How Large is the School Population of Students at Risk Qualifying for Secondary Interventions?
Schools, Settings, Teachers, and Students. Overall, the study underway at the Kansas Center is a randomized trial of the longitudinal effects of the early reading and behavior prevention model employed in urban schools in the Midwestern United States, 8 experimental and 5 control schools. Schools agreed to random assignment wherein they were selected to either use or not use the model. This paper reports some initial findings from the population of first graders in 4 experimental and 4 control schools (340 students; 176 experimental and 164 control group first grade students), these schools representing the highest risk schools in the study. The 340 represent students for whom parental permission was obtained including 90% of all first grade students in the experimental schools, versus 74% in the control schools. Table 1 presents demographic information for the schools, indicating moderate to high risk levels within and across schools (e.g., low SES, large numbers of English language learners (ELL), and cultural diversity).
| Schools | Total Enrollment (K-3) | % Minority Status | % Free & Reduced Lunch | % Students with IEPs | % English Language Learners |
| Experimental | |||||
| School 1 | 347 (177) | 87% | 87% | 8% | 25% |
| School 2 | 262 (210) | 95% | 90% | 7% | 49% |
| School 3 | 312 (159) | 65% | 78% | 9% | 0% |
| School 5 | 327 (217) | 18% | 20% | 13% | 1% |
| Control | |||||
| School 8 | 319 (181) | 91% | 84% | 14% | 13% |
| School 9 | 508 (254) | 85% | 97% | 10% | 37% |
| School 10 | 481 (240) | 23% | 53% | 19% | 0% |
| School 11 | 369 (216) | 27% | 21% | 14% | 4% |
* DIBELS fall nonsense word fluency scores < 25 indicates risk; winter oral reading fluency < 20 indicates risk
A striking finding was the high percentage of students in the participating schools showing reading risk in the beginning of their first grade year. Based on the fall DIBELS score for nonsense word fluency (a score less than 25 indicates risk), results indicated that 61%, 32%, 74%, and 46% respectively, in the experimental schools, and 65%, 82%, 62%, and 46% in the control schools (see Table 2) were at risk. Similarly high risk levels were noted based on students oral reading rates from the winter DIBELS assessment (see Table 2). The study included 83 students (68 students at risk for reading, 15 at risk for reading and behavior) in the experimental schools and 93 non-risk, typically developing students according to DIBELS benchmark scores. In the control schools, 76 were at risk (69 for reading and 7 for both reading and behavior), and 75 were non-risk peers. Additional students (n = 6 versus 7, respectively in experimental versus control schools) were at risk for behavior problems.
Table 2: Percent of students showing reading risk based on DIBELS
| Experimental Schools | Risk StatusDIBELS * | District Determined Reading Curricula |
| School 1 | 61% nonsense
78% oral reading |
Open Court |
| School 2 | 32% nonsense
39% oral reading |
Reading Mastery |
| School 3 | 74% nonsense
82% oral reading |
Spotlight on Literacy - McMillan |
| School 5 | 46% nonsense
39% oral reading |
Open Court |
| Control Schools | Risk Status DIBELS * | District Determined Reading Curricula |
| School 8 | 65% nonsense
66% oral reading |
Balanced Literacy |
| School 9 | 82% nonsense
70% oral reading |
Balanced Literacy |
| School 10 | 62% nonsense
64% oral reading |
Guided Reading |
| School 11 | 46% nonsense
56% oral reading |
Open Court |
* DIBELS fall nonsense word fluency scores < 25 indicates risk; winter oral reading fluency < 20 indicates risk
Previous Page | Next Page
(Evidence-Based Practices) | (What Is Needed)
