|
...mathematics. The requirements for annual assessments reading and mathematics, the expectations for adequate yearly progress (AYP), and the associated penalties for schools that fail to demonstrate AYP have engendered considerable controversy. One aspect of NCLB of particular relevance to the special education community is the requirement that children with disabilities be held to the same AYP standards as other students (Education Week, 2004). NCLB requires only that students with disabilities, like their peers, make gains in reading from one year to the next; it does not stipulate the amount of progress that students with disabilities need to demonstrate. However, NCLB also requires states to set criteria for the percentage of students (with and without disabilities) in each school who must meet grade-level expectations in reading if the school is to achieve AYP. These requirements were motivated by two considerations: (a) the assertion on the part of disability advocates that children with disabilities suffer from perniciously low expectations, and (b) the evidence from recent intervention research that children at high risk for reading disabilities can make significant progress in reading with appropriately intensive instruction (e.g., Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Lyon, 2001; Torgesen, 2005; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Tanzman, 1998).
Few would quarrel with the assertion that children with disabilities should have access to high-quality instruction, or with the assertion that children make greater progress when held to high standards. However, the implicit assumption under NCLB that most or even many children with disabilities can make progress comparable to that of their peers--and the associated requirement that schools that fall short of such expectations be deemed "failing"--represents an assumption that warrants careful empirical examination. The purpose of the present study was to provide an initial assessment of this assumption in the context of an instructional initiative implemented under the auspices of NCLB: the Reading First initiative, as instantiated by the state of Michigan.
THE FEDERAL AND STATE READING FIRST INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
The basic framework for the Reading First (RF) legislation was grounded in a body of research funded by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) during the decade preceding passage of NCLB (Lyon, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Chhabra, 2004; for an interesting account of the behind-the-scenes efforts leading to RF, see Miskel and Song, 2004). In a statement to a subcommittee of the Committee on Education in the House of Representatives, Lyon, then Chief of NICHD's Child Development and Behavior Branch, raised the question of whether children with reading problems can overcome their difficulties. Answering his own question, he said:
Yes, the majority of children who enter kindergarten and elementary school at-risk for reading failure can learn to read at average or above levels, but only if they are identified early and provided with systematic, explicit, and intensive instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension strategies. Substantial research supported by NICHD and OERI [the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement] shows clearly that without systematic, focused, and intensive intervention, the majority of children rarely "catch up." (Lyon, 2001)
Lyon also indicated that proper reading instruction is likely to reduce the need for special education, encompassing in this statement not only those students with identified reading disabilities in K-3 but also the larger number of students who are at risk for disabilities. He reminded the representatives that 38% of fourth graders read below the basic level on the National Association of Education Progress reading assessment (Lyon).
In contrast to the controversies surrounding the issues of accountability and funding within the broader NCLB legislation, relatively little attention has been paid to that part of the legislation authorizing new state initiatives in the area of reading instruction. Part B of Title 1 of NCLB, commonly known as Reading First, was intended to encourage implementation of scientifically based reading programs and materials that would ensure the successful acquisition of reading skills by children in kindergarten through Grade 3 with or at high risk for reading difficulties. As stated in the Guidance for the Reading First Program, "this program focuses directly on ensuring that every child can read at grade level by the end of third grade" (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a, p. 2). The basic premise of RF is that early, systematic and explicit instruction in reading and related skills provided by well-trained teachers in the general education classroom can prevent later reading failure in high-risk child populations and therefore lay a solid groundwork for school success. To achieve this goal, RF requires that states and local education agencies with approved plans must provide professional development for teachers and must use instructional materials, programs, and assessments that have been found to be effective by rigorous research.
In many ways, Michigan's RF Program is similar to those found in other states. To qualify for RF support in Michigan, districts are required to have low reading achievement (i.e., 40% or more of students scoring low on the Michigan Evaluation of Academic Performance reading assessment) for 2 of the preceding 3 years, and to qualify as low income (e.g., 1,000 or more students from families below the poverty line). Michigan's RF application for federal funding was approved in 2002, and the state invited applications from eligible districts that spring. Forty-nine schools were initially awarded funding; this number increased to 109 in 2003 to 2004, and to 168 in 2005, with some fluctuation annually in the schools receiving RF funding due to individual district reorganizations and school closings.
Four major components of Michigan's RF program are (a) professional development for general and special education teachers focusing on the causes of and treatments for reading problems (during the time of data collection, the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling program); (b) classroom monitoring of student progress (via the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, DIBELS, Good & Kaminski, 2002); (c) the use of flexible grouping to address students' instructional needs; and (d) structured and explicit research-based instruction in the five components of early reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. In addition, each district must use grant funding to purchase a comprehensive reading program that meets the state's RF standards and to provide professional development for teachers in the use of the program. State-approved comprehensive programs include instruction in the five components of reading and are supported by scientifically based reading research. In addition, each school must hire a literacy coach to oversee reading instruction in Grades K to 3 and provide support for the teachers' learning about instructional practices.
THE ASSUMPTION OF COMPARABLE PROGRESS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
One requirement of the NCLB legislation is that all eligible students take a reading achievement test annually and that states report progress in reading for children in special education, along with other at-risk groups (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a). Part A of NCLB directs that children with disabilities be held to the same expectations for progress in reading and math established for other children at that grade level. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) noted in its summary of NCLB that "if children with disabilities (Grade 3-8) within a school fail to make adequate yearly progress toward reaching 100% proficiency in reading and math by 2014, the school will potentially face a host of remedial actions intended to improve performance of students failing to make AYP" (CEC, 2004, p. 6).
In instituting this requirement, NCLB effectively buys into the view that the achievement gap between children with disabilities and their classmates will close in response to effective, carefully monitored instruction provided by highly qualified personnel in the general education classroom. In addition, there are indications of the optimism motivating the NCLB propositions in related statements from federally sponsored sources: The U.S. Department of Education describes one benefit of the RF initiative as "reduced identification of children for special education services due to a lack of appropriate reading instruction in their early years" (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Similarly, in the words of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, "The ultimate test of the value of special education is that, once identified, children close the gap with their peers. That's what accountability for results is about" (U.S. Department of Education, 2002b).
The presumption of equal progress (or, to close the gap, greater progress) for students with disabilities is certainly a desirable aspiration. However, given the importance of the issue both for educational policy and for the provision of appropriate services to students with disabilities, it is crucial that the assumption receive careful empirical evaluation. There are a number of reasons to question this assumption as it pertains to reading achievement for children with language and learning disabilities. First, it is important to note that the very fact that students require special education services and supports, even in the best schools in the country, points to the fact that not all children succeed in our educational system despite considerable educational effort (Fuchs, 2003; Torgesen, 2000). Second, the findings from several longitudinal studies comparing the progress of children with language and/or reading disabilities to that of peers matched for age or achievement have suggested parallel growth over time on measures of language or reading (e.g., Catts, Fey, & Tomblin, 2002; Scarborough & Parker, 2003), which means persisting problems for the target sample relative to the comparison sample. It is important to note, however, that few if any of these studies have focused on high-risk populations in terms of sociodemographics. The results of one study suggested that elementary students varying in sociodemographic characteristics differed in growth in decoding and reading comprehension, even after accounting for verbal intelligence and prior word reading (Hecht, Burgess, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2000). Low socioeconomic status (SES) and minority children may experience a broad range of deficits in reading skills (Torgesen et al., 1999). The relation...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
%20%20&position=1)