August 23, 1997

Snohomish School District is currently embroiled in a controversy concerning its proposed reading adoption. There is serious controversy over the adherence to district policy and procedures as well as the proposed curriculum itself. This controversy is not unique to Snohomish, but it does illustrate the confusion and disillusionment within our local districts regarding the practices and curriculum for teaching beginning reading.

Most confusing is the literature which comes from the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. "The documents that are being handed out in the state of Washington about beginning reading . . . recommend things that are totally contradicted by the research. You need to be very, very need to make sure policies are in place to make sure that safe practices are being used with the children of Washington...But what we are talking about is maximizing the success through normal classroom practices and then dealing with the far smaller number of kids in special education who are actually special education kids and are not curriculum disabled. Probably half the kids in special education today have been disabled by the educational system....the only reason for this is this new research is not widely available in education....One of the key statements in the Hippocratic Oath is that you do not harm the patient, and that is one of the things we have to be very, very careful of in education, that we never want to recommend things that for some students may not be helpful." (Joint Hearing Senate/House Education Committees, January 16, 1997, Dr. Douglas Carnine, pp. 27-28)

The state of Washington, in this, "The Year of the Reader," is at a crossroads of trust concerning public education. More and more local levies are failing, and tragically, more and more children are failing within the public education system in our state.

The "gateway" skill in education is the ability to read fluently and independently at an early age. Children who do not acquire this critical skill early on, become disabled learners. They are crippled very often for life. Not only that, but the parents and community which support the public education systems throughout our state become hostile.

"Experts" in the field of beginning reading at the local and state level within our state are very often without the necessary education, information and inclination to become updated on the research pertaining to the successful teaching of beginning reading. We need to stop this downward spiral of misinformation and abuse within the system of public education in Washington State if we are going to save public education and the children who are the future of this state.

Susan Esvelt

Communications Task Force

Reading Curriculum Proposal

Minority Report--Research Synthesis


The Minority Recommendation of reading curriculum for adoption by the Snohomish School Board and implementation by the Snohomish School District has been formulated in strict compliance with the Snohomish School District's Curriculum Adoption Policies and Procedures currently in effect. (2120 and 2120P) To evaluate the needs assessment and to determine the value of individual programs the Minority Recommendation has reviewed the following: research, recent literature, national standards, practices nationwide, and surveys of staff, parents and community.

Before the recommendations can be considered complete, definitions must be established and a common base of reference secured. This synthesis of current research accompanies the Minority Recommendation to fulfill those requirements, with a complete bibliography following. It is highly recommended that this be read as a part of the Minority Recommendation for Open Court by SRA.


Becoming A Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading, 1985 identifies reading as the process of constructing meaning from written texts. It is a complex skill requiring the coordination of a number of interrelated sources of information. The term "phonics" is generally used to refer to the sound-letter relationships used in reading and writing. Phonics begins with an understanding that each letter (or grapheme) of the English alphabet stands for one or more sounds (or phonemes) (Why Talk About Phonics? Nov. 1995). Scientifically, the Great Debate surrounding beginning reading instruction is over. It is uncontroversial that a systematic, explicit ("synthetic") phonic approach using a code-based reader is more effective than implicit ("analytic or embedded") phonics, more effective than using meaning-based basals, and more effective than a language experience approach, i.e., whole language (Grossen, Bonnie).

Given that letters and sounds have systematic relationships in an alphabetic language such as English, those responsible for teaching initial reading must tell beginners directly what those relationships are. Historically (until about 60 years ago) this is exactly what most teachers in the United States did. The techniques used at that time were poor. The "Drill and more drill" and "rules memorization" prompted educators to seek relief; unfortunately, drill was replaced by the ineffective "look-say" method. The idea behind look-say was that children could learn to recognize words through repeated exposure without direct attention to sub-word parts. The "look-say method was challenged in 1955 by Flesch in "Why Johnny Can't Read". A decade later, Chall's (1967) "Learning to Read: The Great Debate" provided a reasoned presentation of the research with the conclusion that the evidence points to benefit from those programs that include early and systematic phonics.

Phonics of the present is viewed as one of the "essential ingredients" (Becoming a Nation) in any reading program...and phonics today is vastly different from the drill and drill, rule memorization of the past. Becoming a Nation of Readers goes on (pp. 36-7) to state that...the issue is no longer...whether children should be taught phonics. The issues now are specific ones of just how it should be done". Approaches to phonics instruction generally can be described by one of two terms--explicit phonics or implicit phonics. These terms refer to the directness of the teaching method in teaching letter sounds. In explicit phonics, children are directly told the sounds of individual letters (the letter m represents the /m/ in man and then given a chance to practice what they learn in a decodable text). In implicit phonics, children are expected to induce the sounds that correspond to letters from accumulated auditory and visual exposure to words containing those letters (For example, students should induce /m/ from hearing the teacher say man, make, and mother and then they are asked to find these sounds in an unpredictable text.)

The problem with implicit phonics is that many children fail to induce the sounds because they are unable to segment a word into distinctive sounds. (This is a difficult task because in speech the sounds of individual letters actually overlap and blend as a word is pronounced). It takes trained phonemic awareness to be successful. Many children do not come to school with such awareness, yet implicit phonics requires this ability right from the very beginning. Explicit phonics requires less sophisticated phonemic awareness because the sounds associated with letters are directly provided. Explicit phonics, does have a potential problem. The sounds of some consonant letters cannot be said in isolation without adding a schwa, or /uh/ (b in but is distorted to /buh/). "There is no substance to the long-held belief that pronouncing sounds in isolation is detrimental," (Johnson and Baumann 1984, p. 592) "as long as instruction in how to blend letter sounds is provided."

Explicit phonics is necessary because it provides children with the real relationships between letters and sounds. But knowledge of letter-sound relationships is of little value unless the child can use that knowledge to figure out words--the sounds of letters must be merged or blended (Beck and Juell, 1992). Children need a lot of early experience reading meaningful material that includes many words that exemplify the sound-spelling patterns being introduced.

Current beginning reading programs tend to fall into two groups: (1) those in which there is a strong relationship between the sound-spelling patterns children are learning in their phonics lessons and the words in the stories they read and (2) those in which this relationship is weak or non-existent. Becoming A Nation of Readers (pp 45-6) illustrates the differences between these two types of programs. In the strong-relationship program, seventeen words or 94% could be decoded entirely on the basis of letter-sound relationships that students should know from the program's phonics lesson. A passage from the weak-relationship program had only three out of seventeen words or 17%, which could be decoded entirely on the basis of letter-sound relationships which had already been taught.

Problems arise when the relationship between what children learn in phonics and the stories they read is too low. The idea is that a "high proportion of the words in the earliest selections children read should conform to the phonics that they have already been taught" (Becoming A Nation p. 47,8) Decodable text is a key and unmistakable element in explicit phonics instruction. The National Right to Read Foundation, "DECODABILITY PROTOCOL" states on page 2 that "For a program to qualify as using "systematic, explicit phonics instruction," a major requirement is that its stories are "decodable texts." Decodable text is recommended for beginning readers by Adams, Chall, Becoming A Nation... and the NICHD Research on Reading.

Recent research quite clearly shows that overemphasizing prediction from context for word recognition can be counterproductive, possibly delaying reading acquisition. Stanovich and Stanovich, (87-105) recently summarized the research findings regarding the predictability of authentic text. In most balanced literature approaches to reading..."It is often incorrectly assumed that predicting upcoming words in sentences is a relatively easy and highly accurate activity. Actually, many different empirical studies have indicated that naturalistic text is not that predictable."

The findings regarding the role of context in reading acquisition are incontrivertable. Of the three cueing systems frequently mentioned in reading (semantic, syntactic, and graphophonemic cues), the semantic and syntactic cueing systems seem to play a minor role. Recent eye movement research indicates that good readers see every single letter on the page. "The key error of the whole language movement is the assumption that contextual dependency is always associated with good reading. In fact, the word recognition skills of the good reader are so rapid, automatic, and efficient that the skilled reader need not rely on contextual information. In fact, it is poor readers who guess from context--out of necessity because their decoding skills are so weak." (Stanovich and Stanovich p.92) Furthermore, the use of predictable text, rather than authentic text, might allow children to use prediction to figure out a passage...this strategy would not transfer to real reading...Predictable text gives children false success...ultimately they will not be successful readers if they rely on text predictability to read. (NICHD Research on Reading, p12)

The goal of phonics is not that children be able to state the "rules" governing letter-sound relationships. Rather, the purpose is to get across the alphabetic principle, the principle that there are systematic relationships between letters and sounds--one symbol for each elementary speech sound, or phoneme, in the language. (Becoming A Nation...p.38 and Beginning to Read, a research summary by Marilyn Jager Adams, p.3) Emphasis is placed on early intervention, K--3. Children are taught the skills they need before they are required to change from "leaning to read to reading to learn."

A "code" is a system of signals used to represent assigned meanings. When an individual can apply meaning to signals, that person has learned to decode. In written alphabetic languages such as English, the code involves correspondences between letters and sounds. Readers must be able to decode words quickly and accurately so that this process can coordinate fluidly with the process of constructing the meaning of the text. (Becoming A Nation...p. 11) The reader's attention must be available to interpret the text, rather than to figure out the words. (Becoming A Nation...p.12) Early attainment of decoding skill is important because this early skill accurately predicts later skill in reading comprehension.

There is strong and persuasive evidence that children who get off to a slow start rarely become strong readers (Stanovich, K. , "Matthew Effects in Reading"). Early learning of the code leads to wider reading habits both in and out of school. "That direct instruction in alphabetic coding facilitates early reading acquisition is one of the most well established conclusions in all of behavioral science (Romance and Reality, Keith Stanovich). Children who do not learn to decode do not have this avenue for growth. This phenomenon in which children who learn early to decode continue to improve in reading and children who do not learn to decode early become increasingly distanced from the others in reading ability is called the Matthew effect (Stanovich 1986). Much of the recent NICHD research has established, through modern neuro-imaging technology involving brain scans, that a lack of phonemic awareness seems to be a major obstacle to reading acquisition.

Phonemic awareness refers to the ability to deal explicitly and segmentally with sound units smaller than the syllable. Children who are not phonemically aware are not able to segment words and syllables into phonemes. Consequently, they do not develop the ability to decode single words accurately and fluently--an inability that is the distinguishing characteristic of persons with reading difficulties. The child who is a poor reader and the child who has a learning disability in reading only differ in the severity of the problem (The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development educational research program 1965-1995). In fact, the most reliable indicator of a reading problem is an inability to decode single words (Lyon G.R.).

Phonological awareness appears to be the most prevalent linguistic deficit in disabled readers. Treatment intervention research has shown that appropriate early direct instruction with explicit phonics and decodable text is the best medicine for reading problems. Reading is neither developmental nor natural, it is learned. Explicit instruction in how segmentation and blending are involved in the reading process is superior to instruction that does not teach the children to apply phonemic awareness to reading (Cunningham). Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, and Fletcher found that the greatest gains occurred when the explicit instruction moved into teaching the sound-spelling relationships concurrently with the instruction in phonemic awareness.

Phonemic awareness alone is not sufficient. Explicit, systematic instruction in common sound-spelling correspondences is also necessary for many children (Adams, 1988; Ball and Blachman, 1991; Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1990; Mann, 1993; Rack, Snowling, and Olson, 1992; Snowling, 1991; Spector, 1995; Stanovich, 1986; Torgesen et al., Vellutino, 1991; Vellutino and Scanlon, 1987a). Foorman, Francis, Novy, and Liberman (456-469; 1991) found that more intensive instruction in sound-spelling relationships during reading (45 minutes per day) was more effective than less daily instruction in sound-spelling relationships. Torgesen et al., also found that explicitly teaching the sound-spelling relationships was superior to teaching word families and word analogies and superior to an implicit approach. Foorman, Francis, Beerly, Winikates, and Fletcher (in press) found that explicit systematic instruction in sound-spelling relationships in the classroom was more effective in reducing reading disabilities than a print-rich environment characterized by interesting stories, even with children who had benefited from phonemic awareness instruction in kindergarten

NICHD Research on Reading, (figure 1. page 7) graphically displays the effects on reading comprehension using explicit, systematic phonics, embedded phonics and a print-rich, whole language approach. Embedded phonics included phonics (similar to the methods used in the proposed Harcourt Brace "Signatures" series). The systematic, explicit phonic approach included phonemic awareness instruction, explicit instruction in sound-spelling relationships, and extensive practice in decodable text (Open Court). Foorman et al., also found that changing instruction from whole language to explicit, systematic phonics at the classroom level was more effective in reducing the occurrence of reading problems than any of the three types of one-on-one tutorial programs that were evaluated. Foorman and her colleagues concluded that in order to avoid reading failure, the focus should be on prevention, not intervention. (Foorman et al. p.16)..."The morbidity of reading failure and subsequent placement in special education can possibly be reduced with explicit, systematic phonics in the alphabetic code during first grade." This ideas was emphasized recently in our own state. "What we are talking about is maximizing the success through normal classroom practices and then dealing with the far smaller number of kids in special education who are actually special education kids and are not curriculum disabled. Probably half the kids in special education today have been disabled by the educational system" (Joint Hearing Senate Education/House Education Committees; Testimony of Dr. Douglas Carnine/ Dr. Terry Bergeson Jan. 16, 1997). In the state of Washington, "we have about a 23 percent increase in regular children in our classrooms. We've had about a 52 percent increase in special ed in our state in the last few years and each biennium We are spending about $115 million on remediation K-12 ...We spent about $6.8 million last ...remediating recent high school grads at our community colleges ...I want to see that put those dollars into the classroom where we can have more teachers, perhaps, and less remediation" (Joint Hearing, Representative Peggy Johnson, January 16, 1997).


The NICHD Research on Reading has identified key principles of effective reading instruction as established by scientific, replicable research. The research findings indicate that to prevent reading problems, classroom teachers should do the following:


Communications Task Force

Reading Curriculum Proposal

Minority Recommendation

Prepared by:

Bill Ash

Susan Esvelt

Sandy Brandt

This Minority Report is based upon:

This Minority Recommendation is prepared in accordance with Snohomish School District policies, and has been authorized by the Director of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment.

The minority recommendation for reading curriculum adoption K--3 is:

Open Court, published by Science Research Assoc., Inc. (SRA)

(With all-day Kindergarten--McMillan-McGraw Hill's "Begin to Read, Write and Listen".

Grades 4-6--Programs to be re-evaluated along the continuum of explicit to analytic phonics instruction, but is not part of this recommendation.)


Open Court--Collections for Young Scholars, published by SRA, is built upon principles that reflect the consensus of leading literacy researchers and practitioners on what is essential for reading success. Open Court meets the requirements of the strictest scientific, replicable research on beginning reading. The State of Washington review panel selected Open Court as an effective reading program in full compliance with the essential learnings for this state. Open Court also meets all the requirements established in the Snohomish School District's Reading Frameworks. The Open Court basal series senior author team is headed by Marilyn Jager Adams, the researcher responsible for exhaustive research in "Beginning to Read; Thinking and Learning about Print".

Open Court's initial reading instruction relies on the explicit teaching of sounds, on the blending of sounds into words, and on the leverage of using this knowledge for reading and writing. The phonics instruction is systematic. It does not assume that children will "pick it up". Open Court does not assume that children already know the letters or can distinguish individual sounds. It systematically teaches letter knowledge and phonemic awareness before and during the introduction of sound/letter associations.

Sounds and letters are also introduced systematically. And, because young students find it difficult to analyze the phonemic structure of words, the program uses direct instruction in blending. Students must have opportunities to apply what they are learning about sound/spelling associations and blending while reading connected text.

In Open Court, students have the opportunity to read real stories that contain a high proportion of the phonic elements that they have learned. The text is decodable. Writing begins with interactive dictation. Authentic literacy experiences are provided through such things as read-aloud activities. Open Court uses integrated instruction so that acquired knowledge can be used beyond a single lesson. It is designed so that every child is able to participate fully in class.

Open court also addresses the needs of the staff. The staff which responded to a survey taken by the Task Force in 1995, overwhelmingly picked Skill Building, Sequential Skill Building and Phonics as the areas of strongest concern in relation to a new reading curriculum adoption and needs in Snohomish School District. The community has expressed, in the most recent phone survey, a desire for phonics instruction and the belief that it is essential in beginning reading.

On Thursday, March 28, 1996 the Superintendent met with parents at a Citizen Information Meeting. Several parents spoke about the need for an explicit phonics program in K-2. Dr. Tresvant responded in minutes sent to those present that she "will attend the April 18 Communication Task Force meeting so that a clear message can be given to Task Force members regarding, "the need for, and legitimacy of, explicit phonics".

The School Views article "What about phonics?" in Volume 8, #4 , December 1995 states that, "most important in grades kindergarten through grade 2 is direct instruction. As students receive direct instruction in phonics, they begin to apply that knowledge to become proficient readers and writers".

On April 18, 1996 Dr. Ginny Tresvant, Superintendent of the Snohomish School District, addressed the task force during the scheduled meeting and charged the task force to select a reading curriculum with phonics "along the continuum of explicit to analytic".

Seattle Hill Elementary School, in the Snohomish School District, is currently using its SLIG funding to teach "Intensive Phonics," by Lockart. The program has shown itself to be very successful for the students, teachers, and the parents who have participated. They have just completed the second successful year of explicit phonics instruction at Seattle Hill Elementary.

Mukilteo School District has just completed their first year of their new reading adoption. Their adoption, based on a selection tool established by research was McMillan-Mac Graw Hill's "Begin to Read Write and Listen" for kindergarten; Open Court for grades 1and 2; and Silver-Burdett Ginn for grades 3-6. (Incidentally, the senior phonics authors for Silver-Burdett Ginn are the same as for Modern Curriculum Press--Hiebert and Juel). Jean Boriff, principal at Discovery Elementary in Mukilteo, has put together the learner verification on Open Court for this year. After an apprehensive beginning the staff, parents, and administration are ecstatic. Even the at-risk students are performing well--above grade level--in a series of standardized test situations. A fear that the text was too difficult (especially in this elementary which is very diverse demographically) has proven to be unfounded. The principal was delighted to inform me that the basal program supports the text so that the students are not only capable of handling it, they are successful! Other school districts which have adopted Open Court are Pioneer School District and Ocasta School District. Ocasta piloted first grade last year and has adopted Open Court K-6.

Open Court has unbiased, extensive, real, field testing for learner verification. The series works for all children, from the at-risk to the exceptional. Please refer to the yellow bound book entitled "Open Court School-based Results". In an in-depth analysis of reading programs for the State of Washington, where only those programs which "have 'documented results on valid and reliable measures' and that have been replicated in various locations," Carol Stuen identifies Open Court as "having results documented through experimental . . . studies . . . and has been replicated. . ."

Open Court meets all of the requirements of the Frameworks, policies and procedures for curriculum selection and adoption in Snohomish School District. Harcourt Brace "Signatures" is a new, untested program, which does not meet the research requirements for the state of Washington nor the requirements established by the Task Force at its first meeting for a "research based, experience based" program. "Signatures" is only on the "Promising New Programs" list from the state as it is too new to have research compiled to support its program. Dr. Mary Roe, author of "Research Documentation and Evaluation" for the state concludes, "Signatures submitted only documentation in the form of field testing data which does not address the efficacy of the program. Consequently, the criteria for proven effectiveness are not met." Neither was "Signatures" included in the state's list of researched-based programs, prepared by Carol Stuen of Seattle Pacific University. Indeed, she did not even include "Signatures" under the heading of "More Information Needed"! The Signatures 1997 Learner Verification and Revision Report, therefore, deserves careful scrutiny. It is market analysis and marketability research. There are no verifiable student achievements or improvements recorded at any level. A long list of "Research Articles" and a "systematic plan" to present phonics instruction are little more than clever marketing tools to avoid scientific research requirements.

Furthermore, Signatures does not use decodable text. When asked about the decodability of the text the representative for Harcourt Brace responded that "readability" is what is present in Signatures, yet fails to provide any definition of the term. The following is a sample of the lack of decodability in the Signatures program: Level 1:1 Decodable text 2%, Level 1:2 Decodable text 17%, Level 1:3 Decodable text 20%. Furthermore, Story #4 in lesson 1:1 has no phonics lesson..."the Blue Butterfly", Story 6 in lesson 1:2 has no phonics lesson and Story 6 in lesson 1:3 has no phonics lesson.

The Supplemental Material proposed for grades K--2 is Modern Curriculum Press, "Ready Readers."

In her research documentation, Dr. Mary Roe also reports on "Ready Readers" stating, "data about the effectiveness of this program [Ready Readers] are not provided. The documentation offers the credentials of the program's authors and cites use of the program in various locations. Criteria for judging documented results are not available." Contributing authors of this program are Elfrieda Hiebert and Connie Juel. Modern Curriculum Press owns both the "Ready Readers" program and Silver-Burdett-Ginn's complete basal program in which Hiebert and Juel are also contributing authors. Hiebert is also the author of an Embedded Phonics Chapter I program which has been evaluated for student achievement along with Open Court and shown to be less effective (Open Court School-based Success, section one).

The proposed adoption from Modern Curriculum Press is limited to what they refer to as "the starter set." The starter set, which includes the Teacher Resource Binder and the Little Book Collection, is the bare minimum. There is only one copy of each of the 250 "little books" with the corresponding teacher material available for each lesson. The material is not reproducible. Only one student can be served with each lesson and each book at a time.

In conversation with the Modern Curriculum Press representative, Donna Schmirsall (800-321-3106, Ext. 381) on August 4, 1997 at 8:52 a.m., she stated that Ready Readers does not have any Learner Verification available. Furthermore, the Ready Reader books are "natural readers" and are not phonetically controlled. The text is not decodable. Schmirsall stated that "a systematic approach to embedded phonics" is an accurate description of the "Ready Readers".


The recommendation of Open Court from SRA publishers, for grades K--3, presented by this minority report, truly represents "the need for, and legitimacy of, explicit phonics" in beginning reading instruction. This recommendation is in line with current scientific reading research. There is ample, unbiased field test data to support the effectiveness of Open Court, and other school districts are experiencing success with the program. Finally, this adoption responds to parents and community members who have been promised explicit phonics instruction in the primary grades and staff who have requested skill development as a leading area of concern.

___________________ _____________________________________

Communications Task Force

Reading Curriculum Proposal

Minority Report--Bibliography

Adams, Gary, L., Englemann, Siegfried, (1996). RESEARCH ON DIRECT INSTRUCTION: 25 YEARS BEYOND DISTAR, CHAPTER 6, PROJECT FOLLOW THROUGH (IN-DEPTH AND BEYOND), pub. Educational Achievement Systems, Seattle Wa. 98109, 67-98.

Adams, Marilyn J. (1990). BEGINNING TO READ: THINKING AND LEARNING ABOUT PRINT. A Summary, Center for the Study of Reading, The Reading Research and Education Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., and Wilkinson, I. BECOMING A NATION OF READERS: THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON READING. Washington, D.C.; National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Education, 1985.

Beck, Isabel, L., and Juel, Connie. THE ROLE OF DECODING IN LEARNING TO READ. (1992) What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction, Edited by S. J. Samuels and A. E. Farstrup.


Byrne, B., and Fielding-Barnsley, R (1990). ACQUIRING THE ALPHABETIC PRINCIPLE: A CASE FOR TEACHING RECOGNITION OF PHONEME IDENTITY. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451-455.

Chall, J. S. (1989) LEARNING TO READ: THE GREAT DEBATE 20 YEARS LATER. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 521-538

Cunningham, A. E. (1990). EXPLICIT VERSUS IMPLICIT INSTRUCTION IN PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429-444.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D. and Fletcher, J. (in press). EARLY INTERVENTIONS FOR CHILDREN WITH READING PROBLEMS: STUDY DESIGNS AND PRELIMINARY FINDINGS. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-disciplinary Journal.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Novy, D., and Liberman, D. (1991). HOW LETTER-SOUND INSTRUCTION MEDIATES PROGRESS IN FIRST-GRADE READING AND SPELLING. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 456-469.

Groff, Patrick and Edwards, Ann, (1997). PROTOCOL FOR TESTING THE DECODABILITY OF PUPIL- READ STORIES, Sponsored by: The National Right to Read Foundation, P.O. Box 490 The Plains, Va. 20198.

Grossen, Bonnie, Editor, FOCUS: BEGINNING READING INSTRUCTION, Overview, Effective School Practices, Fall1993 and Winter, 1994.

Johnson, D.D. and Baumann, J.F. (1984). WORD IDENTIFICATION, In P.D. Person, Editor, HANDBOOK OF READING RESEARCH. New York: Longman.

Joint Hearing, SENATE EDUCATION/HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEES, Testimony of Dr. Douglas Carnine and Dr. Terry Bergeson, Olympia, Washington, January 16, 1997.


Lyon, G., R., (1995a) TOWARD A DEFINITION OF DYSLEXIA. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.

Lyon, Reid, et. al., (1997) THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, Research Program, initiated 1965, 1985 focused on improving the quality of reading research through the Health Research Extension Act.

Mann, V.A. (1993). PHONEME AWARENESS AND FUTURE READING ABILITY. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 259-269.

Rack, J.P., Snowling, M.J., and Olson, R.K. (1992). THE NONWORD READING DEFICIT IN DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA: A REVIEW. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 29-53.

Routman, Regie and Butler, Andrea WHY TALK ABOUT PHONICS? November 1995 issue of School Talk, pub. National Council of Teachers of English.

Snowling, M. (1991). DYSLEXIA: A COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.


Stanovich, K., and Stanovich, P. (1995). HOW RESEARCH MIGHT INFORM THE DEBATE ABOUT EARLY READING ACQUISITION. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 87-105.


Stanovich, K., ROMANCE AND REALITY, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, The Reading Teacher, Vol. 47, No. 4, 280-291, December 1993/January 1994.

Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C.A., Alexander, A.W., and Conway, T. (in press). PREVENTIVE AND REMEDIAL INTERVENTIONS FOR CHILDREN WITH SEVERE READING DISABILITIES. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal.


Vellutino, F.R., and Scanlon, D.M. (1987a). LINGUISTIC CODING AND READING ABILITY. IN S. ROSENBERG (Ed), Advances in Applied psycholinguistics (pp.1-69). New Your: Cambridge University Press.

Other Resources:

BEGINNING READING PROGRAMS, Carol Stuen, Seattle Pacific University

(Prepared for the Center for the Improvement of Student Learning, State of Washington, OSPI)

K-4 READING PROGRAMS: The Review Panel, Dr. Terry Bergeson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Old Capitol Building, PO Box 47200, Olympia, Wa. 98504-7200.

LEARNER VERIFICATION AND REVISION REPORT: SIGNATURES 1997, Harcourt Brace and Company School Department, July 1996.



School District Resources:

Mukilteo School District, Discovery Elementary, Jean Boriff, Principal 356-1735

Ocasta School District, Ocasta, Wa. (360) 268-9121 Margaret Cartha.

Pioneer School District.

Snohomish School District:

Susan Esvelt
Bill Ash
Sandy Brandt