Drummond, Katie V.; Tucker-Bradway, Natalie; Smith, Deeza-Mae; Hubbard, Daniel; Meakin, John; Salinger, Terry (2020). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED610842
Reviewed: June 2022
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) |
Children's Literacy Initiative (CLI) vs. Business as usual |
-2 Years |
Full sample, Y1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) |
Children's Literacy Initiative (CLI) vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample, Y2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
English language arts state standardized assessment (multiple states) |
Children's Literacy Initiative (CLI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample, Y3 State Assessment;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
English language arts state standardized assessment (multiple states) |
Children's Literacy Initiative (CLI) vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample, Y2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ELA Instructional Practice |
Children's Literacy Initiative (CLI) vs. Business as usual |
-2 Years |
Full sample, Y1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 88% | |
| No FRPL | 12% |
The study examines the effects of a three-year literacy intervention developed by the Children’s Literacy Initiative (CLI). The study was a school-level cluster randomized controlled trial in 55 urban elementary schools from four different districts--Broward County Public Schools, Florida, Denver Public Schools, Colorado, Elizabeth Public Schools, New Jersey, and the Houston Independent School District, Texas. The districts were selected because of the high proportion of students below proficient on state ELA benchmarks and because each had a high proportion of students from low-income families.
Across the 55 schools in the sample, the average school was 92% minority, 88% eligible for free or reduced price lunch, and 36% English Learners.
The Children’s Literacy Initiative (CLI) is designed to improve classroom literacy environments and instruction as well as to raise the achievement of students in kindergarten through grade 3. The CLI intervention provides teachers with training and coaching sessions, establishes mentor teachers to support fellow teachers, and involves school and district leaders in tracking students’ literacy progress. The intervention includes all teachers in kindergarten-grade 3 classrooms in 26 CLI scale-up treatment schools. Teachers receive books and materials at the start of their first year, participate in intensive early literacy instructional seminars, attend grade-level meetings facilitated by CLI-trained coaches, and receive classroom-embedded coaching focusing on the Teacher's Effective Literacy Practices (TELP) checklist. Instructional lead teachers and principals receive additional coaching and professional development. Through deeper teacher knowledge about content and teaching and increased capacity for literacy leadership, it is theorized that literacy practices and leadership will be sustained over time and student reading proficiency will increase.
Schools assigned to the control condition continued with their business-as-usual literacy instruction and professional development.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube