I have used SIPPS as a reading specialist in a non-title one school. I abandoned doing it with fidelity as I felt that it did not work very well. A few kids grew, but many did not. Our districts data did not support it either and we probably had about 20 schools using it. Some with fidelity, some less so. I tried modifying it...got slightly better results, but no better than when I just did what I knew to be best for kids.
As an administrator now in a Title One school, I totally understand the accountability requirement. When you spend taxpayer money on a program you have to be able to justify that it is money well-spent. I sometimes grit my teeth at the time I spend away from instruction to deal with that, but I fully understand that title one money must be used to help kids effectively. I will tell you at this point that my fabulous reading specialists in Title One have also abandoned SIPPS. Now I would like to address the idea of 'fidelity'. As part of my doctoral program, I have read a lot of research...and I have learned how to evaluate the quality of research. In social science research, which education research is, we have some serious ethical issues to consider when planning a study. The first of these is that we are working with children. If we have an intervention we think might work, it is unethical to deny some students the opportunity for that intervention. How would you like YOUR children to be in a control group, getting the same old thing, when your neighbor's child, randomly assigned to an intervention group, is making progress? So, to account for that, researchers who are trying to do experimental, or quasi-experimental research have some serious obstacles to overcome. First, the quality of the teacher. Even in a scripted program, like SIPPS, when delivered with the exact same words might get different results. Suppose I am the most loved teacher... and my neighbor across the hall hates kids and yells at them all day. Do you really think that there would not be a difference in the results between the two rooms? And then ,there is the kids. We don't usually get kids randomly assigned to teachers. How many of us are in schools where the most assertive parents get their kids into the classroom that they want? So, the kids in the classroom across the hall are different...have less parental support...less time spent on homework. AND then, SIPPS in Title One where there are kids that are not recieiving adequate food or health care, vs those that are in a upper middle class school... ? When we evaluate research...especially on these phonics programs, we have to ask ourselves how the setting for the research is like, or unlike ours. We have to ask how the teachers differ in levels of experience, and in those affective qualities that are hard to measure. we have to ask how the children are the same or different. We need to think about the size of the groups of children and how far below level they are, and where they disabled, or ADD or second language learners. I guess what I am arguing is this: We try to reduce the teacher variable by making them use a script to see if the program works. I would argue that there are too many other variables at play here to be able to make a judgment. So, I use the same script as you do... I get results and you don't. Why is that? Do I have better students? Do I have better classroom control? Do I have more involved parents? Do I have a smaller class size? Do I have fewer behavior problems? This is a situation where qualitative research techniques, which collect different kinds of data...non-numerical data...might be more useful. So, your class isn't doing well with SIPPS. Say we find that some of the kids aren't doing well because they lack focus. Let's adjust the program and give it in shorter segments so that they pay attention and see how it works. Teachers are capable of that... if they understand how to identify the problem and collect appropriate data. We can make more informed judgments about the quality of the program IF we first ensure that the program is matched to kids who will benefit from the intervention. Second, we enlist teachers and use what they know to help us understand what is working and not working about a program. And finally, we stop kidding ourselves that when we do a program evaluation that we have controlled the variables by making teachers follow a script. Incidently, a colleague and I were interested in the research behind SIPPS and followed up on the studies cited in the manual that support it about a year and half ago. First, there are not many. Second, they are all done by the company that developed the program. Third, there were flaws in the methodology. My district was fooled. We bought this as a research based program... but no one actully looked at the research with a knowledgeable eye before we spent the money. That's not to say that it is not working elsewhere...and maybe there have been more studies done since I last looked into it. It very well may be that there is new research supporting it, and I would be happy to hear that there are students benefitting from it. We just need to start asking questions with these programs when looking at the research. How are these kids like or unlike mine? How are the teachers like or unlike mine? How is the rest of the curriculum like and unlike mine? (Maybe SIPPS works well with kids in reading workshop but not kids in the Harcourt basal...for example.) How will I fairly evaluate the program, realizing that it is truly impossible to control the variables as we would for experimental research.... Jennifer L. Palmer Instructional Facilitator National Board Certified Teacher Magnolia Elementary (home school) 901 Trimble Road Joppa, MD 21085 410-612-1553 Fax 410-612-1576 "In every child a touch of greatness!!' Proud of our Title One School Norrisville Elementary 5302 Norrisville Road White Hall, MD 21161 410-692-7810 Fax 410-692-7812 Where Bright Futures Begin!! ________________________________________ From: mosaic-bounces+jennifer.palmer=hcps....@literacyworkshop.org [mosaic-bounces+jennifer.palmer=hcps....@literacyworkshop.org] on behalf of Stein, Ellen H. [est...@bcps.org] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 2:10 PM To: Mosaic: A Reading Comprehension Strategies Email Group Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] SIPPS We use SIPPS in a much more structured way. The theory is if we don't use the script provided with the program we have no check on whether the "program" worked. Having purchased this and other interventions with title 1 funds, we need accountability as to whether it worked or not. If we don't use them with fidelity we don't know the reason for the success or failure. Sent from my Droid Charge "Stacy.caudill" wrote: Regarding phonics instruction- has anyone ever heard of SIPPS? I have been using it for several years. It allows me to assess students and work with small leveled groups. Although the lessons are laid out I don't really think of it as a program because I just use and adapt what is appropriate for my students. I meet with each group for only about 15 minutes, and I have found that it is very easy for me to build on when I am conferring in reader's and writer's workshop or doing guided reading lessons. _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive
