Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare seven key elements in reading infrastructures in high schools showing improved reading scores among the socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroup (SED) with high schools whose reading scores for this group have shown little or no improvement. The seven key infrastructure elements are: extended time for reading, professional development, summative assessment of students and programs, teacher teams, leadership, community involvement and accountability systems. Methodology. Eleven high schools were selected: Six schools with improved reading scores among the SED population and five schools whose reading scores for this group that showed little or no improvement. Twenty site administrators, 105 teachers, 4 librarians, and 9 reading specialists from four Southern California counties comprised the sample for this descriptive study. Survey data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Open-ended questions from the surveys were analyzed using qualitative methods. The survey response rate was 90 percent. Findings. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative data from high schools showing improved reading scores among the SED population (I) with high schools whose reading scores for this group having shown little or no improvement in reading scores (NI) indicated that (1) I schools offer a significantly greater variety of intervention courses, that were offered to address the various levels of reading competency; (2) the leaders at NI schools are providing significantly more leadership in the area of reading; (3) respondents recognized the greatest impact on reading achievement resulted from extended time for reading instruction. Conclusions. The findings confirm that high school reading programs that provide extended time for reading instruction along with courses developed to address specific reading challenges have a positive impact on student achievement. In addition, the findings suggest that, leaders in NI schools are placing greater focus on reading than at the I schools, possibly reflecting their review and analysis of data and recognition of obvious need in the area of reading at their school. Recommendations. Replicate this study with: (1) a larger sample of high schools in California to see if findings and conclusions are the same as those in this study, (2) schools which have climbed from NI status to I and sustained their momentum for improvement over five years to determine the effect of infrastructure elements that have been put into place.