A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

I.    Literacy Development During the Preschool Years

Workshop 2
Identification of Preschool Children with Special Language and Literacy Needs

Speakers:
L. Bill Searcy, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University--Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois

Carolyn A. Romano, Project Director, Parents Engaged in Education Reform (PEER) Project, Federation for Children with Special Needs, Boston, Massachusetts

Suzanne Ripley, Director, National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities, Academy of Education Development, Washington, D.C.

Cherie Takemoto, Executive Director, Parent Educational Advocacy Training Center, Fairfax, Virginia

Moderator:
Judith E. Heumann, Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), U.S. Department of Education

Abstract:

Research demonstrates the negative effects of deferring identification of and intervention for children who need additional support for early language and literacy development. They include children who have a hearing impairment, are diagnosed as having specific early language impairment, are offspring of parents with histories of reading difficulties, or lack age-appropriate skills in literacy-related cognitive–linguistic processing. Increasing evidence reveals that a lack of support for acquiring literacy skills is associated with known risk groups, and certain individual risk factors can be identified prior to kindergarten.

This workshop will focus on the research and best practices regarding the identification of children at risk for reading difficulties during infancy, the early preschool years, and at school entry. Areas of emphasis include: the whole child, authentic assessments, and using multiple sources of information to identify at risk children. In addition, several of OSERS’ technical assistance providers will lead a discussion with workshop participants in order to identify supports and resources needed to assist in the early identification of children at risk for early language and literacy difficulties.

Notes
Bill Searcy, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University:

• Identifying needs: Caveat. Let us not forget the developmental nature of language-learning and literacy. Acknowledge the normalcy of being a so-called ?late bloomer.?
• We should not be laissez-faire in our attitude; but neither should we adhere too vehemently to arbitrary ?milestones? in our assessment of a child being on track, or normal.
• There is a great need to identify the environment that puts children at risk; and this includes the home, the classroom, and the school!
• Classroom practices are often out-of-touch with known facts about human development.
• ?A cure for reading failure is good first teaching!?
• There is a need to question many of our assumptions regarding home literacy:
  • ?All poor/minority/LEP households are literacy impoverished.?
  • ?The natural direction of literacy learning is always from parent to child.?
• ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF APPROACHING LITERACY:
  1. Focus on Parent-Child Interaction
     • Do the parents really listen to their children?
     • Are parents attempting to build their own literacy?
     • Do parents model literacy at home?
     • Is the family?s L1 recognized and appreciated?
     • Can parents easily interact with the school and classroom?
     • Do parents participate in literacy programs?
  2. Focus on Child?s Communication Skills
     • Communication skills develop in relation to social, cognitive, and motor skills.
     • Disorders at pre-school age augurs difficulties later on.
     • We must assess children using multiple methods, NOT just standardized testing. Examples include: natural observation, discussion with caregivers, and direct professional assessment.
  3. Focus on the Child?s Literacy-Related Knowledge and Skills
     • It is appropriate to look at this at school-entrance age.
     • Assess their experience with literacy: Can they identify the front of a book, the title page, reading left to right, understanding that the text conveys the meaning, etc.
     • Carefully identify where the child ?is,? acknowledging that they may have taken a circuitous path to get there, or may be late bloomers.
• Go beyond just labeling kids with quick tests; DO something to aide them as well.
• [Mr. Searcy highlighted the inefficacy of labeling with an article telling the story of a teacher who gave an I.Q. test to adults and then proceeded to inform every one, with a sealed note, that their I.Q. result was the lowest in the class. The teacher then proceeded to gauge everyone?s reaction and to form ability groups. The result was that student demonstrated discomfort, lying, evasion, etc. The teacher eventually disclosed his ?experiment? to the students, who reacted with anger, disbelief, and/or relief. The moral was clear: labeling is counterproductive and adversely affects students.]

GROUP BREAK-OUT SESSION and COMMENTS MADE ADDRESSING CHALLENGES WITH FACILITATING LITERACY:

Group 1 (note-taker?s group):

• ?Let?s not use standardized tests to pigeon-hole; use multiple measures and holistic assessment.?
• ?Multiple assessments are a good idea, but the reality is the process is slow, complex, and necessitates an extreme increase in funding and resources. We need to provide research and guidance to policy makers.?
• Let?s direct more Title I money to K-3 only, as opposed to higher grades. Even better, we should put more resources into publicly funded pre-schools.?
• ?Why has the Congress and the government stagnated in the area of early intervention legislation??
• ?There is a lack of LEP assessment instruments for pre-school kids.?
• ?We need to have alternatives to ?special education? available to kids.?
• ?The problem is that there is money available for kids with labels (grants, etc.) therefore it?s convenient to assign these negative labels for the funding!?
• ?Early education programs, such as Head Start, need to balance the use of experiential/developmental curricula with explicit and rigorous literacy instruction: The two are NOT mutually exclusive.?
• ?We should have more literacy prompts (signs, games, etc.) in public places such as metro stations, lobbies, etc.?

Group 2:

• ?It all comes down to a local issue. Information resources should be available locally.?
• ?There needs to be a better connection between local level leaders from different sectors: health, education, social work, academia, etc.?
• ?Have fast food places participate in literacy campaigns, distributing information.?

Group 3:

• ?Utilize the media to spread PSA?s about literacy.?
• ?Have culturally and linguistically appropriate assessment tools.?
• ?Consolidate existing resources to disseminate information / avoid duplication.?