Reading Teachers Network RSS Feed

Lenox M. Reed Seminar

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:00:00 GMT

Lenox M. Reed Seminar
Start Date: 11-Mar-10 2:00 PM
End Time: 11-Mar-10 3:30 PM
Location: Westin Glleria, Houston, TX 77056
Speaker: Laura W. Bush

Westin Glleria

5060 West Alabama

Houston, TX USA 77056

Study Skills

Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:30:00 GMT

Study Skills
Start Date: 5-Apr-10 7:30 PM
End Time: 5-Apr-10 9:00 PM
Location: Neuhaus Education Center, Houston, Texas 77401
Speaker: Julie Pitts Mount, Lauren Price

Neuhaus Education Center

4433 Bissonnet

Houston, Texas US 77401

Alliance National Exam

Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:30:00 GMT

Alliance National Exam
Start Date: 12-Jun-10 8:30 AM
End Time: 12-Jun-10 5:30 PM
Location: Neuhaus Education Center, Houston, Texas 77401
Event Details:

Neuhaus Education Center hosts the Alliance National Registration Exam.

Arrival: 7:45 a.m.

Exam begins: 8:30 a.m.

Exam is untimed and typically takes around three hours.

Bring pencils and photo I.D.

Neuhaus Education Center

4433 Bissonnet

Houston, Texas US 77401

Online Professional Development

Suzanne Carreker — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:00:00 GMT

Is Online Professional Development on Spelling an Effective Alternative to

Onsite Professional Development on Spelling?

Suzanne Carreker

Regina Boulware-Gooden

Mary Lou Slania

Neuhaus Education Center

Abstract

Spelling is often taught as a rote memory skill. However, spelling is a cognitive linguistic skill that can be learned with thorough knowledge of English speech sounds and orthographic patterns. Teachers who are knowledgeable about speech sounds and frequent and reliable patterns of English can promote students’ spelling achievement through explicit instruction of the sounds and patterns. Professional development can increase teacher knowledge of spelling. The current paper presents a study of two groups of inservice teachers (N = 126) who received professional development workshops on spelling via two different venues. One group received a workshop presented by two master instructors, and the second group received an online workshop. The content of the workshops was identical. Both groups made statistically significant gains in spelling knowledge. The results suggest that teachers can increase their knowledge of spelling through online professional development, which is flexible, convenient, and does not require teachers to give up valuable instructional time.

Bear and Templeton (1998) suggested, “Spelling is more than a courtesy to one’s reader; understanding how words are spelled is a means to more efficient and proficient reading and writing” (p. 223). A long-held belief is that because English orthography is so complex, memorization is the best way to learn to spell (Joshi, Treiman, Carreker, & Moats, 2008/2009). Indeed, many students are taught to spell by memorizing lists of words that are tested on weekly spelling tests. However, English, which seems a chaotic mess, is actually reliable and consistent (Kessler & Treiman, 2003). Students can be taught frequent and reliable patterns that make English more manageable for spelling.

Spelling Development and Instruction

To make sense of the complexities of English spelling, students need to learn about the orthography’s sounds and structures, which can be taught by knowledgeable teachers (Moats, 1994). Young children learn to spell using sounds as opposed to learning to spell visually (Bryant & Bradley, 1980). Awareness of speech sounds (i.e., phonemic awareness) helps students detect and distinguish sounds in spoken words. This awareness is important to the reading success of beginning readers and spellers (National Reading Panel, 2000). Spelling instruction that includes awareness of sounds enables students to develop the understanding of letter-sound correspondences.

As students progress in spelling, they rely less on sounds and more on the written patterns of the language (Treiman, 1998). The introduction of frequent and reliable patterns is helpful as students increasingly rely on their understanding of these patterns to spell unfamiliar words. In addition to reliable patterns, students’ spelling is enhanced by instruction of prefixes and suffixes (i.e., affixes). For younger children, the introduction of the suffix ed, for example, can help students with the spellings of /jŭmpt/, /sēmd/, and /lănded/. Understanding of word origins is also beneficial to spelling proficiency. For example, words that originate from Latin most often spell the suffix /er/ as or as in actor, supervisor, and spectator, and words derived from Greek reliably spell /f/ as ph as in philosophy and physical.

English may seem confused, but there is a logic to the language that can be taught. Spelling does not need to be a rote visual memory skill (Joshi et al., 2008/2009). Spelling is a cognitive linguistic skill. To promote student achievement in spelling, teachers need awareness of the speech sounds in spoken words and knowledge of frequent and reliable patterns of English. Additionally, teacher knowledge of affixes and word origins helps refine students’ spelling and supports their spelling of multisyllabic words.

Online Professional Development

Walpole and McKenna (2004) proposed that professional development supports teachers through the development of content knowledge and instructional skills. After reviewing evidence regarding how teacher professional development affects student achievement, Yoon, Lee, Scarloss, and Shapley (2007) concluded:

Professional development affects student achievement through three steps. First, professional development enhances teacher knowledge and skills. Second, better knowledge and skills improve classroom teaching. Third, improved teaching raises student achievement. If one link is weak or missing, better student learning cannot be expected. (p. 4)

Individuals with recognized expertise in a particular area traditionally have delivered effective professional development to teachers. Online professional development has become increasingly available to teachers as a supplement or an alternative to traditional professional development. Boling and Martin (2005) suggested that online professional development “… provides the opportunity for learning in real time where teachers immediately apply new information and skills, and thus, improve the quality of instruction” (p. 2). Online professional development is accessible with greater flexibility than traditional professional development. Teachers can enhance their knowledge and skills at their own pace and without giving up valuable instructional days. With increased knowledge related to spelling, for example, teachers can improve their instruction and positively affect student achievement in spelling.

A Comparison of Online and Onsite Professional Development

In the present study, 126 elementary education teachers in Grades 1-5 received two different types of professional development. All teachers in the study received 3.5 hours of professional development on speech sounds, spelling patterns, affixes, word origins, and irregular words for spelling. Fifty-seven teachers received the professional development through online instruction, and 69 teachers received the identical professional development content that was delivered by two master instructors at an onsite location. The research questions included 1) does a 3.5-hour professional development workshop statistically significantly increase teacher knowledge of spelling, and 2) does professional development delivered via online instruction produce the same results as the identical professional development content delivered by master instructors at an onsite location?

All participants completed a pretest (i.e., Form A) before the professional development workshops began and completed a posttest (i.e., Form B) after the workshops ended. The online participants were placed arbitrarily into two computer labs in the elementary schools where the participants taught. The professional development workshop content was projected from the Internet onto a large screen in each lab at the same time. The content was presented using timed PowerPoint slides with prerecorded narration. The online participants in each lab viewed the content together in five continuous 20-to-30-minute sessions. After each session, participants logged onto individual computers and completed a 10-question online quiz that cumulatively reviewed the previously introduced spelling information. The questions were multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank formats. Each quiz was completed in approximately 5 minutes. The participants received immediate feedback on their quiz performances. There was one 15-minute break. A technical facilitator was available in each lab but did not engage participants in discussions of the workshop content and did not answer questions about the content.

The second group of participants was taught by two master instructors at a professional development center. The same PowerPoint slides were used. The notes pages for the slides matched the narration in the online workshop. The workshop content for the second group was presented in the same five continuous 20-to-30-minute sessions. There were no quizzes after the sessions. Periodically during the 3.5-hour workshop, the master instructors had the participants engage in discussions with a partner or practice concepts with the participants at the individual tables. The master instructors circulated among the tables to provide feedback. Cumulatively, the discussions and practices were equal to the time the online participants spent completing the quizzes. There was one 15-minute break. The master instructors were available to answer questions from the participants during the sessions and during the break.

Results

Before the beginning of the workshops, the participants were given a pretest with 35 multiple-choice questions to measure their knowledge of spelling sounds, patterns, affixes, word origins, and irregular spelling words. An ANOVA was conducted. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on their preexisting spelling knowledge (F_{1, 125} = 1.651, p = .222, h² = .01).

After the completion of the workshops, the participants were given a posttest, which was an alternative form of the pretest. No statistically significant difference between the two groups on succeeding spelling knowledge (i.e., posttest) was found on an ANOVA (F_{1, 125} = 3.108, p = .080, h² = .0001). Both groups of participants increased their knowledge of spelling. Because there was no statistically significant difference between the groups on the posttest, a subsequent ANOVA was conducted to compare the aggregated pretest and posttest means of the two groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest knowledge of the aggregated groups (F_{1, 251} = 199.384, p < .0001, h² = .556).

Discussion

The current study investigated the effects of professional development on teacher spelling knowledge. Two groups of inservice teachers were given the same professional development workshop on spelling. One group received the 3.5-hour professional development workshop online in two computer labs at an elementary school, and the other group received the workshop from two master instructors at a professional development center. The online participants received feedback for the computer-generated quizzes. The onsite participants received feedback for the master instructors and interactions with other participants. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant gains on posttest spelling knowledge, which means that each vehicle for professional development positively affected teacher spelling knowledge.

References

Bear, D., & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in spelling: Foundations for learning and teaching phonics, spelling, and vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 52, 222-242.

Boling, C. J., & Martin, S. H. (2005). Supporting teacher change through online professional development. Journal of Educators Online, 2(1), 1-15.

Bryant, P. E., & Bradley, L. (1980). Children write words they do not read. In U. Firth (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 355-370). London: Academic Press, Inc.

Joshi, R. M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. C. (2008/2009). How words cast their spell: Spelling instruction focused on language, not memory, improves reading and writing. American Educator, 32(4), 6-43.

Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2003). Is English spelling chaotic? Misconceptions concerning its irregularity. Reading Psychology, 24, 267-289.

Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 18, 207-235.

National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Treiman, R. (1998). Beginning to spell in English. In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling development and disorders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Walpole, S., & McKenna, M. C. (2004). The literacy coaches’ handbook: A guide to research-based practice. New York: The Guilford Press.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. No. 033, Issues & Answers REL, Institute of Education Services, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/REL-2007003.pdf

22-Feb-10 9:00 AM

Perceptions and Realities

Regina Boulware-Gooden — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:00:00 GMT

Perceptions and Realities:

What Teachers and Researchers say About Response to Intervention

Regina Boulware-Gooden

Suzanne Carreker

Barbara T. Conway

Abstract

Response to Intervention (RTI) has been offered to ameliorate the problems of the discrepancy model in the identification of students with learning disabilities (LD). RTI is both an instructional and an identification model in which teachers and schools work together to identify struggling readers, plan appropriate instruction, monitor progress, and adjust instruction as needed. Students who are still not responding to instruction are then referred for further evaluation. Successful implementation of an RTI model requires appropriate professional development for teachers, fidelity to the intervention practices, adequate uninterrupted time, and adequate staffing. One-hundred-twenty teachers who were using the RTI model responded to an online survey. The survey contained 10 statements that pertained to the implementation, resources, and outcomes of RTI. The teachers’ responses, both positive and negative, have been supported by research. The teacher responses to the survey and research on RTI are discussed in the current paper.

The 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2007) documented growth in the area of reading for Grade 4 students. The report cited that Grade 4 students’ overall reading scores were up two points from previous testing in 2005 and up four points from 1992. Overall, students in the 10%, 25%, and 50% ranges all made gains compared to previous years. Students performing at the basic level rose from 62% in 1992 to 67% in 2007. Students’ skills in reading at or above the proficient level rose from 29% in 1992 to 33% in 2007. The Black-White gap narrowed, but a 27-point gap between the two groups remained. The Hispanic-White gap remained the same statistically, with a 26-point gap. Additionally, there were no gains for students receiving free or reduced lunch from 2005 to 2007. Thirty states documented no gains. Although the report did note gains in overall reading, the gains in reading reported by the NAEP (2007) seemed anticlimactic compared to the focus on elementary reading and the money that had been spent by schools under No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2000).

The gains in reading improvement in part could be attributed to the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disability Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), which proposed an alternative model for the identification of students with learning disabilities (LD). Fletcher and Vaughn (2009) stated that the Response to Intervention (RTI) model is twofold. The proprietary goal of the model is to improve student achievement using universal screenings and progress monitoring to place students in instructional groups and scientifically based reading curricula for instruction. The RTI model moves students through tiers of leveled instruction. The first tier is for all students, the second tier is for students who struggle to keep up in the first tier. A subsequent tier is for students who fail to catch up with their peers after needed remediation and need even more intensive instruction.

A secondary goal is the identification of students with learning disabilities. Many researchers had advocated for a shift away from the “discrepancy model,” which was often called the “wait-to-fail” model (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). The definition of LD did not changed in the reauthorization of IDEIA (2004), but the method for establishing eligibility did. With RTI, a student no longer would need a certain discrepancy between IQ and achievement scores to be eligible for services. A student could qualify if documentation of appropriate instruction and remedial efforts could demonstrate that the student was still unable to meet expectations. This is the underlying premise for RTI as an identification model.

Although the RTI model could be used to remediate any number of specific learning disabilities (e.g. mathematics, written expression, and listening comprehension), reading has been the main focus of the RTI model, probably due to the large number of students receiving services for reading. Lyon (1995) reported that 80% of students receiving special education were receiving services for reading disorders. Six years after IDEIA (2004) teachers and school districts are still trying to come into compliance with federal law. The purpose of the current study described in the current paper was to investigate classroom teachers’ perceptions and realities concerning, implementation, resources, and outcomes of RTI on their school campuses and in their individual classrooms, and to compare teachers’ perceptions and realities with research findings.

Methodology

Participants

The participants were 120 teachers who responded to an online survey about RTI. The survey was created and posted on a web site that offers information and resources to reading teachers. To solicit responses to the survey, an email was sent to approximately 2,000 teachers in Texas who had taken at least 30 hours of professional development specific to literacy-related content instruction. It is unknown whether all respondents were from this group of teachers because the survey was accessible to other teachers visiting the website.

Design

There were 10 statements on the survey to which the teachers responded using a Likert scale that ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The statements fell into three categories pertaining to RTI: implementation, resources, and outcomes. The statements from the survey are embedded in the remaining text of the current paper and will be discussed presently. Additionally, teachers could write anecdotal comments. Teachers completed the survey in approximately 5 to 10 minutes. The survey remained online for approximately three weeks.

Results

Implementation of RTI

What Teachers Say:

I have found universal screenings like TPRI (Texas Primary Reading Inventory; University of Texas System and Texas Education Agency, 2006), DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; Good & Kiminski, 2002), or PALS (Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening; Virginia Department of Education, 2007) to be helpful in informing instruction.

65% agreed or strongly agreed, 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 27% not applicable.

RTI has allowed our school to work as a team in identifying the needs of our students.

75% agreed or strongly agreed, 18% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 7% not applicable.

The screenings are easy to give.

64% agreed or strongly agreed, 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 25% not applicable.

RTI’s first focus is the early identification of struggling readers and the delivery of effective instruction. Teachers who responded to the present survey overwhelmingly believed that implementing RTI did assist them in providing useful instruction. Additionally, teachers strongly agreed that the implementation of RTI was allowing a team approach to identify student needs. Lastly, responding teachers felt that screenings and progress monitors were easy to administer. For statement one, teachers responded 28% to not applicable. This was perhaps because they were not using the specific screenings listed on the survey. Statement three also had a high percentage of not applicable responses (25%) which was believed to be for the same reason. If RTI was not being used on their campuses, it did not appear that they would have completed the remaining questions.

Agreed. Although Deno, et al. (2008) did not use any of the universal screenings found on our survey, the authors did find that a similar screening provided clear data that was effective in implementing RTI and that the use of the probes were not overly expensive and time consuming. Veluntino, Scanlon, Zhang, and Schatschneider (2008) agreed that the use of RTI screening measures were economical and effective in identifying students who were at-risk for reading difficulties at the beginning of kindergarten.

In a dialogue with Batsche and Kavale, Batsche commented:

The RTI model uses practices and procedures that are less-inferential and that provide information that is more directly related to instructional decision making. To that end, the practices and procedures are more concrete and should result in more consistent implementation across settings. (p. 16)

Kavale (2006) cautioned that, although he believed school-based evaluation teams were capable of valid decision making for RTI implementation, a great deal of professional development would be needed to assure success.

Additionally, Feifer (2008) suggested that RTI was a scientific process used to make educational decisions. Feifer stated, “Through collaborative data-based decision making, RTI seeks to prevent the inherent problems that have emerged from the traditional ‘test and place’ philosophy that currently dominates the landscape of special education (p. 814).” Vanderhaden, Witt, and Gilbertson (2007) noted, “RTI requires that teams make a series of data-based decisions (p. 226)”. Teachers who responded to our study agreed that the implementation of RTI was instrumental in having them work as collaborative teams. However, no research was found that measured how the collaborative process uniquely affected the success of the student.

Disagreed. Teachers in the current study found the screenings easy to give and helpful in informing instruction. Although the assessments were easy to give, Kavale (2006) found that the screenings were too aligned with the interventions and not a good indication of a student’s overall ability. Schatschneider, Wagner, and Crawford (2008) noted such measurements do not have the psychometric characteristics considered necessary as do other standardized test measures. Furthermore, those who argue against the use of the discrepancy model cite the use of cut-scores as bad practice. The authors argued that some type of cut-score would have to be used in an RTI model to move them through the different tiers. Even more importantly, their investigation found that the RTI model did not identify students with learning disabilities better than did the traditional means of comparing growth at the end of the year to the beginning of the year. The authors findings are important to note, as the second goal of RTI is the identification of students with learning disabilities. In a diaglogue with Batsche and Kavale (2006), Kavale stated, “RTI has the potential for making the overidentification problem worse (p. 16)”. Kavale noted that this would occur due to the large number of students in the latter tiers, the inability to clearly define unresponsiveness, and teachers wanting to do something to help their students (Batsche & Kavale).

Resources Needed for RTI

What Teachers Say:

We are given adequate time during the instructional day to debrief about planning intervention and evaluating student progress.

26% strongly agree or agree, 69% disagree or strongly disagree, and 5% not applicable.

We have adequate staff available for intervention with students.

34% strongly agreed or agreed, 61% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 5% not applicable.

We have been given appropriate resources and materials, which have been beneficial in maximizing student achievement.

53% strongly agreed or agreed, 43% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 4% not applicable.

We have been offered adequate professional development to positively impact student achievement.

50% strongly agreed or agreed, 46% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 4% not applicable.

It appeared from our survey that teachers felt they did not have the resources or time for effective implementation of the RTI model. The two biggest obstacles to implementation appeared to be inadequate staff for helping with interventions and inadequate time for planning and debriefing. One teacher commented, “Time and knowledge! Schools need to reorganize – rethink staffing – rethink how professional staff is used…” Although half of the teachers responded that they have received adequate professional development and resources, there were still almost 50% of teachers who felt that they had not.

What Research Says:

Agreed.When thorough training of teachers, fidelity to the intervention practices, monitoring of progress, adequate uninterrupted time, and resources are available, researchers have demonstrated the efficacy of RTI interventions. In a meta-analysis of 18 reading interventions, Wanzek and Vaughn (2007) were able to show the long-term effectiveness of tiered intervention in improving the reading outcomes of early elementary children in Grades K-3. The intervention studies in the meta-analysis met the following criteria: Studies 1) were reported in peer-reviewed journals between 1994 and 2005 and printed in English, 2) included students with LD or students identified as at risk for reading failure, 3) included students in kindergarten through third grade, 4) targeted early literacy and were provided as supplemental instruction of 100 sessions or more, 5) were provided as regular school programming, and 6) addressed reading outcomes as dependent variables. Five of the intervention studies used gold-standard experimental design. Fourteen of the interventions were implemented using school personnel for all or part of the implementation, which would make implementation of similar interventions possible in other classrooms.

Additionally, data from large scale and long-term interventions were analyzed by Velluntino et al. (2008), involving kindergarten children at risk. Interventions reduced numbers of identified children by almost 900 after tiered interventions through first grade. By second grade and beyond, only 16 % of students continued to have difficulty. Research by Linan-Thompson, Cirino, and Vaughn (2007) suggested that English language learners (ELLs) also benefit from interventions that teach essential reading components in small-group settings, and that this has the potential for reducing the disproportionate numbers of culturally diverse students in special education (Haager, 2007). In this, as in many efficacious studies (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009), teachers who conducted intervention groups were carefully trained and monitored by researchers which is too often not the case in general education classrooms (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

Disagreed. The fidelity to treatment protocol, a necessary component for successful intervention, is inconsistent at the school level. Most often, the measurement and monitoring of progress have been conducted by the teachers themselves, which made true evaluation of the success of intervention problematic .The lingering questions about the effectiveness of RTI and how to implement it in a practical way leave teachers and administrators with the responsibility of interpretation as well as the more serious and urgent problem of how to help students who are struggling. As Reynolds and Shaywitz (2009) stated, “…implementation is left to the vagaries, inconsistencies, and non-evidence-based particular sets of beliefs of individual school psychologists, teachers, principals, and school system administrators” (p. 131). District administrators must interpret how small-scale research protocol might be adapted to fit their student population, and teachers then again must interpret the interpretation of their administrators (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009). Carrying out vague directives requires more time and collaboration on the part of teachers, but, as was reflected in our survey, lack of time is a major obstacle to careful planning. This being the case, the recommendations for the successful assistance of students struggling with reading from the National Center for Education, Evaluation, and Regional Assistance (IES; 2009) would be difficult to carry out. The recommendation stated, “Create a building-level team to facilitate the implementation of universal screening and progress monitoring (p. 9).” Though our results did show there was team building in identifying struggling students, there evidently was not enough time in the instructional day for planning and debriefing about intervention and student achievement.

Though effective classroom teachers admirably attend to individual student needs as a matter of course, juggling small, needy groups in a classroom full of activity is difficult without assistive staff (Haager, Heimbichner, Dhar, Moulton, & McMillan, 2008). The recommendation from the IES (2009) for Tier II intervention specified small groups, three to five times per week for 20 to 40 minutes. Our survey results indicated that teachers felt that there may not be adequate staff to assist with intense intervention for the extended time that has been shown to be effective by research. It is perhaps for this reason that the type of intervention which has been found to produce substantial effect sizes in small, controlled studies has not translated into the treatment fidelity required to replicate the result in real-life classrooms (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

The idea of early intervention is an appealing one to teachers in that it saves students from the agony of waiting for a clinical diagnosis; but, does this happen reliably enough to match the model’s definition? In order for struggling students to receive help, first responders, the teachers, must meet certain criteria to be effective in the face of the problem. Firstly, teachers must be knowledgeable enough and have the tools to define the source of the students’ problems (Gerber, 2005; Moats, 2009). The success of intervention is tied more tightly to teacher knowledge than to materials, test scores, or organization of the system (Haager et al., 2008; Piasta, Connor, Fishman, & Morrison, 2009; Schatschneider, Wagner, & Crawford, 2008). The implementation and fidelity to programs and the analysis of curriculum-based measurements are only as effective as teachers’ understanding of the principles behind them. Higher levels of teacher knowledge, achieved through professional development, have been linked to higher levels of student achievement (McCutchen, Green, Abbott, & Sanders, 2009; Moats, 2009; Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). As Moats (2009) stated, “Teachers cannot teach well what they do not understand themselves.”

Secondly, district and administrative staff must support the teachers with resources in the forms of materials and professional development that they need to be successful (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Slightly more than 50% of our respondents indicated that they had been given the appropriate resources and materials they needed (53% agree or strongly agree to 43% disagree). They were split almost 50-50 agree to disagree as to whether they had received adequate professional development to impact student achievement.

RTI Outcomes

What Teachers Say:

I feel that struggling students are being identified earlier than was possible before.

55% strongly agreed or agreed, 40% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 5% not applicable.

Overall, RTI has been an effective model for improving student achievement.

55% strongly agreed or agreed, 37% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 8% not applicable.

Overall, RTI has been an effective model for identifying students with learning disabilities.

52% strongly agreed or agreed, 41% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 7% not applicable.

Teachers were positive in their responses that RTI was identifying struggling readers earlier. There was support for RTI as an effective model for instruction and identification. What our survey was not specific in differentiating was whether the identification of students was instructional in terms of identifying strengths and weaknesses that could indicate LD or as students who actually identified as LD and eligible for special education services.

What Research Says:

Agreed. RTI requires matching instruction to student needs, monitoring progress, and adjusting instruction as needed (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) contended RTI ultimately would move schools to early prevention. In an RTI classroom, Tier I assesses the progress of the entire general education classroom and the overall learning environment. Students who are dramatically below their peers in achievement are identified and given intensive instruction in the classroom in Tier II. In the aforementioned meta-analysis conducted by Wanzek and Vaughn (2007), 13 studies had sufficient data to calculate effect sizes. The effect sizes were larger in the kindergarten and first-grade interventions and support the importance of early identification and intervention for the resolution of reading difficulties (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Disagreed. Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, and LeFevers (2008) suggested that RTI is best viewed as an instructional model, not an identification model. However, some researchers would question the effectiveness or the readiness of RTI as an instructional model. Gerber (2005) detailed the cost of implementation of RTI and argued that the instruction that had been demonstrated experimentally for RTI cannot be meaningfully scaled. Berkeley et al. (2009) investigated the implementation of RTI in all 50 states, some of which are further along in implementation than others. Berkley et al. noted a concern about the successful implementation is “…general educators do not currently have the background knowledge or skills needed to implement an RTI model even in beginning reading” (p. 94). Additionally, Burns, Appleton, and Stehouwer (2005) noted that more and controlled studies are needed to determine instructional issues, such as length of intervention and fidelity of implementation.

Kavale et al. (2008) did not support RTI as a sufficient identification model. The authors suggested that RTI be used as pre-referral instruction and identification be based on diagnostic and instructional data. Reynolds and Shaywitz (2009) contended that RTI alone will not identify students with dyslexia accurately, as there is no mechanism in RTI to identify students with intra-individual differences. That is, students who have intact language comprehension skills (i.e., adequate ability) but poor decoding skills (i.e., low achievement) will appear to have the same instructional needs as students with both decoding and language comprehension deficits. In reviewing the data to date, Wagner (2009) suggested that it is doubtful RTI will identify students with LD any earlier than the discrepancy model.

Discussion

The responses to our survey statements indicated that teacher attitudes toward the RTI model were mixed. Teachers seemed to think that the screenings were working well for them; that is, the screenings were easy to give and had supplied the data needed to identify struggling students. Most teachers positively indicated that struggling readers were being identified earlier than ever before. Additionally, most teachers felt schools had been able to work as teams in achieving this goal. However, one teacher commented, “I use RTI in my room daily, but as a school …it is not being done effectively….If we all don’t take it seriously, it isn’t going to work.” Overall though, the responses indicated that teachers felt that the first focus of RTI, early identification of struggling students (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009), had been achieved.

The biggest obstacles, indicated by responses, are related to the actual implementation of interventions. Interventions in research studies that documented student growth had adequate staff, planning time, assessment debriefing, training in the intervention protocol, and monitoring of fidelity to the protocol built into the methodology of the studies (Vaughn et al., 2003; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). These implementations do not correspond with what is happening in schools at this time as evidenced by teachers’ responses. One teacher commented, “I feel that by the time we go through all of the steps (RTI), the student is slipping even further and further behind.”

Responses indicated that teachers are concerned about inadequate numbers of staff to assist with interventions and an inadequate amount of time in the instructional day for collaborative planning before intervention and debriefing afterward. One teacher offered:

Hire more than just one teacher per 22 students – allow for creative groupings of students – break the model of everybody goes to lunch at the same time – [instead] everybody goes to PE together so the teachers can have a 45-minute conference period.

Although half of responding teachers indicated that they had received adequate professional development and resources for intervention, it is of concern that half of responding teachers did not. Researchers have emphasized teacher knowledge as being key to the success of student intervention. Research has shown the lack of teacher knowledge has been problematic for the success of student outcomes (Piasta et al., 2009), and teachers, as we saw in our survey, have recognized their own need for professional development.

The authors of the current paper are involved in teacher professional development, and wish to highlight two important aspects of professional development not addressed in the preponderance of research: quality and time. Quality professional development that broadens the knowledge base about how children learn, particularly in the area of reading, does not happen in a single one-day workshop, training for an intervention program, or even in a more lengthy course during a single summer (Moats, 2009). Knowledge of the processes that enable accurate reading and deep comprehension are incremental, take time, and should begin at the pre-service level. All colleges and universities preparing teachers for service in elementary school should require courses in reading instruction. These courses should include the phonological and phonetic aspects of learning to read and spell words, and knowledge about how students make connections with the meaning of written language (i.e., comprehension) through their own oral language, vocabulary, ability to inference, and use of strategy (Joshi et al., 2009).

Finally, it appeared from teacher responses that the RTI model was perceived as effective in improving student achievement. A majority of teachers responded that they thought it was an effective model for identifying students with LD, a surprising result considering the fact that most school districts have not reached a point of complete dependence on RTI to identify LD (Berkley, 2009). One important note of the current findings is the high degree to which teachers did not agree with the following statements: 1) Over all, RTI has been an effective model for improving student achievement (37%) and 2) Over all, RTI has been an effective model for identifying students with learning disabilities. This indicated that many of our respondents were skeptical that RTI was the panacea to address either achievement or identification of struggling students.

Limitations

Our survey was accessible on a web site designed for teachers of reading and language arts that is publicly available and free. However, because of the subject matter, we feel that users of this website are primarily reading teachers in Texas who have taken professional development courses. In addition, we sent an email blast to teachers who have taken 30 or more hours of professional development in reading from our center, another reason to believe that many of the respondents to the survey are alumnae of our classes. Therefore, many respondents could have a broad base of knowledge in reading, which is not necessarily typical of all teachers.

The last question in our survey, Overall, RTI has been an effective model for identifying students with learning disabilities, was intended to refer to the use of RTI in identifying learning disabled students for special education in place of the historically traditional discrepancy model ( ). We feel that it is possible that teachers interpreted this question to mean identifying struggling students in general, which would skew results on this question to the positive.

Summary

Our survey was designed to document informally teachers’ perceptions of RTI and experiences with the implementation of RTI. The original intent simply was to obtain feedback. We pleased with the number of responses and felt the teachers’ perceptions provided interesting perspectives that should be shared. A future survey will be offered that will include information that will make teacher feedback more robust. Teachers are on the frontlines of successful RTI implementation: Teachers’ voices needed to be heard, so that all students can achieve reading and academic success.

References

Batsche, G. M., Kavale, K. A., & Kovaleski, J. F. (2006). A dialogue on response to

intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 6-19.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response

to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Disabilities, 42, 85-95.

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394.

Deno, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., & Windram, H. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools. 46, 44-55.

Feifer, S. (2008). Integrating response to intervention (RTI) with neuropsychology: A scientific approach to reading. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 812-825.

Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30-37.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 93-99.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention:

Definitions, evidence, and implications for the LD construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs., D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilites Research & Practice, 13204-219.

Gerber, M. M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies

for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 516-524.

Good, R. H., & Kiminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.

Haager, D., Klinger, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds). (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for

response to intervention. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

Haager, D. (Ed.). (2007). Early intervention for students in general education: Promoting

academic achievement for all. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, II.R. 1350, 108 Cong., 2^nd Sess. (2004).

Kavale, K. A., Kauffman, A. S., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFevers, G. B. (2008). Response- to- intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 135-150.

Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English language

learners’ response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 185-218.

McCutchen, D. Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Further evidence for teacher

knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 401-423.

Moats, L. (2009). Still wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of Learning

disabilities, 42, 387-391.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq.

Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M, Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading 13, 224-248.

Reynolds, C. R., Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait

to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 2, 130-145.

Schatschneider, C., Wagner, R. K., & Crawford, E. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences 18, 308-315.

Snow, C. E. Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

United States Department of Education (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Fourth Grade Reading, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

University of Texas System and Texas Education Agency. (2006). Texas primary reading inventory. Austin, TX: Authors.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilberton, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225-256.

Vaughn, S. Linan-Thompson S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 397-409.

Velluntino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Using response to

kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 437-480.

Virginia Department of Education. (2007). Responsive instruction: Refining our work of teaching all children. Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Department of Education Office of Student Services, 6.

Wagner, R. (2008). Rediscovering dyslexia: New approaches for identification and classification. In G. Reid, A. J. Fawcett, F. Manis, & L. S. Siegel (Eds.). The Sage handbook of dyslexia (pp. 174-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading

interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541-561.

18-Feb-10 1:00 PM

Knowledge and Practice Standards

Barbara Conway — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:00:00 GMT

The Professional Standards and Practices Committee, 2009, appointed by the International Dyslexia Association, has developed a well-referenced document which will serve as a guide for college and university teacher preparation, professional development, and certification of those who teach reading and related literacy skills in all settings. "Reading difficulties," says the document, "are the most common cause of academic failure and underachievement." The standards developed by this committee address the fact that that a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill is required in order to address reading problems effectively. The committee hopes these standards will 1) inform professional development and dyslexia preparation programs, 2) be used in colleges of education to prepare teacher candidates, and 3) help inform publishers of literacy materials and textbooks.

Soon to be posted on the IDA website, www.interdys.org, the document will encompass both knowledge and practice standards in the following:

Foundation Concepts about Oral and Written Language Learning

Knowledge of the Structure of Language

Knowledge of Dyslexia and Other Learning Disorders

Interpretation and Administration of Assessments for Planning Instruction

Structured Language Teaching: Phonology

Structured Language Teaching: Phonics and Word Recognition

Structured Language Teaching: Fluent, Automatic Reading of Text

Structured Language Teaching: Vocabulary

Structured Language Teaching: Text Comprehension

Structured Language Teaching: Handwriting, Spelling, and Written Expression

Ethical Standards for the Profession

16-Nov-09 3:00 PM

Comprehension Assessment is Not What It Seems

Barbara Conway — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Assessing student comprehension ability may not be what it seems, according to Janice M. Keenan, Ph.D., who participated in the Neuahus sponsored full day symposium at IDA. Some comprehension measures are truly a test of decoding ability. An example of this might be the slight misreading of a word resulting in the choice of a wrong answer, such as misreading the word beard for bear, therefore choosing a picture of a bear. The author's concept of what comprises comprehension makes a difference in the measurement outcome and what comprehension skills are actually measured. On some tests, students are able to view the text while answering the questions, while others require the student to rely completely on memory. The issue of passage independence refers to comprehension questions that can be answered without even reading the passage, a phenomenon that has been cited with respect to several well known tests. Dr. Keenan, Director of Reading and Language Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, says that reading comprehension is best assessed with several measures in order to pinpoint the true nature of difficulty. Also advisable is a thorough knowledge of the shortcomings of commonly used tests and compensation with additional assessment, either formal or informal. For more information on this topic, see the following articles:

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess:

Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension.Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281-300.

Cutting, L. E., Scarborough, H. (2006). Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency and other cognitive skills can

depend on how comprhension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277-299.

16-Nov-09 2:00 PM

Dyslexia and Vision

Barbara Conway — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:00:00 GMT

A statement copyrighted by the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors addressed the relationship of vision to dyslexia by saying, "Most experts believe that dyslexia is a language-based disorder. Vision problems can interfere with the process of learning; however, vision problems are not the cause of primary dyslexia or learning disabilities. Scientific evidence does not support the efficacy of eye exercises, behavioral vision therapy, or special tinted filters or lenses for improving the long-term educational performance in these complex pediatric neurocognitive conditions. Diagnostic and treatment approaches that lack scientific evidence of efficacy, including eye exercises, behavioral vision therapy, or special tinted filters or lenses, are not endorsed and should not be recommended.This was a joint statement endorsed by the following organizations: American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Ophthalmology, Council on Children with Disabilities, American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, and the American Association of Certified Orthoptists.

5-Nov-09 2:00 PM

Aligning Language Enrichment with State Standards

Barbara Conway — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Many of you have wondered how the scope and sequence for Language Enrichment (LE), the phonics and oral language componenet of the English language arts program in grades 1 through 3, can be dove-tailed with the reading skills standards set by your state. For example, the State of Texas standards, called Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or TEKS (pronounced tĕks, because it is a closed syllable!), are definitely aligned with those taught in Language Enrichment. However, the new skills sequence moves along more quickly than does the sequence in LE. The sequence in LE can and should be adapted to any state's set of requirements by combining days on which there is no new concept being taught. we like to say that you can "go as quickly as you can, but as slowly as you must." In other words, as all good teachers know, our primary guides are the needs and achievements of our students.

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for English and Spanish language arts and reading can be accessed through the Texas Education Agency (TEA) website at: www.englishspanishteks.net . Here you can find grade leveled lists of all the skills Texas students are expected to know in each subject area. A new and very useful tool is the vertical alighnment of English and Spanish language arts and reading skills, an excellent visual for seeing how the skills progress and build throughout grades 1-12. To view the vertical alignment, use the following Texas Education Agency link and click on the Vertical Alighnment PDFs: https://www.englishspanishteks.net/teachers/teks.asp .

12-Oct-09 10:00 AM

Save the Date! 2009 Re(a)d & White Bash

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:00:00 GMT

Join Friends of Neuhaus as we
“Paint the town Re(a)d!”

Sip on signature cocktails, indulge in delectable bites, and move to the live music while donning your most fabulous red and white attire at the Friends of Neuhaus.

Entertainment by: The Slags

When: November 6, 2009, 7:00 PM - 11:00 PM

Where: Winter Street Studios
http://www.winterstreetstudios.net/
2101 Winter Street
Houston, TX 77077
713.862.0082

Individual tickets are $50.

Underwriter Opportunities start at $250

RSVP at http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=116380032473

Honoree: Willard Wigan, International micro-sculptor

Chairs: Shawn Stephens & Margaret Young

Co-chairs: Krista Barnes & Robyn Goldstein

Purchase tickets online or contact Alissa Johnston ajohnston@neuhaus.org to purchase tickets or become an underwriter.

3-Sep-09 1:00 PM

Run for a Reason

Amy Lampi — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:00:00 GMT


	Neuhaus is thrilled to be an Official 2009 - 2010 Charity for the Chevron Houston Marathon's Run for a Reason. Register for this event \| More Information

14-Aug-09 10:00 AM

Significant Academic Gains Realized

Ash Solar — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:00:00 GMT

by Ash Solar

I am currently a fourth-grade writing teacher at Joe E. Moreno Elementary School in Houston Independent School District. Before beginning my life as a teacher, I had the good fortune of attending some of Houston's excellent private schools, including St. Michael's and Strake Jesuit. After graduating from Dartmouth College, I returned home as a Teach For America corps member. While the opportunity to give back to my own community made the experience that much more rewarding, it was not easy.

No matter how you cut it, being a first-year teacher is an overwhelming experience. Being a first-year teacher in a low-performing school with an at-risk student population is an extremely overwhelming experience. In August of 2003, as I reviewed my students' first work as English writers, I couldn't help but wonder how I had gotten myself into the situation I was in.

Out of my 28 bilingual fourth-grade writing students, not one could write a full paragraph in English. Many of them couldn't write a sentence. Their spelling in English was so poor that many of them couldn't even spell I, as in me, correctly.

Through the first few weeks, I struggled desperately to find a curriculum and lessons that would cover all the ground. The grammar book was dry and dense. My personally crafted lessons were hit and miss. The reality of the situation was my bilingual students were frustrated with the struggle to grasp a new language and its grammar fundamentals. Unfortunately, the greater reality of the year was that in February 2004 they would be required to take a state-mandated writing test in English. As I saw it, they essentially had five months to learn what English-speaking students had spent five years learning.

Sometime in late September, my Teach For America program director suggested I attend some Neuhaus trainings. She explained to me that Neuhaus has long been an integral part of many corps members' success in achieving significant academic gains in their classrooms. Within the next month or so, I attended the Center's Multisensory Grammar and Scientific Spelling classes.

The two curricula, which I was able to implement immediately and effectively, transformed the learning culture of my classroom. My students' sense of frustration and despair was instantly replaced with the joy of learning and the confidence that comes with it.

Grammar was no longer dreaded, but rather eagerly anticipated. Within a matter of months, my students blossomed into competent and passionate writers.

When the February writing exam came, my students were not only prepared, but they were excited. They had worked incredibly hard all year, and it was their chance to show the world how much they had grown.

When the results came back in May, over 80% of my students passed the TAKS writing test in English. Their growth in a matter of months was so dramatic that their efforts were recognized in a USA Today editorial that summer. I want to say thank you to the Neuhaus Education Center and to all its supporters for the wonderful resources you provide students, parents, and educators. Resources like Neuhaus Education Center make significant academic gains a reality in all classrooms and for all students.

30-Aug-08 1:00 PM

Houston ISD

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 06:00:00 GMT

Title: Houston ISD
Description: School Improvement Officers (SIO) Required Experience:
Education Required:
Planned Duration of Employment: Full Time

Contact info:

Arlene Lassin, Generalist (Add to Contacts)
Fax Fax - 713-556-7460
http://www.readingteachersnetwork.org/school-improvement-officers-hisd...

Houston ISD East Region Human Resources

4400 West 18th Street

Houston, TX 77092
US

SMU / Neuhaus Master of Education

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:39:23 GMT

Neuhaus Education Center is now in partnership with Southern Methodist University in a Master of Education degree program with a specialization in reading. This is the second semester for the first cohort of students (pictured above).

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Rai Thompson

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:09:42 GMT

A Linguistic Type-of-Gal...

She majored in Spanish and French at Trinity University and her first teaching assignment was Spanish at the elementary level. She became a Certified Academic Language Therapist in 1991, after which she became co-founder of Phonics Plus, a language therapy partnership with three other therapists in the Galveston area.

What's all the Hoopla?

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:40:44 GMT

Pipe cleaners, note cards, string, and yes, hoola hoops enable these teachers to make connections among semantics, pragmatics, orthography, syntax, phonology, and morphology in three domains - reading, oral language, and written language.

Marcia K. Henry, Ph.D. Featured Speaker at Lennox M. Reed Seminar

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:27:12 GMT

CALLING ALL LOGO-MANIACS!

Are you "crazy" about words? The expert is coming! Marcia Henry, an expert in the structure of the English language, with 44 years of experience in the field of reading and dyslexia, will be the speaker at the Lenox Reed Semiar March 11th, 2010.

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Katy Farmer

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:03:20 GMT

If you have taken Language Enrichment, Scientific Spelling, Multisensory Grammar, and other classes for general teachers here at Neuhaus, Katy Farmer's face is familiar to you.

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Catherine Scott

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:52:10 GMT

If you have taken Language Enrichment, Scientific Spelling, Multisensory Grammar, or any number of other classes here at Neuhaus, chances are you know Catherine Scott. A Dyslexia Specialist now, Catherine came to us in a very round-about way via an interest in animal behavior, and actually did research with elephants!

The Nokomis Story

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:06:07 GMT

"I have been a teacher for twelve years. I graduated from college at the age of 50 and during my college experience I was never taught how to teach reading. When I first entered the classroom I was shocked to see that my students had so few reading skills..."

Academic Resilience and Reading: Building Successful Readers

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:33:13 GMT

Do emotions have anything to do with learning? As teachers, we have long known that the "socio-emotional" plays a part in our students' academic achievement. On Friday, October 16th, at this year's first Alumnae Event, this idea was confirmed with hard data.

Tools

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:16:55 GMT

Comprehension Screenings Screenings to be used in conjunction with other assessments in isolating specific difficulties with reading comprehension. Reading Comprehension Screening PDF 2nd Grade Reading Comprehension Screening PDF 3rd Grade Reading Comprehension Screening PDF 4th Grade Reading Comprehension Screening PDF 5th Grade Depth of Oral Language This chart can be used to demonstrate the idea of words with similar meanings but different intensities. Students can sort these words for “problem” into three piles: big problems, little problems, medium problems. Open/Download Depth of Oral Language Chart (PDF) Instructional Charts - small These small versions of the classroom charts are sized for use with small groups of students. All of the files below are sized for 8.5 in. by 11 in. cardstock. The Neuhaus instruction these are...

Consumables

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:37:20 GMT

Silly Cats are O.K. Silly Cats are O.K. is a mnemonic for the elements of a story. Use this fun form to help your students summarize any narrative. A Story Map The Story Map offers another method for summarizing narratives. Blank Lesson Plans Foundations Foundations Blank Lesson Plan Extended Foundations Blank Lesson Plan Basic Language Skills Book 1 Blank Lesson Plan Book 2 Blank Lesson Plan Language Enrichment Language Enrichment Blank Electronic Lesson Plan Language Enrichment Blank Lesson Plan PDF Handwriting Upper Case Manuscript Trace and Copy Pages Lower Case Manuscript Trace and Copy Pages Manuscript Stroke Descriptions Mastery Checks - Basic Language Skills Basic Language Skills Mastery Check IV Basic Language Skills Mastery Check V Basic Language Skills Mastery Check VI Basic Language Skills Mastery Check VII Basic Language Skills Mastery Check VIII Basic Language Skills Mastery Check IX Word Webs and Charts Semantic Web Derivative or Multiple Meanings...

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:12:45 GMT

/attachments/wysiwyg/6/Flyer_SMU_Summer_2010.pdf

Neuhaus / SMU Master of Education

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:56:33 GMT

Students attend classes two nights a week at Neuhaus and have a combination of video-conferencing with professors from SMU and face-to face classes. This cohort will begin the second semester this summer. All teachers are using scientifically-based reading instruction in their classrooms.

When they complete their master's degree, they will have also completed the Teaching Level of the Academic Language Therapist certification.

Watch for coming information about joining the next cohort.

School Improvement Officers Houston ISD

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:34:05 GMT

The Houston Independent School District is looking for great leaders. With over 200,000 students in the seventh-largest public school system in the country and the largest in Texas, we are poised to make a real difference in education in Texas and nationally. We have a new superintendent, Dr. Terry Grier, who is focused on leading real change to ensure that we are the first major city to close the achievement gap. We are actively implementing innovative ideas to forge a new path for our students and our schools, and we know the rest of the country is hoping to follow our lead. In order to do this, we need highly motivated, highly energized, reform-minded individuals to join us as School Improvement Officers (SIOs). SIOs will be responsible for a group of schools by school level (elementary, middle, or high school) and will be directly supporting and mentoring the Principals that lead these schools. The SIO will be responsible for maintaining high-quality instructional teams and...

Poll Section

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:51:55 GMT

The word travel comes from a French word which means:polling

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Rai Thompson

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:28:38 GMT

Among her other pursuits before coming to Neuhaus were the coordination of a Title 1 reading program and working in a University of Texas Medical Branch dyslexia program. Meet Rai Thompson, Assistant Director or Professional Development. With such a literary background, you might think of Rai as the quiet, stay-at-home type. But think again. Mountain hiking and camping are high on her list of favorite things to do! Number one on that list is of course – reading.

Marcia K. Henry, Ph.D. Featured Speaker at Lennox M. Reed Seminar

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:40:14 GMT

Dr. Henry speaks frequently at conferences and writes for and serves on the editorial boards of several professional journals. She is author of the chapter, The History and Structure of Written English in Judith R. Birsh's Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills, which contains a detailed history of the languages and other factors that have shaped the development of our language since 54 B.C.E.

Dr. Henry will speak for the Lennox Reed Seminar on March 11, 2010, about morphemes, the meaning units within words such as prefixes, suffixes, base words and roots. Knowledge of morphemes is useful for acquiring fluent decoding and spelling of polysyllabic words and enhancing vocabulary. Frameworks for instruction, along with numerous instructional strategies and activities will be presented.

Getting Ready to Graduate

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:38:15 GMT

In addition, they will be eligible to sit for the Texas Education Agency Reading Specialist certification test, and the Alliance National Registration Exam at the associate/teaching level. Individuals who pass this exam are eligible to join ALTA and be identified as an Associate Academic Language Teacher (AALT).

What's all the Hoopla?

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:53:25 GMT

Teachers in an Advanced Basic Language Skills class learned about the interactive nature of all of the components of language. After much thinking, scrutiny, and collaborative discussion, the teachers found that with the exception of orthography, which is not related to oral language, all of the components are related to each other in some way, as are the three domains - oral language, reading, and written language.

Lorem ipsum survey

noemail@readingteachersnetwork.org — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:52:13 GMT

Objectives:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummynibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat. Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tution ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi.

Duis autem dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit au gue duis dolore te feugat nulla facilisi.

Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci taion ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat. Duis te feugifacilisi per suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex en commodo consequat.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diem nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut lacreet dolore magna aliguam erat volutpat.

Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci

Release Date: 20-Apr-09 1:52 PM
Expiration Date: 20-Jul-09 1:52 PM

Ut wisis enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci

Lorem ipsum

2009-04-20T18:52:12Z

Instructor: Instructor

Lorem ipsum

Reading Teachers Network RSS Feed

Lenox M. Reed Seminar

Study Skills

Alliance National Exam

Online Professional Development

Perceptions and Realities

Knowledge and Practice Standards

Comprehension Assessment is Not What It Seems

Dyslexia and Vision

Aligning Language Enrichment with State Standards

Save the Date! 2009 Re(a)d & White Bash

Join Friends of Neuhaus as we “Paint the town Re(a)d!”

Run for a Reason

Significant Academic Gains Realized

Houston ISD

SMU / Neuhaus Master of Education

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Rai Thompson

What's all the Hoopla?

Marcia K. Henry, Ph.D. Featured Speaker at Lennox M. Reed Seminar

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Katy Farmer

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Catherine Scott

The Nokomis Story

Academic Resilience and Reading: Building Successful Readers

Tools

Consumables

Neuhaus / SMU Master of Education

School Improvement Officers Houston ISD

***Poll Section***

Meet Our Teaching Staff - Rai Thompson

Marcia K. Henry, Ph.D. Featured Speaker at Lennox M. Reed Seminar

Getting Ready to Graduate

What's all the Hoopla?

Lorem ipsum survey

Lorem ipsum

Join Friends of Neuhaus as we
“Paint the town Re(a)d!”

Poll Section