The authors describe an independent evaluation of the READ 180 Enterprise intervention designed by Scholastic, Inc. Despite widespread use of the program with upper elementary through high school students, there is limited empirical evidence to support its effectiveness. In this randomized controlled trial involving 312 students enrolled in an after-school program, the authors generated intention-to-treat and treatment-on-the-treated estimates of the program’s impact on several literacy outcomes of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders reading below proficiency on a state assessment at baseline. READ 180 Enterprise students outperformed control group students on vocabulary (d = .23) and reading comprehension (d = .32) but not on spelling and oral reading fluency. The authors interpret the findings in light of the theory of instruction underpinning the READ 180 Enterprise intervention.
AngristJ. D.ImbensG. W.RubinD. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(234), 444–455.
2.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis: Statistics in practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
4.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.
5.
BulyM. R.ValenciaS. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219–239.
6.
ButcherK. R.KintschW. (2003). Text comprehension and discourse processing. In HealyA. F.ProctorR. W. (Vol. Eds.) WeinerI. B. (Ed.-in-Chief), Handbook of psychology, Volume 4: Experimental psychology (pp. 575–595). New York: John Wiley.
7.
Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
8.
ChallJ. S.JacobsV. A.BaldwinL. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22(1–2), 8–15.
11.
DeschlerD. D.PalinscarA. S.BiancarosaG.NairM. (2007). Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research-based guide to instructional programs and practices. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
DurlakJ. A.WeissbergR. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that promote personal and social skills. Retrieved January 2, 2010, from http://www.casel.org/downloads/ASP-Full.pdf
14.
GennetianL. A.MorrisP. M.BosJ. M.BloomH. S. (2005). Constructing instrumental variables from experimental data to explore how treatments produce effects. In BloomH. S. (Ed.), Learning more from social experiments: Evolving analytic approaches (pp. 75–114). New York: Russell Sage.
15.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
16.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
17.
GrangerR. (2008). After-school programs and academics: Implications for policy, practice, and research. Social Policy Report, 22, 1–19.
18.
GrangerR.DurlakJ. A.YohalemN.ReisnerE. (2007, April). Improving after-school program quality. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.
19.
GuthrieJ. T. (2003). Concept oriented reading instruction. In SweetA. P.SnowC. E. (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 115–140). New York: Guilford.
20.
HartryA.FitzgeraldR.PorterK. (2008). Implementing a structured reading program in an afterschool setting: Problems and potential solutions. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 181–210.
21.
HasselbringT. S.GoinL. I. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology?Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20(2), 123–144.
22.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127–160.
23.
James-BurdumyS.DynarskiM.DekeJ. (2007). When elementary schools stay open late: Results from the National Evaluation of the 21St Century Community Learning Centers Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 296–318.
24.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447.
25.
KaneT. J. (2004, January). The impact of after-school programs: Interpreting the results of four recent evaluations (W. T. Grant Foundation Working Paper). Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org/usr_doc/After-school_paper.pdf
26.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology, vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. Reading Teacher, 61(2), 134–144.
27.
KimJ. S.SamsonJ. F.FitzgeraldR.HartryA. (2010). A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: Effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. Reading and Writing, 23(9), 1109–1129.
28.
LangL. H.TorgesenJ. K.PetscherY.VogelW.ChanterC.LefskyE. (2008, March). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Paper presented at the annual research conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Crystal City, VA.
29.
LangL.TorgesenJ.VogelW.ChanterC.LefskyE.PetscherY. (2009). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(2), 149–175.
30.
LauerP. A.AkibaM. A.WilkersonS. B.ApthorpH. S.SnowD.Martin-GlennM. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313.
31.
LeeJ.GriggW.DonahueP. (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007 (NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
32.
LovelessT. (2007). How well are American students learning?Washington, DC: Brown Center on Educational Policy at Brookings.
33.
MorrisR. D.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M.ShaywitzS. E.LyonG. R.ShankweilerD. P.ShaywitzB. A. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 347–373.
34.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
35.
PalinscarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
36.
RossiP. H.LipseyM. W.FreemanH. W. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scholastic Research. (2008). Desert Sands Unified School District, CA. New York: Scholastic Inc.
39.
SlavinR. E.CheungA.GroffC.LakeC. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322.
40.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
42.
StockJ. H.WrightJ. H.YogoM. (2002). A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(4), 518–529.
43.
TomlinsonC. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (Rev. ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
44.
TorgesenJ. K. (2005). Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
45.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume I—Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement. Washington, DC: Author.
46.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary. (2003). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program (First year findings). Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/21cent/firstyear/index.html
47.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2009). Intervention READ 180. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
48.
WhiteH. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838.
