British educator Katie Ashford, the spunky curator of Tabula Rasa Blog, is stirring-up much needed education reform thinking. “Education in the UK isn’t always good enough,” she says in her first “Why I Blog” post. “Far too many children pass through the doors of our schools into the real world knowing little, unable to read, and incapable of expressing themselves. To me, this is a tragedy. Our education system is flawed and we need to do something about it urgently.”
That commitment to raising educational standards and sense of urgency certainly shines through in her most recent commentary, “Please teach my daughter to read,” posted January 17, 2016, and now generating quite an online reaction. In it, Katie utilizes the case of a British teen’s amazing turnaround in reading fluency over 18 months to demonstrate that “correct methods” can work apparent wonders in making Special Education Needs (SEN) all but disappear.
She certainly spins a compelling story. As Assistant Head at Michaela Community School, in the Wembley District of London, Ashford reports that the student’s father enrolled “Georgia” in her school convinced that her academic struggles, entering secondary level, stemmed from not being able to read. Without promising miracles, she took on the project based upon her “hunch” that Georgia was “yet another victim of our profession’s ignorant mistakes” and, rather than having a “cognitive disability,” simply needed to be taught to read through proven, research-based methods.
Her “hunch” was borne out by Georgia’s experience. Eighteen months later, Ashford reported that “Georgia has received rigorous reading instruction and reads thousnds of words per day, including the classics. She is no longer on the SEN register and her reading age (level) has improved by 4 years. She still has lots of catching up to do, but she is making rapid progress.”
Ashford and her Tabla Rasa Education blog are, as expected, drawing flack from ‘diehard’ progressive educators either wedded to “whole word” approaches or simply hostile to academy schools such as Michaela with its explicit KIPP educational philosophy. Resorting to such criticisms is revealing because it attacks the institution without really confronting the evidence of success.
Hunches about the impact of early reading failure on the rising incidence of SEN coded or designated students are well-founded and supported by mounds of research findings. Since the mid-1990s reading research has tended to show that children who get off to a poor start in reading rarely catch up. The poor first-grade reader almost invariably continues to be a poor reader (Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996; Torgesen & Burgess, 1998). And the consequences of a slow start in reading become monumental as they accumulate exponentially over time.
The recognized pioneer in the field is Canadian researcher, Dr. Keith Stanovich, Professor Emeritas at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Thirty years ago, Stanovich pointed out in his well-known paper (1986) on the “Matthew effects” (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer) that failure to acquire early word reading skills has lasting consequences ranging from negative attitudes toward reading (Oka & Paris, 1986), to reduced opportunities for vocabulary growth (Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985), to missed opportunities for development of reading comprehension strategies (Brown, Palinscar, & Purcell, 1986), to less actual practice in reading than other children receive (Allington, 1984).
“Catch Them Before They Fall” is the key message conveyed by Joseph K. Torgesen, Jamie Metsala and other leading reading research specialists. “It is a tragedy of the first order,” according to Torgeson,” that while we know clearly the costs of waiting too long, few school districts have in place a mechanism to identify and help children before failure takes hold. Indeed, in the majority of cases, there is no systematic identification until third grade, by which time successful remediation is more difficult and more costly.”
Early reading failure is now recognized as a critical factor contributing to the burgeoning numbers of Special Needs students not only in Britain but elsewhere. The Reading Reform Foundation has led the charge in the U.K. and one of the best articles making the connection is Dr. John Marks piece “Special Need or Can’t Read?” published in the May 2001 RRF Newsletter. In it, he expressed alarm that the U.K. had ten times as many pupils with ‘Special Educational Needs’ than in 1980 and over a million and a half pupils in total.
Across Britain, Marks reported in 2001 that more than one in five of all pupils were on ‘Special Needs’ registers – and in some schools the figure was as high as a staggering 55% or more. The numbers of SEN children with “statements” of severe disabilities stood at 2 to 3 per cent, meaning that the vast majority of SEN students were what was described as “soft” with, at best, moderate or undiagnosed learning disabilities. He then posed the fundamental question: “Is the explosion in ‘Special Needs’ real? Or has it happened because schools have failed over many years to teach properly – and to teach reading in particular.”
A recent shift in British SEN policy is beginning to address the problem identified a decade ago. In September 2014, Special Needs and Disability (SEND) reforms to the Children and Families Act were introduced to better track and properly designate students by their SEN provision. Since then, the total number of SEN students has dropped from 1.49 to 1.3 million, while the number with a clear SEN “statement” stands at 2.8%, a slight increase over the past year. This was consistent with a 2010 Ofsted Study that found about one-quarter of all children labelled with SEN and as many as half of those on “School Action” lists, did not actually have SEN.
Literacy levels are now considered to be a major contributing factor perpetuating economic inequality. A 2014 report of the National Literacy Trust and commissioned by Save the Children has now sparked the publication ‘How reading can help children escape poverty’ produced by the Read On. Get On. coalition. That U.K. campaign brings together teachers and other professionals, charities, businesses, publishers and local communities pursuing the lofty goal of all children reading well by the age of 11 by 2025. Much like Katie Ashfield, they see the potential for all children learning to read if taught by more effective methods and fully embraced by the school system.
How many of our Special Education Needs (SEN) population are actually casualties of ineffective early reading instruction? Why are education reformers questioning the incidence of SEN student numbers often labelled as hard-nosed or unsympathetic to students? Which early reading interventions work best in producing fluent readers? If we were to “catch them early,” what would SEN programs look like and would we actually be serving those who need intensive support much better?
Your analysis of the situation is quite accurate. We need to start first with prevention instruction then early reading intervention. It`s called common sense. If we adopt this approach, only 5- 8% of kids will continue to struggle and require special education program supports.
We wrongly continue to adhere to an outdated/erroneous model that learning to read is developmental. Some 80% of students in special ed have a reading or orthographic processing problem which can/should be addressed asap. It`s plain and simple educational malpractice.
This will be my only post but I`ll read the excuses and arguments with interest and stupefaction at the same time.
Special Education is funded. Early reading intervention usually is not funded or severely underfunded. Talk to anyone in the medical field and they will state that most money is spent to react to situations – proactive or preventative programs are usually underfunded if funded at all.
If you look at full day Kindergarten in Ontario, as boards have spent money to implement this program, early reading intervention has decreased. If students still struggle with reading after Kindergarten, they often end up in Special Education when intervention could help.
The other question is what does literacy look like? I saw an interesting statistic that shows that 64 percent of those under the age of 55 have low literacy skills when it comes to the new literacy skills needed to navigate the health and technology advances of the 21st century. For those above 55, 88 percent of people lack the necessary literacy skills. One group had more experience with whole language while the other group had more phonics education. Still both groups have areas of concern.
Good points Matt. My problem with SE is the powerful negative effects of labeling. SE constitutes a huge internal lobby in education. Their answer is always more very expensive 8-1 ratio SE.
We need instead more high quality ECE delivered earlier in smaller classes especially in primary, especially in poorer schools.
The experts believe that real SE should be no more than 5-6 % of students. We are headed to 20%. Wrong priority.
The type of literacy you are discussing is not a grade 1 issue. Many many middle class children, poorer children, boys need much more phonics than they are presently getting. Whole language and balanced literacy is hindering huge swathes of the population.
More refined literacy skills come in later grades for the most part. Lots of issues there too, but somewhat separate from the early reading of grade 1.
Thank you for your informative post. I’ve re-posted it via the message forum of the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction here:
http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=522&p=724#p724
IFERI has been founded to join together researchers, policy makers, educators and parents – internationally – in an endeavour to further evidence-informed reading instruction in the English language.
We welcome visitors and ‘supporters’ – people who are willing to express their support for the aims of IFER.
Special Education is a “hot topic” in the wake of Tracy Thompson’s feature article, “The Special-Education Charade,” in the current issue of The Atlantic. As the parent of a 14-year-old daughter (in Prince George’s County, Maryland)with SEN, she says she is “in hell” trying to grapple with the Special Education system and confronted with IEPs and the other manifestations of current practice. It’s quite a story:
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/the-charade-of-special-education-programs/421578/
The most compelling line: “In a world that made sense, students like my daughter would be seen for what they are: canaries in the coalmine that public education has become.”
I have one granddaughter who the school thinks may be mild LD reading. Her mother asked me what to do. I said “do not under any circumstances allow them to put her in SE. It is an educational death sentence” teacher her to read at home. The little girl can ‘read’ she is just behind the others.
Read to her
Listen to her read.
Discuss for comprehension.
Ask questions like – what do you think will happen next?
Absolutely agree. Educational death sentence.
Very likely the way she was taught and the books used at school.
I have specialist papers in SE. I disagree. Parents divorce at root of problem.
Divorces dont cause learning disabilities. Some trauma and trauma related learning issues. Likely can be remedied by practice and a steady grandpa figure. Also can be several reasons. Papers ! so what ….please. I have 34 years classroom experience. The last 14 I taught split grades 1/2. The last 3 yrs. I have tutored the casualities. The methods are intensi
fying your grand daughters issues. Better get some math books Doug.My kids are adopted Doug. Adoption raises many issues, the methods used at school make other issues worse and it doesnt have to be that way. Not sure what papers I have, but I know little kids, like your grand daughter deserve much better.
I taught 40 years. Everything from grade 3 to university. If teaching pedagogy is at the root of problems why are 80 % of the non readers poor. Poverty and concentrations of poverty in USA #1 reason for its poor PISA test results. So says the OECD.
Teaching methods are not at the root of the problem. Poverty is a massive factor, and most poor readers are from poorer families, have had little stimulation, have a smaller oral vocabulary and face multiple other issues.
Schools could improve the chances for these kids as well as make it easier for middle class kids to learn to read by altering their methods,which have deteriorated, as yet ever more money is spent on experts. There was no golden age. Many kids didn’t learn well when I was young either, also a lot less money was spent back then.
There are many poorer kids who could do better with more structure,more phonics and whatever interest and care a teacher can provide.
When I started in 1980 teachers had more flexibility and in the largely poor school I taught in, we were free to provide that structure. Now the govt. mandates methods that are not suitable in such circumstances. More trad. methods would definitely assist kids. Poorer kids would likely still do less well in the end,but more kids could make more progress. It does matter. Those individuals feel a little less dumb and a little more confident. I feel for your grand daughter and her grandpa. It will be harder for her than it needs to be.
What grade is she in? Very likely a casualty of balanced literacy.
The line that I shall use someday and duly credit is
“In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.”
As I have written before the push to identify spec ed in the US in the 1970s and congress passing, largely encouraged by parents, 94-142, has unintended consequences, as happens so often in life.
How do we ensure better education for all and not return to pre 94-142 days when school supposedly had “standards” and dropout rates and their consequences were so much higher than today.
Of course, in the US the lens of race had and still has impact in ways that are “different” in Canada.
Perhaps using the Visual Learning approach of John Hattie and his colleagues has something to say here, especially in the literacy and numeracy teaching and learning in the early years.
The way children are taught to read in grade one presently is a nightmare. So many children harmed;the poorer they are the worse the damage. But Doug many middle class children are harmed also. Math crisis is loud right now, because middle class children are being harmed. Unfortunately, poorer families often struggle,but are not heard. The math crisis is hurting middle class children who have what they need and more. Middle class families make noise and we find math discussed in media.
I guess what you need to answer is why Canada is the #1 leading nation in the west on Pisa reading and #3 in the world.
Higher % of post secondary grads than anyone else. That is the reason TIME Magazine calls it the best education system in the world.
Are too many kids in SE? Yes because principals are told SE is the only way they can have increased resources.
Find a few experienced grade one teachers. Nothing against the academics,but teachers have been diminished far too much in the last 10 – 15 yrs. I can teach kids to read,all kinds of kids. My rates are more than reasonable.
I think Canadas education system is very very good. And PISA standards are not overly high. Thousands of kids are still being failed by methods though. These two issues are not mutually exclusive. Interesting that your the problem is within your daughter. Never met her,but I can almost guarantee that she is casualty of methods used. Particularly when you say mild. She likely has no disability at all.
Actually teachers are under the gun for EQAO,as are principals. So they like to get the weaker kids IEP d by grade 3. Less of a funding issue than it was.
If your grandaughter is having some mild reading difficulties, I can guarantee math problems sooner or later. I’m guessing she is under grade 3 because school is making noises about her. So your son/daughter better be prepared to teach math after work. She/he is fortunate because you are a tchr. Thousands of other parents teach math after work too. Its par for the course. If families dont do it; it wont get done.
And yes,I think Canada has a very impressive education system. But as your grand daughter grows and see you see what she goes through and what her parents,your heart will hurt. She is your grand daughter,not one more piece of data.
I applaud you Theresa.
JoAnne I deserve applause for simply suffering through the horrors of the last ten yrs. of teaching,as do my colleagues. As you day, rest is largely common sense.
I feel badly for the teachers ,enraged at the Universities who prepare them and the crap that many publishers sell.
Kids are at the mercy of all those inefficiencies.
It`s a very very difficult problem!
I hope you get to retire soon and tutor privately!
I had promised myself I wouldn`t participate..it`s a cause close to my heart and I`ve seen and heard all the excuses!
I am retired and have tutored for 3 yrs. Casualities everywhere. I know what you mean about wanting to stay out of debate.Lots of passion and much pain.
The American Common Core Standards do put considerable emphasis on the acquistion and development of “Foundational Skills” in Early Reading. Here are the very explict Grade 1 Reading Standards:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/1/
Compare them with the brand new Canadian standards recently proclaimed in the Nova Scotia P-3 Curriculum Outcomes for 2015-16 and posted here:
The differences are startling and demonstrate, in concrete terms, just how far Canadian Language Arts curriculum developers have drifted away from teaching clear, explicit and effective reading methods.
Startling differences. Would be interested to see resources Common Core teachers are provided. What I was expected to do was abusive to those 6yr. olds. I was able to revise and use common sense in a way younger teachers couldn’t. Unfortunately they are more fearful and more brainwashed.
And yet Paul…
I would bet anyone $100 that the higher standards of the American common core (which is hated by everyone) will not raise their PISA ranking. Ten years from now Canada will still lead the western world and USA will be #17.
I know I sound like a one-trick-pony but the OECD was clear with the USA. Poverty and the concentration of that poverty is the root of your problem.
Depending on the researcher, every scrap of research since Coleman points to the fact that “factors outside the school” (read poverty and its results) are 60-80% of the cause of the education GAP.
School reformers take one look at poverty and say ” since I am not prepared to do anything about that, – don’t look at poverty look over here instead” at pedagogy because pedagogy can change and next to zero cost.
If you are not prepared to take serious action to move billions of dollars away from our 1%ers towards the poor, we will be discussing exactly the same problem in 2036.
Too much of Doug’s post is true in the US. I would hate to be poor there, and if I were non-white the situation due to the combination of race and class would be worse.Very difficult to overcome centuries of racial oppression both there and in Canada where the racial historical dynamics are different in some ways. We at least seem to better recognize are issues though we have a long way to go as well. Still, we have worked things out much better here than there and we need to be MUCH MORE CAREFUL in looking south of the border.
I have said this before though folks on blogs seem to ignore historical and other forms of evidence.
Doug you make some good points re. Pisa standings. However,there will be a few more 6 yrs. olds who will feel like human beings, not failures. There will be a few more teachers who will feel like human beings,not abusers. Your comments about poverty are vitally important and I cannot disagree with you. Compassion is not measured by PISA and until this redistribution of wealth has occurred, some interim, but essential measures must be taken.Individual cases do matter.
Reformers speak as if their methods guarantee success and “balanced literacy” guarantees failure.
Patent nonsense. In which real nations do 15 year olds read better?
Japan (no immigration)
Korea (hagwons till 10PM)
Finland (by 1 point virtual tie)
Canadians are learning to read better than almost anyone else.
I am not a Reformer. I am a teacher with 34 yrs. classroom experience.14 years were spent in Grade 1/2 class in a fairly difficult school. I am your colleague in other words.
A caring,effective educator does not a reformer make.
It`s a person looking to enhance instruction so a child can learn.
Reading problems caused by ineffective teaching methods were the reason that Society for Quality Education and its predecessor, Organization for Quality Education, was founded by concerned educators & parents 25 years ago. Poverty is a problem yes, but proper methods can overcome the setbacks faced by disadvantaged children.
Johnson & Watson (2005) http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/36496/0023582.pdf and a follow-up by Ellis (2009) http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/20642/1/strathprints020642.pdf, showed pretty definitively that explicit synthetic phonics instruction eliminated the “gaps” (income, gender) over the long term.
This information, coupled with over 50 years of research in to beginning reading instruction by Chall, Stanowich, Adams to name a few, is still largely ignored by NA educators. New buzzwords: Balanced Literacy, Four Blocks, The Fifth Block, etc. still perpetuate mostly whole language methods–which are causing many of the reading problems we see.
The Whole Language movement, which has been refuted many times and had NEVER been backed by proper research, has led to the rise of special education over the past few decades. The ensuing “industry” that followed–remedial classes, tutoring, specialists ad nauseam–is loathe to change for obvious reasons.
Interested readers can find more at: http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/index.php/resources/category/Information_for_Teachers/
Teaching methods has little to do with it. Middle class children are successful with “balanced literacy” poor children have much more difficulty. The difference is not methodology it is SES. The OECD tells the USA it’s weak reading results are based on poverty related issues not methodology.
SQE was founded on a false thesis.
Teresa, generally speaking, what would you say is the most common method used in Sp Ed to teach reading, particularly beginning reading?
What’s your experience, Joanne, with the above question? I’m curious because Sp Ed used to have some autonomy. Or are Sp Ed teachers shuffling into classrooms like assistants and helping kids with the classrooms’ balanced literacy method?
Doug, I know you don’t believe methodology makes much difference. You have had forty years of teaching, but that doesn’t mean you have had forty years of experience. More than likely it means you have had forty years of teaching your own way in your own room.
Very successfully I might add. I taught teachers at York.
That should read – forty years of experience trying different methods. Sorry.
Christina, once the label is on the child the glorified babysitting begins.The label and classification provides the excuse.
About methodology not being meaningful,it’s like saying there is no discernible difference
Between a sugar pill and an antibiotic.
Balanced Literacy is a hodgepodge of everything and none of it is very helpful to anyone.
It’s fast food instead of a 5 star restaurant.
Most clients are not content.
Balanced literacy doesn’t mean failure. First the balance is almost non existent. But the hodge podge is painful. Could be more streamlined, consistent and efficient. Absolutely zero resources provided that were not whole language or guess and say ir whatever. So I was missing the balanced part.
Kids learned to read. I could design something much better.
PISA very low level test. Have you checked TIMMS?
Low level or not it is comparative of all 65 OECD nations. Canada ties for highest western nation. Only Japan (no immigration) and Korea (hagwons until 10PM) are higher on this Earth.
Anybody trying to make the case that Canada is not an outstanding nation in reading has a hard row to hoe.
Who is trying to make that case?I’m not.
I have said repeatedly that Canada’s education system is impressive. I do not think grade 1 tchrs. moms and 6 yr.olds should be treated as they are. You seem to have a single talking point. Nuance,Doug, Nuance.
Nuance is a tactic for avoiding the obvious.
Doug. At times. Not always.
If the pedagogy is really the culprit in the piece, someone needs to explain how almost all the middle class learn to read with “balanced literacy” but the poor do not. Same pedagogy different results. The poor DO have a problem. It is called poverty
Christina. We had Reading Recovery for a while. That disappeared. Then we had just some simplified version of the Nelson series. Done indiv. by Soec. Ed. when he had time.
I tutor and notice that most tchrs. do little to no phonics.Some do reading groups in class. Some don’t seem to do much guided reading. As a result it seems that the family (mother) does bulk of heavy lifting. Guess they keep PISA scores high. Method used is inefficient, often painful and could be so much better.
There are very predictable reading and writing problems that flow from Balanced Lit which hang on for years.
Joanne is correct about Spec. Ed. I taught grade 1/2 split in a poorer school.
When I had children who were still very very weak at end of grade, usually,but not always boys,I would keep them a second year. Now in higher grades they may still have got an IEP, but for those individuals it made a hugh difference. They would have ended up as non readers with a label. Instead they became readers,weak, perhaps, but readers nevertheless. Two of these children became strong readers with no label. In a different school,different situation, they would have been diagnosed with XYZ and the problem located within rhe child.. Schools and poor methods do manufacture learning disabilities.
Just me!
Pedagogy is not the problem, it is a problem.
Parents pay tutors I have tutored a number of grade 1 non readers by this point.But parents pay. I use methods that make sense and child learns.. They buy phonics books at Chapters to supplement the books at school. Parents add their own supplementary methods at home to assist their children. They
teach their children to sound out, not to guess. Even that simple technique used by parents can go a long way. They make flashcards and expand on methods used at school. I am quite sure I could fill my working hours with middle class children who are weak or non readers. I have been contacted by another parent this week.
I would refine and expand on what is done at school.
I have just finished teaching to a grade 3 boy, complete non reader. He had already been identified by the school. Once a week for 8 mths. I use school materials and supplement as I see fit. And it is this autonomy that is key.He is at gr. 2 level now. He was not able to write and he can now write 3 sentences in a row. He spells words, thinks better and we have also done some math. One he. a week and his parents never skip a week. His confidence is much better and family is very pleased.A non reader at grade 3 is very serious Simply teaching kids that they can sound words makes a huge difference.This is not a black and white issue. It is not phonics or balanced literacy.Parents are very aware of the problem and can figure out the solutions,especially in the early grades
They go to the public library, where they will find the levelled readers all neatly labelled. Right beside the levelled readers will find books that are more phonetic. Parents can mix and match as they see fit. Libraries are an excellent resource and unlike schools contain a variety of early readers of different approaches.Moms in middle class families spend more time with the whole language books that come home and are able to deal with the books in a more sophisticated manner than a poorer mom may.
There are definitely classes with not enough reading practice and Mom steps up to the plate. There are also learning centres. Yes these are businesses and not ideal. But what is a family to do. This list is not exhaustive.
I shouldn’t be personal, but show your g. daughter how to sound out words and keep practicing that simple skill with her when she reads.
I would predict an improvement in her reading.
She can read she is in grade 3 but she is a little behind others. Her parents just went through divorce, her mother is all over it now. I just told her don’t let her go to SE for this. It can be fixed.
Probably can be fixed. I agree with you. Divorce very difficult, but there could be other contributing factors.
Balanced literacy will work for middle class in the end Typewriters work too.But unwieldy, highly frustrating, get a lot of errors, far too much work and effort involved etc. But end product of typewriter can still be first class .
http://usat.ly/1RLbsfB
I wonder how our poor kids are doing?Seems the press is nowhere to be found.
Press would help parents with these probems,that`s for sure.
It`s as Teresa mentioned,where there`s a reading problem,with Math being so language based now,the Math is also infected.
If I were in UK I would complain for sure but their polarized class system is almost as bad as USA now which is why they are way behind Canada, Finland, Japan…..
Ohio charter schools fail to teach children to read.
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/local-education/charter-schools-fail-on-states-k-3-literacy-push/nqB9S/
Reblogged this on The Echo Chamber.
I found it refeshing to read in today’s TorStar that the new director of the Toronto Public board, John Malloy, is concerned with the fact that students have not learned fundamental reading skills by the end of grade one. Jo-Anne–you might love this as well.
http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2016/02/12/for-new-head-of-troubled-tdsb-its-all-about-moving-forward.html
From the article: “One idea he has “put on the table” is to find a consistent way to help students who have not learned to read by the end of Grade 1. Schools now use a range of approaches, but Malloy wants to explore using one strategy across the city.”
This seems good. However,I would definitely say that there are numerous children who take longer than a year to read and that is quite reasonable. The emphasis on the reading by the end of gr.1 is unrealistic. And the “strategy”really concerns me.
He might want to find a consistent way to eliminate poverty. He will soon find out that 80% of non reading primary students are in the bottom 20% of schools by SES.
Accident? I don’t think so.
All low SES kids are at risk of reading problems BUT a poor kid attending a mixed SES school is far less at risk than a poor kid in a predominately low SES school.
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/socioeconomics-and-reading-difficulties
Which is why we need to begin to draw school boundaries to confound single SES schools.
A reading problem is a brain connectivity difference and we now know how to conquer these problems with remarkable razor like efficiency .
Good for John Malloy,he sounds enlightened.
A reading problem is not a socioeconomic problem but it is more prevalent in those communities.
There are SOCIO-ECONOMIC reasons WHY it appears more often in low SES communities. Nutrition, low birth weight, festering dental problems, FAS, vision, stress…. you name it. Reading problems are HIGHLY prevalent in LOW SES areas. This is not random it is causal.
What you don’t seem to get Jo Anne is that low SES CAUSES brain connectivity problems.
Read top line Doug.
Burgeoning special education….
Goal
Reduce!
Reduction is guaranteed to be unsuccessful without mitigation of low SES.
I’d like us to try!
Treat the cancer kind of thing.
Best of luck but you won’t get far. The problem replicates faster than you can deal with it.
I raised this same question with respect to math teaching here: http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/barry-garelick-math-education-being-outwitted-by-stupidity/
I’m in the process of updating the article.
I’ve just raised this issue of first-time reading instruction relative to intervention via the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction here: http://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=548