Why Students with Reading Disabilities Perform Poorly in U.S. Schools Doug Fuchs Vanderbilt University Nordic Conference Reykjavik, Iceland September 9, 2016
Purpose ď Ź
ď Ź
To explain the very poor performance of reading disabled (RD) students in terms of a lack of access to intensive instruction. The absence of intensive instruction, in turn, is due to beliefs about the nature of RD and where RD students should be instructed.
More Specifically, I’ll Discuss…
SWDs’ poor reading achievement. How this performance is caused by: (a) underestimating the severity of their learning problems and (b) overestimating GE’s capacity to help them. How these same beliefs also reduce the potential and importance of RTI as prevention and as a “test” of children’s learning..
SWDs’ Academic Performance
Relatively recent, nationally representative data bases of SWD’s reading achievement: NAEP, NLTS, SEELS, state report cards.
NAEP Reading Data across Years
Students w/ no identified disability Students w/ disabilities
(http://nationsreportcard.gov/)
5
NLTS: Performance on the WoodcockJohnson III Passage Comprehension Subtest by Disability Category
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research, National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), student assessments, 2002 and 2004.
NLTS: Discrepancy betw Reading Level and Grade Level
SWDs’ Performance and Our Trust in GE Instruction
As mentioned, this poor reading achievement is partly due to educators’ underestimation of the seriousness of many students’ learning problems and overestimation of GE’s instructional capacity to help them.
Underestimating the Severity of Learning Problems
Ysseldyke and Algozzine’s descriptive research in the 1980s on LD vs. LA students was influential. They claimed to show that students with and without an LD label were essentially the same students; and that all LAs would benefit equally from “inclusive” GE practices.
Ysseldyke et al.’s (1982) Study
Maybe their most well-known study. Two groups of LAs, one with the LD label and one without the label. Recruited from the same districts. Administered 49 tests and subtests of reading and math achievement, cognition, language, p-m functioning, school behavior.
Findings ď Ź
So, students with the LD label performed on average statistically significantly worse than the LA students without the label on 10/19 subtests of the W-J III (Table 1); and 8/25 tests and subtests, including 4/8 measures of academic (PIAT) achievement (Table 2).
Findings ď Ź
But Ysseldyke and his colleagues dismissed these significant differences between the 2 groups because, they claimed, the differences weren’t practically important.
The Upshot ď Ź
ď Ź
The authors concluded the 2 groups of LA students were psychometrically equivalent. By implication, those with an LD label were NOT LD, which is to say, they were described as nondisabled. These conclusions have been interpreted by many in the U.S. to mean most SWD can survive on the same GE instruction as that of all LA children because the two groups are one and the same.
“LD” Isn’t a Synonym of “LA”
Reasonable people can disagree about how large a difference needs to be before it qualifies as “practically important.” But it’s an uncontestable fact that children with and without the LD label were different on many of the measures in the Ysseldyke study.
“LD” Isn’t a Synonym of “LA”
To be clear, the group differences in Y et al.’s study, is NOT evidence of the validity of the LD construct. Rather, it suggests teachers deliberately use the label to distinguish between LAs and very low LAs; to identify those in need of more intensive instruction.
LD Versus MMR ď Ź
Caffrey and Fuchs (2007) reviewed 8 studies that explored learning differences between students with an LD label and students with an MMR label. A total of 639 students, 6–20 years old, participated in these studies.
LD Versus MMR ď Ź
Students with an LD label significantly outperformed students with MMR on inductive reasoning and guided inquiry tasks. They made reliably larger gains following interventions in reading and math. Across all learning tasks and contexts, students with LD displayed greater consistency transferring and applying conceptual knowledge to new tasks.
So…
Despite that many in the U.S. believe that LD = LA, the “LD” group isn’t synonymous with “LAs.” And students with the label seem to learn differently from those given an MMR label. Whatever we choose to call those with an LD label, they seem to be distinguishable as a group from other LAs in ways that call for different kinds of instruction for them.
Overestimating GE’s Capacity to Provide Instructional Help
The Ysseldyke study had a second important effect: LD and LA students will benefit from the same instruction. For 3 decades schools have put their trust in the idea: “Good instruction is good instruction,” and “inclusive practices work.” Yet, “good” hasn’t proved good for all, and there’s little evidence for the academic value of “inclusive” classrooms.
Overestimating GE
For example, there’s no empirical evidence for UDL as an inclusive practice. Harrison et al. (2013, RER) found “very little evidence supporting the effectiveness of commonly recommended [instructional] accommodations for youth w behavioral challenges.” L. Fuchs et al. (1992), Baker and Zigmond (1990), McIntosh et al. (2003): Classroom teachers in the U.S. do not make routine adaptations.
Overestimating GE
No specialized adaptations (Baker & Zigmond; L. Fuchs et al., 1992; Kagan & Tippins, 1991; Peterson & Clark, 1978). One (correlational) study of differentiated instruction (Gersten et al., 2009). Cooperative learning was beneficial in half of the studies involving SWD (TatyamaSnizek, 1990; McMaster & Fuchs, 2002).
Overestimating GE ď Ź
So, there is little data to support the effectiveness of “inclusive practices.� The best of them in terms of amount and quality of evidence is cooperative learning (and some other peer-mediated classwide approaches). But cooperative learning did not strengthen school achievement in half the studies in a 1990 review and in a 2002 update of the 1990 review.
Overestimating GE
Evidence for inclusive practices is nonexistent, weak, or inconsistent. Most SWDs in “inclusive” classrooms are not getting research validated, appropriately intensive instruction.
The Under- and Overestimation Beliefs Have Weakened RTI
There are at least 2 reasons to support RTI: In principal, (a) it represents “structural adaptations”; and (b) it can be an appropriate “test” of students’ capacity to learn. Explain. But underestimating the seriousness of RD and overestimating GE’s capacity to help RD children have ensured that RTI does not offer intensive intervention.
What is Intensive Intervention?
One example: “Data-Based Individualization.” Developed at the University of Minnesota in the 1970s.
Data-Based Individualization (DBI)
Set ambitious goals.
Begin with a validated tutoring program, but implement it more intensively.
Collect progress-monitoring data weekly using a progress-monitoring tool with demonstrated treatment validity.
When a student’s progress is inadequate to meet her goal, adapt the instructional program.
Case Study: Kelsey
Kelsey had serious reading problems at the end of 3rd grade, despite strong primary and secondary prevention. In 4th grade, he entered tertiary prevention. His teacher, Mrs. Hayes, used DBI. Given the seriousness of his reading problems, Mrs. Hayes, set his goal as competent 3rd-grade performance at the end of 4th grade.
Kelsey
Mrs. Hayes began with the Orton program, but she conducted more intensive instructional sessions (daily, 30 minutes, on a 1:1 basis). She also implemented formal, weekly, progress monitoring. Her progress monitoring measure was maze fluency on 3rd-grade reading passages. Kelsey’s score on each week’s maze fluency test was an overall indicator of his reading competence at 3rd grade. After obtaining 3 maze fluency scores, Mrs. Hayes set Kelsey’s goal.
After 7 Weeks…
After implementing the program for 7 weeks, Mrs. Hayes studied her data on Kelsey. His scores were all below his goal line. Research tells us that should this performance continue, Kelsey would not achieve his end-ofyear goal. So Mrs. Hayes needed to revise Kelsey’s instructional program to foster greater progress.
Time to Make A Change
Diagnosing Kelsey’s Reading
To determine how to change her instruction, Mrs. Hayes conducted a Quick Miscue Analysis while Kelsey read a 3 rd-grade passage aloud. The Quick Miscue Analysis is one strategy for diagnosing Kelsey’s reading strategies, identifying a direction for how to supplement the Orton program, and building the student’s individualized program.
saw him (T provided) Larry was very excited! His father our b had just brought home a new puppy. Larry’s mother was brother and sister were goingmuch to be very sorpray
surprised, too. blue
The little puppy was black and brown much
His
hair
was
with a few white patches. Her ears were long funny
teeth
were
torn
and floppy. Her tummy nearly touched the growl
14 22 24
pup
for
6
our
puppy
boy
ground. Dad said this dog was a beagle.
31 40 47 55
Larry thought their new dog was cute.
62
He couldn’t decide what he wanted to name
70
Word Written
Word Spoken
Graphophonemic
Syntax
Semantics
was very excited just brought brother were very surprised puppy
saw him ----our b mother was much sorpray pup
no no no no minimal yes minimal no yes yes 30%
yes no no no no yes yes yes no yes 50%
no no no no no no yes yes no yes 30%
Quick Miscue Analysis
Kelsey’s Instructional Change
Given Kelsey’s inadequate reliance on the semantics of the passage, Mrs. Hayes decided to introduce a tape recorder activity, whereby Kelsey monitored semantic miscues in his own reading. Given his poor use of grapho-phonemic strategies, Mrs. Hayes also conducted a diagnostic assessment of Kelsey’s decoding skills. She learned that he had difficulty with vowel teams and she decided to target vowel teams for intensive review in and out of contextualized reading. These changes were incorporated into the Orton program.
7 More Weeks and A Revised Orton Program
Mrs. Hayes again studied Kelsey’s progress. She drew a line of best fit through his CBM scores to understand his rate of progress. It had improved substantially with the revised Orton program. But his most recent 4 maze fluency scores were below his goal line. Research tells us that with this pattern, Kelsey is not likely to achieve his year-end goal.
Reading Graph for Sam Baseline 140
Guidedreading
Guided-reading + decoding practice
Number of words read correctly in 1 minute
120
100
Goal Line
80
60
40
20
0
Date
Guided-reading decoding practic + comprehensio
Kelsey’s Next Instructional Change
So, Mrs. Hayes knew that she needed to make another instructional change. Based on her work with Kelsey, she judged his motivation to be insufficient. So, she introduced a systematic reinforcement program to reward on-task behavior and accurate work.
In This Way ‌ ď Ź
ď Ź
Mrs. Hayes continued this iterative process, using data to formatively design an individualized program that worked for Kelsey. Field-based RCTs show that when teachers use progress monitoring in this way, they plan more differentiated instruction, and produce better student outcomes.
Effect Size
Effect Sizes for CBM
Reading
Math
Domain
Spelling