ED060166.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 060 166 UD 012 506 AUTHOR Jni-Aes, H. Lee, Jr.; Harvey, Ann TITLE Perceptual Development Center for Children With Dyelexia and Related Disorders. Final Project Report. INSTITUTION Natchez Municipal Separate School District, Miss. SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE [70] GRANT OEG-3-7-70-704991-5110 NOTE 148p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 DESCRIPTORS Cognitive Development; Curriculum Development; *Dyslexia; Educational Diagnosis; Intervention; Language Instruction; Learning Difficulties; *Learning Disabilities; Multisensory Learning; Paraprofessional School Personnel; *Perceptual Development; *Program Development IDENTIFIERS *Elementary Secondary Education Act Title III; ESEA Title III; Mississippi ABSTRACT The purpose of the Dyslexia Association, established by school officials, teachers, and parents of the Natchez-Adams County School District, was to explore the nature, diagnostic techniques, and remediation of this learning disability in order to establish a specific program in the public schools. Procedures were developed which could be used by para-educational personnel as instructors under supervision. In addition, the members of the association were concerned with the development of programs which might reduce treatment time, be incorporated into the ongoing school operation, and, be economically feasible. The point of view of the project director, in making final decision on the program model, was that specific development dyslexia was a neurological dysfunction and that there was strong eiidence that this dysfunction was hereditary. Further, that there were related disorders to the specific reading dysfunction, which were probably not of a hereditary 'nature but resembled dyslexia and included other characteristics as well. The Alphabetic-Phoenetic-Structural Linguistic Approach to Literacy were the materials and methods used.(Authol:/JM) Perceptual DevelopmentCenter for Children with Dyslexiaand Related Disorders FINAL PROJECTREPORT Natchez Special MunicipalSeparate School District NATCHEZ, MI SSISSIPPI Director, Mrs. H.Lee Jones, Jr. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION In Cooperation with THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN PEPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG- The Department of INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN- Health, Education and Welfare IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU- Title III ESEAGrant No. OEG 3-7-704991-5110 CATION POSITION OR POLICY. ACMOWLEDGENENTS This final Project Report of the Perceptual DevelopmentCenter (MDC) for children with dyslexia and related disorders isan attempt to detail all of the research prior to the program funding, considerations.in settingup the program, information learned through the operation of theprogram and sugges- tions for further work indicated by the program's results. The report is . the result of the work of the entire PDC teaching, testing,secretarial and administrative staff. Appreciation of the staff's dedicated efforts touse an innovative model and adapt it to the needs of children with dyslexia and related disorders in their particular school system isbeyond expression. PERCEPTUAL CEVELOPMENT CMTER STAFF Director Mrs. H. Lee Jones, Jr. Assistant Director Ben Lear Supervisor of Testing Miss Ann Harvey Assistant Supervisor of Testing Miss A.lexia Zabenko Teacher Mts. Bryant Reed, Jr, Teacher Mrs. William Enight Teacher Mrs. Virginia Newby Teacher Mrs. Ann Marion Teacher Aide Mrs. Vernon George Teacher Aide Mrs. Gene Fowler Teacher Aide Dave Snyder Teacher Aide Mts. Isabelle Webster Teacher Aide Mis., James Nhllins Director of Motor-Coordination John Floyd Director of Volunteers Mts. Jack Millstein Executive Secretary Mrs. James Bunch Testing Secretary Mrs. Clarence Whitam Instructional Secretary Mrs. James Young Other staff members during the three year grant period included Miss Roberta Ross, Nts. Mary Lee, Miss Linda Wallace, Mts. Evelyn Rosenthal,and Mts. Rosemary Scott. Gratitudejor their sqppert and comtant cooperation is extended to th( federal and state Title III officers, especially Warren Aaronson, Ph.D., Frank Delia, W. 0. Best,and their helpful staffs. Special thanks is given to the project medical consultant, Donald Eille- lea, M. D., for his contributions to the operation of theprogram and his advice on the medical aspects considered in this report. Credit for the possibility of innovatinga successful ptoject is given to Charles L. Shedd, Ph. D. Chief Consultant, who provided a public sdhool program with the methods and material for testing and teachingstudents with dyslexia and related disorders and who offeredthe experimental design of this project. McLeod (1966) has pointed out: "It might well be that the existence of dyslexia is more obvious clinically than semantically. It might well be dyslexia has became an abused and emo- tionally charged word. It might be that same clinicians have asserted the existence of dyslexia with a dogma- tism that has sametimes tended to vary inversely as the experimental rigor with which they have gathered their data, but they are not fools." Parents who almost literally jam the doors of dysleXia centers are not all fools.Many of them know that their children are not unirtelligent, unmotivated, suffering fram an adverse home condition or cultural de- privation or sensory disability or brain damage. They also know that they cannot learn by current methods. (Shedd 1968) Definition - Specific Developmental Dyslexia A disorder minifested by difficulty in learning to read despite conventional instruction, adequate intelli- gence, and socio - cultural opportunity. Tt is dependent upon fundamental cogni.t::ve disabilities which are frequent- ly of constitutional origin. Research Group on Developmental Dyslexia and World Illiteracy MacDonald Critchley, President iv The Report of Secretary's ann NationalAdvisory Committee on Dyslexia and Related Reading Disorders (August, 1969)released many disturbing statistics. This report states that: * Eight million children in America's schools today will not learn to read adequal-ely. The present enrollment in primary and secondary grades of our pUblic schools is 51,500,000.The average cost per child per yEaris $696.00. If one child in twenty (5%) is not promoted, the national loss expressed in economic terms alone is$1.7 billion. "Unless the causes of failure are deter- mined and specific remedial instruction is provi- ded, a child profits little from repeating the same grade." * In the Federal Bureau of Prisons with20,000 inmates, c-le half are less than 26 yearsof age. 96% of these dropped out of school before completing highschool. 90% were having reading problems. * The problem is nationwide and compounded bythe shortage of persons aCaquately trained toinstruct the failing reader. In short, the report's well buttressed mainidea is that the work of researchers in the field of dyslexia and readingdisorders is of national scope and urgency and points to a new conceptin academic equilibrium. The scope of the problem becomes apparent when weobserve that Hallgren (1950) found 18 percent of the school age populationin Stockholm were dyslexic, Gripenberg (1963) reported 23.5 percent inHelsinki, Gjessing (1958) reported 3.4 percent (only severe cases) in Norway,Preston (1941) reported 20 percent for the United States. Conservatively 10 percent cf the school age population are dyslexic andrequire remedial help. In the United States this means that 3.5 million children require help. (Shedd, 19681 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Review of Related Liti,,,rature 2 Procealre 30 Related Investigations and Finc3ings 106 Suggestions for Future Programs 120 Bibliography 128 vi List of Tables and Figures Table 1 Cumulative Results of School Screening (1967-70) Table 2PDC Progress Chart-Gilmore Oral Reading Test 9/67-5/68 Table 3PDC Progress Chart-Gilmore Oral Reading Test Summer 1968 Table 4PDC Progress Chart-GiImore Oral Reading Test 9/67-5/69 Table 5Comnari.Qon of Progress Without and With Specific Treatment PDC Students Table 6Hour-Pr-Day Gilmore Progress-Adams County Table 7Hour-A7-Dav Gilmore Progress-Franklin and Wilkinson Counties Table 8PDC Gilmore Progress Summer 1969 Table 9Reading Levels-APSL & Co-ordinating Readers Table 10 pnc Prcaress Chart Gilmore Oral Reading Test9/67-5/70 Table 11 Metropolitan Achievement Tests 1969-70 Table 12 Improvement Noted on California Achievement Test, Stanton" Achievement Test, Nelson Reading Test and the Gates MORillop Diagnostic Reading Test (Spelljng) September 69-May 70 Table 13 PDC Attitude Questionnaire 1967-70 (Teadher on Students) Table 14 PDC Attitude Questionnaire (Teacher evaluating Student ChangP) Table 15 PDC Attitude.cuestionnaire 1967-70 ;Parent on his Child) Table 16_111DC Attitude Questionnaire (Parent evaluating Child Change) Table 17 aeleased Students Data 1967-70 Table 18 Yearly Summary of NUmber of Released Pupils and Instruction Periods Table 19Released Students' Improvement by Month Table 20 An Analysis of Progress by Sex, Disability, Age and IQ of Released Students Table 21 A Camoarison.of the Progress cf Ryperkinetic and Dyslexic Released Students by IQ, Age and Sex Table22 A Camparison of Progress of Dyslexic Male and Female Released Students by IQ and Age Table 23Retests .of PDC Released Students 1967-70 vii Table 24Released Students Data Concerning Drpectancy with andWithout Inter- vention of a Specific Program Table 25Hour-A-Day Class Progress 1969-70 (16-18 monthsInstruction) Table 26Hour-A-Day