As the Head of The Windward School, which serves students with language-based learning disabilities, I am distressed, but not at all surprised, by the results of a recent survey that was conducted The National Committee on Learning Disabilities (NCLD).
The Survey of Public Perceptions of Learning Disabilities was conducted in August 2012 by Lindberg International, which collected data from a random sampling of approximately 2000 adults across the United States via an online survey. These are a few examples of the results:
Many respondents (43 percent) wrongly think that learning disabilities are correlated with IQ.
Nearly a quarter of respondents (22 percent) think learning disabilities can be caused by too much time spent watching television; 31 percent believe a cause is poor diet; 24 percent believe a cause is childhood vaccinations (none are factors).
Over half of the respondents (55 percent) wrongly believe that corrective eyewear can treat certain learning disabilities.
Over a third of respondents (34 percent) believe that students with a learning disability harm the overall classroom experience.
Over a third of parents (36 percent) said that their child?s school inadequately measured for learning disabilities.
Over two-thirds of parents (64 percent) said that their child?s school doesn?t provide information on learning disabilities.
This sampling is thought to be representative of the American population. While these results are clearly cause for concern, the experiences of learning disabled students and their parents with education professionals are far more troubling.
Over just the past few years, I have encountered hundreds of cases where families were given unacceptable responses to children's learning issues from school professionals who were supposed to be assisting them. A few examples will illustrate the scope of the problem. One Windward parent had her child evaluated by her local school district. The psychologist who conducted the testing reported to the parent that her son could not be learning disabled because "his IQ scores are too high." Another parent of a bright kindergarten student confided to her daughter's teacher at a respected independent school that she was concerned because her child seemed to be struggling with the alphabet. After being told by the teacher not to worry and to give the child "the gift" of another year, the family had the girl evaluated privately and was told that she was dyslexic. The family was relieved to have identified the problem and happily shared the results with her school in expectation that the school would be able to address the girl's learning disability. Instead, the school told the family that it would be impossible for their daughter to continue there.
Far too frequently learning disabled students directly suffer significant negative consequences due to misconceptions that poorly informed teachers have about learning disabilities. One Windward student wrote: ?At my former school, if I didn?t answer a question correctly, the other students would laugh at me and I would feel very stupid and embarrassed. Being different felt awful.? Another student wrote: ?Imagine going to school everyday and praying that you won?t be called up to read. ... imagine knowing that you try your best in school every day but still have report cards that say you are failing, not trying and need to start making an effort in school.? No child should ever have these horrible memories of school!
Unfortunately these are not isolated cases and the damage is not limited to emotional scars. Between 10 to 20 percent of all students are learning disabled and dyslexia is the most common of the language-based learning disabilities. Countless studies confirm that there is a wide gap between the instructional programs that these students currently receive in public and private schools and the research-based program that they need to be successful. Abysmal results on standardized tests of reading provide stark evidence of the lack of effective instruction for all disabled students including those with language-based disabilities such as dyslexia. On the 2011 administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 68 percent of disabled 4th graders and 65 percent of disabled students in grade 8 scored below the basic level. According to NAEP, "fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to locate relevant information, make simple inferences, and use their understanding of the text to identify details that support a given interpretation or conclusion." NAEP reports that "eighth-grade students performing at the Basic level should be able to locate information; identify statements of main idea, theme, or author's purpose; and make simple inferences from texts." More simply put, basic level reading skills are the minimum skills necessary to be successful in secondary school. Results on the New York Sate English Language Arts (ELA) exams are equally dismal. On the 2011 version of the ELA 84 percent of all disabled students in grades 3-8 were found to be below proficient in their reading skills.
The scope of the problem is enormous. In schools across the country, bright, capable, learning disabled students face plummeting self-confidence simply because there is a lack of understanding about their true capabilities. They are threatened with academic frustration and outright failure simply because they are not receiving appropriate research-based instruction. At Windward we have clear, unequivocal evidence that students with language-based learning disabilities can succeed. Windward is committed to making research-based instruction the norm for all students rather than the rare exception that it is today and to dispelling the harmful misconceptions about learning disabilities that are so common among the general public and educators. Clearly, Windward alone cannot accomplish these ambitious goals. We believe that it is time to elevate the discussion of dyslexia and language-based learning disabilities to a national level so that the vast potential of learning disabled students can be realized in every school.
Recently, the New York City Education Department announced that in 2012 only 55 percent of eligible teachers were awarded tenure. In comparison, 97 percent of eligible teachers received tenure in 2007. Mayor Bloomberg and the Education Department deserve kudos for making tenure something more than a right of passage and raising the standards by which it is granted. While the low percentage of teachers receiving tenure raises serious questions about the qualifications of the teachers that are hired and the level of support they receive in their first years of teaching, the root cause of this high failure rate can be directly traced to the pre-service education that prospective teachers receive.
The most striking example of the failure of colleges and universities to educate teachers adequately is in the preparation that elementary school teachers receive in reading instruction. In order to teach reading effectively, teachers must be knowledgeable of oral and written language concepts as well as the most effective research-based instructional practices (Budin, Mather, & Cheesman, 2010). Unfortunately, there remains a significant disconnect between the preparation teachers need in order to meet these standards and the preparation they actually receive in their pre-service and graduate education courses. Teacher preparation programs simply do not sufficiently prepare new teachers for the classroom. In the Journal of Learning Disabilities (2009), Louisa Moats cites research by Walsh, Glaser, & Dunne-Wilcox (2006) in which it was found that courses provided in teacher licensing programs are often insufficient in content and design to enable the students to learn the subject matter and apply it to the teaching of reading. An earlier study (Moats & Lyon, 1996) also demonstrated that teachers have insufficiently developed concepts about language and pervasive conceptual weaknesses in the very skills that are needed for direct, systematic, language-focused reading instruction, such as the abilities to count phonemes and to identify phonic relationships. Moats and Lyons hypothesis has been confirmed by Cheesman et al. (2009) who found that only 18 percent of first-year teachers could distinguish between phonemic awareness and phonics instruction. Since reading difficulties are the most common cause of academic failure and student underachievement, it is imperative that these instructional deficits of teachers be addressed.
Ideally colleges and universities would stop indoctrinating new teachers with outdated and incorrect beliefs about how to teach reading, many of which have been directly contradicted by research. Mark Seidenberg (2012) described the problem more directly: Few prospective teachers are exposed to modern research that is relevant to their jobs. They are unprepared to critically assess scientific claims, leaving them vulnerable to fads and fallacies. Since pre-service programs are failing to prepare new teachers and denying tenure to large numbers of teachers is costly and inefficient, professional development focused on research-based instructional practices is critical in supporting teachers new to the profession.
The Windward School has long recognized the importance of professional development in research-based instructional practices as an effective mechanism to develop the expertise necessary to effectively teach language, reading, and writing. A significant portion of the program is focused on closing the gap between a teachers knowledge and the effective implementation of sound reading and writing instruction. A vivid example of the School's commitment to professional development is the construction of a new, state-of-art facility for the Windward Teacher Training Institute (WTTI) at the West Red Oak campus. The Windward Teacher Training Institute offers a comprehensive professional development program to the entire Windward faculty and to teachers from the broader educational community.
Despite overwhelming evidence documenting the effectiveness of research-based instruction, most colleges and universities still do not provide pre-service programs focused on instructional practices that have been scientifically validated. To address this deficiency in pre-service preparation, The Windward School and other schools provide professional development programs in research-based instructional practices so that dedicated, conscientious teachers are able to succeed.
Since the Individuals with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were originally enacted, the rights that these laws grant students have frequently been denied by schools. The case that Tom Freston brought against New York City is a prime example of the constant struggle that parents of disabled students face. In 1997, Mr. Frestons son, then 8 years old, was having difficulty with reading. After educational consultants, hired by Mr. Freston, determined that the educational options offered by the New York City public schools were inappropriate, Mr. Freston placed his son in a private school that specialized in learning disabilities. He then sought tuition reimbursement from the City under the provisions of ADA that entitled his son to a free and appropriate education. The City refused to pay claiming that a child must first fail in a public school before a parent can place the child in a private school and receive tuition reimbursement.
Mr. Freston filed a lawsuit in which he stated that he wanted to make sure that families with disabled children receive appropriate services from public schools. If the public schools cannot provide these appropriate services, then parents are entitled to tuition reimbursement. In October 2007, ten years after the initial suit, the United States Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that New York City had to reimburse the Frestons for their tuition payments. Mr. Freston donated the reimbursed funds to establish a tutorial program for struggling public school students.
Tom Frestons lawsuit established that the nations principal special education law guarantees every student a free appropriate public education and requires school systems to pay for private placements when their own programs or classrooms are not suitable. While this was a landmark victory for all students with disabilities, it is just one chapter in a continuing battle to ensure the rights of disabled students.
Here is the very troubling reality that far too many students face: 8 million American students in grades 4 to 12 are not fluent readers (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) and 3,000 students drop out of high school every day because of poor reading and writing skills (Partnership for Reading, 2003). The National Assessment of Educational Progress consistently finds that about 36 percent of all fourth graders read at a level described as below basic. According to the International Dyslexia Associations new Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading (IDA, 2010), between 30 and 50 percent of students are at risk for inadequate reading and writing development. The report posits that most of these at-risk students are not being identified as eligible for special education services. As a result, they are not receiving the type of instruction that they require; instead they are dependent on the instruction given in mainstream classrooms.
As these appalling results clearly indicate, there are far too many teachers and administrators who are woefully ignorant of the research-based strategies that have been proven to help all students read proficiently and to reach their true academic potential.
At the federal level, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released a report showing that many students with learning and other disabilities, including dyslexia, are being denied accommodations, such as extended testing time when they take high-stakes examinations, such as the SAT, GRE, or LSAT. The end results are that otherwise qualified disabled students are being rejected from colleges and universities based on test scores that do not reflect their true abilities.
At the state level, pressure is being placed on state lawmakers to reduce the costs that public school districts face. For example, advocates for districts across the state are urging cuts to transportation budgets. This would be an unfair burden for thousands of families of disabled students across New York State.
There are, however, a few bright spots in the struggle to preserve the rights of disabled students including the work of Rep. Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) and Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) who have proposed a bipartisan dyslexia congressional caucus to raise awareness of the challenges dyslexic students face on a daily basis. Representatives Cassidy and Stark, both parents of dyslexic children, plan to pursue policies that will permit dyslexic students to reach their full potential.
To deny disabled students the access to the programs and accommodations that they are rightfully entitled to under the law further exacerbates the considerable challenges that these students face every day in schools. America cannot afford to waste human capital or squander the talents of any of its students.
The fire that took the lives of Lily, Sarah and Grace Badger was an unimaginable tragedy for everyone blessed to have known and love them. First and foremost, of course, is the Badger family. Losing a child is every parents worst nightmare and as we awoke Christmas morning to learn of this unthinkable event, millions grieved with them. For another family, the loss of these three beautiful young girls also left a hole that will never be filled. Their classmates, teachers and the entire Windward School family, we too lost three of our own.
How do you explain death to children who have just started to live? How do explain that a friend, who played with them just last week, is gone forever? How do you provide answers to questions without creating more questions?
It is something virtually every school leader will eventually have to face - how to help children and their families, teachers and staff members, deal with sudden, unexplainable loss. While thankfully, this has only been necessary a few times in my over 40 years in public and private education, each time I am reminded that a school is more than classrooms and curriculum, it is in so many ways a family. And, it is how we come together as a family, particularly at a time like this, which can make all the difference.
It is essential to bring the entire school together immediately and approach the issue with openness, honesty and compassion. While the initial tendency might be to protect and shield a child, it is important to deal with the issue head-on, recognizing that each child is different. Some will want to talk about what they are feeling even if it is to ask questions. Others will withdraw. Teachers and parents need to allow each child to decipher things in their own way on their own schedule, while providing continuous love and support.
It is also important to reach out to experts. In our case, Dr. Harold Koplewicz, the founding psychiatrist at The Child Mind Institute, provided information on how parents can talk with children about the loss of a friend on the Institutes website. Patty Donovan-Duff, the Director of the Bereavement Center of Westchester, created access to their counselors and our own school psychologists and counselors were on call for any child or family that needed guidance.
As we returned from the holiday break, it was clear that the world had changed. I saw it in the eyes of our teachers and felt it in the hallways. While everyone did a wonderful job to get everyone back into the classrooms, it will be a long, slow healing process as it should be. Everyone at Windward will always carry Lily, Sarah and Grace in their hearts. They are a part of what makes us who we are - a school, a community, a family.
The fire that took the lives of Lily, Sarah and Grace Badger was an unimaginable tragedy for everyone blessed to have known and love them. First and foremost, of course, is the Badger family. Losing a child is every parents worst nightmare and as we awoke Christmas morning to learn of this unthinkable event, millions grieved with them. For another family, the loss of these three beautiful young girls also left a hole that will never be filled. Their classmates, teachers and the entire Windward School family, we too lost three of our own.
How do you explain death to children who have just started to live? How do explain that a friend, who played with them just last week, is gone forever? How do you provide answers to questions without creating more questions?
It is something virtually every school leader will eventually have to face - how to help children and their families, teachers and staff members, deal with sudden, unexplainable loss. While thankfully, this has only been necessary a few times in my over 40 years in public and private education, each time I am reminded that a school is more than classrooms and curriculum, it is in so many ways a family. And, it is how we come together as a family, particularly at a time like this, that can make all the difference.
It is essential to bring the entire school together immediately and approach the issue with openness, honesty and compassion. While the initial tendency might be to protect and shield a child, it is important to deal with the issue head-on, recognizing that each child is different. Some will want to talk about what they are feeling even if it is to ask questions. Others will withdraw. Teachers and parents need to allow each child to decipher things in their own way on their own schedule, while providing continuous love and support.
It is also important to reach out to experts. In our case, Dr. Harold Koplewicz, the founding psychiatrist at The Child Mind Institute, provided information on how parents can talk with children about the loss of a friend on the Institutes website. Patty Donovan-Duff, the Director of the Bereavement Center of Westchester, created access to their counselors and our own school psychologists and counselors were on call for any child or family that needed guidance.
As we returned from the holiday break, it was clear that the world had changed. I saw it in the eyes of our teachers and felt it in the hallways. While everyone did a wonderful job to get everyone back into the classrooms, it will be a long, slow healing process. As it should be. Everyone at Windward will always carry Lily, Sarah and Grace in their hearts. They are a part of what makes us who we are - a school, a community, a family.
On August 8th the New York State Education Department released the results of the Math and English Language Arts (ELA) testing taken last May by students in grades 3 through 8. Given the overwhelming influence that English Language Arts has on students future success in school, it is absolutely essential that students perform at least at the proficient level on the English Language Arts (ELA) exams.
Across the state, 52.8 percent of students in grades 3 through 8 met or exceeded the proficiency standard. For students with disabilities the results were far more distressing with only 14.5 percent of these students meeting or exceeding the proficiency standard. In New York City, only 43.9 percent of all students and 14.2 percent of students with disabilities in grades 3 through 8 met or exceeded the standard.
Responding to these results, Regents Chancellor Merryl H. Tisch stated, "These results underscore the urgent need for New York to continue to aggressively move forward with the implementation of the Regents' reform agenda. Echoing the Chancellors concerns, New York State Education Commissioner John B. King, Jr. said, "Student outcomes have been stubbornly flat over time. The Regents reform agenda is designed to change that, by driving long-term gains in student performance.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg focused his comments on the gains that the New York City public schools made. This year 43.9 percent of students in grades 3-8 met or exceeded the English proficiency standard compared to 42.4 percent last year. All of our students, teachers and principals should be very proud of their progress and the fact that we continue to raise achievement levels and outpace the rest of the state, said Mayor Bloomberg. But as much progress as we have made, we know we have much more work to do. We are fully committed to ensuring that all of our students are prepared for a successful future.
Mayor Bloomberg appropriately offered encouragement to pupils, teachers and principals for the gains that have been achieved. The results for New York City students are, however, nothing short of alarming: over 56 percent of city students do not have the skills to be considered merely proficient and over 85 percent of the students with disabilities do not possess the language arts skills necessary for future school success. These students do not have the luxury of waiting for the Mayors promise of being fully committed to ensuring that all of our students are prepared for a successful future to become a reality. Nor can the students of New York State wait for the Regents reform agenda to produce the promised long-term gains in student performance. Based on the predictive power of the English Language Arts exams, if you are currently a student in New York State, your chances for future success in school are a little better than 50/50 and if you are student with a disability your prospects for school success are virtually non-existent.
It does not have to be this way. First, educational leaders need to admit the truth about these results they are unacceptable. Second, as Chancellor Tisch admonished, there must be a sense of urgency in increasing the number of students who are proficient in English Language Arts. Third, schools can provide students with direct instruction in research-based reading and writing programs that have proven records of success. Finally, dedicated teachers and principals must have the professional development and resources necessary to deliver these programs.
In his "FROM the FOUNDERS" editorial in the March 2011 issue of Greenwich Magazine, Jack Moffly, the founder and editor emeritus, of the magazine states: "There should be no mystery why our public school system is struggling to improve its test scores even as it spends $4,500 more per student than the state average. This can be attributed in part, but not entirely, to the burden of special ed." Unfortunately, Mr. Moffly is not alone in his mistaken notion that special education is a "burden" to be endured. Professionals, who should know better, also have very disturbing misconceptions about students who require special education services. At a recent CSE meeting for a student at the Windward School, a school for students with language-based learning disabilities, the chairperson of the meeting blurted out her belief that learning disabled students do not respond to intervention. In essays written by students who attend Windward School, we find equally alarming reports of misunderstandings by teachers who worked on a daily basis with these students in their former schools. One student commented, "Imagine going to school every day and praying that you won't be called up to read. Now imagine knowing that you try your best in school every day but still have report cards that say you are failing, not trying and need to start making an effort in school."
In response to Mr. Moffly's editorial comments, I sent the following letter to him.
While it is addressed to Mr. Moffly, its real audience is all those who under-value the potential of students who receive special education services and consider special education a "burden."
Dear Mr. Moffly,
I am the Head of the Windward School which serves students with language-based learning disabilities. I am disturbed by your statement: "There should be no mystery why our public school system is struggling to improve its test scores even as it spends $4,500 more per student than the state average. This can be attributed in part, but not entirely, to the burden of special ed." Contrary to your assertion, being identified as a student in need of special education services does not preclude attaining high levels of achievement.
In his book, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell contends that the extraordinarily successful individuals he studied did not reach their level of achievement by pure merit. He posits that "the outliers in a particular field reached their lofty status through a combination of ability, opportunity, and utterly arbitrary advantage." Gladwell' thesis has serious implications for educational institutions like Windward, where admission to the school can be the difference between educational success and failure.
Part of Windward's unique mission is to return students to the mainstream as soon as they are ready. Research conducted at the University of Oregon indicates that students scoring in the lowest 20 percent on a standardized reading test should be considered at significant risk for poor reading and language outcomes (Good et al, 2002). Between 2005 and 2010, 729 Windward students have returned to public and independent schools. When these students first entered Windward, their performance on standardized reading tests put 30 percent of them at significant risk of not achieving the literacy benchmarks. Simply stated, the research indicated that 220 of these 729 students were at risk of not being successful in school.
In spite of this dire prediction, the teaching methods employed at Windward allowed these children to make huge strides in reading as demonstrated by the Schools cohort analysis of the performance of students who leave the school. When the 2005-2010 cohorts left Windward, 95 percent of the students scored in the "average to above average" range in vocabulary and 97 percent scored in the same range for reading comprehension.
In addition, Windward continues to monitor our students' progress once they have returned to mainstream schools. When a student has been at a new school for at least two years, administrators and guidance counselors are asked to complete a survey evaluating their performance. Approximately half of the students attend independent schools after leaving Windward and half go on to public schools. Results indicate that over 90 percent of Windward graduates are performing academically at or above the average of their grade-level peers.
Unfortunately, while Windward students are making the most of what Gladwell might call an "arbitrary advantage," other equally deserving students do not get this opportunity. Gladwell's work and the experiences of countless families reinforce the need to provide more students with instructional programs that allow them to reach their full potential. Through its outreach efforts and the Teacher Training Institute, Windward is committed to making the "utterly arbitrary advantage" of research-based instruction the norm for all students rather than the rare exception that it is today. In the absence of effective instructional practices that address their learning needs, it is the special education students who are burdened -- not the school or school district.
Sincerely,
Dr. John J. Russell, Head of School
The reality is that special education students who receive research-based instruction are capable of achieving academic success. With real accomplishment, they are able to restore their confidence and self-esteem, which all too often have been damaged by the careless comments of those who consider special education a "burden." A seventh-grade student summed it up this way, "Have you ever had serious trouble in school? Teachers yelling at students can really hurt self-esteem. I know because it happened to me; however thanks to Windward, I have improved not only my academic performance, but how I feel about myself as well!"
The American Association of School Administrators (AASA), which represents school superintendents from across the country, recently published A Cliff Hanger: How America's Public Schools Continue to Feel the Impact of the Economic Downturn (AASA, 2010). The report glumly predicted that 50 percent of the superintendents who responded to the survey that was the basis of this report will reduce or eliminate funds for professional development in 2010‐11, up from 22 percent in 2009‐10 and 9 percent in 2008‐09. Budget cuts in areas that directly impact student learning and achievement, like lack of funds for professional development for teachers, are detrimental to all students and especially for students with learning disabilities. Plans to drastically reduce professional development stand in stark contrast to the recommendations of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) that are found in the new Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading (IDA, 2010).
The IDA report begins by stating that reading difficulties are the most common cause of academic failure and underachievement. The National Assessment of Educational Progress consistently finds that about 36% of all fourth graders read at a level described as "below basic." According to the IDA between 30 and 50% of students are at risk for inadequate reading and writing development. The report posits that most of these at-risk students are ineligible for special education services and are dependent on the instruction given in the regular classroom.
The IDA report goes on to describe the scope of the problem and clearly states the reason why professional development is so important in supporting classroom teachers and the at-risk students they teach:
"Teaching language, reading, and writing effectively, especially to students experiencing difficulty, requires considerable knowledge and skill. Regrettably, the licensing and professional development practices currently endorsed by many states are insufficient for the preparation and support of teachers and specialists. Researchers are finding that those with reading specialist and special education licenses often know no more about research-based, effective practices than those with general education teaching licenses. The majority of practitioners at all levels have not been prepared in sufficient depth to prevent reading problems, to recognize early signs of risk, or to teach students with dyslexia and related learning disabilities successfully." (IDA, 2010)
The IDA standards identify professional competencies that are necessary for teaching students with reading disabilities and learning differences. It is important to note that these standards are applicable for all teachers of reading, general educators as well as specialists (Spear-Swerling, 2010). The IDA standards are built on the large body of research documenting that teachers must be knowledgeable of the oral and written language concepts as well as the most effective research-based instructional practices (Budin, Mather, & Cheesman, 2010).
As stated previously, there is a significant disconnect between the preparation teachers need in order to meet these standards and what they actually get in their pre-service education courses. In one of many studies that confirm the lack of teacher knowledge of the structure of language, Cheesman et al. (2009) found that only 18% of first-year teachers could distinguish between phonemic awareness and phonics instruction.
Deficiencies in teacher preparation can be addressed through professional development, but only if school budgets provide the funds. If schools are going to reduce academic failure and underachievement, comprehensive professional development is a necessity.
In May 2008, Mark McQuillan, the Connecticut Commissioner of Education, issued a memorandum outlining the requirements for early childhood and elementary education certification that the State Board of Education had recently enacted. As of July 1, 2009, in order to obtain certification in either of these critical areas, teachers in Connecticut have to demonstrate their knowledge of foundations of reading development, development of reading comprehension, and reading assessment and instruction.
Teachers applying for these certifications in Connecticut are now required to pass tests in each of these disciplines. In order to pass the test of reading development, teachers have to demonstrate their understanding of phonological and phonemic awareness, concepts of print and the alphabetic principle, the role of phonics in promoting reading development, and word analysis skills and strategies. For the section on development of reading comprehension, teachers must display their understanding of vocabulary development, how to apply reading comprehension skills and strategies to imaginative/literary texts and informational/expository texts. For the test on reading assessment and instruction, teachers need to show that they understand formal and informal methods of assessing reading development and multiple approaches to reading instruction.
Connecticut's actions were newsworthy even though these instructional competencies were contained in the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (2000) that were published years earlier. The reason that the change to Connecticut's certification was still noteworthy is depressingly simple. Despite the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of instruction delivered by teachers well-informed in these areas, few states have made significant changes to their certification requirements in response to the recommendations of the National Reading Panel. As a result of the failure of states and schools to require teachers to be knowledgeable of evidence-based reading instruction practices, up to 40 percent of students in the United States are struggling or failing readers (Lyon, 1998). To the casual observer, the root causes of this disastrous disconnect between scientific knowledge and actual practice are not at all obvious, but the very troubling results are: 8 million American students in grades 4 to 12 are not fluent readers (U.S. Department of Education, 2001), and 3,000 students drop out of high school every day because of poor reading and writing skills (Partnership for Reading, 2003).
Inadequate certification requirements are only part of the problem. Teacher preparation programs simply do not sufficiently prepare new teachers. In the Journal of Learning Disabilities (2009), Louisa Moats cites research by Walsh, Glaser and Dunne-Wilcox (2006) in which they found that: "Courses provided in teacher licensing programs are often insufficient in content and design to enable the students to learn the subject matter and apply it to the teaching of reading." Moats' observations are confirmed by an analysis of the results of the Connecticut certification test in which "about one in three test-takers in teacher preparation programs at colleges and universities across the state have failed the exam since the state began using it last year as a licensing requirement" (The Connecticut Mirror, February 10, 2010), and failure rates exceeded 40 percent at some of the state's largest teacher preparation programs.
Joshi et al. writing in the Journal of Learning Disabilities (September, 2009) confirmed the deficiencies in teacher education programs, stating: "The National Council on Teacher Quality (Walsh, Glaser and Wilcox, 2006) concluded that many schools of education may not be teaching their pre-service teachers the basic knowledge required to teach literacy skills." An earlier study (Moats and Lyon, 1996) also demonstrated that teachers have "insufficiently developed concepts about language and pervasive conceptual weaknesses in the very skills that are needed for direct, systematic, language-focused reading instruction, such as the abilities to count phonemes and to identify phonic relationships." In what can only be considered an understatement, Joshi (September, 2009) summarized his findings: "It would seem ... that we need to turn our attention to improving teacher education and teacher development at the early grade levels by providing intensive instruction on the linguistic features of the English language."
Based on these studies and the poor performance on the Connecticut certification test, it is clear pre-service teachers are not getting the content they need to be effective teachers of reading. Unfortunately, that is only part of the problem. Remarkably, Joshi and his colleagues also found that many instructors who teach reading are not themselves equipped to teach pre-service teachers about the structure of language. In Joshi's study the Survey of Language Constructs Related to Literacy Acquisition was administered to 78 college and university instructors who were responsible for teaching reading education classes to prospective reading teachers. Of the instructors, 68 had doctoral degrees and 10 were working on their doctoral degrees; all had previously taught in elementary schools. They came from 30 different colleges from the southwest United States. Their scores on the various domains tested were: phonology 78.97 percent, phonics 56.47 percent, morphology 34.36 percent, and comprehension 57.5 percent.
Given this worrisome condition of traditional teacher preparation programs, states are now turning to alternate paths to master's degrees and certification. The New York State Board of Regents recently approved a pilot program that will allow alternative organizations to create their own master's degree programs (New York Times, May 14, 2010). Organizations like Windward School applaud this initiative. At Windward, we have long recognized the deficits that smart, conscientious teachers bring with them simply because they did not receive proper training at their colleges and universities. To address this problem, Windward created the Teacher Training Institute (WTTI) in 1988. The WTTI is dedicated to providing the type of training that enables professionals to have the expertise needed to teach children of all abilities in both mainstream and remedial classrooms. It offers professional development based on the most current, scientifically validated research in child development, learning theory and pedagogy. WTTI courses, workshops and lectures translate this research into practical classroom applications. In spring 2007, Windward Teacher Training Institute became an accredited IMSLEC training center, enabling the WTTI to offer national certification in Multisensory Structured Language Education.
Before a teacher is given full teaching responsibility at Windward, the teacher must complete courses in scientifically validated strategies for teaching reading, writing and language that are offered by the WTTI. In addition to completing these courses, teachers new to Windward are typically required to work under the direct supervision of a master teacher for two years. This commitment to professional development continues throughout a teacher's career at Windward where each Friday afternoon is devoted to professional development. Windward's program for professional development is consistent with the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (2000) and produces results that are in stark contrast to national data. At Windward, students who come to the school as struggling readers and writers leave with the skills and competencies that consistently place 90 percent of them at or above their grade level peers on standardized tests.
Connecticut has taken the first step in a long overdue reform of the teacher certification process; the New York State Board of Regents' recent approval of alternate paths to master's degrees is also laudable. Windward has a proven program of professional development that makes it well positioned to support these much-needed changes.
In an article titled "For City Schools, A Mainstreaming on Special Needs," which appeared in the April 29 edition of The New York Times, Jennifer Medina reported that in New York City approximately 17 percent of the students are classified as needing special education services and that only 25 percent of these students received a regular diploma last year. The Bloomberg administration's response to these abysmal results is to propose placing these special-needs students in regular education classrooms, where an equally appalling 50 percent of the general education students graduate. While paying lip service to increasing accountability and educational opportunity, the Department of Education's real motivation is to cut funding to special education. In the end, the Department of Education would like to dramatically accelerate the integration of special education with general education to save money.
This proposal could have been written by Kafka himself. The twisted logic of the city's education department goes something like this. In order to help special-needs students, we will return them to the general education program that failed them in the first place. This, it is alleged, will give principals and local districts more flexibility in how to educate these special-needs students. In yet another Kafka-like twist, the proposal does not provide any professional development for the teachers who will have these special-needs students in their classes. It is difficult to image how anyone could consider this a recipe to improve educational outcomes; in fact it sounds like a formula for disaster.
The net effect of these recommendations is to give local districts and principals a great deal of discretion in providing special-education services, much as districts had 30 years ago before the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). As deplorable as the current results are for special-education students, the situation was far worse prior to the passage of IDEA in 1975. With increasing pressure to reduce budgets, it is reasonable to assume that these recommendations will result in far fewer funds being available for educating classified students who need additional support to succeed or for training the regular-education teachers who will have them in their classrooms.
These proposals should be of grave concern to every parent and educator committed to having each student reach his or her full potential.
I am not sure where you are getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic information I was looking for this information...
Most children that fall behind could have kept up had they had some one on one time with a teacher or more time with parents. Yet teachers are too busy to put time into individual students.
It would...
Dr. Russell is currently the Head of Windward School in White Plains, New York. Windward is a school that serves the needs of students with language-based learning disabilities. Over the past three decades...Read More
A Tragedy Brings a School Together as Family