The purpose of the present article is to report on a large–scale investigation of six school districts’ implementation of an initiative aimed at reducing dropout rates by improving reading achievement in the middle grades. Data for the Middle School Intervention Project (MSIP) were collected in 25 middle schools across the state of Oregon. We examined (a) the degree to which the schools improved reading achievement for struggling readers in 8th grade, and (b) whether we could account for school differences in the treatment effect through measured explicit and intensive intervention factors. At the end of 8th grade there was no evidence of significant or positive effects on the two primary reading outcome measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ACT Inc. (2006). Act high school profile report: The graduating class of 2009 act national profile report. Washington, DC: ACT Inc.
2.
ACT Inc. (2009). National overview. Measuring college and career readiness: The class of 2009. Washington, DC: ACT Inc.
3.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2007). High school dropouts in America. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
4.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2008). Dropouts, diplomas, and dollars: U.S. High schools and the nation's economy. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
5.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2009). High school dropouts in America. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
6.
AlonzoJ., & TindalG. (2008). Examining the technical adequacy of fifth–grade reading comprehension measures in a progress monitoring assessment system (Technical Report No. 0807). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
7.
AlonzoJ., TindalG., UlmerK., & GlasgowA. (2006). easyCBM online progress monitoring assessment system. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
8.
AndersonD., AlonzoJ., & TindalG. (2010). easyCBM® mathematics criterion related validity evidence: Oregon state test (Technical Report No. 1011). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Training, University of Oregon.
9.
BakerS. K., & BakerD. L. (2007). Teaching English language learners to read in Oregon schools: Moving from theory to practice. Paper presented at the COSA Conference, Seaside, OR.
10.
BakerS. K., CroneD. A., & FienH. (2010). The Middle School Intervention Project (MSIP). (U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Educational Sciences, CFDA Num: 84.305E, 2010–2015, Funding Number: R305E100043, awarded $7,251,436.00).
11.
BakerS. K., SmithJ. L. M., FienH., OtterstedtJ., KatzR., BakerD. L., et al. (2007). Three year report on Oregon Reading First: Impact and implementation (May 15). Eugene, OR.: Oregon Reading First Center.
12.
BiancarosaG., & SnowC. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
13.
BloomH. S. (2012). Modern regression discontinuity analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 43–82.
14.
BormanG. D., HewesG. M., OvermanL. T., & BrownS. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta–analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.
15.
BoulayB., GoodsonB. D., FryeM., BlocklinM., & PriceC. (2015). Summary of research generated by striving readers on the effectiveness of interventions for struggling adolescent readers (NCEE No. 2016–4001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
16.
BurnhamK. P., & AndersonD. R. (2003). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information–theoretic approach. New York: Springer–Verlag.
17.
CarnevaleA. P., & DesrochersD. M. (2003). Standards for what? The economic and demographic roots of standards based reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18.
ChenZ.–Y., & KaplanH. B. (2003). School failure in early adolescence and status attainment in middle adulthood: A longitudinal study. Sociology of Education, 76, 110–127.
19.
ChibS., & GreenbergE. (2014). Nonparametric bayes analysis of the sharp and fuzzy regression discontinuity designs. St. Louis, MO: Washington University in St Louis.
20.
CroneD. A., CarlsonS. E., HaackM. K., KennedyP. C., BakerS. K., & FienH. (2016). Data–based decision–making teams in middle school: Observations and implications from the Middle School Intervention Project. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41, 79–93.
DoablerC. & Nelson–WalkerN. J. (2009). Ratings of Classroom Management and Instructional Support. Available from the Center on Teaching and Learning at the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
23.
DuffyG. G., RoehlerL. R., SivanE., RackliffeG., BookC., MelothM. S., et al. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347–368.
24.
EPE Research Center. (2008). School to college: Can state p–16 councils ease the transition? A special supplement to education week's: Diplomas count 2008. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center.
25.
FinnJ., & OwingsJ. (2006). Adult lives of at–risk students: The roles of attainment and engagement in high school No. NCES 2006–328). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
26.
FinnJ., & RockD. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 231–234.
27.
FriedmanT. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
28.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., KarnsK., HamlettC. L., KatzaroffM., & DutkaS. (1997). Effects of task–focused goals on low–achieving students with and without learning disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 513–543.
29.
GerstenR., ComplonD., SantoroL. E., DiminoJ., Linan–ThompsonS., & TillyD. (2008). Response to intervention (RTI) & muttitier intervention for reading in the primary grades. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences.
30.
GerstenR. M., FuchsL. S., WilliamsJ. P., & BakerS. K. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
31.
GreeneJ. P., & WintersM. A. (2005). Public high school graduation and college–readiness rates: 1991–2002 (Working paper No. 8). New York: Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.
32.
GrossmanS. R., ShylakhterI., KarlssonE. K., ByrneE. H., Morales, et al. (2010). A composite of multiple signals distinguishes causal variants in regions of positive selection. Science, 327(5967), 883–886.
33.
GuyB., ShinH., & ThurlowM. L. (1999). State graduation requirements for students with and without disabilities (Technical Report No. 24). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
34.
HarlowC. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report No. January 2003, NCJ 195670). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
35.
HerreraS., TruckenmillerA. J., & FoormanB. (2016). Summary of 20 years of research on the effectiveness of adolescent literacy programs and practices (REL No. 2016–178). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
36.
JamesG., WittenD., HastieT. J., & TibshiraniR. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning: With applications in r (Vol. 103). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7138-7
37.
JohnsonD. R., & EmanuelE. J. (2000). Issues influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.
38.
Kame'enuiE. J., FrancisD., FuchsL. S., GoodR. H., O'Connor, et al. (2002). Final report on the analysis of reading assessment instruments for k–3. Eugene, OR: Reading Assessment Committee, Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement, College of Education, University of Oregon.
39.
KamilM. L., BormanG., DoleJ., KralC. C., SalingerT., & TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide. (No. NCEE #2008–4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
40.
KlingnerJ. K., VaughnS., & SchummJ. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth–grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1086/461914
41.
LairdJ., KewalRamaniA., & ChapmanC. (2008). Dropout and completion rates in the United States: 2006 (Report No. NCES 2008–053). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
42.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
43.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The nation's report card: 2015 mathematics & reading assessements. National achievement level results, 8th grade. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
44.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence–based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: NICHD Clearinghouse.
45.
NeildR. C., & BalfanzR. (2006). Unfulfilled promise: The dimensions and characteristic's of Philadelphia's dropout crisis, 2000–2005. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Youth Network; University of Pennsylvania; Johns Hopkins University.
46.
NelsonN. J., SmithJ. L. M., FienH., CroneD. A., BakerS. K., & Kame'enuiE. J. (2016). Researcher–practitioner partnerships: Lessons learned from the first year of the Middle School Intervention Project (MSIP). Journal of Special Education Leadership, 29, 46–59.
47.
NomiT., & AllensworthE. (2009). “Double–dose” algebra as an alternative strategy to remediation: Effects on students’ academic outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 111–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802676739
Oregon Department of Education. (2012). Oregon's statewide assessment system. Test administration (Technical Report Volume No. 5). Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education.
50.
PiantaR. C., & HamreB. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standarized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119.
51.
R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2.2.5 (Very, Very Secure Dishes)) [Computer Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
52.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
53.
RumbergerR. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583–625. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003583
54.
ScammaccaN., RobertsG., VaughnS., EdmondsM., WexlerJ., ReutebuchC. K., et al. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta–analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
55.
SchochetP. Z. (2008). Technical methods report: Statistical power for regression discontinuity designs in education evaluations No. NCEE 2008–4026). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
56.
SchumakerJ. B., & DeshlerD. D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for students with learning disabilities: Results of a programmatic research effort. In WongB. Y. L. (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp. 22–46). New York: Springer.
57.
SeftorN. (2017). Raising the bar. Evaluation Review, 41(3), 212–239.
58.
ShadishW. R., ZuurA. F., & SullivanK. J. (2014). Using generalized additive (mixed) models to analyze single case designs. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.004
59.
SlavinR. E., CheungA., GroffC., & LakeC. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best–evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 290–322. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4
60.
SmithJ. L. M., FienH., BasarabaD., & TraversP. (2009). Planning, evaluating, and improving tiers of support in beginning reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(5), 16–22.
61.
SmolkowskiK., & GunnB. (2012). Reliability and validity of the classroom observations of student–teacher interactions (costi) for kindergarten reading instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 316–328.
62.
SnowC. E., BurnsM. S., & GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academny Press, National Research Council.
63.
SolisM., MiciakJ., VaughnS., & FletcherJ. M. (2014). Why intensive interventions matter: Longitudinal studies of adolescents with reading disabilities and poor reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 218–229.
64.
SugaiG., & HornerR. H. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Preferred processes and practices. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 10–22.
65.
TorgesenJ. K., HoustonD. D., RissmanL. M., DeckerS. M., RobertsG., VaughnS., et al. (2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document form the center on instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
66.
WanzekJ., VaughnS., ScammaccaN. K., MetzK., MurrayC. S., RobertsG., et al. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195.
67.
WoodS. (2006). Generalized additive models: An introduction with r. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
68.
WoodS., & ScheiplF. (2014). Gamm4: Generalized additive mixed models using mgcv and lme4 (Version 0.0–4) [Computer software]: The Comprehensive R Archive Network.
