SRA Corrective reading

I used it and I had good results. It took a lot of selling it to the studetns — I gave them the option to vote it out the door in three weeks. I also really, really made myself stick to the high standards — which would have been a lot harder if I couldn’t say “three weeks, just three weeks.”
By that three weeks, we’d gotten into the rhythm of it and they weren’t making as many mistakes so they weren’t having to go back to the beginning as much — but if we hadn’t done the hard part of making them go back to the beginning (of the line, not the exercise usually — but you’d haev thought it was ten years and not ten seconds they were going to have to re-do!), then they wouldn’t have learned to have the focus to be more accurate, so I would have still been fighting them.
They could see the improvements by then too, at least perceived improvements in their daily timed readings. At the end of the semester we did another Woodcock-JOhnson and most of ‘em had gone up close to a grade level, some more.

I do think it was important that they were placed in the right level; the one or two kiddos that were forced by schedules to be in a different place didn’t do as well.

I compared it to me being a conductor, them an orchestra or a choir — and it was a lot like choir, even to going back over tough spots repeatedly.

I didn’t do the comprehension stuff; just the accuracy stuff. I prefer doing it intensively — every day is better than stretching it out, though I did manage to work in literature and took some days off here and there.

I used this program for two years in a middle school and am currently using it with my grades 4-6 learning handicapped children. I am using Decoding A. It has been quite successful AND some of the students have even said that they feel their reading is improving. We are getting near the end of the book A and comprehension is being introduced. I have noticed that they still have to “sound out words” but it is quicker than before with less struggle. When I first started using this program (18 years ago) I wasn’t impressed with it. But after surviving whole language and Open Court, I have found this to be the best program for my struggling decoding students. Decoding B and Decoding C introduce more comprehension which I am happy about. I also find my students are more willing to sound out words they don’t know.
Grace

I was curious about your experience with this program. Our district implemented it 4 years ago. I’m not crazy about it, but I am interested to hear from you.

I personally don’t think it is for the children who are perfectly bright, but have a hard time learning to read. You seem to have experience with using this method.

Thanks!

My low group of 6-8th grade readers just completed book B1. They averaged about a 15-20 wpm increase and decreased errors to 2-3 per minute. I’d like to hear how much growth other teachers have found. This was the first year I taught Corrective Reading. My students are enjoying the growth they’ve made. I printed each student a graph of their wpm’s. They were very proud and are excited to begin B2. I had two very low students who have opted to repeat B1 with my aide. One of these students, a student with TBI, went from 10 wpm to 30 wpm.
I’ve found the routine, constant corrective feedback, and training the students to learn the vowel sounds has been the best approach for my students. I feel I can guarantee them growth, whereas the way I taught before was haphazard. Sometimes we all get bored with it, but it works and ultimately that’s what I want.

Open Court is one of the better phonics based reading programs for REGULAR ed. It is not a multisensory structured language program to teach reading which most LD reading children need.

Janis

I was rather surprised to find out that the overwhelming majority of my students *enjoyed* quick mastery drills where they got 90-100% right. Then I asked myself how often they got to feel like they really had some skill under control… I think I’d revel in it too — not all day, every day, but at least once a day!

I’ve seen a lot better than Open Court. Unfortunately the best one I have around seems to have gone out of print — OC just has better marketing.

You should read the research study published by SRA. In their own research, they admit that Corrective Reading does not work as well as with the LD population as with the general ed. population. Corrective Reading is not as multisensory as Orton-Gillingham and, therefore, I would not recommend the program for students with LD. Corrective Reading uses components of Orton-Gillingham, but lacks the full scope of it and omits important portions of O-G. In addition, SRA’s research states that teachers with inadequate training in the program achieved poorer results than teachers with appropriate training. If I remember correctly, ‘inadequate’ training was defined as less than one full week.

<>

I really think it depends on the severity of the learning disability. I have seen it work for mildly LD students, and I think it is an excellent intervention before resorting to more intensive structured multisensory reading/spelling programs such as OG and/or Lindamood-Bell. I have taught Corrective Reading for four years, and find it to be one of the best group programs out there. I have also had students that are what I would have called severely dyslexic. Corrective Reading didn’t make a dent with these kids, and they really tried hard.

No program works for everyone. I have worked with both Wilson and Lindamood-Bell, and I feel that both are high quality programs. Some may benefit from LB, and some may benefit from Wilson, and some may benefit from a bit of both.. (Personally, I like Wilson’s rules of syllabication to make more sense than Lindamood’s).

Marilyn

<>

I really think it depends on the severity of the learning disability. I have seen it work for mildly LD students, and I think it is an excellent intervention before resorting to more intensive structured multisensory reading/spelling programs such as OG and/or Lindamood-Bell. I have taught Corrective Reading for four years, and find it to be one of the best group programs out there. I have also had students that are what I would have called severely dyslexic. Corrective Reading didn’t make a dent with these kids, and they really tried hard.

No program works for everyone. I have worked with both Wilson and Lindamood-Bell, and I feel that both are high quality programs. Some may benefit from LB, and some may benefit from Wilson, and some may benefit from a bit of both.. (Personally, I like Wilson’s rules of syllabication to make more sense than Lindamood’s).

Marilyn

Gosh, I would be *extremely* surprised if any program worked as well with the LD population as with general education. I would absolutely not consider that a negative, at all.

Also, I would be *extremely* surprised if teachers with inadequate training did as well as ones with better training. I would say that that would hold even more true for O-G programs.

However, you’re right — it is not as multisensory, nor as explicit as Orton-Gillingham. *Given a choice* I’d go O-G.

HOwever, O-G really does require more training and so many O-G programs are aimed towards tutorial settings that simply don’t happen in school settings. It is often a whole lot easier to get admins to okay SRA. Also, many of the students assigned to “LD” classes — at least where I’ve taught — were students Corrective REading really suited because of its tight structure and predictability and it’s correction of their “guess and go” strategies. I am not sure many of these students were LD so much as Pedagogically IMpaired by the inappropriate teaching.

Take at look at the Language! program. It is designed for groups or one-on-one and follows the O-G principles more closely than Corrective Reading. You must go through a five day training program. It is easily administered in group settings and may be more appropriate for the LD population than SRA. Also, in my last post, I probably shouldn’t have used the term ‘general ed.,’ but rather, the underachievers who do not qualify for special ed. Pardon my mistake.

I like your term “pedagogically impaired”.

I have coined a term (personal trademark), “Pedagogogenic LD” to parallel the medical term “iatrogenic disease” (a disease caused or spread by doctors).

LOL! How true!

Janis