Return to the previous page of this article

9. Staying within the scope of learning
It is important that any independent and supplemental reading and written language materials match the instructional scope and sequence skills that have been taught.

A student should not be given text to read that contains decoding concepts that have not yet taught.  A student should not be given spelling words that do not match phonic concepts that have not yet taught. All teachers working with the student must align their materials so that the student is able to read and understand the material with success. If this requirement cannot be accommodated, any materials required for instruction outside of the students instructional scope and sequence must be read to him/her.

I have witnessed as common practice a student receiving appropriate instruction from a specialist only to return to the classroom and be assigned the same reading as the other students in the class. This defeats the specialists’ work and is discouraging to the student, because he/she is faced with unfamiliar material. This puts the student on a path to failure.

10. Allowing enough time
The student must be given adequate instructional time to accomplish all the components required. An instructor can follow all of the appropriate steps, but if ample time to comprehend or practice is not provided, the students will still falter. It is important to remember that explicit language learners need many reinforcements to automatically learn language concepts. It may take a child of average abilities one to four exposures to learn a concept. A student with a reading disability requires several times the amount of exposure to learn the same concept.  Time on task is just as important as the task itself. Most general language arts programs allow about one to one-and-a-half hours for all the language arts requirements (reading, spelling, handwriting, and written expression). However, it has been my experience that—even when students with reading difficulties are receiving appropriate methodology—they are often shortchanged in the amount of instructional time.

In speaking to teachers from urban, rural, and suburban settings across the United States, I have learned that there is a nearly universal situation with regard to instructional plans developed for students with reading disabilities. These plans generally have an instructional time allotment of thirty minutes a day, three to five times a week. This is inadequate to meet the learning needs of any reader, let alone a student with reading disabilities. We must advocate for two factors—correct methodology and materials, and correct time on task. Only when both are present will these students actually reach their reading potential.

Students without reading disabilities who are progressing at grade level often receive more instructional time in total language arts requirements (reading, spelling, handwriting, and written expression). than students who are lagging behind and receiving support outside the classroom. We must advocate that students who require specialized instruction—as indicated by the guidelines and recommendations from the NICHHD studies on reading disabilities—receive equal time in instruction as students without reading disabilities. The minimal daily instruction time should be one hour, five days a week. A more appropriate instructional time would be one-and-a-half to two hours of total language arts time, matching the average allotted time for language arts in general education.

In general education, we teach reading over the span of several years. This same principle should apply to students in multi-sensory phonetic methodology. Listed below is a recommended lesson plan with time allotments. When this minimum plan is followed, students with reading disabilities are able to learn the skills they need to reach their greatest level of literacy. 

The “Daily Lesson” table below lists exercises that follow the philosophy of creating highly successful readers. This plan was developed using a realistic timeframe; if this plan is begun before children fail and explicit and direct instruction is used, our rate of highly successful readers will increase.

When students with reading disabilities are identified early—before they fail—and are provided with teaching approaches and materials that meet all of the above criteria, they experience reading success and positive self-esteem. If students are failing to learn to read, we must adjust our teaching to the way they learn. Early identification and early and continued intervention are the keys to preventing reading failure.

About the Author
Sheila Clark-Edmands, M.S.Ed,, is an AOGPE Fellow and author of S.P.I.R.E.®, Specialized Program Individualizing Reading Excellence, published by Educators Publishing Service (EPS). For questions about this article or information on the S.P.I.R.E. program, please contact Tracy St. Pierre at tracys@epsbooks.com.

Download article [4 pages, 100kb Adobe PDF]

Adams, M. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1990.

Ball, E. W., and B. A. Blachman. “Does Phoneme Awareness Training in Kindergarten Make a Difference in Early Word Recognition and Developmental Spelling?” Reading Research Quarterly 1991, 26(1): 49-66.

Blachman, B. “Early Literacy Acquisition: The Role of Phonological Awareness.” Language Learning Disabilities in School Age Children and Adolescents: Some Principles and Applications. Ed. G. Wallach and K. Butler. New York: Macmillan, 1994

Chall, J. S., and H. M. Popp. Teaching and Assessing Phonics: Why, What, When, How. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service, Inc., 1997.

Chhabra, A., and R. Lyon. The Current State of Science and the Future of Specific Reading Disability. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 1996.

Collins, J. “How Johnny Should Read: What Makes a Good School.” Time

Foorman, B., et al. (1997) “Early Interventions for Children with Reading Problems: Study Designs and Preliminary Findings.” Learning Disabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 63-71.

Foorman, B., D. Francis,  and D. Liberman. “How Letter-sound Instruction Mediates Progress in First-grade Reading and Spelling.” Journal of Educational Psychology 1991, 83(4): 456–469.

Lovett, M., et al. “Treating Core Deficits of Developmental Dyslexia: Evidence of Transfer of Learning after Phonologically and Strategy-based Reading Training Programs. Developmental Psychology 1994,  30(6): 805–822.

Lyon, G. R. Research Initiatives in Learning Disabilities: Contributions from Scientists Supported by the NICHD. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 1995.

Lyon, G. R. Overview of Reading and Literacy Initiatives. Statement to Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Washington, D.C., 1998.

McElgunn, B. “Critical Discoveries in Learning Disabilities: a Summary of Findings by NIH Research Programs in Learning Disabilities.” 1996 Conference Report. LDA Newsbriefs 1996, 31(4): 3.

National Center for Education Statistics. The Nation’s Report Card. Washington, D.C.: NCES, 2003.

Stanovich, K. “Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy.” Reading Research, Quarterly 1986, 21: 360-397.

Wagner, R. K., and J. Torgensen. “The Nature of Phonological Processing and its Causal Role in the Acquisition of Reading Skills.” Psychological Bulletin 1987, 101: 192–21

Yopp, H. K. “The Validity and Reliability of Phonemic Awareness Tests.” Reading Research Quarterly 1998, 23(2): 159–176.