Sign Up For Newsletter

Blueprints For Healthy Youth Development logo

Open Court Reading

A school-based program designed to improve reading ability among elementary school students by providing teachers with training, professional development, and a research-based curriculum.

Program Outcomes

  • Academic Performance

Program Type

  • Academic Services
  • School - Individual Strategies

Program Setting

  • School

Continuum of Intervention

  • Universal Prevention

Age

  • Late Childhood (5-11) - K/Elementary

Gender

  • Both

Race/Ethnicity

  • All

Endorsements

Blueprints: Promising
What Works Clearinghouse: Meets Standards Without Reservations - Positive Effect

Program Information Contact

Delonda Morton
McGraw-Hill Education
National Director for Professional Development
8787 Orion Place
Columbus, OH 43240
(815) 258-1010
delonda.morton@mheducation.com

For McGraw-Hill Education Learning Specialist:
www.mheducation.com/prek-12/explore/open-court/product.html

Program Developer/Owner

McGraw-Hill Education


Brief Description of the Program

Open Court Reading (OCR) is a phonic-based K-3 curriculum. It includes age-appropriate materials for students, training in pedagogy for teachers, and workshops for professional development of teachers. The OCR curriculum includes three components: Foundational Skills, Reading and Responding, and Language Arts.

Outcomes

Borman et al. (2008) found that compared to the control group, students in the treatment classrooms had significant improvements in:

  • Reading composite score
  • Reading vocabulary
  • Reading comprehension

Skindrud and Gersten (2006) found that 2nd grade students in Open Court Reading schools showed significantly greater improvement than students in Success for All schools on:

  • Reading test scores
  • Language test scores

Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2018) reported no significant positive program effects.

Brief Evaluation Methodology

Borman et al. (2008) conducted a multisite, cluster-randomized controlled trial in which 57 elementary school classrooms, with a total of 1,099 children, from grades 1 through 5 were randomly assigned to a treatment or control condition. The treatment condition included delivery of the Open Court Reading materials and professional development; the control condition asked teachers to continue with instruction as they had been practicing previously. The study administered a pretest in fall of the 2006-2007 school year and the posttest in the spring of that year, both of which were anonymous.

Skindrud and Gersten (2006) conducted a quasi-experimental, matched group study of 936 second and third graders in 12 schools in the Sacramento City Unified School District. The study selected eight schools implementing the Open Court Reading curriculum that matched four schools implementing Success for All on demographic characteristics and reading scores. The study administered a pretest and posttests at the end of the subsequent two school years.

Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2018) conducted a multisite cluster randomized trial in 7 school districts across the U.S. A total of 49 elementary schools were randomized within each district to the intervention group (n=25) or a control group (n=24) using the standard reading curriculum. The period of observation was two years, with four classrooms (two in each age cohort) in each school randomly assessed on reading ability in the spring.

Study 1

Borman, G. D., Dowling, N. M., & Schneck, C. (2008). A multisite cluster randomized field trial of Open Court Reading. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 389-407.


Risk Factors

School: Poor academic performance*


* Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2018) found that Hispanic students in the treatment group improved standardized reading scores significantly more than Hispanic students in the control group. However, there were significant, negative subgroup impacts for female, non-free and reduced price lunch, and non-English language learner students.

Initial Teacher Training

McGraw-Hill Education recommends initial implementation training for each teacher. The purpose of this one day training will cover program materials, convey the structure and management of Open Court Reading, and outline the most effective teaching strategies for the curriculum.

The initial one-day training is negotiated with the product order but it could be up to $2500.

Onsite Support

Following the initial training, McGraw-Hill Education can provide support to schools through site visits designed to ensure Open Court Reading is implemented effectively. Curriculum specialists can provide classroom demonstrations for individuals or groups of teachers. These are often followed by debriefing sessions to discuss the content, teaching techniques, and observations. This partnership between teacher and curriculum specialists ensures the most effective teaching strategies are achieved for the students. Grade level and faculty meetings are used to address specific content needs of the staff.

Once McGraw-Hill Education receives information on the grades purchased and number of participants we will work with your District to determine the number of in-kind professional development days. At any time during the adoption if your District feels there is an identified need for additional support, McGraw-Hill Education will provide additional support at the cost of $2,500/day/curriculum specialist.

Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.

Start-Up Costs

Initial Training and Technical Assistance

  • McGraw-Hill Education recommends initial implementation training for each teacher. This one-day training covers program materials, the structure and management of Open Court Reading, and the most effective teaching strategies for the curriculum.
  • Following the initial training, McGraw-Hill Education can provide support to schools through site visits designed to ensure Open Court Reading is implemented effectively. Curriculum specialists can provide classroom demonstrations for individuals or groups of teachers, followed by debriefing sessions to discuss the content, teaching techniques, and observations. Grade level and faculty meetings are used to address specific content needs of the staff. Representatives from McGraw-Hill Education work individually with districts to determine the number of training days required depending on the grades purchased and number of educators participating.
  • The costs of initial and follow-up training are negotiated with purchase of materials, but are generally billed at $2,500 per day for a curriculum specialist.
  • The Online Professional Learning Environment provides free 24/7 support throughout the implementation.

Curriculum and Materials

The curriculum price ranges from $108-150 per student and the price for materials ranges from $597-1200 per classroom.

Licensing

If customers purchase the student materials in a package, they will receive 6-year student licenses to access the online student material. Licenses of different lengths are available for purchase.

Other Start-Up Costs

The ideal classroom for Open Court Reading would have the ability to have a separate space for a workshop or be able to transform the classroom into a workshop area. The earlier grades should have a group reading area, typically a carpeted area, to utilize the Big Books in a meaningful way.

Intervention Implementation Costs

Ongoing Curriculum and Materials

If the school decides to purchase student workbooks, they need to purchase new workbooks annually. The Skills Practice and Lesson/Unit Assessment come in workbook format. Workbooks currently cost approximately $10 per student. Teachers will receive blackline masters and if they prefer to only use those, they can.

Staffing

Qualifications: Lead teachers and teachers delivering the intervention are typically certified teachers.

Ratios: Open Court Reading is typically delivered in a regular classroom setting so would be implemented at the student to teacher ratios in the District.

Other Implementation Costs

None.

Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs

Ongoing Training and Technical Assistance

The Online Professional Learning Environment provides free 24/7 support throughout the implementation. If needed, Districts can purchase additional support from McGraw-Hill Education at the cost of $2,500/day/curriculum specialist.

Fidelity Monitoring and Evaluation

There is no required fidelity monitoring and evaluation fee, but if sites want support for fidelity monitoring, they can purchase support at the cost of $2,500 per day.

Ongoing License Fees

The teacher package and the student packages come with a 6-year license to access the online Open Court Reading assets. If the school decides to purchase a shorter subscription or the 6 years is up, they will have to renew their subscription.

Other Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs

No information is available

Other Cost Considerations

None.

Year One Cost Example

The following example is for a District implementing Open Court Reading in 4 elementary schools for grades K - 3, with 640 students and 32 teachers. The cost of teacher staff time is not included in the estimate as it is assumed that the District is implementing the program as part of its core curriculum during the school day.

Teacher Training (2 trainings x $2500 per day) $5,000.00
Travel reimbursement for Trainers $2,400.00
Curricula ($130 X 640 students) $83,200.00
Classroom Materials ($900 X 32 classrooms) $28,800.00
Site Visit from Curriculum Specialist ($2500 x 4 schools) $10,000.00
Travel Reimbursement for Curriculum Specialist $1,200.00
Total One Year Cost $130,600.00

With 640 students served in the first year, the cost per student would be $204 per student. Note that the cost of the intervention would decline significantly beyond the first year of implementation after the initial curricula and training costs have been paid.

Funding Overview

Open Court Reading is a comprehensive reading, writing and language arts curriculum for grades K - 3. It is delivered by teachers in the classroom and is generally supported by core professional development, curricula and staffing resources within schools. The recent passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, which reauthorized the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, places new requirements on the use of evidence-based programs in federally funded education programs. State and local education agencies are now required to use evidence-based programs, particularly in schools in need of improvement.

Funding Strategies

Improving the Use of Existing Public Funds

The critical resource commitment required to implement Open Court Reading is the allocation of teacher time for training and delivering the intervention. Open Court Reading can be utilized as the part of the core language arts curriculum, with teachers delivering the programs as part of their regular school day.

Allocating State or Local General Funds

State education funds allocated to local school systems as well as locally-appropriated public school funding can support Open Court Reading. Professional development funds can also be used for teacher training.

Maximizing Federal Funds

Formula Funds:

  • Title 1 Part A provides funds to support the economic success of disadvantaged students. Title I funds can be used to support professional development, curricula purchase or ongoing teaching costs to deliver the Open Court Reading program.
  • Title II-A provides funds to ensure that school professionals have access to high-quality professional development. These funds can be used to support the training of Open Court Reading teachers.

Discretionary Grants: Federal discretionary grants from the Department of Education can be used to fund the initial training and materials. Discretionary funds targeting literacy as well as improvement for struggling schools can be used.

Foundation Grants and Public-Private Partnerships

No information is available

Debt Financing

No information is available

Generating New Revenue

No information is available

Data Sources

No information is available

Program Developer/Owner

McGraw-Hill EducationCustomer ServicePO Box 182605ColumbusColumbus43218USA(800) 338-3987(609) 308-4480customer.service@mheducation.com www.OpenCourtReading.com

Program Outcomes

  • Academic Performance

Program Specifics

Program Type

  • Academic Services
  • School - Individual Strategies

Program Setting

  • School

Continuum of Intervention

  • Universal Prevention

Program Goals

A school-based program designed to improve reading ability among elementary school students by providing teachers with training, professional development, and a research-based curriculum.

Population Demographics

The program targets children in early elementary grades.

Target Population

Age

  • Late Childhood (5-11) - K/Elementary

Gender

  • Both

Race/Ethnicity

  • All

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2018) found that Hispanic students in the treatment group improved standardized reading scores significantly more than Hispanic students in the control group. However, there were significant, negative subgroup impacts for female, non-free and reduced price lunch, and non-English language learner students.

Other Risk and Protective Factors

The program intends to improve later school outcomes by improving the quality of reading instruction among early learners.

Risk/Protective Factor Domain

  • Individual

Risk/Protective Factors

Risk Factors

School: Poor academic performance*

Protective Factors


*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program

Brief Description of the Program

Open Court Reading (OCR) is a phonic-based K-3 curriculum. It includes age-appropriate materials for students, training in pedagogy for teachers, and workshops for professional development of teachers. The OCR curriculum includes three components: Foundational Skills, Reading and Responding, and Language Arts.

Description of the Program

Open Court Reading (OCR) is a phonic-based K-3 curriculum. It includes age-appropriate materials for students, training in pedagogy for teachers, and workshops for professional development of teachers. The OCR curriculum includes three components: Foundational Skills, Reading and Responding, and Language Arts. Foundational Skills activities, depending on the grade level, build skills in phonemic awareness, sounds and letters, phonics, fluency, and word knowledge. Reading and Responding focuses instruction on building background, thinking about text prior to reading, developing vocabulary, reading from the student anthology, and emphasizing reading for understanding through complex texts. The Language Arts section emphasizes the writing process; spelling; grammar usage and mechanics; additional vocabulary; penmanship; and listening, speaking, and viewing.

Theoretical Rationale

Many of the inequalities in school and society can be traced to the first few years of formal schooling and children's initial experiences learning to read. The Open Court Reading curriculum is intended to improve reading outcomes among elementary school students.

Theoretical Orientation

  • Skill Oriented

Brief Evaluation Methodology

Borman et al. (2008) conducted a multisite, cluster-randomized controlled trial in which 57 elementary school classrooms, with a total of 1,099 children, from grades 1 through 5 were randomly assigned to a treatment or control condition. The treatment condition included delivery of the Open Court Reading materials and professional development; the control condition asked teachers to continue with instruction as they had been practicing previously. The study administered a pretest in fall of the 2006-2007 school year and the posttest in the spring of that year, both of which were anonymous.

Skindrud and Gersten (2006) conducted a quasi-experimental, matched group study of 936 second and third graders in 12 schools in the Sacramento City Unified School District. The study selected eight schools implementing the Open Court Reading curriculum that matched four schools implementing Success for All on demographic characteristics and reading scores. The study administered a pretest and posttests at the end of the subsequent two school years.

Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2018) conducted a multisite cluster randomized trial in 7 school districts across the U.S. A total of 49 elementary schools were randomized within each district to the intervention group (n=25) or a control group (n=24) using the standard reading curriculum. The period of observation was two years, with four classrooms (two in each age cohort) in each school randomly assessed on reading ability in the spring.

Outcomes (Brief, over all studies)

As compared to the control group in Borman et al. (2008), the treatment group showed significant improvements in an aggregate measure of all grade levels for all three outcomes: a reading composite score, reading vocabulary, and reading comprehension.

In Skindrud and Gersten (2006), students who began the Open Court Reading program while in the second grade showed significant improvement in reading and language scores at both posttest periods, when compared to students in schools implementing Success for All. Students who began the Open Court Reading program while in the 3rd grade did not show significant improvement as compared to classrooms using Success for All.

Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2018) reported no significant positive program effects.

Outcomes

Borman et al. (2008) found that compared to the control group, students in the treatment classrooms had significant improvements in:

  • Reading composite score
  • Reading vocabulary
  • Reading comprehension

Skindrud and Gersten (2006) found that 2nd grade students in Open Court Reading schools showed significantly greater improvement than students in Success for All schools on:

  • Reading test scores
  • Language test scores

Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2018) reported no significant positive program effects.

Mediating Effects

The study does not provide any formal mediator analysis.

Effect Size

Borman et al. (2008) found very small effect sizes for reading composite (d=0.16), reading vocabulary (d=0.19), and reading comprehension (d=0.12).

Skindrud and Gersten (2006) reported effect sizes for reading that are small-medium for 2nd graders at posttest 1 (d=0.41) and posttest 2 (d=0.30). The reported effect sizes for language are also small-medium at posttest 1 (d=0.29) and posttest 2 (d=0.40). Effects sizes were larger (.31 to .77) for students starting in the bottom fifth of readers.

Generalizability

All studies used large samples; Borman et al. (2008) drew their sample from a large geographic area, Skindrud and Gersten (2006) drew their sample from one city, and Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2018) tested the program in 49 schools across the U.S.

Potential Limitations

Borman et al. (2008):

  • Reported effect sizes are small
  • Models do not control for baseline outcomes of individual subjects
  • Limited test for differential attrition

Skindrud & Gersten (2006):

  • Study uses a quasi-experimental, matched group design and there is no true control group
  • Analysis done at the wrong level
  • There were baseline differences between conditions in pretest scores
  • Analysis ruled out sample bias on outcomes, however after excluding program dropouts, the sample mean was significantly lower
  • Sample is drawn from a limited geographic area

Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2018):

  • Ineffective
  • Several iatrogenic subgroup effects
  • Possible ITT violation by dropping two schools that merged during the intervention period
  • Some baseline non-equivalence on student demographics
  • Incomplete tests for differential attrition

Endorsements

Blueprints: Promising
What Works Clearinghouse: Meets Standards Without Reservations - Positive Effect

Program Information Contact

Delonda Morton
McGraw-Hill Education
National Director for Professional Development
8787 Orion Place
Columbus, OH 43240
(815) 258-1010
delonda.morton@mheducation.com

For McGraw-Hill Education Learning Specialist:
www.mheducation.com/prek-12/explore/open-court/product.html

References

Study 1

Certified Borman, G. D., Dowling, N. M., & Schneck, C. (2008). A multisite cluster randomized field trial of Open Court Reading. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 389-407.

Study 2

Skindrud, K., & Gersten, R. (2006). An evaluation of two contrasting approaches for improving reading achievement in a large urban district. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 389-408.

Study 3

Vaden-Kiernan, M., Borman, G., Caverly, S., Bell, N., Sullivan, K., Ruiz de Castilla, V., . . . Jones, D. H. (2018). Findings from a multiyear scale-up effectiveness trial of Open Court Reading. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(1), 109-132.

Study 1

Evaluation Methodology

Design:

Recruitment: The study offered free materials, training, and support to schools interested in implementing the Open Court Reading program in exchange for participation in the study. The study required participating schools to distribute materials and training only to those classrooms randomly assigned to the treatment and to abide by the data collection schedule. The study selected 6 schools.

Assignment: The study used a block randomized plan for assignment of classrooms within the 6 selected schools. Each grade level, 1 through 5, represented the blocks. Within the blocks, 57 classrooms were randomly assigned to either the control or treatment group. The treatment group received the Open Court Reading curriculum, whereas the control classrooms continued with the curriculum they had been using previously.

Attrition: To preserve anonymity, individual students were not linked at pretest and posttest. Of the originally randomized students (n=1,099), the number of students who participated in the final assessments ranged from 917 to 923, including the loss of one school, which did not want to complete posttesting, and individual students within other schools who were unavailable for testing. The analytic sample had five schools and 49 classrooms. Attrition was stated as up to 15.49% of control students and 15.78% of treatment students.

Sample: Treatment classrooms were, on average, composed of 71% minority students and 77% of students who received free or reduced-price lunches. Similarly, the composition of control classrooms was 74% minority and 76% of students who received free or reduced-price lunches.

Measures: The study used the CTBS/5, Terra Nova Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary tests at pretest and posttest. It treated the reading comprehension and vocabulary scores separately, in addition to a reading composite score. Independent assessors blind to condition gave the tests. No information on validity or reliability was presented, but the tests appear to be commonly used and likely well validated.

Analysis: Given the randomization of classrooms within schools, the study used random effects hierarchical linear models with three levels for individuals, classrooms, and school/blocks. The mean classroom pretest scores served as a fixed covariate to control for baseline outcomes, as the models could not link individual pretest and posttest scores.

Intent-to-Treat: The study included all schools and students who completed the posttest.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity: The study does not provide quantitative measures of implementation fidelity, however observation of classrooms found good fidelity to the training.

Baseline Equivalence: The study reported that the percentages of minorities, special education students, free-lunch participants, English as Second Language students and the mean pretest outcomes were statistically equivalent across treatments and control classrooms.

Differential Attrition: The study provided analysis of differential attrition by condition and found no significant difference (p=.87). However, without linking pretest and posttest scores, it could not test for individual differences between completers and dropouts on baseline measures.

Posttest: Models were presented for all five grades combined. The treatment variable revealed a statistically significant classroom-level effect of assignment to OCR on all three outcomes. The study expressed these estimated impacts as effect sizes. For the reading composite (d=0.16), reading vocabulary (d=0.19), and reading comprehension (d=0.12) scores, the effect sizes were small.

Long-Term: The study did not conduct a long-term follow-up on student outcomes.

Study 2

Evaluation Methodology

Design:

Recruitment: The study selected 8 schools in the Sacramento City Unified School District that were implementing Open Court Reading and were matches for 4 schools of similar socioeconomic profiles that were implementing Success for All. Little additional information is provided about recruitment of classrooms or schools. The study took place after California legislation required schools to implement one of the two programs; the 12 selected schools had all chosen to implement one of these programs during the year of the study.

Assignment: Assignment was based on school self-selection into the Open Court Reading or Success for All programs. It appears that 4 of 5 Success for All schools were used and 8 of about 54 Open Court Reading schools were then chosen as matches. Matching was based on Title I poverty criteria. For academic outcomes, 2nd and 3rd grade students were studied, with a pretest N of 1614.

Attrition: Attrition over two years was stated as 41% for each of the Open Court Reading and Success for All groups. After also dropping grade-retained students, the analysis included 936 of the original 1614 students (57% completion).

Sample: The sample included 2nd and 3rd grade students. The selected schools ranged from 58% to 86% on district poverty criteria.

Measures: The study used the Stanford Achievement Test 9th edition reading and language subtests for both posttests, and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills as a pretest. No information on validity or reliability was presented, but the tests appear to be commonly used and likely well validated. Teachers gave the tests but likely had little influence over the objective test results.

Analysis: The study conducted two-by-two analyses of covariance for individuals with one between-subjects factor (reading programs) and one within-subjects factor (year of posttest). The models for individual students did not adjust for assignment of schools to the conditions. The pretest scores from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills served as a covariate. Models were estimated separately for classrooms starting the program in the 2nd grade and classrooms starting the program in the 3rd grade.

Intent-to-Treat: The study included only those students continuously enrolled for the two study years. Students who entered and/or left; were grade-retained, or absent during testing were dropped. These exclusions may violate intent-to-treat.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity: The study does not provide quantitative measures of implementation fidelity for Open Court Reading; however schools reported few implementation problems by the end of year 2. In Success for All classrooms, teacher observation readings were 99 on average (comparable to the average of 100 nationally).

Baseline Equivalence: Mean pretest scores were significantly different between conditions, 35.9 for Success for All schools and 30.1 for Open Court Reading schools (d = .30). The schools appeared similar on other student and teacher characteristics.

Differential Attrition: Analysis of attrition showed that there were no significant differences between rates for the two conditions or between the reading scores of dropouts in the two conditions. However after removing attriters, the mean pretest score for the sample was significantly lower. Also, tests for attrition do not appear to have included students who were excluded because they were retained in grade.

Posttest: Posttest analysis showed that in classrooms that implemented the treatment starting in 2nd grade, Open Court Reading classrooms had significantly better reading scores at posttest (p<.001) than did Success for All classrooms. Similarly, these classrooms had better language test scores (p<.001). However, for classrooms that began implementing the program in the 3rd grade, there were significant but weak differences between conditions on reading and language at only the second posttest.

Tests among students in the bottom quintile of readers showed stronger effects of the program. Additional analyses examined demand for special education services and teacher responses to surveys but did not make comparisons across groups.

Long-Term: The study did not conduct a long-term follow-up on student outcomes.

Study 3

Evaluation Methodology

Design:

Recruitment: Participating schools were recruited by district across the U.S. over a 3-year period. All districts had at least four elementary schools (K-5) with at least 44 students enrolled at each grade level, and no participating districts had implemented the intervention in the previous 3-5 years. A total of 49 elementary schools from 7 school districts participated in the study.

Assignment: Schools were randomized within districts to either the intervention group (n=25) or the control group (n=24), which implemented the standard reading curriculum for each school. Within each school, two classrooms from each grade were randomly selected to complete assessments. If the randomly selected classroom did not have at least 44 students, students from other classrooms in that grade were randomly selected until the minimum was met.

Attrition: At the school level, there was 4% attrition after two years. There was approximately 12% student attrition after one year and 37% attrition after two years.

Sample:

Approximately half of participating schools were located in the Midwest (51%) with the remainder in the South (41%) or West (8%). Approximately 37% of schools were in an urban location, and 31% were rural. Schools had an average of 30 full-time teachers with an average teacher to student ratio of 15/75. A majority of students in these schools were white (67%) and eligible for free or reduced-price lunches (59%).

Measures:

Data were collected in spring of both implementation years, from (possibly) different samples of students. Reading ability was assessed using the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation, a standardized tool designed to assess four areas of reading ability (reading readiness, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and oral language) for students in grades K-6 (α=.95-.99). Demographic data on students were collected from school rosters.

Analysis:

The effects of the intervention were assessed using hierarchical linear models that controlled for schools' baseline reading scores and included cross-level interactions for subgroup analyses.

Intent-to-Treat: Two schools were dropped from analysis when they were combined into a new school.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity:

Fidelity was acceptable overall, with teachers averaging 3.88 (4 point scale) for quality of delivery based on three recorded lessons over the course of the school year.

Baseline Equivalence:

There were significant differences between conditions on student race/ethnicity and free/reduced price lunch status.

Differential Attrition:

No tests, but the authors report less than 3% differential attrition of students between conditions at the end of year 2.

Posttest:

While there were within-group improvements in both years, there were no significant positive impacts on standardized reading test scores compared to control group schools. There was a significant improvement in reading scores for Hispanic children, but there were also iatrogenic effects for other subgroups including first graders, females, non-English language learners, and students who did not qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

Contact

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development
University of Colorado Boulder
Institute of Behavioral Science
UCB 483, Boulder, CO 80309

Email: blueprints@colorado.edu

Sign up for Newsletter

If you are interested in staying connected with the work conducted by Blueprints, please share your email to receive quarterly updates.

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is
currently funded by Arnold Ventures (formerly the Laura and John Arnold Foundation) and historically has received funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.