Research, Recommendation, and Implementation of the
Rewards® Reading and Writing Intervention Program for Middle School
Abstract
Edward Bleeker J.H.S. 185 in Flushing, NY has hired me as a Reading Specialist. The students at Bleeker have consistently scored below level on standardized English Language Assessment tests. I have been given a mandate from the principal of the school to assess the needs of the school, recommend a course of remediation, and develop a literacy curriculum that will produce an increase in the students’ reading scores while maintaining the current Balanced Literacy approach the school now uses. I have researched several published literacy programs, and am proposing the implementation of the REWARDS® Reading and Writing Intervention Program. This article will discuss the school, its needs, and the benefits of the REWARDS® program.
Don Goldberg
Touro College
Professor Stancato/EDU 618
August 15, 2007
Research, Recommendation, and Implementation of the
Rewards® Reading and Writing Intervention Program for Middle School
When charged with the responsibility of researching, recommending, and implementing a reading and writing intervention program for any school functioning below grade level, there are several factors to consider before making any decisions. Issues such as the program’s relation to student needs, compatibility with current teaching methods and materials, accessibility to support mechanisms by teachers and administrators, and economic viability play a major role in determining which direction to go. Combine that with the plethora of commercially available intervention programs and theoretical teaching models, and the problem becomes even more compounded. Despite all of these issues and considerations, it is of the utmost importance to maintain a vision of what children truly need to succeed academically, socially, and economically that will guide those responsible to make the right decisions.
My vision of success for school-age children is that they all have the capability to learn because they inherently want to learn. They bring with them to the academic setting their own social, cultural, and educational experiences that serve to not only make them who they are, but provide a unique basis on which to build a rewarding educational experience. I believe that children deserve to be taught using the best available instructional methods, presented by highly qualified teachers so that they may become lifelong literate readers and writers. These skills will provide them with the keys to personal, social, and economic success. In order to attain these goals, children need exposure to a print-rich environment both at home and at school; up-to-date materials that are clearly written, engaging, and age-appropriate; opportunities for independent, as well as collaborative, educational exploration; and opportunities to share and take pride in the products of their own education.
I have recently been hired as the Reading Specialist at Edward Bleeker J.H.S. 185. Bleeker is located in Flushing, New York and is a part of District 25, Region 3 of the New York City Public Schools. Although many of the students live in the immediate area of the school, many more travel by bus from outlying communities such as Jamaica, College Point, and East Elmhurst. The community surrounding the school is predominantly middle-class with an average annual household income of $54,842, and has remained relatively stable in the last several years. The annual household income rose by 38% from 1990 to the present, but only 11% since 2000. According to the latest data (2005-2006 school year), the population of the community numbers 69,048 in 24,879 households. As of the 2000 census, the area’s population has remained stable with only a 1% change since 2000 as compared to 11% since 1990 (Schooldigger.com, 2007).
The school’s demographics tell a good deal about the community as well. As of the 2005-2006 school year, Asians, predominantly Korean, make up the majority of the student body (46%) of 856 enrolled. Hispanic students, predominantly from Puerto Rico, Colombia, Peru, and other South American countries, make up the next largest ethnic group (32%). Whites and African Americans make up the minority of the student body at 14% and 8% respectively. Interestingly enough, 81% of the student body are eligible and receive discounted, or free, lunch (Schooldigger.com, 2007). Owing to the demographics of the immediate community, one might fairly assume that the students who travel from other communities are the ones receiving the discounted, or free, lunches. The implications of this are better suited to a different study, but are interesting nonetheless. Finally, the school employs 53 full-time teachers, and according to Schooldigger.com, the student/teacher ratio is 16.2 (2007). That figure may be somewhat skewed since overcrowding in many classrooms has been noted as a problem area in the school; upwards of 32-36 students have been found in several classes at a time.
Standardized test scores of Bleeker’s seventh- and eighth-grade students have been cause for alarm for the school’s administration, and the reason for my hire. The most recent data show that only 58% of seventh-graders met standards on the 2006 New York State English Language Assessment (ELA) exam. Among eighth-graders, only 50% of students met standards on the grade level ELA exam (Schooldigger.com, 2007). With these statistics in hand, the principal of the school has given me a mandate to assemble a core group of stakeholders, assess the literacy needs of the school; recommend a course of remediation; and develop and implement an effective curriculum that will produce an increase in student reading scores. The remainder of this report will deal with how to best carry out the mandate.
Current Educational Setting and Literacy Program
Edward Bleeker J.H.S. 185 follows a state-directed program of nine English and Math classes per week. This dictates two classes of each subject four times a week. From my observations, this arrangement tends to produce learning fatigue and student disinterest. At the middle-school level, it is very difficult for even the most seasoned teachers to hold the attention of their students for more than a single period. The task becomes doubly hard when students are required to remain in the classroom for up to 82-84 minutes without a break, or if, especially if, there is a break of several class periods between the two English periods.
Self-contained Special Education classrooms are restricted to only those students who have been fully diagnosed as learning disabled (LD). All other students, no matter their learning, language, or behavioral level, are placed in mainstream classes. Because many students come from less advantaged neighborhoods without the means for full psychological or cognitive testing, those who might be considered LD do not have access to self-contained classes or curricular modifications. This unfortunate situation has been borne out in parent interviews. At Bleeker, there are SP, or Honors, classes that actually contain up to four or five non-SP level students. This can create undue, and awkward, curricular modifications and serious classroom disturbances that take away from the higher-level learning that ought to be taking place. The same situation holds true for ESL students and English Language Learners (ELL). Quite often, these students merely sit in class without a clue as to the lesson or what it actually means. In addition, there seems to be very little, if any, curricular coordination among the English department. One teacher might be reading a novel with their class while another could be reading an entirely different novel or working on writing an effective introduction to for an essay.
The current literacy model at Bleeker is based on the Teachers College Reading and Writing Workshop model originally developed by Lucy Calkins and Carmen Fariña (McFadyen, 2005). The principal and assistant principal, who is the head of the English department, promote a very strict; some would say dogmatic, policy of adherence to the workshop model. Every class period must follow the model regardless of the planned lesson, and each step (“do now”, mini-lesson, direct instruction, group work, share out) is meticulously timed. Staff development regarding the model emphasizes these points as well. The issue of inclusion (as stated earlier) is a major issue when it comes to the reading and writing workshops. LD, ESL, and ELL students often find themselves at a distinct disadvantage, but are required to participate and interact with other students despite the fact that they rarely understand the lesson in a meaningful way. Additionally, the reading and writing workshop model, rather than being implemented in all subject areas, is restricted to English classrooms. Other content area teachers are informed and aware of the model, but are not required to implement it. Professional development and in-class demonstrations are provided by the Literacy Coach – a second-year English teacher with no background in literacy instruction. Aside from the Literacy Coach, there is no other Reading Specialist or Title I teachers in the building. The Literacy Coach is also the sole provider of professional development at Bleeker. In informal interviews, several teachers have characterized those sessions as poorly planned, irrelevant, and with not enough concrete strategies that are workable in the classroom.
The Literacy “Dream Team”
My first order of business as the newly hired Reading Specialist at Bleeker is to create a core group of stakeholders made up of administrators, faculty, and students. This group, which I will call the “Dream Team”, along with me, will be responsible for to assessing, recommending, and implementing any changes in the literacy curriculum. The Dream Team will be made up of the following individuals:
- The Assistant Principal
- All subject-specific department heads (including Special Education)
- Literacy Coach
- PTA president
- Three handpicked students who have demonstrated academic excellence and involvement in school activities
The Assistant Principal, aside from being the head of the English department, will be in the unique position to have input on what the school budget is equipped to handle, and what resources are available or can be made available. It is noble to recommend a wish list of programs, but if they are not economically feasible, or unmanageable in the school environment, the group’s hard work will be for naught. Subject-specific department heads, teachers themselves, have knowledge of, and experience with, what their teachers need and want for their students will succeed in this new endeavor. The head of Special Education is especially important to the team, as they will be instrumental in planning any modifications to class structure and curriculum needed for student success. The Literacy Coach, despite her inexperience, is in the position to research the available remediation programs, distill their content, and make valuable recommendations to the team. The PTA President will act as liaison between parents and the team. This person will be “in the know” and will disseminate information through fliers, newsletters, and/or meetings about what, why, and how the children are being taught. This is an especially vital position because with change comes dissent based on ignorance. We will want to keep parents fully apprised of the team’s recommendations and how they are being carried out. Finally, the team will be rounded out with three handpicked students who have demonstrated academic excellence and involvement in school activities. These students will add the unique perspective of those actually being taught. I recommend that these three students come from the eighth-grade since they will feel more like stakeholders; ninth-graders will have less interest in a program they will not experience, and seventh-graders are too young and inexperienced in the middle-school environment. For obvious reasons, the student members of the team will not have a vote on financial matters or school resources, but they will provide input on what has been previously tried in the classroom, and what has previously worked or not worked. They may even be able to take informal polls of their classmates through phone conversations, e-mail, and other Internet resources to “test the waters” of any given recommendation.
Needs Assessment
Once the literacy team has been assembled, it will be necessary to evaluate the needs of the faculty so they may effectively recommend a plan of action. This kind of information can be collected using a paper poll that asks questions about instructional methods; available materials and resources; and instruction and assessment. As I envision this questionnaire, each item would be rated on a scale of 1-5 with “1” meaning strongly disagree and “5” meaning strongly agree. There would also be a space for teachers’ extemporaneous comments and concerns. Additionally, respondent anonymity would be offered, but it would be hoped that teachers would want their concerns to be known as their own so that their individual needs might be addressed. The questionnaire will be created by the literacy team and will cover as many areas of literacy learning and curriculum development as possible without being overwhelming or confusing. I will not enumerate each question here (it is best to allow the team, as a whole, to debate the content), but as to the kinds of questions that might be found, I can offer some general suggestions. We (the team) will certainly want to know teachers’ attitudes about the availability of instructional materials; do they have access to standards-based materials, are their classroom texts grade-level appropriate and are there enough of them, and is the school library well-stocked and inviting. Questions focused on instruction and assessment would be concerned with the alignment of instruction to standards; opportunities for students to read and write independently; adequate time for instruction and lesson planning; a variety of instructional tools; and parental support for the school’s learning initiatives.
After the questionnaires have been completed and collected, responses will be tallied to find common areas of concern to teachers. We will also make note of any anomalies that could indicate a trouble spot that has been overlooked by other respondents. In cases like that, it will be interesting to note how a small handful of teachers feel about an item versus the rest of the faculty who feel the complete opposite. This could be a subject-specific concern, a misunderstanding of the question being asked, or a unique viewpoint about a subject that only a few teachers have noticed. The team will then record and categorize all teacher comments from the questionnaire. These are important as clarification on a particular item or the introduction of an insight the literacy team may have overlooked. Once the results have been compiled, the team will create a summary document addressing all strengths and weaknesses in the present literacy curriculum as perceived by the faculty. The next step will be for the team to discuss and evaluate literacy needs and make recommendations for intervention and remediation of the current program.
The REWARDS® Reading and Writing Intervention Program
The REWARDS® Reading and Writing program was developed by Anita L. Archer PhD, Mary M. Gleason PhD, Vicky Vachon PhD, and Steve Isaacson PhD. Drs. Archer, Gleason, and Vachon are the authors of “Decoding and Fluency: Foundation Skills for Struggling Older Readers” in which they discuss the research and workings behind the REWARDS® program. REWARDS® is specifically aimed at struggling readers in grades 6-12 who read at a 2.5 grade level or above, and who have trouble with multi-syllabic words (Learning Disability Quarterly, 2003). With the REWARDS® program, students learn a flexible strategy for breaking multi-syllabic words into manageable, decodable blocks, or chunks. If students do not know the words they are reading and cannot derive meaning from context, they must expand their vocabularies and learn a repertoire of comprehension strategies (Williams, 1998). According to Archer et al, these students need instruction in decoding long words using one of three approaches: reading segmented words part by part, decoding different syllable types, or using a flexible strategy for reading long words (Learning Disability Quarterly, 2003). Chunking is a component of all three approaches. Essentially, it “facilitates comprehension and fluency by using thought units rather than word-by-word reading (Walker, 2000). REWARDS® is not just one strategy, however. The program also teaches students to identify vowel sounds, suffixes, and prefixes; and accurately read more multi-syllabic words in content area textbooks. In Whole-Language High Jinks, Moats points out that “a good reading program, well implemented, teaches each of the five components (phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension) thoroughly, explicitly, and with planned connections to the others” (2007). REWARDS® satisfies all those requirements with startling results.
Research has shown up to a 402.8% increase in students’ ability to read words from a list and up to a 417.6% increase in students’ ability to read words in a sentence (Cambium Learning, 2005). These results are from a forthcoming study of fourth- and fifth-grade students, but the implications for success in older students are clear. Overall, students who have used the REWARDS® program have shown marked increases in decoding, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, test-taking abilities, content-area reading, and sentence and content-area writing. When considering vocabulary and comprehension, Gipe points out that there is a reciprocal relationship between the two; as one grows it enhances the other (Multiple Paths to Literacy, 2002).
The REWARDS® program can be incorporated into the Reading and Writing Workshop approach already in place at Bleeker. Shearer and Vogt endorse this viewpoint in Reading Specialists and Literacy Coaches in the Real World when they state that “intervention programs are more likely to be successful when they serve students in ways that support rather than supplant regular reading instruction” (p. 89). Teachers only need to devote a few minutes each time the program is used – presumably as a mini-lesson, however, full stand-alone lessons can also be expanded from a REWARDS® lesson. Teachers have the flexibility to use the program-supplied texts or teacher/school-supplied materials. In addition, the program can be used in Special Education classrooms and Resource Room settings.
Implementation of the REWARDS® program is easy for teachers and administrators. Since the program is based in curriculum that is already familiar to faculty and administrators, training is generally easy. The first stage is a one-day implementation/training workshop that will be attended by the literacy team. They will become familiar with, and trained in, the program and the research behind it. The second stage is called Training of Teachers (TOT) for Local Capacity Building. This is a two-day workshop, also attended by the literacy team, which teaches them how to teach the program to the school’s faculty.
I firmly believe that the REWARDS® Reading and Writing Intervention Program would be an ideal fit for Edward Bleeker J.H.S. 185. It provides the resources and strategies needed to boost standardized test scores, reading fluency and comprehension, and overall literacy levels for all students. As we move forward, the literacy team will begin to address some of the other issues within the school that are in need of improvement, but for now, we are on the right path.
Bibliography
Archer, A.L., Gleason, M.M., Vachon, V.L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 89-101
Cambium Learning. (2005). Cambium Learning Store – REWARDS program. Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://store.cambiumlearning.com/ProgramPage.aspx?parentId=019005266&functionID=009000008&pID=REWARDS&site=sw
Moats, L.M. (2007). Whole-language high jinks: How to tell when “scientifically-based reading instruction” isn’t. Thomas B. Fordham Institute
McFayden, D. (2005). Trouble in the workshop: Mandated model hampers learning in secondary schools. New York Teacher. Retrieved August 17, 2007 from http://www.uft.org/news/teacher/trouble/
Walker, B.J. (2000). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and assessment (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall
Williams, J. (1998). Improving the comprehension of disabled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 213-238
Shearer, B.A., Vogt, M. (2007). Reading specialists and literacy coaches in the real world (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Schooldigger. (2007). Retrieved August 16, 2007 from http://www.schooldigger.com/go/NY/schools/0012202639/school.aspx
Gipe, J.P. (2002). Multiple paths to literacy: Classroom techniques for struggling readers (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall
