Content uploaded by Ma. Nina Inocencio Adriano
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ma. Nina Inocencio Adriano on Jan 05, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 1
Evaluation of the Implementation and Effectiveness of Every Child a Reader
Program (ECARP) in a Bulacan Public Elementary School
By Ma. Nina I. Adriano
This descriptive evaluative study primarily aimed to assess the implementation
of Every Child a Reader Program (ECARP) in a Bulacan public school. It
attempted to find out if the program was effective in improving the reading
skills of Grades 1 and 3 pupils. The study used purposive sampling in selecting
the public elementary school in Bulacan, while it used total population
sampling in selecting Grades 1 and 3, with a total population of 771 pupils.
The study hypothesized that there was no significant difference between the
pre- and post-test scores of Grades 1 and 3 pupils. In evaluating the program,
the study used the hexagon analysis tool as well as interviews with the principal
and teachers to determine the extent of ECARP’s implementation in the said
school. In seeking the significant difference between the pre- and post-test
scores, z-test was used. Results revealed that the ECARP was not effective in
improving the reading skills of students. Moreover, there was a problem in the
school’s capacity to implement the program due to the lack of monitoring and
follow-through by the administration. The researcher recommended that the
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 2
ECARP’s implementation in the school be discontinued since it is not effective
in improving the reading levels of pupils. It further recommended that a new
reading intervention be introduced in the school such as the Marungko
approach for Grade 1 nonreaders and the “Sa Aklat Sisikat” program for Grade
3 pupils that have been proven effective to improve the reading levels of
pupils.
Keywords: ECARP, reading intervention, reading, every child a reader
Introduction
Learning First Alliance, an organization of 12 leading national education
associations in the United States, stated that “The first nine months of the
pupils in Grade 1 are arguably the most important in a student’s schooling.” It
is during this period that teachers classify pupils as poor or good readers. Thus,
a well-programmed reading instruction and curriculum should be in place in
schools to support the literacy education of young children. Research studies
on reading suggest that children’s early literacy performance in school is an
important predictor of subsequent school success (Alexander & Entwisle,
2008).
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 3
Moreover, pupils’ end-of-year first-grade reading competence has been
shown to be a significant predictor of long-term academic difficulties
(Ensminger & Slusarcick, 2009). This is supported by findings that children
who begin school with limited early literacy skills often do not catch up with
children who begin school with stronger early literacy skills (National Early
Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008). A strong reading program in the early grades
is, therefore, crucial in the educational success of a child.
Literacy improvement is high on the list of the Department of Education
(DepEd) as well as in the government’s basic objectives. In fact, November of
each year has been declared as National Reading Month, where a series of
activities are held, culminating in the “Araw ng Pagbasa Day” which is
observed every first Monday of November. Aside from similar activities that
promote children’s love for books, the DepEd has implemented the Every
Child A Reader Program (ECARP), a nationwide initiative that aims to make
every child a reader at his/her grade level (Enclosure to DepEd No. 70, s.
2011). It is a means to organize and manage a range of effective literacy
interventions for children struggling to read and write in the early grades. It is
a school-based approach which aims to ensure that every child achieves
success in literacy through carefully targeted support. At the core of this
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 4
program, Reading Recovery provides intensive teaching for the very lowest-
attaining children and professional support for the staff (ECARP Annual
Report, 2011).
The program was designed to equip elementary pupils in public schools
with strategic reading and writing skills to make them independent young
readers and writers (DepEd, 2011). The program is implemented in three
components, namely Reading Recovery (RR), Philippine Informal Reading
Inventory (Phil-IRI) and Philippine Word List in English (PWLE) to ensure a
comprehensive approach to child learning. Only eight regions were selected to
participate, namely. Regions 1, 3, 4, CALABARZON, 5, 6, 11, NCR and CAR.
The budget for the said regions was P21M, with each region being receiving
not less than a million. Of the total amount, the share of Region 3 was P1.1M.
Given this financial and manpower support, there appears to be no reason
for the presence of non-readers and frustration-level readers in Grades 1 to 6
since appropriate intervention has been in place in elementary schools to
improve reading at all grade levels. Among these interventions are remedial
instruction on reading conducted by the class adviser; special reading programs
which are implemented outside of regular class hours; and reading program(s)
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 5
introduced by the division, region, corporations and/or other organizations
(Phil-IRI, 2009).
After four years of implementation, however, assessment of ECARP had
not yet been done to examine the effectiveness of the program in improving
the reading level of pupils. Although there have been studies assessing the
effectiveness of reading programs in the Philippines (Abeberese, Kumler, &
Linden, 2011), the evaluation had been done only on short-term reading
programs and not on the ECARP per se. Thus, this study attempts to find out
the extent of implementation of the ECARP and its effectiveness in improving
the reading level of non-readers and frustration-level readers in a public
elementary school in the City of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan.
Although ECARP is a nationwide endeavor, each elementary school is
required to design its own specific reading interventions based on the learners’
needs. Interventions have to be effective and sustained to be financed by the
ECARP fund. Thus, each school that participates in the program has to ensure
that they include all the required activities to make the program a success.
Moreover, because it is school-based, the DepEd, school personnel and
teachers have to ensure the strict school-wide implementation of the program
to achieve the desired outcomes
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 6
To assess the implementation of the program, the researcher selected a
public elementary school in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. The sample was
chosen based on convenience sampling since data were made easily available
through a relative of the researcher who was working in said school.
The purpose of this study is two-pronged: First, to assess the
implementation of ECARP in the selected school by examining the
outcomes/reports and evidences provided by the school; and second, to find
out if ECARP is effective in improving the reading performance of slow and
non-readers by looking at the school’s Phil-IRI data.
Statement of the Problem
In the context of the study’s background, the researcher aimed to find
answers to the following questions:
1. How may the reading level of elementary pupils in the selected school
per grade level be described in terms of the following reading levels:
a. frustration;
b. instructional; and
c. independent?
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 7
2. How may the ECARP implementation in the school be described in
terms of the six categories presented in the Hexagon Tool analysis:
a. need;
b. fit with current initiatives;
c. resource availability;
d. evidence;
e. readiness for replication; and
f. capacity to implement?
3. What are the reading pre- and post-test scores of Grades 1 and 3 pupils
under ECARP?
4. Is there a significant difference Grade 1 pupils’ pre- and post-test
scores?
5. Is there a significant difference between Grade 3 pupils’ pre- and
post-test scores?
Significance of the Study
The success of any program lies in its implementation, and the success
of the implementation is evident in the outcomes. The outcomes can be
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 8
measured through an evaluation of the learners’ performance. Thus, the result
of this study may be used by the school to improve the program’s
implementation in a particular category as presented in the Hexagon analysis
tool (need, fit, resource availability, evidence, readiness for replication, and
capacity to implement) that yielded a low score based on the researcher’s
rating. Moreover, the result of the effectiveness of the reading interventions
under the program may be used as a basis to improve on or enhance it. It may
also provide valuable inputs for administrators to fill the gaps that need to be
addressed in the reading classroom.
This study is timely and relevant since the program is still undergoing
improvements. There has also been no research done so far to evaluate this
program which has been in existence for four years. In addition, the large
amount of data available in the Phil-IRI may very well be utilized and
incorporated into a comprehensive report to provide direction to policy makers
and school administrators to achieve more effectiveness and efficiency of the
program.
Definition of Terms
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 9
The following terms used in this study were defined based on the
attachment provided in DepEd Order No. 70, s. 2011.
• Every Child a Reader Program (ECARP) – a national program that
addresses the thrust of the DepEd to make every child a reader at his
grade level. It is an approach to implementing and managing early
literacy interventions to ensure that all children who need additional
support with learning to read and write are given what they need.
• Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) – it is the assessment
component of ECARP, a nationally validated assessment tool for
measuring the reading proficiency level of public elementary pupils in
both English and Filipino.
• Philippine Word Lists in English (PWLE) - a word inventory of the most
frequently used words in English textbooks from Grades 1 to 3, which
aims for a standardized tool to build and assess vocabulary development.
• Predominant reading level – this is the reading level with the highest
number of pupils.
• Reading Level is defined by Partnership for Reading (2001) based on the
following three classifications of reading levels:
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 10
- Independent - Relatively easy for the student to read, with 95% word
accuracy. Pupils in the independent reading level are characterized by
having excellent comprehension of the story.
- Instructional - Challenging but manageable for the reader, with 90%
word accuracy and 80% comprehension on simple recall questions
about the story.
- Frustration - Difficult text for the student to read with less than 90%
word accuracy.
• Reading Program(s) are those introduced/supported by the division,
region, corporations and/or other organizations.
• Reading Recovery - an early literacy intervention designed to reduce
reading and writing difficulties in schools. It is an intensive, daily, one-
to-one intervention for the lowest- achieving literacy learners after one
year in school.
• Remedial Instruction on Reading - are those conducted by the teacher
in charge in
his/her own classroom. (Phil-IRI Manual and Users’ Guide for School
Users, 2009)
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 11
• Special Reading Programs - are those implemented outside of regular
class hours.
Review of Related Literature
This review of literature focused on the implementation and impact of
Every Child a Reader (ECaR) and Reading Recovery (RR) programs in
countries where the programs were implemented such as the UK, New
Zealand, US, and Australia. The review begins with information about the
case study subject, ECARP, in the Philippines, followed by a quick look at
some countries with programs aiming to make every child in school a reader.
The researcher then perused the literature about early literacy intervention
which explains why the selected program was intended for early school years.
Literature about the history of the Reading Recovery program and its methods,
as well as reading materials on how the ECARP evolved from Reading
Recovery to how it is currently being implemented in the UK were also
reviewed. Every Child A Reader is a program that is highly customizable
according to the needs of each school, resulting in varied outcomes depending
on the manner of implementation. Because of this, studies on the outcomes of
both ECaR and RR programs are also included in this review.
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 12
Research shows that a version of the Every Child A Reader program has
been around since 2001 (DepEd Memorandum 2007), aimed at ensuring that
pupils from Grades 1 to 6 can read at their level, through substantial
intervention efforts in the first three years and continuous support thereafter.
In 2011, the Philippine government allotted funds via the Department of
Education for various intervention programs to further support this objective
to equip every child with the ability to read at his grade level. This was in line
with the Department’s goal of making every child a reader by third grade.
(DepEd Order No. 70, s.2011).
Only few documents can be found online about the Philippine’s Every
Child A Reader Program. A report submitted to UNESCO described ECARP
as an “intervention to ensure that all children from Grades 1 to 3 are reading at
their own level” (Education for All 2015 National Review Report:
Philippines). As part of the current program, books were distributed to
participating schools and teachers were trained to enable them to solve literacy
problems. In a press release by the DepEd in 2011, Secretary of Education
Armin Luistro explained that the ECARP has three components, namely: the
Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI), a reading proficiency
assessment tool; the Reading Recovery (RR), a reading intervention; and the
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 13
Philippine Word List in English (PWLE), a tool for building and assessing
vocabulary development.
Every child a reader program. According to DepEd Memorandum
345, Phil-IRI, ECARP’s assessment component is administered to students
from grades 1 to 6 twice yearly. The Department encourages teachers and
school heads to use the pretest scores as guide for planning the year’s reading
program, while the post-test reveals if there have been improvements in the
students’ reading scores. (DepEd Memorandum 345, s. 2010) Students found
to be reading below their level are provided by qualified RR teachers with 30-
minute one-on-one tutoring five times a week in Reading Recovery centers
(Valderrama, 2011). No articles dealing specifically with PWLE are available.
Not much has been published about methods or guidelines for
implementing the ECARP. Instead, the Department of Education has, for the
past few years, issued guidelines for utilization of the program’s funds.
Although the budget has not changed since 2011, the actual appropriation of
funds has. In the 2011 guidelines, the use of funds was split among
implementation of Reading Recovery, development of PWLE and refinement
of Phil-IRI (DO no. 70, s. 2011). In the 2013 guidelines, however, all funds
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 14
were allotted for workshops and training of Teacher Trainers, Chiefs and
Coordinators (DepEd No. 40, s. 2013).
A closer look at DepEd No. 70, s. 2011 reveals that funds were allocated
for procurement of story books and teachers’ reference materials for training.
More than P1 million was allocated for tutor training conducted by Reading
Recovery trainers from New Zealand, an indication that the RR administered
in the country was based on the international standards of Reading Recovery
in other countries.
Every child a reader - a goal. Years of research showing gaps in literacy
development among certain demographic groups under-performing relative to
other groups in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and
Australia continue to be a cause of concern for education policy makers.
Because of this, the various governments involved have created a variety of
programs to address this concern. In 1997, the US government awarded a grant
to its education department to establish the National Center for Improvement
of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA). Former United States Secretary of
Education Richard Riley explained that this grant was in support of their goal
"to have every child reading independently by the end of third grade"
(University of Virginia, 1997).
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 15
In the United Kingdom, a trial project called “Every Child A Reader”
was conducted between 2005-2008, aiming to make children competent
readers and writers achieving age-related expectations by the end of Key Stage
1, approximately 5-7 years of age (Department for Children, Schools and
Families, 2009). Over in Australia, The National Education Agreement of
Australian Governments, in 2009, emphasized their commitment to ensuring
the successful learning and development of Australian students. Helping young
learners achieve literacy and numeracy standards was among their strategies
for achieving this goal (Council of Australian Governments, 2009). These
efforts show that all these countries have one common goal; that is, to develop
their young citizens into good readers in order to become productive citizens
when they grow up.
Literacy intervention in the primary years. The emphasis on
developing children’s reading skills, especially in the early years, is backed up
by research conducted by different psychologists and educators over the years.
Stanovich (1986) presented the concept of reciprocal relationships, elucidating
that there was a relationship between reading ability and a person’s cognitive
process. In his paper “Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of
Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy,” he explained that the
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 16
Matthew effect in reading meant that those who could read well in the early
years are able to read more and have more accomplishments as they grew up,
while those who are poor readers will read less and, therefore, have less
opportunity to learn and utilize learnings efficiently.
A study of 54 children from a neighborhood elementary school in Austin,
Texas showed that Grades 1 to 4 children who were struggling with reading in
the first grade because of poor word-recognition skill lost interest in reading,
which resulted to poor language development and difficulty in learning in later
years (Juel, 1988). According to Snow et al., (1998) a child’s reading skill at
the end of Grade 3 can accurately predict his or her academic success in high
school. Poor literacy skills will ultimately make it difficult to complete high
school. Similarly, the Philippine Department of Education noted that when
children were unable to learn to read in Grade 1, they had a harder time coping
with lessons and tended to drop out of school (Caoli-Rodriquez, 2007).
While reading is one of the most important skills to develop,
psychologists like R.W. Barron, B. Byrne, R.C. Calfee, M. Donaldson and
others have claimed that reading was an "unnatural act" (Stanovich, 1986).
Therefore, children, more often than not, need guidance from a teacher when
they are just starting to read. Coyne, Zipoli and Ruby (2006) pointed out that
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 17
it is easier to prevent reading difficulties in the early grades before they appear,
than to try and remediate them after they became entrenched and intractable”
(Busick, 2013). It is also believed that those who do experience reading
difficulties would benefit more when identified and helped early rather than in
the later years. A study conducted by Francis et al. (1998) showed that older
children “improved at a slower rate compared with younger children” and that
the gains in reading decreased year by year.
Reading recovery and every child a reader to close the gap. Even
before the Philippines adapted ECARP, the United Kingdom already had a
program called Every Child a Reader (ECAR). The UK government designed
the ambitious ECARP to address the literacy gap in their country. The program
builds on the strengths of the Reading Recovery program, the intervention
method at its core, by including additional “layers” to make the program
scalable (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2009). Dr. Ince and
Dr. Burroughs-Lange (2013) concluded that the effectiveness of Reading
Recovery had already been established, making it the UK government’s choice
intervention program. However, because critics said it was too expensive due
to the limited number of students a teacher can work with at a time, the
government decided to reinforce it with other programs and create ECaR.
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 18
They explained that instead of just placing children in support groups, Reading
Recovery teachers train other teachers on best practices that they can use in
their classrooms, therefore benefiting the entire school and not just a select few
students.
According to a document published by the UK’s Department for
Education and Skills (2006), ECaR uses a layered ‘three waves’ approach. This
means that there is more than one kind of intervention implemented in
participating schools. The program first involves training teachers to improve
the quality of reading instruction for all students (Wave 1), then provides the
appropriate intervention to just below average (Wave 2). This is followed by
struggling and lowest attaining students (Wave 3). Because there is no one-
size-fits-all solution that will meet students’ different needs, a range of targeted
interventions are created and are being used. Schools are given flexibility in
creating an intervention plan and choosing intervention methods for their
students. What started as a pilot project back in 2005 is now being
implemented nationally (Every Child A Reader, 2008)
One of the most commonly used reading interventions worldwide and
one that is at the core of ECaR is Reading Recovery. It is a program developed
by Marie Clay, a developmental psychologist from New Zealand. According
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 19
to Clay, first grade children showing a likelihood of failure can be helped in
reading and writing (as quoted by Briggs, 2008). According to the Reading
Recovery Facts Sheet (2000), Reading Recovery teachers are carefully
selected and made to undergo a year-long training program. The lowest-
achieving children are selected based on an assessment done at the beginning
of the school year, then individually tutored in 30-minute, daily reading
recovery sessions. Children are given books that become more difficult as their
reading improves and students are regularly assessed to monitor progress. The
program aims to help students reach level reading skills as soon as possible so
they can benefit from regular classroom instruction through one-on-one
tutoring, reading and writing. Reading Recovery is based on Marie Clay’s
theory of literacy processing, a product of years of research. It is one of the
most popular reading intervention programs and is also currently being
implemented across the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, among other
countries (Reading Recovery: An international perspective).
Impact of every child a reader and reading recovery. Several studies
have been done to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of Every Child a
Reader in the UK and even more studies have been done to evaluate Reading
Recovery across the countries where it is being practiced.
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 20
An evaluation of Every Child a Reader’s impact between 2006-2009
commissioned by the UK government found that ECaR had a positive overall
impact on school level reading attainment by as much as 6 percentage points.
Reading Recovery was also reported to have a positive impact on participants’
reading scores (UK Department of Education, 2010). Another report,
submitted by the European Centre for Reading Recovery stated that 80% of
girls and 77% of boys who received reading recovery caught up eventually
with their peers (Every Child a Reader Annual Report, 2010).
Burroughs-Lange and Douëtil (2007) studied the impact of Reading
Recovery in London schools from 2005-2006. According to their findings,
children who participated in Reading Recovery had significant gains in all
reading assessments compared to children who did not. Their reading level
matched their age, and word recognition was also above that of in-need
children who did not go through the program.
In the United States (US), the 2013 What Works Clearinghouse Report
included data from Schwartz (2005) that showed improvement in alphabetics,
reading fluency, comprehension and general-reading achievement among the
sample from 14 US states. An earlier study of Reading Recovery also showed
that when implemented correctly, Reading Recovery was able to support
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 21
literacy development for children learning English as a second language
(Ashdown, J. & Simic, O., 2000).
Ironically, though, the latest reports on Reading Recovery’s impact in
New Zealand noted that it failed to improve the country’s literacy rate. “Data
from RR annual monitoring reports and other sources indicated that RR has
had little or no impact on reducing New Zealand’s relatively large literacy
achievement gap”(Tunmer et al., 2011). Critics are pushing for new
interventions, stating that the program is now outdated because a lot of research
regarding how children learn to read have been done years after Reading
Recovery was developed.
The differences in implementation from country to country, as well as
the variations in program results of previous studies give reason to pursue
further research and to analyze the effectiveness and impact of Every Child A
Reader and Reading Recovery in the Philippine educational context.
Conceptual Framework
NEED
FIT
CAPACITY
Need in school
•
Academic issues
•
Parent and
community
perceptions need
•Data indicating need
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 22
Figure 1. The Hexagon Tool showing the six categories that need to be
evaluated during
the implementation of the program (Source: Kiser, Zabel, Zachik, & Smith
(2007), the National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) and the Frank
Porter Graham Child Development Institute).
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 23
After evaluating the extent of implementation of the ECARP, the
researcher proceeded with finding out if ECARP was effective in improving
Grade 1 and 3 pupils’ reading performance by examining the effect of the
ECARP’s reading intervention on pupils’ reading performance.
Hypotheses
1. The reading intervention under the ECARP has no effect on the
reading performance of Grade 1 pupils.
2. The reading intervention under the ECARP has no effect on the
reading performance of Grade 3 pupils.
Method
Participant
A public school in San Jose, Del Monte, Bulacan was selected as the
sample of the study. It was selected using the convenience sampling method
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 24
since a relative of one of the researcher was working in the said school. It has
been implementing ECARP since 2011. It has a total population of 2,228
students, with the highest number coming from Grade 1 with 473 as of school
year 2011-2012 data, which is the covered period of the study.
In looking at the effectiveness of the ECARP, the researcher used total
population sampling of Grades 1 and 3, which were 406 and 365, respectively,
totaling 771 participants. Their pre-test and post-test reading scores were
compared using z-test to see if the reading interventions were effective in
improving the reading level of the pupils.
The school holds remedial instructions in reading inside and outside of
the classroom. It particularly uses a specific reading intervention known as the
Accelerated Reading Curriculum (ARC) through the application of a story
grammar. It is a program used in other countries designed to accelerate reading
for pupils identified as having early reading difficulties (Accelerated Reading
Curriculum for Struggling Second Graders, n.d.).
Aside from the ARC, the school also implements a special reading
program called Project DEAR (Drop Everything and Read). This uses the
Marungko approach in teaching reading. The Marungko Approach is designed
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 25
to equip Grade one pupils the necessary materials to improve their achievement
in reading. It uses songs and poems created for Filipino children as well as
hand signs of different letters to communicate in written and oral forms
through effective reading instruction.
Likewise, it implements a reading program introduced/supported by the
Division of DepEd like Project CARE (Come and Read Everyday). This gave
pupils at least 20 minutes of daily reading time before classes begin. The story
books brought by children are the ones utilized for this program. The foregoing
shows ECARP’s fitness to the reading needs of the pupils to the school. On
fitness, the researcher gave a rating of 5 or high.
Data Collection
The researcher obtained from the school’s office secretary a copy of
relevant documents regarding the ECARP like the Phil-IRI data, where the
results of the pre-test and the post-test of pupils are recorded. The pre-test and
post-test scores of Grades 1 and 3 pupils were then transferred to a Microsoft
excel file for analysis.
The readers were then classified according to their reading levels:
frustration, instructional and independent. Scores were taken for word
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 26
recognition skills alone since the test was conducted on oral reading. For level
A (Grade 1), independent readers may commit none to four errors;
instructional, 5 to 10 errors; while frustration level, 11 or more errors. Pupils
who got a percentage of 97-100 were classified as independent readers; those
who scored 92-96 were instructional; while those who got below 92 belonged
to the frustration level.
All class advisers served as reading teachers. They were the ones who
conducted the pre- and post-test in reading. The principal confirmed the report
submitted by each reading recovery teacher by going from classroom to
classroom to check the number of readers in the frustration, instructional, and
independent levels, through the same oral reading test that the teacher gave the
pupils.
Data Analysis
Needs is defined by how well the program might respond to identified
needs. Fit, on the other hand, examines the appropriateness of the program with
current initiatives, priorities, structures and supports, and parent/community
values. Resource availability is evaluated for training, staffing, technology
supports, data systems and administration; while evidence is assessed based on
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 27
the outcomes that might be expected if the program or practices were
implemented well. Another factor is Readiness for Replication of the program
where expert assistance available, number of replications accomplished,
exemplars available for observation, and how well the program is
operationalized are examined. Lastly, capacity to implement as intended is
looked into to sustain and improve implementation over time.
Based on the gathered documents on the six factors, the researcher
matched them with the desired outcomes as detailed in the DepEd Order No.
710, s. 2011 namely, the setting up of the RRC; provision of teachers’ training
and books and related materials; conducting of advocacy activities; and
management and maintenance of database. The other desired outcome are
procurement of story books for children; assistance to schools implementing
the RR; and production and distribution of Phil-IRI assessment tools under
each factor.
With regard to the data provided by the researcher’s resource person in
the Phil-IRI report and responses to the researcher’s questions on the
program’s implementation, the researcher analyzed the data through the
Hexagon tool. The accompanying Likert questionnaire in the tool was used to
individually rate each area on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicated a low level
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 28
of acceptability; 3, a moderate level and 5, a high level. Midpoints were used
and scored as 2 or 4.
Based on the Hexagon Tool analysis, an evaluation team was required to
look into the documents submitted by the school. In this study, the researcher,
with the help of a teacher in the selected public school, served as the evaluation
team. The school teacher who helped the researcher was teaching reading in
the public school and had ready access to data. She had been teaching in the
school for the past 10 years and was very much familiar with the ECARP. The
researcher, on the other hand, was taking up master in language and literacy;
hence, her interest in reading interventions. They gave ratings from 1-5 based
on the instrument provided in the same tool.
Scores were averaged for each area across individuals, arriving at an
overall average score, with a higher score indicating more favorable conditions
for implementation and impact. To determine the program’s effectiveness on
Grades 1 and 3 pupils under the program, the researcher compared the pre-test
and post-test scores using the z-test.
According to the Manual of the Phil-IRI inventory, the reading scores
reflect the Phil-IRI-Oral Test that assesses the pupils’ word identification,
vocabulary and comprehension skills in oral reading. It consists of graded
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 29
reading passages followed by 5-7 comprehension questions. The Phil-IRI-Oral
Test gives both quantitative and qualitative information about the pupil’s oral
reading capabilities. Quantitative information shows the reading levels,
namely: frustration, instructional and independent. Qualitative information
emphasizes word recognition, patterns of word errors, comprehension
strengths and difficulties, as well as oral reading behaviors and attitudes.
Results and Discussion
The following are the results of the analysis conducted by the researcher
using the Hexagon analysis tool in the six categories.
Need. The first stage of the analysis using the Hexagon tool is to show
data indicating the need for the program in school. To establish the need for
the program, it has to be proven that pupils need intervention in reading due to
poor performance. Table 1 shows the reader profile of the entire elementary
pupils taken from the Phil-IRI of the school. No data on pupils’ reading level
were furnished for Grade 3 pupils.
Table 1
Pupils’ Reading Level per Grade Level
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 30
Grade
Level
No.
of
Pupil
s
Non-Readers
Frustration
Level
Instructional
Level
Independent
Level
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Grade 1
473
153
32.35
277
58.56
8
169
35
7.40
Grade 2
335
0
0
184
54.93
103
30.75
48
14.33
Grade 3
344
Grade 4
364
340
93.41
23
6.23
1
0.27
Grade 5
359
291
81.06
42
11.70
26
7.24
Grade 6
353
282
79.89
45
12.75
26
7.37
Total
2228
153
32.85
1374
221
136
Table 1 shows that out of the total population of 2,228 elementary pupils
of the school, 78% or 1,374 were in the lowest reading level—the frustration
level, while only 6% (136) were considered independent readers. The figures
were quite alarming as even the higher grades’ (Grade 4 to 6) reading
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 31
performance were predominantly under the frustration level and very few
pupils were under the independent level. Thus, based on the need of the school
pupils for the program, the researcher has established that ECARP is needed
to improve the reading level of pupils, and that the need for the program is high
and should be prioritized.
With the introduction of ECARP at school in 2011, a Reading Recovery
Center (RRC) was immediately set up as required by the DepEd, although not
at par with the international standards. According to DepEd Memo No. 70, s.
2011, there was no need to construct new structures and that refurbishment of
existing vacant rooms was sufficient. This suggestion was followed by the
school and it transformed a vacant classroom to serve as the RRC.
Fit. After establishing the program’s need in the school, the second stage
of analysis using the Hexagon tool was to see if the program fits the current
initiatives of the agency, community and state priorities, and whether it fits
organizational structures and community values.
The finding was that ECARP fits the initiatives of DepEd as evidenced
by the following memoranda of agreement issued by the department:
• DepEd MO No. 143, s. 2012 entitled the Assessment of Reading
in Public Elementary Schools which declares that literacy
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 32
improvement is high on the priority of the DepEd and the
Philippine government.
• DepEd MO No. 244, s. 2011 which supports the Ten-Point Basic
Education Agenda of the Aquino administration by declaring
November as the National Reading Month.
• DepEd MO 50, s. 2012, a national program that pursues the thrust
of the DepEd to make every child a reader and writer at his/her
grade level. It supports the attainment of Education for All (EFA)
target of universal school participation and elimination of dropouts
and repetition in the first three grades.
Therefore, when it comes to fitness of the program with the current
initiatives of the school, the government and the DepEd, ECARP is very much
fit to the needs of the school and is expected to lower the number of students
under the frustration level and eventually improve their reading levels
throughout its implementation.
Resource Availability. Given the fitness of the program to the needs and
current initiatives of the school, the government and the DepEd, the third stage
of the Hexagon analysis tool is to look at the resource and support for the
following: (a) practice setting, (b) technology support, (c) staffing, (d) training,
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 33
(e) data systems, (f) coaching and supervision, and (g) administration and
system.
On practice setting, the RRC serves as an exclusive area where readers
can practice reading with the help of reading teachers. This has been in
existence in the school since 2011 with the refurbishment of a classroom used
for the purpose. However, since it is more convenient for class advisers who
serve as reading recovery teachers to conduct the reading sessions in the
classroom, the RRC has become a storage area for children’s story books.
Nevertheless, teachers are amenable to using the facility for the purpose.
With regard to technology support and data system, the RRC is provided
with a computer and a printer where the Phil-IRI database is set up. The school
is also provided with a Phil-IRI Manual and User’s Guide for tutorial on how
to input the data into the system.
On training and coaching, all advisers from Grades 1 to 6 were
considered reading teachers and were trained on reading recovery. In an
interview with a Grade 1 recovery teacher, it was learned that the most recent
training was conducted in 2014 for teachers handling Grades 1 to 3. The
teachers were supervised by the principal.
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 34
This was exactly what happened in the school subject of this study. If the
principal asked for a report, the reading teachers submitted it. However, if no
such request was made, no reports were submitted. This explains why the
available data of the school was only on the first year of implementation, 2011-
2012. After that year, the Phil-IRI database had not been completed anymore,
although the Grade 1 reading recovery teacher interviewed said teachers still
continue to ask pupils to read for pre-reading, but they do not do post-reading
anymore.
Moving on to administration and system, the program lacked consistency
and regular monitoring and evaluation in the school. As earlier mentioned, the
continuity and regularity of the program lay in the motivation of the principal
to follow through and monitor the reading activities. Thus, resource
availability was given a rating of 3 (medium).
Evidence. Having presented the availability of resources in the school,
which was rated 3 (medium) by the researcher, the analysis proceeded to the
fourth category, the strength of evidence. The evidence of the program’s
implementation was based on its effectiveness to improve the reading level of
pupils. This part used the pre-test and post-test data of Grade 1 pupils to see
if there was a significant difference between the two scores. The pre-test and
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 35
post-test scores of Grade 1 pupils in reading are shown in Table 2, but as
earlier mentioned, there were no such data for Grade 3 pupils.
Table 2
Comparison of Grade 1 Pupils’ Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores on Reading
Note: Values are significant at .05 level
Table 2 shows that the pre-test score of Grade 1 pupils on reading was
statistically different than the post-test score (z=4.99, zcrit=1.96, p=5.85).
Since the z statistic is greater than the z critical value (z=4.99, zcrit=1.96), the
null hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, there was a statistically significant
difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of Grade 1 pupils (N=405),
pre-test (M=87.90, SD=6.6) and post-test (M=84.63, SD=14.9).
However, looking at the mean scores of the pre-test (87.90) and post-test
(84.63), the researcher found that the pupils’ performance on reading
regressed, instead of progressed, although both scores fell under the frustration
Grade 1
n
Mean
SD
z
z crit
p
Cohen’s d
Pretest
405
87.90
6.6
–
–
Post-test
405
84.63
14.9
–
–
Total
4.99
1.96
5.85
0.28
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 36
level. Based on an interview with a Grade 1 reading teacher, the reading
material they gave for the post-test was more difficult than the reading text
they gave in the pre-test, based on the assumption that the pupils had somehow
improved their reading proficiency through practice. This could be one of the
reasons for the regression. However, it may be assumed that the pupils’ reading
skills improved through time as a number of interventions had been given by
the advisers under the ECARP program.
On the size of the effect, the result of Cohen’s d showed a small size
effect of 0.28. This meant that although there was a significant difference
between the two reading scores, the program, particularly the interventions
used, had no effect on the reading performance of pupils. Thus, the hypothesis
stating that reading intervention under the ECARP had no effect on the reading
performance of pupils, was not rejected.
In order to further verify if the situation was unique only to Grade 1
pupils, the researcher again ran a sample using the Grade 3 pre- and post-test
scores.
Table 3
Comparison of Grade 3 Pupils’ Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores on Reading
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 37
Note: Values are significant at.05 level
Table 3 shows that the z statistic was less than the z critical level and
the p value was greater than .05. Therefore, the hypothesis cannot be rejected.
This meant that there was no statistically significant difference between the
pre-test and post-test scores of Grade 3 pupils (N=365), pre-test (M=97.17,
SD=3.23) and post-test (M=91.93, SD=7.52). Thus, the null hypothesis that
there was no difference in the pre-test and post-test reading scores of Grade 3
pupils was rejected.
However, as contrasted with the results for Grade 1 pupils, the
performance of the pupils neither improved nor regressed even after the
intervention. The scores remained the same. Thus, the hypothesis stating that
the reading intervention program was not effective in improving the reading
performance of students was not rejected.
Grade 3
n
Mean
SD
z
zcrit
p
Cohen’s
d
Pretest
365
91.91
3.23
–
–
Post-test
365
91.93
7.52
–
–
-0.026
1.96
.098
0.90
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 38
On the matter of the effect size, the result of Cohen’s d showed a large
effect size of 0.90. This meant that the intervention provided by the school was
not effective at all in improving the Grade 3 pupils’ reading performance.
The results of Tables 3 and 4 were consistent with the qualitative table
provided by the school’s Phil-IRI data shown in Table 4.
Table 4
English Language Predominant Reading Level
Note: The table was taken from the Phil-IRI report of the school.
Table 4 confirmed the quantitative results in Tables 1 and 3. It showed
no difference at all in the reading levels of male pupils of Grade 1. The pre-test
and post-test showed frustration level, which meant that there was no
improvement at all despite ECARP’s intervention. What was worse was the
regression shown by the female pupils, from an instructional level in the pre-
test to frustration level in the post-test. The same also proved true of the results
Grade Level
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Grade 1
Male
Frustration
Frustration
Female
Instructional
Frustration
Grade 3
Male
Frustration
Frustration
Female
Frustration
Frustration
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 39
of the Grade 3 pre- and post-test that showed no improvement despite the
intervention. Therefore, the ECARP’s reading interventions were not effective
in improving the reading level of Grades 3 and 4 pupils.
Readiness for replication. Readiness for replication was the fifth
category for analysis using the Hexagon tool. This component of the program
was examined based on expert assistance available, number of replications
accomplished, exemplars available for observation, and how well the program
had been operationalized. In the previous category, evidences were provided
on the effectiveness of the reading program which revealed that the program
was not effective in improving the reading performance of pupils.
When it comes to available expert assistance, the DepEd has a Phil-IRI
point person whom a school coordinator can contact. Moreover, Phil-IRI data
(Appendix 1) showed that only the pre and post-test data for Grades 1 and 3
were accomplished. Thus, there was only one replication in the classroom. The
rest of the other years were incomplete, because the program was not
completely implemented. Therefore, there is a need for the reading intervention
used, as well as the implementation to be refined and polished to address the
reading difficulties of pupils. On readiness for replication, a rating of 1 was
given.
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 40
Capacity to implement. The last category for analysis using the
Hexagon tool is the capacity to implement. For this purpose, the DepEd
ordered the implementation of ECARP in all grade levels. However, based on
the Phil-IRI data provided by the school, all grade levels were given the pre-
test, but only Grades 1 and 3 were administered the post-test. Thus, the reading
improvement of the rest of the pupils from Grades 2, 4 and 6 were not
quantified.
Although the completed pre- and post-test scores of Grades 1 and 3 were
good indicators of the school’s capacity to implement, sustainability had
become a problem. The reading recovery teachers (classroom advisers) were
not able to fully implement the reading intervention because according to the
Grade 1 adviser interviewed, if the principal did not follow up the retrieval of
reports, the teachers did not submit them. Thus, the researcher gave a score of
1 on the school’s capacity to implement.
Conclusions and Recommendations
ECARP was introduced by the DepEd to make every pupil a reader. If,
despite its implementation, no improvements were evident in students’ reading
test scores, there could be something wrong with the system, the process of
implementation or the implementers. In the assessment done by the researcher
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 41
on ECARP using the Hexagon Analysis Tool, the problem could be traced to
both the process of implementation and the implementers themselves.
More than half of the students in the school were found to be in the
frustration-reading level. Therefore, a reading intervention that will meet the
needs of the pupils that is appropriate to the current initiatives of the school
and the government is needed to improve the reading level of those in the
frustration and instructional levels in order for them to reach the independent
level.
Although the results show that there was a significant difference between
the reading post- and pre-test scores of Grades 1 and 3 pupils, the scores of the
students deteriorated from instructional to frustration level, which meant that
the interventions were not effective in the selected Bulacan public elementary
school. Although reports have shown that Every Child A Reader has been
effective in the UK (Every Child a Reader Annual Report), and Reading
Recovery has been effective in the US and other countries (Schwartz, R. M.,
2005), this was not proven in this present study.
It is important to note, however, that UK’s ECaR implemented a tiered
approach and was strictly implemented across the participating schools. Thus,
the reason for the difference in effectiveness could be because the Philippine
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 42
ECARP was a modified version of the ECARPs from other countries where it
had been successful. Also, since there was at least one study (Tunmer et al.,
2011) that showed that Reading Recovery was not very effective as a reading
intervention method in New Zealand, there is a possibility that the failure lies
with the core intervention method being implemented.
The result of the present study leads to the conclusion that there is a need
for the San Jose Del Monte public school to review the reading interventions
and the process of implementation by strictly monitoring how it is being
implemented in the school. It should introduce new measures or teaching
approaches until it could identify the right fit for the students’ needs. When it
comes to implementation, the areas that need the most improvement in the said
school are resource availability, readiness for replication and capacity to
implement all aspects of the program as they have shown signs of
inconsistency in terms of implementation. It is further recommended that the
school heads compare their Phil-IRI results with other schools implementing
the program to see if the other schools are getting better results and what the
reasons are for this. This could open new opportunities for learning from the
success of other schools implementing the program.
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 43
Without data from other schools, the researches have no reason to claim
that the ECARP as a program is ineffective in other schools as well. This study
only made apparent that it has been ineffective in the school subject of this
study. There is, therefore, room for further research, such as one that compares
results among schools in order to assess the program more thoroughly. The
researcher recommends that DepEd equip itself with more substantial data to
enable it to compare the results across all schools implementing ECARP to
check its effectiveness. Another recommendation is to review the components
of ECARP and compare them with components of similar programs
successfully used in other countries so that DepEd can adopt their best
practices for the local literacy program.
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 44
References
Abeberese, A.B., Kumler, T.J., Linden, L.L. (2011, June). Improving
Reading Skills by Encouraging Children to Read: A Randomized
Evaluation of the Sa Aklat Sisikat Reading Program in the Philippines.
Retrieved from
Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988). Achievement in the first two
years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 53(2), 1 – 57. Retrieved from
Ashdown, J., & Simic, O. (2000). Is Early Literacy Intervention Effective for
English Language Learners? Evidence from Reading
Recovery. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 27-41.
Burroughs-Lange, S., & Douetil, J. (2007). Literacy Progress of Young
Children from Poor Urban Settings: A Reading Recovery Comparison
Study. Reading Recovery Council of North America. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ899631.pdf
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 45
Busick, T. (2013). Effects of Reading Intervention Strategies for Elementary
Students at Risk of Reading Disabilities. Retrieved from
Caoli-Rodriquez, R. (2007). Country profile commissioned for the EFA
global monitoring report 2008, Education for All by 2015: Wwill we
make it. Retrieved from
Department for Children, Schools and Families. Crown copyright (2009).
Every Child a Reader – the layered approach. Retrieved from
https://www.school-
portal.co.uk/GroupDownloadFile.asp?GroupID=934656&Resourc
eId=2816598
Department for Education and Skills (2006, November). Learning from
Every Child A Reader. Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/http://ww
w.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/lit_intervention_
0391806.pdf
Department for Education. (2010). Evaluation of Every Child a Reader
(ECaR). Retrieved from
https://depedkoronadalcity.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/phil-iri-
manual-and-users-guide-for-school-users.pdf
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 46
Department of Education. (2010, August). DepEd Memorandum 345, s.
2010. Maximum Utilization of the Philippine Informal Reading
Inventory (Phil-IRI) Results to Improve Pupil Performance Retrieved
from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/memo/2010/DM_s2010_34
5.pdf
Department of Education. (2011, September) DepEd Order No. 70, s.2011.
Guidelines on the Utilization of Funds for Every Child A Reader
Program Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-70-s-2011
DO 40, s. 2013 - Guidelines on the Utilization of Funds for the Every Child a
Reader Program (ECARP) Under 2013 General Appropriations Act.
Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-40-s-
Education for All 2015 National Review Report: Philippines. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002303/230331e.pdf
Ensminger, M.E., Slusarcick, A.L. (1992), Paths to High School Graduation
or Droput: A Longitudinal Study of a First-Grade Cohort. Sociology of
Education, 65(2), 95-113. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112677
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 47
European Centre for Reading Recovery. (2010). Every Child a Reader
(ECaR) Annual Report 2009-10. Retrieved from
http://www.ioe.ac.uk/documents/News_and_Events_Events/Every_Chi
ld_a_Reader_(ECaR)_Annual_Report_2009-10.pdf
Every Child A Reader. (2008). Every Child a Reader: the results of the third
year... Retrieved from http://www.educationandemployers.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/every-child-a-reader-3rd-yr-ecct.pdf
Francis, D.J. et al. (1998). The Role of Instruction in Learning to Read:
Preventing Reading Failure in At-Risk Children. Journal of
Educational Psychology 1998, 90(1), 37-55. Retrieved from
http://www.fcrr.org/science/pdf/Foorman/Foorman_Role_of_Instructio
n.pdf
Ince, A., Burroughs-Lange, S., (2013, June) An Interview with Dr. Amanda
Ince and Dr. Sue Burroughs-Lange, Institute of Education. Retrieved
from
Juel, C. (1988). American Psychological Association, Inc . Learning to Read
and Write: A Longitudinal Study of 54 Children From First Through
Fourth Grades . Journal of Educational Psychology 1988. 80(4), 437-
44. Retrieved from http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/710-Juel88.pdf
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 48
Kiser, L., Blase, K., Kiser, L. and& Van Dyke, M. (2013). The Hexagon
Tool: Exploring Context. Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation
Research Network, FPG Child Development Institute, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved from
Official Gazette. (2011, September). Make every-child-a-reader program gets
P21-million funding support. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.ph/2011/09/28/make-every-child-a-reader-program-
gets-p21-million-funding-support/
Phil-IRI Manual and Users’ Guide for School Users. (2009). Retrieved from
https://depedkoronadalcity.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/phil-iri-
manual-and-users-guide-for-school-users.pdf
Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2000, May). Reading
Recovery. [Fact Sheets]. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED440366.pdf
Reading Recovery Council of North America. Reading Recovery: An
international perspective. Retrieved from
https://readingrecovery.org/reading-recovery/training/international-
connections
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 49
Snow, C., Burns, S.Catherine E. Snow, M. Susan Burns, & Griffin, P. and
Peg Griffin. (1998). National Academy of Sciences Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6023.html
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 21(4), 361-396. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Stanovich__1986_.pdf
The Official Gazette. (2011, November). DepEd declares November as
Reading Month. Retrieved from http://www.gov.ph/2011/11/02/deped-
declares-november-as-reading-month/
Treptow, M.A., Burns, M.K., McComas, J.J. (2007). Reading at the
Frustration, Instructional, and Independent Levels: The Effects on
Students’ Reading Comprehension and Time on Task. School
Psychology Review, 36(1), 159. Retrieved from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/24502831/reading-
frustration-instructional-independent-levels-effects-students-reading-
comprehension-time-task
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 50
Tunmer et al. (2011). Why The New Zealand National Literacy Strategy Has
Failed And What Can be Done About It. Retrieved from
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Massey%20News/2013/8/docs/R
eport-National-Literacy-Strategy-2013.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2013, July). Reading Recovery. WWC
Intervention Report. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_readrecovery
_071613.pdf
University of Virginia. (1997,
October). Awards Give U.VA.'s EEducation School Opportunity To Im
prove Reading On State, National Levels. Retrieved from
http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/textonlyarchive/October_1997/level.t
xt2013
Valderrama, M.C. (2011, May). Mindanao's first DepEd Reading Recovery
Center. Sun Star. Retrieved from
http://archive.sunstar.com.ph/weekend-davao/mindanaos-first-deped-
reading-recovery-center
EVERY CHILD A READER PROGRAM 51
