SPIRE is a reading program developed by EPS, as an intervention tool for struggling readers. The program takes an interesting approach, in that while it uses logical scaffolding, it applies the scaffolding across the lesson, rather than the unit. Opposed to teaching students fundamental skills like phonemic awareness, and phonics, before teaching fluency, it aims to teach all of these skills simultaneously. In this way SPIRE reminds me of a balanced literacy; however, it is clearly not balanced literacy, as the program uses the explicit instruction of phonemes, opposed to implicit instruction. Each lesson covers: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, morphology, and spelling.
 

Another interesting component to this program is its use of Response to Intervention (RTI). RTI has been shown to be the most effective tool for increasing literacy levels, within the literature. Indeed, according to Hattie, the impact size of RTI is almost double that of phonics, with a mean ES of 1.09, compared to the mean ES of phonic, which is .57. Despite the effectiveness of RTI, very few literacy programs use it. 

In order to have properly assessed the efficacy of SPIRE, I would have liked to have used a peer-reviewed meta-analysis. However, no such analysis exists. In order to assess the efficacy of SPIRE, I searched for studies on the topic, via the company website, Google, Education Source, and Sage Pub. All studies that did not have a control group or sufficient data to find effect sizes were eventually excluded. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d if they had sample sizes above 50 and Hedge's g if they had sample sizes below 50. A second writer independently verified all effect sizes as a redundancy check.  

​

Studies Found: 

A, Grippi (2006): In 2006 Grippi, et al. published the first study. This study was a case study of students in grades 2-9. This study was published in the International Journal of Arts & Sciences. Based on the WJ-III assessment, the study found a Hedge’s g effect size for reading of .42, for word ID of .23, for word attack of .73, and a mean effect size of .46 overall. That being said, the study was small with only 19 students, did not have a control group, and did not track fidelity in any way. This study only meets the ESSA tier 3 standards of promising, as it has too few participants and no control group.

​

M, Gallagher 2019:  The second study was published by Gallagher, et al. in 2019. This study was an experimental study that included 444 students from grades 2-6. This study used the ORF fluency assessment. It found a mean effect size of .99 for grade 2, .43 for grade 3, .63 for grade 4, .41 for grade 5, .68 for grade 6, .43 and an overall mean effect size of .63. This study also found an overall effect size of .43 for fluency, 1.56 for reading accuracy, and .31 for vocabulary. This study almost met tier 1 quality, as it was randomized, had a sufficient sample size, and duration; however, it was not clear if pre-test scores were equivalent. Moreover, not all students in the control group received an equivalent treatment. Lastly, fidelity was not tracked for the study. For these reasons, the study met the ESSA qualifications of tier 2 (moderate evidence). Because, the Gallagher 2019 study was so much higher in efficacy quality than the 2006 Grippi study, I think it should be looked at as the best measure of efficacy for SPIRE. 

​

Results: