Repositioning Reading Disability as Variability: One District's Shift From "One Size Fits All" to Developmentally Responsive Instruction

• In Event: How Reading Researchers Can Collaborate Beyond the Academy to Promote the Common Good: The Case of the Curious Dyslexia Debate

Abstract

Improving student reading achievement has long been a focus for educators, researchers, and policy makers (see Pearson & Goodin, 2010; Scammacca et al., 2016 for reviews), yet only about a third of all fourth graders, and fewer eighth graders, read proficiently in the US (NAEP Data Explorer, 2016). This has led to the proliferation of “one size fits all” standards, instruction, and policies in many states and school districts (Author 4, 2017). In actuality, students vary quite considerably in their learning profiles and stages of reading development (Buly & Valencia; 2002; Cabell, Justice, Konold, &n McGinty, 2010; Author 1, 2010/11). This, however, is not typically acknowledged in policies aimed at improving reading outcomes for all students, particularly those with reading difficulties. These policies are more likely to adopt an authoritative discourse concerning the causes and remedies for reading difficulties despite a paucity of research to support these claims (Author 4, 2018).

Working with administrators and teachers in an urban school district in a northeastern state in the US, this study sought to challenge these beliefs and better understand the profiles of “proficient” (i.e., students reading on or above grade level) and “non-proficient” fourth and fifth-graders (n=332). Drawing from a total of five measures of orthographic knowledge, reading efficiency, and comprehension, the findings demonstrated significant differences (p < .001) across students whose reading achievement classified them as “proficient” or “non-proficient” readers. For instance, students not reading on grade level were typically a full stage of literacy development below their more proficient peers (e.g., the transitional stage of development versus the intermediate stage); they read on average 55.5 words slower and had more ocular fixations (28.9) and regressions (8) per 100 words – both artifacts of a student’s transition from “learning to read” to “reading to learn” (Chall, 1996; Author 1, 2014). This comparison between the two groups made it clear that “one size fits all” instruction would simply not meet all students’ needs. Further, it dispelled the myth that students who were reading below grade level were disabled or somehow deficient. The evidence suggested that within this sample, there were at least two distinct stages of literacy development independent of grade level, each with unique needs across multiple dimensions of literacy.

This research affirms that reading instruction must be multi-dimensional and informed by a deep understanding of the developmental milestones associated with learning to read and write proficiently; failure to understand the nature of literacy development could lead some educators to assume students were learning disabled, or provide instruction that was outside of students’ instructional zones. When reading researchers partner with educational leaders and teachers to systematically examine assessment data, they can better understand the instructional needs of the population(s) they serve, providing educators with instructional strategies that better meet the developmental needs of all learners within their schools.

Author

• Kristin M. Gehsmann, East Carolina University