The Beacon Fall 2018

Fall 2018 The Beacon

The Windward School

The

Beacon The Windward School Newsletter for Educators and Parents Fall 2018

1

Socio-emotional and Cognitive Resilience in Children with Reading Disabilities

By Stephanie L. Haft, Chelsea A. Myers, and Fumiko Hoeft This article was originally published in Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 10, August 2016.

In ThIS ISSue

Socio-emotional and Cognitive Resilience in Children with Reading Disabilities

By Stephanie L. Haft, Chelsea A. Myers, and Fumiko Hoeft Page 1

head Lines Response to Intervention: Let’s Get It Right

By Dr. John J. Russell Page 10

Do We need a new Definition of Dyslexia?

By Emerson Dickman, J.D. Page 14

Alumni Profile noah Mansoor ’15

By Stephanie Huie Page 18

Dr. Laurie Cutting on educational neuroscience

By Danielle Scorrano Page 20

Connecting Curriculum with experience A Look at Windward Field Trips

By Danielle Scorrano Page 22

I

n recent times, research on resilience in children facing adversities has proliferated.

In this review, the authors characterize resilience in children with reading disorders (RD). To organize our discussion and categorize the specific outcomes such children demonstrate, we adopt the terms cognitive resilience and socio-emotional resilience. By paralleling other resilience research, we seek to uncover protective factors in the hopes that they can be targeted in education and interventions to improve cognitive functioning, socio-emotional wellbeing, and academic success of children with RD. We conclude by considering current limitations and addressing the need for future resilience research in this specific population of children.

Introduction Approximately 7% of children have specific difficulties in learning to read (developmental dyslexia, decoding-based reading disability or reading disorder; from here on RD; COMMUNITY LECTURE 2018 [1,2]). RD is a polygenic disorder characterized by deficits in rapid automatized naming (RAN; [3,4] verbal short-term memory [5,6], and most notably phonological awareness (PA; [7-9]).

These deficits not only lead to poor decoding Thursday, November 1, 2018 [10], but most often result in downstream effects 7:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. on spelling [11,12], vocabulary [13], and reading Westchester Middle School comprehension [14,15]. As a result, students may experience academic failure and are 2.5 times RSVP online at thewindwardschool.org/lecture more likely to drop out of high school [16].

See page 9 for complete details.

With increased risk for and experiences of failure in school, as well as greater likelihood of peer rejection [17], students with RD are susceptible to negative socio-emotional consequences [18], which could in turn lead to further reduction in academic performance [19,20] (Figure 1).

Despite these academic risks and negative cognitive and socio-emotional consequences, many individuals with RD demonstrate positive trajectories and grow up to lead successful lives. This begs the question: which factors encourage resilience and ultimately success in some individuals with RD?

Jon Rosenshine and Danielle Scorrano

Present Review Traditionally, resilience has been defined as the trajectory from the presence of significant risk or adversity to achievement of positive adaptation or outcomes [21]. The present review applies the concept of resilience to children with or at-risk for developing RD, focusing primarily on protective factors that positively modify or alter the effects of

2

The Beacon Fall 2018

etiological Risk Factors

Strengths in expressive language in children at familial risk for dyslexia See Table 1a who never develop the disorder is observed as young as 2 years old [28].

Some authors have suggested that Socio-emotional Less Severe Cognitive Protective Reading Protective the mechanism of resilience for these Factors Disability Factors children is the use of language skills and semantic context to circumvent phonological decoding deficits— See Table 2 See Table 1b Good Functional known as semantic bootstrapping [29].

Outcome Executive function (EF) may also Positive be another mechanism through Psychological Adjustment which children display cognitive resilience. For example, a recent study Typical/Good Reading showed that poor EF in preschool Comprehension is a predictor of later RD, and that strengths in EF had more significant Figure 1. Good functional outcome for those with RD positive effects ‘when a child showed when strong protective factors (thicker, solid green lines) interplay with etiological risk factors to mediate outcome. poor performance on the core The thinner green line indicates how good functional outcome predictors of dyslexia, suggesting good [EF] provides some compensation may improve RD severity by enhanced reading experience, for the impact of low ‘readiness’ for for example, though more empirical research is needed in learning to read [30].’ Another study this area. Blue solid lines indicate trajectories of RD. found that high levels of task-focused behavior—often referred to as internal goal-driven, top-down or endogenous attention—is what distinguished children with familial Cognitive Resilience risk of RD who never developed it from those at-risk who were While there are numerous studies that define resilience, there later diagnosed [31]—empirical research should further explore the are currently few studies that operationalize cognitive resilience. process in which these types of attention impact reading outcome.

A PubMed search of cognitive resilience, for example, shows that Finally, strengths in some types of early fine motor skills may also most of the dozen peer-reviewed studies utilizing the term do so in be important for later reading outcome [32]. While the mechanism reference to aging and related disorders, defining it as preserved is unknown, it is intriguing that fine motor skill tasks such as cognitive function despite evident neuropathology (such as lesions hand-writing have been shown to rely on brain regions also relevant and neurofibrillary tangles) [23] or significant genetic risk (from to reading in beginning readers [33]. This relationship may be presence of apolipoprotein E s4 allele) [24]. Within this framework, epiphenomenal, and thus the primary factor contributing to individuals who display cognitive resilience may be considered as reading outcome should be investigated. those with neurobiological risk factors for RD (such as presence Mechanisms of cognitive resilience may also be inferred from of risk genes for RD, a family history of RD, or phonological studies of children who develop RD but who do not show the typical processing deficits; see also Vandermosten Hoeft Norton (2016) and downstream effects such as weakness in reading comprehension Ozernov-Palchik et al. (2016) in current issue) who never develop, or arising from phonological and decoding deficits, otherwise known only develop mild deficits of the core phenotype, such as difficulties as resilient readers [34] (Table lb). Resilient readers may rely more in decoding words. We may also refer to those with RD who display on contextual information to be able to read successfully [35]—this core characteristic deficits of RD but who show milder downstream is in line with Stanovich’s [36] ‘Interactive compensatory model of effects such as reading comprehension deficits as displaying cognitive dyslexia’. One study of ‘compensated’ dyslexic university students— resilience. In this section, we will discuss the protective factors that where ‘compensated’ is defined as those achieving higher than may enable cognitive resilience. expected literacy in light of phonological deficits—showed that Studies examining characteristics of at-risk pre-readers who students’ strengths in morphological awareness were associated with never develop later reading problems provide important clues for improved reading outcome [37]. Other studies have similarly found mechanisms of cognitive resilience in children with RD (Table la). that children with RD can rely on morphological structure to decode A study by Gallagher et al. [25] showed that at-risk pre-readers words faster, despite decoding difficulties [38,39]. Vocabulary skills who were unimpaired on reading measures at school-age performed have also been implicated as a compensatory mechanism for college higher than their at-risk impaired counterparts on early measures students with RD [40], and have been shown to mediate between of oral language tests—later studies showed similar results [26,27]. risks and outcomes of children with RD. For details on etiological risk factors for RD and their mechanisms, readers are referred to Vandermosten Hoeft and Norton (2016) and OzernovPalchik et al. (2016) in the current issue. The focus on resilience and protective factors is timely as the field shifts toward a multifactorial theory of RD, that both risk and protective factors interacting at the genetic, neural, cognitive, and environmental levels contribute to the overall functional outcome of RD [22]. To provide a non-exhaustive qualitative review of the literature relevant to cognitive resilience and socio-emotional resilience of RD, operationalized in their respective sections, we used search terms relevant to resilience in RD and dyslexia (e.g. ‘protective,’ ‘compensation,’ ‘resilience,’ ‘unimpaired,’ ‘support,’ ‘adjustment,’ ‘environment,’ ‘strength’) with a focus on recent articles involving children and adolescents.

Fall 2018 The Beacon

impaired verbal working memory Table 1a and oral reading fluency in adolescents Recent longitudinal studies (2009-2016) on potential protective factors contributing to with RD [41]. More superior verbal cognitive resilience in pre-readers at-risk for RD. reasoning skills in general have been Study Population Relevant Findings Protective Factor(s) shown to explain higher reading, Studies with pre-readers at-risk for RD spelling, morphological, and syntactic [26] Family history of RD At-risk RD children in kindergarten with good reading outcome 3 Oral language skills skills in students with RD [42]. As is the years later showed lower performance on spelling and reading accuracy than typical readers, but had better oral language skills (expressive case in at-risk pre-readers, this implies vocabulary) than at-risk RD children with poor reading outcome. that resilient readers may use contextual [27] Family history of RD Oral language measures (articulation, word repetition, and Oral language skills Language difficulties expressive vocabulary) in preschool predicted phoneme awareness cues or semantic bootstrapping in order and grapheme-phoneme knowledge at school entry, which predicted word-level literacy skills after school entry. to process written text. EF may also [28] Family history of RD At-risk RD children with no later RD outperformed at-risk RD Oral language skills play an important role for compensated children with later RD in grade 2 on tasks of vocabulary production or resilient readers—strong working and maximum sentence length at 1-2 yrs old. memory in particular may circumvent [32] Family history of RD Preschool fine motor skills predicted unique variance in early reading Motor skills skills at age 5 regardless of risk status. reading problems in dyslexic children [31*] Family history of RD Irrespective of early cognitive risk factors, high levels of task-focused High levels of [43]. Cognitive flexibility, another behavior were associated with the absence of RD in grade 2 in task-focused kindergarteners at familial risk of RD at 5 years old. behavior \EF component, has been found to be crucial for reading comprehension [30**] Family history of RD Executive function skills (inhibitory control, selective attention, Executive Functions Language difficulties working memory), fine motor skills, and oral language skills (expressive/ Motor skills in low-risk readers, and may also be receptive vocabulary, sentence repetition, sentence/ word structure) Oral language skills in preschool all increase the prediction probability for later RD at 8 important for those with RD [44]. years old.

A neuroimaging study showed that [29] Family history of RD In a longitudinal study, those at-risk pre-readers at 3 years who had Oral language skills greater right prefrontal activation during the best reading outcome at 13 years had strong oral language skills (non-word repetition, vocabulary, grammatical sensitivity). a reading task—an area associated with [47] Low PA and poor Environmental protective factors (peer acceptance, positive teacher Interpersonal EF [45]—is correlated with future gains affect) predicted students’ improved reading fluency in grade 4 with relationships letter knowledge cumulative effects for those identified as at-risk for RD in kindergarten. in reading comprehension in children with RD [46] (see Hancock, Richland, and Hoeft, under review, for more on Table 1b frontostriatal hyperactivation in RD and Recent studies (2009-2016) on potential protective factors contribu1ing to cognitive resilience proposed compensatory roles). This in those diagnosed with RD. was the case despite lack of systematic Study Population Relevant Findings Protective Factor(s) interventions in these children, which Studies in readers diagnosed with RD may infer its relevance to cognitive [37*] RD young adults Compensated readers (those with high literacy despite phonological Morphological resilience. deficits) performed higher than their RD counterparts and similarly awareness to controls on measures of morphological awareness.

In addition to cognitive factors, [38] RD children RD readers were assisted by semantic properties of morphemes, Morphological environmental factors may contribute whereas typically developing readers relied more on form properties awareness of morphemes during a visual word recognition task. to cognitive resilience. For example, [39] RD children Both RD and typical children used morphemic constituents to Morphological a study of children with RD showed improve their performance on a pseudoword reading task. awareness that the effect of RD on reading Vocabulary The RD group outperformed controls in a vocabulary depth task, suggesting [40] RD young adults fluency was mediated by support from high vocabulary may be important for successful compensation. teachers and peers with a cumulative [41] RD adolescents In adolescents with RD, the impact of low verbal working memory Vocabulary on oral reading fluency depended on vocabulary skills. effect [47]—the contribution of [42] RD children RD children with superior verbal reasoning significantly outperformed Verbal reasoning interpersonal protective factors will RD children with lower verbal reasoning on reading, spelling, morphological, and syntactic skills be discussed more in the section on [43] RD children Although gifted RD students still showed weaknesses in PA and Executive functions socio-emotional resilience. rapid naming compared to control groups, they showed strengths in Vocabulary In summary, oral language skills working memory and language skills compared to their nongifted Grammar RD counterparts. (e.g. vocabulary) appear to be critical for cognitive resilience in children at-risk for and with a diagnosis involved. However, more research is warranted on the mechanisms of RD. Executive functions and other language skills such as underlying brain-behavior relationship regarding protective factors, morphological awareness also appear to be important factors compensatory mechanisms in RD, and in particular, prevention of that promote cognitive resilience. Neurologically, prefrontal RD in children at-risk for developing RD. and related networks that underlie these processes may be

3

4

The Beacon Fall 2018

Socio-emotional resilience

and resources; [59] and self-determination (viewing oneself as a causal agent; [60] to positive socio-emotional and academic adjustment in students with RD and other LDs. In other words, it appears that a greater sense of control is important for students to cope effectively with the difficulties that their RD presents—this concurs with an early retrospective study of highly successful adults with RD/LD, where the dominant factor implicated in success was the individual’s

In addition to cognitive resilience, students with RD can exhibit socio-emotional resilience, or positive psychosocial adjustment despite risk presented by RD. In the transactional nature of the resilience framework, RD can be seen as influencing a child at the individual, family, and community level—these factors can in turn be protective and counterbalance the risk presented by RD, thereby promoting resilience. In this section we will Table 2 discuss the risks to socio-emotional well-being children with RD face, A summary of protective factors (2009---2016) contributing to socio-emotional resilience for children with RD. and how despite these challenges Study Relevant Findings Protective Factor(s) children with RD can exhibit InDIvIDuAL resilience and maintain positive [68]a The maladaptive effort attributions and self-regulatory profiles of youth with LD were due Growth mindset internal concepts and relationships. to their fixed mindset—this suggests that adopting a growth mindset could lead to more positive cognitions when exerting effort in their academics.

Studies have shown that the [63••]a Hope mediated between risk and protective factors for high school students with LD, Hopeful thinking presence of RD acts as a risk factor contributing to greater academic self-efficacy. for socio-emotional maladjustment.

[59]a Children’s sense of coherence mediated the association between their maternal attachment and Sense of coherence One proposed mechanism their hope and effort. underlying this relationship is that [58] A coping program for students with RD resulted in a more internal locus of control, which was Internal locus associated with a reduction in nonproductive coping strategies. of control socio-emotional functioning issues [60]a In a sample of adolescents with LD, self-determination significantly correlated with self-concept Self determination co-occur with RD, potentially and emerged as a potential predictor of academic achievement. because of deficits in informationFAMILy processing and impulsivity [63]a Family cohesion partially explained hopeful thinking among high school youth both with Family cohesion and without LD. (‘primary-cause hypothesis’; [48,49]). Another viewpoint is [59]a A greater number of significant paths emerged between maternal affect and adjustment of Maternal affect children with LD than those children without LD, suggesting that maternal emotion may play that socio-emotional problems arise a unique role in children with LD. as a secondary emotional reaction [73•]a Maternal attachment contributed to internalizing adjustment and paternal attachment to coping Strong parental resources for children with LD— these paths were more significant than in children without LD. attachment from the stress of repeated reading [71] Children with RD who had strong relationships with their parents and parents with a greater Parental support and failure (‘secondary-cause hypothesis’; understanding of RD had higher global self-worth. understanding of RD [48,50]. Regardless, the literature is COMMunITy clear that students with RD are more [75]a University students with LD who had stable friendships were more likely to have higher Peer relationships likely than their typically developing global self-worth than students with LD who did not have these relationships. peers to have low self-esteem, face [74••]a For adolescents with LD (but not comorbid ADHD or typically developing students), ratings Teacher support of their homeroom teacher as caring and available contributed to high positive affect, and high Peer relationships peer rejection, and become anxious quality of perceived friendship contributed to lower internalizing and externalizing problems. or depressed [18,51]—additional [76]a Adolescents with LD who were mentored by teachers had higher self-esteem and graduation rates Mentorship compared to their non-mentored counterparts. by teachers comorbidities [52,53], low socioTeacher support protected children with RD from the negative impacts of peer rejection. Additionally, Teacher support [17] economic status or social support smaller class size functioned as a protective factor against social withdrawal due to peer rejection.

Small class size [18,54], as well as being a female a The sample for these studies involved children with broad learning disabilities, which includes children with RD as well as disorders in [49,51], typically exacerbate these mathematics and/or writing. negative outcomes. This can result in ability to take control of his or her life [61,62]. In addition, hope was a vicious cycle whereby negative emotions and social experiences found to mediate between risk and protective factors for students reciprocally interact with a child’s RD, limiting cognitive capacity with RD/LD in one study, resulting in greater academic self-efficacy and sustaining reading failure [19,20]. and effort investment [63]—this may be because hopeful thinking Several individual attributes may contribute to socioemotional involves goal-oriented thoughts, which may help in coping with resilience and academic achievement of those with RD. Early academic and social barriers [63,64,65]. longitudinal studies implicated self-awareness, proactivity, perseverance, Growth mindset, an individual’s belief that his or her intelligence realistic educational plans, and appropriate goal setting in promoting is malleable (e.g. an incremental theory of intelligence), as opposed resilience for well-adapted adults with RD and other Learning to a fixed mindset where one believes one’s intelligence cannot be Disabilities (LDs) [55-57]. More recently, a prospective study of a further developed (e.g. entity theory of intelligence), is associated program for middle school students with RD showed that increases with increased resilience in children [66], and has been shown to in locus of control were associated with more adaptive coping strategies, buffer against demotivation that results from academic difficulties increased school engagement, and overall well-being [58]. Other [67].

Baird et al.

[68] found that maladaptive goal orientation and studies have linked sense of coherence (an index of sense of control

Fall 2018 The Beacon

effort attributions in youth with RD/LD are linked directly to their entity theories of intelligence. These findings suggest that if youth with RD would adopt a growth mindset, they would be less likely to perceive the exertion of effort as indicative of low ability, and may instead persevere through reading challenges and subsequently perform higher. In line with this, one neuroimaging study has shown that growth compared to fixed mindset leads to stronger coupling between attention allocation and post-error performance during an attention and inhibitory control task, presumably in the anterior cingulate cortex, part of the medial prefrontal region (flanker task; [69]). In other words, those who adopt a growth mindset show a more adaptive brain-behavior connection in adjusting to errors— this is important for students with RD, as they may be better able to adjust their performance on academic tasks when given feedback on their weaknesses and errors.

The aforementioned individual attributes can be bolstered by family-level factors. Family cohesion partially explained hopeful thinking in a group of students with RD/LD [63]. Children [70,71] and adults [72] with RD who have strong relationships with their parents, and whose parents had a good understanding of their RD [71], are found to have higher self-esteem than those with weaker parental relationships. AI-Yagon has suggested unique roles for mothers and fathers in this socio-emotional resilience. Strong attachment to fathers is associated with more sense of coherence, hope, and effort in children with RD, while attachment to mothers has been found to protect against loneliness and internalizing symptoms such as anxiety [73,74].

Peers may also play a protective support role outside the home.

A recent study showed that a high quality relationship with a best friend contributed significantly to lower internalizing and externalizing issues in adolescents with learning disabilities (LD) including RD [74]. Similarly, having stable and close friendships was found to be a protective factor for university students with RD/LD, predicting greater global self-worth and social self-concept [75].

A large body of literature confirms the relationship between peer support and acceptance, and positive socio-emotional outcomes in children—unfortunately, work in the RD population specifically focuses mainly on peers as threats [70].

Teachers are in a role to foster a classroom environment that promotes socio-emotional resilience—analysis of a nationally representative sample showed that mentorship by teachers was associated with self-esteem differences in youth with RD/LD compared to nonmentored youth [76]. Additionally, supportive teachers can effectively protect children against negative impacts of peer rejection due to their RD, controlling for other risk variables [17]. Perceptions of teachers as caring and available are also important in promoting positive affect for RD students [74]. Though a thorough discussion comparing special education versus mainstream educational settings for children with RD is beyond the scope of this review, studies suggest that children with RD have higher self-esteem when they are in smaller classrooms [17].

Attachments to others may increase socio-emotional resilience for children with RD by providing a ‘secure base [77]’ where children can

then direct energy and attention toward exploring their environment and acquiring skills needed for reading. Related to this is ‘stress and coping theory,’ the belief that when social support is perceived as available, individuals are able to reframe negative experiences and engage in productive coping skills [78]. Although such social support theories are valuable in explaining potential mechanisms underlying socio-emotional resilience, more work should be done to understand how they function specifically for children with RD. In summary, attributes such as sense of control, growth mindset, and hopeful thinking, as well as strong interpersonal relationships and supportive classroom contexts can foster socio-emotional resilience in children with RD (see Table 2). Neurobiological correlates and well-controlled studies with more quantitative measures lag in comparison to cognitive studies in RD, and is a suggested area of growth in the field.

Conclusion Our findings suggest that while some children have etiological risk factors that confer risk for RD, cognitive and socio-emotional protective factors may reduce the severity of RD symptoms and individual outcome through several strategies and mechanisms identified in this review. These protective factors that lead to cognitive and socio-emotional resilience likely influence reading outcome in a reciprocal manner (though empirical evidence is lacking), and together contribute to an individual’s capacity to adapt to adversity. With regards to (preventative) interventions in at-risk pre- and beginning readers, in addition to fostering skills directly related to reading (e.g. PA) honing oral language skills and EFs early may also be beneficial. In examining literature related to resilient or compensated readers, utilizing cognitive strengths (e.g. semantic contextual clues) to offset potential core deficits can improve reading outcome [34-36], as well as building on the confidence and optimism of those with RD. Children with RD should be made to feel like they are in control of their lives and academic outcomes. Fostering a growth mindset is also particularly important given the academic difficulties children with RD face— this can be done by praising perseverance and effort [79].

Several limitations of this review and the field we reviewed should be acknowledged. First, we operationalize the term cognitive resilience based off of its use in aging and dementia literature. To our knowledge, the literature discussing RD does not use this specific terminology. Second, we discuss some protective factors that are not typically considered etiological risk factors for RD (e.g. motor skills, executive functions), but if further research indicates that they are, then their role as protective (and not merely absence of risk) should be reconsidered. One way to investigate this is to examine the extent of impairment in those at-risk for RD in these areas, or whether those with above-expected reading outcome show enhancement of these skills. Third, we discuss preserved self-esteem and self-efficacy as positive features for children with RD, but it should be noted that an overly positive estimation of one’s abilities, or positive illusory bias, has been documented in children with LD and can be detrimental [80]. Future research should focus more on this

5

6

The Beacon Fall 2018

potential issue, as well as on the importance of realistic competency assessment and its relation to self-esteem and performance in children with RD. Fourth, much of the literature involving children with RD focuses disproportionately on risk factors and negative outcomes. More work with a focus on factors that promote positive outcomes in children with RD is needed, specifically on mechanisms of resilience rather than merely identifying protective antecedent variables. Finally, due to space constraints, we recommend other reviews such as the following for neurobiological mechanisms underlying resilience [81,82], as they are not discussed here.

To our knowledge, this paper represents one of the only recent reviews investigating resilience within the population of children with or at-risk for RD. Our hope is that emphasizing contributors to resilience for students with or at-risk for RD will bolster our understanding of best practices for these children that may not be achieved with deficit-focused models. Such knowledge will contribute to higher reading and academic performance in these children, allowing them to grow into competent and successful adults.

Conflict of interest Nothing declared.

10. Gough PB, Tunmer WE: Decoding, reading, and reading disability.

Remedial Spec Educ 1986, 7:6-10.

Acknowledgments

11. Bruck M: Component spelling skills of college students with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Learn Disabil Q 1993, 16:171-184.

FH was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Grants K23HD054720, R01HD078351, R01HD044073 (PI: L. Cutting, Vanderbilt U), R01HD065794 (Pl: K. Pugh, Haskins Labs), P01HD001994 (Pl: J. Rueckl, Haskins Labs), the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Grants R01MH104438 (Pl: C. Wu Nordahl, UC Davis MIND Institute), R01MH103371 (Pl: D. Amaral, UC Davis MIND Institute), the National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant NSF1540854 SL-CN (Pl: A. Gazzaley), UCSF Dyslexia Center, UCSF Academic Senate Award, UCSF-CCC Neuroscience Fellowship (& Liebe Patterson), and Dennis & Shannon Wong - DSEA '88 Foundation.

References and Recommended Reading

12. Lefly D, Pennington B: Spelling errors and reading fluency in dyslexics. Ann Dyslexia 1991, 41:143-162.

13. Vellutino FR: Dyslexia. Sci Am 1987, 256:34-41.

14. Garcia JR, Cain K: Decoding and reading comprehension: a meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English.

Rev Educ Res 2014, 84:74-111.

15. Kjeldsen A-C, Karna A, Niemi P, Olofsson A, Witting K: Gains from training in phonological awareness in kindergarten predict reading comprehension in grade 9. Sci Stud Read 2014, 18:452-467.

1. Capital FM: Wellbeing Project (2008) Final Project Report.

The Government Office for Science; 2008.

16. IDEAdata org: Exiting by Disability, Ages 14-21. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 2002.

2. Goswami U: Sensory theories of developmental dyslexia: three challenges for research. Nat Rev Neurosci 2015, 16:43-54.

17. Kiuru N, Poikkeus A-M, Lerkkanen M-K, Pakarinen E, Siekkinen M, Ahonen T, Nurmi J-E: Teacher-perceived supportive classroom climate protects against detrimental impact of reading disability risk on peer rejection. Learn Instr 2012, 22:331-339.

3. Norton E, Wolf M: Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annu Rev Psycho/ 2012, 63:427-452.

4. De Groot BJA, Van den Bos KP, Van der Meulen BF, Minnaert AEMG: Rapid naming and phonemic awareness in children with or without reading disabilities and/or ADHD. J Learn Disabil 2015 http:l/dx.doi.org/10.1177 /0022219415609186.

5. Siegel LS, Ryan EB: Development of grammatical-sensitivity, phonological, and short-term memory skills in normally achieving and learning disabled children. Dev Psycho/ 1988, 24:28-37.

6. Laasonen M, Virsu V, Oinonen S, Sandbacka M, Salakari A, Service E: Phonological and sensory short-term memory are correlates and both affected in developmental dyslexia. Read Writ 2012, 25:2247-2273.

7. Bradley L, Bryant PE: Difficulties in auditory organisation as a possible cause of reading backwardness. Nature 1978, 271:746-747.

8. Kovelman I, Norton ES, Christodoulou JA, Gaab N, Liberman DA, Triantafyllou C, Wolf M, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Gabrieli JOE: Brain basis of phonological awareness for spoken language in children and its disruption in dyslexia. Cereb Cortex 2012, 22:754-764.

9. Dandache S, Wouters J, Ghesquiere P: Development of reading and phonological skills of children at family risk for dyslexia: a longitudinal analysis from kindergarten to sixth grade. Dyslexia 2014, 20:305-329.

18. Mugnaini D, Lassi S, La Malta G, Albertini G: Internalizing correlates of dyslexia. World J Pediatr 2009, 5:255-264.

19. Morgan PL, Farkas G, Wu Q: Do poor readers feel angry, sad, and unpopular? Sci Stud Read 2012, 16:360-381.

20. Stanovich KE: Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Read Res Q 1986. [no volume].

21. Masten AS: Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth.

Child Dev 2014, 85:6-20.

22. Pennington BF: From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders. Cognition 2006, 101:385-413.

23. Arnold SE, Louneva N, Cao K, Wang L-S, Han L-Y, Wolk DA, Negash S, Leurgans SE, Schneider JA, Buchman AS et al.: Cellular, synaptic, and biochemical features of resilient cognition in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 2013, 34:157-168.

24. Barnes LL, Bennett DA: Cognitive resilience in APOE*i:4 carriers—is race important? Nat Rev Neurol 2015, 11 :190-191.

25. Gallagher A, Frith U, Snowling MJ: Precursors of literacy delay among children at genetic risk of dyslexia. J Child Psycho/Psychiatry 2000, 41 :203-213.

Fall 2018 The Beacon

26. Carroll JM, Mundy IR, Cunningham AJ: The roles of family history of dyslexia, language, speech production and phonological processing in predicting literacy progress. Dev Sci 2014, 17:727-742.

27. Hulme C, Nash HM, Gooch D, Lervag A, Snowling MJ: The foundations of literacy development in children at familial risk of dyslexia. Psycho/ Sci 2015. [no volume].

28. Torppa M, Lyytinen P, Erskine J, Eklund K, Lyytinen H: Language development, literacy skills, and predictive connections to reading in Finnish children with and without familial risk for dyslexia.

J Learn Disabil 2010, 43:1-14.

29. Muter V, Snowling MJ: Children at familial risk of dyslexia: practical implications from an at-risk study. Child Ado/esc Ment Health 2009, 14:37-41.

30. Thompson PA, Hulme C, Nash HM, Gooch D, Hayiou-Thomas E, Snowling MJ: Developmental dyslexia: predicting individual risk.

J Child Psycho/ Psychiatry 2015, 56:976-987. This study is valuable in its longitudinal design of RD trajectory, and examining how task avoidance may function as a protective factor. This work is an important example of extending research to how non-reading skills may affect RD outcome.

31. Eklund KM, Torppa M, Lyytinen H: Predicting reading disability: earty cognitive risk and protective factors. Dyslexia 2013, 19:1-10.

This study is valuable in its longitudinal design of RD trajectory, and examining how task avoidance may function as a protective factor. This work is an important example of extending research to how non-reading skills may affect RD outcome.

32. Gooch D, Hulme C, Nash HM, Snowling MJ: Comorbidities in preschool children at family risk of dyslexia. J Child Psycho/Psychiatry 2014, 55:237-246.

33. Gimenez P, Bugescu N, Black JM, Hancock R, Pugh K, Nagamine M, Kutner E, Mazaika P, Hendren R, Mccandliss BD et al.: Neuroimaging correlates of handwriting quality as children learn to read and write. Front Hum Neurosci 2014, 8:155.

34. Welcome SE, Chiarello C, Halderman LK, Leonard CM: Lexical processing skill in college-age resilient readers. Read Writ 2009, 22:353-371.

35. Nation K, Snowling MJ: Semantic processing and the development of word-recognition skills: evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. J Mem Lang 1998, 39:85-101.

36. Stanovich KE: Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency.

Read Res Q 1980, 16:32-71.

37. Law JM, Wouters J, Ghesquiere P: Morphological awareness and its role in compensation in adults with dyslexia. Dyslexia 2015, 21:254-272. This study extended prior findings on the role of morphological awareness in individuals with RD by showing that university students with RD use morphological awareness as a compensatory mechanism. The authors discuss important implications for intervention strategies for those with RD using MA. 38. Quemart P, Casalis S: Visual processing of derivational morphology in children with developmental dyslexia: insights from masked priming. Appl Psycho/ 2015, 36:345-376.

39. Traficante D, Marcolini S, Luci A, Zoccolotti P, Burani C: How do roots and suffixes influence reading of pseudowords: a study of young Italian readers with and without dyslexia. Lang Cogn Process 2011, 26:777-793.

40. Cavalli E, Casalis S, El Ahmadi A, Zira M, Poracchia-George F, Cole P: Vocabulary skills are well developed in university students with dyslexia: evidence from multiple case studies. Res Dev Disabil 2016, 51:89-102.

41. Rose LT, Rouhani P: Influence of verbal working memory depends on vocabulary: oral reading fluency in adolescents with dyslexia.

Mind Brain Educ 2012, 6:1-9.

42. Berninger VW, Abbott RD: Differences between children with dyslexia who are and are not gifted in verbal reasoning.

Gift Child Q 2013, 57:223-233.

43. Van Viersen S, Kroesbergen EH, Slot EM, de Bree EH: High reading skills mask dyslexia in gifted children. J Learn Disabil 2014. [no volume].

This study utilizes a unique population—children who have dyslexia but are ‘gifted’ (high IQ)—providing valuable perspective into the effects of compensation and masking in these children.

44. Cole P, Duncan LG, Blaye A: Cognitive flexibility predicts early reading skills. Front Psycho/ 2014, 5:1-8.

45. Diamond A: Executive functions. Annu Rev Psycho/ 2013, 64:135-168.

46. Hoeft F, Mccandliss BD, Black JM, Gantman A, Zakerani N, Hulme C, Lyytinen H, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Glover GH, Reiss AL et al.: Neural systems predicting long-term outcome in dyslexia.

Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011, 108:361-366.

47. Kiuru N, Lerkkanen M-K, Niemi P, Poskiparta E, Ahonen T, Poikkeus A-M, Nurmi J-E: The role of reading disability risk and environmental protective factors in students’ reading fluency in Grade 4. Read Res Q 2013, 48:349-368.

48. AI-Yagon M, Margalit M: Social cognition of children and adolescents with LD: intrapersonal and interpersonal perspectives.

Handbook of Learning Disabilities. Guilford Press; 2013: 278-292.

49. Parhiala P, Torppa M, Eklund K, Aro T, Poikkeus A-M, Heikkila R, Ahonen T: Psychosocial functioning of children with and without dyslexia: a follow-up study from ages four to nine. Dyslexia 2015, 21:197-211. Although several studies have examined psychosocial functioning in children with dyslexia at school age, this study investigates psychosocial characteristics in the crucial period of transitioning to school. Moreover, the study evaluates how this social and emotional functioning changes over time after school entry, giving important clues to the relationship between internalizing/ externalizing issues and RD. 50. Vaughn S, Elbaum B, Boardman AG: The social functioning of students with learning disabilities: implications for inclusion.

Exceptionality 2001, 9:4 7-65.

51. Willcutt EG, Pennington BF: Psychiatric comorbidity in children and adolescents with reading disability. J Child Psycho/Psychiatry 2000, 41:1039-1048.

52. Martinez RS, Semrud-Clikeman M: Emotional adjustment and school functioning of young adolescents with multiple versus single learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil 2004, 37:411-420.

7

8

The Beacon Fall 2018

53. McNamara JK, Willoughby T, Chalmers H: Psychosocial status of adolescents with learning disabilities with and without comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learn Disabil Res Pract 2005, 20:234-244.

68. Baird GL, Scott WD, Dearing E, Hamill SK: Cognitive selfregulation in youth with and without learning disabilities: academic self-efficacy, theories of intelligence, learning vs. performance goal preferences, and effort attributions. J Soc Clin Psycho/ 2009, 28:881.

54. Boe T, Overland S, Lundervold AJ, Hysing M: Socioeconomic status and children’s mental health: results from the Bergen Child Study.

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2012, 47:1557-1566.

69. Schroder HS, Moran TP, Donnellan MB, Moser JS: Mindset induction effects on cognitive control: a neurobehavioral investigation. Biol Psycho/ 2014, 103:27-37.

55. Raskind MH, Goldberg RJ, Higgins EL, Herman KL: Patterns of change and predictors of success in individuals with learning disabilities: results from a twenty-year longitudinal study. Learn Disabil Res Pract 1999, 14:35-49.

70. Singer E: Coping with academic failure, a study of Dutch children with dyslexia. Dyslexia 2008, 14:314-333.

56. Werner EE: Risk and resilience in individuals with learning disabilities: lessons learned from the Kauai Longitudinal Study.

Learn Disabil Res Pract 1993. [no volume].

57. Spekman NJ, Goldberg RJ, Herman KL: Leaming disabled children grow up: a search for factors related to success in the young adult years. Learn Disabil Res Pract 1992. [no volume].

58. Firth N, Frydenberg E, Steeg C, Bond L: Coping successfully with dyslexia: an initial study of an inclusive school-based resilience programme. Dyslexia 2013, 19:113-130.

59. AI-Yagon M: Maternal emotional resources and socioemotional well-being of children with and without learning disabilities.

Fam Re/at 2010, 59:152-169.

71. Terras MM, Thompson LC, Minnis H: Dyslexia and psycho-social functioning: an exploratory study of the role of self-esteem and understanding. Dyslexia 2009, 15:304-327.

72. Nalavany BA, Carawan LW: Perceived family support and selfesteem: the mediational role of emotional experience in adults with Dyslexia. Dyslexia 2012, 18:58-74.

73. AI-Yagon M: Child-mother and child-father attachment security: links to internalizing adjustment among children with learning disabilities. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 2014, 45:119-131. Although previous research has examined the effect of parental support on the socio-emotional outcome of children with learning disabilities, this paper is unique in that it differentiates between maternal and paternal effects. Results suggest that mothers and fathers play unique roles in contributions to their child’s internalizing difficulties.

61. Gerber PJ, Ginsberg R, Reiff HB: Identifying alterable patterns in employment success for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil 1992, 25:475-487.

74. AI-Yagon M: Perceived close relationships with parents, teachers, and peers predictors of social, emotional, and behavioral features in adolescents with LD or comorbid LD and ADHD. J Learn Disabil 2016. [no volume]. This study examines the impact of close relationships with parents, teachers, and peers on the socio-emotional and behavioral functioning of adolescents with LD, as well as those with comorbid LD/ADHD, compared to typically-developing controls. This population allows the author to examine potential impacts which are unique to students with LD.

62. Gerber PJ: The impact of learning disabilities on adulthood a review of the evidenced-based literature for research and practice in adult education. J Learn Disabil 2012, 45:31-46.

75. Shany M, Wiener J, Assido M: Friendship predictors of global selfworth and domain-specific self-concepts in university students with and without learning disability. J Learn Disabil 2012. [no volume].

63. ldan 0, Margalit M: Socioemotional self-perceptions, family climate, and hopeful thinking among students with learning disabilities and typically achieving students from the same classes. J Learn Disabil 2014, 47:136-152. This study addresses an important gap in the literature that mainly focuses on deficits in children with LD by examining socio-emotional characteristics that may promote positive outcomes. Results show that hope mediated between risk and protective factors for these children, providing a suggested mechanism to enhance both academic competence and social functioning in this population.

76. Ahrens K, DuBois DL, Lozano P, Richardson LP: Naturally acquired mentoring relationships and young adult outcomes among adolescents with learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Res Pract 2010, 25:207-216.

60. Zheng C, Erickson AG, Kingston NM, Noonan PM: The relationship among self-determination, self-concept, and academic achievement for students with learning disabilities.

J Learn Disabil 2014, 47:462-474.

64. Levi U, Einav M, Ziv 0, Raskind I, Margalit M: Academic expectations and actual achievements: the roles of hope and effort.

Eur J Psycho/Educ 2014, 29:367-386.

65. ldan 0, Margalit M: Hope theory in education systems.

Psycho/Hope 2013. [no volume].

66. Yeager DS, Dweck CS: Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal characteristics can be developed.

Educ Psycho/ 2012, 47:302-314.

67. Aditomo A: Students’ response to academic setback: ‘growth mindset’ as a buffer against demotivation. Int J Educ Psycho/ 2015, 4:198-222.

77. Bowlby J: The making and breaking of affectional bonds. II. Some principles of psychotherapy. The fiftieth Maudsley Lecture.

Br J Psychiatry 1977, 130:421-431.

78. Lakey B, Cohen S: Social support theory and measurement.

Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. Oxford University Press; 2000:. pp 29-52.

79. Dweck CS: Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. The Random House Publishing Group; 2006.

80. Heath N, Roberts E, Toste JR: Perceptions of academic performance: positive illusions in adolescents with and without learning disabilities.

J Learn Disabil 2011. [no volume].

81. Karatsoreos IN, McEwen BS: Resilience and vulnerability: a neurobiological perspective. F1000 Prime Rep 2013:5.

82. Singh-Taylor A, Korosi A, Malet J, Gunn BG, Baram TZ: Synaptic rewiring of stress-sensitive neurons by early-life experience: a mechanism for resilience? Neurobiol Stress 2015, 1:109-115.

Spring Fall 2018 The Beacon

9

COMMUNITY LECTURE 2018 The Windward School

Windward Teacher Training Institute

Beyond the Buzzwords of Grit and Resilience:

The Research Behind Motivation, Performance and Well-being Embodying grit and resilience can profoundly affect how students live purposeful academic and personal lives. The characteristics of grit and resilience are universal human traits, and in recent years they have received much attention in the popular and scientific communities. In this lecture, the presenters will discuss the relevant bodies of research that support the roles of grit and resilience and explain how specific non-cognitive traits can be integrated to support the academic and personal flourishing of students.

Educators and parents will learn how to foster academic and personal strengths including intrinsic motivation, positive behaviors, emotional well-being, self-control, and executive functioning skills. The presenters will also discuss some of the controversies currently surrounding these important topics. Attendees will gain a research-based framework as well as practical strategies for increasing grit and resilience in all areas of student life.

Thursday, November 1, 2018 7:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

Fee: FRee – reservation required

RSVP online at thewindwardschool.org/lecture

Presented by

Jon Rosenshine and Danielle Scorrano

The Windward School Westchester Middle School 40 West Red Oak Lane White Plains, NY 10604-3602

10

The Beacon Fall 2018

head Lines

Response to Intervention: Let’s Get It Right

By Dr. John J. Russell Head of The Windward School

I

t has been almost 15 years since Congress passed legislation authorizing the use of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a means for identifying and remediating students with language-based learning disabilities. There are four common elements of RTI: high quality, research-based instruction in general education; continuous progress monitoring; screening for academic and behavior problems; and multiple tiers of progressively more intense instruction (Office of Special Education Programs, 2006).

These four elements of RTI are typically delivered to students through three tiers of intervention. Tier 1 calls for qualified teachers to provide a research-based reading program to all students in general education classrooms. Students who do not make appropriate progress at the Tier 1 level are moved to Tier 2 where they receive special education services in their schools. Students who do not respond sufficiently to Tier 2 interventions are then eligible for Tier 3 and placement in special education schools.

Since its inception, this very promising tool has been used to varying degrees of success. A review of the development of RTI and the evolution of its implementation provides important insights into its benefits and shortcomings.

learning disabilities. Unfortunately, this methodology is at best defective and at worst harmful to students. The reality is that IQ and academic performance are not well correlated. In fact, the correlation between measures of intellectual ability and academic achievement rarely exceed .60 (Sattler, 2001). Almost immediately, it became very clear that establishing a discrepancy between intelligence and achievement is not sufficient for assessment or intervention purposes, especially for students in the early grades (Restori, Katz and Lee, 2009).

Despite the mounting evidence of the shortcomings of the IQ-achievement discrepancy model, the reauthorization of IDEA, which was entitled the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), allowed states and school districts to choose between using the traditional IQ-achievement discrepancy model or Response to Intervention (RTI) for identifying students at-risk for a Specific Learning Disability (SLD). It is important to note that the 2004 amendments established only that local education agencies “may” use RTI in determining whether a child qualifies for special education services by being identified as having SLD. While each state has the option to either require or allow RTI for SLD identification, a state may not prohibit it.

According to Understood.org, 39 states still allow their school districts to use the discrepancy model while 11 states forbid it.

For example, it was not until 2012 that the New York State Department of Education banned the use of IQ-achievement discrepancy for identification and required the use of RTI. The Department’s website states:

The reality is that IQ and academic performance are not well correlated.

A Brief History: The Genesis of RTI The Education of Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975 and amended in 1990, becoming the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While both of these laws resulted in significant improvements for students with disabilities, they also contained a major flaw by requiring an IQ-achievement discrepancy to identify students with language-based learning disabilities (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). The discrepancy model compares assessments of a child’s intellectual ability with the progress the student is making in school.

As a result of IDEA, unexpected underachievement based on IQ became the primary criterion for identifying students with

Effective on and after July 1, 2012, a school district must have an RTI process in place as it may no longer use the severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability to determine that a student in kindergarten through grade four has a learning disability in the area of reading.

Fall 2018 The Beacon

The Response to Intervention Model RTI has garnered support from many significant sources. The framework of RTI is very similar to the recommendations that the National Reading Panel made in 2000. In his meta-analysis of the effectiveness of educational strategies, the Australian researcher, John Hattie (2016) found Response to Intervention to be one of the most powerful practices with an effect size of d=1.07. Other researchers (Swanson, Tran, Sanchez & Arellano, 2011) have found RTI effect sizes ranging from .45 to 1.53. An effect size of 0.8 or higher is considered large (Cohen, 1988).

With these values, RTI should be a potent intervention. In his book Language at the Speed of Light (2017), Mark Seidenberg states, “RTI is a thoughtful, logical, welldesigned program.” By these measures and other very positive reports, Response to Intervention should be producing significant improvement in reading for both the general education and special education populations, but it is not.

Reading Performance Since RTI

Response to Intervention should be producing significant improvement in reading for both the general education and special education popuolations, but it is not.

The acquisition of reading skills by students is regularly assessed at the international, national, and state levels. In the 15 years since the introduction of RTI, an analysis of these measures paints a bleak picture.

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a triennial international survey that evaluates education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old national Assessment of educational Progress GR A D e FOu R R eA D In G Percentages of Students Reading at Proficient or higher General education

Students with Disabilities

2000

31%

8%

2005

33%

11%

2009

35%

13%

2017

40%

12%

year

general education students. Since the inception of PISA in 2000, the scores of United States students on the PISA Reading Literacy portion of the test have resulted in a steady decline in the ranking of the United Sates compared to other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 2000, the United States ranked 7th; in 2009, it ranked 17th; and in 2017, it ranked 24th.

The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), also known as “the nation’s report card”, is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of America’s students’ achievement in a range of subject areas. Since 2004 when RTI was instituted, the performance of general education students has improved somewhat, but remains consistently subpar. The performance of students with disabilities has also improved slightly, but can only be described as abysmal.

It should be noted that the classification “Students with Disabilities” includes all disabilities; however, 70 to 80% of that group are students with language-based learning disabilities—most notably dyslexia.

With 60% of general education students and a stunning 88% of learning disabled students failing to meet proficient reading standards, it is entirely reasonable to ask how an evidenced-based program with a significant body of research confirming its efficacy would produce no better results than have been observed after 15 years of practice. Researchers offer a number of insights into the reasons for the failure of RTI to meet expectations for general education students and students with disabilities. Two factors stand out for the negative impact they have on teaching students to read: the use of reading programs and instructional methodologies that are not research-based and inadequately trained teachers.

Lack of Clarity in the Definition of “Research-Based” The movement toward research-based practices was partly a response to the pseudoscientific and unproven interventions that have plagued special education for years (Kozloff, 2005).

Unfortunately, the term “research-based” (also known as “evidence-based”) is not definitively defined in the RTI legislation, so states, school districts and individual teachers are left to decide what is research-based and what is not. Mistaken beliefs about teaching and learning often originate from schools of education and from education officials at the state and local levels who, despite decades of accumulated evidence, continue to incorrectly believe that systematic and explicit instruction is harmful to learning, that an eclectic approach is best, and that teachers should be innovative (Seidenberg, 2017).

11

12

The Beacon Fall 2018

head Lines

Publishers of textbooks and reading programs have seized upon these misguided beliefs by applying the label “researchbased” arbitrarily. For example, publishers have, to a large degree, abandoned the use of the widely discredited approach called “Whole Language” and have instead adopted “Balanced Literacy” touting these reading programs as research-based when in fact they are not.

As early as 2000, Louisa Moats chronicled this deception in her seminal piece, Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of “Balanced” Reading Instruction, in which she cautions, It is too easy for practitioners, while endorsing “balance,” to continue teaching whole language without ever understanding the most important research findings about reading or incorporating those findings into their classroom practice. Wrong-headed ideas about reading continue to characterize textbooks, reading course syllabi, classroom instructional materials, state language-arts standards, and policy documents.

exploring whether an intervention works has only minimal harm, but a small amount of time lost to ineffective instruction can accumulate over time to a significant loss of potential educational benefit.

Inadequately Trained Teachers “Parents who proudly bring their children to school on the first day of kindergarten are making a big mistake. They assume that their child’s teacher has been taught how to teach reading. They haven’t” (Seidenberg, 2017).

The Windward School established a professional development program that is comprehensive, demanding, and extremely effective in closing the knowledge gap between research and teaching practices.

In addition to balanced literacy instruction, which is simply a repackaging of the whole-language, many other popular education interventions are unsupported by evidence. In fact, the use of unproven practices proliferates in schools across the country (Miller & Sawka-Miller, 2010). The widespread use of interventions that are not supported by research partially explains the underperformance of RTI in improving literacy. Jason Travers (2016) described the consequences of these unsupported practices, which are often publicized as “innovative,” stating, Although many unproven or pseudoscientific interventions might appear relatively benign at first glance, it could be argued that every ineffective intervention is associated with some degree of harm. A main problem is that a tried intervention is only revealed to be a failure after the investment is made; instructional time is permanently lost and educational benefit is not conferred. Implementation of an intervention that failed to confer benefit means resources were wasted and a student’s opportunity to learn (i.e., time) has been permanently lost. Every student with a disability has a finite amount of time to receive special education services; and professionals are ethically obligated to maximize the impact of these limited services. It may seem that a few weeks of time

Many Americans think that the ability to teach is more the result of innate talent than training, but recent research clearly demonstrates that the best teachers are made, not born (Goldhaber, Liddle, & Theobald, 2013; Michelli, Dada, Eldridge, Tamim, & Karp, 2016). Tragically, teachers are not being adequately prepared in colleges and universities to become the effective teachers required for RTI to reach its full potential.

There remains a significant disconnect between the preparation teachers need to be successful in implementing RTI and the preparation they actually receive in their pre-service and graduate education courses (Walsh, Glaser, & Denne-Wilcox, 2006). In 2017, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released its annual review of teacher preparation programs in the United States. As was the case in previous studies, once again colleges and universities were cited for their substandard preparation of teachers. Of great significance to all parents, and especially to parents of learning disabled students, the NCTQ evaluated 717 college and university pre-service teacher education programs that prepare teachers to teach students who are identified as “struggling readers” and found that 75% of these programs did not meet the basic standards set by NCTQ. Although lack of adequate teacher preparation disproportionally harms students with disabilities, it has serious negative consequences for all students as well as for the teachers themselves who must suffer the professional and emotional burden of not being able to adequately support the children they work so hard to teach.

A recent study, conducted in 2015 by John Hattie of the University of Melbourne confirmed the dominant effect that teacher quality has on student performance in general and by extension on initiatives like RTI. He conducted a meta-analysis of more than 65,000 research papers on the effectiveness of

Fall 2018 The Beacon

hundreds of interventions on the learning of millions of students and found that what matters most is teacher expertise. The most powerful ways to improve student learning identified by this meta-analysis all depended on what teachers did in the classroom.

Every day teachers make hundreds of instructional decisions based on what they have been taught in their pre-service and graduate school programs. Regrettably, few teachers are exposed to research that is relevant to their jobs and most are ill-prepared to critically assess scientific claims, leaving them vulnerable to fads and fallacies in their instructional decision making as they search for a program or methodology that will help them teach their students to read and write (Siedenberg, 2012).

Dr. Russell Presents at El Cerebro y La Lectura Conference in Argentina

Conclusion If RTI is to deliver on its promise to improve reading achievement for general education students, to efficiently identify students who need special education services and to provide effective interventions for special education students, several steps must be taken.

First, all teaching materials and teaching practices that are labeled “researched-based” must be held to certain standards.

Citing Skinner (1953), Travers (2016) offers the following criteria necessary to warrant the label “researched-based” or “evidenced-based:” Evidence-based special education depends on the acquisition of robust empirical findings obtained via meticulous experimentation. The processes of empirical inquiry are necessarily accompanied by a set of attitudes that emphasizes valuing facts over authority, accepting evidence regardless of conflict with strongly held beliefs, and abstaining from acceptance of a claim until compelling evidence is available (Skinner, 1953).

Second, the quality of teaching must be improved. Schools need to recognize that during their undergraduate education teachers have, in most instances, not received the foundational knowledge necessary to teach reading. To improve the quality of teaching reading, comprehensive professional development is an absolute necessity. Dedicated, conscientious teachers can mitigate deficiencies in their preparation through professional development, but only if professional development programs are more rigorous and of a better quality than the undergraduate and graduate programs that are responsible for the deficits in the first place. In response to this reality, The Windward School established a professional development program that is comprehensive, demanding, and extremely effective in closing the knowledge gap between research and teaching practices.

Other schools have followed a similar path in their efforts to improve teacher quality.

For RTI to be truly effective, highly qualified, trained teachers must use instructional practices and programs that have been rigorously validated as evidenced-based.

O

n September 8, Dr. Russell gave a speech entitled “Research-Based Program + Direct Instruction = Proven Results” at the El Cerebro y La Lectura scientific conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Dr. Russell presented the outstanding results that Windward students have achieved because of the School’s research-based curriculum and the highlytrained, expert teachers use of direct instruction.

Additionally, he participated in a Q&A panel along with fellow speakers Phyllis Bertin, co-author of the Preventing Academic Failure (PAF) reading program and Director of Reading at the Windward Teacher Training Institute; Manuel Carreiras, researcher at BCBL (Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language-San Sebastian); Kenneth Pugh, researcher at the Haskins Laboratories of Yale University; and Florencia Salvarezza, Director of the Language Department at the INECO Foundation.

Organized by Editions Logos, Intelexia, Ineco, and the Haskins Labs of Yale University, the event shared the results of research on the brain, the learning process of reading, and classroom practices with scientific support.

The conference brought together teachers, directors, psychologists, scientists, and decision makers from the educational world to promote exchange between schools, psycho-pedagogical professionals, and specialists, as Argentina seeks to promote the learning of reading and the educational development of children in their early school years.

13

14

The Beacon Fall 2018

Research Roundup

Do We Need a New Definition of

Dyslexia?

By Emerson Dickman, J.D.

I

have been involved in developing and promoting IDA Definition: 2002 to present After eight years of consistent, replicable, and breakthrough a universally accepted definition of dyslexia research, IDA organized a second meeting in August 2002 to review the continued relevance of the definition in light of this for more than twenty-five years. We now research. This meeting was held in Washington, DC, with input know that dyslexia is real; we know what it is and from Reid Lyon, Jack Fletcher, Sally and Bennett Shaywitz, Susan what to do about it. Is there a new mission for the Brady, Hugh Catts, Guinevere Eden, Jeff Gilger, Harley Tomey, and me. The 1994 definition was revised as follows: definition or is it time for it to simply fade away?

IDA Definition: 1994 to 2002 After three years of correspondence with dozens of respected researchers and practitioners, a meeting was held in New York City in April 1994 that included Reid Lyon, Jack Fletcher, Sally and Bennett Shaywitz, Bill Ellis, Byron Rourke, Louisa Moats, Bruce Pennington, Gordon Sherman, Marcia Henry, and me.

The definition crafted at that time was approved by the Research Committee of IDA and adopted for use in research by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health (NICHD).

This definition (represented in the graphic below) was simple and easy to explain. Insufficient phonological processing resulted in difficulty with single-word decoding that, in turn, caused difficulties in reading, writing, and spelling.

1 9 9 4 D y S Le x IA D e FIn ITIOn InsufďŹ cient Phonological Processing Single Word Decoding

Reading

Writing

Spelling

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction.

Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.

This definition was more nuanced. A deficit in processing the phonological component of language resulted directly in difficulty with decoding, spelling, accuracy, and fluency that, in turn, impacted comprehension and reading experience. Impoverished reading experience further impacted the development of vocabulary and background knowledge, which also had a negative influence on comprehension.

2 0 0 2 D ySLexIA D eFIn ITIOn DeďŹ cit in the Phonological Component of Language

Decoding Spelling Accuracy Fluency Comprehension

Reading experience

vocabulary Background Knowledge Comprehension

Fall 2018 The Beacon

1. Dyslexia is a specific learning disability... “A learning disability simply reflects a natural variation in brain function that predicts an unexpected difficulty learning a skill valued by the culture in which the individual is expected to perform, in this case, the ability to easily learn how to read.” As Samuel T. Orton said, for the person with dyslexia, “Intelligence does not correlate with reading skill.” In 2010, research done by Sally and Bennett Shaywitz concluded that “IQ is linked to the level of ability to read in the neurotypical individual, but is not linked to the level of ability to read in the dyslexic individual.” Dyslexia is no more an indication of disease or infirmity than would be a lack of musical or athletic talent.

Analysis of Current Definition

2. “… that is neurobiological in origin.” The deficit is intrinsic to the individual and occurs at the level of neuronal activity.

3. “It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities.” This definition recognizes fluency, automaticity, and spelling along with decoding as being directly influenced by a deficit in the phonological component of language.

background knowledge necessary for efficient comprehension do not develop. Therefore, comprehension is a derivative and indirect casualty of not being able to identify words accurately.

Is the Definition Still Valid?

At the IDA conference in November 2016, I was asked to seek consensus among the scientific community as to whether it was time to revisit the definition once again.

Thirty well-known researchers and practitioners took part in the discussion. After several months, Dr. Jack Fletcher summed up the opinion of the group as follows:

Is there a new mission for the definition or is it time for it to simply fade away?

4. “These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language … ” The core deficit of dyslexia resides in the phonological system.

5. “… that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities . . . ” The deficit involved exists in the presence of assets and is not expected as the result of a generalized developmental delay or disability. In 1902 James Hinshelwood indicated that “the problem is localized; it is not generalized to all areas of learning.” IQ is not a factor in diagnosing dyslexia. There is no truth to the assumption that persons of average or even limited intelligence can’t also have dyslexia. Dyslexia is an equal-opportunity deficit.

6. “and the provision of effective classroom instruction.” Individuals who can’t read due solely to poor instruction (curriculum casualties) do not have dyslexia.

(Curriculum casualties, of which there are millions, could be virtually eradicated if every teacher had a working relationship with the IDA Knowledge and Practice Standards.)

7. “Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.” The primary goal of reading is to comprehend the meaning of text. The individual with dyslexia does not, without comorbid weakness, have a difficulty that directly impacts the ability to comprehend.

However, if you can’t decode a word—you don’t have access to its meaning—and if you don’t read—the vocabulary and

There appears “no compelling reason to change the definition of dyslexia.

The definition remains meaningful for research and for practice. It includes inclusionary criteria, which is critical.

It does not specify operational criteria, which is impossible (i.e., thresholds for severity or eligibility). There should be no equating of dyslexia as a diagnosis and eligibility for special education because there must be a demonstration of educational need.”

A diagnosis of dyslexia does not mandate eligibility for special-education services (SPED). Depending on severity, a student with dyslexia may be appropriately served in general education or may require special education services.

Is the Definition Less Important Now? Consensus has helped to guide research for more than twenty years. At this point, thanks to the focus and dedication of Dr. Reid Lyon, neuroscientist and chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch, NICHD from 1998 to 2005, research has determined how children learn to read, why some children have difficulty, and what to do about it. Therefore, the usefulness of the definition for the purpose of research and practice has diminished; those battles have been won.

A definition, such as the definition of dyslexia, has a life cycle.

First, it informs research that requires common cohorts to promote replicability. Then, it promotes practice to identify effective principles of instruction, and, finally, it creates policy to identify the demographic entitled to such research-based practice.

This definition has left its mark on research and practice and is currently contributing to policy to ensure that all children in need have access to research-based practice. Figuratively speaking, the research in reading has resulted in a vaccine that, given wide use, should ameliorate most difficulty in learning how to read.

The term dyslexia might fade into obsolescence like smallpox, polio, and pertussis. However, if someone didn’t identify what polio was, create a cure, and get that cure to the masses, we would still be hearing the term and reading about it every day.

If some day, we stopped using the term dyslexia altogether, that might be a good thing! Right now, however, we are at a critical stage of getting the vaccine to the masses.

15

16

The Beacon Fall 2018

Current Debate The dangers are that an overreliance on using the term in legislation may deny services to those with a remediable difficulty developing literacy skills if they do not receive a diagnosis of dyslexia. Diagnosis alone was never intended to be sufficient to determine eligibility for services. Neither was diagnosis intended to be a prerequisite to being found eligible for services.

There are various reasons why individuals struggle with developing literacy skills; dyslexia is but one of those reasons.

Some suggest that the term dyslexia be discarded and that the term reading disability be used in its stead. If it is redefined as such, and the terms are synonymous—I agree.

However, if dyslexia is intended only to refer to that phenomenon that, per Diane Sawyer and others in 2008, is responsible for “the largest amount of variance” (i.e., phonological deficits), it has the advantage of providing some taxonomic structure to the study of reading difficulties (e.g., dyslexia is a subtype of unexpected difficulty learning how to read, an unexpected difficulty learning how to read is a subtype of a learning disability, and so on).

Windward Teacher Training Institute Emerson Dickman, J.D. to Present at Windward thewindwardschool.org/wtti

There appear to be two main camps in the current “dyslexia debate”: those who believe that the definition is too inclusive (i.e., broad) or those who consider it to be too exclusive (i.e., narrow). It appears to me that if the definition doesn’t exclude reading difficulties due to global cognitive impairment, brain trauma, educational deprivation, and the like, it is too broad.

If the definition doesn’t include the child I want to help, it is too narrow.

The term dyslexia means many things to many people. It is used by some as an excuse to explain perceived failure and by others as a characteristic to support superiority. A meaningful definition allows those who are interested in understanding each other to efficiently and effectively communicate.

The IDA definitions are the foundation upon which reading research has been based for twenty-three years. The need for universal consensus with regard to a definition of dyslexia persists even though the mission has changed.

DySLexIA: What Is It, Really?

Students with reading disorders make up about 85% of all children classified as having a Specific Learning Disability.

Dyslexia is the most common reading disorder. Referencing research and personal reflections, Emerson Dickman, III, an attorney who specializes in the representation of children with disabilities, will answer the questions: What is dyslexia?

What can be done? What works? The answers to these questions will provide participants with a better understanding of the complexities of dyslexia.

Date: Time: Location:

Thursday, January 17, 2019 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.

WTTI Manhattan

About the Author A practicing attorney for over forty years, Emerson Dickman has been an advocate for individuals with disabilities and their families, handling cases that protect the due process rights of pupils in special education and the constitutional rights of adults with developmental disabilities.

He is past president of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), a founding board member and past secretary of the Alliance for Accreditation and Certification of Structured Language Education and a former member of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities.

He is also on the board of numerous professional advisory organizations, including The Children’s Dyslexia Centers and the National Center for Learning Disabilities and has received numerous honors including the 2012 Margaret Byrd Rawson Lifetime Achievement Award from IDA. Mr. Dickman has published articles and book chapters on dyslexia, educational advocacy, special needs planning, and other topics in the fields of learning, law, and disabilities.

References Including, among many others in the leadership of IDA, Sylvia Richardson, Nancy Hennessy, Margaret Rawson, Marcia Henry, Wilson Anderson, Roger Saunders, Paula Rome, William Ellis, Arlene Sonday, Priscilla Vail, Karen Dakin, Drake Duane, C. K. Leong, Diana King, Catherine Angle, Harley Tomey, and Jane Fell Green.

This article was originally published in the IDA Examiner, February 2017, copyright by the International Dyslexia Association, Inc. (DyslexiaIDA.org). Used with permission.

Fall 2018 The Beacon

Windward Teacher Training Institute

For TORS eDuCA and TS PARen

Don’t Miss These Unique Learning Opportunities!

The Windward Teacher Training Institute (WTTI) offers professional development based on the most current, scientifically validated research in child development, learning theory, and pedagogy.

Our offerings translate this research into practical classroom applications. thewindwardschool.org/wtti

Register Your Child Today!

MuLTISenSORy ReADInG InSTRuCTIOn: PAF Part I

This five-session course focuses on multisensory techniques for teaching reading, writing, and spelling in the primary grades. PAF incorporates the theory and practices of Orton-Gillingham instruction into an early intervention program intended to be used with groups of children at-risk for reading difficulties and is also an effective beginning reading program for all children.

Location: WTTI Manhattan Instructor: Phyllis Bertin, MS Dates: January 9, January 16, January 23, January 30, February 6, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

exPOSITORy WRITInG InSTRuCTIOn: Part One

In this three-day course, the instructor will present strategies for teaching expository writing in all content areas in grades K-12. The course offers techniques to add structure, coherence, and clarity to students’ expository writing. This writing program, used at The Windward School, can be implemented in general classrooms and special education settings.

Location: WTTI Manhattan Instructor: Betsy M. Duffy, MS Ed Dates: February 14, February 28, March 7, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.

The ReSeARCh PROCeSS: essential Skills for Academic Success For nTS STuDe

For non-Windward students in Grades 7-10 who desire to improve their writing and research skills, this four-session course will teach study skills within the framework of writing a research paper. Direct instruction will be given in critical reading, taking notes, organizing information, developing outlines, and writing a paper.

Location: WTTI Westchester or WTTI Manhattan Dates: January 12, January 26, February 2, February 9, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

Call (914) 949-6968 ext. 1254 for more information

17

18

The Beacon Fall 2018

Alumni Profile

Noah Mansoor ’15 Greater Disability Community Advocate

By Stephanie Huie, Associate Director of Digital Communications & Publications

F

or his first few years of elementary said Noah. “Being at Windward didn’t school, Noah Mansoor attended make being dyslexic any easier, but the P.S. 6 on the Upper East Side of classroom environment was arranged so Manhattan, along with his older and that I learned to try again or take another younger brothers. Although Noah enjoyed approach.” socializing with his classmates, he was Within a couple of months, skeptical about school and found the Noah’s reading and writing improved classroom to be an intimidating place. He tremendously. The small class sizes, being recalled he was one of 30 students in his matched with peers in similar reading class, with a teacher and assistant teacher. level sections, making friends on the “That environment wasn’t great for a bus ride from New York City, and the dyslexic student like me to get the attention amazing teachers were all factors that I needed and specialized instruction,” said Noah credited with making him feel Noah, “but, at the time, I liked it much more comfortable at school and, because I was able to fly under the radar specifically, Windward. during our reading and writing periods.

“Ms. Zuckerwise is awesome, and I would either pretend to read or escape I loved how she taught grammar rules in to the bathroom and hide during those class,” shared Noah. “In sixth grade, she periods. I didn’t know I had dyslexia, so had a point system of fictitious money, I just thought I couldn’t read or write.” which I called Zuckerbucks. As you earned Being at Windward didn’t Noah continued to feel discouraged as fictitious dollars for learning new grammar he entered third grade, still struggling with rules, you could buy a prize or a snack time make being dyslexic any school, while seeing his brothers progressing for the whole class. Ms. Travers was a very easier, but the classroom and learning to read. His teachers would empowering teacher. Her class was the first comment that he appeared to understand time I fell in love with the subject of U.S. environment was arranged the curriculum content, but simply could history. I did very well in her class, but she so that I learned to try again still always encouraged me because she said not perform well.

“When a teacher would ask me to I could do even better. Mr. Manganiello’s or take another approach. read aloud in a classroom of 30 and I said Study Skills class helped me a lot in learning something different from what was written, it was humiliating how to organize my thoughts when tackling a big research paper. and embarrassing,” reflected Noah. “I felt destined for failure, Without him, when I went to high school and was asked to write and I absolutely hated school.” a 10-page paper, I would not have even known where to start.”

His grandmother and her sister were both educational Outside of the classroom, Noah was a three season athlete therapists, so they were aware early on that Noah had dyslexia and competed on the Windward soccer, basketball, and lacrosse and needed more support than his public school could offer teams throughout his middle school years. him. His grandmother knew about The Windward School Towards the end of his eighth grade year at Windward, Noah and urged his parents to enroll Noah. Finally, when his parents appreciated the lessons he learned on how to be a self-advocate in realized that he may have to repeat the third grade, they set up the classroom. His teachers candidly told him and his classmates an appointment at Windward. that mainstream schools would be much different than Windward.

As he arrived at Windward on his first day of fourth grade, Multi-paragraph outlines would not be provided, and there would Noah’s skepticism about school remained. Slowly, however, he not be one-on-one conversations about how to structure essays. felt his reservations lift and discovered a shift in his attitude. For “What stuck with me was that Windward teachers told us the first time, Noah began to feel comfortable in the classroom. that an infrastructure for students with dyslexia may not be “Windward was different because failure was no longer in place in our high schools, but we didn’t have to accept that something humiliating; failure was now something constructive,” because we could still advocate for ourselves,” said Noah.

Fall 2018 The Beacon

“They didn’t try to hide these realities from us. Instead they with Disabilities Office granted Noah the proper documentation prepared us to voice our concerns and ask about resources he needed because he advocated for himself. Additionally, he available for those of us with disabilities.” became aware of other free resources that the university offered Noah acknowledged that the first three months of high that he would not have known existed if he did not meet with school at Dwight-Englewood were challenging. Yet he learned the office. to advocate for himself, which he believed made his transition Lacrosse has remained a passion for Noah, and in his senior after Windward much smoother. year, he is the returning captain for his club lacrosse team.

“As I began to really love to learn and realize that school is His other hobbies include fly fishing, cooking, and mixology. an awesome place, I developed a reputation as one of the more After college, he intends to pursue a career in finance. To studious students at Dwight-Englewood,” recalled Noah, gain work experience related to investment banking, following “which was completely new for me, but empowering.” his sophomore year, he interned with Time Inc. in the mergers, “Windward saved my life,” continued Noah. “Windward acquisitions, and corporate strategy group. Since then, Noah taught someone who absolutely hated the classroom, someone has gravitated towards the sales and trading arena of the financial who never thought he could read or write, to enjoy school. It was world, so this past summer, he interned at JPMorgan Chase in its a boot camp where I learned how to learn, which is so important. corporate and investment bank.

It gave me the tools to be able to go on to live Learning to navigate the workplace the rest of my life and progress to a higher with a disability has been no easy feat, but It’s great to be an level of learning that is so stimulating.”

Noah has gained valuable knowledge and advocate for yourself In addition to academic success, he mentorship through the organization Lime continued playing lacrosse and participated Connect. Dedicated to serving those with and your disability first, in Model Congress. Because his academic disabilities, Lime Connect members are part of but then if you can be an a community that offers not only professional interests spanned from the hard sciences to the humanities to computer science, Noah development opportunities and career advocate for the greater was inclined to maintain a well-balanced coaching but also social events and tools disability community, and rigorous education through the core to help those with disabilities reach their full curriculum model in college. In the fall potential professionally and personally. that’s even better. of 2015, he matriculated at the University Since he heard about Lime Connect from of Chicago. a fellow dyslexic student at the University of Chicago, Noah has Three years later, Noah is a senior, studying public policy been an active proponent of the organization and its mission. with a specialization in economics. Again, he noted the transition “It’s great to be an advocate for yourself and your disability first,” between schools was difficult, but he adapted to the particularly said Noah, “but then if you can be an advocate for the greater laborious reading workload for his collegiate classes. disability community, that’s even better.”

“I have had hundreds of pages of reading a week,” said “Through Lime Connect, I have learned about the optional Noah. “But the books I’ve read have been absolutely fantastic— process of disclosing to your employer that you have a disability everything from Marx to Adam Smith to Rousseau to Plato and resources for employees with disabilities,” said Noah. to Nietzsche—school has been awesome. I found I really like “There’s a fellowship program for rising college juniors that links public policy because I can engage with economic theory in students with corporate partners, but it is a great network for an actionable way. Yes, we need economic analysis, but I enjoy any Windward alumni. I’ve been promoting Lime Connect understanding and communicating what that means for a to my friends from Windward to let them know that there are given government or populace.” organizations and people to support us in our careers.”

Noah has also felt well supported by the Students with Noah believes others will find the same reassurance he Disabilities Office at the University of Chicago. He recounted does in knowing that many companies are willing to partner a case in which he needed to complete formal testing to with organizations, like Lime Connect, that serve those with demonstrate that his dyslexia diagnosis should grant him extra disabilities because they recognize that individuals with disabilities time for his schoolwork. Noah already completed the testing have a “unique way of seeing the world.” twice, for both Windward and Dwight-Englewood, so rather “Because of the way I learn and intake knowledge, it gives me than sit through another two-day testing session, he asked the a different perspective on a problem at hand,” said Noah. “So I university office if he could obtain the documentation he needed may come up with an out of the box solution. My disability is not for extended time and be excused from a third testing. Because debilitating, but an ability in itself. I believe that’s true for not the decision did belong to the University of Chicago, the Students only myself but also anyone in the greater disability community.”

19

20

The Beacon Fall 2018

Dr. Laurie Cutting Shares How Lessons in Neuroscience Can Build More Informed Classrooms at 2018 Robert J. Schwartz Memorial Lecture

By Danielle Scorrano, Research Associate and Manhattan Middle School Teacher

I

Lessons from Neuroscience n her book, Proust and the Squid, Maryanne While neuroscientists have learned many lessons about Wolf states that the human species “was never the brain, Dr. Laurie Cutting highlighted key ideas that are applicable to education. born to read” (Wolf, 1). Since the invention of 1. The brain is complex. writing, the systems of the human brain that were Neuroscience, an interdisciplinary field, has enabled scientists once allotted for more basic verbal language functions to understand a variety of elements that impact the brain’s development, including its structure, genetics, hormones, have rewired to read written text. Researchers in the and other environmental factors. field of educational neuroscience have studied the 2. Brain imaging measures reveal patterns in the brain’s intricate neural mechanisms, as well as other brain that behavioral studies may not identify.

In recent decades, brain imaging measures such as EEG, MRI, environmental factors, to better understand the and functional MRI have supported existing behavioral evolution of the reading brain. During this year’s methods in neuroscience research. In addition, imaging techniques have revealed patterns in the brain that the existing Robert J. Schwartz Memorial Lecture, Dr. Laurie behavioral tests may not show. For example, researchers have Cutting, an educational neuroscientist and professor used fMRI and behavioral measures to compare the brain’s response when completing various cognitive tasks. In certain at Vanderbilt University, explained the fundamentals contexts, brain imaging has illustrated differences in brain of neuroscience, its application for education, and activity between two people who seemingly have similar behavioral testing scores. the future integration of science and classroom.

Fall 2018 The Beacon

3. The brain’s regions and networks are multifunctional.

In their investigations of the language and executive networks of the brain, researchers have learned how the brain’s systems integrate when executing various cognitive tasks. Interestingly, fMRI scans have shown activation across seven converging networks of the brain while a person is reading! Certain regions of the brain share distinct responsibilities for word recognition, language, and reading comprehension. Furthermore, research has shown that the executive functioning region may coordinate different cognitive and language tasks. By understanding the activation of brain networks, researchers have also understood the nature of the multifaceted brain as well as underlying mechanisms of dyslexia.

4. neuroplasticity impacts the wiring of the brain over time.

The brain’s structure can change based on experience, which has implications in the study of reading. As children learn to read, the brain’s neuronal wiring and structure change.

For children with reading difficulties, the brain may be less malleable than typical developing readers. Consequently, children who experience more difficulty learning to read may need more explicit instruction, as demonstrated in the biological underpinnings of their brain structure.

Implications for the Classroom While the gap between neuroscience and classroom may seem wide, the above four lessons have direct implications for education.

1. educators can gain a deeper understanding of how and why children learn differently.

Findings of the brain’s plasticity, structure, and networking explicitly demonstrate the neurodiversity of all students who enter classrooms every day. These variations may result in differences in how children learn, read, and perform academically.

Furthermore, although some students may seem to perform similarly, their biological makeup may be significantly different.

2. The executive functioning network plays an integral role in brain development.

As Dr. Cutting has demonstrated in her research, the executive functioning network helps to coordinate language tasks in the brain. Generally, the executive functioning network plays an important role for a range of cognitive and behavioral tasks in the brain. Dr. Cutting’s research has also shown that a stronger executive functioning network may aid in better response to reading intervention in children with reading difficulties.

Future research about the role of executive functioning will certainly impact how educators help students grow academically and socially.

Key Conclusions and the Future of Science and Classroom Emerging findings in neuroscience will continue to address how families and educators identify and remediate reading disorders.

Families and educators should consider the role of genetics and familial risk of reading disabilities, including dyslexia, when screening and identifying children at risk of developing a reading disorder.

Due to the brain’s neuroplasticity, the brain canchange with the right intervention to target reading difficulties.

In the future, Dr. Cutting hopes to learn more about how executive functioning and reading interventions in context may target a wider range of difficulties.

Future advances in technology could lead to deeper understanding of the brain’s structure and function and provide more efficient ways to identify and diagnose children at risk of developing a reading disorder.

Despite the complexity of the human brain’s evolution, educational neuroscience has contributed to our understanding of the brain’s development. With advances in technology and collaboration between experts such as Dr. Cutting, new knowledge of this intricate organ will benefit both the scientific and education communities.

21

22

The Beacon Fall 2018

Connecting Curriculum with experience

A Look at Windward Field Trips

By Danielle Scorrano, Research Associate and Manhattan Middle School Teacher

O

n a brisk fall afternoon, 40 eighth grade students and ten teachers clad in bright yellow construction hats stood on the ruins of the once-iconic gateway to the United States. The group from The Windward School’s Manhattan Middle School entered the doorways of the historic building and began to meander through deserted hallways, cautious not to step on sections of tile no longer intact. “This is one of the spookiest and most interesting field trips I have ever experienced,” whispered one student, taking care not to interrupt the sanctity of the historic space.

Led by expert guides, the group had embarked on a unique tour through the hospital complex at Ellis Island. Largely abandoned since its official closing in 1954, its unrestored structures necessitated that the middle schoolers wear construction hats, as they spent two and a half hours adventuring through rooms once designated for screening newly arrived immigrants for illness and infectious diseases or for performing autopsies on the deceased.

The Ellis Island Hard Hat Tour exemplifies how field trips enhance the academic curriculum at The Windward School.

Throughout the fall semester, the eighth graders learned about immigration in the United States and studied immigrants’ experiences in language arts and social studies classes. As an enriching culmination to this unit of study, the tour offered opportunities for the students to explore topics beyond the curriculum. “The Hard Hat Tour provided a learning experience that went beyond the walls of the classroom,” one eighth grader recalls.

The Making of a Windward Field Trip The success of the trips such as the Ellis Island tour results from deliberate organization and integration between teachers, administrators, and content area coordinators. “Through thoughtful and purposeful planning, aligned with the New York State scope and sequence, history comes alive on a Windward field trip,” explains Robin McDonough, Coordinator of Social Studies at The Windward School.

While there are a variety of field trips at The Windward School—including social Friday night trips to baseball games and shows—academic trips and cultural experiences are designed to highlight noteworthy aspects of the curriculum.

Since classroom time is precious, each field trip is researched to ensure the experience is meaningful and valuable to the students.

Once a trip is identified, assistant division heads, curriculum coordinators, and teachers adapt its timing to a specific unit of study in science or social studies. The assistant division head or campus activities coordinator is then responsible for outlining each aspect of the trip’s logistics. The teachers and curriculum coordinators work together to ensure the students have the background knowledge needed to connect with the content presented on the trip.

Fall 2018 The Beacon

Highlighted Trips from the 2017-18 School Year

A Day in Colonial Life In another experience stepping back in time, fourth graders at Windward’s Westchester Lower School visited the historic Hanford-Silliman House, a site preserved by the New Canaan Historical Society. The house offered an authentic look into the life of a colonial New England family. The students gained a sense of the family’s daily experiences and each family member’s contributions to local government and society. They learned how colonial families built their homes, used their kitchens, and made wool. The students also contrasted a colonial school day with their own educational experiences and were most surprised by the one-room schoolhouse. After the visit, the students were able to conceptualize the life of Americans during the 1700s.

A Celebration of Chinese Culture In addition to field trips, enrichment experiences are also created with speakers and organizations who are invited to campus for special presentations and cultural demonstrations.

For example, this past year, the second and third grade teachers designed a robust curriculum focusing on Chinese history and culture. To conclude the units of study, Windward’s Manhattan Lower School invited the New York Chinese Cultural Center for a Chinese New Year celebratory presentation. The students experienced a performance filled with traditional dance, music, and symbols, including a Chinese dragon.

Leading up to the assembly, the teachers had used videos, interactive smart board activities, and read alouds from picture books—such as It’s Chinese New Year and Goldly Luck and the Three Pandas—to teach a multisensory unit that immersed students in Chinese cultural traditions. While second graders learned about Chinese culture through the lens of Lunar New Year celebrations, third graders investigated China’s geography, history, and culture.

“The visit from the New York Chinese Cultural Center enabled the students to expand their understanding of a diverse culture through experiential education,” explains Kate Sullivan,

the second and third grade team leader at Windward’s Manhattan Lower School. The hands-on celebration broadened the perspectives of the School’s youngest students, without leaving the school building.

The Resilience of new york City Last fall, Windward’s Westchester Middle School eighth graders visited New York City’s National September 11 Memorial and Museum. While all academic trips create opportunities for enrichment, this trip also encouraged the students to reflect deeply. “The trip was sobering, and students were touched by the experience even though most were not yet born on September 11, 2001,” recalls Pat Gay, an eighth grade teacher at Westchester Middle School.

Among the many memorable exhibits, the blue wall was perhaps the most touching. Created by artist Spencer Finch using squares of hand-painted paper, Trying to Remember the Color of the Sky on That September Morning, honors each life lost on September 11. As the students toured through the memorial and museum, they also learned about current challenges facing the United States and, more importantly, were reminded of the city’s resilience during a time of tragedy.

Opportunities for Deep Exploration, Reflection, and Connection to the Classroom Throughout the school year, each grade enjoys exploratory, hands-on field trips like these to complement the curriculum.

Lower School students adventured to Muscoot Farm to learn about different community structures. In both Middle Schools, students “traveled” to other time periods or immersed themselves in scientific exploration at sites and museums in the New York City and tri-state area. With such diverse educational opportunities inside and outside the classroom, Windward students connect what they learn to their own experiences in stimulating and enriching environments.

23

24

The Windward School

The

Beacon

NonProfit Organization US Postage PAID White Plains, NY Permit No. 16

40 West Red Oak Lane White Plains, NY 10604-3602 Return Service Requested To be added to The Beacon mailing list, please email communications@thewindwardschool.org.

The Windward School Newsletter for Educators and Parents Fall 2018

Dr. John J. Russell Head of School Jonathan Rosenshine Associate Head of School Board of Trustees 2018-19 Executive Board Ellen Bowman President Timothy M. Jones 1st Vice President Mark A. Ellman Treasurer Mitchell J. Katz Secretary Dana Canedy Arthur Ceria Thomas J. Coleman Elizabeth A. Crain Peter D’Avanzo George Davison Nicholas Finn David Friedland Alexander A. Gendzier Jeffrey Goldenberg Gregory D. Kennedy Stacy Kuhn Joseph Lorono Staci Marlowe Janice Meyer Denis O’Leary, III Jenny Price Maria Reed Eric Schwartz Jon Steingart Nicholas Van Amburg Patricia L. Wolff Devon S. Fredericks Trustee Emerita Editor Heather Pray Director of Communications Managing Editor Stephanie Huie Associate Director of Digital Communications & Publications Design The Blank Page, NYC

THE ROBERT J. SCHWARTZ MEMORIAL LECTURE The Windward School

Windward Teacher Training Institute

Save the Date Tuesday, April 9, 2019 7:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

What Basic Research with Neuroimaging Can Tell Us About Young Children with Learning Challenges

Presented by

Richard Aslin, PhD Location:

The Windward School Manhattan Campus

Stay connected

Distinguished Research Scientist at Haskins Laboratories

thewindwardschool.org

thewindwardschool.org/wtti

TheWindwardSchool

WindwardTTI

TheWindwardSchool Windward_School

WindwardTeacherTrainingInstitute