Evaluation of the Minneapolis Public Schools Literacy Initiative

• In Event: Urban K-3 Literacy Innovation? Implementation and Effectiveness of Three Districts’ New Approaches

Abstract

This presentation will focus on the initiative funded in Minneapolis. The corporate funder partnered with Minneapolis Public Schools, a major university, and a community service organization to develop a comprehensive K – 3 instructional model based on a cohesive professional learning framework that makes all educators responsible for student learning and enhances current instructional skills. The

1) Tiered interventions to support students who need extra help
2) Frequent progress monitoring to track students, guide selection of interventions, and inform classroom teachers’ decision making
3) Coaching to support classroom teachers’ core instruction.
4) Professional learning communities to build understanding and using student progress monitoring data and classroom work.
The initiative began in four Minneapolis public schools and two charter schools at the start of the 2011-2012 school year as part of a three-year effort. This presentation will discuss evaluation findings from the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years.

Data collection procedures were consistent for the first two implementation years.

Exhibit 1. Breakdown of 2011-12 and 2012-13 Data Collection

Principal: Fall, Winter, Spring interviews
Coaches: Fall, Winter, Spring interviews
Intervention providers: Fall, Winter, Spring focus groups
Classroom observations: Winter (2011-12); Fall, Spring (2012-13)
Teachers: Fall, Spring surveys, Winter focus groups
Intervention progress-monitoring data: all K-3 students
MSP benchmarking data: all K-3 students
MN Comprehensive Reading Assessment: 2011-12 - Grade 3; 2012-13 – Grades 3 & 4


First, we will discuss implementation of the reading initiative. Interview, teacher survey, and focus group data (coded using qualitative methodologies and NVivo software) reflect perceptions about the initiative, understanding of its components, and changes in perceptions, activities, and emphases throughout each year and across the two years. Frequency data from the coach logs will describe the focus of component activities, and classroom observation data will be used to describe changes in instruction. This presentation will highlight Minneapolis’s unique approach of using intervention providers from a community service organization and a university.

Second, we will discuss achievement results at the end of each school year. Goals established during planning were ambitious, and although no school met the goals during Year 1, there were signs of growth. Across the schools, 32 to 51% of the students met the goal of one year’s growth on initiative-specific measures, and kindergarten growth was especially strong, suggesting that students might be better prepared for transition to grade 1. Schools made some progress reducing the percentage of students below benchmarks on progress monitoring tests, except in grade 1, pointing perhaps to the need for focused professional development for these teachers. The interrupted time series analysis of study and matched comparison schools showed no significant differences. Year 2 findings are unavailable as of July 2013 but will be included in the presentation.

Authors

• Terry S. Salinger, American Institutes for Research

• Amy Elledge, American Institutes for Research

• Julia Parkinson, American Institutes for Research

• Bradley Quarles, American Institutes for Research

• Allison Waters, American Institutes for Research