Ed Specialist Title 1 Action Research Deluca and Hathcock Website

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE READ 180 PROGRAM
The Effectiveness of the Read 180 Program in Increasing Student Achievement of At-Risk
Students at Wyandot Middle School in Chippewa Valley Schools
Kristin DeLuca and Shannon Hathcock
Oakland University
Author Note
Kristin DeLuca, Department of Organizational Leadership, Oakland University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristin DeLuca, Department of
Organizational Leadership, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309
Contact: kdeluca@oakland.edu
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE READ 180 PROGRAM 2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….………7
Background……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7
Assumptions and Limitations………………………………………………………………………………….….. 10
Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
Evaluation/Research Questions ………………………………………………………………………………….12
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………………………………….13
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..13
Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………………………………………13
Chapter 3: Methods of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………. 18
Overview……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………….18
Selection of Subjects…………………………………………………………………….………………………………18
Research Design……………………………………………………………………………………………………………19
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………20
Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20
Chapter 4: Results of the Study……………………………………………………………………………………………21
Triangulation of Data……………………………………………………………………………………………………21
Data Source 1: Student Surveys………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
Data Source 2: Parent Surveys…………………………………………………………………………….……… 26
Data Source 3: NWEA Test Data 2020-2021 ....…………………………………………………………… 29
Data Source 4: Progress Monitoring Data ..………………………………………………………………….36
Discussion of Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………….39
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………42
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………43
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….45
Implications for Future Research………………………………………………………………………………….46
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..47
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………49
Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 49
Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….50
Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….51
Appendix D………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………52
Appendix E …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….56
Acknowledgements
Completing a research project in an accelerated program, while fully employed and throughout
the course of a global pandemic is no small undertaking. The researchers would like to thank
their families for their support over the past year. In addition, the researchers would like to
thank the students, staff, and families of Wyandot Middle School and the Chippewa Valley
Schools Educational Services Department for allowing us to survey students and analyze
assessment data. The researchers would also like to thank Oakland University Professor, Dr.
Lindson Feun, for his continuous guidance, feedback, and support through this entire process.
The researchers are grateful for Dr. Feun’s expertise and feel privileged to have completed this
coursework with his guidance. Lastly, the researchers would like to thank Dr. Christine Abbott
and Dr. Caryn Wells for providing their support and leadership.
Abstract
Two students from an Oakland University Education Specialist cohort examined the
effectiveness of the READ 180 program, a tier two reading intervention program that supports
the RTI model under NCLB. The researcher assessed the program’s impact on NWEA testing
data and Reading Inventory progress monitoring assessments. This study was conducted over
the course of a year at Wyandot Middle School in the Chippewa Valley School District. The
participants included three cohorts, including a sixth, seventh, and eighth grade cohort,
enrolled in the READ 180 program. Stakeholders, including students enrolled in READ 180 and
their parents/guardians were also surveyed to gather information regarding their attitudes and
perceptions in relation to Wyandot Middle School. Share in this action research paper are the
findings, conclusions and recommendations for the READ 180 program at Wyandot Middle
School.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Wyandot Middle is one of twenty schools in the Chippewa Valley School District: the
second largest district in Macomb County and the seventh largest district in the state of
Michigan. The Chippewa Valley School District serves more than 15,000 students in grades K-12
and is comprised of twelve elementary schools, four middle schools, three high schools
(including two ninth grade centers) and one International Academy of Macomb High School.
Chippewa Valley Schools receives the lowest per pupil foundation allowance in the county
which reduces the flexibility of programming and staffing.
Wyandot Middle School lies near the southern end of Clinton Township, Michigan, an
urban community covering 28.1 square miles (roughly seven miles long and four miles wide).
The majority of Wyandot’s students reside in Clinton Township and a small portion of students
live in Macomb Township. Wyandot Middle School is a school-of-choice, accepting students
from across the county as long as families are able to provide their own transportation.
During the 2020-2021 school, Wyandot has serviced 858 students through hybrid
instruction and our virtual academy (resulting from Covid-19). Of the 858 students at Wyandot,
86% are in the general education program, 14% receive special education services. Wyandot
Middle School also houses our districts Creative Learning Program (CLP) for students with
cognitive impairments which accounts for 3% of our special education population.
Approximately 35% of Wyandot Middle School's students are eligible for free or reduced
breakfast and lunch programs. A total of 73.5% of the student body is of white/non-Hispanic
descent, 15.2% are Black, 3.5% are Hispanic, 2.8% are Asian and 5% are of multiple races.
Wyandot Middle School students regularly perform nearly at or above the district
averages on the state's assessments. District averages, in turn, have always been above the
state averages. Gaps exist between some of the subgroups with African American special
education males often performing the lowest on standardized assessments. Our goal is to help
students reach their full potential, regardless of their initial performance level. Students
complete common building-wide assessments in core areas as well as other standardized
assessments including the NWEA in math and reading and the Scholastic Reading Inventory
which are used to place students into appropriate advanced or remedial classes, or to
recommend students for afterschool support programs.
Title I legislation was enacted in 1965 under the Improving the Academic Achievement
of Disadvantaged Act. Title I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides
financial assistance to local educational agencies and schools with high numbers or percentages
of children from low-income families. Federal funds are determined through four formulas that
are based on census poverty estimates and the cost of education in each state (U.S.
Department of Education). The goal of Title I was to support disadvantaged students in
achieving academic excellence and to close the achievement gap between students that are
disadvantaged and students from high socioeconomic backgrounds (Contreras, 2010, p. viii).
Schools need at least 40% of their student population classified as low income to qualify for
funds. Targeted Title I buildings may use their funds to provide additional instruction and
resources to qualifying students. School-wide Title I buildings have a greater percentage of

students classified as low income. This designation allows schools flexibility with applying funds
to overall student achievement. Title I requires that all schools allocate funding devoted to
parent involvement and buildings are required to develop a process of identification for at-risk
students.
At Wyandot Middle School, relevant student data for each student were analyzed and
discussed by a team of staff members for the purposes of improving student academic success.
These meetings are held quarterly to discuss students who are not meeting grade level
expectations and are not performing well academically. Staff members who are invited to
participate include: administration, counselors, school psychologist, teacher consultant, and
various teachers by subject. Administration and Counselors meet biweekly. During these
meetings, counselors and administration have dialogue on current programs and student
needs. Several data points are considered when discussing student progress including: M.A.P.
(NWEA) scores, current and past report card grades, Lexile scores, software data from
intervention programs, student attendance, and behavioral data including detentions and
suspensions. In addition, students are progress monitored regularly. The progress monitored
data were disaggregated through data studies that include administrators, counselors, school
psychologist, teacher consultants, and various teachers by subject. Also taken into
consideration are teacher perceptions of student effort and aptitude, staff observations, parent
concerns, and student concerns. Several outcomes are possible for each student discussed
during the Progress Monitoring meeting including movement in or out of remedial classes
(Read 180 or Math 180), Student Success Plans, revisiting particular teaching strategies,
additional student study teams, referrals to special education, parent-teacher meetings,

behavior plans, staff check-ins, and more. This study will analyze the impact of the Read 180
program on improving student literacy through the analysis of NWEA and progress monitoring
data. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s READ 180 is an intensive reading intervention program that
is research-based and designed to yield large reading gains in below grade 2 level readers, in a
short amount of time.
Assumptions and Limitations
This study was conducted to analyze the effectiveness of the reading intervention
program, READ 180, at Wyandot Middle School. The evaluation also analyzed attitudes of
students and parents who participate in the reading intervention program about the
effectiveness of the reading intervention programs.
The conclusions in this study were made with the assumption that students and
parents/guardians responded accurately and honestly to the survey questions. This study also
assumed that teachers and title I staff used best practices when implementing curriculum and
interventions, as well as integrity in retrieving assessment data. The researchers were limited
to the questions they were permitted to ask in the survey which affected the relevancy of the
student and parent survey results. Limitations to this study also included the extent to which
teachers and title I staff received training to implement their programs and interventions. In
addition, the sample of students that participated in the study was a sample of convenience
and focused specifically on Wyandot Middle Schools and not representative of the general
population; therefore, generalizations cannot be made to other schools based on these
results. Also, there are some students who are no longer enrolled at Wyandot or students who
did not take either the pre or post progress monitoring assessment or did not participate in
NWEA testing; therefore, the researcher did not have accurate data on these students. Lastly,
the testing data were obtained during the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, testing conditions
were inconsistent for fall, winter, and spring testing and pre and post progress monitoring
data.
Definition of Terms
Title I: legislation enacted in 1965 under the improving the Academic Achievement of
Disadvantaged Act which provides funds to local educational agencies with high numbers or
percentages of students from low-income families.
Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA): a process used to identify student needs and
performance challenges in a school or district, determine their causes, and prioritize future
action.
NWEA: Northwestern Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress
READ 180: a reading intervention program that provides individualized instruction to meet each
student’s reading needs.
RTI: an evidence-based tiered framework practice that provides quality instruction for all
students and research-based interventions for struggling or at-risk learners by using data-based
methods for identifying students that need more intensive intervention to achieve academic
success.
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

Evaluation Questions
The questions that guided our action research were:
1. How effective is the reading intervention program (Read 180), funded through Title I, in
meeting the needs of at-risk students at Wyandot Middle School?
2. What are the attitudes of students who participate in the reading intervention program
at Wyandot Middle School?
3. What are the attitudes of the parents of students who participate in the reading
intervention program at Wyandot Middle School?

Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
Introduction
The literature supports the idea that while literacy is a common focus of early
education, it lacks emphasis at the secondary level which can result in regression and widen the
already existing achievement gap. Effective reading intervention strategies are necessary at the
secondary level. Understanding the role of reading intervention programs in helping to
decrease the achievement gap can help schools make better choices in choosing programming
to provide students support.
READ 180 is a research-based, intensive reading intervention program for students in
upper elementary through high-school which focuses on phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The READ 180 program includes individualized
instructional software, data-driven small group instruction, direct instruction for whole and
small groups, and leveled independent reading opportunities. It also provides progress
monitoring assessment tools. The current paper examines the effectiveness of this tier two
reading intervention program, READ 180, for students in grades 6-8 at Wyandot Middle School.
Literature Review
In reviewing the literature, one of the common themes that emerged was the
importance of literacy and its impact on success in youth and adults. Like the achievement gap
and inequalities in our education system, the composite literacy scores among adults in the
United States on the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) were also characterized by a
relatively high degree of inequality. In comparison with literacy scores from twenty other high-
income countries, the gaps between scores of adults in the United States at the top and bottom
of the literacy distribution were among the highest in the world. These large differences in
literacy proficiencies are associated with employability and wage discrepancies. Results from
the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) indicate that adults in the United States
with a “proficient level” of prose and quantitative skills were twice as likely to be employed full-
time as their peers with a “below basic” performance. In addition, higher prose, quantitative
and composite proficiencies is associated with higher weekly and annual earnings among
employed adults (Sum, A., 2007).
There is a significant amount of research that focuses on effective ways to teach reading
for students in their early academic years resulting in a gap of information for effective tiered
interventions and reading interventions for older students (Vaughn, et. al, 2010). Research has
documented an achievement gap that is correlated with disability, cultural diversity, and
income level. The gap between low- and high-performing students continues to increase each
year they progress through school, particularly in the areas of literacy (Alber-Morgan, 2010).
Recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that
nationally, in 2019, only 34 percent of fourth-grade public school students performed at or
above the NAEP proficient level in reading while only 32 percent of eighth grade students
performed at or above the NAEP proficient level in reading; therefore, more than two thirds of
students, grades 4-8, failed to reach proficient levels in reading achievement (The Nation’s
Report Card, 2019). Dock and Deshler (2003) cited that over five million learners are not
reading at an age appropriate, grade level proficiency by the time they enter high school
(Neubert, E.S., 2017) with middle school students continuing to fall below the Proficient level of
state and national standards in the area of literacy. Students who have difficulty reading often
experience learning problems across the curriculum which often results in a dislike for school
and learning because their struggles result in minimal success. Too many students in grades 6
to 8 have problems reading and are allowed to progress through and exit high school without
being functionally literate (Plony, 2013). Middle school students who struggle in reading are
likely to experience difficulty in other subjects in school. Reading comprehension and fluency
are the common educational threads that determine a student’s success or failure in school
(Brown, 2014).
Decades of school reform toward inclusive education have culminated in almost all
children with exceptionalities being educated in general education or in the least restrictive
environment for at least part of the school day. Among all students ages 6-21 served under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the percentage who spent most of the school
day (80 percent or more of their time) in general education classes or in the least restrictive
environment increased from 59 percent in fall 2009 to 65 percent in fall 2019 (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2021). Students who do not qualify for special education services, but
who do not perform proficiently on the current grade level standards are considered at-risk.
At-risk readers are often giving texts above what they are capable of reading and
comprehending; therefore, they usually are not interested. At-risk readers are more likely to
engage when the text better matches their reading level. Because teachers are responsible for
providing effective instruction to all students, schools and teachers must design instruction and
programming that facilitates universal access to the curriculum. This is defined as universal
design of learning (Alber-Morgan, 2010). Universal design can be accomplished by using a
Response to Intervention (RTI) model for instructional planning, delivery, and assessment in an
effort to close the achievement gap between proficient and at-risk students. RTI is an
evidence-based tiered framework practice that provides quality instruction for all students and
research-based interventions for struggling or at-risk learners by using data-based methods for
identifying students that need more intensive intervention to achieve academic success. RTI
consists of three tiers. In tier one, all students are provided with high-quality instruction. If a
student is not successful in tier one, they are identified as at-risk and moved to tier two and
would receive research-based, small group instruction embedded in their day. These
interventions must take place over a period of time and are progress monitored. The process
of RTI is fluid and students may be placed in and out of different tiers throughout their
educational experience. If students do not show progress in tier two, they are moved to tier
three intervention which is often the recommendation for special education services (Caldwell,
2018). Based on experimental research, a panel of experts from the National Center for
Educational Evaluation made general recommendations for implementing multitiered
interventions which includes screening every student, at tier one, at the beginning and middle
of the school year and provide differentiated instruction for students, at their reading levels,
based on assessment data. For students not responding to tier one, tier 2 intervention would
provide more intensive intervention three to five times per week to students in small groups.
Based on data from progress monitoring assessments, teachers would determine whether tier
three intervention was necessary. When teachers use an RTI model to teach diverse learners,
they are better able to identify students who are struggling and provide them with
supplemental instruction. In order to implement RTI effectively, teachers need an accurate and
reliable assessment system for monitoring progress to determine which students are
responding to intervention and which students need more intensive or tier three instruction. In
addition, effective progress monitoring provides educators with a reliable prediction of student
achievement and enables teachers to increase student achievement by making more effective
instructional decisions (Alber-Morgan, 2010).

Chapter 3
Overview
This chapter provides the purpose and methodology, selection of subjects, research
design, description of the instruments, data analysis, and summary of this action research
project. The consent forms used for the participants of this study can be found in Appendix A,
B, and C.
The purpose of this action research study was to determine the effectiveness of the
reading intervention program, funded through Title I, in meeting the needs of at-risk students
at Wyandot Middle Schools and to determine the attitudes of students and their families who
receive the interventions. Survey questions were created to gauge perceptions of two groups
of stakeholders including students and their parents/guardians. Surveys were distributed to
students and their parents/guardians in grades 6-8 at Wyandot Middle School (Appendices D &
E). The results from both surveys contributed to the conclusions and further program
recommendations and use of Title I funds at Wyandot Middle School.
Selection of Subjects
One of the researchers of this project is an employee at Wyandot Middle School in the
Chippewa Valley School District; therefore, the subjects selected were all students at Wyandot
Middle School during the 2020-2021 school-year. There were many participants from Wyandot
Middle School in this action research project; the subjects were a sample of convenience. The
participants included students who were placed into the reading intervention block in place of
their ELA class for the 2020-2021 school-year. These students were identified and placed into
these reading intervention programs through the CNA process.
The students selected had the opportunity to participate by completing a survey. Of the
41 students enrolled in the program in the Spring of 2021, 30 students completed the
survey. We also chose to survey parents/guardians of the identified students. Surveys and
consent forms were sent home to the families of the 41 students in the program. Of the 41
families, 10 parent surveys were returned, and two passive consent forms were returned opting
their students out of participation in the student survey.
In addition, the students' NWEA scores and Reading Inventory, a Lexile proficiency and
growth report were also analyzed. The participants included students who were placed into
the reading intervention block in place of their ELA class for the 2020-2021 school-year. These
students were identified and placed into these reading intervention programs through the CNA
process. We also chose to survey parents/guardians of identified students and interview the
teachers and staff members implemented the identified reading programs.
Research Design
Two surveys were created and administered to students and their parent/guardian
during this evaluation process. Both surveys included Likert Scale questions and demographic
questions. The parent survey included open-ended questions. The student surveys were
conducted in-person at Wyandot Middle School. The parent surveys were sent home with each
student in sealed envelopes and returned to one of the researchers at Wyandot Middle
School. In addition, the NWEA test was administered to students in the Fall of 2020, while they
were learning virtually and administered, again, in the Winter and Spring of 2021 while
students were learning in-person.
Data Analysis
Students and parents responded to surveys containing demographic questions, Likert-
scale questions, and open-ended questions. The researchers analyzed the open-
ended questions from the parent survey to find commonality among the responses. The Likert-
scale and demographic questions from the student surveys were analyzed and represented in a
table format. Means and standard deviations were calculated for each Likert-scale
question. Responses to open-ended questions were categorized and reported based on
frequency of category.
Student assessment data were analyzed from Fall 2020, Spring 2021, and Winter 2021
using NWEA achievement data and teacher assessment data in order to analyze outcomes of
students serviced by the reading intervention program.
Summary
In summary, this action research was done through the use of student and parent
surveys and assessment data. The students and parents participated on a voluntary basis and
knew they were anonymous. It was communicated to students and parents that this data
would help us to analyze the effectiveness of our current reading intervention program funded
through Title I funds.

Chapter 4
Results of the Study
Triangulation of Data
The research for this project was collected from a variety of data sources in order to
answer the research questions. Two surveys were administered: one survey to the students in
the reading intervention program and another survey to the parents/guardians of students
placed into the reading intervention program. Of the 41 students enrolled in the reading
intervention program in June of 2021, 30 students and 10 parents/guardians completed and
returned the surveys. NWEA reading test data for Fall 2020, Winter 2021 and Spring 2021 were
analyzed in addition to the pre and post-test Reading Inventory data for all students enrolled in
the reading intervention program in June of 2021.
Data Source 1: Student Surveys
A survey was administered to students in the reading intervention program at Wyandot
Middle School in order to obtain data regarding the attitudes of the students in the READ 180
program. Of the 41 students in the Read 180 class, thirty students in grades 6, 7, and 8
completed and submitted a paper and pencil survey. Responses to the Likert scale questions
were as follows: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = undecided, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree,
and 0 = not applicable. The second portion of the survey consisted of demographic and
background information. Of the student respondents, 30% were in sixth grade, 27% were in
seventh grade, and 43% were in 8th grade. There were 30 respondents out of forty-one
students in the program yielding a 73% response rate. The student survey gathered six
categories of information about student perceptions of the learning environment at Wyandot
Middle School which included: clear and fair practices, caring environment and expectations,
cultural relevance, respectful interactions and pride, engagement and encouragement and
behavior standards. The overall survey results were positive in that students mostly agreed
that Wyandot had a positive culture and learning environment. We analyzed the data by
section in order to better understand the results. The results from section one of the survey,
fair and clear practices, is presented in table 4.1. Overall, the students responded positively
and were in agreement that practices at Wyandot Middle School are equitable with an overall
mean of 3.8 for the section.
Table 4.1
Student Survey Results: Fair and Clear Practices Section
Fair and Clear Practices Mean

1 I can express my ideas openly. 3.9
2 My improvement and positive behaviors are acknowledged. 3.4
3 I receive feedback that helps me 3.7
4 Rules and expectations are fairly and consistently enforced. 3
5 I understand what is expected of me academically. 4.3
I have opportunities to improve negative behaviors before
6 being issued consequences. 3.9
7 My grades fairly reflect my achievement. 4
8 I understand expectations in my classes about participation. 3.7
9 I earn the grades I receive. 4
Mean 3.8
The results from section two of the survey are presented in table 4.2. In table 4.2, mean for
questions 10 to 17 indicated students felt positively about the school environment and
expectations.
Table 4.2
Student Survey Results: Caring Environment and Expectations Section
Caring Environment and Expectations

10 Expectations at Wyandot are high. 3.4
11 I receive the supports I need in order to 3.4
learn.
12 Staff members care about me. 3.9
13 I am valued as an individual. 3.7
14 I have opportunities to reflect on my 4.3
personal goals.
15 The classroom atmosphere supports my 3.7
learning.
16 I ask for help when I need it. 3.8
17 I enjoy my time at Wyandot. 4.2
Mean 3.8
Table 4.3 displays the results from section three which speaks to the students’ attitudes
regarding the school’s cultural proficiency. Overall, the students responded positively about
the cultural relevance of the curriculum and the attitudes about cultural diversity.
Table 4.3
Student Survey Results: Cultural Relevance
Cultural Relevance
18 I feel that students are of different races 4.3
and/or ethnicities are respected.
19 The curriculum reflects my cultural or 3.6
ethnic identity.
20 Students are encouraged to show 4.2
appreciation for students from different
racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Mean 4.0
Section four of the student survey posed questions regarding respectful interactions with one
another, and the attitudes and habits exhibited by the students enrolled in the reading
intervention course. Overall, students answered positively with an average mean of 4.0.
Table 4.4
Student Survey Results: Respectful Interaction and Pride
Respectful Interaction and Pride

21 I am treated with respect. 3.7
22 I have pride in my work. 4.0
23 I have pride in myself. 3.8
24 I respect my teachers. 4.3
25 I respect myself. 4.0
26 I put forth effort in my classes. 4.0
Mean 4.0
Section four of the survey posed questions regarding student attitudes about learning and how
both teachers and students engage in the learning process. Overall, students responded
positively about students’ and teachers’ roles and attitudes in teaching and learning. Question
33 is highlighted and was not included in the average mean because a lower response was a
positive answer. Students were undecided as to whether they need more help than they get in
classes.
Table 4.5
Student Survey Results: Engagement and Encouragement
Engagement and Encouragement

27 Student learning is an important priority 4.0
at my school.
28 I feel challenged by the work. 3.5
29 I have a desire to learn at school. 3.4
30 I complete work assigned. 3.8
31 I ask questions in class. 3.3
32 Teachers use different ways of teaching 4.2
in my classes.
33 I need more help than I get in classes. 2.8
34 I am actively engaged in learning in 3.7
class.
35 Teachers use technology to help me 3.8
learn.
Mean 3.7
Table 4.6 displays the results for the last section of the survey: behavior standards. The
students agreed that the behavior standards and consequences are clear at Wyandot.
Table 4.6
Student Survey Results: Behavior Standards
Behavior Standards
36 I behave appropriately in my 4.0
classrooms.
37 Classes start promptly. 3.7
38 Bullying is not tolerated. 4.6
39 Behavior expectations are clear. 4.1
40 Consequences for inappropriate 4.0
behavior are fair.
Mean 4.1
Data Source 2: Parent Surveys
A survey was administered to the parents/guardians of the students in the reading
intervention program at Wyandot Middle School in order to obtain data regarding their
attitudes and perceptions of Wyandot Middle School. Each student was given a sealed
envelope to bring home to their families and asked to return the survey to one of the
researchers within the week. Any student who returned a parent survey received a raffle ticket
to be entered into a drawing for a gift card. Of the 41 sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students
in the Read 180 class, ten of their parents/guardians completed and submitted the paper and
pencil survey. Responses to the Likert scale questions were as follows: 5 = strongly agree, 4 =
agree, 3 = undecided, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree, and 0 = not applicable. The second
portion of the survey consisted of demographic and background information. The last three
questions were short answer. Of the respondents, 40% had students in sixth grade, 50% had
students in seventh grade, and 10% had students in 8th grade. Of the 41 families with students
in the program, there were 10 respondents yielding a 24% response rate. Despite the low
response rate, the researchers were still able to identify trends.
The parent responses to the Likert scale survey questions are displayed in table 4.7. The
parent survey consisted of 42 Likert scale questions regarding the student’s course experience
in the Read 180 program, the student’s habits, learning experiences and social emotional well-
being. The last section of Likert scale questions gathered data regarding the parent’s
involvement in the school community and their attitude of Wyandot Middle School. The data
from the parent responses to the Likert scale questions demonstrated that parents overall have
a positive perception of their child’s educational experience at Wyandot Middle School and in
the Read 180 program.

Table 4.7
Parent Survey Results to Likert Scale Questions
# Questions 23 completing homework and handing it 3.5

in.
My child is: MEAN 24 asking questions when he or she does 3.5
1 challenged by the course content of 3.6 not understand.
the curriculum. 25 using a planner daily. 2.8
2 learning to work cooperatively. 4.0 26 coming to class on time. 4.2
3 encouraged to apply knowledge rather 3.9
27 his or her own behavior. 4.1
that memorize facts.
4 learning how to make good decisions. 3.8 Mean 3.6
5 proud of the school he or she attends. 4.3 My child:
Mean 3.9 28 has been exposed to a wide variety of 3.3
teaching methods while at Wyandot.
My child is treated with respect by: 29 has had access to additional support 3.7
6 other students. 3.8 when needed.
30 has been given opportunities to assess 3.7
7 teachers. 4.5 their own strengths and weaknesses
8 administrators. 4.2 to support learning.
9 other staff in the building. 31 has opportunities to engage and make 3.9
4.8 meaning of the content based on their
Mean 5.3 learning style.
My child respects: 32 Has established an open line of 4.0
communication.
10 other students. 4.4 Mean 3.7
11 teachers. 4.5 As a parent I:
12 administrators. 4.5 33 have access to a classroom Schoology 4.0
13 other staff the building. page that offers quality information.
4.5
34 have an active PowerSchool account. 4.5
Mean 4.5
35 understand why my child was placed 4.2
My child feels safe and comfortable: into a reading intervention program.
14 in the halls. 4.4 36 feel welcomed when I visit my child’s 3.9
15 on the bus. school.
3.2
37 have a good relationship with my 3.9
16 in the classroom. 4.3 child’s teachers.
17 in the cafeteria. 4.3 38 have a good relationship with the 3.5
principal.
18 walking to and from school. 2.5 39 am involved in my child’s homework. 3.9
19 in the restroom. 4.3 40 have a clear understanding of my 4.2
20 speaking to an adult in the building if 4.3 child’s teachers’ expectations.
he or she has a problem. 41 feel discipline is administered fairly 4.1
Mean 3.9 and consistently.
My child takes responsibility for: 42 Feel there is an open line of 3.8
communication with the school.
21 bringing materials to class. 3.9
Mean 4.0
22 bringing materials home when 3.5
needed.
Parents/guardian of students in the Read 180 also had the opportunity to respond to
three questions that required a written response” “What are strengths of our school?”, “How
could our school be improved?” and “general comments.” The data were analyzed by noting
the most common responses or themes that emerged. Common responses to the first question
identified strengths as open lines of communication, caring nature, and high expectations of
staff members from teachers and support staff to leadership in the building, and positive
reinforcement. In response to the second question about suggestions for improvement, the
common theme the provision of more opportunities for extra help during and after school.
Only three parents responded to the general comments section and the results did not yield
common themes.
Data Source 3: NWEA Test Data 2020-2021
Researchers collected and desegregated the NWEA Reading Growth data for 12 sixth-
grade students who were enrolled in the Read 180 course at Wyandot Middle School that
services at-risk students. Table 4.8 compared the percentile ranking that the sixth-grade
students received on the NWEA test that was administered in the Fall of 2020 and again in the
Winter of 2021. After calculating the data, the results showed that students in the sixth grade
had an average loss of 5.1 percentile points from Fall 2020 to Winter of 2021.
Table 4.8
6th Grade NWEA Student Testing Data Fall-Winter 2020-2021
Fall 2020 Winter 2021 Fall-Winter

Student Grade Percentile Percentile Percentile +/-
1 6 1 1 0
2 6 14 5 -9
3 6 19 19 0
4 6 19 16 -3
5 6 26 42 16
6 6 28 35 7
7 6 28 12 16
8 6 44 14 -30
9 6 46 11 -35
10 6 51 42 -9
11 6 58 50 -8
12 6 61 55 -6
AVERAGE
PERCENTILE
+/- -5.1
The researchers then collected and desegregated the NWEA Reading Growth data for
the same 12 sixth-grade students who were enrolled in the Read 180 course at Wyandot
Middle School. Table 4.9 compared the percentile ranking that the sixth-grade students
received on the NWEA test that was administered in the Winter of 2021 and again in the Spring
of 2021. Two students within this testing cycle were exited from the Read 180 course after the
Winter NWEA assessment due to their high percentile ranking and one student moved out of
the district during the testing cycle. After calculating the data, the results showed that
students in the sixth grade had an average gain of 5.8 percentile points from Winter 2021 to
Spring of 2021.
Table 4.9
6th Grade NWEA Testing Data Winter-Spring 2021
Winter-
Spring
Winter 2021 Spring 2021 Percentile
Student Grade Percentile Percentile +/- Special Notes
1 6 1 3 2
2 6 5 20 15
3 6 19 46 27
4 6 16 15 -1
5 6 42 27 15 Exited program
6 6 35 21 -14
7 6 12 20 8
8 6 14 21 7
9 6 11 12 1
10 6 42 63 21
11 6 50 Moved Moved
12 6 55 38 -17 Exited program
AVERAGE
PERCENTILE
+/- 5.8
The researchers collected and desegregated the NWEA Reading Growth data for 13
seventh-grade students who were enrolled in the Read 180 course at Wyandot Middle School
that services at-risk students. Table 5.1 compared the percentile ranking that the seventh-
grade students received on the NWEA test that was administered in the Fall of 2020 and again
in the Winter of 2021. Two students within this testing cycle were exited from the Read 180
course due to their previous percentile ranking, while the other student was not present when
the Winter NWEA assessment was administered. After calculating the data, the results showed
that students in the seventh grade had an average gain of 4.1 percentile points from Fall 2020
to Winter of 2021.
Table 5.1
Winter
Fall 2020 2021 Fall-Winter Special Notes
Student Grade Percentile Percentile Percentile +/-
Not present for Winter
NWEA assessment
13 7 1 AB
14 7 6 19 13
15 7 6 22 16
16 7 16 1 -15
17 7 17 22 5
18 7 19 16 -3
19 7 19 34 15
20 7 19 12 -7
21 7 20 22 2
Exited program
22 7 22 59 37
23 7 30 37 7
24 7 51 32 -19
Exited program
25 7 58 56 -2
Average
Percentile +/- 4.1
Next, the researchers collected and desegregated the NWEA Reading Growth data for
the same 13 seventh-grade students who were enrolled in the Read 180 course at Wyandot
Middle School. Table 5.2 compared the percentile ranking that the seventh-grade students
of 2021. Two students within this testing cycle were exited from the Read 180 course after the
Winter NWEA assessment due to their high percentile ranking, while one student was not
present during the Winter 2021 assessment. The researchers added their percentile rankings in
the highlighted areas. After calculating the data, the results showed that students in the
seventh grade had an average loss of 2.8 percentile points from Winter 2021 to Spring of 2021.
Table 5.2
Winter-
Winter Spring
2021 Spring 2021 Percentile
13 7 AB 3 NWEA assessment
14 7 19 14 -5
15 7 22 4 -18
16 7 1 22 21
17 7 22 7 -15
18 7 16 27 11
19 7 34 41 7
20 7 12 36 34
21 7 22 23 1
23 7 37 18 -19
24 7 32 25 -7
Average
Percentile +/- -2.8
The researchers collected and desegregated the NWEA Reading Growth data for 15
eighth-grade students who were enrolled in the Read 180 course at Wyandot Middle School
that services at-risk students. Table 5.3 compared the percentile ranking that the eighth-grade
students received on the NWEA test that was administered in the Fall of 2020 and again in the
Winter of 2021. Two students within this testing cycle did not show percentile gains or losses
because they were not present when the NWEA assessment was administered in the Fall of
2020 or the Winter of 2021. After calculating the data, the results showed that students in the
seventh grade had an average gain of 7.5 percentile points from Fall 2020 to Winter of 2021.
Table 5.3
Fall-Winter
Fall 2020 Winter 2021 Percentile Special Notes
Student Grade Percentile Percentile +/-
NWEA assessment
26 8 2 NA
27 8 3 1 -2
28 8 6 5 -1
29 8 7 11 4
30 8 7 26 19
31 8 8 45 37
32 8 14 13 1
33 8 15 2 13
34 8 18 50 32
35 8 18 5 -13
36 8 23 1 -22
37 8 29 30 1
38 8 33 17 16
39 8 42 30 12
Not present for Spring
NWEA assessment
40 8 NA 45
Average
Percentile
+/- 7.5
Lastly, the researchers collected and desegregated the NWEA Reading Growth data for
the same 15 eighth-grade students who were enrolled in the Read 180 course at Wyandot
Middle School. Table 5.4 compared the percentile ranking that the eighth-grade students
of 2021. Three students within this testing cycle did not have a growth percentile score
because two of them were absent during one of the testing cycles and the other student moved
out of the district. After calculating the data, the results showed that students in the eight-
grade had an average gain of 9.1 percentile points from Winter 2021 to Spring of 2021.
Table 5.4
Winter-
Winter Spring Spring
2021 2021 Percentile
26 8 AB 25 NWEA assessment
27 8 1 18 17
28 8 5 25 20
Not present for Spring
29 8 11 AB NWEA assessment
30 8 26 33 7
31 8 45 22 -23
32 8 13 20 7
33 8 2 36 34
34 8 50 22 33
35 8 5 5 0
36 8 1 15 14
37 8 30 27 -3
38 8 17 38 21
39 8 30 Moved Moved
40 8 45 27 -18
Average
Percentile
+/- 9.1
Data Source 4: Progress Monitoring Data
In order to assess multiple data points, the researchers collected and desegregated
progress monitoring data from the Reading Inventory assessment for the same cohort of 12
sixth-grade students who were enrolled in the Read 180 course at Wyandot Middle School that
services at-risk students. Table 5.5 compared Pre-Test and Post-Test Lexile Reading Levels. The
researchers listed the expected growth that was provided within the Reading Inventory report.
One student within this sixth-grade cohort moved and was not included in the data. After
calculating the Reading Inventory data, the results showed that students in the sixth grade had
an average loss of 44.8 Lexile points when comparing reading data collected in the Fall 2020
and again in the Spring of 2021.
Table 5.5
6th Grade Progress Monitoring Reading Inventory
Expected
Growth
(Lexile Actual Special
Student Grade Pre-Test Lexile Post-Test Lexile range) Growth Notes
1 6 115L 372L 205-315 257
2 6 1067L 579L 20-50 -488
3 6 613L 682L 55-90 69
4 6 1596L 840L NA -756
5 6 NA NA NA NA
6 6 570L 607L 70-110 37
7 6 638L 801L 55-90 163
8 6 293L 400L 155-220 107
9 6 817L 961L 35-65 144
10 6 784L 840L 45-75 56
11 6 NA NA NA NA moved
12 6 840L 803L 35-65 -37
Average
Growth -44.8
The researchers collected and desegregated the progress monitoring data from the
Reading Inventory assessment for the same cohort of 13 seventh-grade students who were
enrolled in the Read 180 course at Wyandot Middle School that services at-risk students. Table
5.6 compared Pre-Test and Post-Test Lexile Reading Levels. The researchers listed the expected
growth that was provided within the Reading Inventory report. After calculating the Reading
Inventory data, the results showed that students in the seventh grade had an average gain of
31.3 Lexile points when comparing reading data collected in the Fall 2020 and again in the
Spring of 2021.
Table 5.6
Expected
Pre- Post- Growth
Test Test (lexile Actual Special
Student Grade Lexile Lexile range) Growth Notes
13 7 BR 274L 220-350 274
14 7 574L 555L 70-115 -19
15 7 574L 843L 70-115 269
16 7 564L 492L 70-115 -72
17 7 413L 313L 90-145 -100
18 7 508L 732L 70-115 224
19 7 543L 772L 70-115 229
20 7 867L 733L 35-65 -134
21 7 712L 778L 45-75 66
22 7 1142L 896L 15-45 -246
23 7 686L 700L 55-90 14
24 7 1200L 1004L 0-35 -196
25 7 1055L 1153L 25-55 98
Average
Growth 31.3
The researchers collected and desegregated progress monitoring data from the Reading
Inventory assessment for the same cohort of 15 eighth-grade students who were enrolled in
the Read 180 course at Wyandot Middle School that services at-risk students. Table 5.7
compared Pre-Test and Post-Test Lexile Reading Levels. The data that were provided by the
teacher did not include projected growth for the eighth-grade students in the Read 180
program; therefore, not applicable was inserted into that column in Table 5.7. One student
within this eighth-grade cohort moved and was not included in the data. After calculating the
Reading Inventory data, the results showed that students in the eighth grade had an average
gain of 0.8 Lexile points when comparing reading data collected in the Fall 2020 and again in
the Spring of 2021.

Table 5.7
Expected
Pre- Post- Growth
Test Test (lexile Actual Special
Student Grade Lexile Lexile range) Growth Notes
26 8 493L 628L 135
27 8 614L 538L NA -76
28 8 763L 415L -245
29 8 603L 336L NA -267
30 8 714L 883L NA 169
31 8 854L 735L NA -119
32 8 439L 596L 157
33 8 353L 648L 295
34 8 632L 781L 149
35 8 664L 577L -87
36 8 274L 191L -83
37 8 722L 757L 35
38 8 914L 908L -6
39 8 NA NA NA NA moved
40 8 898L 830L -68
Average
Growth -0.8
Discussion of Results
The goal of this study was to evaluate the perceptions and attitudes of students and
their families enrolled in the READ 180 program, along with the effectiveness of the reading
intervention program (Read 180) at Wyandot Middle School in the Chippewa Valley School
District in Macomb County, Michigan. The study examined and analyzed three cohorts of
students in grades six, seven, and eight who were placed into the program based on the
previous year’s NWEA data. Surveys were administered to students and their families in order
to obtain data to allow the researchers to evaluate perception and attitudes. Quantitative data
from the 2020-2021 NWEA testing and progress monitoring data from the reading inventory
were also analyzed to evaluate the effectives of the reading intervention program.
The student survey provided the researchers with information about students’
perceptions and attitudes surrounding their educational experience at Wyandot Middle School.
While the information gathered is useful for improving the school culture and climate and
learning environment, the data did not provide the researchers with information specific to the
reading intervention program that contributed to the program evaluation.
Like the student surveys, the surveys administered to the parents/guardians of students
enrolled in the Read 180 program provided the researchers with similar parent perception and
attitude information that could be used to improve the educational experience in all
classrooms, but did not provide the researchers with useful information to evaluate the Read
180 program.
Questions 21-27 of the parent survey did pose several questions that provided the
researchers with useful information that contributes to the program evaluation including their
perception of course content and curriculum and student study habits. The mean was a 3.6
which lies between undecided and strongly agree for question one, “my child is challenged by
the course content of the curriculum.” The mean is 3.6 for questions 21-27 of the parent
survey (table 4.7) which, again, lies between undecided and agree. Questions 21-27 provided
researchers with information about student responsibility and study habits, based on parent
perception, of the students enrolled in the reading intervention program.

In addition to survey results, NWEA and Reading Inventory progress monitoring data
were analyzed. The results did not yield clear and comparable trends. After careful
disaggregation of all data, the researchers question the validity of gains and losses represented
in the fall and winter as a result the COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in inconsistent testing
conditions.
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
Overview
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by President George W. Bush in
2002, increased the federal role in holding schools accountable for the academic progress of all
students in hopes of improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps. In 2004,
President Bush signed into law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEA). Included in the Act were new ideas regarding Response to Invention (RTI) in an effort to
reduce the misdiagnosis or inappropriate diagnosis of a learning disability. The focus of RTI is to
provide more effective, tiered instruction and provide intervention and supports for students
experiencing learning difficulties, especially in reading (James, 2004).
The researchers from Oakland University studied the effectiveness of a tier two program
at Wyandot Middle School located in Clinton Township, Michigan. The purpose of the study
was to determine the effectiveness of the READ 180 program, funded through Title 1, in
increasing student’s proficiency levels in reading as measured by NWEA test data and Reading
Inventory progress monitoring data. The results of the study provided the researchers with
valuable information regarding the program’s effectiveness.
The researchers evaluated the effectiveness of the READ 180 program, as a tier two
intervention by surveying the attitudes and opinions of the students enrolled in the course and
their parents. In addition, the researchers evaluated NWEA testing data from Fall 2020, Spring
2021, and Winter 2021. In addition, the students' Reading Inventory, a Lexile proficiency and
growth report were also analyzed. The participants included students who were placed into
the reading intervention block in place of their ELA class for the 2020-2021 school-year. These
students were identified and placed into these reading intervention programs through the CNA
process. Through the analysis of survey data, NWEA test scores, and progress monitoring
assessment data, the researchers attempted to answer the following questions:
1. How effective is the reading intervention program (READ 180), funded through Title I, in
meeting the needs of at-risk students at Wyandot Middle School.
2. What are the attitudes of students who participate in the reading intervention program
at Wyandot Middle School?
3. What are the attitudes of the parents/guardians of students who participate in the
reading intervention program at Wyandot Middle School?
Conclusions
Through examination of the data collected in this research through surveys and the
analysis of NWEA and progress monitoring data, the researchers were able to draw conclusions
about the effectives of the READ 180 program. The results of this research project are limited
to Wyandot Middle School and cannot be generalized to other middle school or high school
programs. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers question the reliability of
assessment data.
1. How effective is the reading intervention program (READ 180), funded through Title I,
in meeting the needs of at-risk students at Wyandot Middle School?
In order to answer this question, the researchers analyzed data from both the NWEA
and Reading Inventory. The researchers deemed the NWEA data from Fall to Winter as
unreliable due to the testing conditions in the Fall 2020 as a result of virtual learning due
to the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore, used the Winter 2021 to Spring 2021 NWEA
data to make their assessment. Sixth grade students enrolled in the READ 180 saw an
average increase of 5.8, seventh grade students enrolled in the READ 180 program saw
an average decrease of 2.8, and eighth grade students enrolled in the READ 180
program saw an average increase of 9.1. The sixth and eighth grade data can be used as
an example of the effectiveness of the READ 180 program while the seventh-grade data
can be used as an example of the ineffectiveness of the program. In contrast, the
Reading Inventory assessment progress monitoring data yielded opposing results. The
sixth and eight grade students saw an average decrease of 44.8 and 0.8 while seventh
grade students saw an average increase of 31.3. This data can be used as an example of
the ineffectiveness of the READ 180 program for students in grade six and eight and as
an example of the effectiveness of the READ 180 program for students in grade 7.
2. What are the attitudes of students who participate in the reading intervention
program at Wyandot Middle School?
The results of the student survey in the READ 180 program regarding their attitudes and
perceptions of Wyandot Middle School was generally positive. Overall, the data showed
that the students felt positively about the school environment and expectations, school
practices, cultural relevancy, peer interactions, and student engagement and
encouragement. Students were undecided as to whether they need more help than
they get in classes. Student survey responses indicated that Wyandot Middle School has
a positive culture and climate and that student attitudes toward the school and learning
are positive. Survey results may suggest that students need additional supports in their
classes to support their learning and growth.
3. What are the attitudes of the parents/guardians of students who participate in the
reading intervention program at Wyandot Middle School?
The results of the survey administered to parents and guardians of students in the READ
180 program regarding their attitudes and perceptions of Wyandot Middle School was
generally positive. Overall, the data showed that parents and guardians felt that their
students were challenged by the course content and curriculum and that Wyandot
Middle School is perceived as an overall safe school with a positive culture and climate.
Recommendations
The results of this action research study were contradictory in the effectiveness of the
READ 180 program, funded through Title I. While the results of the NWEA data analyzed
showed an increase in reading scores for sixth and eighth grade students, the Reading
Inventory showed a decrease in Lexile points. In comparison, the results of the NWEA data
analyzed showed a decrease in reading scores for seventh graders, while the Reading Inventory
showed an increase in Lexile points.
The results of both the student and parent survey indicated that the overall attitudes
and perceptions of students enrolled in the READ 180 program and their parents and guardians
were positive. Although, due to the limitations of permitted research questions and their
relevancy to the study, this data cannot be used to determine program effectiveness.
Based on the assessment and survey results, the researchers have suggestions in order
to improve program effectiveness. First, the researcher recommends additional training for the
teachers who utilize the program; especially, in terms of using the progress monitoring data to
better utilize the program to differentiate instruction and provide targeted supports for
students’ specific deficiencies in the areas of phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary
and comprehension. The researcher also recommends that teachers evaluate NWEA more
closely to modify instruction for students or small groups based on individualized needs. Lastly,
the researchers would also suggest that the teachers help the students to use the progress
monitoring data to assess their own learning and growth and to set future program goals.
Implications for Future Research
In order to have more accurate data of the effectiveness of the READ 180 program at
Wyandot Middle School, the researchers recommend that further research be undertaken. A
further study could assess the NWEA data and progress monitoring data for students enrolled
in READ 180. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers were unable to determine
whether the ineffectiveness of the program, according to the data, is a result of program
implementation or the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the researchers recommend future
research be conducted on a larger scale to assess the effectiveness of the program and program
implementation. It is recommended that further research include surveys that include fewer
questions that are more relevant to program implementation.

References
Alber-Morga, S. (2010). Using RTI to teacher literacy to diverse learners, K-8. Corwin.
Brown, R. M. (2014). Factors Predicting Read 180 18-Week Grades Among Middle School
Students: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Ethnicity, Reading and Language Skills and
Socioeconomic Indicators. (Publication No. 3583491). [Doctoral dissertation, Trident
University International]. UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Caldwell, D. D. (2018). A Case Study of the Reading Interventions Relationship to Middle School
At-Risk Students. (Publication No. 10827508) [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral
University]. Proquest LLC.
Contreras, H. (2010). Linking resource allocation to student achievement: A Study of title 1
and title 1 stimulus utilization. (Publication No. 3440428) [Doctoral dissertation,
California State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
James, F. (2004). Response to intervention in the individuals with disabilities education act
(IDEA). [IRA/GWU Post Master’s Internship]. International Reading Association.
Neubert, E.S. (2017). The Impact of the Read 180 Program on Response to Intervention Services.
(Publication No. 3601111) [Doctoral Dissertation, Liberty University]. Umi Dissertations
Publishing.
Plony, D. A. (2013). The Effects of Read 180 on Student Achievement. (Publication No. 3563453)
[Doctoral dissertation, Keiser University]. UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Sum, A. (2017). Forces changing our nation’s future: The comparative performance of U.S.
Adults and youth on international literacy assessments, the importance of literacy/
Numeracy proficiencies for labor market success, and the projected outlook for literacy
Proficiencies of U.S. adults. National Commission on Adult Literacy.
https://www.proquest.com/reports/forces-changing-our-nations-future-
comparative/docview/61838160/se-2?accountid=12924.
State Achievement Level Results. The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved November 20, 2021,
from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/states/achievement/?grade=8.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Title I – Improving the academic achievement of the
disadvantaged. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html.
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C.D., Barth, A., Romain,
M., Francis, D.J. (2010). Response to Intervention for Middle School Students with
Reading Difficulties: Effects of a Primary and Secondary Intervention. School Psychology
Review. Volume 39, No. 1, pp. 3-21.

Appendix A – Administrative Consent Form
May 10th, 2021
Dr. Don Brosky, Assistant Superintendent

Chippewa Valley Schools
19120 Cass Avenue
Clinton Twp., MI 48038
Dear Dr. Brosky,
I am part of an educational specialist cohort from Oakland University conducting action research on Title
1 programs. My research question is: How effective are the Title 1 programs at meeting the needs of
at-risk students and increasing reading achievement at Wyandot Middle School?
I am seeking permission to survey both students and parents involved in Title 1 funded reading
intervention program. The focus of my research will be the students in 6th through 8th grade. I would
like to conduct the surveys in May of 2021. Prior to conducting the survey, I will obtain consent from
parents and students. Their participation will be voluntary, and all information will remain anonymous.
There is no risk in taking this survey. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits and
subjects may discontinue participation at any time.
When the research is complete, the findings will be made public, but no student information will be
identifiable as the survey is being completed anonymously. The information from the research will
benefit future students and staff as we plan on improving the delivery of reading intervention to
students who qualify for the program. I would appreciate consideration and approval for this project.
Please indicate your permission on the form below and return it to Kristin DeLuca. If you have specific
questions regarding this research project, please contact Kristin DeLuca 586-723-4203 or Lindson Feun,
Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor, Oakland University, 248-877-6565.
Sincerely,
Kristin Deluca
I give permission for Kristin DeLuca, from Oakland University, to conduct a survey of students and
parents who participate in the reading intervention programs funded through Title 1 in the spring of
2021.
_____________________________________________________________ _______________
Administrator Signature Date

Appendix B – Parent Permission for Student Survey
June 2021
Dear Parent,
I am part of an educational specialist cohort from Oakland University conducting action research on
reading intervention programs funded through Title I. My research question is: How effective are the
Title I programs, at meeting the needs of at-risk students and increasing reading achievement at
Wyandot Middle School?
Your child’s feedback is very valuable to me. I will be asking the students and staff who participate in
the reading intervention programs to complete the survey. Your student’s participation is completely
voluntary, and all information provided is confidential. No names will be requested on the survey.
There is no risk to your student in taking this survey. It will not impact his/her grade. Your child can
withdraw consent to participate at any time. Any additional data will be collected and analyzed for this
study only. It will be assumed that you are granting permission for your student to participate in this
survey unless I receive this form from you. The information used from this survey will benefit your child
as well as future students, as we plan for improving our delivery of reading instruction at Wyandot
Middle School.
When the research project is complete, the findings will be made available to the public, but no student
information will be identifiable as the survey is being completed anonymously. Please contact Kristin
DeLuca, Assistant Principal, Wyandot Middle School with questions regarding the research or consent at
586-723-4203 or Lindson Feun, Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor, Oakland University, at 248-623-9233 or
feun@oakland.edu. For questions regarding the rights of human subjects in research, you may contact
Dr. Christine Hansen, Chair, Oakland University Institutional Review Board, 248-370-2552.
Sincerely,
Kristin Deluca
Assistant Principal
Wyandot Middle School
586-723-4203
kdeluca@cvs.k12.mi.us
I do NOT give permission to Kristin DeLuca from Oakland University to conduct surveys of students in
the spring of 2021.
________________________________________ ____________
Parent/Guardian Signature Date

Appendix C – Student Permission for Student Survey
June 2021
Dear Student,
I am part of an educational specialist cohort from Oakland University conducting action research on
reading intervention programs funded through Title I. My research question is: How effective are the
Title I programs, at meeting the needs of at-risk students and increasing reading achievement at
Wyandot Middle School?
Your feedback is very valuable to me. I will be asking you and staff who participate in the reading
intervention programs to complete the survey. Your participation is completely voluntary, and all
information provided is confidential. No names will be requested on the survey. There is no in taking
this survey. It will not impact your grade. You may withdraw consent to participate at any time. Any
additional data will be collected and analyzed for this study only. It will be assumed that you are
granting permission for your participation in this survey unless I receive this form from you. The
information used from this survey will benefit you, as well as future students, as we plan for improving
our delivery of reading instruction at Wyandot Middle School.
When the research project is complete, the findings will be made available to the public, but no student
information will be identifiable as the survey is being completed anonymously. Please contact Kristin
DeLuca, Assistant Principal, Wyandot Middle School with questions regarding the research or consent at
586-723-4203 or Lindson Feun, Ph.D., Faculty Sponsor, Oakland University, at 248-623-9233 or
feun@oakland.edu. For questions regarding the rights of human subjects in research, you may contact
Dr. Christine Hansen, Chair, Oakland University Institutional Review Board, 248-370-2552.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Kristin Deluca

Assistant Principal
586-723-4203
Appendix D – Parent Survey
Wyandot Middle School Parent Survey
May 2021
Dear Parents,
We hope that you can take the time to complete the attached survey. It was created
to obtain your perception regarding the culture and climate of our school. The
information collected will help us to set goals for the future. This survey is completely
confidential. Please DO NOT put your name anywhere on it. Thank you for your
input.
Please return the survey to your child’s reading teacher by Friday, May 21, 2021. Thank
you for your participation and support with this survey. We look forward to receiving
your feedback to help us improve the services that are provided to your child. If you
should have any questions or concerns regarding the survey, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Kristin DeLuca
Assistant Principal
586-723-4203
Please SHADE IN the box that represents your feelings about each of the
questions using the following scale:
SA: Strongly Agree A: Agree U: Undecided
D: Disagree SD: Strongly Disagree NA: Not Applicable
# Questions SA A U D SD NA
My child is:
1 challenged by the course content of the curriculum. SA A U D SD NA
2 learning to work cooperatively. SA A U D SD NA
3 encouraged to apply knowledge rather that memorize SA A U D SD NA
facts.
4 learning how to make good decisions. SA A U D SD NA
5 proud of the school he or she attends. SA A U D SD NA
My child is treated with respect by:
6 other students. SA A U D SD NA
7 teachers. SA A U D SD NA
8 administrators. SA A U D SD NA
9 other staff in the building. SA A U D SD NA
My child respects:
10 other students. SA A U D SD NA
11 teachers. SA A U D SD NA
12 administrators. SA A U D SD NA
13 other staff the building. SA A U D SD NA
My child feels safe and comfortable:
14 in the halls. SA A U D SD NA
15 on the bus. SA A U D SD NA
16 in the classroom. SA A U D SD NA
17 in the cafeteria. SA A U D SD NA
18 walking to and from school. SA A U D SD NA
19 in the restroom. SA A U D SD NA
20 speaking to an adult in the building if he or she has a SA A U D SD NA
problem.
My child takes responsibility for:
21 bringing materials to class. SA A U D SD NA
22 bringing materials home when needed. SA A U D SD NA
23 completing homework and handing it in. SA A U D SD NA
24 asking questions when he or she does not understand. SA A U D SD NA

25 using a planner daily. SA A U D SD NA
26 coming to class on time. SA A U D SD NA
27 his or her own behavior. SA A U D SD NA
My child:
28 has been exposed to a wide variety of teaching methods SA A U D SD NA
while at Wyandot.
29 has had access to additional support when needed. SA A U D SD NA
30 has been given opportunities to assess their own strengths SA A U D SD NA
and weaknesses to support learning.
31 has opportunities to engage and make meaning of the SA A U D SD NA
content based on their learning style.
32 have established an open line of communication. SA A U D SD NA
As a parent I:
33 have access to a classroom Schoology page that offers SA A U D SD NA
quality information.
34 have an active PowerSchool account. SA A U D SD NA
35 understand why my child was placed into a reading SA A U D SD NA
intervention program.
36 feel welcomed when I visit my child’s school. SA A U D SD NA
37 have a good relationship with my child’s teachers. SA A U D SD NA
38 have a good relationship with the principal. SA A U D SD NA
39 am involved in my child’s homework. SA A U D SD NA
40 have a clear understanding of my child’s teachers’ SA A U D SD NA
expectations.
41 feel discipline is administered fairly and consistently. SA A U D SD NA
42 Feel there is an open line of communication with the SA A U D SD NA
school.
43. Student grade level:

o 6th Grade
o 7th Grade
o 8th Grade
44. Gender:
o Male
o Female
o
45. Support Services: (mark all that apply)

o Special education
o Speech
o EL
46. Ethnic background:

o Caucasian/White
o African American/Black
o Asian/Pacific Islander
o Latino/Hispanic
o Middle Eastern
o Native American
o Multi-Racial
o Other
47. How many times has your child been absent from school this year?
o Zero
o 1-4
o 5-9
o 10-15
o 16-20
o More than 20
48. My child’s general academic achievement is:
o Above average
o Average
o Below Average
49. What are strengths of our school?
50. How could our school be improved?
51. General comments:

Appendix E – Student Survey
Wyandot Middle School Student Survey
April 2021
Dear Students,
We hope that you take the time to complete the attached survey. It was created to
help us understand how you feel about the connections you are making with your
teachers in the area of fair and clear practices, caring environments and expectations,
cultural relevance, respectful interaction and pride, engagement and encouragement,
and behavior standards. The information that you provide is confidential, so please
DO NOT write your name on this survey.
Think of your collective experience as a student and consider ALL of your

interactions this year when marking your response to each question.
Thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,
Kristin DeLuca
Assistant Principal
586-723-4203
Please SHADE IN the box that represents your feelings about each of the
questions using the following scale:
SA: Strongly Agree A: Agree U: Undecided
D: Disagree SD: Strongly Disagree NA: Not Applicable
# Questions SA A U D SD NA
Fair and Clear Practices
1 I can express my ideas openly. SA A U D SD NA
2 My improvement and positive behaviors are SA A U D SD NA
acknowledged.
3 I receive feedback that helps me SA A U D SD NA
4 Rules and expectations are fairly and consistently SA A U D SD NA
enforced.
5 I understand what is expected of me academically. SA A U D SD NA
6 I have opportunities to improve negative behaviors before SA A U D SD NA
being issued consequences.
7 My grades fairly reflect my achievement. SA A U D SD NA
8 I understand expectations in my classes about SA A U D SD NA
participation.
9 I earn the grades I receive. SA A U D SD NA
Caring Environment and Expectations
10 Expectations at Wyandot are high. SA A U D SD NA
11 I receive the supports I need in order to learn. SA A U D SD NA
12 Staff members care about me. SA A U D SD NA
13 I am valued as an individual. SA A U D SD NA
14 I have opportunities to reflect on my personal goals. SA A U D SD NA
15 The classroom atmosphere supports my learning. SA A U D SD NA
16 I ask for help when I need it. SA A U D SD NA
17 I enjoy my time at Wyandot. SA A U D SD NA
Cultural Relevance
18 I feel that students are of different races and/or ethnicities SA A U D SD NA
are respected.
19 The curriculum reflects my cultural or ethnic identity. SA A U D SD NA
20 Students are encouraged to show appreciation for SA A U D SD NA
students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Respectful Interaction and Pride
21 I am treated with respect. SA A U D SD NA
22 I have pride in my work. SA A U D SD NA

23 I have pride in myself. SA A U D SD NA
24 I respect my teachers. SA A U D SD NA
25 I respect myself. SA A U D SD NA
26 I put forth effort in my classes. SA A U D SD NA
Engagement and Encouragement
27 Student learning is an important priority at my school. SA A U D SD NA
28 I feel challenged by the work. SA A U D SD NA
29 I have a desire to learn at school. SA A U D SD NA
30 I complete work assigned. SA A U D SD NA
31 I ask questions in class. SA A U D SD NA
32 Teachers use different ways of teaching in my classes. SA A U D SD NA
33 I need more help than I get in classes. SA A U D SD NA
34 I am actively engaged in learning in class. SA A U D SD NA
35 Teachers use technology to help me learn. SA A U D SD NA
Behavior Standards
36 I behave appropriately in my classrooms. SA A U D SD NA
37 Classes start promptly. SA A U D SD NA
38 Bullying is not tolerated. SA A U D SD NA
39 Behavior expectations are clear. SA A U D SD NA
40 Consequences for inappropriate behavior are fair. SA A U D SD NA
41. Grade level:

o 6th Grade
o 7th Grade
o 8th Grade
42. Gender:
o Male
o Female
43. Ethnic background:
o Caucasian/White
o African American/Black
o Asian/Pacific Islander
o Latino/Hispanic
o Middle Eastern
o Native American
o Multi-Racial
o Other
44. How many school districts have you attended since kindergarten?
o 1 District
o 2 Districts
o 3 or More Districts
45. What are the grades you mostly earned recently?
o A’s and B’s
o B’s and C’s
o C’s and D’s
o D’s and E’s

Ed Specialist Title 1 Action Research Deluca and Hathcock Website

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ed Specialist Title 1 Action Research Deluca and Hathcock Website

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE READ 180 PROGRAM

Students at Wyandot Middle School in Chippewa Valley Schools

Kristin DeLuca and Shannon Hathcock

Kristin DeLuca, Department of Organizational Leadership, Oakland University

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristin DeLuca, Department of

Organizational Leadership, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309

Assumptions and Limitations………………………………………………………………………………….….. 10

Evaluation/Research Questions ………………………………………………………………………………….12

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………………………………….13

Chapter 3: Methods of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………. 18

Chapter 4: Results of the Study……………………………………………………………………………………………21

Data Source 1: Student Surveys………………………………………………………………………………….. 21

Data Source 2: Parent Surveys…………………………………………………………………………….……… 26

Data Source 3: NWEA Test Data 2020-2021 ....…………………………………………………………… 29

Data Source 4: Progress Monitoring Data ..………………………………………………………………….36

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………42

Implications for Future Research………………………………………………………………………………….46

which reduces the flexibility of programming and staffing.

live in Macomb Township. Wyandot Middle School is a school-of-choice, accepting students

cognitive impairments which accounts for 3% of our special education population.

complete common building-wide assessments in core areas as well as other standardized

recommend students for afterschool support programs.

Department of Education). The goal of Title I was to support disadvantaged students in

resources to qualifying students. School-wide Title I buildings have a greater percentage of

participate include: administration, counselors, school psychologist, teacher consultant, and

additional student study teams, referrals to special education, parent-teacher meetings,

short amount of time.

Assumptions and Limitations

effectiveness of the reading intervention programs.

population; therefore, generalizations cannot be made to other schools based on these

percentages of students from low-income families.

NWEA: Northwestern Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress

student’s reading needs.

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

The questions that guided our action research were:

meeting the needs of at-risk students at Wyandot Middle School?

at Wyandot Middle School?

intervention program at Wyandot Middle School?

Review of the Literature

secondary level. Understanding the role of reading intervention programs in helping to

to provide students support.

READ 180 is a research-based, intensive reading intervention program for students in

upper elementary through high-school which focuses on phonemic awareness, phonics,

employed adults (Sum, A., 2007).

nationally, in 2019, only 34 percent of fourth-grade public school students performed at or

design of learning (Alber-Morgan, 2010). Universal design can be accomplished by using a

Educational Evaluation made general recommendations for implementing multitiered

instructional decisions (Alber-Morgan, 2010).

of stakeholders including students and their parents/guardians. Surveys were distributed to

recommendations and use of Title I funds at Wyandot Middle School.

these reading intervention programs through the CNA process.

their students out of participation in the student survey.

teachers and staff members implemented the identified reading programs.

students were learning in-person.

Students and parents responded to surveys containing demographic questions, Likert-

question. Responses to open-ended questions were categorized and reported based on

students serviced by the reading intervention program.

through Title I funds.

Results of the Study

intervention program in June of 2021, 30 students and 10 parents/guardians completed and

the reading intervention program in June of 2021.

Data Source 1: Student Surveys

A survey was administered to students in the reading intervention program at Wyandot