Reading First in Florida: Five Years of Improvement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five years of reading comprehension data in Florida Reading First schools were analyzed to address questions regarding student improvement, reduction in the achievement gap, efficacy of site visits to schools making no achievement gains, and effects of student mobility on growth in reading comprehension. Participants were 120,000 students (about 30,000 each in grades K–3) in the 318 schools in the first cohort of Florida Reading First from 2003 to 2008. Outcome measures were the reading comprehension scores on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-10) and the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The percentage of students on grade level (at or above the 40th percentile) increased, and the percentage of students at high risk (below the 20th percentile) decreased over the five years. Racial/ethnic minority, economically disadvantaged, and English language learner groups improved performance as well, but there was no evidence of narrowing the achievement gap. Reduction in risk for students with learning disabilities was noteworthy. Increased support to low-performing schools was associated with improved performance. Finally, there were significant reductions in growth in reading comprehension associated with leaving a Reading First school.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it