) This school is located in
a safe neighborhood ---------- A
A A A
b) I feel safe at this school -------- A A A A
c) This school’s security policies
and practices are sufficient ---- A
A A A
d) The students behave in an
orderly manner ---------------- A
A A A
e) The students are respectful
of the teachers ----------------- A
A A A
f) The students respect
school property ---------------- A
A A A
g) This school has clear rules
about student conduct -------- A
A A A
h) This school's rules are
enforced in a fair and
consistent manner ------------- A
A A A
a) Share what I have
learned about my
teaching experiences ---------- A
A A A
b) Observe another classroom
to learn more about teaching - A
A A A
c) Work together to
improve how to teach a
particular topic ---------------- A
A A A
d) Work with teachers from
other schools on the
curriculum --------------------- A
A A A
e) Work with teachers from
other grades to ensure
continuity in learning --------- A
A A A
10
How often do you feel the following way
about being a teacher?
Check one circle for each line.
Very often
Often
Sometimes
Never or
almost never
a) I am content with my
profession as a teacher -------- A
A A A
b) I find my work full of
meaning and purpose --------- A
A A A
c) I am enthusiastic
about my job ------------------- A
A A A
d) My work inspires me ----------- A A A A
e) I am proud of the work I do --- A A A A
Teacher Questionnaire
4
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
About Teaching Reading to the PIRLS Class
11
15
A. How many students are in this class?
_____________ students
In your view, to what extent do the following limit
how you teach this class?
Check one circle for each line.
Write in the number.
Not at all
Some
B. How many of the students in #11A are in
third grade?
_____________ third grade students
Write in the number.
a) Students lacking prerequisite
knowledge or skills ------------ A
A A
b) Students suffering from
lack of basic nutrition ---------- A
A A
c) Students suffering from
not enough sleep -------------- A
12
How many of your students experience
difficulties understanding spoken English?
_____________ students in this class
Write in the number.
13
A. How many students need remedial instruction
in reading?
_____________
Write in the number.
B. How many of the students in #13A receive
remedial instruction in reading?
Write in the number.
14
How many students in the class are advanced
readers?
_____________
Write in the number.
5
A lot
Teacher Questionnaire
A
d) Students absent from class ---- A A
e) Disruptive students ------------ A A
f) Uninterested students --------- A A
A
A
A
A
g) Students with mental,
emotional, or psychological
impairment -------------------- A
A A
h) Lack of support for using
information technology ------- A
A A
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
16
18
In a typical week, how much time do you spend on
English language instruction and/or activities with
the students?
When you have reading instruction and/or do
reading activities, how often do you organize
students in the following ways?
Include instruction or activities in reading, writing,
speaking, literature, and other language skills.
Check one circle for each line.
Always or almost always
Often
_____________ minutes per week
Sometimes
Write in the number of minutes per week.
Please convert the number of hours into minutes.
Never
a) I teach reading as a
whole-class activity ----------- A
17
Regardless of whether or not you have formally
scheduled time for reading instruction, in a typical
week about how much time do you spend on
reading instruction and/or activities with the
students?
Include things you do across curriculum areas and
during formally scheduled time for reading instruction.
A A A
b) I create same-ability groups -- A A A A
c) I create mixed-ability groups -- A A A A
d) I use individualized
instruction for reading --------- A
A A A
e) Students work independently
on an assigned plan or goal --- A
A A A
_____________ minutes per week
Write in the number of minutes per week.
Please convert the number of hours into minutes.
Teacher Questionnaire
6
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
About Teaching Reading to the PIRLS Class
19
20
When you have reading instruction and/or do
reading activities with the students, how often
do you have the students read the following
types of text (in print or digitally)?
When you have reading instruction and/or do
reading activities with the students, how often
do you do the following?
Check one circle for each line.
Check one circle for each line.
Every day or almost every day
Every day or almost every day
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a
month
Once or twice a
month
Never or
almost never
A. Literary Reading Materials
a) Short stories (e.g., fables, fairy
tales, action stories, science
fiction, detective stories) ------ A
a) Read aloud to students -------- A
b) Ask students to read aloud
A A A
b) Longer fiction books with
chapters ------------------------ A
A A A
c) Plays --------------------------- A A A A
B. Informational Reading
Materials
7
Never or
almost never
a) Nonfiction subject area
books or textbooks ------------ A
A A A
b) Longer nonfiction books with
chapters ------------------------ A
A A A
c) Nonfiction articles that
describe and explain about
things, people, events, or
how things work
(e.g., newspaper articles,
brochures) ---------------------- A
A A A
Teacher Questionnaire
A A A
--- A A A A
c) Ask students to read silently
on their own ------------------- A
A A A
d) Teach students strategies for
decoding sounds and words -- A
A A A
e) Teach students new
vocabulary systematically ----- A
A A A
f) Teach students how to
summarize the main ideas ---- A
A A A
g) Teach or model skimming
or scanning strategies --------- A
A A A
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
21
22
How often do you do the following in teaching
reading to this class?
Check one circle for each line.
How often do you ask the students to do the
following things to help develop reading
comprehension skills or strategies?
Check one circle for each line.
Every or almost every lesson
About half the lessons
Every day or almost every day
Some lessons
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a
month
Never
a) Provide reading materials
that match the
students’ interests -------------- A
A A A
b) Provide materials that are
appropriate for the reading
levels of individual students --- A
Never or
almost never
a) Locate information within
the text ------------------------ A
A A A
A A A
b) Identify the main ideas
of what they have read -------- A
A A A
c) Link new content to
students’ prior knowledge ----- A
A A A
d) Encourage students to
develop their understandings
of the text ---------------------- A
c) Explain or support their
understanding of what they
have read ---------------------- A
A A A
A A A
e) Encourage student discussions
of texts ------------------------- A
d) Compare what they have
read with experiences they
have had ----------------------- A
A A A
A A A
e) Compare what they have
read with other things they
have read ---------------------- A
A A A
f) Make predictions about
what will happen next in the
text they are reading ---------- A
A A A
g) Make generalizations and
draw inferences based on
what they have read ----------- A
A A A
h) Describe the style or
structure of the text they
have read ---------------------- A
A A A
i) Determine the author’s
perspective or intention ------- A
A A A
f) Encourage students to
challenge the opinion
expressed in the text ---------- A
A A A
g) Use multiple perspectives
(among students and texts)
to enrich understanding ------- A
A A A
h) Give students time to read
books of their own choosing -- A
A A A
i) Give individualized feedback
to each student ---------------- A
A A A
Teacher Questionnaire
8
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Computer and Library Resources
24
23
After students have read something, how often do
you ask them to do the following?
Check one circle for each line.
A. Do the students in this class have computers
(including tablets) available to use for their
reading lessons?
Check one circle only.
Every day or almost every day
A
No --- A
Yes ---
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a
month
Never or
almost never
a) Write something about or
in response to what they
have read ---------------------- A
b) Answer oral questions
about or orally summarize
what they have read ----------- A
c) Talk with each other about
what they have read ----------- A
d) Take a written quiz or test
about what they have read ---- A
A A A
(If No, go to #25)
If Yes,
B. What access do the students have to computers?
Check one circle for each line.
Yes
A A A
A A A
A A A
No
a) Each student has a computer -------------------
A A
b) The class has computers that students
can share -----------------------------------------
A A
c) The school has computers that the class
can use sometimes ------------------------------
A A
C. How often do you do the following computer
activities during reading lessons?
Check one circle for each line.
Every day or almost every day
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a
month
Never or
almost
never
9
Teacher Questionnaire
a) Ask students to read
digital texts -------------------- A
A A A
b) Teach students strategies
for reading digital texts ------- A
A A A
c) Teach students to be
critical when reading on
the Internet -------------------- A
A A A
d) Ask students to look up
information (e.g., facts,
definitions, etc.) --------------- A
A A A
e) Ask students to research
a particular topic
or problem --------------------- A
A A A
f) Ask students to write
stories or other texts ---------- A
A A A
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
26
25
A. Do you have a library or reading corner in your
classroom?
How often do you take or send the students to a
library other than your classroom library?
Check one circle only.
A
No --- A
Yes ---
(If No, go to #26 )
If Yes,
Check one circle only.
A
Once or twice a month --- A
A few times a year --- A
Never or almost never --- A
At least once or twice a week ---
B. About how many books are in your classroom
library?
Check one circle only.
A
26–50 --- A
51–100 --- A
More than 100 --- A
0–25 ---
C. About how many magazines with different titles
are in your classroom library?
Check one circle only.
A
1–2 --- A
3–5 --- A
More than 5 --- A
0 ---
D. How often do you give the students in your
class time to use the classroom library or
reading corner?
Check one circle only.
A
Once or twice a week --- A
Once or twice a month --- A
Never or almost never --- A
Every day or almost every day ---
E. Can the students borrow books from the classroom
library or reading corner to take home?
Check one circle only.
A
No --- A
Yes ---
Teacher Questionnaire
10
Reading Homework
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Reading Difficulties
27
30
How often do you assign reading as part of
homework (for any subject)?
Are the following resources available to you to work
with students who have difficulty with reading?
Check one circle only.
I do not assign reading
for homework ---
Check one circle for each line.
Always
A
Sometimes
(Go to #30)
Never
a) A specialized professional
(e.g., reading specialist,
speech therapist) -------------- A
A
1 or 2 times a week --- A
3 or 4 times a week --- A
Every day --- A
Less than once a week ---
A A
b) A teacher-aide ----------------- A A A
c) An adult/parent volunteer ---- A A A
28
In general, how much time do you expect students
to spend on homework involving reading (for any
subject) each time you assign it?
Check one circle only.
A
16–30 minutes --- A
31–60 minutes --- A
More than 60 minutes --- A
31
What do you usually do if a student begins to fall
behind in reading?
Check one circle for each line.
Yes
15 minutes or less ---
No
29
How often do you do the following with the reading
homework assignments for this class?
Check one circle for each line.
Always or almost always
Sometimes
Never or
almost never
11
a) Correct assignments and give
feedback to students ---------- A
A A
b) Discuss the homework
in class ------------------------- A
A A
c) Monitor whether or not the
homework was completed ---- A
A A
Teacher Questionnaire
a) I have the student work with a specialized
professional (e.g., reading specialist,
speech therapist) --------------------------------
A A
b) I wait to see if performance improves with
maturation ---------------------------------------
A A
c) I spend more time working on reading
individually with that student ------------------
A A
d) I ask the parents to help the student
with reading -------------------------------------
A A
e) I recommend that the student be
enrolled in a special reading program ----------
A A
Assessing Reading
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
32
How much emphasis do you place on the
following sources to monitor students’
progress in reading?
Check one circle for each line.
Major emphasis
Some emphasis
Little or no
emphasis
a) Assessment of students’
ongoing work ------------------ A
A A
b) Classroom tests (for
example, teacher-made
or textbook tests) -------------- A
A A
c) State or district
achievement tests ------------- A
A A
3
Approximately h
each week
Please write in the number of minutes per week.
34
What have you found most beneficial in learning
about and providing effective early literacy
instruction while at Parkland School District?
Teacher Questionnaire
12
APPENDIX A - PIRLS TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Thank You
Thank you for the thought, time, and effort you have put into completing
this questionnaire. It is greatly appreciated!
Appendix B
Volunteer Consent Form
Voluntary Consent Form – Pennsylvania Western University
Dear Parkland Faculty Member:
You are being asked to participate in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). PIRLS
measures trends in student achievement in reading and studies differences in national education
systems in more than 50 countries in order to help improve teaching and learning worldwide.
Participation in this survey is optional and there will be no penalty if you choose not to participate. In
addition, please be aware that any information provided will remain anonymous. We are looking at
aggregate data only to analyze Parkland's current elementary literacy programs. It will help the district
make progress towards the goal of having students reach reading proficiency.
What will I be asked to do if I take part in this study?
This questionnaire is addressed to teachers of elementary students and seeks information about
teachers’ academic and professional backgrounds, classroom resources, instructional practices, and
attitudes toward teaching. It is important that you answer each question carefully so that the
information that you provide reflects your situation as accurately as possible. The questionnaire may be
completed electronically and will take approximately 15 to 30 minutes to complete. All data collected
will be securely housed and accessible only by the researcher. All information provided will be kept
confidential.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, please contact the primary researcher, Tracy Smith, at
mailto:SMI7306@pennwest.edu or 484.357-8722. If you would like to talk to someone other than the
primary researcher, please contact Dr. Peter Aiken, the PennWest faculty member overseeing the
research project, via email at aiken@pennwest.edu.
Acknowledgment and Consent
Any questions I have about participating in this study have been answered. I agree to take part in this
study, and I understand that taking part is voluntary and that I may change my mind at any time without
penalty. By providing my name and initials below, I agree to participate in the completion of the PIRLS
questionnaire study.
Name (Print): _____________________________________Date: _________________________
Signature: _____________________________________________________________________
Approved by the Pennsylvania Western University Institutional Review Board. This approval is effective
09/12/2022 and expires 09/11/2023.
APPENDIX C
IRB APPROVAL LETTER
Institutional Review Board
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.
Dear Tracy,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled
“The Impact of Elementary Literacy on High School Learning Outcomes”
(Proposal #PW22-035) has been approved by the Pennsylvania Western
University Institutional Review Board as submitted.
The effective date of approval is 09/12/2022 and the expiration date is
09/11/2023. These dates must appear on the consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly
regarding any of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study
(additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before they are
implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are
necessitated by any events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of
09/11/2023, you must file additional information to be considered for
continuing review. Please contact instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Melissa Sovak, PhD.
Chair, Institutional Review Board
APPENDIX D
DISTRICT APPROVAL LETTER
APPENDIX E
Top 5 Types of Courses and Courses Taken in 2017, 2018, and 2019
(Organized by Third-Grade Reading Proficiency Level)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Advanced)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2017)
Advanced
Placement
Gifted/
High Potential
College
Preparatory
Honors
All Cohorts
Top 5 Types of
Courses
Gifted/
High Potential
Honors
College
Preparatory
Project Lead the
Way
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2018)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Honors
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2019)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Honors
All Cohorts
Top 5 Types of
Courses
Advanced
Placement
LCTI (part-time)
Advanced
Placement
LCTI (part-time)
Advanced
Placement
LCTI (part-time)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2017)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2019)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
LCTI (part-time)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Types of
Courses
Learning Support
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2018)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Learning Support
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
LCTI (full-time)
LCTI (part-time)
LCTI (part-time)
Learning Support
Learning Support
Applied
LCTI (full-time)
Honors
LCTI (part-time)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2017)
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Advanced
Placement
Honors
LCTI (part-time)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Basic)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2019)
Honors
Gifted/
High Potential
College
Preparatory
Advanced
Placement
Project Lead
The Way
Project Lead
The Way
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Proficient)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2018)
Gifted/
High Potential
Advanced
Placement
Honors
Advanced
Placement
College
Preparatory
Project Lead
the Way
College
Preparatory
Gifted/
High Potential
Honors
APPENDIX E
Top 5 Types of Courses and Courses Taken in 2017, 2018, and 2019
(Organized by Third-Grade Reading Proficiency Level)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency
Level
(Below Basic)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Types of
Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Types of
Courses
College
Preparatory
Learning
Support
Applied
College
Preparatory
Learning Support
College
Preparatory
Learning Support
LCTI (part-time)
College
Preparatory
Learning
Support
LCTI (part-time)
LCTI (parttime)
Work
Experience
LCTI (full-time)
Seminar
Applied
Career/Education/
Work Ready
LCTI (full-time)
Career/Education/
Work Ready
LCTI (full-time)
It should be noted that neither Advanced Placement (AP) nor Project Lead the Way
(PLTW) courses appear in the top 5 types of courses taken by high school students who
were either at a third-grade reading level of Basic or Below Basic in 2009, 2010, or 2011.
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Advanced)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Courses
Economics
GHP
Economics GHP
Biology
Honors
English 3
Language Arts
AP
American
Government
GHP
English
Literature and
Composition AP
World Studies
GHP
American
Government
GHP
American
Studies 2
GHP
World Studies
GHP
English 2
Honors
English 3
Language Arts
AP
World Studies
GHP
English 3
Language Arts
AP
English 3
Language Arts
AP
American
Studies 1
GHP
American
Studies 2
GHP
Precalculus
Honors
English 3
GHP
Economics
GHP
APPENDIX E
Top 5 Types of Courses and Courses Taken in 2017, 2018, and 2019
(Organized by Third-Grade Reading Proficiency Level)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Proficient)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Basic)
Third-Grade
Reading
Proficiency Level
(Below Basic)
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Courses
Economics CP
Economics CP
Algebra 1 CP
World Study CP
World Study CP
American
Government CP
English 4 CP
American
Government CP
World Study
CP
Geometry CP
World Study
CP
Geometry CP
English 1 CP
English 3 CP
Geometry CP
Chemistry CP
English 3 CP
English 4 CP
American Study
1 CP
Economics CP
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Courses
American
Government CP
English 3 CP
English 4 CP
Algebra 1 CP
English 3 CP
English 3 CP
Biology CP
World Study CP
Economics CP
Economics CP
English 1 CP
Geometry CP
World Study CP
World Study CP
Algebra 2 CP
Chemistry CP
Algebra 2 CP
American
Studies 1 CP
Earth Science CP
2009 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2017)
2010 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2018)
2011 Cohort
Top 5 Courses
(2019)
All Cohorts
Top 5 Courses
Study Skills 11
Algebra 2 CP
Study Skills 9
World Study CP
Economics CP
World Study CP
Biology CP
English 3 CP
English 4 CP
American
Government CP
Economics CP
Algebra 1 CP
Algebra 2 CP
Algebra 2 CP
Study Skills 11
English 4 CP
English 3 CP
Biology CP
Study Skills 12
American
Government 12
Biology CP
APPENDIX F
PIRLS Open-Ended Responses
PIRLS Question 34: What have you found most beneficial in learning about and
providing effective early literacy instruction while at Parkland School District?
Specific instruction using grade-level resources that provide clear guidance on how to
implement current topics has been beneficial. For example, discussing text structure and
completing TDA's were not part of my undergraduate training, and it is essential that this
training is provided by PSD. [Respondent 1]
I feel like as an effective kindergarten teacher I am always working on researching and
learning the new and best ways to help my students learn and grow. When I explicitly
teach in a structured way with both whole and small groups, I find I get the best results
with my students. [Respondent 2]
The sound wall we have posted in the rooms help students read and learn new words to
help improve comprehension and also reading and writing fluency. [Respondent 3]
Sound walls and LETRS [Respondent 4]
Science of Reading pd [Respondent 5]
I have found that LETRS and Heggerty have improved my students' phonemic awareness
which helps them become better readers. [Respondent 6]
Using a variety of genres and levels so that all students might have success. Also,
reading to them and with them EVERY day is beneficial while discussing the story and
vocabulary. These are just a few of the many ways early literacy instruction benefits our
Parkland students. [Respondent 7]
The district provides teachers with professional development that is current. Some things
can be implemented in the classroom right away, and we are provided with resources to
help with implementation. [Respondent 8]
LETRS training and a structured literacy program [Respondent 9]
I think the introduction to the science of reading and future training in this area will be
very beneficial and an effective form of explicit instruction for students. [Respondent 10]
It is not one size fits all. Resources are very good. [Respondent 11]
The Heggerty program we have implemented as well as LETRS training have been the
most beneficial. [Respondent 12]
It's important to start early and to read TO the children, as well as listen to them read.
Too many children are not read to and I see a decline in their interest in reading/books.
PSD does not have any time "built" into the curriculum for teacher choice read-alouds,
but I set aside 15 minutes every single day to do so. Every year, my students say it's their
favorite time of day. I can incorporate so many comprehension & vocab skills &
strategies during that time & they are a captive audience! [Respondent 13]
I have found the LETRS training beneficial to understand how/why students read how
they do. Our reading specialist is extremely helpful when working with all types of
student abilities. [Respondent 14]
We are encouraged to differentiate instruction. The information and support from our
reading specialist is excellent. [Respondent 15]
I always feel encouraged by my building principal and the staff here is collegial, which
helps. We are focused on helping all students learn to read.
A focus on phonemic awareness has helped my students grow. This district gets reading
instruction. It is a priority in my building. [Respondent 16]
Heggerty was an excellent addition! [Respondent 17]
APPENDIX F
PIRLS Open-Ended Responses
We have support and quality PD. [Respondent 18]
We have many resources and the focus in the primary grades is on developing strong
readers through the science of reading. [Respondent 19]
I enjoy the professional development on literacy instruction and appreciate the time
to review student data. Reading is important in this school. [Respondent 20]
I feel supported if I have students who are struggling to learn how to read through my
colleagues, support staff, and principal. [Respondent 21]
It should be noted that PIRLS Question 34 was optional, not required.
Not every teacher who completed the PIRLS questionnaire chose to answer this question.
APPENDIX G
DATA ANALYST CERTIFICATIONS
8 Courses
Jun 1, 2021
Tracy Elizabeth Smith
has successfully completed the online, non-credit Professional
Certificate
Foundations: Data, Data,
Everywhere
Ask Questions to Make
Data-Driven Decisions
Prepare Data for
Exploration
Process Data from Dirty to
Clean
Analyze Data to Answer
Questions
Share Data Through the Art
of Visualization
Google Data Analytics
Those who earn the Google Data Analytics Professional Certificate
have completed eight courses, developed by Google, that include
hands-on, practice-based assessments and are designed to prepare
them for introductory-level roles in Data Analytics. They are competent
in tools and platforms including spreadsheets, SQL, Tableau, and R.
They know how to prepare, process, analyze, and share data for
thoughtful action.
Data Analysis with R
Programming
Google Data Analytics
Capstone: Complete a Case
Study
The online specialization named in this certificate may draw on material from courses taught on-campus, but the included
courses are not equivalent to on-campus courses. Participation in this online specialization does not constitute enrollment
at this university. This certificate does not confer a University grade, course credit or degree, and it does not verify the
identity of the learner.
Verify this certificate at:
https://coursera.org/verify/profession
al-cert/LZ2NBE9KZWBT