If we are to truly understand the shift from "Balanced Literacy" or "Whole Language" to the "Science of Reading" we have to understand where it restarted. 

In the late 1990s, the National Reading Panel (NRP) was convened by the U.S. Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches to teaching children how to read. The goal was to provide a clear, evidence-based understanding of the best practices in reading instruction. The resulting report, published in 2000, has profoundly impacted reading education in the United States and beyond.

The Formation and Mission of the National Reading Panel

The National Reading Panel was established in 1997 as part of the federal Reading Excellence Act. The panel comprised 14 members, including leading scientists in reading research, representatives of colleges of education, reading teachers, educational administrators, and parents. Their mission was to assess the effectiveness of various approaches to reading instruction by reviewing existing research studies.

Methodology

The NRP's methodology was rigorous and systematic. The panel focused on studies that met high standards of scientific research, including randomized control trials and other well-designed experiments. The panel reviewed over 100,000 studies conducted since 1966 and 10,000 earlier studies. Their review process culminated in the identification of five critical areas of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension.

Key Findings

Phonemic Awareness: Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate individual sounds—phonemes—in spoken words. This skill is foundational for learning to read. The NRP found that teaching phonemic awareness significantly improves children’s reading skills, including word reading, reading comprehension, and spelling.

Phonics: Phonics instruction teaches the relationship between letters and sounds, enabling readers to decode words. The panel found that systematic and explicit phonics instruction is more effective than non-systematic or no phonics instruction. This approach is particularly beneficial for kindergarteners and first graders, as it helps them develop early reading skills that are crucial for later success.

Fluency: Reading fluency is the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and proper expression. The NRP highlighted the importance of guided oral reading practices in developing fluency. Students who read aloud with feedback and guidance from teachers, parents, or peers show significant improvements in reading fluency and overall reading achievement.

Vocabulary: A robust vocabulary is essential for reading comprehension. The NRP found that vocabulary should be taught both directly and indirectly. Direct vocabulary instruction involves teaching specific words, while indirect instruction involves exposing students to new words through reading and conversation. Both methods are necessary to help students understand and use new vocabulary in context.

Text Comprehension: Text comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading—it involves understanding and interpreting what is read. The NRP identified several strategies that improve comprehension, including:

• Monitoring comprehension: Teaching students to be aware of their understanding of the text.
• Using graphic organizers: Visual aids that help students organize and relate information from the text.
• Answering questions: Encouraging students to answer questions about the text to improve understanding.
• Generating questions: Teaching students to ask their own questions about the text.
• Summarizing: Helping students identify the main ideas and summarize the content.

Implications for Teaching

The findings of the National Reading Panel have significant implications for reading instruction. Here are some practical ways that educators can implement these findings in the classroom:

Balanced Literacy Programs: The NRP's findings support a balanced approach to literacy instruction, integrating various methods to address the five critical areas. Educators should provide systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics, while also promoting fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension through diverse activities and reading materials.

Professional Development: Teachers need ongoing professional development to stay informed about the best practices in reading instruction. Training programs should focus on the five key areas identified by the NRP and provide teachers with practical strategies for implementing these in their classrooms.

Early Intervention:  Early identification and intervention for struggling readers are crucial. By addressing reading difficulties early, educators can prevent long-term reading problems. The NRP's findings underscore the importance of early instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics to build a strong foundation for future reading success.

Parental Involvement: Parents play a vital role in their children's reading development. Schools should encourage parents to engage in their children's reading activities and provide them with strategies to support reading at home. This can include reading aloud together, discussing books, and providing access to a variety of reading materials.

Use of Technology: Technology can be a valuable tool in reading instruction. Interactive software, e-books, and online resources can provide additional practice in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Educators should integrate technology in a way that complements traditional teaching methods.

Criticisms and Controversies

While the National Reading Panel Report has been widely influential, it has also faced criticisms and controversies. Some educators and researchers argue that the panel's focus on certain methodologies, such as phonics, downplays other important aspects of reading instruction, such as whole language approaches and the role of motivation in reading. Additionally, some critics contend that the report's emphasis on quantitative research overlooks the insights that qualitative studies can provide.

Continuing Impact and Relevance

Despite these criticisms, the NRP Report remains a cornerstone of reading instruction policy and practice. Its influence is evident in the widespread adoption of balanced literacy programs and the emphasis on evidence-based teaching strategies. Furthermore, the report has spurred ongoing research into effective reading instruction, contributing to the evolving understanding of how children learn to read.

In recent years, the science of reading has continued to advance, building on the foundation laid by the NRP. New research has further explored the cognitive processes involved in reading, the impact of socio-economic factors on reading development, and the most effective ways to support diverse learners. Educators and policymakers continue to rely on the principles outlined in the NRP Report while adapting to new findings and changing educational contexts.

The National Reading Panel Report represents a pivotal moment in the field of reading education. Its comprehensive review of research provided a clear, evidence-based framework for effective reading instruction, emphasizing the importance of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. While it has faced criticisms, its impact on educational policy and practice is undeniable. As the science of reading continues to evolve, the NRP Report remains a valuable resource for educators, guiding the way toward more effective and inclusive reading instruction.

This is the beginning of a new series on the Science of Reading. The Science of Reading impacts how everyone including special education teachers teach reading to students regardless of their disability. The difference is the accommodations and modifications we make to help students access the material. 

Chat Soon-

References

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Shanahan, T. (2003). The National Reading Panel Report: Practical Advice for Teachers. Learning Point Associates.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Academy Press.

The NRP Report's enduring legacy underscores the importance of rigorous, evidence-based approaches to reading instruction, ensuring that all children have the opportunity to become proficient and enthusiastic readers.

Research Insights from Robert J. Marzano

Robert J. Marzano's work emphasizes the significance of feedback in improving student achievement. According to Marzano (2012), feedback should be timely, specific, and focused on the task rather than the student. His research underscores the importance of feedback that provides clear guidance on how students can close the gap between their current understanding and the desired learning goals.

Marzano also highlights the power of formative assessment, which includes ongoing checks for understanding throughout the learning process. These assessments provide valuable feedback that informs instructional decisions and helps teachers adjust their teaching strategies to meet students' needs effectively.

The Concept of Checking for Understanding

Checking for understanding involves strategies and techniques that teachers use to assess whether students comprehend the content being taught. It serves several critical purposes in the instructional process:

• Real-Time Feedback: By checking for understanding during lessons, teachers can immediately identify areas where students are struggling or misunderstanding concepts. This allows for timely interventions and adjustments to teaching strategies (Fisher & Frey, 2007).
• Adjusting Instruction: Effective checking for understanding informs instructional decisions. Teachers can tailor their explanations, examples, and activities based on students' responses to ensure clarity and promote deeper understanding (Black & Wiliam, 1998).
• Promoting Active Engagement: Engaging students in the process of checking for understanding encourages active participation and cognitive engagement. It shifts the focus from passive listening to active processing and application of knowledge (Heritage, 2008).
• Monitoring Progress: Regular checks for understanding provide teachers with ongoing data about students' learning progress. This continuous assessment helps track student growth over time and identifies areas where additional support may be needed (Chappuis, 2012).

Insights from John Hattie's Research

John Hattie's meta-analyses have identified feedback and formative assessment as high-impact teaching practices that significantly enhance student learning outcomes (Hattie, 2009). His research emphasizes several key findings:

• Effect Size: Feedback has a substantial effect size on student achievement, indicating its potent impact on learning progress (Hattie, 2009).
• Quality Matters: The quality of feedback matters more than the quantity. Specific, actionable feedback that addresses learning goals and criteria for success is most effective (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
• Timing: Timely feedback that is provided during the learning process is more beneficial than delayed feedback after assessments (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Hattie's research underscores the importance of teachers engaging in deliberate efforts to provide meaningful feedback and actively check for understanding to maximize student learning gains.

Current Research Insights

Recent studies continue to support the foundational principles advocated by Marzano and Hattie regarding feedback and checking for understanding:

• Technology Integration: Digital tools and platforms offer new opportunities for providing immediate feedback and assessing student understanding in real time (Gikandi, Morrow, & Davis, 2011).
• Cultural Responsiveness: Effective feedback takes into account cultural backgrounds and diverse learning needs, enhancing its relevance and impact on student motivation and engagement (Gay, 2010).
• Peer Feedback: Incorporating peer feedback processes into instructional practices can complement teacher-provided feedback, promoting collaborative learning and multiple perspectives (Topping, 2009).

These studies highlight the evolving nature of feedback and checking for understanding in contemporary educational contexts, emphasizing their adaptability and importance in diverse learning environments.

Practical Strategies for Implementation

To effectively integrate feedback and checking for understanding into teaching practice, educators can adopt several evidence-based strategies:

• Use Formative Assessments: Incorporate regular formative assessments, such as quizzes, exit tickets, and class discussions, to check for understanding during lessons.
• Provide Specific Feedback: Ensure that feedback is specific, constructive, and directly related to learning objectives and criteria for success. Use rubrics and models to guide students towards improvement.
• Encourage Self-Assessment: Promote self-assessment and reflection among students by encouraging them to evaluate their own understanding and performance against learning goals.
• Utilize Technology: Explore digital tools and platforms that facilitate immediate feedback and interactive assessments, allowing for personalized learning experiences.
• Differentiate Instruction: Tailor feedback and instructional strategies to meet the individual needs of students, providing additional support or challenges as needed.
• Promote Peer Feedback: Incorporate peer feedback activities that encourage students to provide constructive comments and suggestions to their peers, fostering collaborative learning and communication skills.
• Monitor Progress Continuously: Regularly monitor and analyze student progress data from assessments and feedback to inform instructional decisions and interventions.

Student feedback and checking for understanding are integral components of effective teaching practice, supported by research from Robert J. Marzano, John Hattie, and current studies in education. Feedback enhances learning outcomes by clarifying expectations, guiding improvement, motivating learners, and fostering self-regulation. Checking for understanding ensures that teachers can assess student comprehension in real time, adjust instruction accordingly, and promote active engagement and progress monitoring.

We play a crucial role in implementing these practices systematically and thoughtfully, using evidence-based strategies to maximize their impact on student learning. By prioritizing meaningful feedback and ongoing assessment of understanding, teachers can create supportive learning environments where all students can thrive academically and develop into self-directed learners.

References

• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
• Chappuis, J. (2012). Seven strategies of assessment for learning (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
• Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. ASCD.
• Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
• Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333-2351.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Heritage, M. (2008). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145.
• Marzano, R. J. (2012). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. ASCD.
• Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
• Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.

Do you happen to know how many standards students have to master to be able to solve basic multiplication and division equations?

I went looking and it’s more than 15!

I’m talking about place value, counting, and solving addition and subtraction facts fluently.

These skills are the foundations and need to be taught to mastery!

Do you need help getting your students to master place value or counting skills or addition and subtraction fluency?

If so, you're in luck! In this blog post, we will discuss how to teach these skills and ways to teach these concepts. 

The first way is drill and kill practice. This is a traditional approach that many teachers use. The second way is with place-value games. Games are a great way to engage students and help them learn in a fun way. Finally, the third way is to give students time to demonstrate mastery in a variety of different ways. 

Why Worry about it??

First–if you don't, who will!! Passing the buck doesn’t help anyone and when they get to 3rd grade your students will drown and the teacher who has them will give up.

Thank you for being part of my soap box.

Mastering multiplication and division requires a strong foundation in several basic mathematical skills, notably place value, counting, and addition & subtraction. Each of these skills plays a crucial role in understanding and performing multiplication and division effectively.

Place Value

Place value is fundamental in mathematics as it helps in understanding the significance of digits in a number based on their position. 

This is the last piece of a four-part blog series on How to Complete a Comprehensive Special Education Evaluation. 

Part One Covered -- Why We Need a Comprehensive Evaluation 

Part Two Covered -- Planning a Comprehensive Evaluation

Part Three Cover -- Everything about Parent Input

The last couple of pieces mean making sure you have all the data you need and of course consent.

If you are assessing a Second Language Learner (multi-lingual), ensure those administering assessments are appropriate and you are following your state and district guidelines to make sure the evaluation is needed. This means you are suspecting a disability but it could be a difference and not a disability. Otherwise, you may find you have data you can’t use which may affect the reliability and validity of assessment results. 

IDEA contains specific provisions related to the assessment of students who speak a second language. These provisions ensure that evaluations are fair and non-discriminatory. Key sections include:

• 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3) - Evaluation Procedures:
• This section mandates that assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child must be selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis. It also specifies that these materials should be provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.
• 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c) - Evaluation Procedures:
• This regulation elaborates on the requirements for evaluations. It states that:
• Assessments and other evaluation materials must not be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(1)(i)).
• They must be provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication, and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to provide or administer (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(1)(ii)).
• The child must be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4)).
• Assessments must be technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(7)).
• 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(6)(B) - State Eligibility:
• This section requires states to ensure that children with disabilities are assessed using materials and procedures that are not racially or culturally discriminatory and that are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.

These provisions collectively ensure that evaluations of students who speak a second language are conducted fairly and yield accurate, useful information about the student's abilities and needs. They emphasize the importance of using appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive assessment methods. This is what IDEA states what WE HAVE to do but check your state regulations as they will be way more specific about what YOU HAVE to do.

What are my timelines?

Assign someone to set timelines when the individual assessment reports are due to ensure parents have a copy the week before the meeting to determine eligibility and to evaluation timelines will be met. 

Why? Well outside of everything else you have to do, those timelines are important. If a student is already behind, why would you want to make it worse by messing up your dates? Plus, from an advocacy standpoint, it will get you in trouble if they are missed. 

IDEA’s specific provisions that outline the timelines for conducting assessments and evaluations of students who may have disabilities. These timelines are designed to ensure that evaluations are conducted in a timely manner so that appropriate services can be provided without unnecessary delays. The relevant sections of IDEA include:

• 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(C) - Initial Evaluations:
• This section states that the initial evaluation must be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation, or within the timeframe established by the state if the state has established its own timeline.
• 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(c) - Initial Evaluations:
• This regulation further specifies the timeline for initial evaluations. It mandates that the initial evaluation must be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation
  unless the state has established a different timeframe. The evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs.
• 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B) - Reevaluations:
• Reevaluations must be conducted if the public agency determines that the educational or related services needs of the child, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warrant a reevaluation, or if the child's parents or teacher requests a reevaluation. However, a reevaluation may not occur more than once a year unless the parent and the public agency agree otherwise, and must occur at least once every three years unless the parent and the public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.
• 34 C.F.R. § 300.303 - Reevaluations:
• This regulation provides further detail on reevaluation timelines, specifying that reevaluations must occur at least once every three years unless the parent and public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. Reevaluations may also occur more frequently if conditions warrant or if requested by the child's parent or teacher, but not more than once a year unless agreed upon by the parent and the public agency.

These provisions ensure that evaluations and reevaluations are conducted within specific timeframes to facilitate timely identification and provision of appropriate services for students with disabilities.

Once all the assessments are completed, send a draft home. No, it's not in IDEA but if parents are equal partners at the table sending home the report is treating them as such. And, no, it’s not predetermination. It’s making sure everyone has the same information. 

I also know that teams, builds, and district departments all have their own viewpoints and directions where this notion is concerned. 

Predetermination will get you and your team in trouble. Big trouble and it’s a very slippery slope. 

Predetermination in the context of IDEA refers to situations where decisions about a student's eligibility for special education services or the specifics of their Individualized Education Program (IEP) are made by the school district without appropriate input from the parents or before the IEP meeting occurs. Predetermination violates the collaborative intent of IDEA and can lead to a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

While the term "predetermination" itself is not explicitly mentioned in IDEA, the regulations and case law provide guidance on what constitutes predetermination and why it is prohibited. Courts have consistently ruled that predetermination occurs when school personnel make unilateral decisions about a child's educational program without meaningful parental involvement. Some key cases include:

• Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education (6th Cir. 2004): The court held that the school district violated IDEA by predetermining the child's placement and failing to consider the parents' input during the IEP process.
• W.G. v. Board of Trustees of Target Range School District (9th Cir. 1992): The court found that the school district violated IDEA by predetermining the child’s placement and not allowing the parents to meaningfully participate in the IEP process.

These provisions and cases collectively underscore the importance of parental involvement and prohibit predetermination by ensuring that all decisions about a child's special education program are made collaboratively, with meaningful input from the parents.

IEP Team Evaluation Meeting and Eligibility Determination

Before the meeting, identify the team meeting who will be the meeting facilitator. The facilitator should prepare for and coordinate the IEP team evaluation meeting to ensure all IEP team participants, including the parent, collectively participate in reviewing, analyzing, and interpreting assessment information and make required evaluation decisions: special education eligibility or continuing eligibility and identifying the educational needs of the student.

The IEP team reviews the developmentally and educationally relevant questions (from the evaluation plan) in relation to findings from existing and new assessments and other information gathered in prior steps.

Consider all information and make evaluation decisions:

• For students who are culturally or linguistically diverse, how are the assessment results indicative of a disability versus a difference?
• Do any exclusionary factors apply?
• Does the student meet or continue to meet disability category criteria (refer to disability category forms)?
• What are the effects of disability (e.g., how does the student’s disability affect access, engagement, and progress in age or grade-level general education curriculum, instruction, environments, or activities; under what conditions are these effects intensified or lessened)?
• What are the student’s disability-related needs, whether or not commonly linked to the student’s identified category(ies) of disability (e.g., areas in which the student needs to develop or improve skills that address effects of the student’s disability so the student can access, engage and make progress in general education)?
• Does the student need or continue to need specially designed instruction to address disability-related needs? Or can the student’s educational needs be addressed without specially designed instruction?

If the student is eligible for special education, ensure there is enough information to include in the evaluation report to support writing an IEP based on the eligibility decision and information about the student’s educational needs that can be used to develop or review and revise the student’s IEP. Evaluation information should help the team develop an IEP that supports access, engagement and progress to meet age and grade-level general education standards and expectations.

If the student is not, or is no longer, eligible for special education, ensure there is enough information to support the IEP team eligibility decision and to make recommendations about student needs that can be addressed with general education supports to help the student access, engage, and make progress in age or grade-level general education. The team may consider if the student is eligible for protection under section 504 because of a “physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities.” Remember Special Education and Section 504 are two different things and can’t be completed at a Special Education meeting. Following your building Section 504 procedures. 

Wrapping it all up

Document the IEP team evaluation decisions about eligibility and educational need on the evaluation report, including all required forms. Communicate and clarify next steps and any questions with the IEP team, including the parent (e.g., timelines for IEP development, plans to address student needs if student is not or no longer eligible for special education under IDEA).

If the student is eligible or continues to be eligible for special education: rewrite the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) based on the new data.

If the student is found not, or no longer eligible for special education, make general education recommendations as appropriate, such as supports other than special education services, within the LEA’s RTI/MTSS.

This by all means is not everything you need to know or even remember about making sure you are completing comprehensive special education evaluations–it was meant to provide a guide to help you remember what needs to be done and any sticky places that you need to be aware of. 

Those sticky places–those are things I look for as an advocate myself. You have a chance to take IEP compliance training either from your State or from an advocate like Catherine Whitcher, I would recommend it. I was surprised about what I didn’t know as a special education teacher or changes that didn’t get communicated such as Case Law or shifts in how you complete ML assessments.

If you have questions about anything from this series please reach out to me.

Chat soon-

PS: Introducing "A Guide to Special Education for Parents and Teachers," a comprehensive resource available in my Teachers Pay Teachers store. This guide provides valuable insights and practical strategies for navigating the special education process. Designed for both parents and educators, it covers essential topics such as the Individualized Education Program (IEP), legal rights, assessment procedures, and effective communication techniques. With clear explanations and actionable advice, this guide empowers stakeholders to collaborate effectively, ensuring that students with special needs receive the support and services they deserve. Ideal for those seeking to enhance their understanding and advocacy in the realm of special education.