collecting data for a FAQ -- thoughts requested

-how is reading evaluated in kids with suspected LD?(ie not thru IQ testing, but reading assessments like Gray Oral Reading, etc.)
-I know it’s on this site in LD in Depth, but a description of effective reading programs…and how do you choose one if you’re doing it privately.
-how can parents work at home with kids with reading problems(ie daily reading practice,etc.)
-definitions of reading rate, comrehension, accuracy and how “fluency” is determined
-the Reading Rockets site associated with this one is good but mostly for younger kids, I’d like more on how kids can be accomodated in middle and high school, even while they’re still learning to read
-what does “grade-level” reading really mean and is it a goal for students of all abilities

Thank you!!!

You know SAR, it would be nice, in a way, if we could do away with the term LD. Several years back, in the 1990’s Heineman published a book on reading disabilities where the author just devoted a chapter to each of several different profiles she enountered in her remedial teaching. Not all of these youngsters would be LD, but one group in particular would. If we profiled children early on, then we could place them in reading groups that fit their profile and employed teaching techniques that met their needs. We might still need special ed. for the children who have the greatest deficits and would need the most work and time, but we could do this and we could simply classify children by the kinds of readers they are. The we would not need IQ tests, though we find the WISC helpful in identifying an LD simply because the psychologists have been consistently using this instrument for so many years with so many youngsters, other instruments have come and go.

Agreed; in our system special ed.’s reading instruction is diluted by the need to service students with needs in the behavioral, social skills, anger management realm who are in the classroom, and the kids sitting there quietly not learning to read are not a priority. I do think though, although many posters here disagree ,that parents need to know that children with mental retardation and who are slow learners will learn to read much more slowly and that is not always the “fault” of the teacher.

In the school which I teach, we no longer “test” a child we suspect as being LD. The education agency within which I work was given the okay to identify students in need of special education services by other means approximately 15 years ago. Granted, it was a big transition for all of us, but it has been the best thing to come our way. We no longer have to give IQ tests and formal tests to identify students. Our school follows a problem solving model approach and a student’s needs are addressed through this manner. The result in a nutshell… the student’s needs are addressed immediately and all data and information gathered throughout the process may be used to determine if special ed. services are needed and the student is entitled. Students are not given a label but are identified as “entitled to special ed services.” My district special ed. plan (which is unique to our school) allows the special ed. staff to be utilized as a resource when addressing student needs. For example, if the problem solving team determines that a student may need 30 min. of intensive phonics practice daily, then we explore our resources. Special ed. staff may meet with students up to 45 days without being placed on our rosters. If at the end of that 45 days the team determines that ongoing special ed. services are necessary, then the parent signs consent to allow the team to use all data collected up to that point to determine if the student is entitled to special ed. services. The focus is on identifying needs, developing interventions, monitoring progress. What needs to be done. Not what label to give the child. I remember the days when it took half a year to get the kid tested, they were given a label, and placed in the resource room (it was MY problem to solve at that point). No longer is that the case. This is a team effort from the very beginning and the child and parent are a part of that team from the very beginning. I have also seen the gen. ed. staff become much more involved in addressing needs of students as they are a “part” of the process from the beginning. Special ed. and gen. ed. are really working together on a daily basis.

.

Sorry for bumpin in here. I hope you’ll share off-line if more comfortable.

Maybe I can guess: IA? MN? WI?

I railed against this model several years ago as a parent and state president of a parents association. My trust in the school district my son attended was low and I was worried that parent organizations that are disability specific would go by the way-side. (Whose agenda was I thinking about? Parents can be pawns on so many levels!)

Now, I still see lots of possible flaws if people don’t really give 100% to the model you describe. That’s most likely true in any model, though.

At this time, I’m ready to examine how it works.

Hi Victoria ~ this is probably similar to what SAR said, but I’m interested in knowing a variety of quality reading and math programs that are successful for students with LD as well as EMR, severe language impaired, and those kids who fall into that “gray area”: ability and achievement are similar, so they don’t qualify for LD, but their standard scores are in the mid-high 80’s and they are working 2-3 years below grade level. In our school, most of those kids aren’t sped, though they usually get into remedial services. However, those services are 1-3x a week, depending on support staff schedules. I’m specifically interested in programs other than Orton-Gillingham, Lindamood, and Wilson: our district just doesn’t have the $$ to pay for us to be trained in those, and our identified numbers are usually too small to justify spending that amount of $$ anyway, when we might get 1-2 kids over a number of years who would benefit from them. This was a great idea ~ thanks for taking the time to do it!

I am from Iowa. I would be glad to discuss further. I have been in special ed. for about 24 years. Worked under both models and I know which one I prefer and which one has been the best for kids. In my opinion the problem solving model is by far the best. It is a process that takes time as our mind set had to change. When I refer to “our”, I mean gen. ed. staff, administration, and parents.
I believe instruction and accomodations have improved greatly and since we monitor progress SO closely, we are addressing needs more effeciently and effectively. I am seeing more and more gen. ed. teachers approaching student needs with heightened awareness of possible interventions they can utilize to allow the student to be more successful within the gen. ed. classroom. They are also becoming very effective at monitoring progress of ALL students and making appropriate changes for individuals as necessary.
Why label? A label does help me know “what needs to be done” to assist a child. I know this is a very controversial topic for some and I realize that it may be important in post secondary years in being eligible for certain programs. I am not sure how they are handling this as I serve students k-8. I think it is being addressed so students do continue to get their needs met. I think the IEP and transition plan address this, but I am not positive.
Our school hires subs to come in and cover classes for gen. ed. teachers on problem solving days which helps. This has helped tremendously as no one feels “pressed for time.” The intent is to find a solution to address the identified need. Again, students get needs addressed MUCH sooner than under the old model we used. I remember the days we used only testing and kids would miss getting into special programs by 1 or 2 points because the “powers that be” had to use a certain formula. Plus, they still had no solution or ideas to take back to the classroom. Parents went away from those meetings frustrated as did teachers. Both wanted help but could not get it unless a LABEL was slapped on the kid. It was as though you had to find something WRONG with the kid. I don’t feel that is true anymore. If anything, the focus is on “How can we change what WE do to meet this child’s learning style.” I would be happy to discuss further…

SAR
We have normed our school in the area reading and math using curriculum based measurement. From this data we can get a general idea as to how well a student is functioning compared to the population they function with on a day-to-day basis. The reading norms indicate words per minute and the math norms give us digits correct per minute. From this data we can determine discrepancy ratio, rate of gain as compared to peers and approximate grade equivalent.
If you read my prior post you will see that we do not utilize formal testing on a frequent basis. This is not to say that we NEVER do. Since we work as a team there is a lot of information that teachers already have that is quite valuable in planning appropriate interventions.
Our gen. ed. staff utilize the following programs: Houghton Mifflin Basic Readers, Accelerated Reading, Literature Circles,
In determining what is best for the student, we would try to determine a hypothosis as to the function of the behavior and then determine possible interventions to address it.
I do not think there is a program out there that is right for all and you can end up pouring a lot of money into a program that may only address the needs of only a few. There are a lot of good ideas out there though and a lot of excellent teachers. I feel that is our best resource and if you monitor closely you will know if what you are using is effective or needs to be changed.
Some things that have worked for my students include…
Touchphonics
repeated readings
Touch Math
Learning Strategies from KU
shared info on brain research (can’t get enough off this. We all should be reading as much as we can. Will change the way we teach and improve learning for ALL)
SRA corrective reading
Glass Analysis
Zoo phonics
Making Words
Visualization

I was at a meeting a couple of years back with some folks from IA Dept of Ed. I remember a guy named Willy Tilly. He tried like crazy to get me to buy in but I just couldn’t then.

In many ways, the northern mid-western states are so far ahead of the borders and southern mid-west. They accepted O-G much earlier while we happily rode the Reading Recovery bandwagon and used DISTAR with everyone. The one-size-fits-all syndrome.

I hear of tight budgets in IA this year and layoffs in small district’ regular ed. Haven’t heard about sped.

I would like to discuss further, but think we could probably either do off-line or go to another board—like teaching students w/LD. I feel like I’m ready to seriously consider testing this model. Is your state plan on-line?

Victoria,

I have seen lots of questions on fluency asked so that might be a good one to review. I also have seen lots of questions on skipping words—which is related but perhaps not the same thing. I also have seen lots of questions on decoding.

Beth

Hi there,

I didn’t want to just jump in there, but I have a little suggestion for you.
When working with dyslexic children it is better to use a multi sensory approach. This means teaching through more than one of the senses. For example if you are instructing on the sound of a letter have your child look, as he repeats, trace as he repeats, and then creates his own sound picture as he repeats. This process seals the concept that you are teaching in three different ways.

Exactly! I am in a town of 400 with 12 kids alone in the elementary that I teach. I teach k-12. Affordable is good. Lets share ideas and quit reinventing the wheel. The www is such a termendous base for expanding our knowledge, so let’s go for it!. I want specific/applications with success stories of people I can talk to

Susan Long wrote:

> In many ways, the northern mid-western states are so far
> ahead of the borders and southern mid-west. They accepted
> O-G much earlier while we happily rode the Reading Recovery
> bandwagon and used DISTAR with everyone. The
> one-size-fits-all syndrome.
>

I should disagree…

In 1999, in the center of CT, my son’s school had just trained two first grade teachers in “Reading Recovery”. That was the first reading intervention my dyslexic son got. We both came to the teacher and asked why is he allowed to guess instead of learning how to decode… Well, that was the program. My son loved it becuase it was 1:1, 30 minutes daily, but what a waste of energy and resources. Imagine where would he had been had he gotten O-G instead…

I think just letting parents know what does it mean: decoding, fluency, accuracy, omissions, appropriate reading rate et.c. would be great.

I would like to see a comparison chart of the various reading/math programs that are recommended on this site. What each program specializes in, if training is needed to buy the product, whether it is a classroom aproach or individual approach, cost, etc.