“Teachers already know who needs more help,” Adrea Truckenmiller, an associate professor at Michigan State University who has studied literacy screening, said of the second layer of testing. “What they need to do is figure out what to teach the kids the next day, and this information is not really giving them that.”
In a recent Chalkbeat article, reporter Alex Zimmer followed up on NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ efforts to screen students students at risk for dyslexia although students were already being screened for reading problems:
“Of the 1,000 children in elementary school who were given the secondary assessment, 95% of them were identified as being at risk of dyslexia — suggesting schools already had a clear sense of which students were struggling. (In middle and high school, about 80% of students were flagged for extra help by
the additional screeners.)”
The problem, though, is that most rapid screeners have a thumbs up vs. thumbs down approach to risk for dyslexia, without more critical scrutiny of how dyslexic and non-dyslexic factors, various student backgrounds, and cognitive differences can affect reading and dyslexia screening tests.
Public schools are given monumental tasks – to provide a free and appropriate education. But there are many different potential contributors to why a student is having trouble learning to read or keeping up with peers. Reading difficulties are not only due to dyslexia.
EdSurge also has a recent article titled, More States Are Screening for Dyslexia.
We Need a Plan for What Happens Next. Despite all the excitement that every state would soon have mandatory dyslexia screening, school districts tended to purchase quick screeners (1-3 minutes) for young students (K-2, for instance) that did not provide a student with specific information regarding dyslexia risk and also did not connect test results with recommendations or supports.
It is true that focus on dyslexia by schools increases the likelihood that reading instruction involves more phonological awareness training rather than “guess-and- go” balanced literacy, but dyslexia screening at its best should connect students with supports to allow them to succeed in school as well as specific information that tells a student, parents, and teachers, why reading is difficult and what sort of educational remediation would help.
WHY IS SCHOOL TESTING NOT MORE INFORMATIVE?
Why doesn’t testing in schools provide more feedback to students about how they learn best, or what are the next steps to work on to help them do better in reading, writing, or math?
Why is it that children can fail kindergarten or the 3rd grade and have to experience the failure at those ages (repeating a grade or grades) without more specific supports and remediation for their difficulties.
For many dyslexic students, technology can bridge the gap – and that is why their educational plans should be different from students with global cognitive issues.
Because their intelligence is on par or higher (if gifted) than their non-dyslexic classmates, they should not have their curricula ‘dumbed down’ and if some reading for literacy is easier in order for them to read, they should also be able to listen to books and learn in class at their intellectual level.
MORE PRACTICAL INFORMATION FROM TESTING
What is needed is more practical information from screening and achievement tests in school.
When testing and screening tools do not include cognitive tests or estimates of IQ, for instance, the concern is that dyslexic students may be mistakenly placed in classes with low intellectual challenge and peers with global intellectual disabilities, and on the other side, students with global difficulties, mismatched into programs that may set unmakeable goals. FAPE, free appropriate public education, intends for education to be appropriate – and that means differentiation for strengths as well as weaknesses. Students for whom English is a second language may also be trapped in mismatched classes if an accurate assessment of their abilities (native and English) is not understood.
Misplacement in such classes can also have a personal toll on students, leading them to become discouraged, school-avoidant, or anxious or depressed.
INTEGRATING INFORMATION FROM COGNITIVE AND ACHIEVEMENT TESTS
Recently, Mather and Schneider (2023) have written a helpful article on the usefulness of cognitive tests in the assessment of dyslexia.
There are two key points that schools (and dyslexia advocates) need to address with their dyslexia screening tools:
1. Phonological awareness needs to be assessed in the context of some measure of language ability or verbal IQ.
2. Assessment results need to provide practical information to students, parents, and teachers to guide educational efforts.
No test is perfect and comprehensive 1:1 testing is the gold standard for assessment, but a higher bar needs to be set for dyslexia screening otherwise many efforts to screen for dyslexia in schools will be wasted.“Teachers already know who needs more help,” Adrea Truckenmiller, an associate professor at Michigan State University who has studied literacy screening, said of the second layer of testing. “What they need to do is figure out what to teach the kids the next day, and this information is not really giving them that.”
In a recent Chalkbeat article, reporter Alex Zimmer followed up on NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ efforts to screen students students at risk for dyslexia although students were already being screened for reading problems:
“Of the 1,000 children in elementary school who were given the secondary assessment, 95% of them were identified as being at risk of dyslexia — suggesting schools already had a clear sense of which students were struggling. (In middle and high school, about 80% of students were flagged for extra help by
the additional screeners.)”
The problem, though, is that most rapid screeners have a thumbs up vs. thumbs down approach to risk for dyslexia, without more critical scrutiny of how dyslexic and non-dyslexic factors, various student backgrounds, and cognitive differences can affect reading and dyslexia screening tests.
Public schools are given monumental tasks – to provide a free and appropriate education. But there are many different potential contributors to why a student is having trouble learning to read or keeping up with peers. Reading difficulties are not only due to dyslexia.
EdSurge also has a recent article titled, More States Are Screening for Dyslexia.
We Need a Plan for What Happens Next. Despite all the excitement that every state would soon have mandatory dyslexia screening, school districts tended to purchase quick screeners (1-3 minutes) for young students (K-2, for instance) that did not provide a student with specific information regarding dyslexia risk and also did not connect test results with recommendations or supports.
It is true that focus on dyslexia by schools increases the likelihood that reading instruction involves more phonological awareness training rather than “guess-and- go” balanced literacy, but dyslexia screening at its best should connect students with supports to allow them to succeed in school as well as specific information that tells a student, parents, and teachers, why reading is difficult and what sort of educational remediation would help.
WHY IS SCHOOL TESTING NOT MORE INFORMATIVE?
Why doesn’t testing in schools provide more feedback to students about how they learn best, or what are the next steps to work on to help them do better in reading, writing, or math?
Why is it that children can fail kindergarten or the 3rd grade and have to experience the failure at those ages (repeating a grade or grades) without more specific supports and remediation for their difficulties.
For many dyslexic students, technology can bridge the gap – and that is why their educational plans should be different from students with global cognitive issues.
Because their intelligence is on par or higher (if gifted) than their non-dyslexic classmates, they should not have their curricula ‘dumbed down’ and if some reading for literacy is easier in order for them to read, they should also be able to listen to books and learn in class at their intellectual level.
MORE PRACTICAL INFORMATION FROM TESTING
What is needed is more practical information from screening and achievement tests in school.
When testing and screening tools do not include cognitive tests or estimates of IQ, for instance, the concern is that dyslexic students may be mistakenly placed in classes with low intellectual challenge and peers with global intellectual disabilities, and on the other side, students with global difficulties, mismatched into programs that may set unmakeable goals. FAPE, free appropriate public education, intends for education to be appropriate – and that means differentiation for strengths as well as weaknesses. Students for whom English is a second language may also be trapped in mismatched classes if an accurate assessment of their abilities (native and English) is not understood.
Misplacement in such classes can also have a personal toll on students, leading them to become discouraged, school-avoidant, or anxious or depressed.
INTEGRATING INFORMATION FROM COGNITIVE AND ACHIEVEMENT TESTS
Recently, Mather and Schneider (2023) have written a helpful article on the usefulness of cognitive tests in the assessment of dyslexia.
There are two key points that schools (and dyslexia advocates) need to address with their dyslexia screening tools:
1. Phonological awareness needs to be assessed in the context of some measure of language ability or verbal IQ.
2. Assessment results need to provide practical information to students, parents, and teachers to guide educational efforts.
No test is perfect and comprehensive 1:1 testing is the gold standard for assessment, but a higher bar needs to be set for dyslexia screening otherwise many efforts to screen for dyslexia in schools will be wasted.
