Detailed Information on the
Reading First State Grants Assessment

Pursue targeted professional development activities during fiscal year 2008 to ensure that all subgroups of students in Reading First schools receive instruction to improve the ability to read on grade level.

During fiscal year 2008, complete impact evaluation activities and disseminate findings regarding the effectiveness of various instructional techniques that can be used in Reading First and other reading programs.

Improve efficiency of the program by fostering rapid response to reports from regular on-site monitoring visits during fiscal year 2008.

Adding a performance measure on third grade reading proficiency based on State assessments.

Measure: The percentage of grade 1 students in Reading First schools who meet or exceed proficiency in reading on Reading First outcome measures of fluency.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets.

Measure: The percentage of grade 3 students in Reading First schools who meet or exceed proficiency in reading on Reading First outcome measures of fluency.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets.

Measure: The percentage of economically disadvantaged grade 2 students in Reading First schools that meet or exceed proficiency in reading on Reading First outcome measures of fluency.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets.

Measure: The percentage of limited English proficient grade 2 students in Reading First schools that meet or exceed proficiency in reading on Reading First outcome measures of fluency.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets.

Measure: The percentage of African American grade 2 students in Reading First schools that meet or exceed proficiency in reading on Reading First outcome measures of fluency.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets.

Measure: The percentage of Hispanic grade 2 students in Reading First schools that meet or exceed proficiency in reading on Reading First outcome measures of fluency.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets.

Measure: The percentage of grade 2 students with disabilities in Reading First schools that meet or exceed proficiency in reading on Reading First outcome measures of fluency.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets.

Measure: The number of States reporting an increase in the percentage of grade 1 students in Reading First schools who meet or exceed proficiency on Reading First measures of reading comprehension.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets. In 2005, 20 States had the minimum of 2 years' data needed to show an increase.

Measure: The number of States reporting an increase in the percentage of economically disadvantaged grade 2 students in Reading First schools who meet or exceed proficiency on Reading First measures of reading comprehension.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets. For 2005, 19 States had the 2 years of data needed to show an increase.

Measure: The number of States reporting an increase in the percentage of liited English proficient grade 2 students in Reading First schools who meet or exceed proficiency on Reading First measures of reading comprehension.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets. For 2005, 19 States had the 2 years of data needed to show an increase.

Measure: The number of States reporting an increase in the percentage of African American grade 2 students in Reading First schools who meet or exceed proficiency on Reading First measures of reading comprehension.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets. For 2005, 19 States had the two years of data needed to show an increase.

Measure: The number of States reporting an increase in the percentage of Hispanic grade 2 students in Reading First schools who meet or exceed proficiency on Reading First measures of reading comprehension.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets. For 2005, 19 States had the 2 years of data needed to show improvement.

Measure: The number of States reporting an increase in the percentage of grade 2 students with disabilities in Reading First schools who meet or exceed proficiency on Reading First measures of reading comprehension.

Explanation:2006 and 2007 performance targets are based on 2004 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2005 targets. For 2005, 19 States had the 2 years of data needed to show an increase.

Measure: The number of States reporting an increase in the percentage of grade 3 students who score at or above proficient on State assessments in reading.

Explanation:2007 and 2008 performance targets are based on 2005 data, which were not available early enough to determine 2006 targets.

Measure: The number of days for States to respond to issues identified during on-site monitoring visits.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of Reading First is to ensure that all students can read at grade level or above by providing grants to State educational agencies and local educational agencies to establish comprehensive reading programs that are based on scientifically based reading research.

Evidence: Section 1201 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program addresses the national problem of low student achievement in reading. By providing effective reading instruction in the early grades, the program focuses on preventing reading failure rather than on trying to provide remediation after students have fallen behind.

Evidence: The latest data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that only 31% of fourth graders nationally read at or above the proficient level. Disaggregated NAEP data show that the need is even greater for economically disadvantaged students (16% of fourth grade students at or above the proficient level), black students (13%), Hispanic students (16%), students with disabilities (11%), and English language learners (7%).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Title I, Part A, a $13 billion program, also supports reading programs, generally at the K-8 level. However, Reading First plays a distinct role in ensuring that a higher percentage of Federal reading dollars are spent on effective reading programs, serving as a catalyst for spreading proven practices, and that they are focused on the highest-need children and schools. The program directly supports the application of scientifically based reading research and uniquely addresses all aspects of effective early reading instruction: core, supplemental and intervention instructional strategies and programs; instructional assessments; professional development for teachers; and instructional leadership at the school, district and State levels.

Evidence: Title I programs do not focus in the manner that Reading First does on all aspects of scientifically based early reading instruction, including support through strong, ongoing professional development and technical assistance. In addition, States may retain up to 20 percent of their Reading First grants for State use. Among other uses, these funds are used to provide statewide professional development in the application of scientifically based reading research to improve reading instruction beyond districts and schools receiving subgrants. This program feature ensures a broader impact and has led States to develop significant infrastructure for the wide support of effective early reading instruction. Title I and other programs do not have similar provisions.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program design allows for the participation of all States, targets funding to the schools and districts with the greatest needs, and ensures that funds are used to establish a comprehensive early reading program that is based on scientifically based reading research to improve reading instruction for all students in participating schools.

Evidence: Sections 1202 and 1203 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The structure of the program is designed to maximize its effectiveness. All States were eligible to participate in Reading First, but they had to submit detailed applications that had to meet 25 specific and rigorous review criteria prior to receiving funding. In determining eligibility at the district level, States had to develop criteria to ensure that districts with the highest percentages of students reading below grade level and the highest percentages of students living in poverty were targeted. The program design also ensures that all of the key elements of an effective early reading program as identified by scientifically based reading research are incorporated in a comprehensive plan to improve reading instruction. Reading First programs must include the implementation of instructional programs and materials, instructional assessments, and aligned professional development, all of which must be based on scientifically based reading research.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program requires States to limit eligibility for subgrant awards to local educational agencies in the State with the highest numbers or percentages of students reading below grade level and the highest numbers or percentages of students living in poverty. Local school districts that receive subgrant awards may provide funds only to schools that have the highest numbers or percentages of students reading below grade level, and that have been identified for school improvement or have the highest numbers or percentages of students living in poverty. In their approved Reading First plans, States had to describe the specific activities of their K-3 reading programs that would support program requirements. If State plans allowed for the selection of activities at the local level, States then had to describe the criteria they would use to review and approve subgrant applications. In addition, the program includes a requirement that funds must be used to supplement, and not supplant, State, local, and other non-Federal funds that would have been available to conduct activities authorized under Reading First had program funds not been available.

Evidence: Section 1208 (1) and Section 1202 (c)(6) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Fiscal Year 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has developed performance measures that reflect the program's purpose of ensuring that all students can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. Performance measures reflect student achievement in reading in the instructional components of fluency and comprehension for all students in grades 1 and 3 and for disaggregated at-risk populations in grade 2, as well as student achievement in reading on State assessments in grade 3. Please note that OMB and ED have agreed to add an additional long term performance measure for this program for which data will be available within two years. Specifically, Reading First students will reach 100% proficiency on State Third Grade reading assessments.

Evidence: These performance measures are included in the program's annual GPRA Program Performance Report. Data for these measures are collected through annual program performance reports submitted by States.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has established targets and timeframes aligned with the program's goal to ensure that all students can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade.

Evidence: Targets were established in 2004, the first year for which a significant number of States reported achievement data for the program. The Department exercised care in establishing targets without a second year's data to provide a frame of reference about expected gains. As further data become available, targets will be modified to ensure they focus on continued improvement.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Student progress in meeting the program's goal of ensuring that all students can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade is measured annually. Performance measures reflect annual progress related to student achievement in reading in the instructional components of fluency and comprehension for all students in grades 1 and 3 and for disaggregated at-risk populations in grade 2, as well as student achievement in reading on State assessments in grade 3.

Evidence: These performance measures are included in the program's annual GPRA Program Performance Report. Data for these measures are collected through annual program performance reports submitted by States.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baselines for all performance measures were established in 2004, and annual targets were established for subsequent years.

Evidence: 2004 was the first year in which a significant number of States reported achievement data for the program. These data established baseline measures for all performance measures. The Department exercised care in establishing targets without a second year's data to provide a realistic frame of reference about expected gains. As further data become available, targets will be modified.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All program partners commit to and work toward the program goals. Grantees and subgrantees must adhere to all program requirements and report on their progress in increasing student achievement. Program contractors provide technical assistance aimed at improving reading instruction that results in improved student achievement.

Evidence: In order to ensure that all of the program's statutory requirements were met, an expert panel evaluated State applications for Reading First grants according to 25 rigorous review criteria. Applications had to meet standards for all 25 criteria before funding was awarded. Many of these criteria addressed the specific rigorous standards to which subgrant districts and schools would be held. States submit annual performance reports that include detailed achievement data for grades 1-3 and all disaggregated subgroups for each participating school. States have done well in submitting their reports on time, and with all requested data included. In addition, all program contractors were required to discuss their understanding of the program's purpose in their proposals, and statements of work discuss the specific services that contractors (such as the National Center for Reading First Technical Assistance) provide to grantees and subgrantees. Performance-based quality assurance plans evaluate contractor performance in completing these activities.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The national evaluation of the program has four components, all of which are conducted by independent, external evaluators. The evaluation includes an impact study, which utilizes a rigorous, quasi-experimental research design, an implementation study, an analysis of the extent to which State standards and assessments are aligned with scientifically based reading research, and a study of the connection between program participation and referrals to special education.

Evidence: The analysis of State standards and assessments was completed and released in 2005. All other components of the evaluation are underway. An interim report from the implementation study, which compares instructional practices in Reading First schools to non-Reading First Title I schools, will be released in Spring 2006. The first report of the impact study is expected in 2007.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The budget materials for the program show the full cost of administering the program. However, the budget request is not tied to achievement of a specific level of outcome.

Evidence:

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program originally planned to collect information related to student referrals for special education services based on difficulties learning to read through the annual performance report submitted by States; the program statute specifically requires evaluation of this area. However, the collection of these data caused an undue burden on States while producing little that could be effectively analyzed or aggregated. Consequently, the question was removed from the performance report, and the Department initiated an evaluation study of this important topic.

Evidence: The annual program performance report originally directed States to provide the rate of referral for special education services of students in schools participating in Reading First. Few States had a mechanism in place to collect this information from local educational agencies, and even fewer were able to distinguish which referrals were related to reading difficulties. State interpretations of "referral" were also quite varied. Some States counted all students considered for placement; others counted only those students for whom services were recommended; and still others counted only those students that ultimately received special education services. Since States were struggling to collect these data and the collected data would be of limited use because of the inclusion of other special education categories and the variety of definitions in use, the Department concluded that an evaluation study would be a more appropriate means to address this topic. The study is using an interrupted time-series design and data collected through the Office of Civil Rights to compare rates of learning disabilities in Reading First schools with a comparison group and to investigate changes in these rates in Reading First schools before and after grants were awarded.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program collects timely and credible performance information from three sources: annual performance reports, annual monitoring reports and the program's subgrantee database. This information is used to identify and address implementation and performance issues (as discussed under "Evidence/Data").

Evidence: The Department utilizes a web-based data system to facilitate collection of annual performance reports. States' annual performance reports include detailed achievement data for grades 1-3 and all disaggregated subgroups for each participating school. The Department also maintains a database of demographic information about district and school subgrants. This database is linked to the web-based performance report collection system, both to prevent duplicative collection and to ensure that States have reported on the performance of all participating schools and districts. In addition, all participating State educational agencies and selected subgrantees are monitored on-site each year. The selection of districts within a State for monitoring ensures that districts of various size and districts that are both urban and rural are visited. In addition, districts with identified implementation or performance concerns are included in the monitoring visit and are also revisited as necessary. A generic checklist is not used; rather, States and districts are held accountable for whether or not they are implementing their programs as outlined in their approved State and subgrant applications. From this information, the program identifies States and districts that have encountered implementation or performance difficulties and arranges for technical assistance. For example, monitoring identified schools' need for additional technical assistance in connecting assessment data to instructional decision making. The National Center for Reading First Technical Assistance has made this topic a priority in its work with State Directors, and monitoring demonstrates improvement in this area.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: ED's managers are subject to the new EDPAS (Education Performance Appraisal System) system, which links employee performance to success in meeting the goals of the Department's Strategic Plan. Managers enter into individual performance agreements where they are given responsibility for achieving relevant action steps outlined in the Strategic Plan. These action steps and other items included in managers' performance agreements are designed to measure the degree to which a manager contributes to improving program performance. Grantee performance is monitored on an annual basis through annual performance reports, monitoring site visits and audits, and the program statute authorizes the Secretary to withhold grant payments in whole or in part to grantees making insufficient progress. In addition, States, in their approved applications, had to describe how outcome data would be used to make program decisions, including intervention with and/or discontinuation of subgrantees not making significant progress.

Evidence: Section 1202 (e)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; EDPAS agreements for key managers. Grantee performance is monitored through annual performance reports, audits, and on-site monitoring visits, which also include monitoring of subgrantees. Large districts receiving significant percentages of States' total Reading First funding and serving large numbers of students are regularly included in program monitoring. The program office also monitors States' drawdown of funds to ensure that both States and subgrant districts obligate and liquidate funds in a timely manner. Monitoring Reports and State Reading First Plans are also used to gauge success and ensure that implementation is proceeding as intended.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds are obligated within the timeframes set out by Department schedules and used for the intended purposes. The Department reserves some funds for national activities including evaluation; these funds are based on an approved national activities spending plan and an approved evaluation plan.

Evidence: On-site annual program monitoring ensures that States are implementing their programs and expending funds in accordance with program requirements and their approved State plans.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has focused on management and execution that is efficient and cost effective and has used national activities funds to award contracts that strengthen and enhance program resources. External contractors, providing a range of technical assistance supports, augment a small program staff. The program has also established an efficiency measure related to the timely submission of annual performance reports by States.

Evidence: Relative to its size, the program functions with one of the Department's smallest program staffs, while providing a high level of oversight and assistance to its grantees. Competitive sourcing was used to award all external contracts, which provide a wide range of technical assistance activities, including the operation of the National Center for Reading First Technical Assistance, annual on-site monitoring of all grantees, and coordination of national and regional technical assistance workshops. In addition, the program is developing an efficiency measure related to the timely submission of annual performance reports by States. Since effective program management is connected to analysis of student achievement data, it is imperative that complete reports are received in a timely manner. The Department's goal for this measure is to achieve 100% of States submitting complete reports within 30 days of the due date. However, this measure has not yet been finalized.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program works with the Early Reading First program to provide grantee eligibility data and strengthen the transition from pre-school to kindergarten reading instruction. The program also collaborates with the Title I program to promote the use of reading instruction based on scientifically based reading research. In addition, the program collaborates with the new Striving Readers program to apply strategies from the developed scientific research base on early reading instruction to the emerging area of adolescent literacy.

Evidence: Program statute bases eligibility for Early Reading First funding on district eligibility for Reading First subgrants. To avoid duplicative collections, States indicate whether there has been a change in subgrant eligibility in their Reading First annual performance reports, and this updated information is provided to the Early Reading First office. In awarding Reading First subgrants, program guidance recommends that States offer a competitive priority to districts that also receive Early Reading First grants, to increase the number of districts that have scientifically based preschool and K-3 early reading instructional programs. The coordination between the Reading First and Early Reading First supports the transition from pre-school to kindergarten reading programs. The Reading First program is collaborating with the Title I program on a project called "Expanding the Reach." This project, which is piloted in three States, provides technical assistance and support in the implementation of scientifically based reading instruction in districts that were eligible for but are not participating in Reading First and did not make adequately yearly progress in reading.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Agency-wide audits have not identified deficiencies in the financial management of this program.

Evidence:

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: No strategic deficiencies have been identified.

Evidence:

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Department maintains information on grantee activities through annual on-site monitoring and annual performance reports.

Evidence: States submitted detailed, comprehensive program plans that had to meet 25 rigorous review criteria prior to funding. Monitoring and performance reports provide detailed, annual information about each State's activities in implementing these plans and the outcomes that are achieved. Technical assistance activities also add to the program's knowledge of grantee activities. The program has conducted at least three technical assistance meetings for State program directors each year. The program also receives additional information on grantee activities from external technical assistance providers.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Performance reports containing detailed performance data are annual and performance data are made available to the public.

Evidence: The public can access the program's annual reporting of its GPRA performance indicators on the program's websites. Individual States' performance reports are available upon request to the Department.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Although it is early in program implementation, gains have been achieved on all program performance measures.

Evidence: For the 2004-2005 school year, students in Reading First schools demonstrated increases in achievement in reading across all performance measures. The percentage of students who met or exceeded proficiency in reading on Reading First outcome measures of fluency increased from 43% to 50% for first-grade students; from 36% to 39% for third-grade students; from 33% to 39% for economically disadvantaged second-grade students; from 27% to 32% for limited English proficient second-grade students; from 34% to 37% for African American second-grade students; from 30% to 39% for Hispanic second-grade students; and from 17% to 23% for second-grade students with disabilities. The number of States reporting an increase in the percentage of students who met or exceeded proficiency in reading on Reading First outcome measures of reading comprehension increased from 2 to 14 for first grade-students (20 States had the minimum of two years data needed to show an increase); from 7 to 19 for third-grade students (23 States had two years of data); from 4 to 14 for economically disadvantaged second-grade students (20 States had two years of data); from 5 to 6 for limited English proficient second-grade students (18 States had two years of data); from 5 to 16 for African American second-grade students (19 States had two years of data); from 5 to 9 for Hispanic second-grade students (19 States had two years of data); and from 2 to 12 for second-grade students with disabilities (19 States had two years of data).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program has met or exceeded performance targets that demonstrate increases in student achievement in reading.

Evidence: For the 2004-2005 school year, the program met or exceeded all performance targets related to the percentages of students meeting or exceeding the proficient level in reading on Reading First outcome measures of fluency for first-grade students; third-grade students; and disaggregated subgroups of second-grade students (economically disadvantaged; limited English proficient; African American; Hispanic and students with disabilities). For the 2004-2005 school year, the program also met or exceeded performance targets related to the number of States reporting an increase in the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the proficient level on Reading First measures of reading comprehension for first-grade students; third-grade students; and disaggregated subgroups of second-grade students (economically disadvantaged; African American; Hispanic and students with disabilities). Although progress was made, the performance target for increased proficiency on measures of reading comprehension was not met for limited English proficient second-grade students.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: In addition to the program's administrative efficiencies and good management practices, the Department has developed efficiency measures that reflect effective and timely achievment of program goals. The operational efficiency measure for this program reflects average State response time to issues identified during on-site monitoring visits. The program has worked to improve data collection strategies, including the enhanced use of technology, in order to conduct work in the most efficient and cost effective manner. The program has also focused on the effective use of external resources to augment a small program staff.

Evidence: A web-based reporting system has been developed that both facilitates data collection and ensures the collection of complete data sets. The reporting system is linked to the program's subgrantee database both to prevent duplicative collection and to ensure that States have reported on the performance of all participating schools and districts. The program has continued to streamline the reporting process to ensure that only data that are critical to measuring program effectiveness are collected. Similarly, since the data that States report for their annual performance reports are the same data that must be submitted for consideration of a Targeted Assistance Grant, the annual performance report was developed to serve also as the Targeted Assistance Grant application. This simplified process allows States to indicate by checking a box that they wish their performance report also to be considered for a Targeted Assistance Grant. In addition, relative to its size, the program also functions with one of the Department's smallest program staffs, while providing a high level of oversight and assistance to its grantees. Finally, an efficiency measure relating to average State response time to issues identified during on-site monitoring visits has been developed. For 2004, response time was 83 days, and in 2005, 65 days.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Data from comparable programs do not yet exist. Once data are collected for the new performance measure on Third Grade reading scores, then comparisons may be made.

Evidence:

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The interim report of the Reading First Implementation Evaluation indicates strong implementation of proven practices, but cannot yet document improved outcomes for students. The evaluation found significant differences between the reading instruction in K-3 classrooms in Reading First schools and in non-Reading First Title I schools. The outcome information from the evaluation is expected in 2007, and may provide sufficient reason to re-PART the program.

Evidence: The Reading First Implementation Evaluation focuses on how the program is implemented in participating districts and schools and how reading instruction differs between Reading First schools and a comparison group of non-Reading First Title I schools. The evaluation is conducted by an external, independent entity, and draws from nationally-representative samples of 1,092 Reading First schools and 541 non-Reading First Title I schools. The evaluation found Reading First schools appear to be implementing the major elements of the program as intended by the legislation, such as selection of needy districts and schools, professional development activities, time for reading instruction, uses of assessment, providing scientifically based reading instruction in grades K through 3, and interventions for struggling readers. The evaluation also found significant differences between Reading First schools and non-Reading First Title I schools. Classroom reading instruction in Reading First schools is significantly more likely to adhere to the intentions of the Reading First legislation than that in Title I schools. These include the amount of instructional time, use of appropriate reading materials, and implementing reading activities and strategies supported by scientifically based reading research. Teachers in Reading First schools are more likely to report applying assessment results for varied instructional purposed (e.g., for planning grouping, progress monitoring and identifying struggling readers) than their Title I counterparts. Reading First schools were significantly more likely to have a reading coach to support teachers in the implementation of their reading programs than were non- Reading First Title I schools. Reading First staff received significantly more professional development than did Title I staff. Reading First teachers were more likely to have received professional development in the five components identified by scientific research as essential to effective reading instruction - phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and reading comprehension - as well as in overall teaching strategies.