Explore the vast range of titles available.

Despite scientific advances that have informed our understanding of reading acquisition and development, a profound gap exists between empirical findings and the implementation of evidence-based practices in the assessment and instruction of reading in school settings. The debate regarding the practical implications of the science of reading (SOR) and its implementation in authentic school settings is palpable. As researchers, practitioners, policymakers, parents, and other educational stakeholders engage in this latest version of the debate on how best to teach young learners to read, a familiar, almost cyclical, narrative has emerged. As an interdisciplinary group of researchers who study diverse facets of reading development, assessment, and instruction, it is troubling how little the current and past debates have focused on processes that could ensure that the instructional experience students receive in classrooms is informed by existing science. Specifically, the authors contend that the persistent gap between the SOR and its schoolbased implementation exists because the field has yet to invest in the appropriate methodologies and processes to develop an effective model of translational science. The authors argue not only that much can be learned from previous iterations of this debate but also that advances in translational science provide a framework for how to address the SOR debate differently and more productively in the current climate. Thus, the authors propose a road map for translational science for the SOR, acknowledging the breadth of work done in translational science in other fields and recognizing and describing the added complexities in the emerging field of translational science in educational settings.

The science of reading should be informed by an evolving evidence base built on the scientific method. Decades of basic research and randomized controlled trials of interventions and instructional routines have formed a substantial evidence base to guide best practices in reading instruction, reading intervention, and the early identification of at-risk readers. The recent resurfacing of questions about what constitutes the science of reading is leading to misinformation in the public space that may be viewed by educational stakeholders as merely differences of opinion among scientists. The authors’goals in this article were to revisit the science of reading through an epistemological lens to clarify what constitutes evidence in the science of reading, and to offer a critical evaluation of the evidence provided by the science of reading. To this end, the authors summarize those things that they believe have compelling evidence, promising evidence, or a lack of compelling evidence. The authors conclude with a discussion of areas of focus that they believe will advance the science of reading to meet the needs of all students in the 21st century.

The application of Response to Intervention (RtI) to early childhood settings presents many opportunities and challenges; however, it remains unclear how best to implement this framework in settings in which children at risk of academic difficulty are overrepresented, like Head Start. One of the first steps in implementing any RtI process is the effective and efficient identification of children who are in need of additional instructional support (e.g., Tier 2 or Tier 3). This process is critical as it directly affects the amount of resources needed to support children appropriately—a factor that is particularly concerning for programs that primarily serve children who are at risk of social, emotional, or academic failure difficulties. The purpose of this study was to investigate the proportion of at-risk children who may be in need of additional instructional support when screening and norm-referenced measures are administered at the beginning of the year. In addition, the proportion of at-risk children who continued to need additional support after receiving approximately 6 months of Tier 1 instruction was examined.

Children's spoken nonmainstream American English (NMAE) dialect use and their knowledge about phonological representations of word pronunciations were assessed in a sample of 105 children in kindergarten through second grade. Children were given expressive and receptive tasks with dialect-sensitive stimuli. Students who produced many NMAE features in speech nonetheless demonstrated considerable knowledge of “standard” English forms on the tasks, and their phonological representations were not deficient. In regression analyses, an inverse relationship between NMAE use and reading skill was observed, but mediated by phonological awareness. The findings are inconsistent with the view that print–speech mismatches interfere with young NMAE speakers’ reading acquisition, and instead suggest that dialect variation among beginning readers reflects metalinguistic differences that influence reading acquisition.

Special education has always been a civil rights issue in the United States and in many other nations. In fact, it could be argued that the legal rights of children with disabilities began with the fight for Black children. The passage of Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka in 1954 prompted the filing of several legal cases on behalf of children with disabilities for their right to equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. These efforts ultimately resulted in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, currently the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)-a law that protects the legal right of children with disabilities to a free and appropriate public education delivered in the least restrictive environment and governed by an individualized education program. It is, thus, quite ironic that Black children and many other racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse learners have had such a troubled history with special education.

The International Dyslexia Association definition of dyslexia was updated 20 years ago and has been referenced frequently in research and practice. In this paper, researchers from the Florida Center for Reading Research consider the components of the definition and make recommendations for revisions. These include recognizing the persistence of word-reading, decoding, and spelling difficulties, acknowledging the multifactorial causal basis of dyslexia, clarifying exclusionary factors, and denoting comorbidity with other developmental disorders. It is also suggested that the academic and psychosocial consequences of dyslexia be highlighted to reinforce a preventive service delivery model. Lastly, the inclusion of dyslexia within a specific learning disability category is supported.

The achievement gaps between poor and more affluent students are persistent and chronic, as many students living in poverty are also members of more isolated communities where dialects such as African American English and Southern Vernacular English are often spoken. Non-mainstream dialect use is associated with weaker literacy achievement. The principal aims of the two experiments described in this paper were to examine whether second through fourth graders, who use home English in contexts where more formal school English is expected, can be taught to dialect shift between home and school English depending on context; and whether this leads to stronger writing and literacy outcomes. The results of two randomized controlled trials with students within classrooms randomly assigned to DAWS (Dialect Awareness, a program to explicitly teach dialect shifting), editing instruction, or a business as usual group revealed (1) that DAWS was more effective in promoting dialect shifting than instruction that did not explicitly contrast home and school English; and (2) that students in both studies who participated in DAWS were significantly more likely to use school English in contexts where it was expected on proximal and distal outcomes including narrative writing, morphosyntactic awareness, and reading comprehension. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Purpose: In this study, we examined (a) whether children who spoke Nonmainstream American English (NMAE) frequently in school at the beginning of 1st grade increased their use of Mainstream American English (MAE) through the end of 2nd grade, and whether increasing MAE use was associated with (b) language and reading skills and school context and (c) greater gains in reading skills. Method: A longitudinal design was implemented with 49 children who spoke NMAE moderately to strongly. Spoken production of NMAE forms, word reading, and reading comprehension were measured at the beginning, middle, and end of 1st and 2nd grades. Various oral language skills were also measured at the beginning of 1st grade. Results: Results indicate that most children increased their MAE production during 1st grade and maintained these levels in 2nd grade. Increasing MAE use was predicted by children's expressive vocabulary and nonword repetition skills at the beginning of 1st grade. Finally, the more children increased their MAE production, the greater were their reading gains from 1st grade through 2nd grade. Conclusions: The findings extend previous reports of a significant association between NMAE use and specific reading skills among young children and have implications for theory, educational practice, and future research.

Purpose: This study examined relationships between the use of nonmainstream American English dialects, literacy skills, and school environment among typically developing first graders (n = 617), of whom 48% were African American and 52% were White, in order to describe and better understand the difficulties many children from linguistically diverse backgrounds experience while learning to read. Method: Using hierarchical linear modeling, the authors examined the linear and quadratic relationships between students' dialect variation (DVAR) and their vocabulary, phonological awareness, and word reading skills, taking into account school environment, specifically schoolwide socioeconomic status (SES). Results: The relationships between DVAR and literacy outcomes depended on the outcome of interest and school SES. However, children's race did not generally affect the trajectory or strength of the relationships between outcomes and dialect variation. For vocabulary and word reading, the association was nonlinear, that is, U-shaped, but this depended on school SES. For phonological awareness, a negative linear relationship was observed that did not depend on school SES. Conclusions: The results inform theories on the relationship between DVAR and literacy achievement and suggest a more complex explanation of how nonmainstream American English dialect use might influence how young children learn to read.

The purpose of this study was to examine second graders’ (n = 680) changing spoken nonmainstream American English (NMAE) use in relation to their oral language and reading comprehension achievement. Fall NMAE production was negatively associated with fall achievement scores. NMAE production generally decreased from fall to spring. Students who qualified for the US Free and Reduced Lunch program (FARL) and who had stronger language skills were more likely to decrease their NMAE use (i.e., dialect shifting) than their peers who did not qualify for FARL or their peers with weaker language skills. Dialect shifting for a sub-sample of 102 students who used substantial amounts of NMAE at the beginning of the school year was predicted by school context, controlling for reading and language skills—in general, students who attended more affluent schools dialect shifted to a greater extent than did their peers who attended higher poverty schools. Greater dialect shifting in this group predicted gains in reading comprehension from fall to spring.