Causal Evidence from Alaska's Individualized Reading Improvement Plan Policy

• In Event: Saturday Poster Luncheon

Abstract

Early reading proficiency is among the most consequential predictors of long-term academic and economic outcomes, yet only one-third of fourth graders nationally score proficient in reading. Following pandemic-induced learning loss, reading proficiency has not yet recovered in most states. In response, states have increasingly enacted comprehensive early literacy legislation aligned with the science of reading (ExcelInEd, 2021). Common features include incorporating multitiered systems of support (MTSS), universal screening three times a year for K–3 students, and structured intervention plans. However, the evidence on whether MTSS-based reading interventions improve outcomes in real-world school settings is mixed. Large-scale evaluations have found null or even negative effects of Tier 2 intervention in schools implementing RTI practices (Balu et al., 2015), while studies with higher implementation fidelity and instructional intensity have found meaningful positive effects (Coyne et al., 2018). This mixed evidence base underscores the importance of identifying which specific policy mechanisms within MTSS frameworks actually drive reading gains and under what conditions.

A common but understudied feature of state early literacy laws is a formal reading improvement plan. Unlike discretionary Tier 2/3 MTSS intervention — which may be provided inconsistently, without documentation, and with limited family involvement — these plans impose formal structure and accountability around the intervention process. In Alaska, individualized reading improvement plans (IRIPs) require schools to specify in writing the evidence-based Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions a student will receive, mandate up to 10 documented parent-school communication touchpoints during the plan period, and may require participation in a summer reading program. Policymakers theorize that formalizing intervention through written plans may produce benefits beyond what discretionary MTSS intervention alone can achieve. Yet, no causal studies have answered this question, leaving policymakers without rigorous evidence to justify the considerable administrative investment these plans require.

This study estimates the causal effect of IRIP assignment on mCLASS DIBELS reading achievement for K–3 students in a mid-sized Alaskan school district during the 2023–24 school year. Using a fuzzy regression discontinuity design (RDD), the study leverages the statutory eligibility threshold (scoring “well below” benchmark on the mCLASS) as an instrument for IRIP receipt among an analytic sample of 2,226 students. The primary fuzzy RDD estimate yields a bias-corrected robust local average treatment effect of 0.25 standard deviations (SE = 0.09, p < .01). Results were robust across bandwidth specifications and held when the comparison group was restricted to above-cutoff students who also received Tier 2/3 MTSS without a formal plan (0.28 SD, p < .05), suggesting that the value added by the IRIP's structure and accountability may exceed intervention receipt alone. These findings provide the first causal evidence that formal reading improvement plans improve outcomes for struggling early elementary readers and contribute to a growing literature identifying structured accountability and implementation intensity as key mechanisms underlying effective MTSS. Results are directly relevant to Alaska and the expanding number of states incorporating similar reading plan mandates into early literacy policy.

Author

• Noman Khanani, WestEd
  Presenting Author