I am a kindergarten teacher. I have students reading between DRA 3 and DRA 20 at the end of the year. Each child progresses at their own rate. Yes, I check their comprehension before assigning a reading level. The teacher will probably individualize each child's reading assignments, so they all progress.
I need some help! I am a former Reading Recovery teacher, but have teaching HS Social Studies for the past 8 years at a small alternative school. We have about 15 students reading WAY below grade level (some 2nd and 3rd - can call words but have no comprehension) and have gotten funding for a 4 week summer school to give them directed reading instruction. Our county wants us to use SRA - but I hate it - too scripted for me. Does anyone else out there have any suggestions. Some of the students would receive one on one instruction, but most will be taught in groups of 4/5. I really need some direction. Thanks in advance for your help!
Hi, You've got a serious challenge. I'd encourage you to look at materials that would help the students even if it doesn't match your teaching style. They have fallen through the cracks and they need multi-sensory, step by step phonetic instruction because they didn't get it in elementary school. I work with learning disabled readers daily and suggest Project Read or the Wilson Reading System as a good place to start. Good luck!
Several things you wrote caught my attention but I am not sure how in-depth you want the information. So for the sake of not getting so long-winded, here are some ideas.
Wilson - very good for making sure there are no more gaps in decoding. They also include methods for transferring decoding skills to fluent reading. Their methods include lessons to develop automatic decoding skills. They have a good selection of decodable text readers, which has been found to be critical for reinforcing decoding skills.
LANGUAGE! by Jane Fell Greene. This can be bought through Sopris West. I do not want to sound too enthusiastic about this program, but I really like it for several reasons. The capitalized spelling of LANGUAGE! followed by the exclamation is proprietary.
1 It is useful for students at all levels of reading - from students without reading disabilities to students who need to brush up on their writing skills. Some schools even use it as their curriculum.
2. It is set up so that you can pull out sheets and lessons that correlate to each student's level.
3. It addresses all areas of reading in a systematic and cumulative way this way you eliminate those gaps that high school students experience.
4. It does have decodable text readers which correspond to
5. Has everything you need.
However, whether you use Wilson or LANGUAGE! training is highly recommended - very important.
Here is some of my long-winded stuff,
The first thing that caught my attention is that you mention many of the children are well below grade level. If they are still stuck at the 2nd-3rd grade level, there is a good chance that they are still experiencing difficulty with accurate and automatic decoding. The second thing is that you mentioned you do not really like a scripted method, which is why I mention LANGUAGE!
Wilson is good for that. Some people think it is scripted but what it actually does is make sure that gaps are not missed. This is especially important because what we find often are students who have reached high school winging it even though they have had a reading problem all along and find that their main problem is that there are a lot of gaps in their ability to decode.
With your background you have probably noticed these problems and know what they mean but I will name some here for anyone else who is interested.
1. Some students may read phonetically regular words in a list very easily but when they read the same words in a sentence, they may decode them incorrectly. This means they really do not have a strong grasp on decoding and are trying to just get through the sentence.
For these students they may be able to be accurate when decoding words in a list because they can put all their effort into decoding just *one* word at a time.
Connected text reading, on the other hand, requires that the student try to decode a string of words. If they have not learned to decode accurately and automatically (reflexively, without thinking about it), they have to allocate all their cognitive resources to the mechanics of decoding and miss the meaning of the sentence.
The difference between a skilled reader who decodes automatically and an unskilled reader is milliseconds. Skilled readers perceive letter symbol patterns so automatically, they are not even aware they are reading or decoding.
We actually read every letter in a word. This raises hairs with a lot of people but here is the explanation.
Reading involves perceiving and discerning the differences in symbols (letters) and the pattern of symbol groupings. One letter can make one word different from another.
For example the reason we know the difference between r_se and r_se, is because of the single letter.
2. Other students, incorrectly decode words in sentences, then guess based on context. While using context cues is something many teachers are taught, it is important that this statement be clarified because for so long, teaching literature did not make clear what this means. As a result, problems persisted.
What that statement is supposed to say is that context cues are not used to figure out how to decode the word, but to figure out the meaning of the word after the student has been taught how to correctly decode the word.
What was found after studying unskilled readers who relied on this type of guessing is that they read less, did not develop the basic skills needed to sound out new words, read more slowly due to guessing at words and trying to peck and pick out of all the words they could find in their auditory cache of words to find a word that fit the sentence.
To address this temptation to prevent this inefficient way of reading, Wilson and other programs provide decodable (controlled) text books which correlate with the letter patterns taught. This way it reinforces accurate decoding over guessing. They also have methods for increasing automaticity, not to be confused with reading fluency.
Decodable texts contain only the words students have been taught to decode and that the student does not have to guess. This way they prevent the student from developing a habit of using context cues to *decode* words. This is very different from using context cues to determine the *meaning* of a word.
Here from a study by Goff The current science of reading indicates that "evidence suggests that observations that beginning {or unskllled older readers} readers depend heavily on context cues for word recognition should not be interpreted to mean that this practice should be reinforced in children learning to read. On the contrary, the modern evidence notes that able, mature readers recognize written words automatically, and thus make little use of context cues."
So there is a range of issues taking place in unskilled readers at the high school level. Wilson and LANGUAGE! would address the whole range of skill deficits.
mayOn 3/15/09, Kären wrote: > On 3/11/09, tcher wrote: >> Hey Guys, >> >> I need some help! I am a former Reading Recovery teacher, >> but have teaching HS Social Studies for the past 8 years >> at a small alternative school.
I have a question about a child. She is a second round child and on Observation Survey she read a level 9 text with 90%, 1:5, but scored a stanine of 1 on Word Reading test. She scored stanines of 4 on both writing vocab and HSIW. Does anyone have a thought about the low stanine scores and yet she is able to read a higher level text.
On 3/13/09, nancy...See MoreWhen a child reads on the word test, the only cueing system that is available to them is visual. When the child reads a text, all three cueing systems are available. This child's strength is using meaning and syntax. The 1:5 self-correction rate also probably indicates that using visual info is a challenge for the child.
On 3/13/09, nancy wrote: > I have a question about a child. She is a second round > child and on Observation Survey she read a level 9 text > with 90%, 1:5, but scored a stanine of 1 on Word Reading > test. She scored stanines of 4 on both writing vocab and > HSIW. Does anyone have a thought about the low stanine > scores and yet she is able to read a higher level text.
On 3/15/09, Janet wrote: > When a child reads on the word test, the only cueing system > that is available to them is visual. When the child reads a > text, all three cueing systems are available. This child's > strength is using meaning and syntax. The 1:5 self-correction > rate also probably indicates that using visual info is a > challenge for the child. > > > > On 3/13/09, nancy wrote: >> I have a question about a child. She is a second round >> child and on Observation Survey she read a level 9 text >> with 90%, 1:5, but scored a stanine of 1 on Word Reading >> test. She scored stanines of 4 on both writing vocab and >> HSIW. Does anyone have a thought about the low stanine >> scores and yet she is able to read a higher level text. >
On 3/15/09, Stellaluna wrote: > Thanks for sharing Jimmy... but RRCNA responded to this letter > 7 yrs ago when it first came out. Why don't you look at > something more recent like the What Works Clearinghouse
I have read responses from RR. They are playing catch up. RR seems to change due to criticisms about what it should provide not science. If it did make their changes based on science and research, they would not have began their program without the phonics piece.
This RR rep also said that they are concerned that the lack of fiscal support will undermine efforts to continue to "fine-tune" RR.
Then I ask, how is it that every other reading method has been able to fine tune itself without fiscal support? Orton Gillingham did it, Wilson did it, Language did it, a teacher who is well trained in various methods knows how to fine-tune her practice to meet student's needs.
That comment was propaganda to lobby for more money. That is marketing.
And about what Stellaluna said, unfortunately What Works only provides quantitative data. It does not discuss the merits of qualitative data.
As a result, the What Works recent rating of RR is worthless in providing a guide as to what works to address certain reading skills.
What Works looks at alphabetics, fluency and comprehension. All reading methods need to be tested using the *same* tests for each skill. This way we have the same basis for comparison.
On 3/15/09, Jimmy Kilpatrick wrote: > We are an international group of researchers who study > reading development and interventions with struggling > readers. This letter responds to a number of questions > that have been raised by educators, policymakers, and > parents about the effectiveness of Reading Recovery, a > tutoring program designed for struggling first grade > students. We hope the following summary analysis will be > helpful to those who are considering the most effective > ways to help struggling students become proficient readers.
On 3/16/09, Adrienne wrote: > It ...See MoreI don't have a book at all, it's a program developed by a local professor called Benchmark Word Parts, where the kids read the word part and then the whole word and have to do it quickly (ade as in made...etc) but I'm looking for ways to help the students generalize the word chunks. Thanks for the link.
On 3/16/09, Adrienne wrote: > It sounds like you are teaching using the "reading reflex" > method. You've probably already seen the stories in the > "Reading Reflex" book, but I'm just checking. > > > > > > > > On 3/16/09, Andrea wrote: >> Does anyone have free resources for stories or passages >> with controlled vocabulary? I'm focusing on word "chunks" >> with a student (_ade, _air, etc) that all have "a" in them >> and can't find resources for all of those things combined - >> it's either short a, a_e, or a vowel combo but not all or >> most of those things. I usually make up my own stories when >> needed but it's a real pain to reinvent the wheel and was >> hoping to avoid it this time!
(paste each link as a single l...See MoreOn 3/19/09, Diana wrote: > I am beginning the 6 Traits of Reading next year. Would > anyone know where I may be able to find some posters for > each trait? > Thanks > Diana
Do you want the 6 Traits of Writing, or 6 Traits of Reading? If it's 6 Traits of Writing, the following may help:
(paste each link as a single line without spaces)
FREE, PRINTABLE:
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
NOT FREE:
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
If it's 6 Traits of Reading, I don't have any poster resources for you, but I'd love more info about this.
On 3/21/09, lynne/ca wrote: > On 3/19/09, Diana wrote: >> I am beginning the 6 Traits of Reading next year. Would >> anyone know where I may be able to find some posters for >> each trait? >> Thanks >> Diana > > Do you want the 6 Traits of Writing, or 6 Traits of Reading? > If it's 6 Traits of Writing, the following may help: > > (paste each link as a single line without spaces) > > FREE, PRINTABLE: > > [link removed].
I have attend an OG program years ago and have now attended the Wilson training recently. Does anyone have any opinions on what OG based program has worked really well for them?
Good luck! >>> Hi Heather, >>> I am the parent of a son who is severely dyslexic and not >>> reading in the public school in sixth grade! He went to the >>> Kildonan School in Amenia New York for seven years and had >>> one on one OG tutoring 5 days a week and an hour and a half >>> of language training homework each night. I never thought he >>> would get out of reading at the 1.4 grade level! He worked so >>> very hard and had teachers who were all trained in OG. We >>> were blessed to have had Diana King the Founder of the school >>> as his tutor. It worked and he is a sophomore in college >>> right now. Life is far from easy but he is literate and a >>> wonderful writer! He has come further than all of us had >>> been told he would thanks to OG. If I had to do it all over >>> again I would have had an outside clinical evaluation and a >>> Fellow tutor in OG four years earlier. The earlier the better. >>> I am a strong advocate of OG as you can tell. It does take >>> rocket science to teach reading!!!
On 3/26/09, Heather wrote: > A very generic program is [link removed]!