WHOLE LANGUAGE DAMAGE, REMEDIAL READING IS NOT EFFECTIVE
\doc\web\97\08\remed.txt Realities of Remedial Reading (brief) The
National Right to Read Foundation P. O. Box 490 The Plains, Virginia
20198-0490 1-800-468-8911 Briefing 65


>Realities of Remedial Reading
>
>	When school children fail to meet the standard for reading competence
>expected by teachers or set by standardized reading tests for pupils at their
>grade level, they often are called remedial readers.  Other terms are used to
>label a child whose reading ability is at least two years behind his/her
>grade level norm.  He/she is said to be a retarded reader handicapped reader,
>disabled reader, laggardly reader, low-achieving reader, problem reader,
>delayed reader, reader with an IQ-reading discrepancy, reader who needs
>special help, reader who is literacy challenged, or one who has dyslexia.
>
>	Once children have been classified as having a given level of difficulty in
>learning to read, they are deemed to qualify for remedial reading
>instruction.  This teaching is significantly more expensive than the type
>normally conducted.  Its extra cost occurs because remedial reading teachers
>handle small groups of children, or even tutor them individually.  Also,
>these special teachers often have attained added academic credits and/or
>credentials, and thus earn higher salaries than do teachers in general.
> Additionally, their efforts create the need for extra classroom spaces, and
>additional distinctive teaching materials and equipment.
>
>	Despite the fact it ordinarily is carried out by educational specialists,
>remedial reading instruction (along with other forms of special education)
>has a disappointing track record, i.e., it generally is not cost-effective.
> It is clear this failure is not due to a lack of money.  To the contrary,
>most of the large increases in financial support provided schools in the past
>thirty years (over 60 percent in uninflated dollars) has gone to pay for
>remedial instruction.  In that respect, remedial education has been public
>schools' "cash cow" for the past three decades.
>
>	Remedial reading teaching does not function effectively for several other
>reasons.  It appears that many children who initially are taught to read in
>experimentally unverified ways suffer some permanent learning damage from
>this unfortunate experience.  A prime example of this situation is a child
>who fails to learn to read as the result of Whole Language (WL) teaching.
>
>	None of the unique instructional practices of WL is corroborated by relevant
>empirical evidence.  This means that all of the novel ways that a retarded
>reader in a WL class was taught to recognize written words must be unlearned
>by him/her, and then relearned in a remedial instruction that follows.  The
>frustration for the child that ensues from this contradictory reteaching may
>be overwhelming.  Also, the shock to this student's self-image from his/her
>failure to learn to read may create an irreversible learning problem, one
>that will not diminish significantly over time, even with well-designed
>remedial teaching.
>
>	In these regards, the remedial reading instruction delivered by the Reading
>Recoveryİ (RRİ) program deserves some added comment.  This most-costly of all
>reading tutoring programs produces what it claims are significant initial
>gains for children who are disabled readers.  (See NRRF Briefings #BR18,
>#BR50, #BR53).
>
>	However, later standardized tests of children who have graduated from RRİ
>reveal that their purported reading improvement soon disappears.  Critical
>analyses of RRİ indicate that its claim to conduct super-effective remedial
>reading instruction also must be rejected because (1) standards for entry and
>successful departure of students from RR are vague, subjective, or
>nonexistent; and (2) its practices are based on the experimentally
>discredited WL approach.
>
>	Equally unsupportable, it is found, is the practice of classifying children
>whose reading ability levels are two years lower than how well their IQs
>predict they should be reading (the IQ-reading discrepancy), as being
>dyslexic.  It falsely is claimed that dyslexia is a unique and distinct type
>of reading disorder different from that suffered by a child whose inept
>reading is in line with his low IQ.  In this regard, defenders of the term,
>dyslexia, favor a popular, but erroneous saying that dyslexia is an
>"affliction of geniuses."  Intelligent children from relatively affluent
>families are the ones most likely to be diagnosed as being dyslexic, it is
>observed.
>
>	This diagnosis has become increasingly apparent since children who have
>problems in learning to read decreasingly are designated as dyslexic if they
>are socially, culturally, and economically disadvantaged, if they are members
>of minority racial groups, if they have visual, hearing or motor impairments,
>if they have emotional and other psychological handicaps, and if they are
>judged to have sub-par intelligence.  In these cases, reading failures are
>accredited to these factors, rather than some substance called dyslexia.
> This conclusion is based on my survey of 47 recently published textbooks on
>basic or remedial reading instruction, and 36 volumes on learning
>disabilities.
>
>	The majority of these texts also express disbelief in the idea that dyslexia
>is caused by anomalies, malformations, or deficits in the child's
>neurological system.  The previously-held notion that dyslexia is distinctly
>different from reading disability, as such, because it has a biological and
>organic basis, thus is rejected.  Teachers therefore are advised to
>discontinue use of the term, dyslexia, and in its place refer to the specific
>reading disabilities a child is found to have.
>
>	It is now well-established that those reading disabilities are problems
>children have in (1) comprehending exactly what authors intended to convey;
>(2) recognizing written words quickly and accurately; (3) gaining phonics
>knowledge and how to apply it (particularly as demonstrated by capacity to
>pronounce nonwords that are spelled phonetically, e.g. biv, sife, dith,
>bron); (4) acquiring phonemic awareness (conscious awareness of the speech
>sounds in spoken words); and (5) identifying and processing letters
>automatically.
>
>	A further aspersion of the idea that dyslexia is a unique malady comes from
>the finding that students labeled as dyslexic benefit most from the same kind
>of instruction that normal students find best aids them to learn to read.  My
>survey of the texts on remedial reading and learning disabilities, noted
>above, discovered that so-called dyslexic students are found to be helped the
>greatest by direct, systematic, intensive, and comprehensive instruction
>aimed at developing the five reading competencies cited in the preceding
>paragraph.  The message here is clear: attainment by children of them must
>receive the highest priority in both basic and remedial reading programs.
>
>	That generalization also can be applied to at least some autistic students.
> Autism is a neurologically-based developmental behavioral disorder.  It has
>negative consequences to its most hapless victims comparable to those of
>schizophrenia, according to the American Psychiatric Association.  In
>contrast to normal children, the typical autistic child is said to have a
>highly limited inborn mechanism for learning the structure of oral and
>written language.
>
>	Not surprising, then, is that prognosis of success in reading for autistic
>students is dismal.  Over time, less than 20 percent of them improve enough
>in language and social skills to be able to enjoy independent living.  Two
>out of three remain severely restricted by their motor, social-adaptive,
>speech, reading, and cognitive handicaps.
>
>	The unverified notions of WL teaching apparently have invaded the field of
>reading instruction for autistic children.  In Understanding and Teaching
>Children with Autism (John Wiley, 1996), Rita Jordan and Stuart Powell assert
>that "there are no predetermined steps that the teacher can take that will
>resolve the problems of educating the child with autism."  They thus reject
>"skills-based approaches" in favor of "intuitive judgments" by teachers, just
>as do WL advocates for normal children.  These writers advise against all
>compensatory or remedial type instruction for autistic children.
>
>	Jordan and Powell seem resigned to a hopeless view that autistic children
>"may never achieve competence in spoken language" and by extension, the
>written version.  For any of them to become able to do so, however, they must
>master the five reading competencies listed above.  Without direct,
>systematic, and intensive teaching it is highly doubtful they will.
>
>Dr. Patrick  Groff, Professor of Education Emeritus, San Diego State
>University,
>has published over 325 books, monographs, and journal articles and is a
>nationally known 
>expert in the field of reading instruction.
>
>The National Right to Read Foundation is recognized by the Internal Revenue
>Service as a §501 (c) (3) publicly supported organization.  Gifts to the
>Foundation are tax deductible.  The Foundation's newsletter, "Right to Read
>Report," is available on a subscription basis for $25. Please include name,
>address and telephone number in all correspondence, including E-mail.  Thank
>you.
>
>Website:		http://www.jwor.com/nrrf.htm
>E-mail:		National Headquarters:	nrrf@erols.com
>			California Division:	jungljulie@aol.com