ED 418 403

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONISSNPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

JOURNAL CITEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

CS 013 179

Kame'enui, Edward J.; Simmons, Deborah C.Beyond Effective Practice to Schools as Host Environments:Building and Sustaining a School-Wide Intervention Model inBeginning Reading.Oregon Univ., Eugene. Coll. of Education.ISSN-0095-66941998-00-0029p.

Oregon School Study Council, 213 Education Bldg., 1571 AlderSt., College of Education, 1215 University of Oregon,Eugene, OR 97403-1215 (nonmember price: $15; member price:$10; discount 10% for 10-24 copies and 20% for 25 or morecopies).Collected Works Serials (022) Reports Descriptive(141)

OSSC Bulletin; v41 n3 Spr 1998MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Beginning Reading; Early Intervention; *EducationalEnvironment; Models; Primary Education; ProgramEffectiveness; Program Implementation; *Reading Instruction;School Culture; Theory Practice Relationship

Suggesting that a missing link between effective practicesand their sustained implementation is the "host environment" into whichpractices, programs, procedures, and pedagogy are translated, this bulletindescribes the need for prevention and intervention models in beginningreading that are anchored to the school as the host environment. The model isdeveloped at the school-building level for a particular host environment andfor the long term; anchored to ongoing student performance in prioritysubject areas; customized by collaborative grade-level teams to fit and takehold at the school-building level; and tethered to a centralizeddata-management system. The paper contains three major sections: (1) a

conceptual framework for understanding and mapping the complex and multiplecontexts of schools; (2) a set of "big ideas" for designing effectivebeginning reading instruction for students in kindergarten through grade 3;and (3) the features of a school-wide intervention model customized forbeginning reading. Contains several unnumbered figures and 66 references.(RS)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

Beyond Effective Practiceto Schools as

Host Environments:Building and Sustaining a School-wide

Intervention Model in Beginning Reading--)U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research end Improvement

j EDU c ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organization

I originating d.o Minor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality.

Pointa of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

oTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Edward J. Kame'enuiDeborah C. Simmons

INSTITUTE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTCOLLEGE OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

1997-98 OSSC Bulletins are contributed by each of the four research andoutreach centers and institutes at the LIO College of Education

:01111413ulletinOREGON SCHOOL STUDY COUNCILVOLUME 41 NUMBER 3 SPRING 1998

2BEST-CoPrAVAILABLE

OF HOuc,

(A.

tSeyon eoVe Practiceto Schools as

Host rime.Building and Sustainin Sch014,vides:

Intervention Model in Beginning Reading

Edward J. Kaffie'enui

Deborah ^C Simmons

INSTITUTE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT'OF. . .

EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENTCOLLEGE OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITit OF OREGON

199798 OSSC Bulletin's are contribuW by each:of the foilr research andpUtreach, centers and institutes at the U0 College of Education

.

ulletinOREGON SGHOCIL.,S.TUDY COUNCILVOLUME 41 NUMBER -3 SPRING 1998 .

© 1998 University of Oregon

ISSN 0095-6694

Nonmember price: $15

Member price: $10

Discount 10 percent for 10-24 copies-and 20 percent for 25 or more copies

2

.OSSC Staff

kobeit D. StalickExecutive Director

Janet CurleyGraduate Research Assistant

Bobbie SmithMembershipDesign of text pages

Brenda KameenuiTechnical Editor

OSSC Advisory Board

Bart McElroy,Board MemberSalem/Keizer 'School District

Barbara Rommel, SuperintendentDavid Douglas School District

Elaine Hopson, SuperintendentTillamook School District

Phil McCulhun, PrincipalHarrison Elementary School.South Lane School District

Robert D. Stalick,'Executive DirectorOregon School Study Council

Paul Goldman, AssoCiate ProfessorDepartment of EducationalLeadership, Technology, andAdministration,College of EducationUniversity of Oregon.

Joanne FlintInstruction and Field Services,Oregon Departnient of Education

Cliff KuhlmanOregon. School Boards Association

. OREGON SCHOOL STUDY COUNCIL

Oregon School Study Council

213 EduCation Building1571 Alder StreetCollege of Education1215 University of OregonEugene OR 97403-1215

(541) 346-1397

Fax (541) 346:5818

The University of Oregon is an equal-opportunity, affirmative-action insti-tution committed to cultural diversityand compliance With the AmericansWith Disabilities Act.

This publication will be made avail-able in accessible formats upon re-quest. Accommodations for people'with disabilities will be provided ifrequested in advance.

Annual subscriptions to the OregonSchOol Study Council include fourissues of the OSSC Bulletin and fourissues of the OSSC Report. Subscrip- _

tions are $55 per year'when paid viacheck or money order and $58 peryear if paid via purchase order. Backissues of OSSC BulletinS are available.Contact the OSSC office for a listingof available issues.

EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING INTERVENTIONS FOR ALL CHILDREN

IntroductionOur knoWledge of_ effective.: practices for -improving the -academic achievement of studentsin the.priniary and elementary years has-'increased dramatically in the last decade(Simmons & Kameenui, in press;Stringfield, in,press). ,Howeyer, implementing :an effective 2:practice Morie classroom or: in a research contextis very 'different from implementing andsustaining effeCtive practice at the school:building level. There IS. a great deal -of collectivewailing in the'field, these days about the feebleattempts for .trarislate .reSearchInto effectivepractice (Malouf: & Schiller, 1995) that improves';reading: achievement in students who are atserious academic risk.

Iri ..this monograph; we aCknoWledge the:limitations to improving student achievementwhen curricUlum reform focUSeS primarily on thecollettion; :adoption, and implementation ofeffectiyelpractices and programs.- A missing linkbetween 'effective practices and their sustainedimplementation is the "host environinent"' (Zins& Ponti, 1990, cited in Sugar & korner, press)`into which practices, prograins, procedures, andpedagogy:are translated. Too -often; curricularimplementation and accoMmodation effOrts failto mirror the complexities: of schools (Hedges' &Waddington, 1993) We describe; instead, theneed for prevention and intervention -inodelS.. thatare anchored to the school as the "hostenvironMent." We describe a model that is .(a)devel6Ped at the school7building *level for aparticular host environment and for the longterm, (b) anchored to ongoing studentperformance in priority subject areas (e.g.,reading, mathematics), (c) customized bycollaborative grade-level teams to fit and takehold at the school7building level; and (d) tetheredto a centralized data-management sySteritNaturally; curricular and instructional change arenot content free, and involve important subjectmatter, such as reading, rriatheinaiics socialstudies, and science. An important aspect of thisschool - building intervention model is the designof subject matter curricula...'

eyond EffectivePractices to-Schools as

Host EnvirorimentsBuilding and Sustaining

School-wide Intervention

Model in Beginning -Reading

or All Children

Contents.

Introduction

Overview

A Profile: Early.Learning Trajectories PredictFuture Performance

Improving Reading Peiforniance in ComplexHost Environments' Called Schools

OREGON SCHOOL S TUDY COUNCIL

A Conceptual. Framework for Developing aSchool-wide Reading Intervention Program in,the Early School Years

Figure 1 The Contexts Pyramid Model of Reading

Setting Context: The School Building and SchoolDistrict as Host Environments

Summary of Setting, Context:: The SchOol

Situation Organizer or Teacher Context: ThePrimary. Change Agent

SuMmary of Situation Organize!' Cntext:'The Teacher

Learner Context: Diveise Learners and theTyranny of Time

Summary of Learner Context

Task and Materials Context: Using Smart Tools 10

Summary of Task and Materials Contexts 11

Summary of Conceptual Model: The MultipleContexts of Host Environments

9

10

11:

EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING INTERVENTIONS FOR:ALL CHILDREN

Beyond :Effective Practices toSchools, as Host EnV,ironments:

and,Sustaining A School7iinde

Intervention Model in-Beginning Reading

for All Children

APPlyihg the ConCeptual Model to School-wideImprovement

The Role of Subject Matter In' the 'Concept:11aModel::l3eginning Reading.

Beginning Reading:,-Three Big Ideas.

ASchool::wide Intervention Model (SIM):'Featuresi Examples, and Contexts

'Stage-I: 'Assess-Studeht Perforinance*-UsingDynamic Indicators of "Big Ideas ".

School-Wide Iritervention Model

Stage II: 'Analyze Individual Performance andPlan Instructional-Groups

Stage III: Set Ambitious.Instructional Goals andMonitor FOrMatively.

Stage IV: AnalyZe Intervention Contexts andPrioritize InterventiOn Dimensions

Dimensions of Intervention Models

Stage- V: Evaluate Interventions' Formativelyand Make Instructional.AdjuStments

Summary of Model

Conclusion

References

NeVIN3 u I let n

OREGON SCHOOL STUDY COUNCIL

Beyond E ective Practices to

Schools as Host Environments:Building and sustaining a School-wide Intervention Model

in Beginning Reading for All Children

, Overview

this.monograph contains,three major sections:

A conceptual framework for understanding andmapping the complex and multiple contexts.of ,

schools.

A set of "big ideas" for designing effective beginningreading instruction to students in kindergartenthrough grade 3.

The features of a school- wide intervention modelcustomized for beginning reading.

It is our hope that readers will gain from this monograph a,sense of the geniiine complexity of building and sustainingan intervention model that is tailored to the needs. Of indi-vidual schools. Our description admittedly includes the con7ceptual and theoretical facets that undergird such work, butwe also address the practical considerations of designing anintervention model that is feasible, sustainable, and effectivein addressing the needs of ALL children in the compleX hostenvironment of a school.

A Profile: Early Learning Trajectories PredictFuture PerformanceIn an elementary 'school of a suburban school -district in.Tigard, Oregon, Joshua, a seven-year-oldchild, exits first grade reading two correctwords per minute and scoring at the 9thpercentile on a standardized measure of receptive vocabulary. He cannot read thewords mom or and or identify pictures that E 80

represent the meanings of group or pair.Allison, an eight-year-old Latina student, is 60repeating second grade in a rural school in 12

Springfield, Oregon, She reads two wordscorrectly per-minute but scores in the 93rdpercentile on a standardized measure of re- X 20

ceptive vocabulary development. LikeJoshua, she cannot decode the most basicwords,- but her vocabulary knowledge is'significantly above her average, same-age

peers. These in-complete, yet sobering profiles of two childrenin Oregon are representative of many children in the UnitedStates who are ,struggling with beginning reading' in theirearly school years. These isolated accounts of children's'emerging reading difficulties do far more than tell us aboutthe current state of their reading and academic competence.Longitudinal research indicates that without intensive, stra-

and timely intervention, these data points reliablypredict' the future academic performance Of children like

'Joshua and Allison (Jug, 1988).

A common denominatOr among children with reading dn.:culties is a trajectory of progress that (a) diverges early from_their peers;who are learning successfully, (b) is stubbornlyresistant to change following grade 3, and (c). becomes in-creasingly discrepant from their peers over time (Felton &Pepper, 1995; Good, Simmons, & Smith, 1998). These featuresof early performance trajectories are depicted in the follow:;ing graphic (Good, Simmons, & Smith, 1998) in which two

. increasingly dikrepant trends ,of reading performance areidentified. This graphic makes obvious what is compelling in

: the research on beginning reading (Felton & Pepper, 1995;Juel, 1988), that students who begin in the bottom trajectory.almost never becothe students who are average readers andin the top trajectory. Students identified as poor readers infirst grade remained poor readers in fifth grade. As Carnine

Grade

EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING INTERVENTIONS FOR ALL CHILDREN .

(1997) so keenly observed, the essential question that educa-tors must grapple with is not whether children are learning;hut -whether they are learning enough! In contrast to the

! lower trajectory, the uPper trajectory of this graphiC indicatesthat children whO were on an early positive reading trajectorystayed on a positive reading path.

Although the above graphic offers a poignant piCtUre of theever:increasing gap between the performance of stUdents atrisk for later academic achievement and their same-age peerSwho are excelling, the picture is deceiving for tWoreasons:

Iffocusesexclusively on student performance and islikely 'to convey that the real problem residesSingularly with the

. The graphk represents only one "context" (i.e., thelearner context) of the learning, teaching, and.'schooling process (Carroll, 1963, 1989; Mosenthal,1984) and fails to adequately mirror and capture thegenuine complexities of changing student perfonnancein "real-World" classrooms and schools.

As Moserithal (1984) noted more than a decade ago, there isnot "one ideal and absolute geornetry".but Multiple geom-etries or contexts to understanding and improving the, teach -'Mg and learning space (p 200.

Third, a new intervention is invariably adopted kir the :short term and not the' long haul. The newly adopted

:intervention is not embraced and conceptualized as a"primary program of prevention and interventionfrom the very outset, and it is not adopted withspecific contexts and host environments in mind.

A Conceptual' Framework for Deyeloping.aSchool-Wide,Reading,Intervention Program inthe Early School YearsTo develop an intervention program to accelerate and sustainthe reading performance of childrenlike Joshua and Allison

a. complex host, environment Of-a school, it is essential toconsider- the multiple 'contexts of such in' environment. Theconceptual framework for our thinking about building sus-.tainahle programs of intervention incoinplex school enyiron-.ments is derived from MOsenthal'S (1984) "contexts pyramidmodel", which he first applied to "designing training prograins lor learning disabled children" (Mosenthal, 1982).Asimplified version of this context pyramid model is presented'in Figure 1 and consists of five contexts the situation ".organizer or teacher, setting, materials, task, and learner. ThisModel implicitly, suggests that one cannot define one context

-without involving other contexts: While other contexts andforces (e.gl, state fUnding of schools; national and state cur-riculuin and assessment Standards, Publishers and, develop:ers of curricula; family structure) certainly influence the- ,

schooling, teaching, and learning process (Carroll; 1963,1989;Hodgkinsoit,1991; Stringfield, in press);, we focus on each ofMosenthal's five contexts to simplify and unpack the com-plexities of accelerating and sustaining reading achievenient

IMPROVING READING PERFORMANCE IN COMPLEX.HOST ENVIRONMENTS CALLED SCHOOLS

. ,

While Sttidezit performance is the bottom line, it doesn't take -

place in a Vacuum or a singular context. Instead, iinproVingthe reading trajectories of students like Joshua and Allison :-takes place in a complex "host environment" (tins & Ponti,1990; Cited in Sugai & Homer; in press) of classroomS' andsChoolS thatsinyolves professionals, policies/programs, andpractices that interact in complex Ways: At least three impor-:tint reasons suggest why effective practkes, progranis, andaccommodations have not: been adcipted or sustained ingeneral schciol Settings.

First, interventions including curricular programs orspecific strategies tailored to address a particularproblem (academic or behavioral) are too oftenadopted and implemented befOre an assessmentconducted of the contextual fit between theintervention and the "hoSt environment" (e.g., school,classroom).

Second, an intervention is frequently adopted before aforinative and continuous feedbacicloop is establishedat the "school-building leVel" that provides priorityinforination on the effectiVeness of an intervention in atinielY. manner.

in schools.

SETTING CONTEXT: THE SCHOOL BUILDING AND,

FIGURE 1. THE CONTEXTS PYRAMID MODEL OF READING

EST COPY AVAHABILE

SCHOOL DISTRICT AS HOST ENVIRONMENTS'

The configuration of the five contexts in Mosenthal's modelchanges dramatically depending on the setting. If the settingis a small-group, pull-out classroom, or one-to-one tutoring,then other contexts (e.g., situation organizer, task, In-aerials).differ more than if the setting is a general education class-room We have identified three primary setting contexts asimportant to accelerating and Sustaining student academicachievement the school, the general education classic:Om,and the particular learning arrangement (e.g., whole class,large group, small group, or one-to-one). From our.perspec-tive, the district and school contexts serve as the "host envi-ronments" necessary to support the other contexts of setting.(e.g., classroom), teacher, task, and materials. As ZinS and.Ponti (cited in Sugai & HoMer, in presS) note, "A programconsisting of. potent and validly conceived mechanisms andproCesSes may not succeed because the host-environmentsare not able to support those processes" (p. 24, emphasisadded). According to this perspective, an intervention is onlyeffectiVe to the extent that an environment is able to supportit and ensure its sustainability. Likewise, the "best praCtices"of any profession are mit gained in a vacuum, but are imple-mented and sustained in environments that must intention-ally support, enhance, and sustain those practices and com-mitments.

-For example, one could argue that in order for an intervention(program, strategy, innovation) to have the broadest impactand gaM hold irt a school, schoOl district support of theintervention is necessary, because. the'school district is ulti-mately the priniarY "host environment." In the absence ofschool district commitment, practitioners and administrators-.at the school- building level are not successful in shaping a;host' environment necessary to 'support effective programsfor the long term. Clearly, hoWever, the primary settingcontext of intervention is the school building, not the schooldistrict, for obvious reasons.

Educational reforitt and change appear to be taking place atthe school-building level. Goals 2000: Educate America Actcalls for dramatically reforming "our schools by establishing .

high academic and occupational standards" (p. 1). Newdesigns fOr school change supported by the New AmericanSchools Development Corporation (NASDC) and the .

Annenberg Grants, coupled with ambitious school -wide re-*forth models such as Sizer's Coalition for Essential Schools,Corner's (1988) SchOO1 Development Project, and the grow-ing popularity. of Success for All (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, &Wasik, 1996) make it clear that change is at the school level(Fashola & 1996; Strirtgfield, in press). States such asTexas have "Spotlight Schools" with diverse ethnic and sociOecOnomic student populations that serve as models ofsuccess in early elementary reading. In addition, federalagencies currently sponsor' research to identify high-per-

OREGON SCHOOL STUDY COUNCIL

forming schools and to examine factors that contribute to thesuccess of students with. disabilities and at-risk learners inthese "Beacon Schools of Excellence." This approach to effect-ing change, at least in the primary and elementary grades,recognizes the importance of building and sustaining the"organizational capacity" at the school level to support and .

Sustain effective and comprehensive programs for the longterm.

For effective interventions and programs to take hold in a.hosi 'environment; the school must behave, like a "high-reliability organization" (Stringfield, in preSs) whose, maincharacteristics include (a) a clear understanding of the schoolgoals and a strong sense of mission; (b) the perception thatfailure to achieve the organization's goals is unacceptable; (c)successful early deteCtion and regular monitoring of studentperformance in basic school. subjects; (d) development ofpowerful databases on dimensiOns relevant to achievingschool goals; (e) constant training and retraining; and (f)serious- and profesSional performance evaluations. Natu-rally, interventions will take immediate hOld in the classroomcontext, and curricular, assessinent,'-and clasSroom interven-tions should be tailored to each classroom.- '

SUMMARY OF SETTING CONTEXT: THE SCHOOL

The school appears' to be the primary unit ofintervention for improving achievement.

The schoOl is the primary hOst environment forsustaining potent intervention meChaniSins andprocesses.

Schools must behave like high-reliabilityorganizations.

. -

SITUATION ORGANIZER OR TEACHER. CONTEXT:THE PRIMARY CHANGE AGENT

The portrait of the typical` American ClaSsfoom is 'changingdramatically. Some of the changes indicate that a growing,number of students, including those with disabilities, maynot acquire basic, fundamental, academic skills, arid strate-gies. Perhaps never before have the demographics of anindividual classroom presented such complex and diversedemands on teachers as the primary agents of instructionalchange. Teachers and other school personnel responsible foraddressing the unique and varying needs of learners mayfind the complexity unwieldy in the face of growing classsizes and reduced instructional support.

0

EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING INTERVENTIONS FOR ALL CHILDREN

It appearSthat teachers and classrooms in general educationare not prepared to addressthe learning and curricular needsthat children w. i tit:disabilities and other diverse learners (e.g.,students for. whom English is a second language) bring toclaSSrooms (Baker ;Si Zigmond, 1990), in spite of the expand-ing ,krioWledge base *of 'effective instructional approaches -(Simmons; Karrieentii, & Chard, 1998). The effectivenesS of anintervention in part depends on the teacher's technical knowl-edge and skills in peclagOgYand subject matter (e.g.; reading,mathentatits, science); enthusiasm, decisibn making,- teaching experience (Dill & Associates,1990); and beliefs andassumptions about teaching and learning (Schtumn, Vaughn, .

Gordon, & Rothlein, 1994). -*

In addition to the iniPortance that teaching experience; knowl-- edge of effective instructional practices; and claSStoom orga-, nizatiOn have on student performance, :teachers' generalteaching efficacy, personal teaching efficacy (Gibson & Deinbo,1984;: Hoy &. Woolfolk, 1990), and instnictional teachingefficacy (Chard, Karneenui, & Coladarci, 1993) also appear tobe important. General teaching efficacy refers to a teacher'ssense that a normal teacher's course of action could haye apositive-influence on student achievement In contrast, per:sonal teaching efficacy. refers to a teacher's confidence ineffecting instructional Change.

.

Chard,.Kameenni, and Coladarci (1993) have field tested aninventory that assesses teachers' instructional efficacy, thatiS;teachers' perceptions of their ability to perform specifiCinstitictional behavior§ that are likely to result in success fOrstudents-. Smylie (1988) reported that teachers' perceptions oftheir ability to,directly affect student perfOrmanceis a prom-ising correlate of teachers' willingness to 'change..He alsoreported that the proportion of low - achieving students in aclissroOm had a negative direct effect on personal teaching.efficacy: As the number of loW-achieving students increased, ,

. teachers perceived they were less 'able to influence studentachieventent Finally, Sraylie (1988) found that personal teaCh-ing efficacy Was related positively to a teacher's "certainty ofpractice"; that is, teacher§ more:certain of their. practice wereMore likely to adopt Curricular changes. Creating a hOstenvironment that includes effectiYe praCtice and tools (cer-tainty of practice) and professional- support should increaseteachers' .personal and instructional teaching efficacy andsustain acCelerated academic achievement.

SUMMARY OF SITUATION ORGANIZER CONTEXT:THE TEACHER

Theclemographics of cla§srootas impose complexdemands on teachers.

.

Teachers in general eduCation classrooms are notadequately prepared to addresS the learning and ,

curricular needs of diverse learnerS.-

A concentration: of low-aChieving students-in a .

classroom has a negative effect on teacher efficacy andrequires effectiYe insfrUctional practices and tools.

LEARNER CONTEXT: DIVERSE LEARNERS AND THETYRANNY OF TIME

Over the past 20 years, the proportion of diverse learners inAmerica's schools children of poverty, students, with

students for whom English is a second language(Hodglcinson, 1991, 1992) haSgrOwn dramatically: Todaymore children with disabilities and diverselearning, needsare being educated in general educatiOn than ever before(Kameenui & Carnine; 1998; McLeskeY & Pacchiano, -1994).Estimates of the range of instructional levels in general edu-cation already are high, with more than five've grade levels perclassroontinsome schools (Jenkins, Jewell, Leceister; jenkins,

TrOutner, cited iriluchs & Fuchs, 1994).

This significant heterogeneity in instructional_ levels in aclassroom requires that we attend to learning characteristicsof diverse learners if we are to improve their learning. Baker,Kameenui, and Simmons (1998) identified four important

'learning characteristics that differentiate students With dis:-abilities and those: at risk for academic difficulties fromaverage achievers:- memory skills; learning strategies, vo-cabulary knowledge, and language coding.

In general, it appears that diverse learners are more alike thandifferent from their average-achieving peers m learning char-acteristics. Specifically, for the vast majority of diverse learn-,ers; memory skills seem to be intact at the point of receivinginformation from the environment (Baker; Kaineenui, &Simmons, 1998). While some probleniS at this stage may beattributable to problems in, attention, they do not appear toseriously impair performance on memory tasks (Swanson &Cooney, 1991). The primary differentes between diverselearners and average achievers 'have been found in hoWinformation is organized in working memory and retrieVedfrom storage in long7terin memory (Mann & Brady, 1988;TorgeSen, 1985). Moreover, differences in backgrOund knoWl-edge and experience with language (e.g., vocabulary lcnoWl- _

edge, early experienCe with language and speech) appear toaccount for the significant gap between diverse learners and

BEST COPY AVAILAIBLE

average achievers. For example, large vocabulary differencesexist between diverse learners and average achievers in termsof the number of words known and depth of vocabularyknowiedge. These vocabulary differences-appear very earlyin development and increase over time.

For example, it appears that average achievers learn approxi-mately 3,000 new vocabulary words a' year providing theyread an average of 500,000 to a million words of running texta school year (Nagy & Herrnan, 1987). This vocabularygrowth appears to be the direct result of. wide and indepen-dent reading and not the .result of any direct or intentionalinstruction in vocabulary. Diverse learners with reading'difficulties are not likely to engage in much independentreading, and as a result, their vocabulary knowledge will notincrease at a rate remotely close to that of average achievers.The harsh reality' is very dear if you don't read, yourVocabulary knowledge doeSn't inCrease, and you fall fartherand farther behind your average or abOve-average peers whoare voracious readers increasing their vocabtdary knowledgeat a rapid pace.

More than three decades ago, Carroll (1963) suggested thatstudent learning was based on (a) characteristics of the learner,(b) the time devoted to learning' an 'objective, and (c) the.:quality of instruction. In addressing learning problems; it isfair to assert that educator's tend to focus primarily on the"learner," even though variables within the learnerare themost resistant to change, becatise these variables are unob-served, private, and entirely outside the province of teacherinfluence :' The second factor, time devoted to learning, islimited by the number of hours in a school day and the rangeof objectives and activities in the curriculum. Although effi-ciencies can be achieved to make instructional time more-effective, instructional time is often a fixed Variable:

- As noted in our example of vocabulary learning, diverselearners and children with disabilities

...constantly face the niranny of time in trying to catch up withtheir peers, whO continue to advance in their literacy devel-opinent. Simply keeping pace with their peers amounts' tolosing more and more ground for students who are behind...The pedagogical clock for whO are behiridin readingand literacy development continues to tick mercilessly, andthe opportunities for these students to advance or catch updiminish over time (Kameenui, 1993, p. 379, emphasis added):

Such a dilemma requires teachers to either (a) teach "more inless time," whiCh is not an enviable proposition for teachersor (b) identify and prioritize the most essential subject matterto teach in the fixed and liinited time available. In this case,teachers are ostensibly teaching "less" but in a more thor7ough and diligent fashion (Kameenui & Carnine, 1998). Play-ing "catch up" in school requires using time and everylearning opportunity judiciously, strategically, and preciously.

10'

OREGON SCHOOL STUDY COUNCIL

-Moreover, playing catch up exacts an enormous cost onstudents, teachers, administrators, and parents, and gains are.not likely to occur unless the pedagogical machinery is pre-cisely tuned, perforinance based; instructionally oriented,and almost.free of instructional and curricular error. Finally,,the opportunities for these students to advance or catch updiminish greatly over time, and the cognitive and emotionalfatigue in trying to catch up is high.Civen the extraordinarychallenges inherent in playing catch up, if is not surprisingthat the best strategy is not to get behind in the first place, blitto intervene early, frequently, and purposefully in order toget ahead and stay ahead.

`The final factor, quality of instruction; haS the greatest poten-.tial to affect the needs of students with diverse learningneeds. Quality of instruction is influenced by the quality ofinstructional tools and materials available to teachers and the-"architectural design" of the curriculum (Simmons, Kameenui,& Chard; 1998).

SUMMARY OF LEARNER CONTEXT

The range of instructional levels in a classroom is high,with more than five grade levels per classroom insome schools..

The primary differences between diverse learners andaverage achievers is in how information is organizedin working memory and retrieved from storage inTong -term memory.

Diverse learners face the "tyranny'of time in trying tocatch up with their, peers, and teachers are faced withteaching more in leSs time or teaching less morethoroughly.

TASK AND MATERIALS CONTEXT: USING SMARTTOOLS.

The learner context suggests that learning tasks and materialsare potential sources of difficulty Observational and self-report' data indicate. that the type and quantity of instruc-tional adaptations in general education are insufficient toeffect "optimal growth" for many low-performing studentsin general education (Zigmond, et al., 1995). Curricular adap-tations and accommodations require substantial teacher time'and knowledge of the architectural design requirements ofinstruction: Moreover, adaptations and acconunodationsaredifficult to sustain. In contrast to piecemeal accommodations,commercial reading and mathematics curricula clearly daima stable and influential role' on academic achievement ingeneral education classrooms (Baker & Zigmond, 1990;Jitendra & Kameenui, 1988; Chard, Simmons, & Kameenui, in

12

EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING. INTERVENTIONS. FOR ALL CHILDREN

press). Commercial curricula have had a lasting and influen-tial impact on American classrooms (Armbruster & Ostertag; :1993; Hoffman et al., 1994; Kameenui & Griffin, 1989; Porter,1989; Simmons & Kameenui; 1996)? In reading, for exarnple,More than 90% of classroom instruction is based on commer,cial educational materials and specifically the basal reader(Komoski 'as cited in .Kameenui, .1993). Mayer, Sims, andTajika (1995) recently noted that textbooks may actuallyserve.the tole of a "national curriculitin";(p. 456) because.oftheir wide-scale adoption and influence.

. To initiate and 'sustain curriculum change . at the school-building level that holds any. promise of improVing studentperformance, it is essential that schools and-teachers adoptand implement research- validated commercial curriculumprograms in reading 'and mathematics, for example, as theprimary foUndation of a schocilwide intervention. Accorn-modations and adaptations of existing curriculum materials-are important and necessary. However, experience instructsus that in the absence of effective; research-based commercialbasal programs in reading as a first -step option and foundation,accommodations and adaptations Of Curricula are hot:effec-tive' for students with. disabilities or at risk of academicproblems. Curriculum adaptations are also not sustainable in;the long run for teacherSand students. Itis simply unfair andnaive to ask general and special eduCation teachers to con-tinuously make accommodations in the absence of an effec-tive curriculum program, especially in reading and -math:ematics in grades KT3,.

SUMMARY OF TASK AND MATERIALS CONTEXTS

Instructional adaptations are insufficient to effect"optimal growth" for low- performing Students ingeneral education and require substantial teacher timeand specialized knoWledge...

. Research-validated commercial curriculum programsin reading:should serve as the primary foundation of aschool7wide intervention model.

NOt all curriculum programs are created equal, and it'is essential to attend to the design of the programs.

SUMMARY OF CONCEPTUAL MODEL: THE-MULTIPLE CONTEXTS OF HOST ENVIRONMENTS'

The features of each of the five contexts are included in ourmodel because they are research based; that is, these featureshave been identified in valid and trustworthy research as

contributing, either directly or indirectly; to ithe improve-'ment of student achievement. The Model 'allows school per-sonneland stakeholders (teachers, administrators, site-basedcouncil members, parents).to represent and examine the fullrange of instructional, organizational; and administratiVefeatures andstrategies. In Figure 2, the features of each of thefive contexts (e.g., setting contexts of the school district, schoOl,and classroom; situation organizer context; materials con-

. text; task context; and learner context) and the resulting"outcomes" (see darkened rectangle) of the combined con,texts are described. Specifically, the features of the hostenvironments (see oval figure in first column), which includethe setting' cOntexts of the school and school district (see'triangle in-first colturm), aredelineatecl and include curricu-

. lum standards and benChinarks, state-wide assessment re-quirements, ,the characteristics of high reliability organiza-tions, school.. profge; school-kaprovement plan, buildingleadership; clear, goals and expectations, staff developnient

. support linked to school-improvement plan, curriculum adop-tion policies, and a data-management system. One feature of 1

all contexts is a data-management system, which operates ina. context like the classroom, as a system 'for. monitoringstudent progress in .aparticular subject matter,such as read-

The anticipated outcomes of a complete-analysiS of the fea-tureS of the five contexts as portrayed in Figure 2 include: (a)sustainable practices adopted at the school level, (b) anestablished progress-monitoring system, (c) adoption of re,search- supported reading or mathematks curricula, (d) clearlyestablished school goals; (e) increased sUbject-niatter capac-ity at the school level; and (f) improved student achievement.

Applying the 'Conceptual Model to 'School7wide IniprOV enteut

Our discussion of School improvement, thus- far, has. beenrelatively "content free." Theis, we have defined and dis-cussed principles and strategies in broad terms to illustratetheir generalizability. In this section, we apply the contextualmodel analysis to real problems in a real school to illustrate itsapplication. The problem we profile is a recognilable one, forits long-term impact touches more.than 40% of adults in theUnited States, and-its immediate impact is obvious in ap,proximately one in six stUdents who fail to develop adequatereading skills in the early grades. Before we describe this realL.world application, we examine'xamine the import ant role thatningreading plays in developing a school-wide intervention.model.

The architectural requiremerits:of beginnfiig reading are not'readily apparent. The act of actually "reading" in an "alpha--

. betic writing system," which is required of anyone WhOspeaks and reads English, involves a: myriad of, complexskills, knowledge, and experiences. The act of actually teach-irig to read in the alphabetic writing .system, not

14

HO

ST

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

S

Setti

ngC

onte

xt:

Scho

ol D

istr

ict

Stat

e B

oard

s of

Edu

catio

n. S

tand

ards

'

-B

ench

mar

ksSt

ate

Ass

essm

ent

Hig

h-R

elia

bilit

y O

rgan

izat

ion

(HR

O)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

Scho

ol P

rofi

le

Scho

ol-I

mpr

ovem

ent P

lan

Bui

ldin

g L

eade

rshi

p (P

rinc

ipal

;G

rade

-Lev

el T

eam

s)

Cle

ar G

oals

/Exp

ecta

tions

Staf

f D

evel

opm

ent S

uppo

rtL

inke

d to

Sch

ool-

Impr

ovem

ent

Plan

- D

ata-

Man

agem

ent S

yste

m

Cur

ricu

lum

Ado

ptio

n Po

licie

s

Setti

ngC

onte

xt:

Cla

ssro

om

Proa

ctiv

e In

stru

ctio

nal

Cla

ssro

om M

anag

emen

t

Num

ber

of D

iver

se L

earn

ers

Lea

rnin

g A

rran

gem

ent

(Who

le C

lass

, Lar

ge G

roup

,Sm

all G

roup

, 1-t

o-1

Cle

ar R

ules

& E

xpec

tatio

ns

Cle

ar G

oals

Mat

eria

lsC

onte

xt

Res

earc

h-Su

ppor

ted

'

Com

mer

cial

Rea

ding

/Mat

hPr

ogra

m

Subj

ect M

atte

r-R

eadi

ng(p

hono

logi

cal a

war

enes

s,al

phab

etic

und

erst

andi

ng,

auto

mat

icity

with

.the

code

)

Subj

ect M

atte

r-M

athe

mat

ics

Big

Ide

as, C

onsp

icuo

us

Stra

tegi

es, S

trat

egic

Inte

grat

ion,

Jud

icio

usR

evie

w, M

edia

ted

Scaf

fold

ing

Situ

atio

nO

rgan

izer

(Tea

cher

) C

onte

xt

Tec

hnic

al K

now

ledg

e an

d Sk

ills

Subj

ect-

Mat

ter

Kno

wle

dge

Tea

chin

g E

xper

ienc

e

Gen

eral

Tea

chin

g E

ffic

acy

Pers

onal

Tea

chin

g E

ffic

acy

Inst

ruct

iona

l Te'

achi

ng E

ffic

acy

Cer

tain

ty o

f Pr

actic

e

Yea

rs o

f E

duca

tion

Col

legi

al S

uppo

rt

Cle

ar C

lass

room

Goa

ls

Prog

ress

Mon

itori

ng o

fSt

uden

t Per

form

ance

,

Lea

rner

Res

pons

eR

equi

rem

ents

(ch

oice

resp

onse

, pro

duct

res

pons

e,.

oral

/wri

tten/

mot

or)

Juxt

apos

ition

of

Eas

y/H

ard

Tas

ks

Met

alin

guis

tic K

now

ledg

eof

Tas

k D

eman

ds

Prog

ress

Mon

itori

ng o

fSt

uden

t Per

form

ance

Prio

r L

itera

ry a

nd

Mat

hem

atic

s E

xper

ienc

e

Bac

kgro

und

Kno

wle

dge

Mem

ory

Skill

s

Lea

rnin

g St

rate

gies

Voc

abul

ary

Kno

wle

dge

Lan

guag

e C

odin

g

Exp

erie

nce

with

Sub

ject

Mat

ter-

Rea

ding

Exp

erie

nce

with

Sub

ject

Mat

ter-

Mat

hem

atic

s

Dif

fere

nt H

isto

ries

of

SucC

ess,

Failu

re, R

ewar

d in

Con

text

of

Tea

chin

g/M

ath

Aca

dern

icT

asks

Pare

nt S

uppo

rt.

Prog

ress

Mon

itori

ng o

fSt

uden

t Per

form

ance

O0

L S

usta

inab

le P

ract

ices

Ado

pted

at S

choo

l Lev

el

2. E

stab

liShe

d Pr

ogre

ss-M

onito

ring

Syst

em

3. I

mpr

oved

Stu

dent

Ach

ieve

men

t

4. A

dopt

ion

of R

esea

rch-

Supp

orte

dR

eadi

ng/M

athe

mat

ics

Cur

ricu

la

5. C

lear

ly E

stab

lishe

d Sc

hool

Goa

ls

6. I

ncre

ased

Sub

ject

-Mat

ter

Cap

acity

Est

ablis

hed

atSc

hool

Lev

el

EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING INTERVENTIONS FORALL CHILDREN

surPrisingly,- also requires important technical knowledgeand skills, many of which are not readily obvious to teachers,adminiStrators, parents, and publishers and developers ofcommercial reading prOgrams (Kameenui, 1996).

THE ROLE OF SUBJECT MATTER IN THECONCEPTUAL MODEL: BEGINNING READING

Every educator knows that reading is the most importantskill taught in elementary school. Reading failure is over-

, whelmingly the most important reason that children areretained, referred for - special education services, or givenlong-term remedial supports. Poor readers are heavily repre-sented among high school dropouts, delinquents, and incar-cerated youth and adults (Slavin, 1998). The number ofchildren who are poor readers is debated; but one estimate isthat 40% of all nine-year*old students in the United Statesread below basic levels, and one in six studentShas significantreading difficulties (Slavin, 1998; Lyon & Chhabra, 1996):Reading is the primary academic probleni of 8M5% of the 2.5million students with identified learning disabilities. In addi-tion to research defining the magnitUde and stability ofreading difficulties among children in grades K-3, more than

.:30 years' of research provides. compelling and converging,evidence as to what is necessary to teach children who havelearning disabilities or difficulties learning to read (Lyon &Chhabra, 1996). Moreover, an emerging and substantial bodyof intervention research provides reliable parameters fordetermining the components of effective early reading in -.struction (e.g., Simmons & Kameenui, in press).

, READING AS A COMPLEX PROCESS. Reading is complex to learnand equally complex to teach. What is particularly intriguingand elusive about reading, however, is that despite its corn-ple)dty, skillful reading looks ,like a fairly easy and naturalthing to dd. After all, most people read with what appears to ;be little or no effoli at al-But the "appearance" of readingunwittingly. masks the very real and complex processes in-volved in the act of reading. The truth about reading is thatlearning to read is anything but natural, and it requiresdeliberate human intervention and context (Kameenui, 1996).It is important to Understand the nature of the English lan-guage and the alphabetic writing system in order to appreci-ate the complexities associated with learning-to read and theteaching of beginning reading.

First of all, learning to read does not come naturally; likelearning to speak; while almost all children learn to speaknaturally, not all children learn to read (Liberrrian & Liberman,1990; Pinker; 1984; Perfetti & Zhang, 1996). It is plain that iflearning to read was as natural as learning to speak; then forall practical purpoSes, almost every child in the United Stateswould read as easily as he Or she speaks or walks. Because thiSdoesn't happen, two very important but elusive aspects Oflearning to read are revealed: First, learning to read is"learned," and though many children appear to learn natu-

rally. and easily, most children will to become skillfuland imaginative readers through instruction that iS purPose-ful and considers the complexitieS of the process. Second,learning to read English requires that a reader learn how thealphabetic writing system is-used to convey ideas throughsymbols (Adams, 1990; Perfetti & Zhang, 1996). Childrenborn and raised in Italy; Hungary, Russia, and Korea mustalso learn an alphabetic writing system and how it works. Inan alphabetic writing syStem, children must learn to convertthe alphabetic print into messages (Adams, 1990; Perfetti &Zhang, 1996), unlike children who learn a writing systembased on syllables or logographs.

THE ALPHABETIC WRITING SYSTEM. The constraints of "learn-,ing to read" in an "alphabetic writing system" require delib-erate perspective. Certainly, the goals of learning to read canbe both broad and specific. For example, the purposes ofreading .include getting meaning from text, becoming anindependent reader and thinker, and. enjoying unboundedimagination, creativity, and 'passion. However, in 'a' morenarrow sense; to derive meaning from a poem or storyrequires that a reader confront and make sense of the graphicsymbols in the alphabetic writing system. hi short, the readermust read the words, and to read the words, he or she mustidentify the :individual squiggles (graphemes or alphabeticletterS) on the page that make up the individual words and'associate' those squiggles with specific sounds (phonenies):Furthermore, a reader must do all this with fluency and akeen apprehension of the purpose and importance of read-ing. BecOming a fluent, imaginative,' and skillful reader ye-quires. extensive engagement with the English languagelistening to words and to the sounds inside the words; hear-ing and talking about stories; gaining facility with the con-cepts of print (e.g., knoWing that a book has a front andbackand that word's are read from left.to right); understanding thesounds that make up our language; manipulating the soundsof our language and 'relating the specifiC sounds to printedletters and words; connecting words with 'events, actions,things, and ideas; learning about the connection betweensounds, letters, syllables; wordS, and concepts; and becomingmore mindful Of the relationship of what is read in newspa-pers, books; and stories to the human condition.

Reading as a process is fundamentally more than it appearsto be. What comes naturally to most children is obviouslymore than the sum 'of its parts, but the parts are intricate,complex, and absolutely essential to the whole of reading.Because reading doesn't come naturally to children, the parts,especially the important parts that we refer to as the "bigideas, must be taught, and the teaching must be strategic,intentional, passionate, and an absolute priority.

BEGINNING. READING: THREE BIG. IDEAS

Big ideas represent perhaps the largest modification or shiftin thinking for pUbli.Shers; developer's; and teachers: In a

-

13

A

period when teachers are forced to make instructional choices,big ideas provide guidelines about essential components ofbeginning reading programs: In beginning reading, big ideasare the unifying Curriculum activities that enable learners totranslate the alphabetic writing system into meaningful lan-guage. The research on beginning reading provides compel-ling evidence that the following three big ideas are funda-mental and deserve considerable focus and attention in theearly reading curriculum phonological awareness, alphabeticunderstanding, and automaticity with the code. Students'learn-ing. disabilitieS and difficulties appear to be rooted in theirdifficulties in phonemic awareness, alphabetic understand-ing, and automaticity with the code. All three of these bigideas, in turn, influence vocabulary and corriprehension:Each of these big ideas in beginning reading is reviewedbriefly:

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS. A priority in beginning reading.is to teach phonological awareness.. Phonological awarenessis the conscious awareness and knowledge that words are,composed of separate sounds or phonemes, follciwed by theability to manipulate sounds in words (Adams, 1990; Spector,1995). Students who enter first gradewith a wealthof phonological awareness are more successful readers than those whodo not. Phonological awareness involves activities like :thefolloWing: ,

:What is the first sound in rose?

What is left if the Is/ sound is taken away from sat?'

What-do you have if you put these sounds together:/c///a/,- It!?Say the sounds in the word sat: /sssssss//aaaaaaa/ /tr ,

In these actiyities;sttidents do not see any written words orletters; but they listen and respond to what theY hear. Ideally,children have phonological awareness before they beginformal schooling, but because many children do not, phono-logical awareness instruction must begin as early as possible.ThiS instruction is obligatory, not Optional, and must beexplicit (Adams, 1990; Smith,' Simmons,' & Kameenui, inpress). Teachers must use strategies that are conspicuous andmake phonemes (sounds) prominent in children's attentionand perception (i.e.;teachers should model the sounds). .

In a recent review of reading research, the role and relation ofphonological awareness to beginning reading acquisitiongarnered, convincing an& converging evidence (Smith,Simmons & Kameeniii, in press). Evidence derived fromdozens of primary and secondary. sources confirmed thatchildren who are strong in phonological awareness usuallylearn to read more easily than children with delayed abilities(juel, 1988; Smith et al., in press; Stanovich, 1986; Torgesen,Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). MoreoVer, Smith et al. foundconverging evidence indicating that phonological awareness

- OREGON SCHOOL STUDY COUNCIL

is (a) a complex process composed of many components; (b)a reliable predictor for later reading achievement; (c) causallyrelated to reading development; and (d) successfully devel-oped through instruction and practice. Froth this robust,foundational knowledge base, we ascertained that the abilityto hear and manipulate sounds in language is a big idea andis key to early reading acquisition.

ALPHABETIC UNDERSTANDING. Children who are ready tobegin 'reading words have developed the following prerequi-site skills: They Understand that (a) words can be "spoken" or"written," (b) print corresponds to speech, and (c) words arecomposed:of phonemes (sounds) (i.e., phonological aware-ness).. .priority 'in beginning reading instruction isthat children are taught the alphabetic principle (Perfetti &Zhang, 1996). This principle, which is often referred to asalphabetic understanding, establishes a clear link between aletter and a sound 'and involves the "mapping of print tospeech." It requires a reader to understand that the elemen-tary unit in the alphabetic writing system (graphemes orletters) corresponds to a meaningless speech segment (pho-neme) until the two are combined to form words.

The research on word recognition is clear, widely accepted,and generally straightforward reading comprehensionand other higher-order reading activities depend on strongword-recognition skills (Chard et al., in press). To read words,a reader must see a word and access its meaning in memory.:But to do this, the reader must:

(a) translate a word into its phonological counterpartthe word sat is translated into the indiyidualphonemes, /s!, /a /, and /t/; .

(b) remember the correct sequence of sounds;

(c) blend the sounds together; and

(d) search his or her memory for a real word that matchesthe string of sounds (/s/, /a/, and /f!).

Skillful readers do this so automatically 'and rapidly that itlooks like the natural reading, of whole words' and not thesequential translation of letters into sounds and sounds intowords:

AUTOMATICITY WITH THE CODE. As 'children begin to readwords, it is crucial that they read these decodable words inpassages and Stories: Teaching phonological awareness, al-phabetic understanding, and word recognition ,must be:complemented with opportunities for students to (a) under-

: stand the utility of letter-sound correspondence knoWledgeand (b) develop fluency in applying this knowledge to read-ing text. Gaining automaticity in reading must also be givenpriority. This is best realized when children are given ampleopportunity to read stories, passages, texts, or materials witha high percentage of decodable words in which the relationbetween print and meaning becomes clear., A decodable

EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING INTERVENTIONS FORALL CHILDREN

word is one for which, the student knows each letter-soundcorrespondence (alphabetic understanding) and can applythe appropriate blending

Teachers should proVide students- frequent and rei3eated

. opportunities to read text§ that tontain every high percent-- age :of decodable NVords. This reading builds fluency and

meaningful coinprehension. More iniportaittly, it demon-strates to the beginning reader the importance of gaining the-meaning of words through accurate word reading. The ben-efit Of reading passages frequently_is further enhanced by:passages that allowStudents to develop automaticity in wordrecognition and fluency with connected text. Fluent readin, grequires multiple opporttinities for beginning readers tOapplY and develop their faCility.with word-recognition strat.-egies, which leads *to meaningful comprehension and theability to react connected text. At this early stage of reading, :it is important that children read materials that permit themto besuccessful in reading and understanding words, ingteadof text in which the words are too difficult, Unfainlliar, orindedpherable.

school enhance reading literacy development. What we knowallows us to teach reading in purposeful, strategic, and effec-tive 'ways.

Oiir intentional focus on the alphabetic writing systeni, pho-.

nological awareness, alphabetic understanding, and auto-maticity with the code ddes not diminish the importance ofreading good literature, to children in the early stages oflearning to read. Providing Children with generous opportu-nities to become engaged with literature, including readingstories to children and asking comprehension questions, isimportant to the hill development of reading.

The developmentof skillful, mindful, and passionate readingtakes time, but more importantly, it requires a siinpler yetuncompromising commitment to teaching reading in theearly years. The development Of readers also requires' aserious and thoughtful understanding about the nature, ofreading and the complexities. inherent in the learning andteaching of reading in the early years.

To read with ease, 'fluency, and coniprehension as a youngadult, and to sustain that level of reading as a prOdUctiveCitizen, requires that the teaching of reading be given toppriority in the early grades in school, beginning with kinder-garten. Additionally, it requires that all schools establish agoal of ensuring that all. children are fluent, skillful, andmindful :readers by the end of the -third grade, which isgenerally considered the departure point fora child to makethe transition from "learning to'reacr (i.e., learning how tee..read in an alphabetic writing system) to "reading to learn"(e.g., learning about physical science, socfaistudie§, biology).

Fortunately, the field of reading is at a point in its researchand professional knowledge to ensure that beginning read-

,

ing is successful. The field can also make clear and assertivestatements about how to teach beginning reading, what toteach, when to teach it, and what conditions at home and

A School-Wide InterVention Model (SIM:Features, Examples, and ContextsOur Objective in anchoring instructional change to the schoolbuilding recognizes the multiple contexts that influence learn=ing and the "fir of each context to the, whole of academicachievement in a school setting. We use the term modelpurposefully, as our intent is not to force fit our findings intoa single.intervention package' but to allow' teachers, admin-

, istrators, and support staff of a school bUilding to develop an"intervention model." This intervention should combine re-search-based practices and programs in ways that fit eachschool's hoSt environment best:

In' this section, we desCribe 'the School-wide InterventionModel (SIM), its role in, improving sChobl-wide readingachieVement and its specific application tdreading in kinder-garten through grade three. The SIM consists of five Stagesand combines four primary components: (a) dynamic assess-ment of "big ideas" or target-performance indicators, (b) -

research -based practiceS and procedures in beginning read-ing, (c) validated principles of effeCtive curriculum and in-

- Struction and (d) customized interventions in integratedcontexts as the basis for reading improvement models that fitthe host environment. A key feature of this model is theessential linkage of assessment and instruction. ThoUgh intergrating assessment and intervention is not a novel conceptand is indeed a signature of effective special education, whatis innovative and effective about this process is the timely,strategic fit of the assessment measures, the targets of readingimprovement (What to teach), and the intervention that has ahigh probability of improving reading (how to teach). Thisconfluence of perforinance indicators and instructional inter-vention positions a schdol to (a) identify children early whoa.are at risk of reading disability, (b) intervene strategically,and (c) modify instruction responsively in accord with learnerperformance.

Figure 3 depicts the SIM decision-making process. The pro-cess draws extensively on the work in reading assessment ofShinn (1997) and Kaminski & Good (1996) and combines theirprocedures for identifying, grouping, problem solving, andperformance monitoring with Simmons and Kameenui's coin-ponents of contextual interventions.to reflect an integratedand comprehensive intervention model. We describe beloweach of the major stages and the applicable contexts.

STAGE I: ASSESS STUDENT PERFORMANCE USINGDYNAMIC INDICATORS OF "BIG IDEAS" .

The purpose of Stage I is to identify children who are at riskof reading disabilities or delay. Kaminski & Good (1996)

cces'ar ulletin 15

18

describe this first stage as ProblemIdentification. Using validand reliable indicators of skills highly associated with early,.reading success, all Children K-3 are screened with measuresthat correspond to the- "big ideas" in beginning reading:phonemic awareness; alphabetic understanding, and automaticity with the code: Screening measures differ accordingto grade and learner performance, but all are highly predic-tive of subseqnent reading success. For example, in kinder-garten and first grade, Dynamic. Indicators of Early LiteracySkills (DIBELS) (Kaminski & Good; 1998), which includeonset recognition, phonemic segmentation, letter naming,and nonsense word reading, are used to identify childrenwhose performanCe differs significantly from their same-agepeers. Once students are able to read words in connected text(approXimately mid-first grade through grade three), mea-sures of oral- reading fluency from curriculum-based pas-sages are used as indicators of reading achievement (Shinn,1997). :

StudentS' performance on these indiCators is then comparedto performance expectations; Or "where we would expectChildren to perforin," to identify children 'at risk of readingdisability or delay. Performance expectations maybe derivedfrom two sources: (a) local normative data or (b) perfonnanceassociated with early reading success (Kaminski & Good,1996).

important feature of the dynamic indicators is that they aredrawn directly from skills essential to successful perfor-mance in the general education curriculum. FOr example, theoral reading fluency measure draws directly from passagesin the general eduCation curriculum and therefore allows theteacher to assess a leainer's entry-level skills and growth.Assessment of each student is in relation to relevant materialsand the progress of all learners in order to assess whether astudent with disabilities is learning enough.

Second, the big idea indicators need to allow for "continuousevaluation" of students' literacy, skills as they change overtime. Kaminski-and Good (1998) noted that assessment mea-sures must be sensitive to Changes in student performance toenable educators to assess the effects of intervention in atimely and formative manner. In addition, the measures mustbe easy- to administer, capable of repeated and frequentadministration, and time efficient and cost effective. Thedynamic assessmentbf big idea indicators is a first step in theSIM process and remains critical across stages. A summary ofsample performance indicators by grade follows:

Kindergarten:

In Mosenthal's contextual model, this stage integrates setting(school), task (specific reading measures), and learner (per-formance on critical indicatOrs). This integrative model al-lows schools to examine learner performance not only at theindividual level, but also at the school leyel to determine themagnitude of. the problem. Front this big- picture analysis, thescope and intensity of the intervention. can be assessed.Schools can be better Prepared to respond to children's needsproactively through early screening and; identification. InStage I, a.centralized system of student- performance data isinitiated and maintained at the school level to enable timelyand informed decisions. This dynamiC database and record=keeping system is a common feature of effective schools andis'an essential featUre of the SIM prOcess.

TWO points about dynamic indicators of big ideas are criticalto this and subsequent stages of the procesS: First, the premisebehind "big idea" indicators is that while these screeningmeasures do' not tell us everything about reading achieve-ment, they serve as Valid and reliable predictors of skillshighly associated with later reading achievement. Deno (1992)describes such measures as indicator's or "vital signs of growthin basic skills comparable to the vital signs of health used byphysicians" (Deno, 1992, P. 6). Performance indicators pro-Vide fast and efficient indication of reading well being ofstudents with respect to important reading skills (Kaminski& Good, 1998): Children who score significantly below theirpeers or in comparison to normative data on-big idea indica-tors are considered at risk for later reading difficulty. An

First Grade:

Second Grade:

Third Grade:

Onset Recognition: recognize firstsoundsinwordsLetter Naming Fluency: name letters gm-.rately and quickly

Phoriernid Segmentation: produce phonemesin words' (auditory)Letter - Naming. Fluency: name letters accu-rately and fluentlyNonsense Word Fluenty: produce letter-

. .sound correspondences and Use them to read';wordsOral Reading Fluency: read ivords in con-nected text:quicklyand correctly

Nonsense Word FluencyOral Reading Fluency

Oral Reading Fluency

STAGE II: ANALYZE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE. AND PLAN INSTRUCTIONAL GROUPS

Using normative information from performande indicators of."big ideas," individual student perfOrrnance is analyzed todetermine (a)the child's current level of performance and (b)other children who have similar performance profiles. Toptovide a context for this-process, consider the followingdata. In a school- of 320 students, the mean perfOrniance offirst-grade children was' 14 phonemic 'segments per minute(range = 0-70) and 25 letter names correct per minute (range= 0 -79). on previous research (Good, personal commu-nication, August 28,1997), first-grade children who are suc-

EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING INTERVENTIONS FOR ALL CHILDREN

.,sSess.,:Stildent,,ferforttiance:Cif

STAGE H: grialYze IndividualPerfarmanc & Plan Instructional Groupings

Intensive Intervention , Strategic. Intervention IBenclunark intervention .

galSTWEIE III: Yet Reasonable & Ambitious Goals & Monitor Vrogress Formatively (4-week & long7term), agc:. .

xxE .'4`` *.,1( ' .STAGE IV: Analyie Contexts & DesignInterventions for IntensiveGroup

Example Intertiiire InterventiOn Dimensions

SCHOOL-LEVEL DECISIONS .

Goals ...

COre Curriculum Materials

'rime for Reading InstructiOn

Progress- Monitoring Systein,

GRADE -LEVEL DECISIONS

Gr9uping :

SCheduling-;

. Staff Development

Additional-Materials

Collaborative Grade-LevelDesign Teams MeetEvery. Two Weeks

INDIVIDUAL TEACHER

' DECISIONSSupplemental Practices

(e.g.,. Peer, :Tutoring)..

Motivation/Reinforcement

TechnicalAssistance 8t;Feedback', ...

Additional Curricular' praCtice MaterialS

'

Schedule AdditionalInstructional Opportunities

AGE ViEEvvaluatee *IntervTlition tifectieress SilAdjustiliistructon

INTENSIVE

Monitor Progress and MakeInstructional. Decisions

I time per week

STRATEGIC

Monitor PrOgress and MakeInstructional Decisions

1 time per month

BENCHMARK

Monitor Progress and MakeInstructional Decisions

3 times per year

17

OREGON SCHOOL STUDY COUNCli,

cessful early readers can segment words into phonemes at arate of 35-45 per- minute and identify 50-70 letter namescorrectly per minute. Though the mean performance hints atthe magnitude of the problem; only an examination of indi;vidual children's data reveals the scope of the problem re-vealed Of the 48 children, 21 could segment no phonemes,and 13 could correctly identify fewer than 10 letter namescorrect in a minute., --

USing a processdeyeloped by Shinn (1997), children's perfor-, mance on big idea indicators and other information fromteachers is used to perform "instructional triage"; that is,children who are at greatest risk are identified, as are childrenwfio are at some risk and children whO are making adequateprogress in early reading. To operationalize this prbeess, weuse the following criteria:

Intensive care, students are those who are seriously-at nskbased on extremely low perforMance on one or more perfor-,mance indicator. The'greater the number of measures and thelower the perforrnance, the greater the risk. In general, thesechildren are perfortning more. than 2 -standard deviations

the mean on local norms'or expected levels of perfor-mance.

Strategic students need systematic, strategic intervention andmonitoring because of increased risk faders and low perforLmance. Their performance, however, is not as loW as students -

.

in the intensive group..In general, the performance of thesechildren falls more than 1 standard deviation below themean.

enable children to receive instruction that is more accuratelyaligned with the needs of the learner. Groups' should remaindynainic, and strategkmonitoring of performance providesa mechanism for adjusting groups in response to instructionand asseSsinent.

The contexts involved in this Stage II include setting (school,classroom), task, learner, and teacher. The teacher ultimatelyexamines individual student perforinance data and deter-mines the composition of instructional groups. It is likely atthis stage, hoWever, that teachers Within or between gradesMay want to examine the performance heterogeneity withintheir classrooms to deterinine how "to optimize learningoppOrtunities for students.

Benchmark students', performance seems to Ape on target oncritical literacy skills, and these students are're not considered atrisk of reading delay, based on current performance.

Similar to children with serious medical Conditions,childienwho are in need of intensive care in reading are in daite needOf the most effective interventions available and requirefrequent monitoring. to ensure that their reading perfor-mance does not remain seriously low. EdUcatori must inter=vene with a sense of urgency. Strategic students are alsO atrisk, but their condition is less acute than intensive carestudents.: Nonetheless, strategic studentS recfuire more care-fully designed and delivered instruction than is typical ofmost classrooms. Shinn recommends monthly monitoring oncritical reading indicators to evaluate these students' perfor-mance. 's

=Once children's performance Profiles are analyzed, childrencan be grouped according to reading performance in smallhomogeneous groups designed for strategic intervention for

. children with intensive needs. As a rule, the nuniber, ofstudents in intensive .groups should be smaller than either thestrategic orbenchmark groups. A word of caution is war-ranted regarding grouping. The purpoSe of grouping is to

STAGE III: SET A_ MBMOUS INSTRUCTIONAL GOALS. AND MONITOR. FORMATIVELY-

The next stage of the 'School -wide Intervention Model in-volves using individual :student performance to set four-.week and long-term instructional goals. In early, literacy, wehave a reliable knoWledge base to determine expected perfor-mance for early literacy success (Fuchs' & Fuchs, 1994;Kaminski & Good, 1996; Hasbrouck & Tindal, 1992; Markell& Deno, 1997). For example; insecond grade, children gainapproximately 1.46 words correct per minute per week in oralreading fluency (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann,1993), and students in the 50th percentile exit second gradereading approximately 90 correct words per Minute(Hasbrouck & Tindal; 1992). Children 'who are - successfulearly readers segment words -demonstrate phonemiCawareness) at a rate of approximately 35-45 phonemes perMinute. TheSe levels of expected performance are critical aswe develop goats for children whose early reading trajecto-:ries are less than adequate, and they - serve an importantfunction in the SIM pioces.

If necessary, goals are established fdr multiple measures and'are monitored formatively: Shinn (1997) recommends Weeklymonitoring for children in the intensive -care group andMonthly Monitoring for students m the strategic group Allstudents in the grade are measured quarterly on criticalperformance indicators to determine their progress towardlong-term goals. Using the first-grade children previouslydiscussed, the mean of intensivecare children was 0 onphonemic segnientation,- and 3 on letter-naming fluency.Using expected performance (i.e., 35-45 in phonemic segmen=tation) and a goal of achieving performance targetS by mid-year (i.e., approximately 18 weeks), the weekly, goal is calcu-,-lated by dividinKthe target goal by the number of weeks inthe intervention period:. The 4-week goal LS calculated by.Multiplying the weekly goal by four. To improve phonemicawareness for our intensive first-grade students, the weeklygoal is. two phonemic segments gained per minute and the 4-Week goal is:8 segments per minute. Within 18 weeks, at again of 2 segments Per minute, students should reach the

- EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READINO INTERVENTIONS FOR ALL CHILDREN

target 35 segments per minute. The same process is used foreach target measure of reading.

STAGE IV: ANALYZE INTERVENTION. CONTEXTSAND PRIORITIZE INTERVENTION DIMF_NSIONS.

In Stages I-Ill, we set the context for what is arguably the mostcritical and complex stage of the SIM Process: InterVentiOn.The stages of the process thus far have allowed us to answerthe following questions:

Which children are at greatest risk of early readingdiffiCulty or disability?:

What is the magnitude of the problem?

Which children need the most intensive, intervention ?`

In Stage IV, the questions take on a different focus and includesuch queries as:

What are the reading goals of the school?.

Isiristructional priority allocated to the big, ideas ofphonological awareness, alphabetic understanding,and automaticity with the code?

Does the assessment system of the school provideinformation to monitor stUdents' progress?

What is: the teachers' current knowledge of effectivereading practices, and how much staff development isnecessary to support teachers?

Is the:primary reading curriculum program.effectiveand research based?

Are the instructional practices olgeneral, special, andremedial (Title I) teachers aligned to optimize learner

. performance?

Stage IV activity focuseson the multiple contexts that must be ,

considered when designing intervention and the importanceof instructional fit with the _host environment . Too . ofteninterventions fail because we have taken "Intervention A"and implemented it in 'School B" with "Teachers C and D "-without really understanding the fit betWeen A, B, C; and D.A key difference of the SIM from other ModelS is the focus.ofintervention that moves beyond the learner to the school,'-

. classroom, teacher, curriculum, materials, and task's. Contex-tual .analYsis is coordinated by site-based _coordinators incollaboration with grade-level intervention team& Site-basedcoordinators are district- and schoOl-based personnel whoknow -the school context and will continue to 'work ,in theschoolfOr the duration of the process. In this process, grade-

. level teams work from a framework of research-based prac-,tices .(e.g., 'specific curriculum, peertutoring).and alterablevariables (e.g., time, size groups, concentration-'of lowperformers) to customize intervention models:Thecontextsand dimensions from which schools may "customize" mod;els are displayed in Figure 4.

In the SIM, some decisions are made school wide forintensiVechildren and sorde at the classroom and individual childlevel. At minimum, we 'recommend that the following di-rhensions be established as the "core" intervention featureSfor an entire School building:

(a) redefine and set reading, vocabulary, andinathematicsachievement gOalS;-

(b) use curriculum programs based on validated research. principles;

, .

(c)., set a minimum of 45 minutes of reading/vocabularyinstruction and 30 minutes of matherriatics instruction'per day for students withdiSabilities or at.tisk of .academic learning problems; arid.

(d) institute a Centralized system of student achievement -data collection. :

For example, in tie- first-grade classes we profiled earlier,reading delay was not restricted to first grade. Approxi-mately '40% of all Students iri grades K-3 fell in the intensivecare group. As a schoOlithefaculty made several decisionsthat changed practiCe school wide (see SchOol Context of theConceptual Model): First,' the faculty prioritized reading asthe primary instructional focus for the year and set realisticand ambitious achievement gOals for intensive and, strategicstudents. Reading time was considered' sacred, and all per-sonnel (e.g., Title,adrainistration, general echicators, specialeducators, music) were involved in the school's intervention'plan. A 'centralized system for 'reading' achievement data:collection was instituted, and secretarial time was allocatedfor entering and maintaining the database. The context intheSe decisions was the 'setting (school; classioorn).

Next, all .grade K-3 staff was debriefed on research-basedprinciples of effective reading -instruction. They reviewedseveralbasal (i.e., Open Court, Reading Mastery) and supple.:mental: reading programs (e.g., Phonemic: Awareness forYoung Children; Ladders to Literacy, Read -Naturally) todeterniine the one that best fit the needs of their learners andthe resources of their classrooms. :All staff in the schoolreceived staff development on curriculuin implementationand frequent technical assistance:

. .

These "school-level" intervention dimensions were then ex-tended at each grade leVel. Grade-level teams currently meetevery other week to decide :how to find more time for intentsive students, how to regroup within .grade to create moreshomogeneouS groups, how to design and share lesson plans, =and how to chart 'and report student performance progress:At the individual level, teachers Make further decisions re-garding how to supplement instructional opportunity. forstudents at risk of reading disability or delay..Sonie teachers

''engage students in classwide peer tuto. rin g, while othersselect from additional research -based practices to augmentinstructional opportunity.

Scho

ols

Red

efin

e an

d se

tre

adin

g, v

ocab

ular

y, a

ndm

athe

mat

ics

achi

evet

hent

goa

ls.

Set m

inim

um ti

me

for

read

ing,

voc

abul

ary,

and

mat

hem

atic

s,' i

nstr

uctio

n.

Inst

itute

cen

tral

ized

syst

em o

f st

uden

tac

hiev

emen

t dat

aco

llect

ion

and

use.

Use

cur

ricu

lum

pro

gres

sba

sed

on v

alid

ated

prin

cipl

es.

Reo

rgan

ize

staf

f (g

ener

aled

Uca

tion;

spe

cial

educ

atio

n,T

itle)

to p

rovi

dein

tens

ive

and

alig

ned

inte

rven

tions

.

Exa

min

e st

uden

tpe

rfor

man

ce d

ata

tore

duce

Con

cent

ratio

nof

low

per

form

ers

in a

giV

en r

oom

.,

Est

ablis

h "a

chie

vem

ent

team

s" a

nd a

lloca

tepl

anni

ng ti

me

to a

ddre

ss,

subj

ect-

inat

ter

prio

ritie

s.

DIM

EN

SIO

NS

OF

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

MO

DE

LS

Clc

isro

cont

Prio

ritiz

e re

adin

g,vo

cabu

lary

, mat

hem

ati

inst

ruct

iona

l tim

e..

Red

uce

size

of

inst

ruct

iona

l gro

ups

for

loW

per

form

ers.

- Sc

hedu

le'"

extr

a"pe

riod

of

read

ing,

voca

bula

ry, m

athe

mat

i :s

inst

ruct

ion.

Use

cro

ss -

clas

s or

grad

e gr

oupi

ng to

crea

te h

omog

enou

sgr

oups

.

Coo

rdin

ate

inst

ruct

iona

delie

ry W

ith s

uppo

rtpe

rson

nel.

Tea

cher

Situ

atio

nOrganizer.

Prov

ide

staf

fde

velo

pmen

t for

'tea

cher

sin

inte

rven

tion

com

pone

nts.

Use

val

idat

ed p

eer-

med

iate

d: p

rogr

am to

supp

lem

ent t

each

er-,

_di

rect

ed in

stru

ctio

n (e

.g.,

clas

swid

e pe

er tu

tori

ng,

coop

erat

ive

lear

ning

).

Set u

p ac

cess

to r

esea

rch-

base

d in

form

atio

nth

roug

h w

ebsi

tes.

Inst

itute

com

mon

plan

ning

tim

es f

cir

prof

essi

onal

sup

port

,

Cur

riC

uluo

nM

ater

ials

Exa

min

e qu

ality

of

core

curr

icul

ar p

rogr

ams

tode

term

ine

whe

ther

to:

1) r

epla

ce c

ore

2) s

uppl

emen

t cor

e,

Incr

ease

ava

ilabi

lity

ofm

ater

ials

that

allo

wst

uden

ts to

pra

ctic

e (e

.g.,

Rea

d N

atur

ally

,ap

prop

riat

e re

adin

g an

dm

athe

inat

ics

mat

eria

lS).

Urr

icul

umM

ater

ials

Inst

itute

pro

gres

sm

onito

ring

to d

ocum

ent

grow

th o

ver

time.

Rev

iew

cur

ricu

lar

task

san

d fo

cus

on "

big

idea

s."

Def

ine

clea

r ta

skex

pect

atio

nS.

EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING INTERVENTIONS FOR ALL CHILDREN

In: this model, some interventions are standard across allgrades and classrooms within the school, while other inter-Ventions are discretionary At every stage of the interventiondefinitiOn process, collaborative teams construct or custom-ize the intervention from a menu of validated options. It isthis customization or "fir within the school that furtherdiStingui:shes,the SIM from more traditional translations ofresearch into practice.

Once intervention components are finalized, dimensions areimplemented for four-week-periods and adjusted based onlearner performance. All factors and adjustments withincontexts are documented to evaluate the effectiveneSs of site-baSed models.

the reality of educating "some" or even most (kameenui, inpress), then we face enormous Challenges. PerhapS the mostimportant challenge is that of setting instructional priorities(e.g:, beginning reading ShoUld be the top priority for Pri-mary and elementary schools), making the commitment ,tofocus relentlessly and Strategically on the priorities, andimplementing a data-based intervention mOdel (e.g., SIMSchool -wide Intervention Model) that provides a fOrmativeand continuous feedback loop about student perforniance.Finally; ihe intervention model must be embraced and con-ceptualized as a "primary'. program of prevention and inter-vention from the very. outset, and with specific:contexts andhost environments in mind. Only then will educating allchildren become a reality:

STAGE V; EVALUATE INTERVENTIONSFORMATIVELY. AND. MAKE INSTRUCTIONAL

. ADJUSTMENTS

In this final stage of the SIM process, we illustrate the criticallinkage between assessment and instruction. Using studentperformance on big, ideas indicators collected weekly forintensive students and monthly for strategic studentS, progresstoward goals is evaluated to determine if the rate of progressis adequate to aChieve established goals and eliminate risk oflong-term reading difficulty. In essence; we address the ques-tions: IS the student's current rate of progress sufficient toclose the gap, and is the rate sufficient so the student will learnenough to be on a positive trajectory toward reading success?

SUMMARY OF' MODEL

For children with reading disabilities or at risk of ,seriousreading clifficulty,:the SIM is a datarbased model for deter-mining: (a) who to target for interventio (b) the' magnitudeof the problem, (c) the amount of growth necessary to changeearly reading trajectories; (d) essential dimensions of intervention and their contextual fit, (e) the effectiveness of inter-verition, and (f) whether children are "learning:enough"(Carnine, 1997). Based on the methodological integration ofknOWledge fromgeneral and. Special education research inassessment (e.g.; Deno, 1992; Kaminski & Good, 1996; Shinn;1997), together with effective instructional design principles(Kameenui & Camine, 1998), yalidaled methods of earlyreading. instruction (Simmons & Kameenui, in press), andintervention Models that fit.the host environment (Sugai &Homer, in press), the SIM model can be used to intercept andprevent early reading risk from becoming long-term andintractable.,

ConclusionIf the Widespread call to educate "all" children (e.g., Goals2000) is to be taken seriously and not viewed as just andtherslogan in which "the rhetoric" of educating "all" is in effect

21

ReferencesAdair's, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learningabout print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Armbruster, B., & Ostertagd. (1993). Questions in elementaryscience and social science and social studies textbooks. 'In B.K. Britton, A. Woodward, & M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning fromtextbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 69-94). Hillsdale, -NJ:Lawrence Erlbauin Associates, Inc.

Baker, S. K, Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1998).Characteristics of students with diverse learning and auricu-lar needs. In E. J. Kameenui & D. W2Carnine (Eds:), Effective'teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (pp: 19-44).Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice-kall,

Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education clasSesequipped to accommodate students with learning disabili-

, ties? Exceptional Children, 56, 515-526.

.Carnine, D. (1997). InstrUctional design in mathematics forstudents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Dg-abilities, 30, 130-131.

Carnine, D. W. (1994). Introduction to the mini-Series: Educa-tional tools for diVerse learners: School Psychology Review, 23;341-350.

Carroll,.'. . B. 1963). A model of school learning. TeachersCollege Record, 64; 723-733.

Carroll; J. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospec-tive and prospective view. Eduthtional Researcher, 18, 26-31.

Chard; D. J., Kameenui, E; J., & Coladarci; T. (1993). Instruc-. tional efficacy: .Toward a specification of the teacher efficacy -Con-

struct. UnpUblished manuscript.

Chard, D. J.; Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (in press).Word recognition: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J.Kameentii (Eds.), What reading research telli us about childrenWith diverse learning needs Ma_ hWah; NJ: Lawrence EribaumAssociates.

Corner, J. (1988): Educating poor minority children. ScientificAmerican, 259, 4248.

Deno, S. L. (1992): The nature and developinent of curricu-lum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 5-10.

Dill, D. D., & Associates (1990). What teachers need to know: Theknowledge, skills, and values essential to good teaching. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bas.

OREGON SCHOOL STOWCOUNCIL

Fashola, 0: S., & Slavin, R: E. (in press): Effective and repli-cable programs for stUdents placed at risk in elementary.andmiddle schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk :'

Felton, R. H., & Pepper, P. P. (1995). Early identification andintervention of phonological deficits in kindergarten andearly elementary children at risk for reading disability: SchoolPsychology Review, 24, 405414.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs., L. (1994). Classwide curriculum basedmeasurement: Helping general educators meet the challengeof student diversity. ExCeptional Children, 60; 518-537.

:

Fuchs, L. S., FuChs, D.; Hamlett, C. L.; Walz, L., & Germann,G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress : Howmuch growth can we expect? School PsyCholoky Review, 22(1),27-48.

GibSon, S., & Dernbo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: Aconstruct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,5697582.

Good; Ill R., Simmons,' D., & Smith; , 5: (1998). EffectiveacademiC interventions in the United States:Evaluating andenhancing the acquisition-of early reading skills. School Psy-chology Review, 27(1), 740-753.

Hasbrouck, J. E.; & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriailtim-baged oralreading fluenCy norms for students in grades r2 through 5.Teaching ExCeptional Children, 24, 41-44.

Hedges, L. V., & Waddington, T. (1993): From evidence toknowledge to policy: Research synthesis` fOr policy fon:*tion. &Mew of Educational Research, 63(3),345-352.'

Hodgkinson, H. (1991). Reform versus reality. Phi Delta Kappan,73(1), 8-16.

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1992). A demographic look'ook at tomorrow.-Institute for Educational Leadership Center for DemographicPolicy.

Hoffman, J.V., McCarthey, S., Abbcit, 'C., Corman, L.,Dressman, M. Elliott, B., Matherne,D:, & Stahle, D. (1994). Sowhat's new in the new basals? A focus on first grade. Journalof Reading Behavior; 26,:47-73.

Hoy, W. K.; & Woolfolk A. E. (1990). School health and teacherracy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-

can EdUcational Research Association; Boston.

Jitendra; A. K., & Kameenui, .E. J. (1988). A design-of-instruC-tion analysis of concept teaching in five basal languageprograms: Violations from the bottom up. The Journal 'ofSpecial Educatioi02, 199-219.

,. EFFECTIVE BEGINNING READING INTERVENTIONS FOR ALL CHILDREN

Juel, C. ,(1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal.study of 54 children from first through fourth Journal"of Educational Psychoiogy, SO, 437-447.

Marken, M. A., & Deno, S. L. (1997). Effects of increasing oral, reading. Generalization across reading tasks. The Journal of

Special Education, 31(2), 233-250.

Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the, tyranny oftime: Don't fix blame; fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher,

.46, 376383.

Kameenni, E. J. (1996). Shakespeare and beginning reading:"The readiness is all Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2),81.

Kameeriui, E. J. (in press). The rhetoric of all, the reality of.some, and the urimistakable smell of mortality. In Lehr '&Osborn (Eds:), Literacy for all Issues in teaching and learning.New York Guilford.

Mayer, R.; Sims, V., & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of howtextbooks text mathematical problem solving in Japan andthe United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32,443-460.

McLeskey, J., (tr Pacchiano, b..(1994). Mainstreaming stu-dents with learriing disabilities: Are we making progress?Exceptional: Children, 60, 508-517.

Kameenui, E.- J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effective teachingstrategies that accommodate diverse learners. Columbus, OH:Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Kameenui, E. 1., & Griffin ; -C. (1989). The national crisis inverbal problem solving in mathematics: A proposal for exam-ining the role of basal mathematics programs. ElementarySchoOl Journal, 23; 141-144.

Kaminski, R. A.;& Good, R H. III (1996). Toward a technol-ogy for assessing basic early literacy; skills. School Psychology'Review, 25(2), 2157227.

Kaminski, R. & Good,. R, H., III (1998). Assessing earlyliteracy skills in a problem7Solying model: DynamicindiCa-tors of basic early literacy skills. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Advancedapplications of curriculum-based .measurement. New York:GOilford.

Liberman; J. Y. (1973). Segmentation of the spoken. ord andreading acquisition. Bulletin of the Orton Society; 23, 65-76.

Liberman, L Y:, & Liberman, A. M. (1990): Whole languagevs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions.and their impli-cations' for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 5176,

Lyon, G. R., & Chhabra, v: (1996). The current state of scienceand the future of specific' reading disability. Mental Retarda-,

tion and Developmental Disabilities Reseaich Reviews, 2, 2=9.

Malouf, D. B & Schiller, E. P. (1995); Practice and research inspecial education. Exceptional Children, 61, 414-424.

Mann, V. A., & Brady, S. (1988). Reading disability: The roleof language deficiencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinicalpsychology, 56(6), 811-816.

Mosenthal; P. (1982). Designing training prograMs forlearn-Jr* disabled Children: An ideological perSpective. Topics inLearning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 97-107;

Mosentlial, P. (1984). The problem of partial specification in,translating reading research into practiCe: The ElementarySchool Journal; 85(2),199 -227.

Nagy, IC E., & Herinan, P. A. (1987): Breadth and depth of-VoCabulary knoWledge: ImplicatiOns for acquisition and in-struction. In M. G. McKeown & E. Curtis (Eds.), The, natureof vocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perfetti, C. A., & Zharig, S. (1996). Whatit means to learn toread. In M. F. Graves, P: van den Broek & B. M. Taylor (Eds.);The first R: EVery child's right to read (pp. 37-61). New York:Teachers College. PreSs.

Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language develop-ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

Porter; A. C. (1989). A curricultirdout of balance: The-case ofelementary School mathematics. EdUcatiorial Researcher, 18(5),9-15.

Schumm, J. Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & "(1994).

General education teachers' beliefs, skills, and praCtices inplanning for mainstreamed stridents with learningties. Teacher Education and Special Education; 17(1); 22-37.

Shinn, M. (1997). Instructional decision making using currica:luin-based measurement. Unpublished workshop ,materials.

Simnions, D. C:, & Kameenuij. J. -(in press). What readingresearch tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Basesand basics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eilbaurn Associates,Iric.

Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E., & Chard, p. (1998). Generaleducation teachers' assumptions about learning and stu-dents with learning disabilities: DeSign-of-inStiriction analy-sis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 1-16:

:91,6%Mulletin

Simmons, D.,* Kameemn; E. (1996).,A focuS on curriculum.design: -When children fail: In E. Meyen, Vergason, & R.Whelan (Eds.), Strategies for teaching children: in inclusive set-tings: Denver Love Publishing. [Reprinted from Focus onExceptional Children, 28(7) ;1 -16k by Simi:lions, D. C., &Kameenui; E. J :,1996].

Slavin, R. E. (1998). Untitled draft. Unpublished manuscript:

Slaxiin, R. E.;Madden, N. A.,, Dolan, L. J., & B. A.(1996). Every child, every school:Success for All. Newbery Park,CA: COrwin. '

Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J:, Fuchs-,,,L. S., Deno, S.; Fuchs, D.-,Baker, J. N., Jenkins; L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Specialeducation in restructured sthools: Findings from three multi-year stiidies. Phi. Delta Kappan,:76; 531 -540.

Smith, S., Simmons,. D. 'C:, & Katneenui, E. J._ (in press).Phonological awareness: Research bases: In D. C. SimmanS.&E._ J. Kaineenui (Eds.), What reading research tells us abmitchildren with' diverse learning needs:- Bases and basics Mahwah;NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sinylie, M. A. (1988), The enhancement function of staffdevelopment: Organizational and psYchological antecedentsto individual teacher Change.- American Educational Research_Journal, 25, 1-30.

Spector, J. E.. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Applica-tion of principles of direct instruction. Reading and WritingQuarterly, 11, 37-51.

Stanovich; K.; E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading:' Someconsequences of individual differefices'M the acquisition of .

literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406. :

Stringfield, S: (in press).; Underlying. e Chaos:: Factors explaining exemplary U.S. elementary schools and the case for

.

,high reliability organizations, In T. TOwnsend (Ed.), Restruc-turing and quality: Probleme and possibilities for `tomorrow's:schools. London: Routledge.

SugaiG.,,& Horner; R (in press). Discipline and behaviorat,support: Preferred processes and practices. Effective SchOolPracticei.

.

Swanson, H. 14 & Cooney, J. B. (1991). ',Learning disabilities ":,and memory..In,B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning .about,learning:disabilities (pp. 104-127). San Diego, CA: Academic press.

Torgesen, J. K (1985): Memory processes #i reading disabledchildren. Journal of Learning Disabilities,. 18(6), 350-357.

.Torgesen, J., Wagner, & Rashotte,: C. (1994). Longitudinalstudies of phonological processing and reading. Journal ofLearning Disabilities; 27; 276-286:

U.S. Department, of EdUcation (1994). GoalS 2000: EducateAmerica Act (Public LaW 103-227). Washington, DC: Author.

4

DIUM3ulletinVOLUME 41 NUMBER 3 SPRING 1998

University of OregonOregon SchoolStudy CouncilCollege of Education1215 University of OregonEugene, OR 97403-1215

f144r, kmusotaasomonau-DIGIT 9741 1 13 0.130700

NonprofitOrganizationUS Postage

PAIDEugene OR

Permit No. 63

)

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all

or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,

does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").