Large School, Kansas

Download pdf

Lexia Core5 Reading -- Kansas Reading Initiative

Data compiled and analyzed by the Research Team (research@lexialearning.com)

The Kansas Reading Initiative (KRI) was a statewide program designed to improve reading outcomes in Kansas.[1]


Sample Selection

The sample consisted of 368 students in grade K-4 who were identified as at-risk for reading failure at the beginning of the school year.  All of these students attended a school which participated in KRI during the 2014-2015 school year.  A subset of at-risk students (N=204) used Core5 during the 2014-2015 school year.  These students were compared to 164 at-risk students attending the same school during the 2013-2014 school year, prior to Core5 use.  Students were identified as at-risk for reading failure based on aimsweb®, a commonly used progress monitoring tool. Students are classified on aimsweb into tiers:  Tier 1 includes students on target for reading success (above 34th percentile for K-1, above 44th percentile for 2-4), Tier 2 contains students at some risk for reading failure (15th—34th percentile for K-1, 15th – 44th percentile for 2-4) and Tier 3 is assigned to students who are high risk for reading failure (below 15th percentile).  

The percentages of at-risk students assigned to Tier 2 or Tier 3 were similar for the Core5 (2014-2015) and non-Core5 (2013-2014) years: 69% in Tier 2, 31% in Tier 3 for the Core5 year; 67% in Tier 2, 33% in Tier 3 for the non-Core5 year.  The same English Language Arts curriculum, Treasures[2], was used in both school years. Based on 2014-2015 demographic data, 93% of students in the school were White, 12% were in Special Education, and 47% received free- or reduced-priced lunch.    

Analyses

Analyses focused on the percentage of at-risk students who advanced tiers on aimsweb by the end of the school year:  that is, Tier 2 students who advanced to Tier 1, or Tier 3 students who advanced to Tier 2 or Tier 1.  Chi-square tests were used to examine if the percentage of at-risk students who advanced tiers on aimsweb differed significantly for Core5 year (2014-2015) compared to the non-Core5 year (2013-2014). 

Figure 1. Percentage of At-Risk Students who Advanced Tiers on aimsweb: Core5 Year Compared to Non-Core5 Year

Outcomes and Conclusions                                                         

Figure 1 shows the percentage of at-risk students who advanced tiers on aimsweb.  The percentage was significantly higher for the Core5 year (50%) than non-Core5 year (35%).  Notably, the percentage of at-risk students who advanced to Tier 1 (on target) was significantly higher for the Core5 year (42%) than non-Core5 year (25%).

In summary, at-risk students showed more advances in reading skills — including some reaching Tier 1 status — in the Core5 year than the non-Core5 year. These outcomes were observed with students attending the same school with the same English Language Arts curriculum.

 


[1] See http://www.lexialearning.com/Kansas for more information.