READ 180

Descriptive Information

Usage

Acquisition and Cost

Program Specifications and Requirements

Training

READ 180 is a comprehensive system of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development to raise reading achievement of struggling readers.

READ 180 integrates principles of cognition and learning with practices for instructional effectiveness for older struggling readers.

The READ 180 instructional model facilitates a blended model of instruction with clear organization for the classroom.

READ 180 leverages adaptive technology to individualize instruction for students and provide powerful data for differentiation to teachers. Respectful of students of all ages, READ 180 is available in three Stages each with rigorous, age-appropriate content: Stage A (Grades 4—6), Stage B (Grades 6—8), and Stage C (Grades 9 and Up).

READ 180 is intended for use in grades four through high school. The program is designed for students with disabilities (particularly behavioral disabilities), English language learners, and any student at risk of academic failure. The academic areas of focus are reading (including phonological awareness, phonics/word study, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and spelling) and handwriting (including spelling, sentence construction, and planning and revising).

READ 180 is currently used in all 50 states and in over 40,000 classrooms. There are over one million active students’ licenses currently being used every day.

Where to Obtain:
Scholastic Inc.
557 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
Phone #: 877-234-READ
Web Site: www.read180.com

Cost: READ 180 pricing is determined by the number of students being served and number of classrooms set up. At the basic level, the cost is $43,000 for a Stage of READ 180 service 60 student licenses. READ 180 can also be purchased for 30 students.

  • Initial cost per student for implementing program: Year 1: $716 per student (based on 60 students)
  • Replacement cost per student for subsequent use: Year 2 and Beyond: $29.95
  • Licenses are sold on a perpetual basis.
  • Volume discounts are available.

Included with Purchase of License:

  • Teacher Materials
  • Implementation Training
  • Leadership Materials
  • Leadership Training
  • Student Materials

READ 180 is designed for individual students and small groups. Class size for READ 180 should be 15-24 students, with three small groups of 5-8 students.

READ 180 takes 90 minutes per session with a recommended 5 sessions per week.

The program includes highly specified teacher manuals.

READ 180 is a blended instructional model, where a third of the class is on the computer during the small group rotations. Therefore, the number of computers depends on the number of students in the READ 180 classroom.

The program requires training for the instructor over the course of a few days. The teachers in READ 180 receive two full days of in-person training in order to implement the program.

Scholastic provides comprehensive professional development in person and online. Scholastic provides two-and-a-half days of in-person professional development with the purchase of a complete stage of READ 180.

  • Embedded professional development resources – a collection of professional development strategies is embedded within all of the teacher’s materials.
  • Additional resources exist for READ 180 teachers – Purchas of READ 180 includes a one-year subscription to the online course Best Practices in Reading Intervention.

The minimum qualifications of the instructor are that they are a professional, but the program does not assume the instructor has expertise in a given area.

Training manuals and materials are available by READ 180. The READ 180 training materials and teacher implementation guides are reviewed by Scholastic consultants and field-tested by consultants who work with teachers using READ 180 across the country.

Practitioners may obtain ongoing professional/technical support.

Additional Training Available:

  • Coordinator Training
  • Certified Support Specialist Training
  • In-Classroom Support
  • Scholastic Training Zone
  • Scholastic U
Participants: 
Participants content: 

Sample size: 364 students (186 program, 178 control)

Risk Status: The Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) was used to identify students as “at risk for academic failure.”  The SRI has overlapping Lexile levels and, as a result, the range for identifying eligible students had to be established (therefore, the 50th Normal Curve Equivalency or NCE was used as the benchmark).  

Demographics:

  Program Control p of chi square
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Grade level
  Kindergarten          
  Grade 1          
  Grade 2          
  Grade 3          
  Grade 4          
  Grade 5          
  Grade 6          
  Grade 7          
  Grade 8          
  Grade 9 186 100% 178 100%  
  Grade 10          
  Grade 11          
  Grade 12          
Mean Age          
Race-ethnicity
  African-American          
  American Indian          
  Asian/Pacific Islander          
  Hispanic          
  White          
  Other          
  Minority 45 24% 52 29%  
  Not Minority 141 76% 126 71%  
Socioeconomic status
  Subsidized lunch 132 71% 135 76%  
  No subsidized lunch 54 29% 43 24%  
Disability status
  Speech-language impairments          
  Learning disabilities          
  Behavior disorders          
  Mental retardation          
  Special Education Status 26 14% 27 15%  
  Not identified with a disability 160 86% 151 85%  
ELL status
  English language learner 4 2% 7 4%  
  Not English language learner 182 98% 171 96%  
Gender
  Female 115 62% 93 52%  
  Male 71 38% 85 48%  

Training of Instructors: In Year 4, READ 180 teachers had on average, 10 years of teaching experience.  They had worked at their current school for three years, on average. 

READ 180 teachers were supposed to receive a variety of professional development opportunities and support, ranging from trainings, seminars, in-classroom support, web-based instructional support, and online RED courses focused on aspects of reading instruction.  All READ 180 teachers, except one, received all professional development as defined by the developer. 

Design: 
Design content: 

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes.

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not applicable.

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: Yes.

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences? Not applicable.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes.

Was there attrition bias1? No.

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: Yes.

1 NCII follows guidance from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in determining attrition bias. The WWC model for determining bias based on a combination of differential and overall attrition rates can be found on pages 13-14 of this document: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf

 

Fidelity of Implementation: 
Fidelity of Implementation content: 

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained:  Classroom observations were conducted by evaluators twice during the school year—in February and May—in order to collect data on classroom-level implementation.  Two observations were used to increase reliability (an over 85% rate of item-level agreement).  Secondary data and extant documents provided by districts to document their implementation efforts were collected for analysis by evaluators.  Miscellaneous documents reviewed included developer materials, professional development agendas, meeting minutes, memoranda, written curricula, and course syllabi.  In addition, many meetings were held with the districts as well as clarifications made after meetings and receipt of data.  Documents were used to corroborate findings and triangulate data for reporting verification.

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: An overall implementation rating involved compiling the primary component ratings by teacher and indicating the numbers of teachers achieving the highest level (adequacy).  The overall ratings for inputs consisted of three primary components: (1) professional development participation, (2) provision of materials/technology/assessments, and (3) classroom organization/structure.  The overall classroom model rating, as a primary component itself, consisted of the four subcomponents: (1) instructional practices including use of structured content, research-based instructional methods, and responsive teaching; (2) dosage, including use of rotations, pacing for the year, and amount of instructional time; (3) use of materials and/or technology; and (4) use of assessments to inform instruction.  Summary input and classroom model ratings were created by averaging to calculate overall implementation percentages and associated implementation levels: 1 = no evidence (0–24%); 2 = low (25–49%); 3 = moderate (50–74%); and 4 = adequate or high (75–100%). 

For the inputs, four of the five READ 180 teachers received ratings of adequate or high, indicating that the professional development, materials, and classroom structure required for implementation had been provided for the majority of teachers.  The remaining teacher received a rating of moderate, consistent with the prior year, indicating that most but not all inputs were provided.  All teachers indicated they had enough teacher materials and were provided with the required 90 minute daily class period; the teacher with the moderate score, according to district records, did not receive the prescribed amount of professional development. For the classroom model, two of the five READ 180 teachers received a rating of adequate or high, indicating fidelity of implementation as defined was achieved.  The remaining READ 180 teachers (three of the five) were implementing with moderate fidelity.  Teachers received moderate scores rather than adequate because they were observed to be behind schedule as per the pacing calendar and did not devote the full 90 minute class period to READ 180 instruction.

Measures Targeted: 
Measures Broader: 
Measures content: 
Targeted Measure Score type and range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content
Not applicable      


 

Broader Measure Score type and range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content
Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test-4 (SDRT-4) Scaled scores
Normal Curve Equivalency (NCE)
Test-retest reliability Kuder-Richardson 0.84 - 0.90 vocabulary; 0.91 to 0.94 comprehension; 0.88 to 0.93 scanning Diagnostic reading test that includes four key indicators of reading achievement: decoding (phonetic analysis), vocabulary, comprehension, & scanning

 

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 
2 Reading
Effect Size content: 

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
  Not Applicable  

 Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test-4 NCEs 0.20*
Reading Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test-4 Scaled Scores 0.20*

 

Key
*      p ≤ .05
**    p ≤ .01
***       p ≤ .001
–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Disaggregared Data for Demographic Subgroups: 
No
Disaggregared Data for Low Percentile: 
No
Administration Group Size: 
Individual
Small Groups
Duration of Intervention: 
90 minutes
5 times a week
36 weeks
Minimum Interventionist Requirements: 
Professional
2 days of in-person training in
order to implement the program
Additional Research Studies on the Intervention: 
127 studies
Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: 
Yes – Intervention Reviewed
Study: 
Sprague, Zaller, Kite, & Hussar (2011)
Targeted Effect Size is based on unadjusted means (u): 
Targeted Effect Size is statistically significant for at least one measure (*): 
Mean ES - Broader: 
0.20
New: 
Updated: 
Broader Effect Size is statistically significant for at least one measure (*): 
*
Broader Targeted Effect Size is based on unadjusted means (u): 
Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse Content: 

What Works Clearinghouse Review

Adolescent Literacy Evidence Protocol:

Year Reviewed: 2009

Effectiveness: READ 180 was found to have potentially positive effects on comprehension and general literacy achievement for adolescent learners.

Studies Reviewed:

  • Total = 101
  • Meets Standards = 0
  • Meets w/ Reservations = 7

Full Report

Students with Learning Disabilities Evidence Protocol:

Year Reviewed: 2010

Effectiveness: No studies of READ 180® that fall within the scope of the Students with Learning Disabilities review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of READ 180® on students with learning disabilities.

Studies Reviewed:

  • Total = 56
  • Meets Standards = 0
  • Meets w/ Reservations = 0

Full Report

 

 

Additional Research Studies

Reviewed by WWC:

Meets WWC Evidence Standards with Reservations:

*Haslam, M. B., White, R. N., & Klinge, A. (2006). Improving student literacy: READ 180 in the Austin Independent School District, 2004–05. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

*Interactive Inc. (2002). An efficacy study of READ 180, a print and electronic adaptive intervention program, grades 4 and above. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

*Lang, L. H., Torgesen, J. K., Petscher, Y., Vogel, W., Chanter, C., & Lefsky, E. (2008, March). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Paper presented at the annual research conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Crystal City, VA.

Scholastic Research. (2008). Desert Sands Unified School District, CA. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

White, R. N., Haslam, M. B., & Hewes, G. M. (2006). Improving student literacy: READ 180 in the Phoenix Union High School District, 2003–04 and 2004–05. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Additional source:
Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). READ 180: Longitudinal evaluation of a ninth-grade reading intervention (2003–2006). New York: Scholastic Inc.

White, R. N., Williams, I. J., & Haslam, M. B. (2005). Performance of District 23 students participating in Scholastic READ 180. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Woods, D. E. (2007). An investigation of the effects of a middle school reading intervention on school dropout rates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

Does Not Meet WWC Evidence Standards:

Barbato, P. F. (2007). A preliminary evaluation of the READ 180 program (Doctoral dissertation, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(11A), 46–4130.

Bebon, C. D. (2007). The impact of a reading program designed to increase comprehension and proficiency of middle school migrant students in a south Texas school district (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(7A), 104–2877.

Brennan, T., Leuer, M., Boyer, D., Dalessi, M., Newman, D., & Yepes-Baraya, M. (2006). Rhetoric to reality: Addressing reading achievement in secondary education. Palo Alto, CA: Empirical Education.

Caggiano, J. A. (2007). Addressing the learning needs of struggling adolescent readers: The impact of a reading intervention program on students in a middle school setting (Doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(4A), 1383.

Campbell, Y. C. (2006). Effects of an integrated learning system on the reading achievement of middle school students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(8A), 100–2923.

Denman, J. S. (2004). Integrating technology into the reading curriculum: Acquisition, implementation, and evaluation of a reading program with a technology component (READ 180) for struggling readers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(5A), 1717.

Dunn, C. A. (2002). An investigation of the effects of computer assisted reading instruction versus traditional reading instruction on selected high school freshmen. Unpublished dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago, IL.

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Ferguson, J. M. (2005). The implementation of technology in reading classrooms and the impact of technology integration and student perceptions on reading achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University–Commerce.

Gentry, L. (2006). An evaluation of READ 180 in an urban secondary school (Doctoral dissertation, American University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(9A), 151–3346.

Hasselbring, T. S., & Goin, L. I. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20(2), 123–144.

Kratofil, M. D. (2006). A comparison of the effect of Scholastic READ 180 and traditional reading interventions on the reading achievement of middle school low-level readers (Master’s thesis, University of Central Missouri, 2006). Master’s Abstracts International, 44(6), 52–2531.

Moore, S. A. (2007). Impact of READ 180 on reader's lexile scores in grades three through five. Unpublished master’s thesis, Troy University, Troy, AL.

Nave, J. (2007). An assessment of READ 180 regarding its association with the academic achievement of at-risk students in Sevier County schools (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(6A), 2265.

Papalewis, R. (2002). A study of the intensive academic support program and READ 180 in the Los Angeles Unified School District. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Additional source:
Papalewis, R. (2004). Struggling middle school readers: Successful, accelerating intervention. Reading Improvement, 41(1), 24–37.

Sigears, K. A. (2009). The impact of the implementation of the Scholastic READ 180 model on reading skills development of middle school students with learning disabilities as compared to those using the Traditional Resource Reading model (Doctoral dissertation, Tennessee State University, 2009). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(8-A), 419–4209.

Soto, J. (2004). The effects of READ 180 on the reading fluency of fifth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, San Marcos.

Thomas, D. M. (2005). Examining the academic and motivational outcomes of students participating in the READ 180 program. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(1A), 96–112.

Visher, M., & Hartry, A. (2007). Can after-school programs boost academic achievement? An impact evaluation of a reading intervention in an after-school program. Washington, DC: MPR Associates, Inc.

Witkowski, P. M. (2004). A comparison study of two intervention programs for reading-delayed high school students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri–Saint Louis, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(6A), 163–2142.

Ineligible for WWC Review:

Admon, N. (2005). READ 180 stage B: St. Paul school district, Minnesota. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.

Admon, N. (2003). READ 180 stage C: An evaluation within the Federal Job Corps Program. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Aguhob, M. (2006). READ 180 in Seminole County, Florida. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Aguhob, M. (2007). READ 180 in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2005–2006. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Alvermann, D. E., & Rush, L. S. (2004). Literacy intervention programs at the middle and high school levels. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 210–227). New York: Guilford Press.

Banasik, B. (2002). The effectiveness of Scholastic’s READ 180 curriculum in improving reading comprehension in middle school aged students having a specific learning disability. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI.

Benavidez-Candelaria, M. R. (2006). An investigation of the program READ 180 and the effect it has on students’ reading scores and students’ grades. Unpublished master’s thesis, New Mexico Highlands University, Las Vegas.

Barbato, P. F. (2006). A preliminary evaluation of the READ 180 program (Doctoral dissertation, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(11A), 46–4130.

Bishop-Temple, C. (2008). The effects of interactive read-alouds on the reading achievement of middle grade reading students in a core remedial program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(10A), 4179.

Blasewitz, M. R., & Taylor, R. T. (1999). Attacking literacy with technology in an urban setting. Middle School Journal, 30(3), 33–39.

Brennan, T., Leuer, M., Boyer, D., Dalessi, M., Newman, D., & Yepes-Baraya, M. (2006). Rhetoric to reality: Addressing reading achievement in secondary education. Palo Alto, CA: Empirial Education, Inc.

Brown, L. (2006). The impact of self-perception, reading attitude, and the use of the READ 180 program on reading achievement. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gwynedd-Mercy College, Gwynedd Valley, PA.

Brown, S. H. (2006). The effectiveness of the READ 180 intervention for struggling readers in grades 6–8 (Doctoral dissertation, Union University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(8A), 246–2922.

Caggiano, J. A. (2007). Addressing the learning needs of struggling adolescent readers: The impact of a reading intervention program on students in a middle school setting (Doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(4-A), 1383.

Campbell, Y. C. (2006). Effects of an integrated learning system on the reading achievement of middle school students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(08A), 100–2923.

Chmielewski, T. (2005). Differentiating reading instruction in an alternative high school using READ 180. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mount Mary College, Milwaukee, WI.

Daviess County Public Schools, Assessment, Research and Curriculum Department. (2005). READ 180 implementation year study. Owensboro, KY: Author.

Denman, J. S. (2004). Integrating technology into the reading curriculum: Acquisition, implementation, and evaluation of a reading program with a technology component (READ 180) for struggling readers. Newark, DE: University of Delaware.  

Deshler, D. D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., & Nair, M. (2007). Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research-based guide to instructional programs and practices. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Feifer, S. G. (2007). Tailor interventions for students with severe reading disabilities. What Works in Teaching & Learning, 39(7), 5–5.

Felty, R. L. (2008). READ 180 implementation: Reading achievement and motivation to read within an alternative education middle school program (Doctoral dissertation, Immaculata College, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(1A), 182–161.

Giedd, D. (2008). A study of the effectiveness of the READ 180 program measured by student test scores. Unpublished research paper, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO.

Goodloe-Johnson, M. L., McGinley, N. J., Rose, J. S., & Kokkins, A. (2006). Implementation of READ 180 (reading intervention program) in CCSD schools, Brief No. 06-Brief 014. Charleston, SC: Charleston County School District Department of Assessment and Accountability.

Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., Taylor, R., Bottge, B., & Daley, P. (1997). The computer doesn’t embarrass me. Educational Leadership, 55(3), 30–33.

Hewes, G. M., Palmer, N., Haslam, M. B., & Mielke, M. B. (2006). Five years of READ 180 in Des Moines: Improving literacy among middle school and high school special education students. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Holyoke Public Schools. (2006). READ 180 overview. Holyoke, MA: Author.

Irvin, J. L. (2006). A resource guide for adolescent literacy: Prepared for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Tallahassee, FL: National Literacy Project.

Iwamiya, C., & Pritchard, R. (2005). Application and effects of Scholastic’s READ 180 as an after-school reading intervention program for English language learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

Knutson, K. A. (2006). Because you can’t wait until spring: Using the SRI to improve reading performance. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Kratofil, M. D. (2006). A comparison of the effect of Scholastic READ 180 and traditional reading interventions on the reading achievement of middle school low-level readers (Master’s thesis, Central Missouri State University, 2006). Masters Abstracts International, 44(06), 52–2531.

Lang, L., Torgesen, J., Vogel, W., Chanter, C., Lefsky, E., & Petscher, Y. (2009). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(2), 149–175. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% students with learning disabilities.

Lupino, E. (2005). Taking place: The teacher in reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(1), 4.

Nave, J. (2007). An assessment of READ 180 regarding its association with the academic achievement of at-risk students in Sevier county schools (Tennessee) (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(06A), 116–2265.

Nelson, T. (2008). Predictive factors in student gains in reading comprehension using a reading intervention program (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(06A), 147–2201.

Palubinsky, R. C. S. (2008). Factors impacting the effectiveness of Pennsylvania’s Educational Assistance Program (EAP) for eighth grade students as determined by increased reading proficiency on the Pennsylvania State System of Assessment (PSSA) (Doctoral dissertation, Widener University, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(05A), 115–1718.

Palmer, N. (2003). READ 180 middle-school study: Des Moines, Iowa, 2000–2002: An evaluation of READ 180 with special education students. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Papalewis, R. (2003). A study of READ 180 in middle schools in Clark County School District, Las Vegas, Nevada. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Papalewis, R. (2004). Struggling middle school readers: Successful, accelerating intervention. Reading Improvement, 41(1), 24–37.

Pearson, L. M., & White, R. N. (2004). Study of the impact of READ 180 on student performance in Fairfax County Public Schools. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Policy Studies Associates. (2002). Final report: A summary of independent research on READ 180. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.

Santa Rosa County School District. (n.d.). READ 180 update: Santa Rosa County School District. Santa Rosa, FL: Author.

Scholastic, Inc. (2004). A study of READ 180 at Shiprock High School in Central Consolidated school district on the Navajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic, Inc. (2006). Compendium of READ 180 research. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (2005). READ 180 implementation year study. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic, Inc. (2003). READ 180 stage C: An evaluation within the federal Job Corps program. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic, Inc. (2007). Phoenix College, AZ. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Blackhawk Middle School. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Carthage Central School District. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Glendale Union High School District. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Indian River School District. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Madison Middle School. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Martin Luther King Elementary School. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Sebastopol Attendance Center. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Socorro Independent School District, TX. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Westwood Middle School, Alachua County Public Schools, Gainesville, Florida. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic, Inc. (2007). Response to intervention: An RTI alignment guide for READ 180. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic, Inc. (2006). Special education students Selbyville middle and Sussex central middle schools, Indian River school district (Delaware). New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic, Inc. (2009). System 44 and READ 180: Research-based literacy instruction for special education. New York, NY: Author.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). A study of READ 180 stages A and B in upper elementary and middle schools in Iredell-Statesville Schools, North Carolina. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Calera Elementary School, Calera, Alabama. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Carter Junior High School, Arlington, Texas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Harding Senior High School, St. Paul, Minnesota. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Highview Elementary School, Nanuet, New York. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Holmes Middle School, Alexandria, Virginia. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Lufkin High School, Lufkin, Texas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Marshall Middle School, Beaumont, Texas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Miami Lakes Educational Center, Miami Lakes, Florida. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Raba Elementary School, San Antonio, Texas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). READ 180: Compilation of school studies: Impact study. READ 180 reports guide: Using data to drive instruction (pp. 80). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Rochester Elementary School, Rochester, Pennsylvania. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Rogers Middle School, Boston, Massachusetts. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). South Ocean Middle School, Patchogue, New York. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Transitional Resource Education Center, Kansas City, Kansas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Two Eagle River School, Pablo, Montana. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Washington Middle School, Kenosha, Wisconsin. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Wyandotte County Juvenile Center, Kansas City, Kansas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2004). A study of READ 180 at Shiprock High School in Central Consolidated School District on the Navajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2006). Compendium of READ 180 research. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2006). READ 180: A heritage of research. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2007). Department of Defense Education Activity Schools (DoDEA). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2007). Phoenix College, AZ. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Compendium of READ 180 research. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Martin County Public Schools, FL. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Peoria Public School District 150, IL. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Socorro Independent School District, TX. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Traverse City Area Public Schools, MI. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (n.d.). New York City Public Schools, region 8 (third grade). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (n.d.). READ 180 stage B: St. Paul School District, Minnesota. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Scholastic Research and Validation & Indian River School District. (2006). Special education students, Selbyville Middle and Sussex Central Middle Schools, Indian River School District (Delaware). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Shanahan, C. (2005). Adolescent literacy intervention programs: Chart and program review guide. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best evidence synthesis. Educator’s summary. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://www.bestevidence.org/word/mhs_read_Sep_16_2008_sum.pdf.

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322.

Smith, S., Rissman, L. M., & Grek, M. L. (2004). READ 180. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research.

Sousa, D. A. (2005). How the brain learns to read. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Thomas, J. (2003). Reading program evaluation: READ 180, grades 4–8, November, 2003. Kirkwood, MO: Kirkwood School District.

Thompson, L. T. (2005). READ 180: An English language learner intervention strategy with grades 6–8. Unpublished master’s thesis, Alabama A&M University, Normal.

Thorpe, P. K. (2003). Escher’s intersecting worlds: Evaluation as a reflection of the evaluation, the evaluator being reflected in the evaluation. Wichita, KS: Wichita Public Schools.

Visher, M., & Hartry, A. (2007). Can after-school programs boost academic achievement? Washington, DC: MPR Associates, Inc.

Wahl, M. (2008). READ 180 Enterprise Edition. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research.

White, L. M. (2007). A middle school under review: A study on the effectiveness of two implementation models of the READ 180 program on special education students’ reading performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(1A), 63–117.

Woods, D. E. (2007). An investigation of the effects of a middle school reading intervention on school dropout rates (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(03A), 165–836.

Zapata, J. M. (2007). If I can read, I can learn: Examining the effects of READ 180 on the reading comprehension of English language learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, San Marcos.

Zvoch, K., & Letourneau, L. (2006). Closing the achievement gap: An examination of the status and growth of ninth grade READ 180 students. Las Vegas, NV: Clark County School District.

 

Effect sizes are available for measures that were equivalent on the pretest.: 
Subject: 
Reading
Writing
Grade Level: 
Elementary
Middle School
Citation: 
Sprague, K., Zaller, C., Kite, A., & Hussar, K. (June, 2011). Springfield-Chicopee School Districts Striving Readers (SR) Program Year 4 Report: Evaluation of Implementation and Impact. Grantee: Springfield and Chicopee, MA Public Schools. Submitted to th
Study Type: 
Group Design
Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): 
Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 
0 studies
Other Research: Ineligible for NCII Review: 
0 studies
Positive and Substantively Meaningful Results: 
Null Bubble