!

There Is A Skeleton In Every Closet

Mau Lee Enfield, Ph.D. and Victoria E. Greene Bloomington Public Schools Bloomington, Minnesota

After 12 years of district wide implementation, Project Read is still a viable and integral part of the educational program of grades one through eight in the Public Schools of Bloomington, Minnesota. This paper presents data referring to the evaluation of the first three year's work. Bloomington is a southwest suburb of Minneapolis with a population of 85,000. After a 20-year period of rapid growth, the school population has gradually declined to a present enrollment of 16,000 students (K--12). There are 16 elementaW schools (K--6), two junior high schools (7--8) and three senior high schools (9--12). Project Read originated in the learning disabilities division of the Department of Special Education as a mainstrealn effort to reach children with language learning problems who were not responding to the district's basal reading program. During the 1969-70 school year a pilot project was designed by Ma W Lee Enfield, Coordinator of Special Learning and Behavior Problem Programs (SLBP) and Victoria E. Greene, SLBP staffmember, to experiment with an alternative approach to teaching reading, spelling and writing to children with language learning problems. Manv of these children had been referred to the clinical program and even more were on waiting lists for clinical services. District-wide achievement test scores had been dropping each year for several vears and the special education budget included no provision for the mounting numbers of children who needed help. Therefore, a pilot program was designed to train classroom teachers to deliver an alternative reading approach based on the technology developed for the clinical program. A full description of this pilot program and related research mav be found in the 1971 Bulletin of The Orton Society. Bullcun of The Orton Society, Vol 31, 1981, Copyright © 1981 by The Ormn S,)cwtv, Inc. ISSN 0474 7534

189

BULLETIN OF THE ORTON SOCIETY

The data from the pilot study was presented to the Bloomington Board of Education; waiting lists of students referred for service documented the need for implementation. The Board responded by mandating the program district-wide beginning in September 1970; provisions were m a d e for hiring ten teachers to deliver the program in 21 elementary buildings• The Board designated Victoria E. Greene as director of the program u n d e r the auspices of the SLBP division of the Department of Special Education• Special funds were granted by the Minnesota Commissioner of Education with the stipulation that the program be evaluated over a period of three years, and that a final report be prepared for the Commissioner and the state legislature. This paper is based on that evaluation report.

Program Description Project Read was gradually expanded to serve all eight grades. Correspondingly, the content was extended to cover not only decoding, but also reading comprehension and written expression (including handwriting and spelling)• The following briefly summarizes pertinent information about the program: W H A T IS PROJECT READ? a mainstream language arts program that provides an alternative to whole-word, inductive instruction •

.

.

W H O IS IT FOR? • . . the child who needs a systematic, direct, multisensory learning experience W H O DELIVERS T H E PROGRAM T O T H E C H I L D R E N ? • . . the classroom teacher W H E R E IS PROJECT READ T A U G H T ? . . . in the regular (mainstream) classroom H O W IS T H E CLASSROOM T E A C H E R TRAINED? • . . by a Project Read teacher coming into the teacher's classroom and demonstrating the curriculum and technology with that classroom teacher's reading group H O W IS PROJECT READ ADMINISTERED? • . . through the specific Learning and Behavioral Problems (SLBP) Department of Special Education 190

THERE I S A SKELETON IN EVERY CLOSET

W H O ARE T H E STAFF MEMBERS? .. a Project Director and ten Project Read teachers •

H O W IS PROJECT READ FUNDED? . . . through local and state special education funds W H A T GRADES DOES PROJECT READ COVER? . . . first grade through eighth grade W H A T IS T H E DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS IN PROJECT READ ? . . . 15 to 20% Elementary 5% J u n i o r High H O W L O N G HAS PROJECT READ BEEN IN EXISTENCE? we are completing our eleventh year •

.

.

The project to be described was, then, one school district's attempt to confront the problem of illiteracy through intervention, using an alternative instructional approach. The rationale for developing such a program derived from the belief that children learn differently as a result of varying environmental and physiological influences, and that children who have not been able to respond to the usual classroom approaches need an alternative technology if they are to realize their right to learn to read. The question investigated was: will target c h i l d r e n - - t h o s e who failed, or were predicted to fail, to learn to read by an analytic a p p r o a c h - - a c h i e v e significant academic progress if taught by an alternative system ? As will be described, the alternative instructional system (primarily synthetic) approached reading instruction by way of muhisensory techniques and materials, whereas the expected classroom approach (primarily analytic) emphasized whole word meanings. Popul~ion The study sample consisted of 665 randomly selected first-, second-, and third-grade students who scored at or below the 25th percentile on standardized reading and spelling tests, with IOns at or above 90 as measured by intelligence tests. Curriculum As noted, Project Read is an alternative to the traditional approach to teaching reading. Making the curriculum teachable for children with 191

BULLETIN OF THE ORTON SOCIETY

language learning problems was the primary thrust of the work of Orton and Gillingham. The procedures they suggested were specifically devised to meet the needs of dyslexic students. For purposes of the research described here, the basic components of Orton's and Gillingham's systematic phonics were analysed and the underlying principles were extended and applied to the teaching of reading comprehension and written expression. The basic premise for development was to make the concepts of language concrete and to teach them in a direct, systematic, multisenso~ way. The curriculum is sequentially ordered rather than presented in the random, global fashion, so typical in many classrooms. It is divided, as indicated above, into three strands which "separate the inseparable" and gradually integrate it into a composite whole as a final stage. The first strand, the decoding phase, is based on the Orton-Gillingham-Stillman phonology, system. The curriculum goes from the simplest p h o n e m e / grapheme unit to the most complex and from the most frequently used to the least frequently used. There are logical linkages between each step and each strand moves from the simplest phonemic/graphemic units to syllabication to affixes and roots. Use of context and dictionary skills are introduced at the appropriate time to complete the decoding strand. While the decoding strand is emphasized during the primary grades the other strands are also introduced. The second strand, comprehension, starts with word meaning and vocabulary development and progresses to forms of composition. The forms of compositions were analyzed and the basic skeletons of the forms became the curriculum content. The third strand, written expression, begins with letter formation, and proceeds to encoding, sentence structure, and the mechanics of writing, then to various forms of written composition. Table I displays the curriculum design for grades one through six, and Table II shows the.junior high courses. (It will be recalled, however, that results of the present investigation were based on data obtained from first, second, and third graders.) Guides have been developed which contain the basic curriculum. However, much of the materials and techniques are h a n d m a d e and some are purchased commerciallv. Linguistic reading materials are used such as SRA Linguistic Series, Merrill and others. Materials with noncontrolled vocabulary are also used: Ranger Rick, World, Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich Literature Series for elementary and junior high, and others. These aspects of the program were written into teacher texts which provide the basic curriculum and technolog7 for the program. As an 192

THERE IS A SKELETON IN EVERY CLOSET

Table I.

Project Read Curriculum for Grades 1-6

Grade Area

Decoding

Primary

Sound/ Symbol Blending Syllabication Accent ( )

Intermediate

Affixes

Comprehension

Written Expression

Word Meaning Voice Marks Literal Level (of story parts)

Letter Formation Finger Spelling Red Words Sentence Dictation

*Report Form **Story Form Procedural Newspaper

Utility Words Sentence Structure Punctuation Paragraph Writing

*Report Form ':"*StoD' Form Grade 4 - 1. Green Guide [ 1. ShortStory Grade 5 - 2. Curriculum (use So('. St. etc.) Grade 5 1 2. CreativeWriting Grade 6 [4/3[ LibraryReference Grade 6 3. Novel Report Writing

Table II. Project Read Curriculum for Grades 7-8 Levels

II

III

Reading

Written Expression

Decoding 1. History of the Language 2. Basic Phonics

Comprehension 1. Vocabulary Develop. 2. Voice Inflection 3. Phrasing

Decoding 1. Syllabication 2. Affixes

Comprehension 1. Report Form 2. Story Form 3. Procedural

Comprehension Decoding 1. Review of Syllabi- 1. Application of cation & Affixes Process in Literature

193

Written Expression 1. Handwriting 2. Spelling 3. Sentence Dic.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Written Expression Spelling Sentence Dic. Sentence Struc. Punctuation Paragraph Dev. Book Reports

Written Expression 1. Composition 2. Letter Writing 3. Book Reports 4. T e r m Papers

BULLETIN OF THE ORTON SOCIETY

example, outlining factual material is an essential skill. In order to teach that skill to the noninductive learner, it must be presented in a direct systematic order from subject to main idea of the paragraphs, to supporting details, inferences and drawing conclusions. This is not new curriculum; what is different is the order of presentation and application to new materials which must follow logically and concretelv (through multisensory techniques). Bv the time the application of this concept and related skills are taught, the student has acquired a tool for understandingwhat he has read, as well as a basis for written expression. The students are taught a system with which they can process the report form o f written data. This system replaces or compensates for their natural weaknesses with retrieval, organization, and generalization.

Teacher Training Demonstration teaching has been an integral and most effective m e t h o d o f training teachers in this aIternative approach. On-site involvemerit of teacher-trainers appears to be m o r e effective than working by way of teaching manuals alone. After the teachers have been trained, the Project Read staff demonstrate in the classrooms to aid the teacher in diagnosis and planning for the noninductive learners. New materials and techniques are introduced occasionally and the Project Read teacher also makes sure materials are readily available.

Evaluation As described, research focused on the initial three years o f program implementation. Goals were stated in the form of behavioral objectives with the overriding aim being the significant reduction in the proportion of students falling below the 25th and 50th percentile on standardized tests. The a m o u n t of reduction was ascertained through Chi square analysis. Several kinds of data were used in the analysis: 1) Comparison of scores of pre-tests administered by the school psychologist in the third week of September of 1970, with post-test scores obtained in 1971, 1972, and 1973. Attrition in the sample was considered in the tabulation of the yearly data through recalculation of the means. Tests used were: the Jastak Wide Range Achievement Test: Reading and Spelling Sections, Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests: Vocabulary and Comprehension Sections, 194

THERE IS A SKELETON IN EVERY CLOSET

and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Vocabulary, Comprehension and Spelling Sections. 2) Comparison of district-wide reading test scores, obtained before the introduction of Project Read, with those obtained two years into the project; 3) Responses to surveys given to teachers, principals, and parents in" May 1970 and 1975.

Results The results of the three-year study, shown in Table III, were as follows: 1. The sample showed significant gain in achievement at either a .001 to .05 level on a majoriw of the instruments. 2. There was a significant reduction in the n u m b e r of children requiring tutoring sevices as well as in the referral lists for tutoring. 3. The sample made greater yearly gains than a similar group of students had m a d e in previous tutoring programs. 4. T h e yearly teacher cost per student was greatly reduced c o m p a r e d to tutor cost per pupil in the tutoring program. 5. There was a reduction of students district-wide who fell below grade level after a two-year implementation of the project as measured by the district testing program. 6. Survey results from teachers, principals, and parents all showed a positive response to the program. Thus, results of the study showed that the children taught by the Project Read alternative instructional procedures showed significant academic gains during the three year period of the study.

Discussion and Summary Project Read is an alternative approach to teaching Language Arts in the mainstream to students with language learning problems. It is completing its eleventh year district-wide, grades one through eight, in the Bloomington Public Schools with replications t h r o u g h o u t the nation. The results suggest that many mild-to-moderate dyslexic students can learn to read in the classroom taught by their own classroom teacher and never need be labeled as requiring special education services. Psychologically this has tremendous impact on both student and teacher. The Project Read program has proven to be a successful mainstream m o d e l with a key component, demonstration teaching, as the means of teacher training. As classroom teachers learn how to teach reading systematically, they often state that they have b e c o m e m u c h better reading teachers for all groups 195

BULLETIN OF THE ORTON SOCIETY

Table III. Nineteen Behavioral Objectives in the Evaluation of Project Read No. Grade 1.

2.

1

1

Test WRATReading

WRATReading

Cut Off Rate of Point Year Reduction 1

25%

50%

WRATReading

25%

2

2

WRATReading

50%

4.

6.

7.

8.

2

2

2

2

WRATSpelling

WRATSpelling

GATESMACGINITIE Vocabula W GATESMACGINITIE Comprehension WRAT-

9.

3

Reading

10.

3

WRATSpelling

1

2 3

3.

5.

2 3

71% 83% 85% 32% 57% 70% 71% 75% 80%

25%

50%

25%

1

2 3

25%

1

2 3 25%

25%

•0 0 1

.001 •0 0 1 .001 .001 •0 0 1 .001

.001 .001

30% 42% 56%

.001

64% 39% 37%

•0 0 1

30% 14% 14%

.001

65% 72% 71%

•0 0 1

•0 0 1 .001

.001

.001

.001 .001

.001 .001

33% 53% 35%

.001

32% 71% 61%

.001

28% 16% 32% 196

Level of S!gnificance

.001

.001 •0 0 1

•0 0 1

.001 .001 •0 0 1

THERE IS' A SKELETON IN EVERY CLOSET

No. Grade

Test

Cut Off Rate of Point Year Reduction

Level of Significance

3

WRATReading

50%

11.

1 2 3

16% 33% 29%

.001 .001 .001

3

WRATSpelling

50%

12.

1 2 3

7% 6% 5%

.001 .001 NS at .05

3

ITBSComprehension

25%

13.

1 2 3

0% 7% 0%

NS at .05

3

ITBSVocabulary

25%

14.

1 2 3

10% 0% 0%

NS at .05

3

ITBSSpelling

25%

15.

1 2 3

0% 0% 0%

NS at .05

1

58%

.001

2

58%

.001

3

75%

.001

16.

17.

Reduction in n u m b e r of students eligible for tutoring in Gr. 1, 2, 3. Reduction of 50% below 25% on WRAT-Reading

Reduction of students enrolled in tutoring comparing n u m b e r s in 1969-70 (prestudy year) to 19721973.

53%

Comparison o f gains as measured on the WRAT-Reading test of students on tutoring 1969-70 (similar sample) with those in project for first year in both grades 2 and 3. 18.

Grade 2 × gain - raw scores (Tutoring 1.2 (1969-70) (Project 1.3 (1970-71) Grade 3 X gain - raw scores (Tutoring 1.1 (1969-70) (Project 1.4 (1970-71)

19.

Proiect teacher yearly cost per pupil must be at least 50% less than SLBP tutor cost per pupil. 67% Reduction 197

BULLETIN OF THE ORTON SOCIETY

a n d t h a t t h e y u n d e r s t a n d the b a s a l s y s t e m s m u c h b e t t e r . T h i s c l a s s r o o m p r o g r a m h a s drastically r e d u c e d t h e n u m b e r o f s t u d e n t s r e f e r r e d for special e d u c a t i o n (by clinical instruction) with the r e s u l t that m o r e clinical services can b e p r o v i d e d to s t u d e n t s w i t h severe l e a r n i n g disabilities. A n d , finally, c o m m u n i t y s u p p o r t c o n t i n u e s to r e m a i n very high. It is h o p e d that the P r o j e c t R e a d p r o c e d u r e s will c o n s t i t u t e t h e b o n e s , o r t h e f r a m e w o r k , for d e v e l o p i n g strong, vital, a n d d y n a m i c l e a r n e r s . I n this sense, t h e r e really is a s k e l t o n in e v e r y closet.

Resource List

Enfield, M. L. 1971 Specific language disability programs in Bloomington, Minnesota, public schools, Bulletin of The Orton Society 21:95-110. Enfield, M.L. 1976 An Alternative Classroom Approach to Meeting Special Learning Needs of Children with Reading Problems. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota. Gillingham, A., and Stillman, B.W. 1956. Remedial TrainingJhr Chddren With Specific Disability in Reading, Spellin,¢ and Penmanship, 5th edition; reissued, 1964. Cambridge, Mass. Gillingham, A., and Stillman, B. W. 1960. Remedial Trainingfor Children With Specific Disability in Readinb Spelling and Penmanship, 6th edition. Cambridge, Mass., Educators Publishing Service. Greene, V.E. & Enfield, M.L. 1976 [here Is a Skeleton In Every Closet, Reading Comprehension Teacher's Text. Language Circle Enterprises. Bloomington: Minnesota, Orton, S.T. 1925. "Word-Blindness" in School Children. Archives of Neurology and P~chiatry Vol. 14, November. Orton, Samuel T. 1937. Reading, Writing and Speech Problems in Children. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Orton,June Lyday 1973. Guide to Teaching Phonits. Educators Publishing Service, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.

198