The Beacon Spring 2022

Institute

A division of The Windward School

The

Beacon The Windward Institute Journal for Educators and Parents Spring 2022 IN THIS ISSUE Brick by Brick: A Series of Landmark Studies Pointing to the Importance of Early Reading Intervention 1

By Emily Solari, Colby Hall, and Anita McGinty HEAD LINES

5

TURNING THE TIDE

8

Building a Structure for Literacy Part I: Pairing a Solid Core Reading Program with Reliable Screening Measures

By Jamie Williamson, EdS Science of Reading Smugglers

By Annie Stutzman, MS

by Emily Solari, Colby Hall, and Anita McGinty

INTERSECTING RESEARCH WITH CLASSROOM PRACTICE

10

Q&A WITH INSPIRING LEADERS IN THE WORLD OF DYSLEXIA

14

The Beauty and Power of Language: A Reflection on the Research

By Danielle Scorrano, MPS

Regina Skyer, Special Education Lawyer

By Stephanie Huie INSIDE THE INSTITUTE

16

NEWS AROUND WINDWARD

20

Speaking Truth to Power: One Hour with the New York Commissioner of Education and the Chancellor of the Board of Regents

By John J. Russell, EdD Haskins Partnership, Promise Project Expands, John J. Russell Award Recipient

Brick by Brick: A Series of Landmark Studies Pointing to the Importance of Early Reading Intervention This article was originally published in The Reading League Journal January/February 2022.

Used with permission.

M

ost educators understand that early intervention is important for the prevention and/or remediation of word reading difficulties. But how did we come to know this? Over the past few decades, there have been a series of landmark studies that have demonstrated the importance of assessing risk for reading difficulties early on (e.g., screening at the beginning of Grade 1 or ideally in kindergarten) in order to deliver targeted, supplemental instruction to young students who show weaknesses in phonological processing and word reading skills. This article will highlight some landmark, scientific studies that have provided us with three key findings: 1. When children do not receive adequate reading instruction, early reading difficulties are likely to lead to later reading difficulties.

2. Many reading difficulties can be reduced or even eliminated as a result of evidence-based instructional interventions.

3. Evidence-based intervention provided in the early grades is more effective than intervention provided in the later grades.

Early Reading Difficulties are Likely to Lead to Later Reading Difficulties A pivotal study that may have sown the first seeds of the idea that early reading intervention is important was published in 1988. Connie Juel tracked the reading progress of 54 children f rom the beginning of Grade 1 to the end of Grade 4.

Tracking how students’ reading skills developed over time allowed her to see if early reading difficulties would resolve on their own. This was important, because many

2

The Beacon Spring 2022

Letter from the Editor

No Time to Wait for Late Bloomers

R

eading is a skill that must be taught, and the idea that reading comes naturally to children and “just happens” is fiction (Wolf, 2008). The real story is that learning to read and write takes time to master, but, like any other skill, it can certainly be done when given appropriate instruction. As our readers will see in this issue of The Beacon, screening at entrance to school, early intervention, and research-based teacher training are essential to support children who struggle with reading.

Emily Solari, PhD, our 2022 Schwartz Lecture speaker, showcases the staggering amounts of research that have supported the practice of early intervention, ideally in kindergarten or first grade, reducing or even eliminating reading difficulties. Furthermore, Jamie Williamson, EdS, and John J. Russell, EdD, both emphasize in their respective articles that timely and reliable skills screening is most successful when implemented in conjunction with early intervention. The partnership between screening and early intervention will not only identify children who are at-risk for reading failure but also establish better markers of reading progress for all students.

Enacting new system-wide processes is no easy feat, but Annie Stutzman, MS, and Danielle Scorrano, MPS, encourage educational leaders to adopt a learning mindset when embracing the Science of Reading (SoR). Teaching is a craft, and it is a skill, like reading, that will take time in developing to a level of mastery. And training teachers appropriately in the proven SoR methodology will better serve children in their reading development (Solari, 2020).

Finally, special education attorney Regina Skyer crystallizes the bigger picture of this intensive work to improve literacy rates— providing children with the appropriate education has a significant lifelong benefit. There are many players involved in supporting a student with learning disabilities, from legal experts who advocate for financial and educational resources to teachers who build the necessary academic skills to families who comfort their struggling child.

This issue of The Beacon expresses how we can turn the page on this story of more than 30 years of discouraging literacy rates (NAEP, 2019). We know there are no such things as late bloomers when it comes to reading development, so there is no time to wait to take action.

In partnership,

Stephanie Huie Editor

educators used to believe that children who do not begin to read easily are “late bloomers” who will eventually catch up to their peers. Results showed that, for the children in her study, early reading difficulties did not, on average, resolve on their own. The group of 24 students who struggled most with early reading skills in Grade 1 (i.e., their scores were at or below the 25th percentile) did not catch up to their peers on any measure of reading achievement by the end of Grade 4. On a standardized reading comprehension test, their mean level of reading comprehension had been at a midkindergarten grade level in Grade 1; by Grade 4, their mean score was at a third-grade level. The other 30 students who had reading scores in the average or above-average range in first grade had a mean reading comprehension score near a sixth-grade level by fourth grade. With time, the gap did not close.

In 1996, David Francis and colleagues conducted a study wherein they analyzed data collected by the Connecticut Longitudinal Study, and sought to determine what happens to students’ reading development over time. They reported findings similar to those reported by Juel. They followed 403 randomlysampled Connecticut public school children from Grade 1 through Grade 9 (1984–1993), assessing them on a variety of cognitive, behavioral, and academic skills. Once they reached Grade 3, students were assigned to one of three groups depending on their scores: 1. “Low achieving” (reading scores were below the 25th percentile and consistent with general cognitive development) 2. “Reading disabled-discrepant” (reading scores were significantly below general cognitive development) 3. “Not reading impaired” (all remaining students) By following these groups, the researchers could test the hypothesis that some children might “catch up” in reading—or the alternative hypothesis that reading difficulties tend to persist. On average, the “low-achieving” and “reading disabled-discrepant” groups had strikingly similar reading development trajectories.

More important to the topic of this article was the finding that neither the low-achieving nor the reading disabled-discrepant students ever caught up to their “not reading impaired” peers: 74% of children who were poor readers in Grade 3 remained poor readers in Grade 9. Studies such as these built our understanding that reading difficulties do not resolve on their own. We now understand that we should not believe there is such a thing as a “late bloomer” when it comes to reading development.

The persistence of reading difficulties over time made it important to answer the next logical question: can early intervention (i.e., supplemental reading instruction in the classroom or reading instruction delivered by interventionists in “pull-out” contexts) make a difference?

Reading Difficulties Can Be Reduced or Even Eliminated with Early Intervention Research has shown that students can be accurately and efficiently identified as at risk for having later reading difficulties as early as kindergarten (e.g., Catts et al., 2001; Compton et al., 2006). This

Spring 2022 The Beacon

is important, because across the last three decades, a large body of based, individualized reading intervention (see Connor et al., 2007) research has revealed positive effects of intensive, evidence-based or a “control,” business-as-usual condition during students’ first, reading intervention when provided early (i.e., during a child’s first second, and third-grade years. The intervention varied the amount two years of school). Only 2%–7% of all students identified as of time spent on different explicit, systematic instructional being at risk continue to experience reading difficulties after components/types of reading activities based on students’ initial receiving this type of intervention in the early elementary grades performance on word reading, vocabulary, and comprehension (e.g., Mathes et al., 2005; McMaster et al., 2005; O’Connor et al., assessments. Because randomization of classrooms to either the 2005; Torgesen, 2000; Torgesen et al., 1999; Vellutino et al., 1996). intervention condition or business-as-usual condition took place In other words, these landmark intervention studies show us how every year, some children received one, two, or three years of we can ensure that up to 98% of all students learn to read reading intervention. Outcomes were best for the children who successfully if we identify students at risk for difficulty early and received the reading intervention during all three grades. Most provide evidence-based interventions that address the foundational important for the discussion here, though, is that among the reading skills with which students are demonstrating difficulty. For students who received only one year of the intervention, those who example, Mathes et al. (2005) reported that only 16% of at-risk received it early—during Grade 1—outperformed their peers who first-graders in their study sample who received it in Grade 2 or Grade 3. received evidence-based, small-group Earlier was more effective than later. reading intervention had a belowO’Connor et al. (2014) wanted to Students who have reading average score on a foundational reading know if access to reading intervention difficulties in the early skills assessment at the end of Grade 1. in kindergarten (K) versus Grade 1 had If trends in this sample held true for all a different effect on readingachievement elementary grades do not at-risk students in schools similar to the at the end of Grade 1 and/or Grade 2. study schools, only 3% of all students They found that students who had access “catch up” to their peers would score below average given access toreading intervention in kindergarten to the Mathes et al. intensive had significantly higher reading scores naturally, over time, in the intervention. In a separate study, at the end of Grade 1 than their peers McMaster et al. (2005) studied the who did not. At the end of Grade 2, absence of intervention. eight lowest-performing students in students who had access to reading each of the 22 Grade 1 classrooms intervention only in Grade 1 performed involved in their study. At the conclusion of their evidence-based, similarly to students who had access to reading intervention in both small-group reading intervention, only 1-2 students in each K and Grade 1. The only exception was for students who were classroom, on average, continued to struggle. An important takeEnglish learners (ELs). ELs in Grade 2 who had access to reading away from this work is that reading intervention based on scientific intervention in K showed an advantage compared to their EL peers evidence can not only reduce word reading difficulties; it can largely who did not have access until Grade 1. Notably, when all students eliminate word reading difficulties altogether. who had access to reading intervention in K and/or Grade 1 were Despite the effectiveness of the interventions delivered in these lumped together and compared with a historical comparison group studies, people wondered whether early intervention was the most that did not have access to reading intervention in either grade, there efficient approach. Could it be better to wait and deliver interventions were significantly higher outcomes at the end of Grade 2 for students later, once it is clear exactly which students have the most significant who had access to reading intervention in those early grades. needs? After all, a number of studies showed that reading interventions Finally, Lovett et al. (2017) delivered a multiple-component, delivered in the upper elementary and middle grades can also accelerate small-group reading intervention to students in Grades 1, 2, or 3. reading gains. Was there a way to determine whether intervening in They compared the effects of the intervention on reading the early elementary grades is more effective than intervening later? performance to a series of grade-level “control” groups who did not Is there a critical window for delivering reading intervention? receive the intervention. The children who received the intervention out-performed their control group peers. On tests of word reading Reading Intervention is More Effective When skill, children who received the intervention earlier (i.e., in Grades 1 Provided During Early Elementary Grades or 2) made gains that were almost twice the gains made by children A number of studies have provided an answer to these questions by who received the intervention in Grade 3. At follow-up (1-3 years delivering the same reading intervention to students at different grade later), the advantage of early intervention was maintained. levels, using random assignment and controlling for other variables in order to determine if the timing of the intervention mattered. For Brick by Brick Takeaways example, Connor and her colleagues (2013) conducted a study in Eye-opening research studies conducted by Juel (1988) and Francis which whole classrooms were randomly assigned to an evidenceet al. (1996) showed us that students who have reading difficulties

3

4

The Beacon Spring 2022

in the early elementary grades do not “catch up” to their peers naturally, over time, in the absence of intervention. A later series of revealing studies built our understanding that we can accurately identify students who are at risk for reading difficulties as early as kindergarten (e.g., Catts et al., 2001), and that early reading interventions can reduce or even eliminate reading difficulties (Mathes et al., 2005; McMaster et al., 2005; O’Connor et al., 2005; Torgesen, 2000; Torgesen et al., 1999; Vellutino et al., 1996).

Perhaps most importantly, a final series of research studies provided evidence that reading interventions are more effective in the earliest

References Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001).

Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32(1), 38-50. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2001/004) Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Crowe, E. C., Al Otaiba, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2013). A longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled study on the accumulating effects of individualized literacy instruction on students’ reading from first through third grade.

Psychological Science, 24(8), 1408-1419.

Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007). The early years: Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315(5811), 464-465.

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006).

Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394.

Ehrhardt, J., Huntington, N., Molino, J., & Barbaresi, W. J. (2013).

Special education and later academic achievement. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 34(2), 111-119.

Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3-17.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from fi rst through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447.

Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 889-914.

grades (Connor et al., 2013; O’Connor et al., 2014; Lovett et al., 2017). All of this research, brick by proverbial brick, has accumulated so that it is now a foundation of evidence supporting the provision of early intervention to students at risk for reading difficulties. School leaders and educators of all kinds should push for early screening of all students in K and Grade 1, to determine which students are at risk for reading difficulties. Evidence-based reading intervention can then be provided for school-age students who are identified as being at risk—the earlier the better.

Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers.

Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148-182.

McMaster, K. N., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005).

Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445-463.

Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Sevcik, R. A., Steinbach, K. A., Frijters, J. C., & Shapiro, M. B. (2012). Multiplecomponent remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 99-127.

O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Sanchez, V., & Beach, K. D. (2014).

Access to a responsiveness to intervention model: Does beginning intervention in kindergarten matter?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 307-328.

O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K., & Bell, K. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and child outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440-455.

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters.

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(1), 55-64.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 579-593.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-toremediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specifi c reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601-638.

About the Author Emily Solari, PhD, is a professor of education at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education and Human Development, where she serves as coordinator of the reading education program. She serves on the executive board of the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division of Learning Disabilities and as associate editor for Journal of Learning Disabilities and Remedial and Special Education.

Spring 2022 The Beacon

Head Lines

Building a Structure for Literacy Part I: Pairing a Solid Core Reading Program with Reliable Screening Measures

By Jamie Williamson, EdS, Head of The Windward School

“I

nsanity is doing the same thing over and over again and Aligned with the vast body of science related to how students expecting different results.” This well-known quote, often learn to read, Windward’s intervention program shows that explicit misattributed to Albert Einstein, may have found its way to phonics instruction in the early grades consistently yields stronger coffee mugs and inspirational posters, but its message hasn’t landed literacy outcomes. And although Windward’s academic program for many educators’ approaches to reading instruction in the United also provides the robust, intensive instruction its students require to States. The battle between proponents of Whole Language instruction remediate their language-based learning disabilities, its foundation —rebranded as Balanced Literacy—and adherents to the Science of —an early focus on phonics, or “deciphering the code”—is the Reading continues to rage on, while reading outcomes for our nation’s cornerstone that can support all developing readers. In this series of students remain stagnant. According to the 2019 NAEP Report three articles, I’ll explore how establishing a clear framework for Card, 65% of fourth-grade students are reading below proficient skills screening, core reading instruction, intervention, and dyslexia for their grade level, and that number climbs to 82% for students screening, all supported by robust professional development, benefits of color and 88% for students with learning disabilities. With such all children. Part One will address pairing a solid core reading program dismal results, it’s clear that our current standard of reading with timely and reliable screening measures. education is failing our children. Hundreds What Constitutes a Good of peer-reviewed studies have shown that Solving the larger reading Core Reading Program? systematic, explicit, phonics-based reading First, it may be useful to examine what instruction leads to better outcomes. In fact, issue will have some Windward believes does not constitute “It’s so accepted in the scientific world that if a solid core reading program. Advocates of positive impact on all you just write another paper about these the Balanced Literacy approach to reading fundamental facts and submit it to a journal students and provide instruction assert that reading comes naturally, they won't accept it because it’s considered settled science” (Moats, 2018). Why does the some clarity about who as a product of repeated exposure to highinterest quality literature. In this model, phonics debate continue? I would argue that, partly, is taught sporadically, and a stronger focus is our dyslexic students are. it’s a marketing problem. made on graphemes (letter representations) Linking reading difficulties automatically and developing prosody and fluency. Methods such as three cueing, or to dyslexia or another language-based learning disability has the deriving meaning from context and visual imagery, syntax, and letters unfortunate effect of attributing a large-scale problem to a much or parts of words, are employed as “tools” intended for beginning smaller percentage of the population. This leads to difficulties readers to “expand their understanding of text and comprehension of achieving buy-in for institutional change from administrators and concepts” (Hoffman et al., 2000).

Tellingly, this is also the main strategy teachers, because they mistakenly believe that the problem impacts that struggling readers utilize.

One classroom example included the only 10% of their students. It is true that students with dyslexia word horse appearing in a text with an accompanying image of the aren’t receiving the instruction they need, and they are the students animal.

If the student misread the word as house, it would be noted most at risk if we maintain the status quo. However, we also know, as incorrect.

However, misidentifying the word horse as pony while based on the findings of the NAEP, that the vast majority of using this cueing method, drawing context clues from the image students aren’t at a proficient reading level, and they too are at risk. provided, was accepted as correct, as the teacher rationalized that The problem is much bigger than undiagnosed and unremediated horse and pony mean the same thing (Hanford, 2021). The emphasis, dyslexia. Fortunately, solving the larger reading issue will have some Balanced Literacy adopters would argue, should be on comprehension positive impact on all students and provide some clarity about who of the story as a whole rather than on decoding and accuracy. our dyslexic students are.

5

6

The Beacon Spring 2022

Reading scientists have consistently viewed this approach as moving the focus to comprehension, fluency and vocabulary. highly problematic for a number of reasons, the most alarming Proficiency in the primary components establishes a necessary being the number of students experiencing reading difficulties who foundation for building skills in the latter three” (Lexplore, 2020). utilize picture cues as a substitute for decoding; this cueing strategy 2. Is the program explicit in its instruction? Rather than making focuses on background knowledge and guessing, which conceals assumptions about what students implicitly understand, a solid skills deficits for too long, resulting in interventions, if any, only core reading program employs direct instruction of the skills being when these students have already fallen far behind their peers. In all taught. Skills are first modeled for students, then approached fairness, there has been a move away from this approach in recent through guided practice, and finally tackled through independent years, including literacy expert Lucy Calkins notably walking back practice. Multiple opportunities are provided to practice the target her previous endorsement of cueing and acknowledging its issues skill, combined with constant feedback and reinforcement, until (Hanford, 2020). mastery is achieved.

The fact is, it has long been clear that reading does not come 3. Is the program systematic in its instruction? An evidence-based naturally to most children. “The statistically average child, normally core reading program frames its curriculum carefully and sequentially, endowed and normally taught, learns to with lessons progressing from simple to read only with considerable difficulty. He complex. Skills are broken into component does not learn to read naturally” (Gough, parts, and, as they are mastered, explored In order to best target 1980). The best tool we can offer in context through meaningful text that is students is an explicit understanding of for students. Fundamentals for skills requiring remediation decodable the codes behind deciphering text, “[by more complex skills, such as recognizing guiding] students through systematic prefixes and suffixes, are taught before in real time, educators mastery of the smallest units of sounds students encounter these words in text. must also take snapshots 4. Is the program multisensory? Decades (phonemes) and [building] upon that knowledge by introducing new, more of research have shown that instruction of student progress at complex material (morphemes and blending visual, auditory, and kinestheticlexemes) in a structured and cumulative regular intervals, as well as tactile elements maximizes the development way” (Hamman, 2018). of neural connections that relate to memory periodic diagnostic checks and learning of written language (Birsh, What Questions Can 2006; Cox, 1992; McIntyre & Pickering, of individual students’ Educators Ask While 2001). In practice, a multisensory lesson Evaluating a Core leverages all three elements in its delivery: strengths and weaknesses.

Reading Program?

At Windward, that may include a teacher When assessing a core reading program, showing students a visual representation educators may begin by asking, “What of a target letter, having students vocalize are the key indicators that a program is evidence based and linked the letter, then vocalizing a key word using the letter, and finally to consistent reading acquisition across the board?” As they delve stating the letter sound while tracing the letter in the air. into more granular aspects of what constitutes a solid core reading 5. Is the program diagnostic? Diagnostic teaching meets each student program, additional questions may include: where they are and targets instruction accordingly. This involves 1. Does the program not only align with the Five Components continuous assessment, both formal and informal, to determine (National Reading Panel, 2000) of evidence­based reading skills deficits to target for additional practice. (See my previous instruction (phonics, phonological awareness, fluency, vocabulary, article, “Through the Looking Glass: Using Data to Inform and comprehension) but also address each element through Instruction” from The Beacon Fall 2021, for more in-depth coverage a carefully implemented scope and sequence? When the National of the role of assessments in a structured literacy classroom.) Once Reading Panel elucidated their findings outlining these five students have mastered a skill to automaticity, they free their cognitive components after an extensive, three-year study more than 20 years bandwidth for comprehension, fluency, and deeper understanding. ago, it sparked a frenzy of activity by educational publishers, many of whom were eager to capitalize on the opportunity to rebrand How Do We Leverage Screening Measures their materials as scientifically based. The result was that a number to Inform Instruction? of programs maintained a Whole Language focus but sprinkled in a Framing the notion of screening solely as a means to identify students dash of phonics instruction and a pinch of phonological awareness with dyslexia has had the effect of minimizing a much larger activities. When assessing a reading program, “instruction of all five issue, compartmentalizing the alarming statistics around reading components should always be present, [but] teaching and assessment acquisition as an issue for the few and not the many. As we know should primarily focus on the foundational components—phonological based on the Nation’s Report Card, two-thirds of fourth-grade awareness, phonics and decoding—in the earlier years before students are not proficient in reading, and that percentage has

Spring 2022 The Beacon

Structured Literacy Primer

GY OLO ON PH

SEMA NT IC

BOL YM -S

RPHOLOG MO Y

SO UN D

For Further Reading

LICIT EXP

AX

SYSTEMAT IC

Tea ch ing

Pr

• Alternate equivalent forms so they can be administered three to four times a year V ULATI E M • Standardized directions for administration and scoring CU ements El • Have established reliability and validity standards” (IDA, 2019) LABLES SY SYL NT As noted above, screening measures should be designed to be S quick and easy to do, reliable, and repeatable. I would posit that the Effec ve reading primary objective of universal screenings is not to identify students instruc on with dyslexia; rather, it is to identify students not hitting specific for most children incorporates benchmarks in reading and where their individual skills deficits lie. all this.

In an effective reading program framework, the data collected directly informs instruction in real time, determining both instructional groupings and skills to target for improvement.

DI When insights gleaned from this data are layered onto a solid, AG NOS evidence-based core reading program, there is a dramatic gain in TI C student achievement across the board. (See Dr. Russell’s article on page 16, “Speaking Truth to Power,” in this issue for results when remained steady since they began reporting in the 1990s. When the the state of Mississippi adopted a Structured Literacy reading vast majority of students are at risk for reading failure, screening program grounded in the Science of Reading.) “Investigations of becomes an imperative.

Structured Literacy go back decades and offer evidence that classIn the simplest terms, “screening measures are designed to wide implementation of the approach can produce results quickly differentiate students into one of two groups: 1) those who comparable to costly one-on-one require intervention and 2) those who do interventions for all students, including not” (IDA, 2019). This is often the point those with reading disabilities” (Center & Universal screening then of derailment for many educators’ Freeman, 1996). Within this framework, valuation of screening. Intervention with becomes a valuable tool to instead of most children not hitting a capital I speaks of additional classroom benchmarks, the majority of students continuously obtain hours, additional expenditures, progress on grade level, and the 10% of additional support staff, and the students with language-based learning snapshots of students’ additional complications of processing disabilities are easier to identify early. The and implementing legally binding progress, illuminating areas science shows that early identification agreements such as an IEP. There is a real has transformative effects on student that need attention. fear among many educators of pulling achievement as well as on social and that intervention trigger. They simply emotional growth. Conversely, when a don’t have the resources to follow through, not when the majority student falls through the cracks, failing to be identified as needing of their students would qualify as needing intervention. But what support, their skills deficits can take years to remediate. The if we were to reframe the idea of intervention as an inherent piece disastrous ramifications on this student’s well-being and sense of a solid core reading program? Assume all children will encounter of self cannot be overstated. challenges in their learning, and have the structures in place to At Windward, when we talk about shifting the tide, we mean address these knowledge gaps as they occur. Universal screening that it’s time to elevate the discussion around the literacy crisis in then becomes a valuable tool to continuously obtain snapshots the United States. This is not a micro-level problem; it is a macroof students’ progress, illuminating areas that need attention. level problem. It’s long past time to acknowledge the insanity of “Universal screening tools have the following characteristics: maintaining the current status quo of reading instruction. Rather • Quick and targeted assessments of discrete skills that indicate than perpetuate it, we have the opportunity to serve our nation’s whether students are making adequate progress in reading students in the way that they deserve. achievement les cip in

Birsh, J. R. (Ed.). (2005 ). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Hanford, Emily. (2018, September 10). Hard Words: Why Aren’t Our Kids Being Taught To Read? APM Reports. Retrieved from https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-wordswhy-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read

Lorimor-Easley, N & Reed, D. (2019, April 9). An Explanation of Structured Literacy, and a Comparison to Blended Literacy.

Iowa Reading Research Center. Retrieved from https:// iowareadingresearch.org/blog/structured-and-balanced-literacy Rosenberg, D, Pankowski, A, & Wilson, B. (2021, May 11).

Universal Screening: K-2 Reading. International Dyslexia Association.

Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/universal-screening-k-2reading/

7

8

The Beacon Spring 2022

Turning the Tide

Science of Reading Smugglers

By Annie Stutzman, MS, Associate Director of The Windward Institute

T

he Science of Reading (SoR) is a vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing. And yet, educators in classrooms nationally and internationally are having to sneak and smuggle in the proven components of literacy instruction with the hope of counterbalancing the antiquated and harmful reading instruction methodologies practiced within their schools and districts.

SoR research has been conducted over the last five decades across the world, and it is derived from thousands of studies conducted in multiple languages. The Science of Reading has culminated in a preponderance of evidence to inform: • how proficient reading and writing develop • why some have difficulty • how we can most effectively assess and teach • improve student outcomes through prevention of and intervention for reading difficulties (A Defining Movement, 2021).

This clear and concise definition of SoR has guided many educators in literacy instruction with proven positive outcomes for students with and without language-based learning disabilities, and yet, the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), or The Nation’s Report Card, continues to highlight the deficit of students acquiring the skills needed to be proficient readers. Where is the disconnect? Educators should be able to focus on the practice of pedagogy and being advocates for their students. They should not have to fight to implement the scientifically-proven methods for literacy instruction within their classrooms. Scarborough’s Reading Rope should not be viewed as contraband. Smuggling in the Science of Reading in pieces dilutes the potential outcomes for students and furthers the divide within the educational community.

It only takes one visit to one of the hundreds of list-servs or social media pages with names like, “The Science Reading: What I Should Have Learned in College”, which has 136,000+ members,

to see the critical demand that swaths of educators need to fill in the gaps of their pre-service programs. These online communities are a harbor for frustrated educators who feel disappointed by their teacher training and not supported by their school administration.

Their main resource for access to effective professional development is in the hands of school leaders, whose background in scientificallybased literacy instruction is also comparably lacking as the teachers in-need in their community.

Sadly, as populations of principals and superintendents continue to silo their schools and districts, the advocacy for access to resources and implementation of practices based in SoR falls on teachers. Many of these educators not only spend precious, personal time navigating research articles, books, and webinars but they must then brave applying this knowledge in their classrooms with fear of pushback from colleagues and supervisors who still hold fast to antiquated and unfounded pedagogical practices such as Whole Language.

Theories in the medical and hardscience research world are tested and re-tested with rigor. Those theories that cannot be proven true by presenting clear and consistent data are considered dispelled, and the research findings are considered unfounded. Yet, the theories of two prominent, if not infamous, literacy researchers, Smith and Goodman, who are considered two of the leading generals in the Reading Wars, on the side of Whole Language, continue to permeate reading science and methodology.

It is pertinent to remember that in education they are theoretical zombies that cannot be stopped by conventional weapons such as empirical disconfirmation, leaving them free to roam the educational landscape (Seidenberg, 2017).

A return to the question: Where is the disconnect? When more than a third of the nation's fourth-graders can't read at a proficient level (NAEP, 2019), schools and administrators must let go of the notion that their reading programs are working for most of their students.

The casualties of the Reading Wars are the children, and the toll rises each day. There is no room for ego in education and now is the time to reflect, not deflect.

Spring 2022 The Beacon

When there is an opportunity for something to work for all over work for most, this must be the driving force and focus in a school.

Continuing to fail children is not an option. The casualties of the Reading Wars are the children, and the toll rises each day. There is no room for ego in education and now is the time to reflect, not deflect.

It is not as though validated research to chart the course for success is not available. However, it is frequently kept inaccessible or misrepresented to educators. Literacy scholar Louisa Moats (2020) outlined the importance of and elucidated on the core plan forward for equipping teachers to effectively teach children how to read.

Given the validated findings in the Science of Reading, this core should be divided roughly into the following four required areas: • Knowing the basics of reading psychology and development • Understanding language structure for both word recognition and language comprehension • Applying best practices in all components of reading instruction • Using validated, reliable, efficient assessments to inform classroom teaching Teachers should not have to fight their pre-service programs or school administration for these fundamental needs. There is no additional cost of training teachers with a program that incorporates explicit, structured, and systematic literacy instruction (ESSLI) that is not worth its price on return in student outcomes. Reading failure can be prevented in all but a small percentage of children with serious learning disorders (Moats, 2020).

Having homed in on more concrete disconnects, such as insufficient dissemination efforts to stakeholders, state and district level policies, curriculum and assessment decisions, and lack of professional development of in-service teachers (Solari, et al 2020), every person, at every level in education hierarchy, must be appropriately trained in SoR methodology.

When education administration invests in becoming versed in the Science of Reading and training teachers in scientifically-based reading programs—as well as early identification and prevention approaches for students with language-based learning disabilities— the impact is clear.

• Early intervention is 4x as effective • Waiting 1 year (for intervention): diminishes effect of intervention by 25-50% • ROI: $16 to $31 per $1 spent • Risk prediction: 60-90% accurate (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007; Beddington et al., 2008) This is solid evidence for even the leaders guided solely by funding and budget.

We are in a state of emergency. Teachers continue to feel unsupported and unheard in their call for response on training and literacy instruction supported by SoR. Educators are leaving the classroom at alarming rates, with one of the factors being school leaders creating barriers of access to professional development resources and reading programs aligned with the Science of Reading.

Those that remain in the classroom are having to sneak in strategies

The Science

of Reading The Windward Institute is pioneering connections in the literacy education community. We're building bridges between leading researchers and school administrators, educators and practitioners.

We’ve translated the Science of Reading (SoR) and supported practices into professional development courses that prepare educators to implement proven methodologies in any classroom to improve student outcomes.

What is the Science of Reading, Really?

The Science of Reading provides a framework and evidence to inform how reading and writing skills develop, why some students have difficulty, and best reading/writing teaching practices to promote reading skill developement.

What Does the Science of Reading Say? The Science of Reading underlies the fact that the brain has the ability to change and adapt for skilled reading. Reading comprehension, the goal in skill reading is driven by word level reading and language comprehension.

Why is the Science of Reading Important?

Understanding the cognitive and linguistic processes that are imperative for successful reading has the potential to translate into pre-literacy skill development and effective teaching practices across stages of reading developement.

Where Does the Evidence Come From?

The Science of Reading incorporates findings from over five decades of research across multiple fields and disciplines including psychology, education, neuroscience, and more.

What the Science of Reading is NOT The Science of Reading is not a popular buzzword deemed by current national conversations about reading instruction. It is not associated with an ideology or set of opinions, political agenda, or latest media term. The Science of Reading encompasses research on multiple skills required for reading and is not just based on the study of phonics.

Now that you have a better understanding of the Science of Reading, join The Windward Institute on the journey. Let us lead the way. www.thewindwardschool.org/courses

References: Defining Movement. (2021, February 21). The science of reading: A defining guide. https://www.whatisthescienceofreading.org/science-of-reading-guide Breen, A. (2020, June 23). Q&A: Why the science of reading is as important as ever. https://news.virginia.edu/content/qa-why-science-reading-important-ever

and programs piecemeal to try and help struggling readers. Students continue to lack the foundations to reach grade-level proficiency, which is only exacerbated by the pandemic slide. Illiteracy rates rise as scientific scrutiny within schools dwindles. For those who continue on the path of implementing translational science, who turn the research into practical applications to improve outcomes for all students, the Science of Reading Smugglers, we must consider that before we build more bridges, we might have to reframe the structures that have fallen apart around us.

9

10

The Beacon Spring 2022

Intersecting Research with Classroom Practice

The Beauty and Power of Language: A Reflection on the Research

By Danielle Scorrano, MPS, Research & Development Director of The Windward Institute

“A special kind of beauty exists which is born in language, of language, and for language.”

–Gaston Bachelard, Philosopher

T

he Windward School’s Manhattan campus is located on expression of language.

East 93rd Street on the Upper East Side. To get to campus Students with language disorders demonstrate diverse strengths each morning, I walk from my apartment in the Upper and distinct needs and challenges in language and reading. Even West Side neighborhood through Central Park. When I describe though decades of research across numerous disciplines demonstrate this commute to colleagues, my words embody the joy and that early identification and evidence-based instruction mitigate reverence I feel toward this daily journey. It is in these moments and support their language and reading challenges, this instruction when I reflect on the beauty and power that language holds to is not universally implemented in schools. Consequently, millions construct the human narrative and intensify our emotions of children continue to experience reading and academic failure surrounding life’s experiences. because their instructional environments, including the language Educators use language in schools as an integral tool to help of classroom, limit the potential of their language abilities, and students make meaning of their world and shape their academic and therefore, their academic and personal success. Nicole Patton Terry, social experiences. When I started PhD, Director of the Florida working at The Windward School, Center for Reading Research, Educators use language in schools illustrates the rates of reading a school that educates students with dyslexia and language-based failure in our daily lives: “Every as an integral tool to help learning disabilities, I realized that I single one of us knows a child who had previously underestimated my is struggling with reading. It may students make meaning of their influence and responsibility as a be your child. It might be a child world and shape their academic teacher to use language to empower you seen next door in your my students. My former classroom community. It may even be you” and social experiences. experiences at Windward deepened (Mason, 2021). my discernment of the relationship Educators hold the between language and my students’ understanding of the world paramount responsibility and power to create a learning around them. Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein captured the power environment that broadens our students’ language and worlds. of language when he posited, “The limits of my language means the For the prosperity of all students, it is vital that all schools and limits of my world.” classrooms address the research and classroom implications of If Wittgenstein was alive today, I’d offer a “yes, and” to his these three questions: original assertion based on my former teaching experiences at • What is the role of language in our curriculums and classroom Windward. Yes, the limits of our language can signify the limits of environments? our world. Without language, it is simply impossible to navigate, • How are students using language during the learning process, construct, and make sense of the world around us. And, for students especially learners who present with language impairments and with language-based learning disabilities like dyslexia and challenges? developmental language disorders, the limits of their classroom • How do teachers leverage effective language practices that meet world can and often do impose limits to their understanding and every child where they are and empower their potential?

Spring 2022 The Beacon

The Complexity of Language in School

rate of speech, wait time, tone, can impact the ways in which children engage in classroom discourse. Similarly, effective language captures the degree to which teachers understand the diverse characteristics of their children related to their strengths, needs and deficits, strengths, as well their differences (i.e., linguistic and cultural). Understanding that language mediates teacher-student and student-student relationships captures the complexity of how language is used in classrooms.

What is the role of language in our curriculums and classroom environments?

Language has a universal and complex role in our schools, curriculums, and classrooms. It mediates the academic and social environment of every classroom, but language does not characterize as a “one-size-fits-all” component of the school day. In addition, language is both integrated into and transcends beyond any curriculum, “core” program, and content area. Many factors within Language and Literacy for Students schools can influence the variability of the environment as well as with Difficulties the learning and social experience. Language, however, is universal, How are students using language during the learning process, especially and it is the consistent driving similarity across any grade, subject learners who present with language impairments and challenges? area, or school. Lydia Soifer, PhD, a faculty member of The Applying the fundamental components of language, we must Windward Institute and language pathologist (2018), synthesizes now consider how students, especially those with language-based language in the classroom, “The challenge of teaching about learning disabilities, use language in classroom discourse as well as language is that language itself is the vehicle for learning.” during the reading and writing process. Students with language-based Various educational and psychological disciplines emphasize learning disabilities, like developmental language disorders and the importance of language on learning. For example, cognitive dyslexia, may have difficulty processing, organizing, and retaining psychologists cite that language large amounts of information; is a fundamental part of cognitive executing multi-step directions; or development, whereas social Research in reading development learning new vocabulary. In addition, cognitive theory maintains that they may require questions or learning occurs within a languageshows that a strong language statements rephrased or scaffolded, driven social context (Bandura, the use of graphic organizers and system is essential for reading 1986; Bruning, Schraw & Norby, outlines, and multisensory 2011). Furthermore, sociocultural and academic success. instructional supports (Archibald, theorists posit that social interaction n.d.). Soifer (2018) explains that plays a major role in cognition children who struggle with where language shapes learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Research in language may have difficulties with other cognitive and social reading development shows that a strong language system is processes like executive functioning. essential for reading and academic success.

While written language and spoken language maintain a similar Language in any medium provides a time-oriented, interactive relationship, written language contains distinct characteristics. roadmap for giving and receiving information, understanding social Maryanne Wolf (2008) explains that humans are innately wired for patterns, and operating individually and with others (Soifer, 2018). spoken language, yet we “were never born to read. Human beings At the simplest level, we understand language as spoken (i.e., oral) invented reading only a few thousand years ago.” The nature of how and written (i.e., reading and writing). Given that language has readers interact with written, recorded language is different from how evolved across the history of humanity, language cross-culturally we engage with spoken words (Soifer, 2018). This fundamental is based in both rules and patterns as well as specific nuances and feature of written language holds vast implications for how we exceptions (Hogan & Adlof, 2019). Language is also characterized teach reading: by distinct components of form, content, and use (Bloom & Lahey, 1. When someone endorses programs that are grounded in Whole 1978; Hogan, 2020; Soifer, 2018, 2021): Language, they are subscribing to the fundamental idea that • Form includes elements of language structure such as (1) letters, reading is learned naturally. That is simply not true. It is wellwords, and parts of words, (2) sentences, syntax, and grammar, documented across bodies of research that reading must be and (3) narrative and compositions. explicitly taught (Defining Movement, 2021).

• Content encompasses the substance of language, a component 2. Since features of oral and written language are similar, language that necessitates a strong level of comprehension, background and literacy learning begin before a child ever receives formal knowledge, and schema (Catts, 2018, Bruning et al., 2011). classroom instruction (Adler & Hogan, 2019; Soifer, 2018).

• Use refers to the social conventions of language (Bloom & Lahey, 3. As children learn to read words and comprehend connected text, 1978; Hogan, 2020; Soifer, 2018, 2021). there are interdependent skills and abilities needed to acquire reading How do these characteristics translate into classroom instruction? proficiency in decoding, language, and reading comprehension.

Language involves every aspect of time and space within instruction As outlined in the Scarborough Reading Rope (Scarborough, and the classroom environment. The way teachers speak to students 2001), skill building in these areas should facilitate automaticity including the vocabulary they use, the structure of their sentences, at the word level and strategy at the comprehension level.

11

12

The Beacon Spring 2022

These implications are increasingly pressing for students with faculty member at The Windward Institute and associate professor language impairments and reading difficulties. Hogan and Adler of mathematics at Pennsylvania State University, attests, “If students (2019) explain the relationship between language development and don't understand the language of instruction, they're not going to later reading outcomes. Specifically, early oral language skills have be able to learn what you intend to teach.” Dr. Riccomini’s been shown to predict later reading and academic performance. In statement powerfully summarizes the insights and implications fact, many students who demonstrate later reading challenges such for school leaders and teachers of students in every content area. as in comprehension, have in Insights for School Leaders fact shown risks at an earlier age The key to identifying later • Acknowledge. Understanding the (Preston et al., 2010). The key to importance of language requires identifying later reading problems, reading problems, therefore, the acknowledgement that both therefore, is to understand the teachers and administrators in is to understand the mechanisms and markers of early the school may not have been language difficulties. mechanisms and markers of adequately prepared in learning However, schools are not about the research on language resourced to adequately identify early language difficulties. and reading instruction at the and remediate these early deficits pre-service level.

(Hogan & Adler, 2019). Unfortunately, NAEP data continues • Invest.

Evidence-based language instruction extends beyond a to point to reading failure throughout the country, while other “packaged program” or curriculum.

Therefore, implementing this statistics show widespread disparities in diagnosis of developmental instruction throughout the school requires an investment in time language disorders and related language-based learning disabilities and resources that cohesively maintain the nature of effective (Hogan & Adler, 2019). The answer to addressing these problems instruction that is explicit, structured, and sequential from is comprehensive; it requires better screening and intervention, word level through higher language skills and strategies.

These support across systems, and a clear understanding of how investments do not require a broad overhaul of resources. language underpins these efforts across all developmental ages Instead, leaders can leverage a distributed leadership approach and content areas. by integrating the language and instructional expertise within What to Do Now: Effective Language Use in their school building.

• Prioritize learning. Schools need to increase access to researchSchools How do teachers leverage effective language practices that meet every based professional development that teach about (1) knowledge child where they are and empower their potential? of language structures; (2) language development of children; The extensive research on language and reading offers clear (3) language-based learning disabilities; (4) screening, assessment, directions forward to support our students. Paul Riccomini, PhD, and instructional practices.

Listen, Subscribe, and Share!

READ The Research, Education, and ADvocacy podcast readpodcast.org Listen to READ on your favorite podcast player

31

Top Listener Location

EPISODES SINCE LAUNCH

NEW YORK, NY

1,200+

Top Podcast Platform

MINUTES OF EXPERT CONTENT

APPLE PODCASTS

25,000+ EPISODE DOWNLOADS

84 LISTENER COUNTRIES

Top Episode: “Early Identification and Intervention of Reading Disabilities” with Hugh Catts, PhD

Spring 2022 The Beacon

Learning should also embed time for planning, practice, lowstakes observation, and collaboration. There should be a shared expectation and understanding of the time required for planning of language in lessons. Coaching and observations from experts in language should not only focus on the lesson structure but how language is maximized to support all students.

Insights for Teachers • Discern. Effectively integrating language into classroom instruction requires a deliberate understanding and discernment about the structure of language and our students. One way to start is by understanding the relationship between the components of language such as the facets of form, content, and use. Discernment also involves clear behaviors that meet students where they are. Wide bodies of research illuminate how the ways in which teachers use language to facilitate a sense of belonging, especially for diverse learners, is vital to their learning.

• Acknowledge. Language shapes the social and academic environment, and the role of teachers can never be underestimated. When we acknowledge the incredible power and responsibility that teachers possess to chart the language experience in the classrooms, we can carefully map the resources needed to support this journey.

• Act proactively and responsively. Ben Franklin timelessly declared that if you “fail to plan, you plan to fail.” A powerful way to increase the impact of lesson planning is to pre-plan the language of the lesson. This strategy can work across any content area or grade level. Pre-planning moments to clarify vocabulary or syntax as well as writing questions and comments in advance to monitor comprehension are just a few of the numerous research-based strategies to maximize language in the classroom. Practice refining skills in language like providing additional prompts, questions, scaffolds, feedback, or wait time for students struggling to master a concept or skill.

• Strive to learn more. To be in the teaching profession is to be in the continuous pursuit of growth and mastery. Understanding and applying language in our classrooms requires acknowledgement, opportunity, and investment to learn more. This article provided just a few strategies to increase the intentionality and impact of classroom language to support reading development. Ultimately, building teaching skills, self-efficacy, and knowledge, involves continued learning, practice, enactment, and reflection as teachers continue to shape student outcomes (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002).

Philosopher Gaston Bachelard illuminates the limitless world of language: “A special kind of beauty exists which is born in language, of language, and for language.” By leveraging the power of language and capitalizing on research-based techniques to support our students’ learning, we unlock the beauty of the world that exists within our spoken and written word for all students to live in alignment with their true potential.

For Further Learning: The scope of this topic cannot be justifiably captured into a single article, so I encourage all readers to review the selection of current resources for further learning:

READ

“Oral Language Development and Relationship to Literacy” by Lydia H. Soifer.

In Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills (Birsh & Carreker, 2018) Chapter 3 “Oral Language Development and Relationship to Literacy,” Lydia H. Soifer

READ Podcast episodes with Lydia Soifer (Episode 6), Tiffany Hogan (Episode 29), and Indigo Young (Episode 19). Listen at

LISTEN

www.readpodcast.org.

DLD and Me www.dldandme.org

FCRR Resource Database www.fcrr.org/resource-database

VISIT

International Dyslexia Association www.dyslexiaida.org

Haskins Global Literacy Hub Resource Library www.haskinsglobal.org/resource-library

Inclusive Language Instruction with Indigo Young, MS, CCC-SLP Thursday, April 28 from 4 – 6 p.m.

ATTEND LIVE

In this workshop from The Windward Institute, Indigo Young will discuss language instruction through an anti-oppressive lens. Participants will learn specific strategies to address the needs of linguistically diverse students, including English Language Learners and dialect speakers, as well as strategies to create inclusive classrooms for all.

Register at www.thewindwardschool.org/courses

13

14

The Beacon Spring 2022

Q&A with Inspiring Leaders in the World of Dyslexia

Regina Skyer

Special Education Lawyer In this Q&A series, we will interview individuals from the dyslexia community who are influencers in their respective fields. We hope this series will provide insight into how dyslexia impacts our world and will inspire our readers to see the potential that dyslexic children can achieve in the future.

By Stephanie Huie, Associate Director of Digital Communications & Publications For 30 years, Regina Skyer has been working as an attorney with the sole focus of advocating, mediating, and litigating on behalf of children with special education needs. She has been a lifelong champion for special needs children and their families, beginning her career as a social worker and special education camp administrator. Before opening Skyer Law, her private practice, Ms. Skyer worked as a pro­bono volunteer attorney at Advocates for Children and at the NYC Board of Education Office of Legal Services. Her unique background in social work, law, and special education has positioned her to empower parents to advocate for their children in getting an appropriate education for their needs.

Helping families with special education needs has been the defining thread throughout your career. Where did this passion come from?

I am a child of two Holocaust survivors, and I grew up in a home where education was exceedingly valued. My mother said to us at an early age, “The Nazis came and took away everything from our family, but they could never take away our education.” I understood that a meaningful education was the most powerful and critical tool that children needed to have better lives. No matter what, the ability to read or a love of learning stays with a child for their whole life, and that can never be taken away. So, I was always very driven to education and to helping children in particular.

You began your career as a social worker and administrator for a special education summer camp.

How did those earlier experiences influence your decision to transition to law?

I went to social work because I wanted to help people, and I worked with children because, if I could help a child, the effects would be lifelong. The same year that I graduated with my MSW, I started working with Summit Camp [which serves children with learning differences] first as the social worker program director then as an owner. I stayed at Summit for 36 years, as I realized helping special needs kids was my calling. Working with the special-needs population from a clinical perspective as a social worker led me to law school, because I knew I could be more effective as an advocate if I was a lawyer.

What was your experience like in pursuing a new direction with law?

I was 38, had four children at home, and I was not giving up working at Summit Camp when I entered law school [at the time called City University of New York Public Interest Law but now known as CUNY School of Law]. I had a full house, but I thought this was the best path forward. I enjoyed every day of school, and I found it empowering, particularly for women. Law school teaches you another way of thinking and how to look at a problem.

Spring 2022 The Beacon

In the early 1990s, what was the legal landscape like for special education when you entered the profession?

There was one other lawyer in private practice who was focused on special education, and I became the second. But the Supreme Court made a decision in 1993 [Florence County School District Four v.

Carter] that allowed people to sue for tuition, so that opened up the industry. Compared to today, there are now 10-15 firms in NYC alone that specialize in special education.

There is such a concentration here because of a confluence of factors: a high concentration of people, an urban school district that is pretty broken when it comes to special ed, a well-informed parent population, and schools that can support special ed students. There are many special education lawyers now because there is a commitment from both lawyers and parents to give children an education to teach them to read and write.

is average to above average in intelligence and typical in all other regards but is struggling in school. Then, the parent leaves the consultation with a brief summary of the legal processes and the recipe for the next steps, such as a short list of referred schools. This initial consultation should be empowering and comforting for the parent because they now have knowledge of what they need to do.

I understood that a meaningful education was the most powerful and critical tool that children needed to have better lives.

You founded Skyer Law in 1992.

What did your first year look like with opening your private practice?

Unlike many other lawyers, I was in a very fortunate position getting started. I had a built-in population of Summit Camp children with special needs whose families became my very first clients. I knew these kids the best and had a strong commitment to help these families, so I started representing them.

I also had a built-in office, which was my camp office in Queens.

In the early years, I did a lot of litigation and hearings; the work was challenging and adrenaline-producing. I loved every minute of it, and I still do. If I was able to help the parent secure tuition payment so their child could go to the appropriate school for their needs, then I was helping make a difference in the child’s life.

Can you describe the typical process that families experience when they become a client for a special education lawyer? How do they begin?

When you have a bright child with dyslexia, it’s often a relief when the parent gets a diagnosis because treatment can help the child get over the hurdle. Once a parent has a diagnosis, they set up a one-hour consultation. Parents should bring materials such as test reports; the neuropsychological report recommending a small, highly specialized school for the child; and written documentation that states the child

What does a typical week look like for you?

I usually see about 5-10 new clients per week, assign cases, and manage the entire firm of 18 lawyers. Each lawyer is assigned 100-180 cases to manage, and most cases are tuition reimbursement or seeking services in public schools.

Your firm offers services that include litigating funding claims, explaining to clients the meaning and implication of reports, educating families on their rights under IDEA, referring families to appropriate services, appealing decisions in the NYS Office of State Review and in federal courts, and more. Out of everything, what are the most exciting and challenging aspects of this job?

The most rewarding part is being involved in helping tens of thousands of children receive their appropriate education and training other lawyers to do this too. We get to instill a sense of hope for parents when sometimes they feel despair. I am happiest when I get to be a social worker and lawyer, helping parents get through a hard time and not lose hope. Challenges are good because you grow. And one challenge comes with the territory... lawyers don’t like to lose cases!

What message would you like families with special education needs to know, from a legal lens?

As a parent, you may regret what you don’t do, so do not be afraid to advocate for your child. If your child needs to go to a special school, send them. It is a gift that you are giving them, a foundation that will last for their whole life. Do not hesitate if you can afford it. If you can’t afford it, fight the school district. Why? When you look back as a parent, you want to be able to say I tried and did everything I could. There is no guarantee everything is going to work, but at least I tried.

NOTE: All insights shared in the Q&A demonstrate the expertise and views of the interviewee. The information about providers and services contained in The Beacon does not constitute an endorsement by The Windward School.

15

16

The Beacon Spring 2022

Inside the Institute

Speaking Truth to Power: One Hour with the New York Commissioner of Education and the Chancellor of the Board of Regents

By John J. Russell, EdD, Special Projects Advisor at The Windward Institute and Associate Director of the Haskins Global Literacy Hub

T

he New York State Board of Regents is responsible for the general supervision of all educational activities within the State, presiding over the State University of New York system and the New York State Education Department. Like the education departments in many other states, The New York State Department of Education has an abysmal record of addressing the needs of students with dyslexia. Officials in the department have failed to respond in a meaningful way to years of advocacy work by many dedicated individuals and organizations. So, when the Haskins Global Literacy Hub and The Windward Institute were invited to engage in a discussion with the Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents, the Commissioner of Education, and her top staff, we were determined to make the most of this rare opportunity to speak truth to power.

The Teams This audience with the Chancellor of the Board of Regents Dr. Lester Young and the Commissioner of Education Dr. Betty A. Rosa was the direct result of the untiring efforts of Windward alumnus and New York State Assemblymember Robert Carroll. He invited the leadership of the Haskins Global Literacy Hub, including Dr. Ben Powers, Dr. Maureen Lovett, and me, to join him. The Haskins Global Literacy Hub is a division of Haskins Laboratories, which is formally affiliated with the University of Connecticut and Yale University. It is an independent, international, multidisciplinary community of researchers conducting groundbreaking research to enhance our understanding of—and reveal ways to improve or remediate—speech perception and production, reading and reading disabilities, and human communication. (See additional information about the Hub on page 20).

The Agenda Since there are a multitude of policy and pedagogical issues that New York State needs to address, the first order of business for the Hub team was to develop cogent arguments based on solid research for a few key recommendations to present to these state officials. Which ones must New York State address in order for dyslexic students to receive instruction that they require so that they learn to read and write well? After extensive dialogue with Haskins affiliated researchers and practitioners, the Hub team established an agenda that would maximize the effect of the short amount of time we had to influence these key decision makers.  State of Reading in the US & NYS  Theory of Change: • Screening • Teacher Prep & PD • Science of Reading

 Examples in Practice • The Windward School • Mississippi  How the Hub Can Help

MEET MEMBERS of the Haskins Global Literacy Hub Leadership Team Dr. Maureen Lovett • Associate Director of the Hub • Senior Scientist Emeritus in the Neurosciences and Mental Health Program at The Hospital for Sick Children • Professor Emerita of Paediatrics and Medical Sciences at the University of Toronto Dr. Ben Powers • Director of the Hub • Affiliated research scientist at Haskins Laboratories • Head of The Southport School • Founder of The Southport CoLAB

Dr. John J. Russell • Associate Director of the Hub Special Projects Advisor at The Windward Institute • Former Head of The Windward School • Former Executive Director of The Windward Institute

For more information about the Windward/Haskins Laboratories Collaborative Project, visit www.thewindwardschool.org/Haskins or www.haskinsglobal.org.

Spring 2022 The Beacon

The state officials were obviously cognizant of the years of poor performance by students on national and New York State tests of reading, nonetheless the Hub team thought it critically important to start the meeting by confronting the absolutely appalling results on reading tests for students nationally and students in New York State.

On the National Assessment of Educational Progress that was administered in 2019, the analysis of the performance of New York State students revealed that in assessments of reading: • 65% of all fourth grade students were not proficient in reading; • 88% of fourth grade students with disabilities were not proficient in reading; • 66% of all eighth grade students were not proficient in reading; • 91% of eight grade students with disabilities were not proficient in reading.

(depending on age), and familial risk (Scarborough, 1998; Catts et al., 2015; Puolakanaho et al.,2007). Early identification will be an effective tool, if and only if, students who are at risk receive immediate research-based intervention.

Teaching All Students to Read 5.2

5

Reading grade level

The State of Reading

4.9 Increase of 2.4 grade levels with with substan al instruc onal interven on

4 3 2.5

2

1

New York Grade 8 Public Schools Students who performed BELOW the NAEP Proficient level

2

1

4

3

Grade level corresponding to age Low Risk on Early Screening

At Risk with Interven on

At Risk on Early Screening

68%

66%

1998

2017

68%

Source: Florida Center for Reading Research

2019

Universal screening in pre-K or by the start of kindergarten is key for identifying at-risk readers. Why? Because early intervention is a critical step toward improving long-term literacy outcomes.

Source: NAEP 2019 Reading State Snapshot Report

Recommendations The Hub team decided to focus on three areas that would have an immediate effect on improving reading outcomes for students with dyslexia.

We can change this trajectory through partnerships that:

To emphasize this point, Dr. Lovett presented the above research that she conducted that demonstrated that the earlier the intervention, the more robust improvement.

Propor on of Children Achieving at Expected Levels Within One Year of Reading Interven on

Implement Early Screening: Screening students before

they begin school helps identify students with the potential risk for reading failure.

Strengthen Teacher Preparation & PD: Providing educators with training and ongoing support based on the Science of Reading.

Adopt the Science of Reading: Implementing an explicit and systematic literacy curriculum, grounded in the Science of Reading and the National Reading Panel.

1. Implement Early Screening Often referred to as dyslexia screening, effective screeners can gauge the long-term risk for poor outcomes of word reading and spelling skills that can significantly impede literacy development in children.

The Hub team recommended screeners that examine early print knowledge (e.g., letter names and sounds), language (phonological awareness, vocabulary, and RAN), decoding and word-reading skills

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

WA 77.6%* 50.0%* 38.3%*

WI 76.3%* 52.6%* 21.3%

PC 67.1%* 36.8%* 34.0%*

Standardized Rdg Inventory RQ 40.3%* 24.3%* 15.6%

* chi-square test indicated that the propor on nomalized within grade differed across interven on and control groups Source: Love , Frijters, Wolf, Steinback, Sevcik & Morris, 2017, J. Educ. Psych.

The Woodcock Reading Mastery Test was administered to the students in the experimental/intervention group, while the Standardized Reading Inventory was given to students in the control group and the experimental group.

• Word attack (WA) is the application of sound-letter

correspondence rules to decode unfamiliar words.

• Word identification (WI) is the process of determining the

pronunciation and meaning of a word encountered in print.

17

18

The Beacon Spring 2022

• Passage comprehension (PC) is the ability to read a passage,

understand the passages, and answer questions in the passage.

• Reading quotient (RQ) is the percentage of all students who

read at grade level demonstrating the vast improvement that the experimental group achieved.

Earlier intervention (1st grade) results in greater ‘normalization’ of reading scores, greater gains on foundational skills, and continued faster growth after intervention ends. Later intervention works (even in the middle and high school years), but effects are smaller and multiple years of remediation are often needed. As illustrated by the following graphic, there are significant costs associated with delaying intervention. These costs are both financial and social/emotional.

Recommendation: Upon entrance to school, New York State should screen for risk of reading difficulties and, beginning in first grade, provide research-based interventions for students identified as at-risk.

Nega ve Socio-Emo onal Consequences Students with LDs experience significantly higher anxiety, higher depression, lower sense of mastery, and lower growth mindset compared to same-aged peers.

55

6

4

2 LD (N=213)

Control (N=108)

ANXIETY

LD (N=157)

Control (N=110)

DEPRESSION

LD (N=209)

Control (N=103)

SENSE OF MASTERY

preparation programs prepare early childhood and special education teaching candidates in the Science of Reading instruction.

Educators who are currently teaching but have not had undergraduate or graduate training in the Science of Reading require professional development. Dedicated, conscientious teachers can mitigate deficiencies in their preparation through professional development, but only if professional development programs are more rigorous and of a better quality than the undergraduate and graduate programs that are responsible for the deficits in the first place.

Recommendation: Ensure that current teachers have access to professional development programs that are rigorous and research-based.

3. Adopt the Science of Reading The use of structured, sequential, systematic, explicit instruction is critical in learning to read (Birsh et al., 2018; Dehaene et al., 2010). Reading programs should fully address the five components of effective reading instruction identified by the National Reading Panel (2000): • phonemic awareness (individual sounds in words), • phonics (relationship between letters (graphemes) and individual sounds (phonemes)),

50

45

Recommendation: New York State should require that teacher

LD (N=245)

Control (N=110)

GROWTH MINDSET Source: Stephanie Ha

2. Strengthen Teacher Preparation Most states still do not verify that elementary, early childhood, or special education teacher candidates know the most effective methods to teach their future students how to read.

• Only 20 states require a test that fully measures elementary candidates’ knowledge of the Science of Reading (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2021).

• Only 11 states require such a test of their special education teachers, even though difficulty reading is the primary reason students are assigned to special education (ibid).

• Only 24 states expect early childhood teachers to demonstrate their knowledge of emergent literacy, as communicated by licensure tests, state standards, or other state guidance (ibid).

Every state should require teacher preparation programs in the state to train candidates in scientifically-based reading instruction to help ensure that all teachers are well prepared in the Science of Reading instruction before entering the classroom.

• fluency (rate and accuracy), • vocabulary (words in oral and written language) • and comprehension (the ultimate goal).

New York’s elementary education preparation standards do not address the Science of Reading instruction, and the most frequently used reading programs do not sufficiently address all five of components identified by the National Reading Panel (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2020).

Recommendation: Require the use of reading programs that include all five components that were identified by the National Reading Panel and are delivered through structured, sequential, systematic, explicit instruction.

Examples in Practice In addition to presenting research that supports the Hub’s recommendations, The Windward School and the state of Mississippi were highlighted as a school and a state that have implemented these recommendations and obtained very positive results.

Mississippi made a focused effort to implement the Science of Reading and was the only state with increased NAEP Reading scores in 2019.

Spring 2022 The Beacon

NAEP Achievement-Level Percentages and Average Score Results Mississippi 1998 2017 2019 Na on 2019

53* 40* 35 35

30* 33 34

14* 22* 25

3* 6 6

203* 215* 219

31*

26

9*

219

The Windward Institute is proud to present The Beacon to our readership twice a year in both print and digital formats.

Percent below NAEP Basic Percent atNAEP Proficient or at NAEP Basic level or NAEP Advanced level Below NAEP Basic

NAEP Basic

NAEP Proficient

NAEP Advanced

* Significantly different (p<.05) from state’s results in 2019. Significance tests were performed using unrounded numbers.

Note: NAEP achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted and used with cau on. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Year after year, The Windward School has had over 95% of its outplacing students score in the average to above range on nationally normed standardized tests of reading. As seen in the graphic below, 96% of the 1949 students who left Windward between 2005 and 2019 scored in the average to above range in reading comprehension.

Entrance–Exit Reading Comprehension 2005–2019 Cohorts Scores Upon Entrance

Scores Upon Exit

Below Average

34%

4%

Average

58%

67%

Above Average

8%

29%

Parting thought for New York State education officials The Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents, the Commissioner of Education, and her top staff listened attentively to arguments presented by the Hub team members, and there was no disagreement with any of the information that was presented.

Now, it is time for the Regents and the Department of Education to act. If Mississippi, with far less resources than New York, can change the educational trajectory of its students by training its teachers and adopting the Science of Reading, why can’t the state with the ambitious motto of Excelsior do the same?

In an effort to be environmentally conscious, please visit our website to indicate your subscription preference (print, digital, or both). You can also update your contact information to ensure The Windward Institute’s records are accurate.

You can update your information at www.thewindwardschool.org/ BeaconSubscription

19

20

The Beacon Spring 2022

News Around Windward

Supporting and Disrupting Together: The Windward Institute and the Haskins Global Literacy Hub Partnership

T

he Windward Institute (WI or The Institute) is a division of The Windward School that is responsible for providing active outreach to the broader educational community. In keeping with this charge, the WI establishes partnerships with universities and researchers to provide a bridge between research and educational practice. Among these partnerships, the one that the Institute entered into with the Haskins Laboratories’ Global Literacy Hub has been particularly fruitful.

Introduction to the Haskins Global Literacy Hub The Haskins Laboratories has formal affiliations with Yale University School of Medicine, the Yale Child Study Center, the University of Connecticut Institute for the Brain and Cognitive Sciences, and extensive national and international research partnerships.

In order to efficiently utilize these resources to effect positive changes in language and literacy skills and develop scalable solutions to literacy problems at national and worldwide levels, President of Haskins Dr. Ken Pugh and Director of the University of Connecticut Institute for the Brain and Cognitive Sciences Dr. Fumiko Hoeft launched the Global Literacy Hub.

As an extension of the Haskins Laboratories, the Hub is an international and interdisciplinary collaborative that brings together an unprecedented partnership of expert researchers, practitioners, educators, and education technology specialists from around the globe to solve one of the most critical issues—illiteracy—that is preventing people from escaping poverty, leading healthy and productive lives, and achieving their full potential. The mission of the Hub is to improve language and literacy outcomes for at-risk children, across languages and cultures. To that end, the Hub’s unique collaborative of experts has been disrupting the current, stagnant ecosystem—which is perpetuating unacceptable social outcomes—with new and scientifically rigorous approaches. These approaches have the potential to make a significant impact on several long-standing social challenges including: • improving the sensitivity of early (birth to five) language assessment and intervention, • delivering on the promise of neuroscience-guided reading instruction and/or remediation, • scaling the solutions globally using education technology (EdTech), and • training a new generation of educators and clinicians (across cultures) to work with these emergent approaches.

Spring 2022 The Beacon

News Around Windward

Windward/Haskins Study Latest Findings and New WLS EEG Lab The Partnership In January 2019, The Windward Institute was invited to join the Hub, and Dr. Russell, representing Windward, was appointed Associate Director of the Hub. The initial project of The Windward School/Haskins Laboratories Partnership was the in-school research study, Predicting Literacy Outcomes at The Windward School. This multiyear, ongoing study uses neurocognitive measures to better understand which instructional strategies work best for students, a critical step in moving toward individualized brain-based instructional programs. This cognitive and brain imaging research will also examine their potential to improve early diagnosis of language-based learning disabilities (LBLD) in at-risk preschool children. Additionally, this project provides invaluable professional development for Windward faculty as our teachers and clinicians work side-by-side with Haskins’ scientists in the two EEG labs that the School has established.

An article describing the project has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Research in Reading, co-authored by Annie Stutzman, Danielle Scorrano, Najah Frazier, and Dr. Jay Russell of The Windward Institute; Haskins’ scientist Dr. Nicole Landi; and members of the AIM Institute. It describes the nature of researcher-practitioner partnerships and how in-school laboratories facilitate translational research in reading.

In addition to this initial research project, the Hub has played a leadership role in a number of significant projects at the local, national and international levels. Among them are: • Allo Alphabet literacy intervention program • APPRISE screening app • Aprendo Leyendo curriculum in Argentina • “Ask a Brain Scientist” webinar series • Ed tech research in Latin America • Empower Reading literacy program • Hearing loss treatment studies • HEARS hearing assessment screening tool • In-school neuroscience labs • R.E.S.C.U.E. digital game In the short time since it was formalized, the partnership with the Haskins Global Literacy Hub has been a very effective tool for broadening the impact of the WI and promises to be a powerful mechanism to advance the mission of the WI: To increase childhood literacy rates by disrupting the educational status quo to save more lives.

Pictured is the EEG lab where testing is being conducted at the new Westchester Lower School campus.

R

esearch scientists from Haskins have been analyzing data collected during the fall for the third year of the Predicting Literacy at The Windward School research study. Because EEG testing was paused for a period due to the pandemic, the main source of recent analyzed data is the behavioral testing. The Haskins researchers have been comparing the Fall 2021 in-person testing to the remote testing conducted during the earlier months of the pandemic.

Preliminary data analysis of the participants’ scores on the behavioral testing reveals that, relative to Fall 2019 (pre-pandemic), students have made relatively steady gains in phonological processing skills, but smaller-than-expected gains in word reading skills.

Director of EEG Research Dr. Nicole Landi said, “This is an interesting finding which leads us to hypothesize that pandemicrelated disruptions may disproportionately affect word reading.

If true, this could be due to a variety of factors, including less time spent in the classroom, less time spent reading, or increases in stressors/anxiety, which may disproportionately impact word reading in children with language-based learning disabilities.”

More insights as a result of the study will be shared in an upcoming paper, “Researcher-practitioner partnerships and in-school laboratories facilitate translational research in reading” in the Journal of Research in Reading, co-authored by Annie Stutzman, Danielle Scorrano, Najah Frazier, and Dr. Jay Russell of The Windward Institute.

21

22

The Beacon Spring 2022

News Around Windward

Promise Project Partnership Expands with Windward Faculty Tutors

T

he Windward Institute’s partnership with the Promise Project, which began in 2021, continues to expand with The Windward School faculty utilizing their expertise with the PAF reading program in a tutoring environment. Faculty members are working one-on-one with New York City students already engaging with the Promise Clinic and who benefitted from explicit, structured reading instruction.

Tutoring sessions occur virtually one to two times a week.

Since the beginning of the program last spring, students have shown growth in their word level reading skills and decoding strategies, and many of the students have also improved upon their fluency and comprehension skills. Many of the families have noted a growth in the students’ skills and confidence since working with the tutors.

The faculty have expressed their gratitude for being able to make a

positive impact in the local NYC community, using their training and skills to fulfill Windward’s vision of empowering all children to achieve unlimited success.

In addition to providing tutoring and technology resources, such as laptops and Wi-Fi hotspots, The Windward School employed faculty and staff members to support language translation, to empower tutors so families could communicate and fully understand students’ progress.

The Windward Institute looks forward to expanding upon the program to reach more students from the Promise Project in the coming months.

Paul Kohan Named 2021 John J. Russell Award for Advocacy in Education Recipient

O

n October 28, The Windward School and The Windward Institute honored the late Paul Kohan, co-founder of the Dyslexia Policy Institute, with the John J. Russell Award for Advocacy in Education. The award was presented at Windward’s Fall Community Lecture, and Ellen Asplund Kohan, the mother of Mr. Kohan, received the award on her son’s behalf.

Established in 2019 by The Windward School Board of Trustees to honor former Head of School John J. Russell, EdD, this award is given annually to an individual who has made an impact in helping children with learning disabilities reach their full potential. Their efforts may be in the fields of research, pedagogy, legislation, education, or business.

Mr. Kohan was a true advocate for children with learning disabilities. He worked tirelessly to support families navigating the process of seeking educational support for their children. This was seen not just through his work as a lawyer, but also through his time on the Board of Trustees of The Gow School, and most recently, as co-founder of the Dyslexia Policy Institute.

He understood the negative outcomes for a child who was not given the fundamental rights of vital educational resources, and he made it his mission to help as many of these most vulnerable children as possible. Mr. Kohan’s passion and dedication will live on in the work at the Dyslexia Policy Institute, law firms, and other institutions committed to helping children with learning disabilities. His passing in March 2021 will be a reminder to keep pushing forward on the road for advocacy of children with language-based learning disabilities.

Save the Date for Dyslexia Policy Institute Conference on April 25 & 26 Join The Windward Institute in attending the Dyslexia Policy Institute’s two­day annual virtual conference. This event will bring together attorneys, parents/guardians, teachers, and neuroscientists to provide informative sessions on the most recent and relevant advances in science, education, and legal advocacy.

Head of School Jamie Williamson will be presenting on April 25 on the Windward model in a session “The Power of Collaboration: Expanding Impact Through Strategic Partnerships.”

For more information, visit www.thewindwardschool.org/DPI.

Spring 2022 The Beacon

THE ROBERT J. SCHWARTZ MEMORIAL LECTURE Institute

Translational Science in Reading: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?

Translational science in education is the method by which research informs implementation of pedagogical practice in the classroom. Understanding how to translate scientific findings into practice is an essential part of ensuring that all students receive literacy instruction based in the most current and validated data. To move the needle in reading achievement for all learners, translation must occur across multiple domains simultaneously. Researchers, policymakers, educators, families, and other stakeholders must work together to create an ongoing and open dialogue between Science of Reading (SoR) research studies and analysis, policy reform, evidence-based training, and implementation.

In this lecture, Dr. Emily Solari will address the crucial need for collaboration, how these interdisciplinary fields can come together to narrow the research to practice gap to improve literacy outcomes for all children.

April 21, 2022

Presented by

Emily J. Solari, PhD Professor of Education at University of Virginia Dr. Emily Solari is a coordinator and professor in the Department of Curriculum Instruction and Special Education at the University of Virginia. Dr. Solari’s scholarship has focused on the prevalence, predictors, and underlying mechanisms that drive reading development with the ultimate goal of developing and testing the efficacy of targeted interventions to prevent and ameliorate reading difficulties. Her work has included intervention development and trials with students who have early profiles of reading difficulties, individuals diagnosed with autism, and English language learners. Dr. Solari has been particularly focused on translating the science of reading by engaging with practitioners and policy makers to leverage scientific evidence to improve practice in school settings.

7:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Watch the lecture via Live Stream No Fee — reservation required R.S.V.P. online at thewindwardschool.org/lecture

LIVE STREAM

23

24

40 West Red Oak Lane White Plains, NY 10604

Institute A division of The Windward School

NonProfit Organization US Postage PAID White Plains, NY Permit No. 16

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED To be added to The Beacon mailing list, visit www.thewindwardschool.org/WImailinglist

Beacon The

The Windward Institute Journal for Educators and Parents Spring 2022

EDITORIAL BOARD

Jamie Williamson, EdS Head of School and Executive Director of The Windward Institute John J. Russell, EdD Special Projects Advisor

Institute

Annie Stutzman, MS Associate Director Danielle Scorrano, MPS Research & Development Director CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

Jana Cook Colby Hall Anita McGinty Emily Solari, PhD

A division of The Windward School

Register Now for The Windward Institute Spring/Summer 2022 Courses & Workshops!

EDITOR

Stephanie Huie Associate Director of Digital Communications & Publications PHOTOGRAPHY

Susan Nagib

All Classes Offered Virtually Two NEW Workshops with Instructor Molly Ness, PhD

DESIGN

The Blank Page, NYC

The Beacon is a biannual journal publication for educators and parents of children with language­based learning disabilities that will support the Institute in advancing its mission.

Every issue will contain manuscripts documenting the latest research, thought pieces by Windward leaders, a Q&A series with inspirational leaders in the world of dyslexia, and stories of how Windward is closing the knowledge gap between proven research and current teaching practices.

Word Recognition Strands May 5, 4 p.m.–6 p.m.

Language Comprehension Strands May 12, 4 p.m.–6 p.m.

Dr. Ness will explicitly examine the Reading Rope strands and outline instructional implications to promote word recognition skills including an understanding of phonological awareness and its subskills; knowledge of and strategies to strengthen student decoding; and the role and importance of sight recognition.

Dr. Ness will explicitly explore the strands and instructional implications to support language comprehension such as the importance of background knowledge; the role of vocabulary; language structures and their contribution to reading comprehension; an overview and strategies to support verbal reasoning; and the role of literacy knowledge and how to integrate it into lessons.

View all professional development offerings at www.thewindwardschool.org/courses

Stay connected

thewindwardschool.org

thewindwardschool.org/wi

TheWindwardSchool

TheWindwardInst

TheWindwardSchool

TheWindwardInstitute

Windward_School

TheWindwardInst

The Windward School

The Windward Institute READ Podcast