SHARE Magazine, Fall 2010 by SHARE Magazine

Volume 21, Issue 3 Fall 2010

SHARE m ag a zin e

The Best of

Featuring the 2009-2010 Exemplary Lab Winners

the Best

The Children Cannot Wait!

Formula for Success

Teaching What Matters Most

... and some of SHARE Magazineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Greatest Hits!

Volume 21, Issue 3 Fall 2010 Table of Contents

magazine

From the Editor

The Best of th e B e st

Going Retro We’d like to take this opportunity to recognize our labs who’ve partnered with us for 15 or more years to enable those with learning differences to achieve academic, social, and professional success.

21 The 2009-2010 Exemplary Lab Winners 24 In the Spotlight In 2008, we featured perhaps one of our most remarkable success stories: the story of Fontana (CA) High School’s Luis Albarran-Leyva. 48 The Average Student The CEI Accelerated Learner

SHARE Magazine © Copyright 2010 by Creative Education Institute® (CEI®) All Rights Reserved. For further information, call 1.888.511.4194. Publisher: Managing Editor: Contributing Editor: Design and Art:

Ric Klein Robin Wilson Lesley Mullen Robin Wilson

Essential Learning Systems® (ELS®), Mathematical Learning Systems® (MLS®), Science Learning Systems® (SLS®), CODEBREAKER®, CEI Evaluate™, Letter Recognition® (LR®), CEI Learning Manager™ (CLM™), Sentence Assembler™, Sound

Express®, Quick Tales™ and eQuick Tales™ are registered trademarks of Creative Education Institute®.

PRINTED BY: AMA NYSTROM PRINTING/FINISHING WACO, TEXAS 254.776.8860

WRITE TO US: We welcome your letters, testimonials, photos, and stories about your students. The editor reserves the right to determine the suitability of letters for publication and to edit them for accuracy and for length.

SHARE Magazine’s Top 10 Greatest Hits

Igniting the Fire What makes students want to learn and, in turn, complete the necessary study? One thing is certain: motivation is required for the learning process to be successful.

Teaching What Matters Most In Jack London’s remarkable short story, “To Build a Fire,” the main character’s inability to understand the significance of things cost him everything. Far too frequently, schools greet students with THE curriculum, with the expectation that everyone is equally ready. But there are many children who, for one reason or another, are behind....

Formula for Success Mastery of Fact Fluency + Long-Division Concept and Algorithm + Fraction Concepts and Operations = Algebra Achievement

Why ELS Works for Dyslexics Several of our partners have requested the specific research as to why the program is appropriate for learners who are dyslexic. In response to those requests, we have gone back to the research presented in our Essential Learning Systems research paper and distilled the information pertaining specifically to this subgroup.

Building Blocks

Page

15 Page

CEI staff worry — a lot, in fact — when we visit Mathematical Learning Systems (MLS) labs and learn that someone has made a decision that students can skip the program’s concrete, or Tactile, lessons. Read this article to learn just why.

Why ELS Works for ELLs Similar to “Why ELS Works for Dyslexics,” this article summarizes the research presented in our Essential Learning Systems (ELS) and Mathematical Learning Systems (MLS) research papers pertaining to how our programs are appropriate for English Language Learners (ELLs).

Time is on Your Side: Essential Learning Systems in an RtI Implementation We at CEI learn in lots of ways, but one of our most valuable sources of information is from the facilitators in our labs and from their principals and other administrators….

Get in the Fast Lane: 10 Ways CEI Products Accelerate Learning Students in CEI’s labs across the country typically gain far more than one year of learning for one year of instruction. Such true acceleration is critical if schools are ever going to be able to narrow the achievement gap In this article, we show 10 ways CEI products can address your students’ need for speed.

One Team. One Goal. CEI’s overwhelming strength is our ability to accelerate learning among the most at-risk students, but do we rest on our laurels? Absolutely not! We want to keep getting better and better at what we do, and our ongoing goal is the continuous improvement of our products so that students learn what they need to learn at a faster and faster pace.

The Children Cannot Wait! Year after year, many districts across the country do fine at the elementary level, but virtually all their middle and high schools miss their AYP in reading and/or mathematics. We believe that high schools cannot earn their AYP because of their inherited problems ... and we have ideas about how to resolve this issue.

If you would like to submit photographs, you may send printed copies or digital copies via snail mail or e-mail; if you would like your printed copies or digital media returned to you, please indicate so in your mailing.

WRITE: SHARE Magazine P.O. Box 7306 Waco, Texas 76714-7306

In order to include a student’s photograph in our publication, we must have a signed copy of the Permission to Reprint form on file before the issue goes to press. You may download the form from the SHARE Magazine page on our website at http://www.ceilearning.com/share.htm.

E-MAIL: SHARE@ceilearning.com info@ceilearning.com support line: 888.511.4194 FAX: 888.475.2402 WEBSITE: www.ceilearning.com

Page

from the Editor

absolutely love “best lists.” TV, radio, the Internet … you name it … if there’s a countdown or a “Top [insert number here]” list or show to be found, I’m there. I could spend hours at http://www.listsofbests.com/. A huge number of my iTunes playlists include the “Greatest Hits” volumes of my favorite artists. At the risk of giving away my age, I’m a huge fan of the music of the ‘80s. I attended high school and college in the ‘80s, and my first job after graduating from college was in a public school, working with kids who listened to ‘80s music practically 24/7. My “Greatest Hits” playlists include offerings from the superstars of that era — Pat Benatar, Blondie, Duran Duran, Journey, Madonna, Michael Jackson, and U2, to name just a few — and I’ve compiled some of my own personal “Greatest Hits” lists, too. In fact, as I work today, I’m listening to my “‘80s Megamix,” which includes not only the artists I mentioned above, but also a smattering of New Wave hits, as well as the iconic one-hit wonders of the decade, like Tommy Tutone’s “867-5309/Jenny” and Dexy’s Midnight Runners’ “Come On Eileen.” A few evenings ago, I was scanning my Facebook News Feed, and I came across the following post, made by one of my muchyounger Facebook friends: “Most of the time, I am annoyed by ‘Way Back Wednesday’ on the radio.“ What? Say it isn’t so. The only day I listen to a particular radio station in town is “Way Back Wednesday.” Much to my chagrin, the music of my era apparently is now classified as oldies. I suppose I should have realized this when the kids in the bands I work with asked me if I’d ever heard the songs “Don’t Stop Believin” and “Eye of the Tiger.” Well, yes…. I knew them when they first came out … in 1981 and 1982.

Despite this disheartening revelation that I’m officially retro, I’ll still listen to my “Greatest Hits” playlists, I’ll still watch all those VH-1 countdown specials, and I’ll still read every list I can find pertaining to the time when greed was good, to quote another ‘80s icon. Why? Because those things help me remember people, places, and events that were important to me. You may have been wondering, “Where is our back-to-school issue of SHARE Magazine?” I don’t blame you.... Many of you are already six weeks or more into the school year, after all. We decided to wait until now to publish our first issue of the school year for a reason. We wanted to give you time to settle yourself into the new school year … to become acquainted with your students … to establish your routines. And now that all the hubbub of school startup has subsided, we want to remind you of things that are important. This issue of SHARE is CEI’s very own “best list.” In this issue, we introduce you to The Best of the Best: our loyal partners who have maintained a relationship with us for 15 or more years (“Going Retro,” page 5); the 2009-2010 Exemplary Labs (page 21), and one of the most successful students in CEI history (“In the Spotlight,” page 24.) We also present SHARE Magazine’s Greatest Hits … articles that we’ve published in the past, but articles that remind us why we do what we do … articles that describe exactly how we help struggling learners achieve academic, social, and professional success. … articles that tell us, “Don’t Stop Believin’.” Best Wishes for Success,

Robin Wilson Editor, SHARE Magazine

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

The Best of th e B e st

Going Retro

adio personality Casey Kasem, who was best known as the co-creator and original host of the nationally syndicated radio countdown show, American Top 40, once said, “Anytime in radio that you can reach somebody on an emotional level, you’re really connecting.” We agree with him, but we believe Casey’s comments could just as easily refer to the CEI lab. Our partners are the best when it comes to making life-changing connections with students. Some of our partners have been making these connections for years … some, for almost as long as CEI has existed! That’s why we’d like to recognize our labs that have remained in partnership with us for almost as long as Casey Kasem hosted the original American Top 40 (a little over 18 years, for you trivia buffs). For 15 years or more, the following labs have enabled those with learning differences to achieve academic, social, and professional success. We thank them for their loyalty to us and to our products, and we commend them for the remarkable work they’ve done. And, to borrow some words from Casey, we offer this encouragement for the future: “Keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars.” District School / Lab Name Years Current Facilitator Bay City ISD Holy Cross Elementary 16 Shelly Ryman Blackwell CISD Blackwell School 15 Deborah Holland Brock ISD Brock Elementary 17 Jane King Bryson ISD Bryson Elementary 16 June Broom** Buna ISD Buna Jr. High 16 Lisa Richardson Cayuga ISD Columbus ISD Coupland ISD Cuero ISD

Cayuga Elementary Columbus Elementary Coupland Elementary Cuero Jr. High

18 Tammy Mingus 17 Trudy Smothers 16 Sarah Jezek** 16 Margaret Villa**

Eagle Pass ISD Eagle Pass Jr. High Edinburg CISD Austin Elementary Edinburg CISD Brewster Elementary Edinburg CISD Canterbury Elementary Edinburg CISD Cavazos Elementary Edinburg CISD De La Vina Elementary Edinburg CISD Edinburg High Edinburg CISD Edinburg North High Edinburg CISD Edinburg South Middle Edinburg CISD Eisenhower Elementary Edinburg CISD Escandon Elementary Edinburg CISD Freddy Gonzalez Elementary Edinburg CISD Hargill Elementary Edinburg CISD Harwell Jr. High Edinburg CISD Jefferson Elementary Edinburg CISD Lincoln Elementary Edinburg CISD Lorenzo De Zavala Elementary Edinburg CISD Lyndon B Johnson Elementary Edinburg CISD Memorial Jr. High Edinburg CISD Monte Cristo Elementary Edinburg CISD Robert E Lee Elementary Edinburg CISD San Carlos Elementary Edinburg CISD Travis Elementary Edinburg CISD Truman Elementary

16 Elizabeth Garcia 18 Susan Zuniga 18 Olga Balderas 17 Josh Trevino 16 Felipe Hernandez 18 Cynthia Reyna 16 Jose Ortiz 16 Trinidad Calvillo 16 Angenette Garza 15 Yolanda Ortiz** 18 Lisa Alaniz 18 Mari Patino 18 Florinda Benavidez 16 Cynthia Flores 18 Virginia Torres 18 Jessica Salinas 18 Diana Flores 18 Amelia Salas 16 Connie Ruiz 18 Esmeralda Flores 18 Cecilia Rios 18 Esther Molina 18 Virginia Torres 18 Luis Figuero

Lampasas ISD Lampasas ISD Lyford CISD

16 Lorna Moses 16 Susan McKenzie 16 Valerie Perez

Hanna Springs Elementary Lampasas Middle School Lyford Elementary

** These facilitators have served their labs from the first day of implementation.

The Best of th e B e st

Going Retro

(continued from page 5)

District School / Lab Name Years Current Facilitator McAllen ISD Alvarez Elementary 17 Leticia Sanchez McAllen ISD Ben Milam Elementary 17 Bernice Brooks McAllen ISD Bonham Elementary 17 Nilda Barrera McAllen ISD Crockett Elementary 17 Calvin Cantu McAllen ISD DeLeon Middle School 16 Hilda Ramos McAllen ISD Escandon Elementary 17 Sonia Rodriquez McAllen ISD Fields Elementary 17 AnnaMaria Liguez McAllen ISD Gonzalez Elementary 16 Jane English McAllen ISD Houston Elementary 17 Elizabeth Moreno McAllen ISD Jackson Elementary 17 Hilda Maldonado McAllen ISD McAuliffe Elementary 16 Angela Gonzalez McAllen ISD Morris Middle School 17 Becky Williams McAllen ISD Navarro Elementary 17 Sonia Rodriquez McAllen ISD Options High 16 Joy Ramirez** McAllen ISD Rayburn Elementary 17 Gloria Garza McAllen ISD Reynaldo Garza Elementary 17 Belia Hinojosa McAllen ISD Seguin Elementary 17 Angela Gonzalez McAllen ISD Thigpen/Zavala Elementary 17 Juan Garcia McAllen ISD Wilson Elementary 17 Hilda Maldonado McCamey ISD McCamey Primary 15 Virginia Fuentes** Mission CISD Leal Elementary 16 Nora Cavazos** Montgomery ISD Montgomery Elementary 17 Beverly Healy** Montgomery ISD Montgomery Intermediate 17 Karen Bravenec Morton ISD PEP High School 17 Martha Acevedo New Caney ISD New Caney Elementary New Caney ISD Porter Elementary

17 Mary Elam** 17 Carolyn Craig**

Petersburg ISD Pharr-San Juan-Alamo ISD Plainview ISD Plainview ISD

17 Gloria Hernandez** 17 David Trevino 17 Sherry Thomas 17 Neely Carter

Petersburg Elementary Liberty Middle School Ash 6th Grade School Coronado Junior High

Private school Briarwood School Private school Madison Ridgeland Academy Private school Pillow Academy

19 Holly Strapulos 15 Martha Batson** 16 Adrian Tribble**

Santa Gertrudis ISD Sealy ISD Sharyland ISD Shepherd ISD Shepherd ISD Silsbee ISD Silverton ISD

18 Mary Cheeseman 16 Debbie Weiss 16 Sandra Bagwel 18 Kathy Fleming 18 Carol Page** 15 Laura Scoggins** 15 Mary Younger**

Santa Gertrudis Selman Elementary John H Shary Elementary Shepherd Intermediate Shepherd Primary Read Turrentine Elementary Silverton School

Throckmorton ISD Throckmorton Elementary Tulia ISD Tulia High School

16 Brandy Miller 16 Delynn Mabry**

United ISD D. D. Hachar Elementary Westwood ISD Westwood Elementary Woodson ISD Woodson School Wylie ISD Wylie Intermediate

18 16 16 15

** These facilitators have served their labs from the first day of implementation.

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

Rosario Garcia Linda Calverley Joy Brown** Rachael Burks

This article first appeared in the Winter 2008 issue of SHARE, Volume 19, Issue 4.

Igniting the Fire W

hat makes students want to learn and in turn, complete the necessary study? This question, usually accompanied with a degree of frustration, is often heard throughout the walls of academic institutions everywhere. “Students are motivated by fear or even the threat of bad grades,” some faculty might claim. Other faculty might plea the opposite case, arguing that students thrive on positive feedback. Still others might argue that students work to satisfy their own personal achievement goals, or that efforts expended today will result in direct payback, consisting of immediate rewards or future opportunities such as a good job, nice car, more income, etc. In the end, if you ask 10 people this same question, you might end up with 10 different answers. But despite the confusion, one thought will be certain: motivation is required for the learning process to be successful. For over 20 years, CEI has believed that all children can learn and has developed intervention programs to aid in that endeavor. In doing so, we not only acknowledge the need for motivation in the regular classroom, but we also know that there is a critical need for a motivation component in an intervention for struggling learners. This is true with both math and reading, and this need for motivation has no boundaries regarding age. Almost everyone agrees that cultural attitudes and values have a great deal to do with motivation and school achievement. A number of researchers have proven that there is a clear relationship between parental beliefs and their child’s academic skills. Students tend to develop most those areas that are valued in culture, with the most important cultural influence being the home. So what happens when the most frequent parental comments about mathematics are, “I was not very good in math” or “I am not a math person”? Students not only develop a distaste for math; they soon realize that these same attitudes do not prepare them in today’s technological society where jobs require a sound understanding of math. It

“The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be ignited.” — Plutarch should be no surprise that only 7% of Americans have had positive experiences with math from kindergarten through college. Culture has the same affect when it comes to learning to read. One only has to look at the startling findings in the 1995 study from researchers Hart and Risley to see the lack of preparation and positive feedback that many preschoolers from poverty households receive in their daily lives, as compared to the lives of children from professional families. Understanding these numbers makes it abundantly clear why schools must be very concerned about motivation of students. By the age of four, and figuring 100 hours a week, an average child in a welfare family heard 13,000,000 words addressed to them. Children with professional parents (talkative and college-educated) heard 48,000,000 words … almost four times as many. Also by the age of four, children with talkative, professional parents had heard about 750,000 times that they were right and about 140,000 times that they were wrong (84% Positive). In reverse, children in welfare families who were mostly silent heard they were right 120,000 times and that they were wrong 250,000 times (68% Negative). Vast numbers of children, then, enter school each year severely disadvantaged in language acquisition and in familiarity with print and vocabulary — and with more than twice as many of their interactions with their parents being negative rather than positive. Those are major reasons that they come to school at risk of failure — not only in reading, but also in mathematics and other academic subjects. This information demands attention to motivation in any intervention as well. On top of these realities for growing numbers of America’s children, a learner may also suffer with a learning disability, which too frequently also results in a loss of self-esteem and motivation for learning. The daunting challenge of the school is not only to close as much of the achievement gap as possible for these learners, but also first to motivate them to believe in their own efficacy, to believe that effort makes a difference, to want to learn. CEI is a part of a family of companies owned by Mr. Paul J. Meyer, who has devoted much of his career to teaching others about success motivation. Therefore, the CEI staff is very cognizant of the important role of motivation in successfully teaching students reading and mathematics. In Meyer’s (2002) Unlocking Your Legacy: 25 Keys to Success, he includes a chapter on self-image, where he identifies these six barriers to a positive self-image:

Staying in the comfort zone and living at the present level of success is easier and less stressful than exerting effort to make needed changes.

Fear of making a mistake or risking possible failure discourages trying anything new or different.

The desire to avoid disapproval, either by themselves or by others, limits many to behavior that is calculated to please.

Anxiety about changing the status quo convinces some that change is negative and not worth the risk.

A poverty mentality, coupled with a false sense of inferiority, causes some people to believe they do not deserve the rewards of using their full potential.

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

An illogical fear of success prevents many from breaking the success barrier. They feel unworthy or they fear they will not know how to handle success, so they subconsciously avoid it.

Students who fail academically every day, in public, no doubt suffer from negative self-image. Overcoming the barriers to a positive self-image outlined by Meyer is a part of the steps that they have to take in order to be motivated to learn to read, to learn mathematics, and to be successful in school. Meyer also feels strongly that success comes from desire coupled with effort, and that connection seems to be authenticated in the following: Purposely choosing to strengthen your self-image is an amazing possibility and the rewards and benefits will last for a lifetime, so keep pressing in and pressing on — then you can press through anything! Along the way, don’t be discouraged if it takes effort and time. Nothing worth getting in life is ever free, but the payoff at the end will be worth every ounce of effort. Csikzentmihalyi (1991), one of the foremost authorities on motivation, says we all want more of what he calls “flow,” or “the optimal experience” that is the result of a series of conditions: When people reflect on how it feels when their experience is most positive, they mention at least one, and often all of the following: First, the experience usually occurs when we confront tasks we have a chance of completing. Second, we must be able to concentrate on what we are doing. Third and fourth, the concentration is usually possible because the task undertaken has clear goals and provides immediate feedback. Fifth, one acts with a deep but effortless involvement that removes from awareness the worries and frustrations of everyday life. Sixth, enjoyable experiences allow people to exercise a sense of control over their actions. Seventh, concern for the self disappears; yet paradoxically the sense of self emerges stronger after the flow experience is over. Finally, the sense of the duration of time is altered; hours pass by in minutes, and minutes can stretch out to seem like hours. The combination of all these elements causes a sense of deep enjoyment that is so rewarding people feel that expending a great deal of energy is worthwhile simply to be able to feel it. CEI, of course, wants a learner’s experience in an ELS or MLS lab to be a “flow” experience, so the features of “flow” are included in the design of each program. The student is placed at a level where he or she can complete the tasks. The design of the lab, the use of headphones, and the engagement of the computer software make it possible to concentrate. The student’s learning goals are clear to him or her, and immediate auditory feedback is provided at each step. Lessons are not so challenging as to cause frustration, and students have a great deal of support and control as they work through the lessons. As students accumulate more and more success, their self-image improves, and they are further motivated to keep working for mastery. One of the stories, to illustrate these points, is frequently told in CEI’s trainings and in-services. While visiting a lab early in the school year one fall, one of CEI’s support team was particularly

watching one small boy who was very engaged in his work at the computer. One feature of the computer-assisted instruction the feedback provided after each student response, which is either praise for correct responses or encouragement to try again when the response has been in error. This small boy responded correctly, and the computer voice said, “Good job!” The boy looked around briefly, and then with a smile on his face, patted the computer monitor on its side and whispered, “Thanks!” This student was perhaps having the first “flow” experience of his life — if he came from that economically disadvantaged home described by Hart and Risley and no doubt experienced some of the barriers articulated by Meyer. The story illustrates several ways in which ELS and MLS incorporate motivation to learn reading and mathematics: � Students are placed into the program at a level that assures a high degree of success, yet with sufficient challenge to maintain interest. � Students have a great deal of support and choice in both the ELS and MLS program design, allowing them a sense of control over the environment in which they learn. � Students receive auditory praise when they respond correctly and encouragement when they do not so that they will be willing to try again. � Corrective feedback, whether auditory or written, is free of judgment and criticism. � Students receive written feedback daily in their progress reports, which give them a feeling of accomplishment and a sense that their efforts are paying off. � Teachers/facilitators are encouraged in their training and in the MLS Teacher’s Manual and ELS User’s Guide to provide positive and encouraging feedback to students as they monitor their performance. � Practice exercises are varied to maintain interest, even though the lesson goal stays the same. CEI provides numerous opportunities for student recognition: � Articles in SHARE Magazine about outstanding students � Achievement certificates signed by the president of the company � Incentives and rewards One final point in the analysis of the need for motivation … “one size does not fit all!” That is why CEI has taken so many steps to ensure that motivation is a critical part of both our programs and our support. After all, it often takes more than one match to ignite the fire!

PHOTO ©DSGPRO, istockphoto.com

Teaching What Matters Most

BY BONNIE A. LESLEY, ED.D.

This article first appeared in the Winter 2010 issue of SHARE, Volume 20, Issue 2.

“He was quick and alert in the things of life, but only in the things, and not in the significances.” — Jack London, “To Build a Fire”

can’t count the number of times in my life when I have stopped to think about the main character in Jack London’s remarkable short story, “To Build a Fire.” The man’s inability to understand the significance of things cost him everything. If you haven’t read the story, it is well worth your time. You can access it at http://www. jacklondons.net/buildafire.html. So, what does that have to do with teaching and learning? Far too frequently, schools greet students with THE curriculum, with the expectation that everyone is equally ready. They are, as London says, “quick and alert in the things of life.” But there are many children who, for one reason or another, are behind, and many of them are simply not able to access the grade-level curriculum — even with tutoring or re-teaching. They lack the foundational knowledge and skills that are prerequisites for learning. Understanding the “significances” also means understanding the major causes for learning difficulties and/or disabilities. There are three: economic disadvantages, learning disabilities (including dyslexia and dyscalculia), and lack of proficiency in English. For these students, standards-based mandates and spending more time only on the grade-level curriculum are wastes of time. Persistence in focusing only on THE curriculum can be a disaster for the students involved. Understanding “significances” includes, as well, understanding what is required to accelerate learning for those who struggle. An academic intervention is never effective if it does not accelerate! Some of the oldest and most credible of scientific studies enlighten us about what works in effective interventions:

Teach to mastery the most critical concepts and skills for success at the next level. Use technology to provide individualization so that each student spends time only on the concepts and skills that he or she has not already mastered. Design lessons to reflect a direct instruction model. Students who lag behind their peers have no time to waste on so-called “discovery” methods. Ensure that computer screens and other parts of the learning environment are uncluttered so as to eliminate distractions. Recognize that struggling learners will require anywhere from about 15 to more than 100 repetitions of new information for mastery. Develop fluency for rapid and accurate recall of learning. Otherwise, kids cannot comprehend or solve problems.

Provide immediate corrective feedback to make practice perfect and to motivate students to keep working. Chunk or cluster new information for quicker acquisition and to reflect limits of working memory. Provide additional time — beyond core instruction — in order for students to catch up. Research indicates that it takes us about 10,000 hours to become an expert in anything. Recognize the importance of the teacher/facilitator to motivate, monitor, adapt instruction based on data, and keep kids on task.* These research-based principles are in CEI’s DNA! We are obsessed with ensuring that they are incorporated in the design of each of our products. Acceleration is our major core competency. For more than 20 years, we have been accelerating the learning of all ages of struggling students — and changing not only their lives, but also the lives of their families! We take great pride in knowing the significance of things! The First Step The first step in creating an effective intervention is in designing instruction that includes only the most critical content is in a subject area. Students who are two or more years behind their peers need to focus entirely on what matters most: the foundational knowledge and skills that they must have to perform successfully at the next level. Given the repetition and practice that are required for mastery of this content, every moment of time that can be saved in instruction can be devoted to move the most critical content into long-term memory, which is, after all, the goal of all instruction. But how does one identify what does matter most? Again, we can turn to research for answers. Reading When one consults the research on what matters most in reading, there is wide agreement with the findings of the National Reading Panel (2000), even though some would add additional components to their list. The NRP found that there are five critical skills that are prerequisites for learning to read: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. CEI’s Essential Learning Systems (ELS) aligns perfectly with this research, and it also includes many of the other components that some deem just as important, such as explicit instruction in spelling.

Access all documents cited at www.ceilearning.com. For articles on the importance of acceleration, see: “Get in the Fast Lane: 10 Ways CEI Products Accelerate Learning,” SHARE Magazine, Fall 2008, pp. 12-15. “The Children Cannot Wait!” SHARE Magazine, Spring/ Summer 2009, pp. 5-9. “Time Is on Your Side: Essential Learning Systems (ELS) in an RTI Implementation,” SHARE Magazine, Spring/Summer 2009, pp. 12-13. “One Team. One Goal,” SHARE Magazine, Fall 2009, pp. 4-5.

For a more thorough discussion of these alignments, see CEI’s research paper (2005): Why ELS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base. Table 25 (pp. 71-74) displays a synthesis of research on the components of effective literacy programs in general, along with an indication that each component is included in ELS. To examine more closely the alignment with NRP, see CEI’s A Results-based Assessment of Essential Learning Systems’ Correlation to the National Reading Panel Guidelines (2002), as well as the research paper. Evidence of the inclusions of the NRP’s five critical components in the ELS tasks is provided on pp. 53-54, and summaries of the research on each are discussed on pp. 54-70, along with documentation of how they appear in ELS. Another way to check alignment is with reading standards. CEI has correlated its ELS program with the beginning reading standards of many states. Too, we have available correlations to such assessment instruments as DIBELS and Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI). Users of CEI’s ELS program can, therefore, be assured that it includes the most critical content that students must master if they are going to be able to move toward most sophisticated reading skills. Additionally, they can be confident that ELS accelerates learning and is, therefore, an effective intervention. Mathematics To identify the most critical content in mathematics requires a similar walk through available research. CEI has documented how Mathematical Learning Systems (MLS) reflects the research on critical content in Chapter IV of its comprehensive research paper (2007), Why MLS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base (pp. 97-148). Adding It Up (2001), published by the National Research Council, is an important research synthesis to study in order to understand what the most essential content in elementary mathematics should be. The writers identify five critical strands: 1.

conceptual understanding,

procedural fluency,

strategic competence, or problem-solving,

adaptive reasoning, and

productive disposition.

MLS correlates with each of these. The writers conclude that without all of these, a student cannot be said to be “proficient” in mathematics.

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

A similar conclusion was drawn by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006) in their publication of Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence. NCTM makes it clear in this document that they believe that “When instruction focuses on a small number of key areas of emphasis, students gain extended experience with core concepts and skills. Such experience can facilitate deep understanding, mathematical fluency, and an ability to generalize.” This position is exactly the position of CEI in its design of MLS. MLS includes instruction both in the topics found through research to cause students difficulty in learning mathematics and in the concepts and skills critical for success in algebra. The correlation of MLS with the NCTM “focal points” is available on the CEI web page. It outlines, by grade level, the alignment of MLS with each of the NCTM number sense standards. Similar research conclusions on the importance of the integration of concept development with instruction and practice in fluency development were found in the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s (2008) research synthesis, Foundations for Success. And, again, MLS correlates with this body’s recommendations for the most important content to teach in early mathematics. Science In designing Science Learning Systems (SLS), CEI looked to the research on the critical importance of developing vocabulary in the content areas, especially for those students (economically disadvantaged, learning disabled, and/or limited-English proficient) who struggle to learn. Wolf (2007) notes that “the sheer unavailability of books” among students from impoverished environments “will have a crushing effect on the word knowledge and world knowledge that students should be learning in the early years” (p. 103). Mercer and Mercer (2005) point out that children with learning disabilities typically have poor vocabularies. And, according to the American Education Research Association (2004), “ELLs will never catch up with native speakers unless they develop a rich vocabulary.” In the literature on why children perform poorly on science assessments, the lack of proficiency in “academic English” is frequently cited. Milligan and O’Toole (1969) made this observation more than 40 years ago, and the amount of science that is now required in American schools has grown exponentially in that time: “The importance of early systematic effort to build children’s science vocabulary cannot be overestimated. Science educators regard the development of science vocabulary to be imperative.” To determine which words to include in SLS, CEI simply consulted science standards at the national, state, and district levels. The development staff also consulted the glossaries of popular science textbooks and children’s science dictionaries. Summary Schools using CEI’s reading, mathematics, and science programs do so because those educators understand that many of their students will never be successful if they are only taught THE curriculum. They also understand the importance of accelerating learning in foundational knowledge and skills. It just cannot be done if we try to teach everything. Rather, the intervention must focus solely on what matters the most and teach that to mastery as quickly as possible so that the student can move forward. Understanding that reality is an example of understanding the significance of things. Not understanding it dooms struggling learners to a life of poverty in every sense of the word.

This article first appeared in the November/December 2006 issue of SHARE, Volume 17, Issue 4.

Formula for Success BY BONNIE A. LESLEY, ED.D.

read just about every word of Education Week every week to stay informed about educational “best practices,” about innovations, about policy, about available teaching/learning materials, about leadership changes, and about research. And I try to read that periodical as a sociologist might, paying particular attention to “what’s hot” in our profession. It would be interesting, for instance, to compare headlines and story content over time. It would be equally interesting to graph the number of articles having to do with students’ mathematical performance and the concerns at all levels that continued low achievement in this discipline may lead to a decline in the U.S. economy and our standard of living. Recent issues included an article about the activities of the National Mathematics Panel, charged by the President to address several priorities, one of them being “the skills needed for students to learn algebra and be ready for high levels of mathematics.” Even more recent was an article about the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ new document, Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence, which provides “descriptions of the most significant mathematical concepts and skills at each grade level.” They add: “… curriculum focal points are clearly areas of emphasis, calling for instruction that will help students learn content that gives them a foundation for increasing their understanding as they encounter richer and more challenging mathematics.” We have long known that students who are successful in algebra are more likely to go to college and succeed in college than those who either never take the course or who fail it, perhaps more than once. So algebra has come to be the “gatekeeping” course, and success in algebra has become, at least to many, a civil rights issue since it is so critical to life success. “What to do about the algebra failure rate” is not a new issue for schools. I can recall that we had long discussions back in the early 1980’s about strategies to improve the performance of students taking algebra. We tried tutorials. We tried teaching it in two periods each day, rather than one. We tried breaking the curriculum in half and teaching the content over a two-year period, hoping that all students needed was more time. We tried tough love and just passed out those “F’s.” We offered the course in summer school and in evening high school. We assigned the “best” teachers in the school to teach algebra at least one period a day. And yet the high failure rate persisted. We finally learned, in the words

of Elmore, (2002) that “the usual remediation strategies we employ when kids fail to meet statewide testing requirements are to give them the same unbelievably bad instruction they got in the first place, only in much larger quantities with much greater intensity. This is what we call the louder and slower approach.” Re-teaching, in other words, is not effective for students who have learning difficulties or disabilities. We have to address root causes for failure in mathematics. Creative Education Institute (CEI) created the solution to the “algebra problem” about 10 years ago with the development of Mathematical Learning Systems (MLS). The content — both concepts and procedures, along with a strong emphasis on fact fluency development — includes the topics identified through research as those most likely to cause students with learning difficulties and disabilities to struggle AND the topics identified through research as being most critical for success in higher-level mathematics, e.g., algebra. What the Research Says According to research studies, students fail algebra, regardless of whether they have learning difficulties or disabilities, for three major reasons: lack of fact fluency; lack of understanding of operations algorithms, particularly long-division; and lack of understanding of fraction concepts and operations Once these findings are known, it becomes clear why re-teaching of algebra does not work. Rather, what students need is the kind of therapeutic approach offered in MLS, along with an appropriate focus on developing these prerequisite skills. MLS includes two major strands: concept development and fact fluency. Lessons are organized into five units. The first unit includes such foundational concepts as counting, number comparisons, patterns, the base-10 system, and place value. Unit 2 teaches to mastery of the four operations: adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing — along with plenty of practice in problem-solving and with adequate and varied practice for fact fluency development. Applications of whole number concepts and skills are the focus in Unit 3, including lessons on estimation. Two units are devoted to fractions, one on fraction concepts and the other on fraction operations. Any student completing the MLS program will clearly be well-armed to take algebra and to master it.

MLS Concept Building Scope and Sequence Unit 1: Understanding Numbers Level 1: Defining Numbers

Identification 0-10 Recognition 0-10 Identification 11-20 Recognition 11-20

Level 2: Numbers 0-20

Patterns & Counting 0-20 Comparison 0-20

Level 3: Numbers 21-99

Place Value 21-99 Patterns & Counting 21-99 Comparisons 21-99

Level 4: Numbers 100-999

Place Value 100-999 Patterns & Counting 100-999 Comparison 100-999

Unit 2: Number Operations Level 1: Addition

Single Digits (Advance to Addition Fluency) Double Digits Triple Digits

Level 2: Subtraction

Single Digits (Advance to Subtraction Fluency) Double Digits Triple Digits Single Digits

Level 3: Multiplication

Level 4: Division

(Advance to Multiplication Fluency)

Single & Double Digits Double Digits Single Digits (Advance to Division Fluency) Single & Double Digits Double Digits

Unit 3: Using Whole Numbers Level 1: Money

Pennies, Nickels, and Dimes Pennies, Nickels, Dimes, and Quarters

Level 2: Time

To the Hour In Hours and Minutes

Level 3: Estimation

Rounding to the Nearest Ten Rounding to the Nearest Hundred

Unit 4: Understanding Fractions Level 1: Fraction Identification

Less Than One or Equal To One

Level 2: Equivalent Fractions

Using Larger or Smaller Denominators

Level 3: Comparing Fractions

Common Denominators Different Denominators

Level 4: Simplifying Fractions

Simplified Numerators Equal to One Simplified Numerators Greater than One

Level 5: Converting Fractions

Improper Fractions to Mixed Numbers Mixed Numbers to Improper Fractions

Unit 5: Fraction Operations

Level 1: Addition

Common Denominators Different Denominators

Level 2: Subtraction

Common Denominators Different Denominators

Level 3: Multiplication

Whole Numbers and Fractions Fractions and Whole Numbers

Level 4: Division

Common Denominators Fractions and Whole Numbers Different Denominators

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

Log onto www.ceilearning.com to download Why MLS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base for a comprehensive report on the research findings, along with documentation of how MLS applies those findings in its content, lesson designs, instructional strategies (including multi-sensory processing), and implementation support features.

Implications for Reducing the Dropout Rate The relationship between retention in grade and the dropout rate is well-established in scientific studies. Once a student fails, his/her chances of becoming a dropout increase dramatically. Two retentions almost make it a certainty. We are beginning to see research that verifies that the subject area causing most retentions is mathematics, so there is already evidence that improved performance in algebra is critical to a school’s efforts to decrease its dropout rate. Results CEI recently conducted a study that examined the performance of schools (according to their AYP status) that use MLS. We found that 100% of the elementary and middle schools using MLS achieved their AYP in 2005-06, and 94% of schools at all levels did so. We also monitor the pre/post test gains on the Diagnostic Screening Test: Mathematics (DST:M) that is provided for each MLS lab. We typically see growths of about two years for one year of instruction, with the most significant growth almost always being in fluency, long-division, and fractions — the three critical areas. CEI has the winning formula for student success in Algebra I and for reduction of the dropout rate. Call 888.511.4194 for more information about how your school’s students can begin their journey to improvement.

Mastery of Fact Fluency + Long Division Concept and Algorithm + Fraction Concepts and Operations = Algebra Achievement

This article first appeared in the Winter 2007-08 issue of SHARE, Volume 18, Issue 4.

Why ELS Works … for Dyslexics

BY BONNIE A. LESLEY, ED.D.

n 2005, CEI published Why ELS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Base, documenting the scientific evidence that grounds every component of the program: the content, lesson design, instructional strategies, and implementation features. The paper addressed the various populations of learners who benefit from this remarkable program, but it did not focus on any one in particular. Subsequent to that publication, some schools have requested the specific research as to why the program is appropriate for English-language learners, the economically disadvantaged, students who have learning disabilities, adult basic education, or learners who are dyslexic. CEI staff, therefore, in response to those requests, have gone back to the research and distilled the information pertaining specifically to the various subgroups. What is clear in looking at these thousands of pages of documentation is that the developmental path for learning to read is the same for all learners. There are, however, variables that make it necessary to provide more emphasis and/or more practice/ repetition in certain areas, based on the individual needs of the students. Another thing that emerged from our analysis is that the studies, in general, emphasize the five critical components of reading instruction advocated by the National Reading Panel (2000): phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. But, depending on the subgroup being studied, there are frequently additional components found to be important — or the reasons for including one particular component will be different from

the reasons cited for a more general population. We are excited about this work, for even when we examine one subgroup at a time, the evidence is overwhelming that Essential Learning Systems (ELS) is a powerful intervention for all these learners, especially given its therapeutic approach that provides an individualized prescription for each student based on a careful diagnosis of need and then frequent and ongoing monitoring to ensure progress. A brief summary of the findings relative to dyslexic learners follows. Since dyslexia is generally believed to be the result of impaired phonological processing, the preponderance of studies finds that phonological awareness, explicit instruction in spelling, and fluency development are the areas of emphasis. DYSLEXIA IDENTIFICATION AND PREVALENCE Researchers generally agree that dyslexia affects anywhere from six to about 18% of the general population. It definitely runs in families, and it frequently is co-morbid; that is, it frequently occurs with at least one other disorder. Researchers are converging in their understandings that dyslexia is neurobiological in origin, meaning that the problem is located physically in the brain, and the result is faulty sensory processing — the root cause of many learning difficulties and disabilities. Symptoms of dyslexia include delayed speech, poor organization skills, memory problems, difficulties in decoding, difficulties in spelling, and inability to discriminate between sounds.

Letter Recognition Researchers advocate a great deal of practice and repetition in ensuring that students are fluent (both accurate and rapid) in letter knowledge. We have known for a long time that letter recognition is one of the best predictors of children’s success in learning to read, but delays in learning the letters and their sounds have only recently been identified as a potential identifier of dyslexia. A theme that runs through these studies is that letter recognition alone is important but insufficient. Students must also learn how to connect the letter sounds to those letters, so that is why phonological awareness becomes one of the areas of emphasis. The research on the importance of letter recognition led CEI in 2006 to invest the resources to embed its supplemental Letter Recognition program into ELS for the 2007-08 release. Interestingly, this new feature has been much applauded not only by primary grade teachers, but also by those running dyslexia programs and by those serving ELLs since many second-language learners of all ages do not know the English alphabet. Phonological Awareness Since dyslexia is the result of individuals’ inability to process the sounds of the language, phonological awareness takes center stage in an intervention that must strengthen the neural pathways in the brain or build new ones that will enable dyslexics to learn how to read. ELS’ SHARE exercises provide the initial instruction (using multi-sensory processing strategies) that enable students to acquire phonological

Jay Leno credits his dyslexia with enabling him to succeed in comedy. He also credits his dyslexia with helping him develop the drive and perseverance needed to succeed in comedy, and in life in general. using a write-say intervention with immediate feedback to the visual and auditory modalities to improve spelling accuracy teaching decoding and spelling in combination with phonological skills teaching explicitly the spelling patterns (since about 84% of English words are predictable) awareness. We teach phonemes, blending and segmenting, sounds, decoding, spelling, vocabulary, and fluency in an integrated and contextual fashion that makes it possible — once students move to the supporting tasks — for practice to move this knowledge and skill into long-term memory. Researchers recommend multiple and varied exercises to teach rapid naming of letters and words, the use of direct and explicit instruction to teach the critical knowledge and skills related to phonological awareness, a combination of phoneme awareness and phonics, explicit teaching of sound families, and a focus on fluency development in order for dyslexics to thrive. As Lishman (2006) states, “… phonological approaches to remediation are extremely important. Indeed, the concentration in teaching on the rehearsal of phonological skills is given a large measure of scientific respectability.” Spelling Dyslexia researchers almost all focus on spelling as a critical intervention component, although the National Reading Panel did not. Students who have difficulties in recognizing letters, in processing sounds, in segmenting and blending, and in decoding will inevitably have difficulties in spelling. Too, students who cannot spell have great difficulties in learning to write since they use most of their cognitive resources just trying to figure out how to spell, making it almost impossible also to attend to punctuation, grammar, style, organization, vocabulary choices, and meaning. These research-based strategies to teach spelling are all reflected in the ELS program:

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

comprehension because we teach fluency well — and we also teach vocabulary, which develops background knowledge that is also important to comprehension. Palumbo and Willcutt (2006) are among those who study dyslexia and what works to teach those learners how to read. For fluency to develop, they state, three steps are necessary: 1.

Basic reading skills must be taught until the students are accurate at word recognition.

Once accuracy is achieved, providing practice is essential for students to go beyond accuracy to fluency.

Because the first two tasks are hard, students often want to quit before the task is mastered. Therefore, motivation is essential to keep them on task until they become fluent.

using clear and consistent speech production fluency development, to the point of overlearning since such practice/ repetition is necessary for accurate and fluent performance including dictation exercises and using the lesson words in personal writing since some students can spell words correctly on a test, yet miss them when writing a composition

integrating the teaching of spelling and vocabulary

CEI agrees. That is why the lessons emphasize both the basic skills and provide plenty of practice for fluency to occur. That is also why we structure the program in ways for students to experience high levels of success, provide immediate feedback that is positive and encouraging, recognize students’ success, and train lab facilitators in other motivational strategies.

Fluency Development A major strength of ELS is its fluency development component. ELS developers were well aware of the research on this issue in the original design of the program and made sure that the program includes not only effective instruction, but also more-than-adequate and varied practice/repetition activities to ensure that students learn the critical knowledge and skills to the mastery level and can perform both accurately and rapidly. Researchers note that without fluency people use all their working memory resources to decode or spell and have nothing left for comprehension. Interestingly, although comprehension strategies per se are not explicitly taught in ELS, the reading comprehension scores soar from the pre- to the post-tests. We know that we have a profound effect on

Vocabulary Vocabulary development is important for all learners, but it is not necessarily a major issue with dyslexics since, for the most part, their IQs are either average or above, and they may possess sophisticated oral vocabulary skills. Researchers point out, however, that many dyslexics do need considerable work in this area. Low-IQ dyslexics and dyslexics who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are among those who will need such instruction. Researchers also note that much repetition is necessary. Nagy and Scott (2000) urge “multiple and varied encounters” with each new word and find that “even four instructional encounters of high quality do not lead to a level of word knowledge adequate to measurably improve comprehension of text containing the instructional word.” ELS teaches more than 2000 words

use of diagnostic assessment and continuous-progress monitoring; incorporation of multi-sensory processing strategies; using computer-assisted instruction

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

Creative education institute SHARE MAGAZINE www.ceilearning.com fall 2010

directly and to the mastery level and several thousand others indirectly. Not only do assessments show improved performance in vocabulary and reading comprehension among ELS lab students, but anecdotes abound. CEI staff hear stories continuously about teachers and parents noticing that the students start using new and more sophisticated vocabulary almost immediately. This new knowledge also is important to their self-confidence and sense of efficacy as learners. Comprehension Multiple studies confirm what many teachers observe on an ongoing basis. That is, “the most important cause of reading comprehension failure in children stems from difficulties with decoding and word recognition; if children cannot read words with a reasonable degree of accuracy, their comprehension is likely to be compromised” (Nation, 2006). Other studies confirm the importance of vocabulary in comprehension since it builds background knowledge. INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Multi-sensory Processing The research literature on effective interventions for students with difficulties and/or disabilities in learning frequently point to the need for multi-sensory processing strategies for effective interventions. Jamieson and Simpson (2006), for instance, state, There is no doubt that learning is facilitated when more than one, preferably three, sensory channels are activated. When teaching at the word level, the well known “look, cover, say, write, check” spelling method uses simultaneous visual, auditory, and kinesthetic feedback, in an endeavour to support memory and lead to automaticity in producing particular letter sequences. Multi-sensory strategies are also advocated by the International Dyslexic

Association (2000) “to enhance memory and learning.” Researchers further note that such strategies are greatly facilitated by the use of computer software for instruction since the technology not only provides the multi-sensory approach, but it can also totally individualize instruction, as ELS does. Multi-sensory processing strategies address student weaknesses and enable neural pathways to be strengthened or built to make learning possible. They also address student strengths, enabling students to use their areas of strength to “mitigate areas of weaknesses (Sousa, 2001),” resulting in improved performance.

computer makes multi-sensory strategies possible in every lesson, and it does all the record-keeping so that the teacher has neither to score each activity, nor be responsible for providing all the necessary feedback for students to stay engaged. A relatively new feature of ELS is that CEI has moved several of the practice activities to its Web-based Activity Center (WAC). ELS students are given a password that enables them to access these practice activities in the lab, at home, or at any internet-connected computer. ELS teachers report that this feature results in extended learning opportunities for students who need it.

Practice/Repetition Effective interventions also invariably include multiple and varied practice/ repetition opportunities. These are critical for fluency development and for learning to the mastery level. Hatcher (2006) summarizes as follows:

Individualization Effective interventions, especially for students who are dyslexic or who have other learning disabilities, are individualized and differentiated so that each learner gets precisely what he or she needs to move forward and so that he or she stays in what Vygotsky calls the “zone of proximal development.” Vance and Mitchell (2006) define this component as follows:

All teachers know that, after pupils have been shown something for the first time and have learned how to do it accurately, they need to be able to practice the skill until it has become second nature to them. The problem for teachers is often planning for sufficient practice time in a crowded curriculum and a busy classroom schedule. ELS includes more-than-adequate practice/repetition activities. These tasks go far beyond what any teacher can provide on her own in a classroom full of students. Too, most commercial products, although they include practice activities, rarely include enough of them for mastery to occur for struggling learners. Not only does ELS have more than is needed for any one student, but they are individually prescribed so that a student gets only what he or she needs. The activities are varied so as to keep students engaged and motivated and to avoid boredom, which is the result of simply doing the same thing over and over. Another major benefit is that the

“When I was a kid, they didn’t call it dyslexia. They called it, you know, you were slow, or you were retarded, or whatever. What you can never change is the effect that the words ‘dumb’ and ‘stupid’ have on young people. I knew I wasn’t stupid, and I knew I wasn’t dumb. My mother told me that. If you read to me, I could tell you everything that you read. They didn’t know what it was. They knew I wasn’t lazy, but what was it?” — Whoopi Goldberg

Differentiation should teach to students’ strengths, use their preferred modality, chunk information to an appropriate size and present it at the preferred speed. This might include using visual or kinesthetic presentation styles, removing distractions, using simple vocabulary, simple grammar and short sentences, and speaking more slowly or more quickly. ELS’ use of assessment data and computer-assisted instruction makes individualization and differentiation possible. Even in a dyslexia classroom, the students will each have their own individual needs. ELS enables the teacher

“When I had dyslexia, they didn’t diagnose it as that. It was frustrating and embarrassing. I could tell you a lot of horror stories about what you feel like on the inside. — Nolan Ryan to ensure that each one gets not only the appropriate content, but also that it is presented in an individually appropriate way. ELS’ sequences and the variety of parameter settings are keys to making the difference that each teacher desires: improved academic performance. Computer-assisted Instruction (CAI) There is really no doubt that computerassisted instruction can be an effective vehicle for delivery of instruction to dyslexic students. CEI has mounds of studies on the efficacy of CAI for interventions in general and for students with disabilities. The benefits are numerous: motivation for students immediate and non-judgmental feedback for students minimized distractions from the environment individualization and differentiation multi-sensory processing consistent, high-quality instruction every day for every student multiple and varied practice opportunities inclusion settings since program is individualized fluency data provided to inform instruction record-keeping on student progress ELS is constructed in ways that leverage the power of all these advantages. Another important benefit is that the lesson screens are intentionally uncluttered since the research indicates that the busyness of many computer screens distract struggling learners significantly and actually prevent them from learning. ELS screens include simple pictures, few words per screen, the consistent use of color and font, and other devices to facilitate learning. Assessment and Feedback Converging research indicates that the best uses of assessment are to diagnose student needs and then to monitor continuously their progress so that instructional adaptations/ modifications can be made so that each individual continues to progress. These are critical components of any 18

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

therapeutic intervention, of course, and ELS’ comprehensive assessment system includes third-party assessments for diagnosis and program evaluation, as well as criterion-referenced placement tests for each mastery cycle and progress monitoring. ELS provides feedback in numerous ways. One way, highly recommended by the research, is through immediate oral encouragement to the learner. Another is the feedback provided via the daily progress reports, which benefits both the student and the teacher. Another is through the regular parent reports that are available in both English and Spanish. The newest ELS versions include yet another powerful feedback mechanism for ELS lab facilitators through CEI Direct (CEID). This new feature allows the lab facilitator to e-mail directly to her Solutions Analyst individual student records of progress for advice on whether the student is placed in the program appropriately, on how to set the lesson parameters for greater success, on whether the student is assigned to the appropriate sequence, and on how to improve motivation to learn. This 24/7 service has greatly improved lab effectiveness since the teachers no longer need to wait for a lab visit to get the help that they need. Teacher Role Some express concerns about computer-assisted instruction for dyslexics versus a delivery system entirely dependent on an individual teacher. Be assured that ELS also incorporates the research on the critical role of teachers in effective interventions. ELS has never been merely about software. A major part of Chapter II of the original research paper discusses the numerous expectations for teachers in an effective lab. Subsequently, we have also published a document that outlines in detail the instructional responsibilities of lab facilitators and the importance of the facilitator’s judgment in monitoring student performance. ELS is used in a dyslexia lab in similar ways that print materials might be used. In fact, it is far less scripted and demands far more of the teacher than many programs dependent on print materials. CEI never recommends that a school merely put kids in front of the computers and walk off. Rather, the

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

extensive training and support that we offer our labs constantly emphasize the opposite — that the role of the teacher is a key to the success of the students. RESOURCES Those seeking to understand why ELS works for dyslexic learners of any age can find much information from the following: Why ELS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base, available for download from www.ceilearning.com ELS correlation to TEA’s “Components of Dyslexia Instruction,” available for download from www.ceilearning.com Essential Learning Systems and Its Correlation to a Successful Intervention for Left Occipitotemporal Systems, available for download from www.ceilearning.com Archived SHARE Magazine article, “Double Your Treasure: Why Dyslexics Need ELS and MLS,” available by request by calling 888.511.4194 or by e-mailing info@ceilearning.com Results for dyslexics in ELS labs, available for download from www.ceilearning.com Why ELS Works for Dyslexics, a compilation of research findings related to dyslexia, along with a comprehensive bibliography, which this article summarizes, available by request by calling 888.511.4194 or by e-mailing info@ceilearning.com References from ELS labs serving dyslexic students, available by request from 888.511.4194 or by e-mailing info@ceilearning.com

This article first appeared in the Spring/Summer 2010 issue of SHARE, Volume 21, Issue 2.

EI staff worry — a lot, in fact — when we visit Mathematical Learning Systems (MLS) labs and learn that someone has made a decision that students can skip the program’s concrete, or Tactile, lessons. We know because we live and breathe the research behind our programs. We know that when struggling learners do not go through the entire lesson sequence, they are not as likely to understand a given mathematical concept, or to be able to connect it to the procedures they are expected to learn. Implementing all phases of MLS is part of implementing this intervention with fidelity ... implementing according to the way it was designed to work the best. In order to improve the success of students in MLS labs in general, we encourage all educators involved to study both the research behind MLS’ design and the rationale for the way MLS is actually constructed.

Research Base for MLS Design So what is the research grounding MLS’ design? When MLS was first designed, various authorities were consulted about the most effective strategies for struggling learners. Among them were special educators Cecil and Ann Mercer, who wrote Teaching Students with Learning Problems (1981, p. 433), now in its seventh edition. Among their many recommendations was the use of what they called the CSA (concrete — semi-concrete — abstract) lesson sequence. They quoted researchers who found that this sequence was an “excellent way to teach students with learning problems to understand math concepts, operations, and applications.” The International Dyslexia Association (1982, p. 2) also strongly recommends this approach in order to help dyslexic students make the link between concepts and procedures. Hall (2004, p. 1) states that “The most successful instructional units — especially in mathematics — are those that begin with concrete, hands-on experiences for students and gradually move toward abstract applications.” The use of manipulatives in mathematics (the concrete phase) is strongly supported by research. Garnett (1998, p. 3) states that “it is important to remember that structured concrete materials are beneficial at the concept development stage for math topics at all grade levels. . . . There is research evidence that students who use concrete materials actually develop more precise and more comprehensive mental representations, often show more motivation and on-task behavior, may better understand mathematical ideas, and may better apply these to life situations.” Sousa (2001, p. 145) notes that “students with special needs who use manipulatives in their mathematics classes outperform similar students who do not.” The working mat itself is also important. Spear-Swerling (n.d., p. 1) summarizes available research as follows: “A mat for organizing manipulatives and for children to work on is essential. When children begin learning two-digit and three-digit numbers, the mat is organized from right to left in columns of ones, tens, and hundreds, to reflect the way that numerals are written.” The second phase of the lesson design is the semi-concrete (called the Illustrative phase in the program, and sometimes referred to as the pictorial, or representational phase). This intermediate step between the concrete activities and the movement to abstract understandings is also important, according to the research. The International Dyslexia Association (1998, p. 2) recommends exactly what Mercer and Mercer do, and that is to include activities where

6 Building Blocks By Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D.

MLS Lesson Sequences Facilitate Acquisition of Math Concepts

the student recognizes or draws pictures “to represent concrete materials without the materials themselves.” The January 2010 issue of Intervention in School and Clinic (pp. 186-191) includes an article on “virtual manipulatives,” which is another term for semi-concrete, illustrative, pictorial, or representational. Writers Bouck and Flanagan (pp. 196-197) state that research “suggests that virtual manipulatives are effective in facilitating students’ understanding of mathematical concepts.” They (p. 188) outline several benefits of virtual manipulatives: “(1) having a never-ending supply … available to students; (2) being able to quickly and easily work with more than one model; (3) not having to find or construct concrete fraction manipulatives for fractions that are difficult to model; and (4) students receiving immediate feedback if their answers are correct. . . .” Traditional mathematics programs start and end with the abstract lessons, and students either learn, or they don’t. It is important to remember that MLS is a therapeutic intervention for the students who do not learn using traditional methods. They need the systematic and explicit instruction that the program provides. They need intensive instruction, which MLS offers, as it is supplemental to the regular instruction. They need adequate practice and repetition to build and/or strengthen the neural pathways in the brain that make movement of new information into long-term memory for retrieval possible. They need corrective feedback, and they have to move gradually from the concrete to the semi-concrete and then to the abstract in order to understand a mathematical concept. MLS provides all of these things. MLS Lesson Design To understand why we don’t recommend skipping the concrete lessons, it may be helpful to review briefly how MLS is constructed. Concept building, the first stage in MLS’ dual emphasis on concepts and fluency development, concentrates on the concepts and ideas that provide the basis of mathematical understanding. Each phase in the MLS concept building stage incorporates four categories of instructional strategies: Tactile (or concrete), Illustrative (or semi-concrete), Problems (or abstract), and Assessment. In Tactile (concrete) lessons, students use manipulatives to learn how to work with quantities. Having students hold three-dimensional objects in their hands encourages kinesthetic stimulation, as well as visual stimulation. The computer models the step-by-step instructions with illustrations for the different types of problems. This category helps students understand and feel how the quantities grow and change. There are three tactile lessons for each concept, with the third lesson being a mastery assessment. In Illustrative (semi-concrete) lessons, MLS shows students how to solve mathematics problems with graphic illustrations of the manipulatives and the working mat that they have been using. Students use the mouse to arrange objects on the screen and use the pictures to find the correct answers to problems. This category helps students begin to imagine how the quantities grow and

change. There are three illustrative lessons for each concept, with the third lesson being a mastery assessment. Problems (abstract) lessons show students how to solve problems at the abstract level by using numbers, mathematical symbols, and algorithms (steps that will provide a correct answer). MLS instructions clearly present the link between using manipulatives and completing the abstract steps. Students learn why they must perform each step in solving an equation. This category also helps students learn the symbolic way to represent the growth and change of a quantity. There are three abstract lessons for each concept, with the third lesson being a mastery assessment. The last lesson in the phase tests students’ retention of the concept for that phase. Students must demonstrate mastery of the current phase’s skill before proceeding to the next phase. The MLS design team decided to create these 10 lessons for each concept, because the research was convincing that this CSA design was necessary to ensure that students with mathematics difficulties or disabilities would be able to master the concepts. Conclusion All of us at CEI understand that time is important, and we empathize with those who feel that it might be nice to skip three of the 10 MLS lessons for each concept. We acknowledge that when students — especially young students — are involved, manipulatives can get lost or thrown across the room or get broken in use. We know that their storage takes a lot of space, as do those working mats, which are so are large and heavy. We’ve also heard students complain that those concrete lessons seem terribly basic. However, we strongly agree with the research that indicates that the manipulatives are essential for optimal student growth in mathematics, especially when the students are struggling students! For that reasons, we strongly encourage — as the best possible implementation and for the best possible results — all MLS labs to use the manipulatives for the concrete lessons. Mercer and Mercer (2005, p. 442) make the following recommendations for using manipulatives in order to ensure effective results: Before abstract experiences, instruction must proceed from concrete (manipulative) experiences to semi-concrete experiences. The main objective of manipulation aids is to help students understand and develop mental images of mathematical processes. The activity must accurately represent the actual process. For example, a direct correlation should exist between the manipulative activities and the paper-and-pencil activities. More than one manipulative object should be used in teaching a concept. The aids should be used individually by each student. The manipulative experience must involve the moving of objects. The learning occurs from the student’s physical actions on the objects rather than from the objects themselves. The teacher should continuously ask students questions about their actions as they manipulate objects and should encourage students to verbalize their thinking. The teacher should have students write the problem being solved through the use of objects and have students use objects to check answers. If you have questions about using the manipulatives, please contact your Solutions Analyst, or call a Support Services representative toll-free at 888.511.4194.

For a more thorough review of the research on the CSA sequence and the use of manipulatives in teaching mathematics, see Why MLS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base, pp. 167174. Go to www.ceilearning.com and click on “support”; then on “research and correlations” to download or read a free copy of this comprehensive study. The bibliographical references for this article are provided in that longer paper.

The Best of th e B e st

The Best of t h e B e s t

EI could not have a greatest hits issue without mentioning a man who is considered one of the greatest rock musicians of all time … legendary electric guitarist Jimi Hendrix. Almost everyone who has ever listened to classic rock music has heard Hendrix’s groundbreaking guitar solos on hits like “Purple Haze,” “The Star Spangled Banner,” and “All Along the Watchtower.” However, another of Hendrix’s intricate solos appears on a song more familiar to only Hendrix’s die-hard fans. That song, “Castles Made of Sand,” features a lyric that, while touching, goes against everything CEI lab facilitators represent. That lyric? “Castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually.”

CEI labs are less like castles made of sand and more like stepping stones. Regardless of how long it takes, CEI lab facilitators continue to work with their students and help them take those first steps toward academic, social and professional success. This year’s Exemplary labs are products of that work. As we read the hundreds of applications we received, we were amazed at the tremendous effort both facilitators and students put into meeting the requirements for Exemplary status. We were astonished by the remarkable amount of heart and dedication went into each application and into each lab. And, as you can see by the list below, our veterans never quit striving to meet those goals. Like the goldenwinged ship in Hendrix’s song, their work “… just kept on going.” As a result of his work, Jimi Hendrix was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1992. CEI is happy to induct our facilitators and students into our very own Hall of Fame, the Exemplary Labs. Please join us in congratulating those facilitators and students — veterans and newcomers alike — who earned CEI’s Exemplary status for the 2009-2010 school year. We hope they, and all of our partners, continue to be stepping stones and not sandcastles throughout the year to come!

The 2009-2010 Exemplary Labs Twelfth Year Academy Elementary School — ELS Academy ISD Bess Brannen Elem School — ELS Brazosport ISD Gladys Polk Elementary — ELS Brazosport ISD Gladys Polk Elementary — MLS Brazosport ISD Christa McAuliffe Elem School — ELS Brevard ISD Learning Skills Center — ELS Doyce H. Deas Foundation Lorenzo De Zavala Elem School — ELS Goose Creek CISD Llano Elementary School — ELS Llano ISD Eleventh Year Hardin Elementary School — ELS Burkburnett ISD Lorenzo De Zavala Elem School — ELS Edinburg CISD McCamey Primary — ELS McCamey ISD Wills Point Middle School — ELS Wills Point ISD Tenth Year Woodson School — ELS

Woodson ISD

Ninth Year Cuero Junior High — ELS Cuero ISD St. Bernadette — ELS St. Bernadette Grand Saline Intermediate — ELS Grand Saline ISD Lampasas Middle School — ELS Lampasas ISD Santa Gertrudis Elementary — ELS Santa Gertrudis ISD Westwood Elementary — ELS Westwood ISD Eighth Year O A Fleming Elementary — ELS Brazosport ISD Waterloo Christian School — ELS Waterloo Christian School Seventh Year Bandera Middle School — MLS Bandera ISD San Jacinto Elementary — ELS Goose Creek CISD Kline Whitis Elementary — ELS Lampasas ISD Packsaddle Elementary — ELS Llano ISD Sixth Year Tascosa High School — ELS

Amarillo ISD

Fifth Year Tascosa High School — MLS

Amarillo ISD

Fourth Year Cuero Intermediate School — ELS Cuero ISD Cuero Intermediate School — MLS Cuero ISD Austin Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD Esparza Elementary School — ELS Edinburg CISD

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

Third Year Cuero Junior High School — MLS Cuero ISD B L Garza Middle School — ELS Edinburg CISD Katherine Tarver elementary — ELS Laredo ISD Willow Springs Elementary — ELS Killeen ISD Willow Springs Elementary School — MLS Killeen ISD Santa Maria Elementary — ELS Laredo ISD De Leon Middle School — ELS McAllen ISD Second Year Saint Agnes School — ELS Archdiocese of Chicago Bandera Middle School — ELS Bandera ISD Colmesneil Elementary — ELS Colmesneil ISD Betts Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD Cano Gonzalez elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD Cavazos Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD E B Guerra Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD Economedes High School — ELS Edinburg CISD Escandon Elementary —ELS Edinburg CISD Francisco Barrientes Middle School — ELS Edinburg CISD Freddy Gonzalez Elem —ELS Edinburg CISD Jefferson Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD Magee Elementary— ELS Edinburg CISD Monte Cristo Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD Trevino Elementary Edinburg CISD Incarnation School — ELS Incarnation School Blanca E. Sanchez Elementary — ELS McAllen ISD Visitation School — ELS Visitation School First Year Academy Elementary — MLS Academy ISD Avila Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD De La Vina Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD John F Kennedy Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD Lincoln Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD Truman Elementary — ELS Edinburg CISD Bellaire Elementary — MLS Killeen ISD Duncan Elementary — ELS Killeen ISD Saegert Elementary — ELS Killeen ISD Saegert Elementary — MLS Killeen ISD Taylor Creek Elementary — ELS Lampasas ISD Taylor Creek Elementary — MLS Lampasas ISD Manchester Academy — ELS Manchester Academy Thigpen/Zavala Elementary — ELS McAllen ISD Roque Guerra Elementary — ELS Rio Grande City CISD St. Michael School St. Michael School

The Best of th e B e st

Rockin’ Steady

ecause of its close proximity to Fort Hood, one of the largest United States military installations in the world, Killeen Independent School District is one of the most ethnically diverse school districts in the state of Texas. In 2007, district administrators began their search for a program that would meet the needs of such a diverse population. That search ended when the district purchased Essential Learning Systems and Mathematical Learning Systems for all of the elementary schools. In a field where high turnover is now the norm, and in a district where military deployment contributes to that turnover, one thing has remained constant … Melissa Brown, CEI lab facilitator at Saegert Elementary School. Melissa has overseen both ELS and MLS for the past three years, and this summer, for the first time, she applied for and received CEI’s Exemplary status. In the following letter, Melissa explains why she enjoys running the labs at Saegert and why her students benefit so much from the programs. My name is Melissa Brown. I am the CEI facilitator for Saegert Elementary School. I have been running CEI’s ELS and MLS for three years, this being my fourth. I serve around 68 students per year. These students are at risk for failure, special needs, or students who just are struggling and need just a little help. I truly love doing CEI. I have seen such improvements in my reading and math students. My students will come in below grade level and when they have completed the program, they are at grade level or above. The main reason my lab has been so successful is my students. They love to come and work hard. It also helps to have good motivation ideas set into place. The idea that seems to work the best is ribbons I give out. I use construction paper and punch cut them out in our workroom. The kids cannot get enough of those. You can also do mastery dances. For every mastery, I get up and do my mastery dance, the kids love it.

favorite teacher, because I taught him how to speak and write English. I recommend CEI for all schools. This is a great program and I look forward to continued success for all my students. Lesley Mullen, CEI’s Solutions Specialist for KISD, has nothing but respect and admiration for Melissa. “As I read Melissa’s letter,” Lesley said, “I felt compelled to add to one thing Melissa wrote: ‘The main reason my lab has been so successful is my students.’ It is true that her students make great contributions to the success of the lab. They come in, they do their work, they treat Melissa with respect, and they are happy to be there. However, I think it is Melissa that brings those great traits out in her students. Her enthusiasm and energy make her the perfect person for the CEI lab. “I met Melissa when she went through the initial facilitator training courses for both ELS and MLS in 2007. Even then, I could tell by the amount of attention she paid and by the questions she asked that she would be an Exemplary facilitator. She knows every detail about the programs and about her students, and that combination allows her to really individualize not only sequences, but also parameters and other program settings, to best meet her students’ needs. And when Melissa talks about her students, it is evident that meeting their needs is her number one goal. With a facilitator like Melissa Brown and the support of a principal like Gail CharlesWalters, it is no surprise that CEI is recognizing both of the Saegert labs with Exemplary status!” Congratulations, Melissa, Mrs. Charles-Walters, and the staff at Saegert Elementary. You rock!

CEI has great support from my administration and teachers. Teachers love the improvement in their students. Mrs. Charles-Walters, the principal at Saegert said, “CEI has made such a difference with students who are struggling.” One of my best success stories would be a student who was dyslexic. He was so unsure and had no confidence. When he was through with CEI, he was happy and on grade level. I also serve some ELL students, I got a letter from one of my students telling me I was his

Saegert Elementary principal Gail Charles-Walters and facilitator Melissa Brown recently receive their Exemplary Lab awards from CEI Solutions Specialist Lesley Mullen.

in the

Spotlight Name : Lu is A l b arra n - L e y va P l a c e o f Birth : E L O L I VO, M I C H OA C Á N , ME X I CO C U R R EN T H OME : F ONTA N A , C A L I F O R N I A Fa m i ly: Par e n t s J o s e a n d C atali n a , Br o t h e r S e r g i o Other than English, what languages do you speak? S PA N I S H W h at I S yo u r fav o rit e s u b j e ct i n s ch o o l? PH YSI C AL EDU C AT I ON . MY FAVO R I TE SP O R T IS S O CCER . W h o I S yo u r fav o rit e t e a ch e r? Elva L ara a n d Pau l J a m e rs o n ( C E I la b s taff ) W h at i s yo u r fav o rit e f o o d? C H I C K EN A ND MO L E , W H I C H I S M A DE F R OM P I NE NUT S , C H O CO L ATE , P UM P K I N S EED S , F OU R TY P E S O F C H I L I E S A ND VA R I OU S OT H E R S P I C E S . W h at i s yo u r fav o rit e t y p e o f m u s ic ? A ll ki n d s W h at i s yo u r fav o rit e T V Sh o w ? EL Chapulí n Colorado, A M e xica n child r en ’s Sh ow Dr e a m Vac ati o n : S p e n d i n g s o m e t i m e o n t h e b e ach e s i n H awaii Dr e a m J OB : L AW YE R O n e thi n g p e o p l e m ight b e s u r p ri s e d t o L e a r n a b o u t yo u : That I hav e a s e n s e o f h u m o r . T e ach e r Pau l J a m e rs o n say s , “ H e has a s e n s e o f h u m o r t hat h e ca n d e li v e r wi t h s u ch a d e a d pa n e xpr e ssi o n t hat e v e n B u s t e r K e at o n w o u l d b e pr o u d.”

The Best of

This article first appeared in the Summer 2008 issue of SHARE, Volume 19, Issue 2.

th e B e st

Fontana High School’s

Luis Albarran-Leyva PAUL JAMERSON

Contributing Writer

Instructional Reading = 6.6

3.7 year gain

02/22/2008

02/19/2008

01/31/2008

01/30/2008

09/10/2007

09/04/2007

Reading Comprehension = 1.6

Reading Comprehension = 10.0

8.4 year gain

B Le e g ss an on E L Re S vi ew

Luis’ ELS Success File

02/25/2008

Instructional Reading = 2.9

This school year started off a little difficult for Luis and most of the beginning English Language Learners (ELLs) in the lab at Fontana High School. Elva Lara, the bilingual aide assigned to the lab, was pulled to assist in the testing of all ELL students for English Proficiency level, leaving the class with teacher Paul Jamerson, who readily confesses his very limited Spanish skills. Not having the clear instructions on how to proceed through the program slowed down the learning process; however, once Ms. Lara — affectionately called, “The Boss” by Jamerson — returned to class, Luis was able to get on track with the procedures of the ELS program. After Luis received an invitation to come to the lab before school for additional assistance, working on the ELS program became his passion. He and several other students would show up at the lab as early as 5:45 a.m. each morning … 1½ hours before school starts! Luis put in more than 88 additional hours over class time to complete every lesson. After finishing all six levels of ELS, the lab staff used the ELS Placement for Review Lessons to determine what reinforcement Luis still needed. Luis went on to complete all six levels of the eQuick Tales comprehension passages offered on the CEI Web-based Activity Center (WAC). After completing all of the eQuick Tales, Luis is now reviewing all lessons for which he missed three or more words on the ELS Placement for Review Lessons. The lab staff hopes that this will improve Luis’s pronunciation and spelling abilities even more. Luis’ hard work has definitely paid off. “When Luis started this school year, he was struggling to keep up with the work,” recalls Gary Hinckley, who teaches English to

C om pl EL et SP ed la ce (89 ELS m en clas Les s s tf Be or da ons y R ga ev s) n i e eQ w ui Le ck ss Ta on le s s Co m pl et e (1 d e 4 Q DS cl ui T: as c k R s d Ta Po ay les st s) -te st

T: R DS

eTe s

The great teacher Yoda once said, “Do, or do not. There is no ‘try.’” No truer words are spoken when describing the attitude and work ethic of Fontana (CA) High School student Luis AlbarranLeyva. Luis has set the standard for motivation by completing all six levels of the Essential Learning Systems (ELS) program. Given that it’s quite a rare accomplishment for any student to complete the ELS program in one school year, even more impressive is the fact that Luis completed all 210 ELS lessons just three days into the second semester. Luis came to Fontana from the small town of El Olivo, Michoacán, Mexico. There, Luis walked two hours to attend his school of only six classrooms. But when it was time for him to enter high school, there was no high school for him to attend. Luis moved to Fontana in 2006, and he entered the Fontana Unified School of Language Development. This school is designed to assist students who have been in the United States for less than one year. The purpose of the school is to enhance student potential for success in transitioning to comprehensive high schools. Luis says that the teachers in the United States are better prepared than those in his hometown, but he admits that he felt safer in El Olivo than in California. “There was more freedom,” Luis shares. “We could go everywhere with no fear.” That freedom is just one of the differences between El Olivo and Fontana. “Here, everyone lives indoors,” Luis explains. “There, everybody knows everyone. People come and go as they want to.” Luis misses his family, his everyday activities, and his friends … a normal response from someone who has been removed from his culture and brought to a strange new land. It hasn’t always been easy, but despite the challenges involved with coming to America, Luis has made the most of his time here.

TOP PHOTO: Luis completes SHARE on one of the lessons he’s reviewing to further strengthen his pronunciation and vocabulary. Bottom Photo: Luis and one of his favorite teachers, lab aide Elva Lara

beginning and early intermediate level English Language Learners. “His reading level was very low, which was reflected in his writing abilities. “For the first quarter, he earned an ‘F’ in my English class,” Hinckley remembers. “By the end of the semester, he had pulled it up to a D+. However, this semester, he has demonstrated a much greater ability in being able to do his work. His oral reading is greatly improved. His written answers show a much greater ability in using English grammar and spelling. “At the present time, Luis is earning an A-,” Hinckley declares. “This is a marked improvement over the first semester. I have no doubt that his success in the CEI lab has had a significant effect on his success in my English class.” Luis is proud of his accomplishments, and rightfully so. And even though he’s finished all the lessons, Luis still looks forward to coming to the lab. “I can relax, and I have fun working in the program,” he explains. “It has helped me to better understand in all other subjects in and out of school.” We asked Luis what he’d say to someone considering whether or not to implement the ELS program. His advice — much like that of the great teacher Yoda — was not only wise, but also right to the point. “Use it.”

Creative education institute

SHARE MAGAZINE

26 www.ceilearning.com fall 2010

The Best of th e B e st

Luis Albarran-Leyva is not the only success story in the lab at fontana. These remarkable students have also made amazing progress on the ELS program this year:

Mary Carpio

PEDRO GARCIA

Jia Lin Yu

AGE: 16 years, 8 months

AGE: 16 years, 11 months

AGE: 15 years, 9 months

ENTERED LAB: September 5, 2007

ENTERED LAB: September 4, 2007

ENTERED LAB: November 14, 2007

GRADE: 11

GRADE: 10

BORN IN: El Salvador

BORN IN: Mexico

BORN IN: China

STARTING ELS LEVEL: LESSON:

Level 1: Lesson 1

CURRENT ELS LEVEL: LESSON:

Level 6: Lesson 5

Level 5: Lesson 6

Level 4: Lesson 1

TIME ON PROGRAM: 88 Days = Class only

TIME ON PROGRAM: 89 Days = Class only

TIME ON PROGRAM: 75 Days = Class only

Why ELS Works … for ELLs BY BONNIE A. LESLEY, ED.D.

reative Education Institute (CEI) staff care deeply that all the students who participate in our labs are successful in learning to read, learning mathematics, and learning to learn. That passion is reflected not just in our mission statement, but also in our daily work, giving it meaning beyond what people in many businesses experience. When we explain a proposed partnership between a school and our company, we truly mean a partnership in which we also invest — through reduced costs to schools — our world-class service/support programs, and our ongoing research and development efforts to ensure that our programs are as effective as they can be. In 2005, we released a research paper for our Essential Learning Systems (ELS) program that documented how every component of the program’s content, lesson design, instructional strategies, and implementation features was solidly grounded in scientific evidence. To do that work, we totally deconstructed the program and enumerated every single component. Why ELS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base explicates our findings. The document includes a topic index, and a quick review of it reveals numerous specific references to limited-English proficient (LEP) learners or English-language learners (ELLs). CEI has also published our correlations to the tests that states are now administering under Title III of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to measure annual growth in English-language proficiency; correlations to the Language Assessment Scales (LAS); correlations to the principles of sheltered instruction; and numerous articles in SHARE, our newsmagazine, on the benefits of our programs. We have even had an article on how to evaluate your program for English-language learners that complies

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

with Office for Civil Rights requirements. Since 2005, we have seen a growing sophistication among the educators with whom we work about the importance of using scientifically-based programs and strategies. We have received numerous requests for an additional research paper dealing only with one subgroup, such as ELLs. This paper, then, is a response to those requests. It does not include the research already presented in the earlier, more general research report. Rather, it is a supplement to that report, so readers need to review both to get the full picture. (We previously published a similar supplement, “Why ELS Works for Dyslexics”). When one studies these papers, including the research summarized in this one, it is clear that the development path for learning to read is the same for all learners, regardless of age. There are, of course, variables that make it important to provide more emphasis and/or more practice/repetition in certain areas for a particular group, based on the individual needs of learners. For instance, for dyslexics, there are major emphases on phonological awareness and spelling, as well as fluency. For English-language learners, the emphases are phonemic awareness in English, letter recognition (for those not literate in a home language or whose home language does not use the English alphabet), English vocabulary development, and, of course, fluency. Readers are also reminded that ELLs frequently also struggle in mathematics. Why MLS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base includes specific sections that relate to ELLs (see especially Chapters II and IV), plus other references throughout.

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

HETEROGENEITY OF ELLs Everyone in American schools and adult literacy programs is well aware of the growing population of students needing to learn English and to learn it as quickly as possible. What some do not realize, however, is that the ELL population is no more homogeneous than is the general population. The only thing they may have in common as learners is the lack of English proficiency, so one size certainly does not fit all. It is critically important, therefore, for the interventions that are selected for these students to be highly individualized and have the capacity of differentiating instruction for each student so that each one stays in what Vygotsky termed the “zone of proximal development.” ELS is an intervention that is designed to do exactly that. Not only can it serve effectively the numerous differences in ELL students in one lab, but it can also serve students in the same lab who are English-speaking dyslexics, learning disabled, economically disadvantaged, gifted learners, and/or who simply have not had adequate or appropriate instruction to meet their needs. To illustrate the diversity of ELLs alone, we commonly see at least the following differences in the ELL students in our labs: ELLs who speak a language that does not use the English alphabet (i.e., many Asian and Mid-Eastern languages); ELLs who are also dyslexic — and dyslexics are not all alike either; ELLs who are learning disabled and are identified or eligible for special education — and these learning disabilities are not all alike (traumatic brain injury vs. autism vs. Downs Syndrome vs. Cerebral Palsy vs. Fragile X Syndrome, etc.);

This article first appeared in the Spring 2008 issue of SHARE, Volume 19, Issue 1.

ELLs who are not readers in any language; ELLs who are literate in their home language, but who are at the beginning level in English-language proficiency; ELLs who are literate in their home language, but who are at the intermediate level in Englishlanguage proficiency; ELLs who are literate in their home language, but who are at the advanced level in English-language proficiency; and ELLs who have exited the bilingual/ ESL program, but who still need support and growth in English vocabulary and fluency. CEI’s ELS program includes diagnostic assessments, enabling the lab facilitator to select the right prescription or lesson sequence for each individual student so that regardless of the group that a particular ELL falls into, we have an appropriate instructional program for him/her that will enable Englishlanguage acquisition to be accelerated. The assignment of each student to a specific therapeutic set of lessons is the major, but not the only, strategy that we use for individualization and differentiation of instruction. LETTER RECOGNITION One of the major reasons that CEI decided to incorporate its supplemental Letter Recognition program into the structure of ELS was that we knew the research on its importance in teaching all students to read. Researchers Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, Fanuele, and Sweeney (2007) found that letter identification was a sound way “to determine the at-risk status” of students in kindergarten and grade 1 since it is “the single best predictor of early and long-term reading achievement” (p. 210). Lesaux, Koda, Siegel, and Shanahan (2006) noted that “it is possible to conclude that, as with monolingual English-speaking children, word awareness, letter knowledge, and phonemic awareness are predictors of

the word identification and reading fluency skills of language-minority students.” Another major reason was that we knew it would be helpful for teachers of ELLs who came to them at all ages without literacy in any language and of ELLs who came with languages not using our alphabet. PHONEMIC AWARENESS AND PHONICS If some educators did not know the research base for explicit teaching of phonemic awareness and phonics, especially for struggling readers, then they most likely do now with the wide publication of the findings of the National Reading Panel (2000). An incorrect assumption that lingers, however, is that these topics are not important if a student can read in his/her home language. Meschyan and Hernandez (2004) make it clear in their research that phonological awareness in English is a prerequisite skill for learning vocabulary in English. This general finding seems to be applicable for students from diverse language backgrounds. Hossein and Geva (1999) concluded similarly in a study of Chinese learners and then of Farsi native speakers. And even though Spanish is more similar to English than is either Chinese or Farsi, the research (Jones, 1996) indicates the same: “While many of the discrete sounds in Spanish are similar to those in English, an understanding of the differences is a prerequisite to transferring knowledge about phoneme-grapheme relationships from L1 to L2.” Learning the sounds of English vowels is particularly important, the study concludes. For different reasons, secondary school ESL curriculum sometimes fails to include these critically important components for adolescent learners. Francis, Rivera, et al. (2006b) found that “any newcomer who lacks the ability to decode words requires targeted, systematic intervention in phonics to benefit from higher-level reading comprehension instruction.” Another incorrect assumption is that adult L2 learners do not need phonemic awareness and phonics. Not true, says Jones (1996):

5 There are compelling reasons for integrating phonics into the adult education ESL curriculum, as has been done in American primary school education. As English spelling is morphophonemic, understanding how phonemes are represented by single letters as well as spelling patterns can assist in the development of basic ESL literacy. The adult ESL student has the analytical capability to understand phoneme-grapheme relationships and can be taught how to utilize any transferable L1 literacy skills in the acquisition of English spelling. Francis, Rivera, et al. (2006) summarize the work of many researchers as follows: “ELLs need early, explicit, and intensive instruction in phonological awareness and phonics in order to build decoding skills.” The ways in which ELS addresses phonemic awareness and phonics are documented in Chapter III of Why ELS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base and more explicitly in the ELS User’s Guide (2007). FLUENCY Researchers have long noted the importance of fluency in reading among all students. Without fluent (both accurate and rapid) ability to decode, students use all their working memory to decode, leaving nothing for reading comprehension. Lesaux and Geba (2006) note that “Research on reading difficulties has clearly demonstrated the cumulative nature of reading skills; that is, without mastery of decoding, fluency is compromised; if decoding and fluency are not automatic, the reader’s ability to extract and construct meaning from text effectively and efficiently is compromised.” We now know without doubt that both fluency and vocabulary development have major positive impacts on reading comprehension. Shanahan and Beck (2006) summarize their findings relating to second-language learners: “Thus, fluency instruction benefits native speakers and appears to similarly benefit English-language learners.”

Fluency is developed through practice and repetition. According to DeKeyser (2001), “The most ubiquitous finding about the acquisition of cognitive skills, recognized by proponents of any kind of theory of automatization, is the power law of practice.” Hulstjin (2001), among scores of other researchers, agrees: “Acquisition of fluency is influenced by frequency, recency, and regularity. The frequency effect is simply that of ‘practice makes perfect.’” He continues: As was explained…, it is not enough to “know” a word; one must also be able to use word knowledge quickly in order to be able to listen or speak at a speed of two to three words per second and to read at a speed of three to six words per second. The training of automaticity appears to be a neglected component in many current L2 [second-language] curricula. When fluency is neglected, ELLs, as well as learners in general, have difficulties in learning to read. In a research article, Hossein and Geva (1999) wrote, “Geva and Ryan (1993) reported in their work that “working

memory plays even a more important role in L2 reading of upper-elementary school children than in L1 reading.” According to these researchers, this was mainly due to the heavier demands posed on working memory by lack of automaticity in executing lower level component processes in L2 than in L1 reading.” A major strength of ELS is its fluency development. Almost all educational programs are published with practice exercises, but educators responsible for teaching students who struggle to learn are quick to understand that few of these programs come with enough practice exercises to build true fluency, and most of the practice exercises are the same — over and over. Hill and Flynn (2006) state that “students generally do not reach 80 percent competency until they have practiced a skill at least 24 times.” ELS, therefore, has more than two dozen individual tasks, each intended to move the student to mastery and fluency. No student needs all of those, but they are varied in such a way that lab facilitators can individualize instruction, and they are also varied to keep students engaged and motivated to keep working. It is important to note as well that ELS develops fluency in several critical areas, not just one, in an integrated way: letter recognition, decoding, vocabulary, spelling, and pronunciation of English sounds and words. VOCABULARY Vocabulary development in English is one of the most important areas to emphasize in a school’s overall curriculum for ELLs (Lehr, Osborn, and Hiebert, n.d.; Gersten and Baker, 2003). The American Educational Research Association (2004) conclude in their research synthesis that: English-language learners will never catch up with native speakers unless they develop a rich vocabulary. Native speakers typically know at least 5,000 to 7,000 English words before kindergarten — a huge vocabulary, as anyone who has struggled to learn a second language knows. English language learners not only must close that initial gap, but also keep pace with the native speakers as they steadily expand their vocabularies.

A rich vocabulary is critical to reading comprehension. Lesaux and Gebra (2006) found that “limited vocabulary knowledge is associated with low levels of reading comprehension in English, and English language learners with a large repertoire of high-frequency and academically relevant words are better able to process written texts than English-language learners without such a repertoire.” Klingner and Vaughn (2004) concur: “Vocabulary knowledge is strongly related to effective text comprehension and appears to be a highly significant variable in secondlanguage readers’ success.” Schools will not close the achievement gap between ELLs and native speakers unless, say Hill and Flynn (2006), they provide “an enriched vocabulary program.” Francis, Rivera, et al. (2006a) sum up the importance of deliberate vocabulary instruction to build academic language as follows: Mastery of academic language is arguably the single most important determinant of academic success for individual students. While other factors (e.g., motivation, persistence, quantitative skills) play important roles in the learning process, it is not possible to overstate the role that language plays in determining students’ success with academic content. Proficient use of — and control over — academic language is the key to content-area learning. Researchers also have established some effective methods for teaching vocabulary to ELLs: Teach knowledge of English phonemes and phonics systems (Meschyan and Hernandez, 2004) Provide techniques from sheltered instruction — “slower speech, clear enunciation, use of visuals and demonstrations, targeted vocabulary development, connections to student experiences, and use of supplementary materials” (Short and Echevarria, 2004) Provide both “definitional and contextual information” to students (Graves and Watts-Taffe, 2002; Francis, Rivera, et al., 2006b)

Creative education institute SHARE MAGAZINE www.ceilearning.com fall 2010

Ensure that students attend to “both word form (pronunciation, spelling) and to whatever clues are available in input that can lead to identification of meaning” (Schmidt, 2002) Require “between 12 and 14 exposures to a word and its meaning, across multiple contexts. . . in order to gain deep understanding of a word” (Francis, Rivera, et al., 2006a) Use cloze passages (Burt, Peyton, and Van Duzer, 2005) Teach vocabulary explicitly and teach it to the point of automaticity (Hulstjin, 2001) Provide intensive instruction through supplemental interventions to core instruction (Francis, Rivera, et al., 2006b) Use computer-assisted instruction (Burt, Peyton, and Adams, 2003) CEI’s ELS program incorporates all these strategies. WRITING AND SPELLING All ELL teachers know that the language arts (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) are most effectively taught if done so in an integrated fashion, recognizing that an enhancement of skill in one area also strengthens the others. CEI’s ELS program reflects these research findings. That is why ELS does not, for example, teach simply decoding or simply vocabulary. The software not only includes a real voice who models English pronunciation for ELLs, but it also demands a rather high level of teacher engagement in its deployment so that students also learn to speak and listen. That is also why ELS includes in the initial SHARE tasks in each Mastery Cycle a spelling component and why the supporting and supplementary tasks include not only dictation exercises (Copy-Write and Copy-Write Editing), but also the CEI Journal for expressive and expository writing. Adams (1990) summarizes the research on the value of writing and spelling: The value of having the children write and spell is also strongly reinforced. It has been shown that the act of writing newly learned words is a significant strengthening of their perceptual integrity in recognition.

ELS does not teach simply decoding or simply vocabulary. The software not only includes a real voice who models English pronunciation for ELLs, but it also demands a high level of teacher engagement in its deployment so that students also learn to speak and listen. This is surely a factor underlying the documented advantages of programs that emphasize writing and spelling activities. Spelling and writing, therefore, help to reinforce a student’s learning to read. Jones (1996) explains that “skilled spellers can visually recognize spelling patterns and link them to their phonological translations effortlessly and accurately. Spelling-sound regularities are also seen in what are known as word families.” ELS teaches spelling in precisely this way — through patterns and through word families, a chunking/clustering strategy that makes learning more efficient and that enables learning to be accelerated. COMPREHENSION ELS supports improvements in reading comprehension in numerous ways. Fluent decoding, as we have seen, is an absolute prerequisite to comprehension. Nassaji (2003) found that “efficient lower-level word recognition processes are integral components of second language reading comprehension and that the role of these processes must not be neglected even in highly advanced ESL readers.” Scores of other researchers agree. Chamot (n.d.), for example, comments that “What we learned from these classroom observations was that these low-literacy students could think analytically and could relate what they were reading to their own prior knowledge, but that their low English proficiency was a barrier to displaying higher level thinking skills in English.” An enriched vocabulary is another prerequisite. Burt, Peyton, and Adams (2003) wrote, “one of the components of language proficiency that has been shown to have a strong effect on reading comprehension is vocabulary knowledge in the language being read.” Lesaux and Geba (2006) agree: “If a child is experiencing reading difficulties, the result may be a knowledge base and vocabulary that are insufficient for comprehension of the increasingly complex reading material students confront in the later elementary years and high school.”

Not only does ELS include emphases in fluency and vocabulary, but it also includes many opportunities to practice comprehension skills through eQuick Tales, supplemental activities provided to all ELS labs. Too, when schools measure the preto post-test gains for a year of instruction, they almost always find that lab students post more dramatic gains in reading comprehension than they do in instructional reading (decoding), reflecting again the power of fluency and vocabulary in improving reading in general. It is probably true that many students need instruction and extensive practice in comprehension skills, but what our schools see is that many, many students do fine on comprehension as soon as the foundational skills are in place. INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES ELS incorporates a number of instructional strategies that are also grounded in scientific evidence. The model for lesson development, for example, includes elements of direct instruction and mastery learning (see Chapter III of Why ELS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base). Computer-Assisted Instruction We also employ computer-assisted instruction, which facilitates not only the management of student records and the navigation of individual students through the appropriate activities in their prescriptions (lesson sequences), but also makes true individualization and differentiation a reality for every student, makes it possible to provide adequate and varied practice and repetition, and greatly facilitates the use of multisensory processing strategies. As Sawyer and Ranta (2001) comment, “In terms of designing instruction to cope effectively with ID s (individual differences), one clearly promising direction is computerized instruction. Computer programs can be written to provide virtually limitless possibilities for variety in the choice, modification,

The computer screen itself is another subject of research. Levin and Long (1981) encourage simple pictorial presentation as a way to facilitate learning. An uncluttered screen, they said, draws the attention of the students “precisely to those aspects of learning required by the instructional goal.” Gersten and Baker (2003) added that “Intervention studies and several observational studies have noted that the effective use of visuals during instruction can lead to increased learning.” ELS’ screens are uncluttered, without the noise and busyness of many software programs, since CEI’s goal is to educate, not entertain. Educating struggling readers makes it imperative that learners not be distracted from the lesson goals.

socioeconomic status; and learning abilities or disabilities.” It is incumbent, then, that interventions selected for ELL instruction should be designed in ways that enable the teacher to forge “a very precise match between the child’s source of difficulty and the intervention itself” (Francis, Rivera, et al., 2006a). CEI’s ELS program includes, as previously discussed, the lesson sequences (therapeutic prescriptions) that individualize the content, the pacing, and the amount of practice assigned to each student. In addition, the software allows the lab facilitator to modify or adapt the lesson parameters so that speed, color of the screen, the number of words assigned in a lesson, and other variables can be controlled. Other examples of individualization/differentiation include the scaffolding strategies; the early warning system that alerts the lab teacher when a student is not making expected progress; continuous progress monitoring; mastery assessments and automatic recycling if the student does not attain mastery; going back to assess words in previous mastery cycles; providing immediate corrective feedback; and placement tests for each mastery cycle. And, of course, the incorporation of multi-sensory processing strategies in all lessons not only contributes to more effective learning for all, but such strategies also teach both to students’ learning strengths and at the same time remediate his/ her weaknesses. So multi-sensory processing itself is also an individualization/differentiation strategy.

We recommend that ELS be used as a supplement to the ESL program, whether ELS is a part of a bilingual curriculum or is the primary support given to second language learners. The lab time provides the necessary added time on task for ELLs to become proficient in the English language. Ellis (2001) notes that “the best predictor of language facility will simply be time on task.” Francis, Rivera, et al. (2006b) make a similar argument: “A strong research base supports the notion that, provided instruction is deemed effective, greater time on task is essential to the success of students performing below grade level, ELLs in particular.” Title III of NCLB has brought increasing accountability for schools teaching second language learners. ELLs are now expected to gain at least one level of English-language proficiency each year, as measured by a state assessment in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. In addition, each district is accountable for the percentage of students exiting the bilingual/ ESL program each year and for the percentage of limited-English students passing the state assessments in reading, mathematics, and science. Kamps, Abbott, Greenwood, et al. (2007) point out the following: “for all students, but especially for student populations who traditionally struggle to meet minimum academic standards, appropriate instructional intensity and consistent progress monitoring are critical to improving student outcomes.” CEI has published its correlation of ELS with the areas tested on the state assessments to measure growth in English.

Individualization/Differentiation In the section on the heterogeneity of second-language learners, we referenced the diversity of these learners. Short and Echevarria make the argument that ESL has to be individualized: “We do English-language learners a disservice if we think of them as onedimensional on the basis of their limited English proficiency.” Burt, Peyton, and Adams (2003) not only acknowledge the diversity of need in this population, and they list several variables that affect not necessarily the developmental path for learning, but the rate and pace of learning: “age; motivation; instructional, living, and working environments; sociocultural backgrounds;

Time-On-Task The new Response to Intervention (RTI ) initiative now being used to prevent as much failure and as many special education referrals as possible makes it clear that effective interventions get increasingly more intense (more time on task) as the students move through the tiers. CEI has always had a similar philosophy. Our ELS program is not core instruction for anyone, except it can be an excellent part of the core in early reading levels. It is supplemental instruction for those who struggle to learn to read. That is, student engagement in an ELS lab should be in addition to the instruction they receive in the regular classroom.

Chunking/Clustering Ellis (2003) points out that “chunking appears to be a ubiquitous feature of human memory.” He further explains that it is the “associative learning of sequences.” The ELS lessons are taught using a series of words with similar spelling/sound patterns. Learning in this way is more efficient and effective for all learners, including those who are ELLs. Chapter IV of Why ELS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base includes more information on this helpful strategy and how it is used in ELS.

and sequencing of language learning tasks.” Hulstijin writes about the value of technology in providing practice: “The computer, obviously, must be considered as a welcome aid in the implementation of a well-designed rehearsal regime.” Among the methods and materials recommended for ELLs by the National Center for ESL Literacy is the use of technology: “Learners often feel more comfortable and productive working alone and in front of a computer, where they receive positive feedback, than in a crowded classroom.” The Center for Adult English Language Acquisition (CAELA) adds that computers “may also be responsive to different learning styles (e.g., auditory, visual, tactile).”

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

Creative education institute SHARE MAGAZINE www.ceilearning.com fall 2010

Practice/Repetition. Fluency and mastery do not occur without significant amounts of practice and repetition, as we have seen. This strategy is a given in any effective intervention, for as MacWhinney (2001) finds, “We know that neural networks can be effectively trained through repeated presentation of stimuli.” Hulstjin (2001) writes that “The more they repeat words, the more these are consolidated in long-term memory (LTM ).” He also reports on studies involving the importance of “spaced repetition”: The results of this study clearly demonstrate that retention probability is greatly enhanced for words that are well encoded in one or two presentations and are subsequently accessed several times at intervals of 30 days.” Researchers have also been interested in how much practice is enough. Hill and Flynn (2006) conclude: There are two generalizations from the research regarding practice. First, a student will not master a skill without a significant amount of practice. In fact, students generally do not reach 80 percent competency until they have practiced a skill at least 24 times. This is important to remember because the goal of practice is to develop a skill or process so that it can be applied fluently with minimal conscious thought. Second, when practicing, students should adapt and shape what they have learned. The conceptual understanding of a skill should develop during practice. Again, students need multiple opportunities to make continued adaptations as they develop their understanding of the skill they are learning. Segalowitz agrees: “All automaticity proposals for enhancing SLA [second language acquisition] are based, in one way or another, on the idea that extended practice, under particular conditions and circumstances, will increase fluency by developing automaticity.” He continues: “promoting automaticity is generally believed to require massive repetition experiences and consistent practice.” Again, ELS’ emphasis on practice and repetition is totally grounded in the most current research.

Copies of our research notes and a complete bibliography for this paper are available by calling us at 888.511.4194 or by e-mailing your request to info@ceilearning.com.

Assessment and Feedback. As Why ELS Works: Its Scientific, Theoretical, and Evaluation Research Base explains in Chapter IV, ELS includes a comprehensive assessment system, including diagnostic, pre-/post- standardized tests, continuous progress monitoring, mastery assessments, and regular checks on long-term memory. Lab teachers are trained to use the daily printouts, as well as the other assessment data to modify and adapt ELS lessons as necessary to keep every single student moving forward. These components are all necessary for a therapeutic intervention, according to Davidson (1994) and many other researchers (e.g., Gersten, Baker, Shanahan, Linan-Thompson, and Collins, 2007; Francis, Rivera, et al., 2006b; Kamps, Abbott, Greenwood, et al., 2007): … the best instructional improvements are informed by ongoing assessment of student strengths and needs. Such assessments are often, but not exclusively, informal and frequently occur on a daily basis, and therefore are not necessarily suited to the summative task of accountability reporting systems. Data should be catalogued on a computer system that would allow teachers, administrators, and evaluators to inspect students’ progress individually and by class. These formative assessments are specifically designed to inform instruction on a very frequent basis so that adjustments to instruction can be made to ensure that students are on pace to reach mastery targets. ELS provides feedback to students in multiple ways. For example, the computer voice gives immediate, positive, and encouraging feedback to the individual student after each of his or her responses. The lab teachers are trained to give similar kinds of feedback as they monitor student participation and listen to recitations or review

worksheets. A daily progress report is available for both the student and the lab teacher to review. Hill and Flynn (2006) argue that “Effective learning requires feedback. When teaching ELLs, it is particularly important to ensure that your feedback is comprehensible, useful, and relevant.” CONCLUSIONS Given the scientific grounding of every single component of ELS’ lesson design, content, instructional strategies, and implementation features, it clearly includes what is needed to teach reading skills to those who struggle, including the diversity of English-language learners in today’s schools and including all ages. CEI is not aware of any other program that has the level of effectiveness of ELS, nor any other program with its high levels of therapeutic individualization.

Essential Learning Systems (ELS) in W

Time is on Your Side by Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D.

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

e at CEI learn in lots of ways, but one of our most valuable sources of information is from the facilitators in our labs and from their principals and other administrators. In just the past few years, we have seen several schools experimenting with adding time in the ELS lab for as many students as possible. We are, of course, very aware of the volumes of research on the importance of time on task (see our research paper), but we just did not know if doubling or tripling the time that a student spends in the lab in one day would incrementally improve their gains. It does! We have learned that from many of our schools! Four examples: 1. An alternative school with middle and high school students, including many in special education, gained, on average, more than two years in reading comprehension in only eight weeks. The school had 90-minute blocks, and the assistant principal in charge of the implementation visited the lab every single day to make sure that the implementation was done with fidelity and that the facilitator and the students saw how important it was to her that they do well. 2. A child with cerebral palsy who was repeating kindergarten still could not read. A two-hourper-day ELS assignment during summer school moved her from being unable to identify letters in the alphabet to being a confident reader and earning promotion to the first grade. 3. A sophomore second-language student, knowing not one word of English progressed 8.4 years in reading comprehension in less than one school year. He came in as early as 5:30 a.m. to put in extra time in the lab, beyond the period he was assigned each day. 4. A middle school identified every potential failure in grade 8 and assigned each of those students to the lab at least one period per day, and then as much more time as possible every time there was an opportunity. Every child except one with disabilities and new to the school passed the state assessment that spring and earned promotion to high school.

We want to make sure that everyone sees what we are learning about increased engaged time, how our ELS sequences are designed, and the increasing intensity from Tier I to Tier II to Tier III of RtI implementation are all about the same thing! Students who struggle need more time and appropriate interventions if they are to accelerate their learning. The standard 45 minutes per day that we recommend may be enough for some students, but it may not be enough for many, especially if they are learning-disabled and/ or if they are multiple years behind. Second-language learners need far more than 45 minutes per day to learn English fluently, so ELS is a perfect supplement for them. CEI strongly recommends that elementary schools use ELS for all kindergarten students in Tier I, the Letter Recognition module can be used both to screen for students who need more intense intervention, as well as for Tier I supplemental instruction. ELS lessons can be the word study component of a balanced literacy program since they include phonemic awareness, phonics/spelling, vocabulary development, and fluency in decoding. This strategy, using continuous progress monitoring and the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s other assessment data from such tests as TPRI and DiBELS, will provide the school with the information they need to decide who needs Tier II and/or Tier III interventions even at this level. Since ELS is totally individualized, the Tier II intervention can continue to be ELS, but with the additional 30 or 45 minutes of time required under RtI. The additional time is important, not only to develop the necessary skills and knowledge and move them into long-term memory, but also to accelerate learning so that the student can return to Tier I as quickly as possible. Again, for Tier III, ELS can continue to be the intervention because it is therapeutic, because it is individualized, and because students will benefit from yet another 30-45 minutes of time each day on the program.

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

This article first appeard in the Spring/Summer 2009 issue of SHARE, Volume 20, Issue 1/2.

an RtI Implementation A sophomore second-language student, knowing not one word of English progressed 8.4 years in reading comprehension in less than one school year. He came in as early as 5:30 a.m. to put in extra time in the lab, beyond the period he was assigned each day. Using ELS for all three tiers will save the school thousands and thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time since teachers will need to learn only one program and how to interpret the reports from that one program. Consistency is also of great importance for struggling learners. A frequent shift from one program to another from the Tier I classroom program to a series of other interventions is confusing, wastes student time, and may slow down, if not prevent, learning. A shift would be unnecessary as long as the student is responding positively. The additional time would simply accelerate learning and provide adequate practice and repetition so that true mastery occurs. The ELS sequences are invaluable to an RtI team because student strengths and weaknesses have to be assessed in order for the lab facilitator to know which of the sequences is appropriate for each individual child. The instruction has to be challenging enough to move the student forward and keep him or her interested, but not so challenging that the child is frustrated and becomes de-motivated. When the sequences were developed many years ago, they were designed according to feedback from our lab teachers and from the observations of CEI’s teacher staff. They saw that some students could complete lessons in just one 45-minute session (see Gold A, B, and D sequences). These are the so-called average lab students, and those sequences would likely be the ones most appropriate for most of the students in classes above the kindergarten level.

Students who are learning disabled may require 100 or more repetitions to learn the same word. Other sequences were developed for students who would be overwhelmed by the pace of the Gold sequences. For example, it takes two to three 45-minute sessions for students in Red. If a student requires a Red sequence, then that is an indicator that he or she is probably in need of a Tier II intervention. Through RtI, the student has about 90 minutes a day for ELS instead of 45 minutes, so he or she can learn the same material that the Gold sequence children are learning — just in a longer period of time. Some students need even more time. The Gray and White sequences were designed for those students, and those lessons require as many as six to nine 45-minute sessions. Students needing these sequences should be in Tier III since they need the extra time of another 45 minutes or so to do the work that the Gold students cover in one session and the Red students cover in 2-3 sessions. Why would these students require so much more time? The research says that the average person can learn a new vocabulary word in 8-15 repetitions. Students who are learning disabled may

4 require 100 or more repetitions to learn the same word. This example is just one of many that could be given to explain why some of the ELS sequences have so much more practice time in them than others. The consequence of not adding additional time for the more challenged students is similar to waiting until later grades to start an intervention. The material that is taught at each level of ELS is the same for all students, regardless of sequence. Level I is Level I. But if some students can do a lesson in one day’s session, and another student needs more, then the achievement gap will grow over time, not narrow. The only way to narrow the gap is to add the necessary time for the slower student to stay on course. RtI requires the school to evaluate whether a student is learning at the same level and same pace as peers in deciding when he or she should exit an intervention. A child who truly struggles to learn can stay on pace if he or she is given the extra time needed each day to master the material and to move it into long-term memory for fast and accurate recall.

In 2006, the average annual cost to educate a public school student was $9,963. CEI encourages each of our schools and all potential schools to examine their practice in light of these research findings and in examination of the spirit of the RtI law — to intervene as early as possible so that children get what they need at the earliest possible moment. Virtually every school needs to serve many more students than the ones they currently serve if they are to avoid the disaster of waiting too long to address the problem. And even the children in the current labs may require more than one session per day to catch up. CEI is working on yet another ELS enhancement to make our daily and periodic progress reports more compliant with RtI requirements. Sometime next year lab facilitators will be able to print and share with teacher teams and administrators new reports that feature more specific progress data. We continue to improve our service/support program since its major reason for existing is to provide schools with the help they need to implement our programs for the best possible results. That is what “implementation with fidelity” means. (See article in Winter 2007-08 SHARE, “Blueprint for Achievement: Implementation Integrity’s Role in Intervention Success.”) Because we care deeply about every child’s success and because we recognize that schools never have the money they need to do what they recognize needs to be done, CEI created the subscription pricing option to make new labs and stations more affordable. We also discount the cost of additional rooms and stations to existing clients. According to Education Week (“Quality Counts,” 2009), the average annual cost to educate a public school student in 2006 was $9,963. Therefore, the cost of an additional lab is offset by preventing just one grade-level retention. Preventing several retentions will pay the other costs of running your lab and for additional stations and labs. Call your Solutions Analyst for pricing, or call us at 888.511.4194, and we will immediately fax to you a price proposal. We are also available for consultation to help you think through your RtI implementation.

BY BONNIE LESLEY, ED. D

In the Summer 2008 issue of SHARE Magazine, readers feasted on hundreds of student success stories, each one a testimony to the fact the Creative Education Institute (CEI) accelerates learning in reading and math. For each story that we included, there were thousands of others in schools across the United States — in public schools, private schools, charter schools, religious schools, after-school programs, community-based programs, adult education centers, and rehabilitation centers. The faces in the SHARE stories also represent the diversity of struggling learners in America — age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and ranges of learning difficulties and/or disabilities. CEI serves them all, and our test results over the past 20 years reveal that the average gains for each subgroup are about the same for each ethnic group, for each age group, for each level of school, for English-language learners, for dyslexics, for each socioeconomic level, and even for students with other reading and mathematics learning disabilities. That doesn’t surprise us since our programs are intentionally highly individualized so that each learner gets exactly what he or she needs for success. But inquiring minds may want to know just actually what it is that we do that truly accelerates learning. Lots of publishers say they do, but the fact is that they don’t, except for very small

populations — usually the so-called “bubble kids.” Those who struggle to learn keep getting left behind by these programs. CEI is a rarity in that we seek to serve only those lowestperforming learners — because we know they can learn if given the appropriate instruction. And they do, as the evidence proves — time and time again! One of the stories in that issue of SHARE featured the amazing successes of Luis Albarran-Leyva, a student at Fontana High School in California. Luis’ personal motivation and persistence, the teachers’ commitment and knowledge, the school’s leadership, and CEI’s Essential Learning Systems (ELS) program all contributed to Luis’ 8.4 years’ gain in reading comprehension in less than one year in the lab! Students in CEI’s labs across the country typically gain far more than one year of learning for one year of instruction. Such true acceleration is critical if schools are ever going to be able to narrow the achievement gap. Many readers have requested information about what it is about CEI’s programs that enable those kinds of gains. The following features of CEI’s programs — both ELS and MLS — are among those documented in our research reports. According to the research, they are the ones that are critically important ... not only to make learning effective, but also to accelerate learning.

10 WAYS CEI products

AC C E LE RATE LEAR N I N G 36

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

This article first appeard in the Fall 2008 issue of SHARE, Volume 19, Issue 3.

For more information about the research base for ELS and MLS, log onto www.ceilearning.com, or place a toll-free call to 888.511.4194 to request a CD that includes our research. You can also send an e-mail to info@ceilearning.com. Be sure to include your mailing address.

One Team. One Goal. By Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D.

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

This article first appeard in the Fall 2009 issue of SHARE, Volume 20, Issue 3.

EI’s overwhelming strength is our ability to accelerate learning among the most at-risk students — those who are economically disadvantaged, those who have learning disabilities (including dyslexia and dyscalculia), and/or those who speak English as a second language. We are better at delivering accelerated results than any other program that we know about, and that is the major reason that our programs are absolutely perfect for Tiers II and III in a school’s RtI implementation. Do we rest on our laurels? Absolutely not! We want to keep getting better and better at what we do, and our ongoing goal is the continuous improvement of our products so that students learn what they need to learn at a faster and faster pace. The Spring/Summer 2009 issue of SHARE Magazine celebrated the remarkable achievements made by students in our labs last year, and those stories are exactly the nutrients that we need to rev up our engines for even better results! As we were putting the finishing touches on this current issue of SHARE [Fall 2009], we received a newsletter from Houston’s Youth Development Center (YDC), an after-school program for elementary and middle school children. Their front-page article celebrated their program’s gains for last year — an impressive average growth of 1.7 grade levels for the students in grades 2-4, and an absolutely terrific growth of 2.6 grade levels for the students in grades 5-8! Given that the typical at-risk student gains six months or less in a year of instruction, YDC’s implementation of ELS produced almost four times as much growth for the younger students and an amazing five times as much growth for the middle school students. Now, that is true acceleration! In the past several years, we have done a number of things to improve the likelihood of greater and greater acceleration of student growth:

We have conducted recent research to verify that our programs reflect the most current findings on what it is that accelerates learning: critical content, individualized instruction, direct instruction, distraction control, practice/ repetition, fluency development, corrective feedback, chunking, and multisensory processing strategies;

ELS’ theme backgrounds and graphics make the screens more attractive and more motivational for the students, engaging them more in their work;

Our User’s Guides and Teacher’s Manuals reflect the emphasis on keeping students engaged and moving forward to every extent possible;

CEI Direct enables a lab facilitator to get immediate advice on appropriate placement of students in the programs, rather than having to wait for a lab visit;

We focus our support program on supporting an effective implementation in every school — with an emphasis on producing high rates of acceleration in every school.

The beginning-of-year refurbishment packets and the Welcome Back Pack have been scheduled so that they arrive in plenty of time so that labs can be operational the first day of school;

We suggest, recommend, emphasize, and even beg schools to implement the CEI programs at the earliest possible grade levels. The earlier a learning difficulty or disability is treated, the more effective an intervention is, the less expensive the treatment is, and, most importantly, the less damage occurs in the self-concept of the learner due to years of failure. We invite all those involved in implementing our programs to provide us with your suggestions for other ways in which we can accelerate your students’ learning. We are thinking about it all the time, but you are there observing many students with different issues, so we know that you will see things that we might not think of. Please just let us know, and we’ll see what we can do.

CEI’s most current advice is for labs to run at least 45 minutes, five days per week for maximal time-on-task, one of the critical requirements for acceleration; CEI no longer is recommending that all students take the LET-II test before they are placed in the program, again to allow more engaged time; The new Integrated ELS Placement, or Auto-Placement, will prevent any student from having to work through lessons where

he/she already knows the content, saving time for exposure to more lessons and facilitating higher levels of mastery; The addition of the Web-based Activity Center (WAC) enables students to add time-on-task at home or in other settings where computers are available; CEI has changed the ELS mastery requirement from 100% correctness to 90%, enabling students who clearly understand the patterns in a particular Mastery Cycle to move forward more quickly;

CEI’s Solutions Analysts participate in ongoing professional development so that they can support schools’ efforts to accelerate learning; Our Administrators’ Implementation Toolkit and several SHARE articles emphasize the importance of implementation with fidelity — implementing the programs the way they were designed to operate — without which you will not get maximal results; Our software goes through rigorous testing before release so that you have as close to a bug-free environment as we can possibly produce;

We are guilty of many errors and many faults, but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life. Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot. Right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made, and his senses are being developed. To him we cannot answer “Tomorrow.” His name is “Today.” Gabriela Mistral Chilean Poet, 1889-1957 Su Nombre es Hoy (His Name is Today)

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

This article first appeard in the Spring/Summer 2009 issue of SHARE, Volume 20, Issue 1 and was revised for this printing.

The Children Cannot Wait! W

e at CEI pay a great deal of attention to states’ AYP reports each summer. We check to see how schools using our programs fared, and we look for the patterns that indicate ways in which we can help. We celebrate, year after year, that more than 99 percent of the schools using Essential Learning Systems (ELS) and/or Mathematical Learning Systems (MLS) earn their AYPs for the populations they serve. One of the patterns that we are seeing, also, year after year is that many districts across the country do fine at the elementary level, but virtually all their middle and high schools miss their AYP in reading and/or mathematics. What is going on, of course, is that those elementary schools feeding the middle schools may have only a few struggling students — too few to be counted at grade level in the AYP calculation. But when three or more elementary schools feed into one middle school, there are then more than enough of these struggling students to be counted, and so the middle school gets caught in the accountability system even though some of the children coming to the school are performing as low as first- or second-graders in reading and/or mathematics. They inherited a major problem that cannot be solved in a short time. Consequently, students who perform significantly behind their peers make their way to high school. And they combine with others like them in the high schools, so high schools cannot earn their AYP either because of their inherited problems. In fact, to resolve this issue, the intervention needs to occur during the earlier years of school. Likewise, those who would try to solve our nation’s “dropout” problem must understand that to do so requires the earliest possible interventions, not waiting until a child enters grade 9 without the knowledge and skills that he or she would need for academic success even at the upper-elementary level. A low-skilled ninth grader gets stuck forever at that level — or until he or she drops out — unless someone provides the appropriate interventions. Therein lies the problem of American education. Therein is the source of cries and demands to close the achievement gap, to improve graduation rates, for students to score higher on the incessant tests, for schools to be accountable for the resources invested in them. The costs of failing to solve these critical problems are enormous in economic terms and outrageous in a wealthy democracy. These are the costs at the macro level. But the costs may be even more devastating at the micro level — the level of the individual child who waits and waits and waits for the help he or she needs. The research literature is replete with references to what is usually termed as “a sense of urgency for the earliest possible intervention” for any learner who has a learning difficulty or disability. We are reminded of the medical model that shows that prevention of disease is low-cost and highly effective;

treatment costs more than prevention and is less effective; and recovery is very costly and rarely effective. Translating that model to education means that prevention of failure, if done appropriately, is very cost-effective since it does not require long periods of time and is highly successful. Retention, re-teaching, and typical “remediation” take much more time, cost much more than prevention, and have less success since they do not individualize, nor address the root cause of failure: faulty sensory processing. Intensive intervention, usually in a special education setting, is very expensive in time and money and has much less success — in part because identification comes so late. Researchers make the following arguments for early identification and intervention: It prevents academic failure at the earliest possible time. It prevents the identification of as many children as possible for special education services. The brain is most plastic and able to change and learn at early ages. Failure to learn to read results in failure to learn content knowledge. Failure to learn to read results in weak vocabularies since we learn most of our vocabulary from reading. Failure to learn to read results in damaged self-esteem and one’s ability to be successful at school. The longer the school waits to intervene, the longer it takes to accelerate learning sufficiently for a learner to catch up with his peers. Students who fail to learn actually can “acquire” a learning disability. Failure to learn to read early is a strong predictor that the student will become a dropout. Failure to learn frequently results in behavior problems at home and at school. Failure to learn frequently results in criminal behavior, increasing the societal cost of crime, adjudication, and imprisonment. Failure to learn highly correlates with substance abuse. Prevention efforts decrease the need and cost of later interventions.

Failure to learn means that peers get far more practice in reading, making it increasingly difficult ever to narrow the achievement gap. Failure to learn is the result not of learning disabilities, but the result of limited early experiences in the home and lack of adequate and appropriate instruction in the early grades. At the individual child level, therefore, the micro level, a child suffers greatly if he or she fails to learn. Every day of school is agony and repeated failure. Every day of not being able to learn means falling further and further behind peers. Every day results also in not learning content knowledge and academic vocabulary since the student cannot read texts. Every day without an appropriate intervention means the high likelihood of repeated in-grade retention; always failing the state assessments; facing the humiliation of being over-age in a grade; feeling the disapproval of family, friends, and educators; and eventually dropping out of school. And every dropout is highly likely to face a future of minimum-wage jobs, poverty, dysfunctional relationships, crime, substance abuse, and the probability of early death. The picture cannot be more grim. The following scenario illustrates the spiral downward for a child who comes to school already behind and then what happens if there is not an immediate intervention that accelerates learning. Scenario: Jasmine Jasmine enters kindergarten at physical age 5 without pre-school experience. She is identified as an English-language learner, and she has almost no prior experience with books or early literacy acquisition. She can count only to five, she can name only four colors, and she knows nothing about shapes or patterns. Jasmine’s school is one that always makes its AYP in part because it has very low numbers of students from poverty, students with learning disabilities, and students who are English-language learners. The school is respected by most parents because they can be fairly certain that their average student will gain at least one year academically for a year of instruction, what we call “expected growth.” The problem, however, is that without appropriate interventions, such as CEI’s ELS and MLS programs, the “typical growth” for struggling students is at best six months for a year of instruction. The table that follows dramatically displays what happens in this school. Jasmine enters kindergarten two years behind her peers. By the end of grade 5 (or her sixth year in school), however, she is almost five years behind! And the longer she goes without help, the more behind she is. At the beginning of her seventh year in school (or grade 6), her reading and mathematics skills are barely at the first-grade level. Meanwhile, the average or above-average student stays at least on grade-level and is always ready for the challenges of the next grade. While Jasmine has still not yet learned to read fluently in her native language and is even further behind in English reading, her classmates have zoomed ahead, reading hundreds of books, mastering content knowledge, and greatly expanding their vocabularies.

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

BEGINNING GRADE (Years in School)

ACADEMIC AGE AVERAGE STUDENT

STRUGGLING STUDENT

Kindergarten (1)

Grade 1 (2)

3.5

Grade 2 (3)

Grade 3 (4)

4.5

Grade 4 (5)

Grade 5 (6)

5.5

The costs to Jasmine for these six lost years are enormous! This little girl who entered school so excited and eager to learn now knows that she is a total failure at the enterprise called school, and her self-esteem will probably never be what it should be, no matter what happens. She hates school, she has few friends, and she has already resolved to leave at the earliest opportunity. She has failed the state assessments at grades 3, 4, and 5. And she is likely to have been retained at least twice, if not more, during the elementary years. Some psychologists state that retention at grade is so devastating to a child that nothing is more painful except the loss of a parent. Research indicates that a child who is retained

Creative education institute SHARE MAGAZINE www.ceilearning.com fall 2010

even once is about 50 percent likely to drop out, and a child retained twice is almost 100 percent likely to drop out. The tragedy is that none of this had to happen if the school had the resources to do what it needed to do in her kindergarten year to accelerate her learning so that she could perform on par with her peers. Let’s suppose that Jasmine is eventually socially promoted to middle school, although her reading is only at the first-grade level. Her teachers do not know what to do with her since she has not qualified for special education, and she is not yet fluent in English, so they support her the best they can in their large classes, and they ask her parents to help her by reading her texts aloud, but, of course, the parents are not fluent in English either. The school has no available resources for special instruction for students who are not learning disabled since the Response-to-Intervention requirements were not funded, and the school is not a Title I school. The table below illustrates Jasmine’s progress of about six months for each year of instruction throughout middle school.

BEGINNING GRADE (Years in School)

ACADEMIC AGE AVERAGE STUDENT

STRUGGLING STUDENT

Grade 7 (8)

6.5

Grade 8 (9)

Grade 6 (7)

Jasmine began middle school performing like a first grader, and by the end of grade 8, she is only mid-year of grade 2 in her reading performance —six years behind her peers and clearly unable to do acceptable middle school work, much less high school work. For all those who are stunned to know that there are high school students performing at the second grade level, Jasmine is an example of how that can happen, and it happens far too frequently in our country. At this point Jasmine has no hope, so she never even enrolls in high school. Scenario: A Solution for Jasmine All is not lost. There is hope for Jasmine! The remarkable news from the research community is that Jasmine could have been performing at grade-level by the beginning of grade 2 had she had adequate and appropriate instruction to meet her needs. CEI’s 20-plus years of data collection measuring gains from pre- to post-tests in Essential Learning Systems (ELS) labs tells us consistently that even average labs can produce gains of about two years for one year of instruction. Even more dramatic results can be attained if students are assigned to the lab more than one period per day, as the Tier II-Tier III implementation of Response to Intervention requires. The following table reflects what could have been Jasmine’s story if she had been able to participate from the beginning of kindergarten in an ELS lab. Note that the table now includes a column depicting “accelerated growth” for a CEI student rather than the “typical growth” of a struggling student.

BEGINNING GRADE (Years in School)

ACADEMIC AGE AVERAGE STUDENT

STRUGGLING STUDENT

Accelerated CEI Student

Grade 1 (2)

3.5

Grade 2 (3)

Kindergarten (1)

The table demonstrates that students entering kindergarten who are two years behind can, with two years of intervention that truly accelerates learning, be on grade-level and can most likely exit the intervention program. Only those who will need intensive special education services will need to continue the intervention past grade 1. Educators may wish to read this important study: “Preventing Early Reading Difficulties through Intervention in Kindergarten and First Grade” by Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney in Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention, edited by Haager, Klingner, and Vaughn, 2007, pp. 185-219. Their findings were as follows: The data also suggest that providing supplemental literacy instruction in kindergarten may be all that is needed to prevent early and long-term reading difficulties in many at-risk children. Results on reading achievement measures administered at the end of first, second, and third grade provide additional support for this suggestion (p. 201). … early and long-term reading difficulties can be prevented in most children found to be at risk for such difficulties if these children are identified at the beginning of kindergarten (if not sooner) and if appropriate intervention to institute foundational literacy skills is provided throughout kindergarten (pp. 202-203). … the majority of children who continue to need remedial assistance at the beginning of first grade, despite having received such assistance in kindergarten, can be brought to at least average levels of literacy achievement by the end of first grade (p. 203). We used letter identification to determine at-risk status in the present study because we and others have found this measure to be the single-best predictor of early and longterm reading achievement …(p. 210). We intuit that the most effective preventive model would incorporate both enhanced classroom instruction and appropriate supplemental instruction for children identified as at risk for early literacy difficulties at the beginning of their school year (i.e., after they are identified as at risk) and would implement both of these strategies simultaneously rather than in tandem as dictated by the three-tier model (p. 211). … reading difficulties in most beginning readers are caused primarily by experiential and instructional inadequacies rather than cognitive impairments of biological origin…. (p. 214).

Scenario: What If We Wait Until Grade 3? What would have happened had Jasmine had to wait until her fourth year of school or the beginning of grade 3 before she had access to an appropriate intervention? In the past, most schools did not begin to consider anything beyond Tier I intervention until grade 3 or 4, so this scenario continues to play itself out in many American schools.

BEGINNING GRADE (Years in School)

Grade 3 (4)

ACADEMIC AGE AVERAGE STUDENT

STRUGGLING STUDENT

Accelerated CEI Student

4.5

4.5 6.5

BEGINNING GRADE (Years in School)

ACADEMIC AGE AVERAGE STUDENT

STRUGGLING STUDENT

Accelerated CEI Student

Grade 4 (5)

Grade 5 (6)

5.5

8.5

Grade 6 (7)

10.5

Grade 7 (8)

6.5

Grade 8 (9)

Grade 9 (10)

7.5

Under this scenario, Jasmine would have required more than three years of intense accelerated growth in order to be on level with her grade-level peers. Given the likelihood that she would have been retained in grade at least once during this time and that she could not begin to read books and absorb content knowledge until grade 4, she is likely still behind academically even though her reading ability has dramatically improved. Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes (2007) note the following: There is a strong relationship between reading fluency and practice, so that if students are not able to access print for 3-5 years, it would very difficult to close this gap. Torgesen (2002) estimated that students in the interventions would have to read for 8 hours per day for a year in order to close the gap created by the delay in the students’ access to print. The bad news is that the required intervention time to bring Jasmine to grade-level almost doubled over the time required had intervention begun in kindergarten, rather than grade 3. Monetary costs are much higher than they would have been had intervention occurred at the earliest possible time. The effectiveness of this intervention is lessened because of psychological damage of repeated failure and doubt and the academic losses that occur when one cannot read. Continued interventions in the content areas are likely to be required. And even one grade-level retention makes Jasmine still a possible dropout. The good news is that Jasmine was almost able to achieve grade-level in reading by the time she completed grade 6, so, if she is sufficiently motivated and continues to receive the support she needs, she can successfully complete middle school, high school, and beyond. Scenario: What If We Wait Until Grade 6? At the beginning of this article, we noted that many struggling students do not become visible to schools until middle school, when there are a sufficient number of them to constitute a subgroup for which the school is accountable for AYP. Consequently, CEI has many, many middle schools using our programs. Some educators ask us if it is too late to make a difference. It is, of course, never too late. One of the hallmarks of American education is that we never close the door. No matter

how old someone is, he or she can, if desired, learn how to read or learn mathematics — or anything else. Educators have a moral and professional responsibility to do everything that they can, regardless of a child’s age, to ensure as much success as possible. Suppose Jasmine never got the help she needed in her elementary school, but over time was socially promoted to middle school. Her school has a CEI lab for their Response to Intervention implementation, so she was scheduled into two periods of reading per day, one in the regular classroom and one in the CEI lab. The table below demonstrates her progress.

Creative education institute www.ceilearning.com

SHARE MAGAZINE Fall 2010

Grade 10 (11)

Grade 11 (12)

8.5

If the school waits until grade 6 to address Jasmine’s needs, it will take at least five full years of intense acceleration for her to catch up with her peers in reading or mathematics. Assuming that everything works well and that Jasmine stays motivated, her peers would be ready for grade 11 before she caught up. But, of course, she would have been retained several times along the way most likely, she would have repeatedly failed the state assessments, the psychological damage would accumulate, and Jasmine would very possibly have given up and dropped out of school. The good news is that even though this type of intervention takes five years instead of two and costs a great deal more, it is still possible to save Jasmine. But she will live with the scars of neglect the rest of her life. We hear people all the time who are in disbelief that a student could get to high school with such low levels of skill and knowledge. High school educators know, however, that many do, and the challenges they face are enormous. Students who are behind even two years when they get to high school (Jasmine was behind almost six years) almost never succeed without extraordinary effort. That is why ninth grade classes are sometimes two or three times as large as senior classes. These students never get out of grade 9, and they are highly likely to drop out sometime during their first year of high school. If Jasmine entered high school reading at the academic age of 7, could she still reach grade level and graduate? If she worked hard and accelerated her learning two years each year, it would take more than the four years allotted to high school for her to catch up. Of course, CEI has seen some students gain much more than two years in one year, especially when the student has more time in the lab. A Fontana High School student gained last year 8.4 years in less than one year by coming to school as early as 5:30 in the morning on many days in order to work extra time in addition to his ELS class during the school day. [Editor’s Note: For the complete story of this Fontana High School student, please see “In the Spotlight” on pages 24-27 of this issue.]

12 11

Academic Age

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 KInDER (1)

gRADE 1 (2)

gRADE 2 (3)

gRADE 3 (4)

gRADE 4 (5)

GRade (yeaR In sCHool) Struggling Student

Conclusions These scenarios make clear why it is so very urgent that schools implement interventions at the earliest possible grade level and that they choose interventions that are truly therapeutic and that truly accelerate learning, such as CEI’s Essential Learning Systems, Mathematical Learning Systems, and the new Science Learning Systems. The children cannot wait! And the costs to our country of our requiring them to do so are unacceptably high. Worse yet, the costs to the individual child are incalculable, far-reaching, and forever. CEI encourages elementary schools with ELS and/or MLS labs to use them to their fullest capacity. The research makes it clear that all at-risk kindergarten students should be placed in the lab, as well as any first-grader who is behind. After grade 1, students who are new to the school, students who are limited-English, and students who have learning disabilities (including dyslexia and/or dyscalculia) are priorities — again catching them as early as possible. We are encouraging all new clients to begin in this way as well. We have worked hard to price our licenses in ways that makes more room licenses and/or more station licenses as affordable as possible since none of us wants to have to be in a position of serving “either/or” students. We need to serve all the ones who need help. At the middle school level, we encourage schools to identify students who are behind two or more years and to place them

Average Student

Accelerated CEI Student

in the lab at grade 6 and then in subsequent grades as long as it takes for them to catch up. Again, students new to the school or district and who lag, students who are not fluent in English, and students who have learning disabilities must be included. High schools should be serving limited-English, special education, and alternative students who are behind — in addition to those who are not in these categories but who have low levels of knowledge and skills. We know, for example, that we could dramatically increase success in algebra if all ninth graders were (1) fluent in their math facts, (2) understood the concept and algorithm for long division, and (3) had mastered the concepts and operations of fractions. The vast majority of failures are due to these deficits. Big needs in reading include vocabulary growth and fluency development — two of ELS’ major strengths. And teachers tell us that the biggest problem in science is the amount of new vocabulary that students must learn each year. Studies have verified that one year of science has more new words and terms for students to learn than they would encounter in the first year of a foreign language. That is why CEI has developed SLS. CEI’s mission is to partner with our clients so that struggling learners of any age can get the help they need. The purpose of our service/support program is to ensure the most effective intervention possible—so that each student accelerates his or her learning and the school gets the results it needs. We are available every day for free consultation. The children cannot wait!

THE AVERAGE STUDENT

r e n r a e L d e t ra le e c c T he CEI A

ach of the annual “Who’s Who” issues of SHARE Magazine features hundreds of student success stories … every one a testimony to the fact that CEI accelerates learning in reading and math … and now in science. For each individual “Who’s Who” story, there are thousands of other success stories in schools and education centers across the United States. The faces in the SHARE stories also represent the diversity of struggling learners in America. CEI serves them all, and our test results over the past 20 years reveal that the average gains for each subgroup are about the same for each ethnic group, for each age groups, for English Language Learners, for dyslexics, for students in each socioeconomic level, and even for students with other learning disabilities. Listed here are just a few examples of gains after just one year on our programs. Turn to page 47 for a quick glance at what it means to be a CEI accelerated learner.

Fifth-grader Virginia Baum gained

5.3 years in Reading Comprehension with Essential Learning Systems (ELS).

1 in 3 Special Education and Dyslexic students show

1/3 of LEP students using ELS show

2-4 years of growth in comprehension.

Almost 50% of Adult students using ELS show

2-4 years of growth in comprehension.

2-4 years growth with ELS.

Middle school student Ryan Walker gained

4.5 years A study of Special Education students using MLS showed gains of

1.8 years in multiplication.

of growth in comprehension.

34% of Elementary students using ELS show

2-4 years of growth in comprehension. In a study of

6,900 At-Risk students,

36.2% showed 2-4 years growth with ELS.

Students who used Mathematical Learning Systems (MLS) for one year gained an average of

2.29 years on basic math processes.