This 2-year longitudinal study examined initial evidence of progress in reading for 1,512 children with and without identified speech-language and/or learning disabilities (LD-SLD) in the context of the explicit literacy instruction provided in Michigan's Reading First (RF) schools. The findings suggested that children with LD-SLD labels demonstrated significantly slower growth compared to children without LD-SLD labels. Children considered more at risk also demonstrated slower progress in oral reading fluency (but not reading comprehension) compared to children considered less at risk. Implications are discussed in relationship to the extent of instructional support needed by children identified as LD-SLD in the mainstream, and in terms of the specific dimension of reading skills as a criterion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.TomblinJ. B. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42 (6), 1142–1157.
3.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2004). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act: A technical assistance resource. Retrieved January 29, 2006, from www.cec.sped.org//pp/OverviewNCLB.pdf.
4.
Education Week. (2004). Quality Counts 2004: Count me in: Special education in an era of standards. Editorial Projects in Education, 23 (17). Retrieved August 9, 2005, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/qc04/.
5.
FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.ShaywitzW. E.LyonG. R.FoormanB. R.StuebingK. K. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 13 (4), 186–203.
6.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (1), 37–55.
7.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why & how valid is it?. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 93–99.
8.
FuchsL. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 172–186.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.
10.
GerstenR.DiminoJ. A. (2006). RTI (Response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 99–108.
11.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available: http://dibels.uoregon.edu/.
12.
HechtS. A.BurgessS. R.TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2000). Explaining social class differences in growth in reading skills from beginning kindergarten through fourth grade. Reading and Writing, 12 (1-2), 99–127.
13.
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A. (2001). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
14.
LyonG. R., (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10 (Suppl. 1), S120–S126.
15.
LyonG. R. (March 8, 2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Statement to Subcommittee on Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved January 6, 2006, from http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/107th/edr/account3801/lyon.htm.
16.
LyonG. R.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.ChhabraV. (2004). Evidence-based reading policy in the United States: How scientific research informs instructional practices. Paper prepared for the 2004 Brookings Papers on Education Policy Conference, The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC.
17.
MiskelC.SongM. (2004). Passing Reading First: Prominence and processes in an elite policy network. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26 (2), 89–109.
18.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinP. D. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79 (387), 516–524.
20.
ScarboroughH. S.ParkerJ. D. (2003). Matthew effects in children with learning disabilities: Development of reading, IQ, and psychosocial problems from grade 2 to grade 8. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 47–71.
21.
ShareD. L.StanovichK. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 1, 1–57.
22.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
23.
TorgesenJ. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15 (1), 55–64.
24.
TorgesenJ. K. (2005). Remedial interventions for students with dyslexia: National goals and current accomplishments. In RichardsonS.GilgerJ. (Eds.), Research-based education and intervention: What we need to know (pp. 103–124). Boston: International Dyslexia Association.
25.
TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.AlexanderA. W. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In WolfM. (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333–355). Timonium, MD: York Press.
26.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.RoseE.LindamoodP.ConwayT. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002b). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Report of the President's Commission on Special Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from: http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/info.html.
30.
VaughnS. (2003, December). How many tiers are needed for response to intervention to achieve acceptable prevention outcomes? Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
31.
VellutinoF. R.FletcherJ. M.SnowlingM. J.ScanlonD. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades?. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (1), 2–40.
32.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.JaccardJ. (2003). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: A two-year follow-up of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers. In FoormanB. R. (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties (pp. 73–120). Baltimore: York Press.
33.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (4), 601–638.
34.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.TanzmanM. S. (1998). The case for early intervention in diagnosing reading disability. Journal of School Psychology, 36 (4), 367–397.
