This article examines topics found in reading standards for K–12 education and then examines the standards from a perspective of accessibility for students with a variety of sensory and learning disabilities. The article begins by first determining how broad or limiting states' reading standards are in coverage and whether focus on particular standards limits options for students to use multiple methods of interaction with print (e.g., accessing print through visual, audio, tactile, or multiple modalities). A review of standards found that state standards generally fall into the following categories: the acquisition of specific skills; the knowledge of the elements or conventions in language; literacy as an interactive, thinking activity; literacy as a problem-solving tool; and literacy as a catalyst for personal growth. With the exception of specific skill standards, all standards have the potential to be accessed through different modalities.
Allington, R.L., & Cunningham, P.M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all children read and write. New York: HarperCollins College.
2.
American Federation of Teachers. (1999). Making standards matter1999. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from www.aft.org/edissues/standards99
3.
Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M.A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reinking, L. Labbo, M. McKenna, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post-typographic world (pp. 15—43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Biemiller, A., & Siegel, L.S. (1997). A longitudinal study of the effects of the Bridge reading program for children at risk for reading failure. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 83—92.
5.
Carver, R.P. (1981). Reading comprehension and reading theory. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
6.
Carver, R.P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory . New York: Academic Press.
7.
Carver, R.P. (2000). How will reading be defined in the new millennium ? Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 67—68.
8.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2003 ). National file format initiative at NCAC. Retrieved January 9, 2003, from http://www.cast.org/NCAC/NFF
9.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2004 ). National instructional materials accessibility standard Retrieved July 2004 from http://www.cast.org
10.
Clapper, A.T., Morse, A.B., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
11.
Crawford, P.A. (1995). Early literacy: Emerging perspectives. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 71—86.
12.
Finn, C.E., Jr., Petrilli, M.J., & Vanourek , G. (1998). The state of state standards (Fordham Report, Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
13.
Gavelek, J.R., & Raphael, T.E. (1996). Changing talk about text: New roles for teachers and students. Language Arts, 73, 182—192.
14.
Joftus, S., & Berman, I. (1998). Great expectations? Defining and assessing rigor in state standards for mathematics and English language arts. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
15.
Kamil, M.L., Intrator, S.M., & Kim, H.S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M. L. Kamil , P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 771—788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
Koenig, A.J., Layton, C.A., & Ross, D.B. (1992). The relative effectiveness of reading in large print and with low vision devices for students with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 86, 48—53.
17.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Lyon, G.R. (1996). Learning disabilities. Futures of Children, 6, 54—76.
19.
Moats, L.C., & Lyon, G.R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Language Disorders, 16(2), 73—86.
20.
New London Group. (1994). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60—92.
21.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2001).
22.
Okolo, C.M., Cavalier, A.R., Ferretti, R.P., & MacArthur, C.A. (2000). Technology, literacy, and disabilities: A review of the research. In R. Gersten, E. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 179—250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
23.
Roberts, P. (1998). Extending literate horizons: Paulo Friere and the multi-dimensional word. Educational Review, 50, 105—114.
24.
Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind. ( 2002). Print disability. Retrieved April 17, 2002, from http://home.vicnet.au/~dakit/printdis/pdhandout1.htm
25.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
26.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360—407.
27.
Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Clapper, A.T. (2004). State reading standards, instruction, and assessment: Exploring accessibility (Technical Rep. No. 38). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
28.
Van Daal, V., & Reitsma, P. (1990). Effects of independent word practice with segmented and whole-word sound feedback in disabled readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 13, 133—148.
29.
Valencia, S.W., & Wixson, K.K. (2001). Inside English/language arts standards: What's in a grade?Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 202—217.
30.
Walmsley, S.A., & Allington, R.L. (1995). Redefining and reforming instructional support programs for at-risk students. In R. L. Allington & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America's elementary schools (pp. 19—44). Newark, DE , and New York: International Reading Association and Teachers College Press.
31.
Wilkinson, M.E., Stewart, I., & Trantham, C.S. (2000). The Iowa model for pediatric low vision services. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness , 94, 446—452.
32.
Wise, B.W., & Olson, R.K. (1994). Using computers to teach spelling to children with learning disabilities. In G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, practice and intervention (pp. 481—504). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
33.
Yoon, J.-C., Park, M., & Commeyras, M. (2002). A comparative study of symbolic reading: Salt peddler and shinbone. Current Issues in Education, 5(2). Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume5/number2/index.html
