REPORT OF THE CHARTER G: AD HOC SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PERSISTENT READING DIFFICULTIES

INTRODUCTION

The Charter G: Ad Hoc Special Committee on Persistent Reading Difficulties was organized in response to a recommendation by the PEER Committee on Reading. The PEER Committee on Reading recommended additional work in two areas involving bilingual issues and children with severe reading disability. Convened to address the latter area, the Committee on Persistent Reading Difficulties had as a mission the development of recommendations for the identification, intervention, and support services, including critical principles underlying successful interventions for students with persistent reading difficulties. There were six objectives:

1. Review the district's current guidelines for the identification of students with persistent, intractable reading difficulties, current intervention programs, and support services including programs for these students.
2. Prepare a summary of the current status of the instructional programs for students with persistent, intractable reading difficulties.
3. Conduct focus group meetings with special education reading teachers, elementary and secondary reading teachers, special education coordinators, diagnosticians, and principals.
4. Compile the results of the focus group meetings and determine the implications of identifying, intervening, and providing support services for students with persistent, intractable reading difficulties.
5. Conduct a review of the current educational research on identification, intervention, and support services for students with persistent, intractable reading difficulties.
6. Prepare a written report with specific recommendations for the identification, intervention, and support services for students with persistent, intractable reading difficulties.

The Committee began meeting on October 11, 1996 and met periodically to review materials and develop recommendations. The Committee heard presentations on research from Dr. Eldo Bergman, Dr. Jack Fletcher, Dr. Barbara Foorman, and Dr. Sharon Hermann. Presentations on district assessments for children with reading disabilities were provided by Brenda Jefferson and Sandra Krindler. Carolyn Guess provided information on district guidelines for identification and training, and information on programs available in the district for children with severe reading disabilities who are referred to special education.
In addition to these presentations, the Committee, with the assistance of Dr. Carla Woodley, developed a survey which was distributed to 249 schools. The Committee specifically chose to conduct a survey because it was felt that additional Focus groups on the issue of severe reading disability would be redundant since Focus groups had been conducted by the PEER Reading Committee. In addition, the Committee felt there was a need to compile information on issues pertinent for students with persistent reading problems. Relatively little data was available from the central office.
The response rate to the survey was over 75%. Based on this information, the Committee developed a series of recommendations, which are described below. In the remainder of this report, the Committee will complete its charge by discussing a) research; b) the survey results; c) status of district services; and d) providing a summary and recommendations.

CURRENT STATUS OF RESEARCH ON CHILDREN
WITH PERSISTENT READING DIFFICULTIES

Definition of persistent reading difficulties

At the onset, the Committee recognized that there was confusion concerning the definition of persistent reading difficulty. The Committee heard research summaries from several individuals involved with children who have persistent reading difficulties. Consequently, an early task was to use the research to develop a definition of persistent reading difficulty. Based in particular on research evaluating long-term outcomes over many years (see below), the Committee agreed on the following definition:

A child has a persistent reading difficulty when, despite instruction, either word recognition or reading comprehension scores on a norm-referenced test are at least one year below grade level at the beginning of the third grade.

The Committee notes that children who meet this definition often meet research-based definitions of dyslexia, reflecting a problem with single word decoding skills and associated problems with phonological processing (Shaywitz, 1996).
Magnitude of the problem
Reading problems are far too common and affect all aspects of social functioning. On a national level recent studies show that:

• Reading problems occur as part of a natural, unbroken continuum of ability. The same processes associated with good reading are associated with poor reading (Shaywitz et al., 1992).
• At least 10 million children in the United States are poor readers (Lyon, 1996).
• The prevalence is 17% of school-aged children depending on how poor reading is defined and where it is studied (Shaywitz et al., 1996). The prevalence is higher in urban schools (Lyon, 1996).
• Reading problems occur with equal frequency in boys and girls; schools identify four times more boys than girls, largely on the basis of behavioral-not learning-characteristics (Shaywitz et al., 1990).
• Special education figures from the Department of Education (1993) show that before 1980, fewer than 25% of children in special education were identified as learning disabled; by 1993, this figure increased to over 50% A similar trend is observed in HISD.
• Of all children identified as learning disabled in schools, 70-80/% are primarily impaired in reading; 90% of these children with reading difficulties have problems with the development of decoding skills (Lerner, 1989).
• Longitudinal studies show that 74% of children who are poor readers in the third grade remain poor readers in the ninth grade (Francis et al., 1996).

Word recognition

Most of the studies cited above involve children with word recognition problems like those associated with dyslexia. This is because persistent reading problems occur most commonly in association with difficulties in word recognition skills. The most common (but not exclusive) factor in reading comprehension problems is a failure to develop accurate and efficient word recognition skills. The Committee learned that reading problems commonly occur primarily at the level of single word recognition and involve the ability to decode printed words. Moreover, single word decoding problems in reading are primarily associated with problems segmenting words and syllables into phonemes. This is true in virtually all poor readers, including children, adolescents, and adults--at all levels of IQ--and in socially disadvantaged children and adults. Reading is alphabetic, which means that for languages like English and Spanish the code is in the alphabet. The code is always based on sounds and how sounds map onto print. Research supporting this view is summarized in two articles from Scientific American by Vellutino (1987) and Shaywitz (1996) included in Appendix I.
When children are learning to read, a critical reading skill involves sounding out words, i.e., cracking the alphabetic code. Virtually all proficient readers can come close to pronouncing even words never seen nor heard before, like these pseudowords:

NAD
MAFRETSEN

When children learn to read, they master skills that allow decoding of words and pseudowords. Mastering the skills underlying decoding are a key reading-related language skill underlying successful reading.
When children learn to decode, they become aware that words have internal structures based on their sounds that are represented by the alphabet. Some of these skills involve breaking apart words (analytic), while others involve putting words together (synthetic).
When a child learns enough of the rules for relating sound structures to print, they become a proficient decoder. This is not hard to learn for many children, who seem to figure it out regardless of how they are taught. For at least 30% of children, learning this principle is not straightforward and must be taught--hence the problem we have today.

Comprehension

Comprehension depends on decoding and other skills (memory, attention, higher order cognitive and language skills). Slow, inaccurate decoding is the best predictor of poor reading comprehension. However, when school and learning demands move beyond decoding, word recognition, and literal understanding of printed messages, the instructional emphasis shifts to reading comprehension. Instructional interventions may involve the subprocesses of reading to learn (e.g., prior knowledge, oral language competency and strategy use). In addition, inferential ability, information storage and retrieval, metacognitive awareness and perceived controllability become important variables that can impact learning from text.
Reading comprehension is a complex, interactive process influenced by many situational and individual factors. Although research is not adequate to estimate the incidence of poor reading comprehension in children who have adequate word recognition skills, there are many children in our schools who seem to have adequate decoding skills, but do not make meaningful connections while reading, are not actively engaged with the author's message, and who do not utilize efficient and effective strategies for understanding information in text.
Research has begun to tap many interesting variables and their relatedness to reading comprehension. The theoretical model dictates the intervention approach. The following are some current trends in reading comprehension research:

• Metacognitive models of reading highlight the variables of reader strategy text and task. The intervention procedures in this approach to instruction call for student-control of the reading task and for more focus on the processes of reading to learn. Strategy-based instruction is the cornerstone intervention based on metacognitive models of reading

• Psycholinguistic models of instruction are based on the assumption that some children come to school with an incomplete understanding of the English language. The implication is that such a language deficit leads to an inability to understand cause and effect inferences. Implicit textural messages may also hinder the reading comprehension process for these students.

• Sociocultural models of reading stress reciprocal interaction, scaffolding instruction, and the importance of other-to-self regulation of cognitive learning strategies.

Given adequate word recognition and decoding strategies, effective reading can be predicted by the strategies that readers employ when interacting with text in order to enhance understanding, remembering, and/or to monitor comprehension, whether instructional programs are based on metacognitive, psycholinguistic, or sociocultural models of reading. Such programs must include systematic, intensive instruction, with various texts, in many circumstances and over considerable time, if they are to be helpful to students who demonstrate deficits in reading comprehension.

Intervention

While prior studies indicate that most poor readers in third grade remain poor readers in ninth grade (Francis et al., 1996), recent intervention studies suggest and that persistent reading problems can be reduced to 2-5% of at-risk students with early, appropriate and at times, intensive, instruction.

• In studies at Bowman Gray, children with poor phonological language skills in kindergarten were better word readers in the second grade if they received code-based instruction than if they received context-based instruction (Brown & Felton, 1990; Felton, 1993).
• In studies at Florida State University, the type of direct instruction alphabetic program was less important than intensity, duration, and teacher training/monitoring so long as the program was structured and explicit - greater explicitness resulted in greater gains. Less than 3% of the population remained severely impaired after intensive (80 hours) of one-on-one instruction intervention (Alexander et al., 1997, Torgesen et al., 1997).
• In studies at The State University of New York-Albany, over 80% of children reading below the 15th percentile at the beginning of first grade read at or above grade level by the end of the first grade with appropriate, intensive (40-80 hours) one-on-one instruction over 1 to 2 semesters of intervention. The overall rate of severe impairment was less than 3% after one semester and 1.5% after two semesters of intervention (Vellutino et al., 1996).
• In studies in Houston and Florida State University, instruction in the phonological awareness skills as part of a standard kindergarten curriculum lead to significant gains in phonological analysis skills relative to children in the same curriculum who did not receive this training (Foorman et al., 1997; Torgesen, 1997).
• In studies in Houston, children served under Title I showed significantly greater growth in word reading and reading comprehension skills when their instructional program included a component in which decoding skills were taught explicitly than when decoding skills were taught implicitly or in context. The overall rate of severe impairment for children who received explicit instruction for one school year was 4.5% of the total population.

Conclusions

These studies show that decoding and phonological analysis skills are necessary skills for successful reading. Once children can decode, they must be able to decode rapidly. Slow decoding, even if it were accurate, impairs comprehension. Comprehension processes are separable and must also be taught--print awareness, immersion in literacy, and reading to children also account for variability in reading outcomes. For proficient reading, both word recognition and comprehension skills must be developed to proficiency. The amount of programmatic emphasis for the individual child should vary between these two areas depending upon individual needs.
Reading failure is a problem that extends beyond problems with literacy--underachievement, loss of self-esteem, social maladjustment, juvenile delinquency, dropping out of school and poverty. Given the magnitude of the reading problem, a continuum of interventions is necessary that begins with effective classroom instruction in the early grades, including kindergarten, extends into comprehension as children move through elementary school and provides specialized interventions for children whose reading problems persist despite good classroom practices.

CURRENT STATUS OF CHILDREN WITH PERSISTENT READING DIFFICULTIES

Early in the process, the Committee decided that it needed more information on the nature and status of services and programs for children with persistent reading difficulties. In addition, there was interest in the survey that would address how well teachers and administrators understood the issues involving children with persistent reading problems. Consequently, with the assistance of Dr. Carla Woodley with the Research Department, the Committee spent several meetings developing a survey to assess this information. The survey was mailed to all principals in the Houston Independent School District during the month of February. It yielded a response rate of over 75%. In the next section, the conclusions drawn by the Committee are summarized, with the survey presented in Appendix II and the full report of the results in Appendix III.

Summary of results

The Committee noted that the response rate was extremely high, indicating great interest in the issue of reading disability. As the survey results show, most of the respondents were from elementary schools, but there was significant representation from middle and high schools. When children have reading problems, respondents that a variety of individuals were consulted regarding questions involving reading, including grade level chairpersons, special education personnel, and district personnel. Fifteen percent of respondents indicated that they consulted outside resources.

Training was clearly an important issue. The need to implement and expand training for teachers was the most frequent recommendation, with many similar recommendations involving some aspects of training.

Particularly startling was the observation that 24% of respondents estimated that 16-25% of children in their school had persistent reading problems, 22% indicated a range of 26-50%, and 15% indicated that the percentage exceeded 50% of the entire school. Most reported that children were identified with persistent reading problems in the third to fourth grade, but 16% reported that children were identified after the fourth grade. Respondents indicated that children were identified using a variety of methods, particularly classroom performance (such as failing grades), and TAAS failure.

When asked what remedial reading programs (excluding special education) are available on the campus, the most frequent identified program was Success For All, followed by after school tutorials and Title I programs. Including special education, 34% of respondents indicated that they had a variant of Alphabetic Phonics program (Alphabetic Phonics, Language Enrichment I/II) on campus, while 22% indicated that they had Success For All. Eighty-five percent of the respondents indicated that technology was used with students with persistent reading problems, with 70% indicating that this was effective.

The survey did not define dyslexia. However, 20% of the respondents indicated that they had no program in place for students with dyslexia. The most common response (28.5%) indicated referral to special education. Despite the number of respondents who indicated that Alphabetic Phonics was available on campus, this program was identified for children with dyslexia by 7% of the respondents.

In terms of assessment, the TAAS was the most commonly identified assessment device, followed by teacher observation.
In response to an open-ended question concerning "what can be done to improve student reading achievement", the most common response involved implementing and expanding training for teachers. Recommendations involving following Success For All guidelines, variations of Alphabetic Phonics/Neuhaus programs, and the use of reading specialists were also frequently rated.

Summary

The Committee made several observations concerning the survey results, as follows:

• When responding to the question about remedial programs, there seemed to be confusion regarding the differences between a classroom curriculum and an intervention program. For example, Success For All and SRA Reading Mastery have remedial components, but may not be sufficient for children at risk for or having persistent reading problems, who may need more intense intervention or alternative programs.

• There is a lack of uniform measurement of reading skills across the District. The introduction of norm referenced testing, such as the Stanford IX, will likely assist with this problem.

• Concerns about training for teachers who work with children that have persistent reading
  disabilities were apparent throughout responses to the survey.

• There is a lack of continuity in services both within and across schools. For example, there is no system in place for identifying reading levels, so that a student who moves from grade to grade, or from school to school, often arrives at the new school with no baseline information on the status of the reading problem.

• It was reported that the district was coming into compliance with the state mandated dyslexia guidelines. This program is being implemented through the use of itinerant teachers.

Altogether, the survey results were illuminating to the Committee, with the high return demonstrating that there was great interest in this issue across the District. The number of students identified as having persistent reading problems was alarming, but may reflect an inadequate understanding of what constitutes persistent reading difficulties or a high level of actual persistent reading problems. In addition, the interest in training was paramount.

STATUS OF DISTRICT SERVICES

The Committee heard reports on several aspects of assessment. Sandra Krindler reported to the Committee on norm-referenced testing in the district and alternative tests used for children with exemptions. She reported that the district will be adopting a norm-referenced test (Stanford IX) beginning next Fall. She also noted that the children with disabilities who were exempted from the TAAS were given an alternate, mainly the Released Form of the 1995/96 TAAS. This examination was given at the individual student's instructional level. There are also schools who used their own norm-referenced testing, but there was little information on exactly what norm referenced tests were used.

Brenda Jefferson reported that all children referred for special education for reading problems received a psychoeducational test battery. She noted that tests used specifically to evaluate children with dyslexia included the Auditory Processing subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Test Battery, the Word Attack, the Word Identification, and Written Language subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Test Battery, and Rosner's Test of Auditory Analysis Skills. Ms. Jefferson also noted that screening for dyslexia could occur prior to the third grade and should include a measure of intellectual functioning, measures of word reading, word attack, reading comprehension, and spelling, a portfolio of schoolwork, and observations of learning behaviors.

Carolyn Guess observed that much of the district's efforts for children with specific reading problems involve training in Alphabetic Phonics through the Neuhaus Center. About 275 teachers in special education have been trained in Alphabetic Phonics instruction, but more coordination of this effort with regular education of teachers is needed. The district plans to update this data. The Committee expressed concerns about the lack of coordination and need for follow-up on this program.
The district is moving to implement dyslexia programs by the use of itinerant multisensory teachers. At present, there is a proposal for one itinerant teacher per subdistrict. A dyslexia council has been convened that developed the District's plan and a handbook on dyslexia. Ms. Guess also emphasized the need for more training in diagnostic procedures for special education teachers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations from the Committee fall under three primary headings: Assessment, Intervention, and Training. A specific attempt was made not to duplicate recommendations made by the PEER Committee on Reading, but to expand on these recommendations as they apply to children with persistent reading disabilities. All recommendations in this report assume that the recommendations in PEER are implemented. In particular, many instances of persistent reading failure can be prevented by appropriate classroom instruction.

Assessment

1. Children who score poorly on existing reading measures, such as the TAAS test, the soon-to be introduced norm referenced test, or tests used at a local level should receive an appropriate, individualized, and norm-referenced assessment of word recognition and reading comprehension skills.
   
2. Assessment information for determining persistent reading problems needs to be put in the hands of teachers. Teachers should have assessment tools at their disposal including simple screening instruments that measure phonemic awareness, word recognition and reading comprehension skills (especially strategy use in comprehension monitoring) and curriculum based measures that monitor progress in specific reading skills and processes. The State recently passed legislation supporting this type of assessment through the Texas Education Agency
   
3. Individual assessment of word recognition and reading comprehension skiffs should occur prior to and independently of issues concerning eligibility for special education.
   
4. District personnel in the Reading Department and others who have specific training in identification of students with persistent reading difficulties could be consulted in the pre-referral process and participate in campus pre-referral and referral meetings. There should be an individual in the Reading Department to whom parents, teachers, and administrators could contact with concerns about reading problems. Teachers specifically trained in reading instruction could also serve on the Referral Committee. Campus-based trained personnel could provide ongoing support. Recommendations for interventions and/or alternative instructional approaches should be a part of all pre-referral plans. Referral for 504 accommodations or a Comprehensive Individual Assessment (CIA) for special education eligibility should occur only after all recommendations by the pre-referral committee have been implemented and need for such has been documented. Parents should be notified of a district level person in the Reading Department to whom they can appeal if they disagree with the decision of the campus personnel or pre-referral committee. This should be an appeal process other than due process.
   
5. The district should carefully evaluate the forthcoming IDEA guidelines and focus on the development of pre-referral teams allowing each campus to utilize the professional strengths and expertise of its staff. Each team should have as members, campus/sub-district level experts who can assist the referring teacher in the implementation of a teaming assistance plan for any student being considered for a special education CIA. These professionals should be trained in a continuum of services for diagnostic assessment and instructional strategy procedures designed to identify and serve students with persistent reading difficulties.
   
6. The district's definition of dyslexia should be reviewed and updated to reflect current research (Shaywitz, 1996). State TEA guidelines may not reflect this research.

INTERVENTION

1. The district should maintain a central database concerning campus level resources for children with persistent reading problems. The database should include the types of training received by teachers, types of remedial programs available at a campus level, and various service delivery formats. Reading instruction should begin as soon as the child enters the classroom in a new school.
   
2. The district should have programs available for children with persistent reading disabilities at each campus. Diversity in the nature of the programs is encouraged, provided the programs contain acceptable content. If periodic assessment shows that the child is not progressing, the district transfer policies should be flexible so that an alternative program available at a different campus can be used. While few programs have been thoroughly evaluated, there is sufficient knowledge that permits identification of programs with acceptable content. For children with word recognition/phonological processing problems, interventions that specifically target these areas is essential.
   
3. The district needs to implement intervention programs that have been shown to be effective with children who have persistent reading problems. These programs should continue the focus on K-3 reading teachers in the district. Many teachers are missing the information needed to instruct students on phonological processing and the "alphabetic principle." It is imperative that the spelling and writing program be compatible with the balanced approach to reading. In kindergarten, phonological awareness training as part of the program is essential for all children. In Grades 1-3, more intense intervention may be essential for children who do not appear to benefit sufficiently from regular classroom instruction.
   
4. The Committee recognizes that teachers in the district have received varied types of training appropriate for children with severe reading disabilities However, it is important to recognize that most of these methods also carry specific recommendations for how the methods should be provided. This can include recommendations concerning the size of the instructional group, intensity, and the measurement of progress. It is recognized that these methods work only if the intervention is delivered according to the prescribed fashion. The district should make written requests to the authors/publishers of these instructional programs, requesting written information on appropriate delivery models for their program and any published data on effectiveness for students with clearly specified reading problems. The request and response should be made available in the professional library or website and available on request. For intensity, the available research strongly supports small groups in kindergarten, and tutorial models for 40-80 hours in one to two semesters of a single school year in Grades I and 2. It is possible that small group instruction would be effective in Grades 1 and 2, but this possibility has not been evaluated. After Grade 2, longer intervention periods are clearly required. Compromising on issues such as the size of the instructional group or the intensity of the intervention most likely dilute the effectiveness of the intervention. For children with persistent reading disability, interventions typically require considerable intensity. Resources may need to be concentrated in an effort to make interventions effective. There is little evidence that remedial services provided in traditional formats, such as unstructured resource classes, or regular classes, are effective in remediating reading problems.
   
5. Children who receive interventions for persistent reading disability should be frequently assessed (at least every two months) to monitor progress, including self-evaluative measures, to ensure that both teachers and students become accountable for this important information.
   
6. The district's dyslexia plan to introduce itinerant teachers should be expanded, fully implemented immediately, and monitored for effectiveness.
   
7. The Summer program recommendations in the PEER Committee on Reading report should be implemented in the early grades, including the information on timeliness assessments, and interventions.
   
8. Classroom teachers should be offered professional development on modifications in the classroom for students with reading problems. The proposed itinerant teachers should serve as professional consultants/staff trainers and classroom coaches for all grade levels. Instructional modifications must not diminish curricular content for reading, or alter grading without explicit and informed parental consent.
   
9. The district should investigate interventions that research has shown to be effective including one-to-one instruction and appropriately grouped students in low teacher-student ratios. Teachers already trained in particular methods could be updated and used for this purpose. Pre- and post-assessment programs with appropriate documentation and intermittent assessments should be implemented that allows for specific interventions whenever necessary.
   
10. In the middle schools, appropriately-trained teachers should focus on improving reading for students with persistent reading problems. These children should be placed in groups of 1215 students at relatively similar reading levels. The research department should study model classes to document progress and make recommendations to improve effectiveness. Such placement should not preclude more intense intervention. Grade 4-5 and secondary teachers should receive a continuum of training designed for the individual needs of upper elementary and secondary readers. A commitment to continue reading instruction should be made to every student with a persistent reading problem who continues to make progress until they are reading at grade level.
    
11. More detailed information should be developed for parents of children suspected of reading problems. This information should be user friendly and clearly indicate that a child does not have to fail in order to receive attention from the school. The material should include information on campus procedures for evaluating a child suspected of having a reading problem. The material should also include information on appeal procedures at the district level if the parent disagrees with the campus evaluation or refusal to evaluate the child. Procedures should be developed to address specific concerns about the child's reading level when such disagreement occurs. This process should occur at a district level and prior to initiation of a special education referral.

TRAINING

1. Principals, campus level administrators, and teachers should be informed of what constitutes a persistent reading disability. In addition, clear guidelines concerning accountability for these students should be developed. This training should include information on procedures for identification and intervention planning. New principals should receive training similar to that received by the classroom teachers.
   
2. School improvement plans should target objectives to address persistent reading failure. Monitoring and the evaluation of specific intervention programs should be emphasized.
   
3. Funds should be provided for annual training of reading teachers who work with children with severe reading disabilities. The district should make available training with a variety of methods. It is important for training to be completed and for those who are trained to be able to deliver the intervention in the manner in which it is prescribed.
   
4. The district should develop a web site with information, particularly research, on children with severe reading disability. The current professional development centers should be expanded and updated. Campuses designated as such should house professional libraries that can serve surrounding school campuses.
   
   Further questions contact Dr. Eldo Bergman