Warren County Schools
Special Education Literacy Initiative
Building, Implementing, and Sustaining
INTRODUCTION
In 2005, Warren County Schools undertook a Special Education Literacy
Initiative to help “close the gaps” between our students with special needs and their nondisabled peers. As part of this initiative, SRA’S direct instruction programs Reading
Mastery, Corrective Reading, and Language for Learning/Thinking/Writing were
adopted. These programs offer research-validated program designs, proven instructional
practices, and results measured through scores of comparative studies. The purpose of
this document is to provide additional information about the selected programs and
outline procedures for monitoring progress and adapting instruction to help all students
reach proficiency.
The Reading Mastery Classic program was developed as a basal reading program.
For special education students in Warren County, this program is primarily being used for
students in P1 through P5. It is designed to advance students to the following grade
levels once completed:
Reading Mastery Classic I
Reading Mastery Classic II
1.4 grade level
2.4 grade level
The Corrective Reading Decoding program was designed for students in fourth
grade and above that are at least two years behind in reading. Within Warren County, for
special education students, this program is being used in the intermediate, middle, and
high school levels. After a student completes a Corrective Reading program, their
estimated reading level would be as follows:
Corrective Reading Decoding A
Corrective Reading Decoding B1
Corrective Reading Decoding B2
Corrective Reading Decoding C
2.0
3.0
4.0
5-7.0
Reading 60 words per minute
Reading 90 words per minute
Reading 130 words per minute
Reading 150 words per minute
In order to individualize instruction based on student needs and bridge the gap to
CATS (Commonwealth Accountability Testing System), additional literacy programs
being utilized within special education in Warren County include the following:












Earobics computer software to advance phonemic awareness skills
Open Book to Literacy computer software to demonstrate physical
characteristics for making sounds and build phonemic awareness and phonics
skills
Language for Learning/Thinking/Writing to support oral language development
Scott Foresman Sidewalks Intervention Kits to support regular class instruction
Reading Mastery Connections provides Reading First strategies (e.g., partner reads,
readers theatre, etc.) to support the Reading Mastery program and philosophy
Corrective Reading Connections emphasizes Reading First strategies (e.g., echo
reading, reading in phrases) to use along with Corrective Reading Decoding series
Horizons Fast Track C-D is a combination of Reading Mastery III and IV used
for intermediate students who can not be successful in the regular reading class
and need additional emphasis on decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension
REWARDS multisyllabic word study program
Read 180 for further instruction in vocabulary and comprehension
Achieve 3000 to provide high school level text at students’ instructional
reading level
Corrective Reading Comprehension to provide an emphasis on higher order
thinking and reasoning skills
Plugged-In to Reading to build higher level thinking and comprehension skills
through fiction and non-fiction passages
PROGRESS MONITORING
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are a series of
brief fluency measurements that accurately predict reading outcomes. This ongoing
assessment measure along with a brief word recognition test will be used across the
district to monitor student progress and improve instructional programming.
The DIBELS results will be analyzed periodically at each school by a literacy
team composed of some or all of the following: principal, special education teacher,
regular education teacher, elementary curriculum coordinator, school reading coach,
district teacher consultant, district special education literacy consultant, and parents.
This group will be assembled to discuss the results and determine the effectiveness of the
interventions being employed.
Goal setting is a complicated part of this process. Writing a goal that a special
education student is expected to make less than one year’s growth in the general
education curriculum is constructing an intervention that will leave a student farther
behind general education peers. Expecting a student to make more than one year’s
growth in general education curriculum is constructing an intervention that, if successful,
will bring the student’s skills nearer to those of his nondisabled peers. (Shinn, 2002). As
part of the literacy’s team’s analysis, the student’s growth will be considered in
comparison to his “absolute” learning target. This would be the on-grade level DIBELS
benchmarks listed in the attached chart. “Relative” learning targets will be
individualized. These expected rates of short-term growth will be based on mastery tests
from the programs, knowledge from the field of special education (see below), and the
literacy team’s professional judgment. A strong positive slope of progress will be
expected for all students.
If it is determined that appropriate progress is not being made for each individual
student, a plan of action will be developed. According to Fuchs & Fuchs (2006) and
Shinn, Walker, & Stoner (2002), customizing interventions may include any of the
following adaptations:





Making instruction more teacher-centered, systematic, and explicit
Conducting the instruction more frequently
Adding to the duration of the instruction
Creating smaller, more homogeneous student grouping
Increasing the knowledge of the instructors through professional development
activities
In addition, supportive programs such as those listed above may be utilized as part
of the action plan to further support the students demonstrating minimal to no growth.
However, staff must assure that any program being used must be implemented with
fidelity.
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION
Successful implementation of these direct instruction reading programs depends
on two main factors. First and foremost, students must reach mastery before advancing
to the next lesson. One of the primary philosophies of these programs is that students are
not given tasks without first being systematically and explicitly instructed on how to
complete the task. The concept of guessing is no longer encouraged or needed.
Therefore, checkouts and mastery tests are an integral part of the instruction and provide
valuable feedback to the teacher about changes that may need to be made in instruction.
The second factor that greatly influences student academic growth is one’s progress
through the program. We must recognize that the urgency in providing intensive reading
instruction (at a fast pace) as our students with special needs are significantly behind the
reading levels of their peers.
Research suggests that all primary students must receive at least 90 minutes of
reading instruction daily and 60 minutes for intermediate students. Struggling students
need even more time being directly instructed in reading if they are to “catch up.” The
literacy team should analyze each student’s schedule to determine if they are receiving
adequate reading instruction throughout a school day. This may include instruction
within the regular classroom setting with nondisabled peers in addition to specialized
instruction from special education personnel.
In addition, coaching and advanced training is essential to make these
instructional programs effective. According to district data collection, coaching and
training have been imperative in building our teachers’ skills. This has had a direct and
profound impact on student learning.
REFERENCES
Deno, S.L., Fuchs, L.S., Marston, D. Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based
measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities.
School Psychology Review, 30 , 507-524.
Engelmann, S., Bruner, E.C. (2003). Reading Mastery. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGrawHill.
Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., and Johnson, G. (1999). Corrective Reading. Columbus,
OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Engelmann, S., Osborn, J. (1999). Language for Learning. Columbus, OH:
SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and
how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative
evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School
Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Put Reading First: The research building blocks for
teaching children to read. Washington DC: Center for the Improvement of Early
Reading Achievement.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Shinn, M. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problemsolving model. Best Practices in School Psychology IV. Washington DC: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Shinn, M., Walker, H., Stoner, G. (2002). Interventions for academic and behavior
problems II: Preventative and remedial approaches. Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Torgeson, J. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to
prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator/American
Federation of Teachers, Spring/Summer, 1-8.
Mary Ellen Simmons
Director of Special Education
Vickie Embry
Teacher Consultant
Christy W. Bryce
Special Ed. Literacy Consultant