Background of the Program and Evaluation

Sonday Description

Sonday is a research based and National Reading Panel approved reading decoding

program. The Sonday reading program is geared towards helping students with reading decoding

and also aims to focus on phonological awareness. Sonday follows the teaching methodology of

Orton Gillingham closely. Their overall goal is to help students learn to read. Sonday is easy to

implement for the teacher and comes with well laid out instructions for each individual lesson and

has been reviewed by many teachers as a success in their classrooms (Sonday System, 2016). The

program is currently being utilized at JM Odom Elementary School and has appeared to show

success for the last 8 years.

JM Odom Elementary School is a Title I elementary school located in a very rural area in

Colquitt County with a population of 673 students. The demographics of the school are 51%

Hispanic, 37% Caucasian, 9% African-American, and 3% other. One hundred percent of the

students are on free and reduced lunch. Forty-six percent of the population at JM Odom

Elementary School are English Language Learners. Based on most current published Georgia

Milestones test scores, fifty-four percent of students are performing below grade-level in reading.

According to JM Odoms school improvement plan, the committee found K-5 students to be at-

risk. There is also a substantial gap between students with disabilities and English learners

compared to all students (Georgia Department of Education, 2015).

In an effort to improve reading levels and standardized test scores for grades three through

five, JM Odoms administration decided to implement the Sonday Reading Program. The Sonday

program was implemented during the 2008-2009 school year and is currently showing evidence of

improvement in the area of reading. The bottom quartile students are chosen for participation
based on Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) data collected during the first week of school.

Students are then grouped based upon their Sonday pre-assessment scores and grade level. Each

instructor is assigned a grade and ability level group. Sonday instructors include school level

paraprofessionals and certified personnel such as special education and English for Speakers of

Other Languages (ESOL) teachers. Students meet Monday through Friday with the Sonday

instructor for 30 minutes. All Sonday groups meet between 7:30 and 8:00 before proceeding to

their classrooms. Students are only allowed to eat breakfast before proceeding from buses or car

drop-off areas to their Sonday group location. Once in the instructional locations, students are

expected to be actively engaged. Parents are notified in writing that their students will be

participating in a before school intervention program and that it is imperative that students do not

miss school and are not tardy.

The Sonday System 1 begins with guiding students through reading, writing, spelling and

phonemic instruction. It has been shown to be highly effective based on the RTI model for ELL

and (Students with a Disability) SWD. The Sonday system provides lesson templates for teachers

to follow and teach the essential skills to their students for every lesson and every day. Each

teacher gets a book which contains five pre-reading and thirty- six reading levels. Teachers can feel

at ease with the implementation of the program due to its structured plans. Mastery checks are also

available after every third level progress check which can also help guide the pace of instruction.

Since Sonday is based off Orton- Gillingham strategies, it is a multisensory language

instruction program which helps with students gathering strategies to keep in their long term

memory. The research based strategies this program utilizes has led to improved scores and data

from schools across the nation. Multisensory Language Instruction has been researched and data

shows that it does impact student achievement, and improvement in reading strategies (Sonday
System, 2016). There are now many different programs that have been created based off of the

Orton- Gillingham methods. Examples include the Wilson reading program, and the SPIRE

reading program. There has been evidence that multisensory teaching is effective for all students

especially those that have dyslexia. The National Institute of Child Health and Human

development has current research that shows the value of explicit, structured language teaching for

all students. There is a need for improvement in areas of reading such as phonemic awareness,

reading fluency, reading decoding and reading comprehension. Reading comprehension has been

shown to have an impact in all curriculum areas, which is indicated in JM Odoms School

Improvement Plan.

Evaluation Purpose

Sonday is used as intervention for students who are below grade level in reading. The

purpose of the intervention is to raise the reading ability and levels of these students. The Sonday

program will be evaluated in order to determine if the program has been successful in meeting the

needs of struggling readers and effective in reducing the number of special education referrals. The

evaluation purpose for the Sonday program will be both summative and formative in nature.

Formative data will be collected during weekly mastery checks based on phonemic awareness and

decoding. Students are also evaluated mid-year to monitor progress and regrouped based upon new

data. Summative data will be collected during end of the year assessments to determine progress

made and the value of the intervention for each student.

During the evaluation process, there are three questions that the evaluation team will seek

to answer.

1) Will students participation and attendance in the Sonday program result in an increase in

their reading levels by at least one level (i.e. Fountas and Pinnell, Dibels, Lexiles)?
2) Will students participation and attendance in the Sonday program result in less special

education referrals for learning difficulties?

3) Will the use of Sondays reading decoding frameworks for the current school year impact test

scores across all curriculum areas?

These evaluation questions will focus on the intermediate and long-term outcomes from the

Logic model. See table below. The answer to each question will be determined by whether or not

the SONDAY program was effective in meeting the initial goals set by the facilitators. If the data

collected is positive, it will show that the SONDAY program had been a success and should

continue on. If the data collected does not meet expectations, it will show what changes need to be

made in order for the program to be a success.

Evaluation Team

The evaluation team was comprised of four members. Each team member brought

significant aspects to the group.

Sara Burley- Mrs. Burley is a Library/ Media Specialist in a Title 1 elementary school in

Colquitt County. She has over sixteen years of experience in the education field and taught in

elementary and high school classes before moving to the media center. For the past five years, Mrs.

Burley has been one of two testing coordinators at JM Odom. For all five of these years, she has

been responsible for testing procedures and scheduling. As the media specialists at JM Odom, she

has a working relationship with all of the stakeholders within the Sonday program at the school.

Mrs. Burley is currently pursuing her Specialists degree from the University of West Georgia in

the field of Media.

Janet Chen- Ms. Chen is an Assistive Technology Specialist with Gwinnett County Public

Schools. As an Assistive Technology Specialist, she is able to visit multiple classrooms throughout

the day and work with a variety of students with disabilities. She was previously an interrelated

resource teacher for middle school students and has experience teaching 7th and 8th graders in

multiple subject areas. Ms. Chen received her undergraduate degree in Special Education and

Early Childhood Education from Georgia State University and went on to receive her Masters

degree from Brenau University. She is currently pursuing her Specialist's degree from the

University of West Georgia in the field of Instructional Technology.

Natasha Cockerm Mrs. Cockerm is a Speech/Language Pathologist in a Title 1

elementary school in Gwinnett County who currently works with a wide range of student

disabilities and communication disorders from Pre-K through fifth grade. She has been a practicing

Speech/Language Pathologist for the past 10 years. Mrs. Cockerm is able to understand parental
needs and challenges as she often meets with parents of students with disabilities for

individualized education plan meetings. Mrs. Cockerm is currently pursuing her Specialist degree

in Instructional Technology from the University of West Georgia to be able to integrate technology

into her speech therapy sessions as well as help teachers implement technology into their

classroom lessons to meet the needs of 21st century learners.

Aaron Parker-Mr. Parker is currently an Engineering and Technology teacher for 6-8th

grade. He has been teaching for 10 years. His first 6 years of teaching were in grades 3-4 in the

area of Special Education, where he taught resource Math and ELA. Years seven and eight were

spent teaching middle school self-contained special education, all subject areas and all grade

levels. For the past two years he has taught Engineering and Technology. He received his B.S. in

Special Education in 2007 from Georgia Southern University as well as his M.Ed. in Instructional

Technology in 2013. He is currently pursuing his Ed.S in Instructional Technology at the

University of West Georgia.

Methodology

Throughout the Sonday program, various data was collected in the forms of attendance

rosters, reading level assessments, Student Support Team (SST) referral data, Tier 2 and Tier 3

Response to Intervention (RTI) data, and Georgia Milestones testing data. The data collected was

both qualitative and quantitative in nature with the data being more QUAN-dominant. Collected

data, including the results of teacher and Sonday instructor interviews was shared with the

administrative team at JM Odom Elementary School.

The first question that we sought to answer was will students participation and attendance

in the Sonday program result in an increase in their reading levels by at least one level (i.e. Fountas

and Pinnell, Dibels, Lexiles)? In order to answer this question, we acquired the daily Sonday
attendance sheets to determine if the number of participants remains steady or declines and to

establish a possible link between habitual absenteeism and lack of progress. This will impact

whether or not the students improve their reading scores. Data from SRI scores with Lexiles,

Lexiles from the previous year Georgia Milestones exam (where applicable), Dibels scores, and

Sonday Mastery Checks were also collected and analyzed for further information regarding the

progress of the program. In addition, we interviewed the Sonday instructors regarding the

student's progress and participation to get their perceptions and views of the Sonday program and

its impact on their students.

The second question was will students participation and attendance in the Sonday program

result in less special education referrals for learning difficulties? The data collected for this

question was obtained by viewing current RTI data and comparing it to data prior to the

implementation of the Sonday program. Collecting RTI data was validated because it allowed us to

keep track of the number of students being referred for special education services and whether

interventions have helped with their weaknesses. We also interviewed the teachers to seek input

regarding the impact of the intervention on their students. Teacher interviews will provide valuable

information as to the teachers perceptions of the Sonday program are vital to the implementation

and fidelity of the program and it will have a lot of say in its impacts on the participants.

The third question was will the use of Sondays reading decoding frameworks for the

current school year impact test scores across all curriculum areas? In order to answer this

question, we acquired the following data: SRI scores with Lexiles, Lexiles from the previous year

Georgia Milestones exam (where applicable), Dibels scores. The possible improvement of test

scores across curriculum areas would show that the intervention is positive for all areas of

curriculum not just reading. Since reading comprehension impacts all subject areas, this question
is one that all teachers regardless of what their subject area of expertise is will be concerned about.

In August, students at JM Odom participated in the SRI online reading evaluation

instrument. The tests consisted of reading passages and comprehension questions. Students who

scored below grade level were placed in Tier Two of RTI by their classroom teachers. Students

who were in the bottom quartile of this group were referred to the Sonday coordinator for

intervention. The next data were taken from the Sonday Pre-Test. The final step was to group

students for Sonday instruction. Examples of available data instruments can be found in the

Appendix.

Sampling

All students who fell below grade level on the SRI diagnostic tests were placed in Tier 2 of

RTI. The bottom quartile was be referred by their classroom teachers to the Sonday coordinator

for reading intervention. There were 92 students in this category for the current school year. We

selected the total population of Sonday students. We considered less than 100 students to be a

manageable size group, and this provided a clear picture of the evidence from attendance and all

testing data sources.

Analysis

For the analysis portion, a mixed methods approach was used to analyze the data in order

to completely and accurately respond to all research questions and to address the perspective of all

viewpoints.

For question one and two, we conducted teacher interviews as a means of qualitative data

collection. We conducted these interviews in order to obtain a deeper understanding of the

program and its impact on both students and teachers. All interviews were recorded in order to

use emergent coding as our qualitative data analysis. Once the coding was finished, we created
categories to triangulate in order to increase validity and credibility about the conclusions drawn.

For the quantitative analysis of question one, we used an ordinal measurement scale for analyzing

attendance on a daily basis and at the end of the program, a ratio measurement scale was used to

address final counts and its impact on the student success throughout the course of the program.

We also used an interval measurement scale to analyze all test score data obtained, as well as

student lexile data. We used a t-test to compare standardized test scores before and after the

program, as well as comparing lexiles and SRI scores pre, during, and post program.

For the quantitative analysis of question two, we used an ordinal and interval scale to

analyze RTI data. We used another t-test in order to compare the number of RTI and special

education referrals before and after the program. We also used a chi-square test in order to

compare the amount of RTI referrals pre-program and post-program, and to be able to determine if

the results met our expectations.

For the quantitative analysis of question three, we used an analysis of variance to compare

the pre and post results of standardized test scores across all curriculum areas, SRI scores, and

DIBELS scores. The reason for using analysis of variance is because multiple content areas were

analyzed.

Standard(s) for Evaluation Questions

The article written by Fournier (1993) served as a guide for our evaluation standards.

Fournier (1993) discusses that an evaluator should include an understanding of its parts,

organization, or structure, how it works, and how it relates to the bigger picture before beginning

an evaluation. Standards were established in order to provide validity to the evaluation conclusion

and understanding the importance of the evaluation questions. Our evaluation centered around our

stakeholders perceived effectiveness of the Sonday Reading Program and whether or not there has
been a reduction in the number of special education referrals. Our questions needed to address the

effectiveness of the Sonday program as well as demonstrate an increase in students reading levels

and test scores. The following standards were created to provide evidence for our evaluative

conclusion.

1. 80% of students will demonstrate an increase in their reading levels based on their

participation and attendance. According to Fiester (2010), students transition from learning to read

to reading to learn when they advance from third to fourth grade. Therefore, it is imperative that

students in elementary school reach grade level before leaving, but preferably before finishing

third grade.

2. There will be a continued increase in students reading for pleasure. According to

Cullinans (2000) research review, student test scores were directly linked to the amount of time

they read for pleasure. Cullinan stated that reading for pleasure or independent reading increases

knowledge in areas that are cross-curricular. The benefits of reading for pleasure are extensive.

3. There will be a continued decrease in the number of student referrals for special

education. In their research, Montgomery and Moore-Brown (2003) learned that reading

intervention in reading increased students growth. As a result, the subsequent growth allowed

students who were behind to make enough gains to support continuation of the reading

intervention.

4. 80% of students will demonstrate an increase in overall test scores. Munoz (2010)

showed that reading intervention correlates positively with test scores. In her study, she noted that

the students who received the basic skills reinforcement, no matter their age, would see greater

benefits throughout their education experience.

 By setting standards for the evaluation we were able to determine if the Sonday program is

being used for its intended purposes.

For the evaluations general logic, the evaluand at hand was the Sonday reading program

being implemented at JM Odom Elementary. Sonday must meet up to its recommendations and

public description of being easy to facilitate and to implement. The reading program must also

assist with improving phonemic awareness and assisting with the improvement of reading levels

for elementary age students in a setting with high english learner students along with students with

disabilities. These standards were constructed based on the state level of grade level reading

comprehension and a comparison can be done with researching other school improvement plans

and current performance level. Schools similar in demographics and geographically close by were

compared. The evaluators were able to analyze and judge the merit of the program by seeing test

scores and student achievement over the span of the planned program intervention. Our working

logic is more of a causal approach, identifying whether the intervention is effective or not and

whether it is better than other approaches other schools are using or rather not utilizing.

Findings
When evaluating the Sonday reading program, we sought to find answers to our three evaluation

questions. For the first question, Will students participation and attendance in the Sonday

program result in an increase in their reading levels by at least one level (i.e. Fountas and Pinnell,

Dibels, Lexiles)?we used daily attendance sheets to determine the number of students absent each

week from the Sonday program. The data on chart 1 shows the average absences of students per

week. Chart 2 shows the changes in lexile levels that were affected by attendance. The data shows

that students in each grade level that were absent an average of one day showed an increase in

their lexile levels. The third graders increased 342 points, fourth graders increased 287 points, and
the fifth graders increased 236 points. Students that were absent for 1-2 days increased their lexile

levels as well. The third graders increased their level by 125 points, fourth graders increased by 62

points, and the fifth graders increased by 36. Finally, the students that were absent for 3 days or

more showed no increase in their lexile levels. As evidenced by the data on Chart 3, the students

who participated in Sonday Reading program and were absent for an average of 1 day per week

also showed an increase in their Dibels scores. The third grade student increased their scores by 19,

fourth grade students increased their scores by 14, and the fifth grade students increased their

Dibels scores by 8. In addition, an increase in Dibels scores was also noted for students in each

grade level following absences of 1-2 days per week. Third grade students were noted to increase

by 5 points, fourth grade by 3, and fifth grade by 2. In addition, all students that were absent an

average of 3 days or more showed no evidence of improvement on their Dibels test scores.

Chart 1. Student Attendance

Chart 2. Lexile scores compared to attendance rates

Chart 3. DibelsNext Scores based on attendance

 The second evaluation question asked whether student participation and attendance in the

reading program will help result in less special education referrals for learning difficulties. When

evaluating the data presented in the graphs, it shows that participation and attendance in the

Sonday program did help in reducing the number of education referrals for special education.

With the Sonday program, students have been able to reinforce basic reading skills which have

helped in reducing the number of RTI referrals that the RTI team makes within a school year based

on academic achievement. Data shows that the continued use of Sonday will help in keeping the

number of referrals down hopefully below the baseline average of 5 per year, for each grade level.

Chart 4. Average RTI referrals

The final evaluation question was will the use of Sondays reading decoding frameworks

for the current school year impact test scores across all curriculum areas? Based on Milestones
 scores, the fourth and fifth grade students moved across the spectrum from beginning to

developing to proficient. The third grade students began the year without Milestones data due to

the fact that second graders do not take the Milestones test. However, the third grade students

current Milestone proficiency levels align similarly to the fourth and fifth grade

Grade Initial Test at Initial Test at Initial Test Final Test Final Testing Final Testing
Beginning Developing at at at at Proficient
Level Level Proficient Beginning Developing Level
Level Level Level

3 N/A N/A N/A 11% 65% 24%

4 67% 33% 0% 12% 63% 25%

5 52% 48% 0% 18% 54% 28%

Table 1. Percentage of Students by Grade Level Based on Milestones Levels

Chart 5. Milestones Data

Conclusions
Our findings following the established evaluation questions and the agreed upon
standards indicated that the students who participated in the Sonday Reading program
increased their reading levels following their attendance and participation. The first
benchmark of the evaluation was 80% of students will demonstrate an increase in their
reading levels based on their participation and attendance. As the Lexile scores and
Dibels scores show, this benchmark was met.
The second benchmark stated that there would be an increase in students reading
for pleasure. The students circulation of library books averaged two books per month.
Now these students average four books per month. This indicates that students are now
reading for pleasure and enjoy going to library to check out books.
The third benchmark stated that there will be a continued decrease in the number of
student referrals for special education. The evaluation showed positive results for this year
with expectations for it to continue.
The final benchmark stated that 80% of students will demonstrate an increase in
overall test scores. According to the Milestones proficiency levels, the students in the
program demonstrated success in this area.
The program showed success through the time period in which it was evaluated.
The students who participated in the program met the benchmarks that were set. The
program revealed itself to be effective at increasing the students reading skills, therefore,
the students skills across the academic areas increased also.

Recommendations

The evaluation teams intent is to offer recommendations to enable the stakeholders to

make decisions in the improvement or modifications needed to the Sonday Reading
Program at JM Odom Elementary School. The team focused on the areas of student
participation and attendance in the Sonday Reading Program, increase in test scores, and
reading for pleasure. Recommendations for the program administrator would include:
devising a way to increase attendance and continue the use of the program, increasing the
amount of seats or licenses for the Sonday program, and increasing the support from staff
members to serve students.

In the study, greater gains were made in the lower grades however, an investigation needs
to be done to figure out what can be done to increase the scores of the students in the upper
grades. Investigations should be made to understand the effect of the program on lower grades.
Is this a program that could be integrated with younger students? Because greater reading gains
are attained in first and second grades, could this affect students abilities so that the number of
students needing reading intervention would be reduced?

Sonday Program showed overall improvement among the participants. This was especially
evident when attendance was considered. While attendance is good, it can always be improved
based on some sort of incentive. The evaluation team recommends the program be continued
and re-evaluated in the future.
References:
Fournier, D. M. (1995). Establishing evaluative conclusions: A distinction between general and
working logic. New Directions for Evaluation, 1995(68), 15-32. doi:10.1002/ev.1017

JM Odom Elementary. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-

and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Documents/Cohort Three Fundable
Applications/Colquitt County-C3/J.M. Odom Elementary-Colquitt.pdf

The Sonday System 1. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2016, from

http://www.winsorlearning.com/products/sonday-system-1/

Sonday system 1 | Winsor Learning | Sample lesson plan... (n.d.). Retrieved October 20,
2016, from http://www.winsorlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SS1_
Sample_Lesson_Plan_1-09.pdf

Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program
evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Early Warning: Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters. (2010). Education Digest, 76(3), 27-31.

Montgomery, J. K., & Moore-Brown, B. J. (2003). Last chance to become readers: pre-referral

interventions: comprehensive programs that provide short-term, explicit interventions for

struggling students rather than referring them to special ed can have huge pay-offs. Leadership,

(2). 22.

Cullinan, B. Independent reading and school achievement. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from

http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol3/SLMR_Indepe

ndentReading_V3.pdf

Munoz, C. S. (2010, January 1). The Impact of Intensive Reading Interventions on Student

Standardized Test Scores. ProQuest LLC,

Appendix A

Sonday attendance log

Sonday Attendance Roster

Instructor _________________ Location_________________

Student Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Date ____/____ ____/____ ____/____ ____/____ ____/____

4
5

Appendix B
Mastery Check for Spelling
 Sonday system 1 | Winsor Learning | Sample Lesson Plan... (n.d.). Retrieved October 20,
2016, from http://www.winsorlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SS1_
Sample_Lesson_Plan_1-09.pdf
Appendix B
Mastery Check for Spelling
 Sonday system 1 | Winsor Learning | Sample Lesson Plan... (n.d.). Retrieved October 20,
2016, from http://www.winsorlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SS1_
Sample_Lesson_Plan_1-09.pdf

Appendix D
 Interview Questions for Sonday Instructors

1. What makes Sonday effective at teaching decoding skills?

2. What are the most effective aspects of the program in your opinion?
3. How often do the lessons need to be utilized in order for the program to be effective?
4. Is the implementation of Sonday easy or difficult?
5. Are there any recommendations you have for new teachers beginning this program in their
classrooms?
6. Do you find that the students participate or do you have to coax them to participate?
7. Do you have students with Sonday attendance issues?
8. How does their attendance affect them compared to the students who are here every day?
9. Do you have students that exit the program each school year due to sufficient progress?
10. Do students remain in the Sonday program each school year due to lack of progress?

Appendix E
Interview Questions for Classroom Teachers

1. Have you noticed a difference in your students (who are participating in Sonday) reading levels or
comprehension?
2. How long was it before you noticed a difference in your students reading levels or comprehension
while utilizing the Sonday program?
3. Do you feel that your students reading comprehension has improved since their participation in
the Sonday program?
4. Do you believe that these students are making adequate progress in reading while in Sonday?
5. Would you recommend Sonday to other schools?
6. Do you believe that Sonday should be used as an intervention or used school-wide?