‘NO CHILD SHOULD FAIL’ A Pilot Education and Research Study Conducted in State Primary Schools on the Mornington Peninsula -February to December 2007-

Approved by the Victorian Education Department, the NO CHILD SHOULD FAIL Pilot Reading Project and Research Study has been prepared and presented to enable an objective assessment of a previously acknowledged Sensory Motor Approach to the Teaching of Literacy.

The purpose of the Project Team was to replicate the Sensory-motor and speech development program in daily curriculum routines, and to demonstrate its effectiveness in promoting successful learning, and its potential for permanently raising standards of literacy in schools.

The purpose of the Research Team was to test the validity of the claims of the Project Team, based upon their extensive experience, their anecdotal evidence and the findings of researchers in sensory-motor development and its relevance to reading readiness and skill acquisition.

The project’s presenters and researchers commend the findings of this project to all educators and decision makers, for they demonstrate that there is a practical course of action available, which is capable of enhancing the acquisition of literacy.

1

2

CONTENTS Page



No Child Should Fail.

1.



Table of Contents

2.



The Project Team.

3.



The Research Team

3.



Executive Summary: The Project’s Reason for Being and Brief. 4.



The Genesis of “No Child Should Fail.”

5.



The Projects’ Implementation Report

6.



The Explanatory Brief

7.



Research Project Abstract

8.



Aim

8.



Method

9.



Confidentiality.

10.



Results of Testing Program Grade by Grade.

11.



Overall Results

18.



Conclusions

20.



Recommendations

21.



Bibliography.

21.



Appendix 1. Citation accompanying 1981 Teacher of the Year Award



Appendix 2. The Participating Teachers’ Questionnaire and Results



Appendix 3. Speech notes provided in the absence of suitable materials in schools.

3

THE PROJECT TEAM

Mr. Tim Mirabella – Project Convener and Principal Author of the Project. Program Presenter. Former Primary School Principal – 1981 Victorian Teacher of the Year.

Ms Margaret Sasse - Co-author of the Project and Program Presenter. Developer of the sensory/motor integrative programs supplied with this project. GymbaROO Founder; Child Development Consultant; former secondary school teacher. Ms Marianne Schriever – Program Presenter. Former Primary School Principal – GymbaROO Child Development Consultant - Associate of Margaret Sasse.

THE RESEARCH TEAM Dr. Gordon W. Young – Research Design, Testing and Report. Educational Consultant, former Teacher and School Counsellor. Mrs. Denise Young – Test Processing. Educational Consultant, former Teacher and Teacher Librarian Dr. David Rawlings – Statistical Processing and Analysis. Research Psychologist.

4

5

THE PROJECT’S REASON FOR BEING and BRIEF 

Throughout the past thirty years, successive State and Federal Governments in Australia have responded to the learning and literacy debate overshadowing all school systems, by providing a succession of well intentioned, but inconclusive literacy initiatives for our Nation’s schools.



These initiatives failed to achieve the desired outcomes.



In the context of the sometimes-heated debate, it is not surprising that the thrust of reforming activity is inevitably centred on teachers and the methods they use for teaching literacy.



Undoubtedly, that single focus is maintained because those key elements of education are assumed to be at the centre of the literacy dilemma and therefore to be the facets of education most in need of improvement.



It is our contention that those assumptions are incorrect and misleading. In fact, that inevitable focus actually disregards the learning-determining aspects of childhood development.



We believe it is imperative that the least understood and most neglected facet of school education, which is every child’s developmental readiness for learning, should be incorporated into the curriculum.



By guiding participating teachers in the adoption of a sensory motor approach to the teaching of literacy, our Project attempted to demonstrate the measurable and superior value of assisting children to attain and maintain developing sensorymotor levels of readiness to enhance brain pathways, so that children can recognize and conceptualise spoken and written language.

6

THE GENESIS OF ‘NO CHILD SHOULD FAIL’ 

Tim Mirabella, principal author and convener of the ‘No Child Should Fail’ Project was promoted to senior teaching positions in two disadvantaged schools in Melbourne’s northern suburbs, 1968 and 1973 respectively – where he taught until the end of 1977.



That was a period of enlightenment for an already experienced teacher, because during that time he came to understand that it is possible to trace the root causes of underachievement in schools, to lagging childhood neurological development. In so doing, he learned how to facilitate belated sensory/motor and speech developments in children, thereby delivering the prototype of a curriculum program, which quickly proved capable of preventing learning failure and serious underachievement, especially in schools serving disadvantaged children.



Margaret Sasse, a trained nurse and teacher, had seen the links between neurological development and facility in reading. As the founder of Toddler Kindy Gymbaroo International she implemented activities for these earlier childhood education centres, incorporating sensory motor activities to overcome deficits in young children’s early development. Margaret was instrumental in guiding the lead researchers’ enlightenment process in the nineteen seventies, and continues to provide knowledge, inspiration and guidance.



Our Project is therefore drawing upon the success that the author ultimately achieved during his first three years as Principal of a third school serving disadvantaged children (1978 – 82) and Margaret Sasse’s invaluable work with both school aged and young children. Needless to say, this work drew upon and is supported by evidence readily available in scientific literature.



A fortuitous meeting with Dr. Gordon Young enabled, with our combined efforts, this pilot project and research study came into being.



The details of the implementation of the program and the research findings of the project are presented in the following pages.

7

THE PROJECT’S IMPLEMENTATION REPORT While the Project and Research Teams were awaiting an opportunity to make a joint application for funding under the Commonwealth’s Innovative Projects initiative, Tim Mirabella received an unrelated and unexpected invitation to assist the Mornington Peninsula Shire’s Sustainable Communities Division make its response to the Australian Early Development Index Study, (see. www.australianedi.org.au Results) The 2005 Mornington Peninsula AEDI study provided information gathered from Year Prep teachers in Peninsula schools. The teachers had been asked to use an Internet research instrument to subjectively assess the stages of development achieved by every individual student in their classes. The Study was designed to assist the Shire in making provision for early childhood, pre-school and family support services; however, by its very nature, and therefore by timely coincidence, the AEDI suggested an important philosophical link to the ‘NO CHILD SHOULD FAIL’ project. The published findings of the AEDI revealed that 17.5% of Year Prep children in schools on the Mornington Peninsula were developmentally vulnerable in one or more of the domains studied; at the same time finding that only 71.4% of the total Year Prep enrolment was performing well on one or more of the domains. Overall, the AEDI findings suggested that more than one third of the Year Prep children in 2005 were “at risk” of academic underachievement and/or learning failure in the years ahead. Upon being asked to examine documentation prepared for the ‘NO CHILD SHOULD FAIL’ Project, including the letter of approval from the Victorian Education Department, the Director of the Shire’s Sustainable Communities Division, Mr Joe Cauchi realized that the Project was well placed to supply valuable information relevant to the Shire’s needs, and immediately applied to the R.E.ROSS TRUST for funding to be made available. This obviated the need for Commonwealth funding, and so the Project was launched in time for the 2007 school year. Once Dr Young had provided a list of schools and teachers chosen by random selection, the Project Team was able to provide a one-day training program for participating teachers on th February 20 2007. This introductory program was presented strictly in accordance with the details contained in the approved Explanatory Brief, which is reproduced below. Using a PowerPoint presentation, Tim Mirabella introduced the teachers to the theories and practices of a Sensory Motor Approach to the Teaching of Literacy, and also introduced them to the Project’s Recommendations for Speech Training. Margaret Sasse outlined the rationale behind the Sensory Motor Program. She explained that the brain directs all activity in the body and mind. The brain develops in a hierarchical manner and full development is dependent on the development of the levels below. Children learn through the messages sent to the brain from the senses. The brain’s mental and social functions are based upon a foundation of sensory-motor processes. If the sensory-motor processes are well organized, the child will have an easier time learning, whereas if the brain does a poor job of sensory integration, it will interfere with many things in life, especially learning. Often children do not display any obvious signs of neurological difficulty and teachers are left wondering why these children are underachieving.

8

Margaret acknowledged that teachers are often frustrated, worried and exhausted, as they strive to lead children to successful learning outcomes. Often teachers are blamed for poor results. Tests provide teachers with indications of what is wrong, but not why the child is underachieving. Margaret expressed the strong need for teachers to gain a thorough understanding of neuroeducational development, so that they can best assist children to achieve their potential. She concluded with the exciting news, that neurological immaturities can be corrected through activities, which program the neural pathways in the brain. Since the 70s there has been strong evidence that sensory motor programs impact the brain’s development. Only recently have researchers gained tools powerful enough to reveal how these changes are brought about. Acceptance of the fact that the nervous system has everything to do with learning is a major breakthrough. Margaret Sasse acknowledged that Perceptual Motor Programs are in many schools, but these are aimed at improving the learning ability of children who have integrated their sensory motor skills and hence often do not help those children who have not done so and rarely result in lasting changes for learning. During the induction of the ‘Structured Sensory Motor Program and the ‘Three Minute Classroom Activities’, Marianne Schriever explained that the primitive and postural reflexes and their role in the processing of sensory motor information in the brain. It enabled the teachers to gain an understanding of the purpose of each activity and what benefits each one hopes to achieve. It also highlighted the fact that many remedial programs are aimed at reaching the higher centres of the brain and fail to inhibit retained primitive reflexes, which continue to impede processing of information in the brain. The sensory motor program aims at addressing the lowest level of dysfunction and once the problem has been remedied, allows for links to be built from lower to higher centres. The program is to help overcome obstacles, which prevent children from succeeding. Specific movements of the program were demonstrated and the importance of doing these slowly, correctly and in supine or prone position was stressed. Teachers were urged to conduct the sensory motor program consistently on a daily basis to aid the continual opening of the neural pathways. They were advised to view the program as part of their daily literacy session. Marianne’s presentation of ‘The Process of Reading’ brought teachers’ attention to this extremely complex process and how problems in the vestibular system and balance will affect all functioning, including the sensory system. The importance of a strong foundation of sensory integration for successful reading was outlined. Teachers were also made aware of the many and varied long term effects of retained primitive reflexes and how these impede reading progress. It recommended, that in order to improve literacy learning, teachers must address the underlying balance and sensory problems first, through a sensory-motor program, before contemplating any other remedial program. Activities of how to improve reading and ideas for components of a successful reading program were provided. The presentation by Marianne of ‘The Gross and Fine Motor Development’ focused attention on both body and brain working together through the central nervous system and how both are dependent upon the senses for all information about the outer world. For students to be able to succeed with learning, the reception and processing of information, as well as the responses to expression of that information from the brain to the body, are crucial. Marianne explained the neurological factors that may interfere with a child’s progress. Knowledge of reflexes and normal child development can help teachers identify the kind of intervention which might help and most importantly sustain long-term improvement for the child. Teachers were referred back to the ‘Structured Program’ for specific activities to help gross and fine motor development.

9

Marianne presented ‘Speech Activities’ which are best incorporated into daily spelling, reading or writing sessions, so that the learning of language can be seen as meaningful and holistic It was suggested that speech training can be included as part of the ‘Three Minute Classroom Activities’. Equipped with materials provided via the Project’s Budget and supplemented by Toddler Kindy Gymbaroo International, the teachers returned to their schools to implement the program. The teachers’ displayed tremendous commitment and enthusiasm. They carried out the program without assistance and supervision at their schools. Their individual reports highlight their professional gains from the project and are set out in Appendix 2.

10

THE PROJECT’S RESEARCH REPORT

Abstract The research reported here is part of the total project, exploring the effectiveness of a Sensory-motor and speech development approach to reading in primary schools compared with contemporary methods used in State Primary Schools. Two independent teams were formed. These worked in cooperation and were coordinated to conduct a training program on the one hand and a testing and analysis program of the results on the other. The results of the testing program showed greater improvements in Comprehension were achieved at nearly all of the Grade levels when using the Sensory–motor and speech development approach (Special Reading Program), compared with the Standard Reading Program. These results for Grades 3, 4 and 5 were statistically significant when subjected to a multivariate analysis of variance. The Grades 1 and 2 results were not included in this calculation as they did different tests, which included a vocabulary section. The children doing the Special Reading Program in both Grades 1 and 2 started the year well behind their peers in the Standard Reading Program classes. By the end of the year the Special Reading Program children had caught up on average with the children from the Standard Reading Program who had maintained their relative average percentile rankings after a year’s reading program. Young, G. Young, D. and Rawlings, D.

Aim The aim of the research was to establish objectively whether or not a sensory-motor and speech development program would obtain superior results in reading improvement compared with the standard reading programs being used in primary schools.

Method The research design, shown at Figure 1, was worked out by the two teams, so that an appropriate experimental approach could be used to differentiate between the results of the training and application of the Sensory-motor and speech program, called the Special Reading Program for the purposes of this Research, compared with the Standard Reading Program. The research incorporated five randomly selected schools in the Southern Region of the greater Metropolitan area of Melbourne. A single different grade level was randomly selected at each school from Grades 1 to 5. This involved two classes at the same level: one to use sensory-motor and speech development and the other to use the standard reading program for that school. Permission was obtained from the principals, teachers and the parents of the children to participate in the respective reading and testing programs.

11

Standard Reading

Sub-group 1

Program Class

Sub-group 2

Special Reading

Sub-group 1

Program Class

Sub-group 2

Pre-test

Standard Program Post-test

Standard Program Post-test

Pre-test

Special Program

Post-test

Special Program

Post-test

Figure 1 – The Research Design Each class was divided into two, as shown in Figure 1, to examine if a test-practice factor influenced any measurable improvement. A further random selection was made in each class of the children who would be involved in a pre-test/post-test group, compared with those who would be involved in a post-test group only. With the permission of the Victorian Department of Education and Training and with the cooperation of the Director of the Southern Region and the Principals of the Primary Schools, primary schools were selected randomly until five could participate. At Grades 1 and 2, the Reading Progress Test 1 was used for the Pre-testing. For Grade 1 the same test was used, as the norms for Test 2 were not appropriate at that level. Test 2 was suitable for and used for Grade 2. For Grades 3, 4 and 5, the Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading were used for both Comprehension and Vocabulary. Form 1 was used for the pre-test for all three classes. Form 1 was used again for Grade 3 for the post-test, as the Form 2 norms did not accommodate this grade level. Form 2 was used for the post-test for Grades 4 and 5 The results showed a marked improvement in Grades 1 and 2, in which the Special Reading Program classes were shown to be behind the Standard Reading classes at the beginning of the year. This difference was shown by analysis of variance to be statistically significant. After nearly ten months of schooling, the two classes using the Special Reading Program had on average caught up to, and in the case of Grade 2 had slightly surpassed, the respective classes using the Standard Reading Program. This is shown in Figure 1 in the general analysis, on Page 7 below. Analysis of Variance was conducted for Grades 3, 4 and 5 classes with mixed results. At Grade 4 the differences in Comprehension and Vocabulary were not significant. At Grades 3 and 5, however, the differences in favour of the Special Reading classes were statistically significant for Comprehension (t=1.76, p=.096) but not for Vocabulary. Combining the results at these three levels, however, an interesting result did occur. Because there was an opposite trend at Grade 4, there was no statistically significant difference in the results for the combined levels in Comprehension or Vocabulary. A multivariate analysis of variance was also undertaken using the combined scores of Grades 3, 4 and 5. Using Comprehension as a dependent variable, time had a strong effect as the children did much better on the post-test than the pre-test. The interaction between Time and the Programs showed the children improved more within Special Reading Program than the Standard

12

Reading Program. This is shown in Tables 12 and 13. A graphic picture of this is also shown at Figure 2 in the general analysis, on Page **. When the same analysis was undertaken for Vocabulary, the interaction was very close to zero, signifying little or no difference between the two programs. In considering the practice effect on using reading tests with the same or different forms, the analysis of variance showed there were no statistically significant differences between the Pretest/post-test groups and the Post-test groups, either by individual grades or collectively. An examination of the general analysis below provides data, grade level by grade level. Generally speaking this supports the sensory-motor-speech approach over the standard reading programs, that tend to focus on whole word approaches to reading, supported by some phonics, oral reading and reading exercises. In a report published in September 2007 by McKinsey & Company, entitled “How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top” Barber and Mourshed analyse the factors that lead to best performance. The relevance of the report to this study, however, relates to the training of teachers in any new approach to curriculum. Barber and Mourshed (2007) make some valuable comments concerning this, which are quoted at the end of this report in Appendix 3. It is important to note that the improvements brought about by the sensory-motor-speech approach provided by Mirabella, Sasse and Schriever were all the more noteworthy. Using Barber and Mourshed criteria for achieving a change in performance of teachers it can be seen that the Project Group were inhibited by the research design, since they had limited time to instruct the teachers involved, no access to the teachers in an ‘authentic setting’ to do this and the fact that the teachers involved were isolated in individual schools, sometimes in “competition” with experienced and motivated teachers. If the Sensory-motor-speech approach is to be established further, it would desirable to follow the recommendation at the end of this report.

Confidentiality To maintain confidentiality no individual student data has been released other than to the Principal of the particular school and the teacher of the respective class. The names of the schools also have been withheld from publication.

13

Results of Testing Program Grade I. The Reading Progress Test 1 (Comprehension) was given to a randomly selected group of children, as a pre-test, in each of the Special Reading Program Class (Special RPC) and the Standard Reading Program Class (Standard RPC). The results are shown in Table 1 below:

Special RPC

Average Standard Score 96.5

Range 92 –100

Standard RPC

Average Standard Score 92.2

Range 80 –109

Table 2 – Pre-test results Grade 1. When a child’s reading age is equal to its chronological age the Standard Score is 100. The average standard scores of these two classes fell below 100 indicating that the average reading ages of the children were both already below their chronological ages. The ranges, however, indicated that there was a diversity of reading achievement amongst the two classes, with a greater range within the Standard Reading Class. These results were then converted to percentile ranks and stanine scores and totalled and averaged for the various groups. The average percentile ranks and average stanine scores of the post-test results of randomly selected children given the pre-test in each class were also compared with the pre-test results only and the differences shown in the third line in Table 3 & 5 to 11 below. The Average %ile Rank is the average of all of the %ile scores of the children in the respective group. A %ile Rank indicates the percentage of children who would score below that rank. A stanine score ranges from 1 to 9 with five as an average and four standard deviations either side of that to fit a bell shaped curve. The differences shown in the tables 3 & 5 to 11 indicate the lift in average percentile ranks and stanine scores beyond a year’s achievement. The average improvement in percentile ranks and average stanine scores of the post-test results of all the children in each class were also compared with the pre-test results only and the differences shown in the fourth line in Table 3 & 5 to 11 below.

SPECIAL READING PROGRAM CLASS %ile

STANDARD READING PROGRAM CLASS

stanine

%ile

stanine

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

22.4

1.4

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

13.6

1.2

Selected pre-test /All post-test

10.97

.82

Selected pre-test /All post-test

14.7

1.2

Table 3 – Percentile ranks and stanine scores of the two groups within each Grade 1 class.

14

Points to note: 1. Greater improvement amongst the Selected Pre-test/Children in the Special Reading Program compared with the equivalent children in the Standard Reading Program. 2. The overall lower performance Pre-test/post-test in the Special RPC compared with the Standard RPC can be mainly explained by the small size of the groups and the influence of the children who only did the post-test. In the case of the Special Program class there were three of these who performed average to below average, pulling the averages down, whilst in the Standard Program class there was only one child in this category who performed well above average pushing the average up. 3. When the data was subjected to a statistical analysis using t tests on SPSS, the difference in performances of the two classes was not statistically significant. It was noted that the numbers in the classes provided very small groups for any sort of statistical analysis. Grade 2. As for Grade 1 The Reading Progress Test 1 (Comprehension) was given to a randomly selected group of children, as a pre-test, in each of the Special RPC and the Standard RPC. The results are shown in Table 1 below:

Special RPC

Average Standard Score 96.5

Range 85 – 111

Standard RPC

Average Standard Score 110.4

Range 83 - 123

Table 4 – Pre-test results Grade 2. The average standard score in the Special RPC showed the average reading ages of the children fell below their chronological ages, whereas the average standard score in the Standard RPC fell well above their chronological ages, giving them a head start for the ensuing year.

SPECIAL READING PROGRAM CLASS

STANDARD READING PROGRAM CLASS

%ile

stanine

%ile

stanine

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

44.8

3.00

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

19.25 1.16

Selected pre-test /All post-test

45.7

3.17

Selected pre-test /All post-test

5.84

.18

Table 5 – Percentile ranks and stanine scores of the two groups within each Grade 2 class.

15

Points to note: 1. There is a difference here in favour of the Special RPC over the level of improvement compared with that of the Standard RPC, both in the Selected pre-test/selected post-test comparison and when the Pre-test results are compared with all of the Post-test results for the whole class. 2. This meant that the Special RPC, although starting behind the Standard RPC by on average 35.4 percentile ranks, made up ground, ending up on average 4.46 percentile ranks above the Standard RPC. The results for the Special RPC also show a consistency of results. 3. There was also an inconsistency of results within the Standard RPC, pointing to less improvement over the entire class, compared with the randomly selected group who did the pre-test and post-test. 4. While there were some randomly selected students who improved markedly in the Standard RPC there were others who made less than a satisfactory gain over the year putting them behind relative to their peers. This meant that the differences in their percentile ranks and stanine scores were negative, pulling the average for the class down. 5. Despite the Special RPC starting well below the Standard RPC, the multivariate analysis of variance showed no significant difference because both classes ended up at a similar point. This can be shown in graphic form as follows:

80 70 60 50 Special

40

Normal

30 20 10 0 Pretest

Posttest

Figure 2 – Graph showing average starting and finishing percentile ranks of classes in Grades 1 and 2

16

6. Notwithstanding point 5.above, the improvement achieved was commendable and represents both the diligence of the teacher and the effectiveness of the program. For Grades 3, 4 and 5 two tests were administered from the Progressive Achievement Tests in Reading – one for Comprehension and one for Vocabulary. Form 1 was used for the pre-test for all three classes. Form 1 was used again for Grade 3 for the post-test, as the Form 2 norms did not accommodate this grade level. Form 2 was used for the post-test for Grades 4 and 5

Grade 3. The results shown in Tables 8 and 9 show the level of improvement over simply achieving the same levels after nearly 10 months schooling. RESULTS OF COMPREHENSION TESTS.

SPECIAL READING PROGRAM CLASS

STANDARD READING PROGRAM CLASS

%ile

stanine

%ile

stanine

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

23.5

1.32

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

- 1.81

- .6

Selected pre-test /All post-test

23.3

1.30

Selected pre-test /All post-test

.57

- .29

Table 6 – Differences in percentile ranks and stanine scores of the two groups within each Grade 3 class.

Points to Note. 1. Initially the pre-test scores on the Comprehension Test for Grade 3 showed the average performance of both groups fell below the average for the state; with the Standard Reading Program Class children, with a few exceptions, performing even more poorly than the children in the Special RPC. 2. In comparison of the improvement reflected in the final results in Comprehension of the two classes, there is a clear difference in favour of the Special RPC. 3. The diversity within the groups is comparable, with some very poor and some very strong readers evident. There is a challenge for both teachers to manage this diversity. Individual scores also show disparity between Comprehension results and Vocabulary results. Some children performed better on the Comprehension Test than they did on the Vocabulary Test and vice versa.

17

RESULTS OF VOCABULARY TESTS.

SPECIAL READING PROGRAM CLASS %ile

STANDARD READING PROGRAM CLASS

stanine

%ile

stanine

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

10.39

.58

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

27.13

2.12

Selected pre-test /All post-test

14.40

1.00

Selected pre-test /All post-test

20.00

1.71

Table 7 – Differences in percentile ranks and stanine scores of the two groups within each Grade 3 class. Points to Note: 1. The pre-test results of the Vocabulary tests showed that there was a great weakness in both of the classes. This could have been the result of limited spoken skills, poor word recognition and attack skills or both. 2. Although both classes have shown a definite improvement in Vocabulary, the Standard Program class has made the greater improvement. 4. Both classes still performed below the average for the state, with the Special RPC at the th rd 48 percentile and the Standard RPC at the 43 percentile. 5. These differences although quite marked were not statistically significant.

Grade 4. The results shown in Tables 8 and 9 show the level of improvement over simply achieving the same levels after nearly 10 months schooling, in other words, They achieved more than a year’s progress. RESULTS OF COMPREHENSION TESTS.

SPECIAL READING PROGRAM CLASS %ile

STANDARD READING PROGRAM CLASS

stanine

%ile

stanine

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

16.67

1.33

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

15.3

1.16

Selected pre-test /All post-test

15.22

1.08

Selected pre-test /All post-test

19.93

1.82

Table 8 – Differences in percentile ranks and stanine scores of the two groups within each Grade 4 class.

18

RESULTS OF VOCABULARY TESTS. SPECIAL READING PROGRAM CLASS %ile

STANDARD READING PROGRAM CLASS

stanine

%ile

stanine

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

23.33

1.44

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

20.84

1.23

Selected pre-test /All post-test

26.91

1.58

Selected pre-test /All post-test

22.63

1.33

Table 9 – Differences in percentile ranks and stanine scores of the two groups within each Grade 4 class. Points to Note: 1. In the Pre-test only the Grade 4 groups also showed great diversity, with the ranges indicating from very poor to good readers in both groups. 2. Also in the pre-test results it was noted that the average %ile ranks for the Special RPC were well below the state average on the Comprehension tests but the performance on the Vocabulary Test was slightly above the performance on the Comprehension Test. 3. A similar analysis showed that the performance of the children in the Standard RPC on the pre-test Comprehension Test was better than that of the Special RPC. In contrast there was a marked drop in performance on the Vocabulary Test. This suggests that the Standard RPC children rely more on contextual meaning to cope with unknown words, than the Special RPC, who may have had better word recognition or phonics skills. 4. By the time the Post-test was given to all of the Children in both classes, The Special Program class had lost two children and gained four children. Two of these were low achievers and the other two only middling achievers on the reading tests. 5. The standard Program class received one student, who was a relatively high achiever, contributing to the post-test results. 6. These changes would affect the pre-test/post-test results for both of the classes. 7. It can be seen that the children selected for the pre-test in the Special RPC showed greater improvement than the equivalent children in the Standard RPC in both Comprehension and Vocabulary, according to the tests used. This supports point 6. 8. The Special RPC showed superior improvement compared with the Standard RPC in Vocabulary. 9. These differences were not statistically different.

19

Grade 5.

RESULTS OF COMPREHENSION TESTS. SPECIAL READING PROGRAM CLASS %ile

STANDARD READING PROGRAM CLASS

stanine

%ile

stanine

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

18.73

1.45

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

15.36

1.00

Selected pre-test /All post-test

18.68

1.46

Selected pre-test /All post-test

17.3

1.09

Table 10 – Differences in percentile ranks and stanine scores of the two groups within each Grade 5 class.

RESULTS OF VOCABULARY TESTS. SPECIAL READING PROGRAM CLASS %ile

STANDARD READING PROGRAM CLASS

stanine

%ile

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

21.45

1.45

Selected pre-test /selected post-test

Selected pre-test /All post-test

22.10

1.54

Selected pre-test /All post-test

17.72

20.83

stanine 1.09

1.25

Table 11 – Differences in percentile ranks and stanine scores of the two groups within each Grade 5 class. Points to Note: 1. In the pre-testing it was good to see amongst the schools involved in the project a school, whose children were performing above the average for children of their grade level, on these tests. The Special Reading Program Class showed even stronger performance than the Standard Reading Program Class. 2. It was worth noting that whilst the children in the Special RPC were strong on their Comprehension skills, relatively speaking, they were weaker on their Vocabulary skills. In contrast the Standard RPC are consistent in their average performances on the two tests. 3. The data showing the ranges indicate that there is considerable diversity within both th groups, but there are more children performing above the 50 percentile or a stanine score of 5, than are performing below these averages. 4. It can be seen from the results of improvement levels in both classes in both Comprehension that the Special RPC children achieved greater improvement than the Standard RPC children. The difference was only marginal and not statistically significant. 5. Similarly the results were much the same for the results for Vocabulary and not statistically significant.

20

Overall Results 1.

Numbers of Children Involved in the Testing Program. The Post-Test was given to all of the Special Reading Program classes and the Standard Reading Programs classes. The classes in three of the schools were composite classes, which reduced the number of children involved in the testing program.

2.

Practice Element An examination of the Test results also suggests that there is no apparent practice element involved with the tests, which were administered nearly 10 months apart. In particular the tests used in Grades 2, 4 and 5 were different forms (Form 2). In Grades 1 and 3 the same form was used but using norms for later in the year.

3. Validity of basic claims. The resulting outcomes are interesting, and tend to support the Special Reading Program over the Standard Reading Program, particularly when one compares the results of selected children who did both the pretest and the post-test. 4. Comprehension as a dependent Variable. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted of Grades 3, 4, and 5. ‘Time’ is used as the variable name to differentiate Pre-test from Post-Test and ‘Program’ to differentiate the Special and Standard Reading Programs. The results of the analysis of variance are below for Comprehension. The interaction effect is particularly interesting. This indicates the degree of change between pre-test and post-test; the ‘slope of the line’ joining the two means, would be another way of putting it. Abbreviations in Table 12 indicate sums of squares, degrees of freedom, mean square, Fvalue, and probability (significance).

Source of variation

SS

df

F

Probability

Program

1445.66

1

.89

.35

Time

6041.72

1

37.71