Special Needs

Foertsch (1998) describes special needs as an important factor that influences how children learn to read:

"There are many different kinds of programs for students with special needs. For some students, an Individual Education Program (IEP) might result in participation in a Title I program. For others, their needs may dictate a Special Education program, which is warranted when there are handicapping conditions; the most common conditions are Learning Disabled (LD) or Reading Disabled (RD). Spear-Swerling and Sternberg (1996) contend that there is currently no educational basis for differentiating school-labeled children with Reading Disability (RD) from other kinds of poor readers.

Historically, educational definitions of reading disability contain three central elements: (1) the notion that children with RD are achieving well below their true potential for learning; (2) the assumption that RD is due to an intrinsic deficit (sometimes described in psychological terms as a 'disorder in processing' but assumed to have a biological cause); and (3) exclusionary criteria, which rule out other disorders (e.g., mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or sensory impairment) and the environment as the primary causes of RD (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996). There are research findings to support almost any position one wishes to take. However, there is agreement that mildly handicapped special-education students receive significantly less reading instruction than remedial students (Haynes & Jenkins, 1986; Vanecko, Ames, & Archambault, 1980), and there is evidence that both groups actually receive less reading instruction than better readers (Allington & Walmsley, 1995).

Do struggling readers (particularly those with disabilities) need qualitatively different instruction? Some educators argue that these students need frequent, intensive, explicit, and individual support and direction from teachers (Rhodes & Dudley-Marling, 1996), but within meaningful experiences that are similar to those offered to other students in the classroom. Others argue for specific types of instruction that focus upon the specific needs of such readers as different from other students in the classroom, usually within the range of phonological skills that are taught in a meaningful context (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996). Still others think that to focus on decoding is the most appropriate type of instruction for struggling readers (Carnine & Grossen, 1993; Grossen & Carnine, 1990; Juel, 1994).

While there is no one best method that can be identified, nor is there consensus on one definition of a struggling reader, teachers must be aware of a child's background (social, economic, and cultural) and individual needs (e.g., learning style). The following factors are critical to providing supportive environments for all readers (Foertsch, 1997), but particularly struggling readers:

• Access and opportunity to read a wide variety of materials.
• Motivation to want to read and to want to engage in reading.
• Providing time to read in real texts.
• Supportive instruction in the 'how-tos' of reading.
• Self-esteem and confidence, which play integral roles in successful reading development.
• High expectations for success in supported environments.

A review of the programs designed for children who struggle with learning to read reflects these factors. Reading Recovery (Clay, 1972; Deford, Lyons, & Pinnell, 1991) is a program that focuses on short-term (usually less than one year), intensive, one-to-one intervention with children who struggle very early on (usually in first grade) and which occurs in addition to regular classroom experiences. Roller (1996) suggests a workshop model where children choose from a wide variety of reading materials, participate in literature discussion groups and carry out personal writing projects in the classroom paired with one-to-one and small-group instruction during other times of the day. While the organizational structures of these programs differ, and they encompass many different types of instructional approaches, all of these designs focus upon meaningful language experiences." (pp. 15-16)

References