Wow, Nora, you have made so many poignant points!  I am a small single- 
person private practice at the present time, although I have spent  
many years in classroom and resource settings over the years.   I will  
say, I also have witnessed EVERY scenario you mention.  Thank you so  
much for your comments!    I started writing this yesterday, so bear  
with me... some responses  have already been made regarding a number  
of issues.  Thanks Brant, and others for your additional comments  
about these topics.

As for average range percentiles: I understand that on a Bell Curve,  
most fall between the 25th and 75th percentile!   I too see schools  
saying to parents, " he/she is in the "average range" whether they are  
at the 25th percentile.....or the 75th... leading parents to believe  
there is no problem!  There is a BIG difference between the "average"  
25th percentile student and the "average" 75th percentile student!   
These percentile scores  are often on single-task evaluations, done  
one at a time.  Even if the student is dead center at the 50th  
percentile, when trying to put it all together reading a piece of  
literature, or a content textbook, it is a whole different story.   
Furthermore, the schools in my area are "high functioning" and the  
curriculum is geared to the top performers.  I agree that  
"transference" is a key issue as well between the intervention session  
and the real classroom.  While I believe gains are made after short  
term intervention, my observation is that they are not always  
sustained, and/or transferred to real-life academic tasks in school  
and life.  I think "de-mystification" is key... explaining why we are  
doing this, what is happening in their brains, and explicitly modeling  
and teaching what they are expected to do with it.  I have them bring  
their own spelling/ writing/ reading/ oral presentation work, and  
model, and help them transfer the  strategies that we use in sessions  
to their school work.  I often feel that I am "running upstream"  
because the students will say, " my teacher says to do it this way",  
or " we don't have to do that" ( perhaps sort a spelling list in some  
way, for example).  Studying, to them is memorizing, and  
unfortunately, most do not have good memory function!  Trying to  
convince students not to play to their weakness is quite a challenge  
sometimes!

Thank you for your input on "non-academic" interventions.  You make  
some very good points here.  I have learned how to do some very crude  
observtions for convergence for the purpose of recommending further  
evaluation.  I have been very interested in IM for the "timing issue"  
and glad to hear that you see improvement.  I have  been thinking of  
getting trained myself... as some expense!



> At my center, we've seen a drastic increase in procesing speed  

> problems the past 3-4 years so have put more focus on remediating  

> it.  Repeated reading just doesn't do it.

> Many of our clients have huge anxiety issues when it comes to being  

> timed in reading.



I agree with you about fluency and repeated readings.  I also have  
students who outright tell me that timing them makes them nervous, and  
they make even more mistakes.  Some love the timing and want to "beat"  
the last time, others do not like it at all.  I don't emphasize the  
timing of readings as I agree it is over-emphasized in school now and  
often before the accurate automatic decoding is in place. I leave it  
up to the student whether we chart the results overtly... or I just  
keep notes for myself.   One thing I think does improve fluency is  
teaching grammatical structures.   Many of my students consistently  
skip articles, conjunctions,  and prepositions. Some have not  
discerned the difference between "an" and "and".   I teach these small  
"function" words as parts of phrases.... a phrase that names who or  
what ( noun phrase ) starts with an article.  Leaving the article off,  
often causes a "glitch" .  The same for prepositions and subordinate  
conjunctions.  I teach them as "leaders of phrases/clauses that tell  
when, where, how, why or what kind... the whole phrase is necessary to  
get the "when" detail.  Slingerland Method ( that I use) has a  
"Preparation for Reading" component which involves pre-teaching  
vocabulary,phrasing, language structure and comprehension by asking  
the student to "read.. ( from a list of words or phrases taken from  
the text)..  the phrase that gives a "when" ( where, why how etc.)  
detail", or some such language.  It can also be: "read the phrase that  
means......."   The next component is  a "Structured Reading" /  
"parsing of text" component where the student is prompted for a  
paragraph or two... such as:  "read the three words that tell who",  
or, "the next four words tell where, read them all together".  Then  
they re-read the entire paragraph.  I call this "studying" the  
paragraph or text.  It gets them "re-reading" without memorizing, but  
instead, thinking about meaning. Eventually, they "study the text"  
silently and then read it aloud.  The "modeling and prompting" ,  
silent study, is done each session until, I see the student "chunking  
the text" more fluently on their own.  Whether or not I use "technical  
grammar terms" depends on the age/ grade and whether or not they are  
using them in the classroom.


> Another area we focus on heavily is the process of handwriting.   

> Often learners with slow processing speed - and also attention and  

> focusing issues - have bad handwriting habits (writing bottom to  

> top, right to left, crazy pencil hold, reversals) and motor  

> planning.  Interestingly, fixing their handwriting typically results  

> in improvement in processing speed and attention.


Absolutely one of the most under-rated skills, in my opinion!

I must add... that all of this is done with passion and compassion,  
empathy, sensitivity, caring, commitment, persistence, and whatever  
else.....  of course!!!!  Michael, I agree that without those, none of  
the rest matters!

Maureen Carro, MS, ET
Academic Learning Solutions
Alamo, CA
mcarro at lmi.net



On Oct 30, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Nora Chahbazi wrote:


> Hi Brant, Mary, and all,

> I have been working out of town since Tues and am trying to catch up  

> on the multitudes of emails in general and specifically, on this  

> discussion!  Thank you for your detailed response(s).

>

> Brant, in your response, you talk about average being in the 25%-75%  

> range, which I never really thought of.  I must say I've looked at  

> 50% as average/grade level with a goal of getting students well  

> above that.  We did an interesting informal study where 2 districts  

> I work in looked at their grade level tests of students (then the  

> Iowa) and at the MEAP (State of Michigan test) to see how the  

> students who were reading 'on grade level (at the 50%ile on the  

> Iowa) did on the MEAP.  My experience has been that students testing  

> at the 50th %ile ('at grade level) on group tests like the Iowa or  

> individual standardized tests are often struggling with their grade  

> level content in reading.  Both schools found that about 50% of  

> students at grade level were passing the MEAP while 100% of those a  

> year or more above were passing.  So, we always have our sights set  

> on 75% or higher....a lofty goal, I know.  We are also always  

> following the transference of our instruction with students to 'real  

> life' such as their feedback of changes in how school is going,  

> grades on their report card, grades on spelling tests (which go up  

> dramatically, even after 1 hour of instruction at our center), and  

> especially choosing to read on their own when they've never done so  

> previously.  I am all for following their test scores but the  

> authentic changes to real life is even more important, in my opinion.

>

> I am interested in your thoughts about non-academic interventions  

> for processing speed.  At my center, we've seen a drastic increase  

> in procesing speed problems the past 3-4 years so have put more  

> focus on remediating it.  Repeated reading just doesn't do it.  We  

> uses a read, read back, read again strategy that results in some  

> improvement ini fluency but not significant.  So, we have discovered  

> other areas that improve processing speed.  One, as I mentioned, is  

> Interactive Metronome to address timing and motor planning/motor  

> movement trouble that is hindering learning and we also look at  

> vision issues such as tracking and teaming (convergence issues) of   

> the eyes and refer clients to a developmental opthamologist to deal  

> with this.  I have a lot to learn in this area but find that those  

> few kids that don't budge with fluency - won't go above 60 wpm  

> regardless of age - often have convergence trouble.  Tracking is  

> much more common and seems to slow down fluency to a lesser degree  

> but also easier for us to work with.  Do you have any thoughts on  

> this?  We also use and/or recommend the cognitive training program  

> BrainWare Safari which trains 13 cognitive areas.  We've found it  

> works best with coaching to help students progress through it,  

> especially in the areas they are weak.  It would be great to get  

> some research on how these non-academic interventions are  

> benefitting learners with significant processing speed/fluency issues.

>

> Another area we focus on heavily is the process of handwriting.   

> Often learners with slow processing speed - and also attention and  

> focusing issues - have bad handwriting habits (writing bottom to  

> top, right to left, crazy pencil hold, reversals) and motor  

> planning.  Interestingly, fixing their handwriting typically results  

> in improvement in processing speed and attention.

>

> Many of our clients have huge anxiety issues when it comes to being  

> timed in reading.  Until about 6 years ago, we had to push hard to  

> get the teachers we trained to even consider training fluency  

> because they were not familiar with it and didn't think it was  

> important.  Since the National Reading Panel Report, NCLB and  

> Reading First, there has been an overemphasis on fluency - often to  

> exclusion of the other components of reading instruction.  We have  

> found that the weekly progress monitoring of fluency in struggling  

> readers (those at an intensive or strategic level) has resulted in a  

> spike in anxiety in students with reading, especially being timed.   

> As a result, we rarely use a timer anymore.

>

> I also appreciate your feedback, Brant, in another post about  

> programs that teach the structure of the English language.  In all  

> the hoopla surrounding reading instruction and money dedicated to  

> improving it, I find a pervasive and consistent resistance in  

> schools - in classrooms especially - to teach students the logic of  

> the English alphabetic code and the skills that go along with it.   

> An analogy would be expecting to move into a house before it's even  

> been built!  I just finished a session with a 1st grader who is  

> being marked down when he tried to blend words in school - they want  

> him to know all the words automatically (by memory)- in the  

> beginning of first grade!  A multisensory approach of teaching the  

> structure is necessary not only for struggling readers but for ALL  

> readers.  Getting educators to be aware of this - and to do  

> something about it - is crucial!  I had an email from a curriculum  

> director last week sharing that 90% of their district's 8th graders  

> were below grade level in reading on the Brigance test.  This is not  

> uncommon and I have found that very few students of any ability  

> level are reading to their potential because they lack knowledge of  

> the structure of the English language.  For example, we had a  

> student in the summer who got an ACT score of 32.  He got a perfect  

> 36 in math, a 35 in science and in the high 20's in English and  

> Reading.  We worked with him for less than 2 hours and when he took  

> the test a few weeks later, his score was 35!

>

> Mary, thank you for sharing your experience with Phono-Graphix.  I  

> will always be grateful to them for starting me off on the correct  

> path of how to really teach reading.  You shared about your student  

> who made 5 grade levels of gains (which we commly seewith students  

> 5th grade and older) - what tests did you use with him (or with your  

> students in general?)  I know one of the posts questioned the tests  

> used with such large gains in short amounts of time and I can  

> understand that.  What tests, in your opinion, are universally  

> accepted?  A big challenge of mine (and schools using EBLI) has been  

> doubt that such gains could be made in such a short amount of time.   

> We have had many, many students test out of special ed (in one  

> district, 30% of their 4th grade SpEd students no longer qualified  

> for services!) and I know their testing is usually every 3 years.   

> We tell parents to request retesting to see if their student still  

> qualifies. We have also had astonishing gains on ACT tests (up to 4  

> points on the composite score after 2-6 hours of instruction),  

> double digit gains on the MEAP by districts using EBLI, and huge  

> DIBELS increases, too.  I would really love to get a double blind  

> study of EBLI done.  Does anyone have suggestions on how to make  

> that happen?

>

> I'm going to sign off and read the rest of the posts.  I greatly  

> appreciate the time and energy everyone has put into this discussion!

>

> Best,

> Nora

>

>

> Nora Chahbazi, President

> EBLI Evidence-Based Literacy Instruction

> Ounce of Prevention Reading Center

> www.ebli.org

> 810.732.4810

> fax 810.732.0366

>

>

>

>

> From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov 

> ] On Behalf Of Brant Hayenga

> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:19 AM

> To: 'The Learning Disabilities Discussion List'

> Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4133] Re: Learning expectations

>

> Thanks Nora,

> Your question has many parts to it:

>

> I'd like to ask the panel: can dyslexics learn to read at or above  

> their grade/age level and be able to function easily in these areas  

> or do you think they will always be struggling readers?  If so, what  

> are your expectations of the level of expertise they can attain with  

> reading/spelling/writing?  What has your experience been with  

> this?   It depends on the type and severity of the underlying  

> cognitive processing deficits that each person has, and on the age  

> at which appropriate intervention begins. There is research that  

> demonstrates that students identified early (kinder and first grade)  

> as at risk for reading failure can, if given appropriately intensive  

> remediation, be brought into the average range compared to other  

> students their age. Remember that average reading performance ranges  

> from the 25% to the 75%. Rates of learning for students well below  

> the 10% in reading performance are often different than students who  

> are below average, but above the 10%. In my practice the students  

> below the 10% are usually the students with multiple cognitive  

> processing deficits (phonological, rapid naming, processing speed,  

> verbal working memory).

>

>

> Word reading accuracy and comprehension have been shown to be  

> remediable in between 50-100 hours of instruction (for students  

> below the 10%, students entering remediation at a higher level often  

> require fewer hours), but fluency (rate and prosody) has been shown  

> to be very difficult to remediate in older students (but can be  

> remediated in younger students). Joseph Torgesen says:

>

> The results of interventions conducted with older children (ages  

> 9-12) who were provided 50-100 hours of relatively intense (one-to- 

> one or small group), phonemically explicit, systematic instruction.  

> In some ways the results are promising: These older students made  

> substantial progress in the essential skills of phonemic decoding,  

> reading accuracy, and reading comprehension. But only students with  

> very mild reading problems made any real progress in fluency. Even  

> an intervention that made use of the most effective strategy known  

> to increase fluency (repeated reading of words, phrases, and  

> passages) had very little impact on the relative reading fluency of  

> students with severe impairments (Torgesen, Rashotte, Alexander,  

> Alexander, and MacPhee, 2003). It is important to understand that  

> all of these older students in the studies in Table 2 increased in  

> reading fluency inabsolute terms (they were able to read passages of  

> equivalent difficulty more fluently after the intervention than  

> prior to the intervention). However, for students with moderate to  

> severe problems with word-level fluency, their increased fluency on  

> low-level passages did not produce a significant “closing of the  

> gap” in fluency compared to peers who were reading at average levels  

> for their age.

>

> These studies reflect one of the consistent findings in our research  

> on interventions with late elementary children: If children’s  

> impairments in word-reading ability have reached moderate or severe  

> levels, our current interventions cannot typically bring their  

> reading fluency rates to the average range. Although the gap in  

> reading accuracy and comprehension can be substantially or  

> completely closed by current interventions even with these older  

> children, the gap in fluency has remained much less tractable to  

> intervention for moderately and seriously impaired older children.  

> (Fortunately, preventive studies with younger children have not  

> found such problems with later fluency.)

>

>

> Also, what type of instruction, specifically, have they found to be  

> most effective in teaching reading and spelling to dyslexics?  How  

> long, on average, does this instruction take and what are, on  

> average, the gains to be expected in that amount of time? There are  

> numerous studies that demonstrate the 50-100 hour range as a minimum  

> period of instruction. An accumulating body of research appears to  

> indicate that the specific curriculum is not as important as how it  

> is delivered. Jack Fletcher states in Learning Disabilities that, “A  

> variety of approaches are associated with improvement. It is clear  

> that the program is less important than how it is delivered, with  

> the most impressive gains associated with more intensity and an  

> explicit and systematic delivery. To reiterate a critical finding,  

> programs that are explicit, oriented to academic content, teach to  

> mastery, provide scaffolding and emotional support, and monitor  

> progress are particularly effective.” This statement is based on a  

> meta-analysis of reading remediation studies.

>

>

> What assessment measures do you recommend?  Should this instruction  

> be different than how the non-dyslexic population is taught?  Why or  

> why not? See answer to Hugo’s question for types of skills and  

> processing that should be assessed. As per instruction for dyslexic  

> students, I believe that it does need to be different than  

> instruction for non-dyslexic students. Instruction for dyslexic  

> students needs to be:

> More explicit – this means that we do not leave to chance any  

> necessary skills. Things that non-impaired learners might implicitly  

> pick up are often missed by dyslexic students.

> More intensive- Dyslexic students’ rate of learning is lower than  

> other students. They need many more teaching/learning opportunities  

> to make adequate progress.

> More supportive – Dyslexic students are highly at risk for emotional  

> interference with their learning. They benefit from lots of positive  

> emotional support, corrective feedback, encouragement, and a high  

> ratio of successful learning experiences. It takes careful planning  

> and monitoring to supply this type and quantity of support.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Brant Hayenga

> Educational Diagnostician

> Stapleton Elementary/Rio Rancho Middle School

> (505) 896-0667 ext. 226 (District Office)

> (505) 891-8473 ext. 519 (Stapleton Elementary)

> bhayenga at rrps.net

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

> Email delivered to mcarro at lmi.net


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20091031/12c42c2b/attachment.html