Pennington Publishing Blog

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary, Study Skills accent rules, affix, decoding, inflections, morphemes, oral language, phonics, prefix, roots, structural analysis, suffix, syllabication, syllable division, syllable rules, word analysis, word study

In a previous article I shared my Top 40 Pronunciation Pet Peeves. As I am currently hard at work writing a comprehensive 4-8th grade spelling program, I have been constantly reminded about how inaccurate pronunciation contributes to inaccurate spelling. In the spirit of full disclosure, I now am admitting my own embarrassing pronunciation gaffes. See if you have mangled a “sill-ab-bull” or two, as George Bush used to say, on the ones that I have mispronounced. This list of 20 Embarrassing Mispronunciations is sure to bring snooty literary folks like me down to size.

1. Barbiturate is pronounced “bar-bich-ur-it,” not “bar-bit-u-et.” [When did they sneak that r in?]
2. Barbed wire is pronounced “barbd wire,” not “bob wire.” [I thought Bob must have been a fencer.]
3. Hierarchy is pronounced “hi-er-ark-ee,” not “hi-ark-ee.” [I'm used to the ie as one sound, I guess.]
4. Jewelry is pronounced “jewl-ree,” not “jew-ler-ee.” [Obviously, my wife buys her own.]
5. Liable is pronounced “lie-uh-bul,” not “lie-bul.” [One is liable for libel, however.]
6. Nuptial is pronounced “nup-shul,” not “nup-chew-ul.” [I've never heard this pronounced correctly.]
7. Ophthalmology is pronounced “off-thuh-maw-lah-ge,” not “op-tho-maw-lo-ge.” [Better clean your eyeglasses on this one.]
8. Orient is pronounced “or-e-ent,” not “or-e-en-tate.” [No, it’s not interpretate either.]
9. Ostensibly is pronounced “os-ten-si-blee,” not “ob-ten-sive-lee.” [I bet I've looked this one up 20 times.]
10. Potable is pronounced “po-tuh-bul,” not “pot-uh-bul.” [And I am an avid backpacker with my own water filter]
11. Prerogative is pronounced “pre-rog-uh-tive,” not “per-rog-uh-tiv.” [If you ask me to pronounce this one tomorrow, I might get it wrong.]
12. Prescription is pronounced “pre-scrip-shun,” not “per-scrip-shun.” [Both would make sense in the Latin, I think.]
13. Peremptory is pronounced “puh-rem-tor-ee,” not “pre-emt-or-ee.” [You don't believe this one, do you? Bet you'll look it up.]
14. Prostate is pronounced “prah-state,” not “pros-strate.” [Unless you meaning lying down-guess you know my age now...]
15. Realtor® is pronounced “reel-tor,” not “reel-uh-tor.” [It sounds horrible the right way.]
16. Recur is pronounced “re-cur,” not “re-o-cur.” [Means to run again, not happen again]
17. Supremacist is pronounced “su-prem-uh-sist,” not “su-prem-ist.” [Guess I just don't want to give these folks another syllable]
18. Verbiage is pronounced “ver-be-ij,” not “ver-bij.” [We never changed this one from our British cousins.]
19. Voluptuous is pronounced “vo-lup-chew-us,” not “vo-lump-chew-us.” [The lump just sounds more full-figured.]
20. Zoology is pronounced “zo-ah-lo-ge,” not “zoo-ah-lo-ge.” [Think I'll just go on mispronouncing this one because it just makes better sense]

Many of the pronunciation errors described above are made by people with poor decoding or syllabication skills. Mark Pennington’s comprehensive curricula: Teaching Reading Strategiesand Teaching Spelling and Vocabulary are wonderful resources to teach reading, spelling, vocabulary, and proper pronunciation.

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary decoding, English pronunciation, malaprop, mispronunciation, phonics, pronounce words, pronunciation, pronunciation pet peeves, spelling, syllabication, syllabication rules, syllabication techniques, syllable rules, word pronunciation

Teaching reading intervention is qualitatively different from teaching beginning reading. By definition, the initial reading instruction did not “take” to a sufficient degree, so things must be done differently this time around to improve chances for success. According to reading research, these chances are not good betting odds. Only one out of six middle schoolers who are below grade level in reading will ever catch up to grade level.

I have written elsewhere regarding the characteristics of remedial readers. Sufficed to say, knowing their developmental characteristics is just as important as knowing their specific reading deficiencies. Effective reading intervention instruction depends on addressing both components.

But, knowing the specific reading deficiencies is crucial. Using prescriptive diagnostic assessments that will produce the data needed to inform instruction is the one non-negotiable prerequisite. Teachers need to know exactly where their students are to take them to where they want them to be. Once administered, the reading intervention teacher is confronted with the “snowflake phenomena.” No two remedial readers are exactly alike. One has no phonemic awareness; one does not know phonics; one does not know how to blend; one lacks fluency; one is vocabulary deficient; one has poor reading comprehension; and one has poor reading retention.

Of necessity, an effective reading intervention program must be based upon differentiated instruction. A cookie-cutter program starting all students at the same level or having all students use the same workbooks or receive the same direct instruction will address some needs of some students, but not all the needs of all students. Anything less than the latter is nothing less than professional malpractice. Would a medical patient who sets a doctor’s appointment to treat a variety of maladies be satisfied with receiving the same course of treatment as every patient—ignoring some issues and being treated for issues that do not require treatment? Even the staunchest advocates of the current health care system would find this brand of medical practice unacceptable.

Regarding student placement in reading intervention, a number of factors must be considered. Chief of these must be the reductive consideration. First, if the student is placed in a special intervention class, what class is replaced? Removing a child from a literature class seems much like “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Poor readers require compensatory instruction, not just different instruction. Second, multiple measures are needed to ensure that a student needs reading intervention and that the student has a reasonable chance of success in the reading intervention class. Standardized tests can provide an initial sort; however, the student history in the cumulative records and the diagnostic assessments detailed above must be analyzed to refine the sort. Behavioral considerations are legitimate concerns; many students who read poorly tend to compensate with inattentive and disruptive behavior. These students need an intervention with a behavioral specialist that will also teach to their reading deficiencies. These students do not need another platform in a typical reading intervention class to prevent the learning of their peers.

The greatest variable that will determine the success of a reading intervention class is the teacher. A well-trained teacher with superior management skills, sufficient reading training, and a commitment to diagnostic and formative assessments to inform differentiated instruction are the keys to success. The teacher must be the “best and brightest” on campus, not the new teacher fresh out of the teacher credential program. Reading intervention is the hardest subject to teach and requires a special teacher. The students for whom our educational system has most failed deserve no less.

So, what to teach? The task is daunting. Remedial reading is not just skills instruction or extra reading practice. Effective reading intervention involves both content and process. Reading is both the what and the how. The short answer is that the students themselves determine the what via their diagnostic assessments. The teacher decides the how through differentiated instruction. Beyond this cryptic, albeit accurate, response, certain components will no doubt require attention in a reading intervention class for any age student. Following is an instructional template that will provide a proper balance between the what and how with a brief description of the instructional component and a percentage of the class that the component will necessitate:

• Small ability group fluency practice (emphasizing repeated readings within the group’s zone of proximal development (15%)
• Small ability group phonemic awareness practice (10%)
• Small ability group phonics practice (10%)
• Individual sight word and syllabication practice (10%)
• Guided reading, using self-questioning comprehension strategies (15%)
• Direct instruction and whole group vocabulary development (10%)
• Small ability group spelling practice (10%)
• Small ability group blending practice (10%)
• Independent reading at the individual student’s instructional reading level (10%) and for homework

Every component described above is needed to ensure a successful reading intervention program for students of all ages. All of these instructional components with support resources can be found in these two comprehensive curricula:

1. Find multiple choice reading assessments on two CDs, blending and syllabication activities, phonemic awareness and phonics workshops, comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages on eight CDs, 390 flashcards, posters, games, and more to differentiate reading instruction in the comprehensive Teaching Reading Strategies.

2. For individual sound-spelling worksheets that correspond with the comprehensive TSV Spelling Assessment, spelling rules with memorable raps and songs on CD, spelling tests, Greek and Latin affixes/roots worksheets, syllable practice, spelling games, vocabulary games, and more to differentiate spelling and vocabulary instruction, please check out Teaching Spelling and Vocabulary.

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary blending, comprehension, context clues, decoding, fluency, literacy, phonics, phonics activities, phonics assessments, reading comprehension, reading intervention, reading program selection, reading programs, remedial reading, sight words, sound-spellings, vocabulary

To most intermediate, middle, high school, and college teachers, teaching context clues means helping students consciously identify and apply strategies to figure out the meaning of unknown words through hints in the surrounding text. These hints include pictures, syntax, text format, grammatical constructions, mood or tone, mechanics, and surrounding words that provide synonym, antonym, logic, or example clues

Many of these teachers would also label the structural analysis of the unknown word itself as a context clue. Using morphemes (meaningful word parts, such as Greek and Latinates), syllabication strategies, grammatical inflections, and parts of speech also can help students figure of the meaning of unknown words. Some teachers would also include using hints outside of the text, such as prior knowledge or story schema in their definition and application of context clue strategies.

Teaching context clues for the purpose of contextual vocabulary development is widely accepted and practiced. However, there is another application of context clues that is not as widely accepted and practiced. This use of context clues is highly controversial and stirs up intense debate about how to teach reading.

Because the initial task of teaching students to read largely falls upon the shoulders of primary teachers, these teachers tend to be more familiar with this debate than their colleagues who teach older students. However, the underlying issues of this debate are just as relevant to intermediate, middle, high school, and college teachers who teach “reading to learn.”

The issues of this debate involve whether context clues should be used as the primary strategy for word identification. Word identification generally means the process of pronouncing words by applying reading strategies. Word identification should be distinguished from word recognition, which generally means the ability to recognize and pronounce “sight words” automatically, without applying reading strategies. The role of  context clues in word identification is the crucial issue behind the Reading Wars.

On one side of the battle are the “Phonic-ators.” These “defenders of the faith” believe that teaching phonemic awareness and phonics should be the primary means of teaching word identification. Fair to say, these teachers place more emphasis on the graphic cueing components of reading, that is the alphabetic code, syllabication, and spelling, than do those on the other side of the battle. The “Phonicators” de-emphasize the use of context clues to “guess” the meanings of words and teach students to decode words in and out of context. These graphic cueing folks are easily identified by their sound-spelling wall posters, their phonics and spelling worksheets, their assessment data matrices, their spelling workbooks, and their decodable paper-book stories. Their file drawers are filled with Jeanne Chall, Marilyn Adams, and Keith Stanovich article summaries.

On the other side are the “Whole Language Junkies.” These “defenders of the faith” believe that extensive shared, guided, and independent reading teaches students to read as the readers gradually acquire the reading strategies (with a heavy emphasis on context clues) to identify words in the context of reading. Fair to say, these teachers place more emphasis on the semantic (meaning-making) cueing components of reading, such as the use of context clues, than on the graphophonic (visual and phonemic) components of reading. These folks are nowadays less easily identified, because their side is currently re-trenching in today’s “No Child Left Behind” educational  environment. But, you usually can tell who they are by their CLOZE procedure worksheets, their vast collection of miscue analyses, their personal class library of over 1,000 books (crowding out the spaces set aside for spelling and grammar workbooks), and their signed wall posters of Ken Goodman, Margaret Moustafa, and Stephen Krashen.

Although the generals argue over tactics, the strategic goals of both sides have much in common. Both believe that their tactics should lead to independent meaning-making, that is, reading comprehension should be the objective. Both agree that reading automaticity (fluency) is important and that their teaching methodologies, that is, the sound-spelling connections for the “Phonic-ators,” and the  “psycholinguistic guessing games (Goodman)” for the “Whole Language Junkies,” will best lead to efficient, accurate, and “unconscious” word recognition. Both believe that reading is a complex and interactive process, in which prior knowledge and cognitive ability are important variables to actively address.

So, having identified the two uses of context clues, that is vocabulary development and word identification, is using context clues for word identification a bad thing?  My view is that it can be when it is taught as the primary strategy for identifying words. I personally tend to lean on the research that proficient readers rely more on the graphophonic (visual and phonemic clues) as their primary strategies for word identification, while struggling readers tend to rely on context clues as their primary strategy for word identification.  Kylene Beers, in her book When Kids Can’t Read, summarizes the problem of using context clues for word identification: “. . . discerning the meaning of unknown words using context clues requires a sophisticated interaction with the text that dependent readers have not yet achieved.” The proof is in the pudding: if good readers do A, and bad readers do B, then teachers should teach A more than B.

It does makes sense that readers need to learn a variety of strategies for word identification so that when one method fails, they have other back-up methods to assist. Explicit graphophonic instructional strategies should serve as the first line of attack and semantic instructional strategies, using context clues, should serve as back-ups.

Find multiple choice reading assessments on two CDs, blending and syllabication activities, phonemic awareness and phonics workshops, comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages on eight CDs, 390 flashcards, posters, games, and more to differentiate reading instruction in the comprehensive Teaching Reading Strategies. For individual sound-spelling worksheets that correspond with the comprehensive TSV Spelling Assessment, spelling rules with memorable raps and songs on CD, spelling tests, Greek and Latin affixes/roots worksheets, syllable practice, spelling games, vocabulary games, and more to differentiate spelling and vocabulary instruction, please check out Teaching Spelling and Vocabulary.

Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary context clues, decoding, graphophonic, mini miscue, miscue, phonics, phonics strategies, prior knowledge, reading wars, schema theory, semantic cueing, vocabulary development, vocabulary in context, word identification, word recognition

The title of my article betrays me to some and mystifies the rest. Those receiving A.A.R.P. mailings on a daily basis recognize Dick and Jane as the two main characters from the popular series of basal readers from the 1930s through the 1970s. Those not yet on the mailing list (Your time draws nigh) will need a bit of background.

Although the reading wars have somewhat died down recently since the death of the “whole language” movement of the 1980s and 1990s, the two opposing camps remain garrisoned behind an unstable DMZ. One side still believes that we learn to read naturally “whole word to part” through exposure to lots of text, memorization of whole words or onsets and rimes (e.g., c-ake and b-ake), and the use of context clues (the Look-Say Method of Dick and Jane, “whole language,” and Stephen Krashen).

The other side still believes that we learn to read “part to whole word” by learning and applying the alphabetic code to decipher the English sound-spelling system (SRA Open Court, phonics, spelling-the side that’s currently winning).

What about Dr. Seuss? The good doctor treats the wounded on both sides with his Cat in the Hat.

Of course, no one would agree with all, or perhaps any, of the above characterizations. Most teachers tend to be practical soldiers and go from camp to camp as they see fit. As a reading specialist, working with remedial students on a daily basis, I frequently cross over enemy lines when remedial reading students may benefit.

But, with respect to our remedial readers, we do need to “draw our lines in the sand” a bit with regard to Dick and Jane. “Oh, see. Oh, see Jane. Funny, funny Jane,” will not inspire either the “whole to part” or “part to whole” camps, nor any of our remedial readers. The following “reading test” that pretends to prove the Dick and Jane approach still makes the rounds on blog posts and mass emails:

Cambridge University Reading Test

Aoccdrnig to a rseearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

At first (or second) read, the above example seems to validate the whole-word method of the Dick and Jane series. You can read the words above with just their first and last letters. Phonics are bogus!

But, wait a minute… There never was such a reading test developed at Cambridge University. The “test” is a hoax. The trick behind the hoax is that not only are the first and last letters in the same place, but most of the consonants appear in the exact order of the word. Only the vowels are all removed, rearranged, and replaced.

Text-messaging proves the point. Try texting this sentence to a friend: Tgouhh pprehas ploepe rlleay cluod cphoreenmd, gievn uteimlnid tmie,  ecfecfniiy sfruefs gatelry.*

A bit more challenging? Your friend will certainly have more difficulty reading your message because even though the first and last letters are in the same place, the consonants and medial vowels are not. So, the Cambridge University “Reading Test” actually points to the fact that readers really do look at all of the letters and apply the alphabetic code to read efficiently.

So, although I learned to read with the Dick and Jane series, the problem is that this approach does not seem to be as successful when students come from less literate households. In sum, the “Look-Say Method” probably would work for 80% of our population, but systematic phonics instruction seems to work to some degree for everyone.

My practical experience validates this conclusion. Teaching reading intervention students from fourth grade up through community college has helped me identify one common denominator of students who struggle with reading: they don’t know and can’t apply the alphabetic code. Diagnostic assessments almost always lead to this conclusion.

In fact, the English sound-spelling system is remarkably consistent and well-worth learning, especially for remedial readers. Yes, there are exceptions, but better to learn the rules and adjust to the exceptions.

So sorry, Dick and Jane… Cambridge University “Reading Test”? An urban legend and a complete hoax.

*Though perhaps people really could comprehend, given unlimited time, efficiency suffers greatly.

Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist, is the author of the comprehensive reading intervention curriculum, Teaching Reading Strategies. Designed to significantly increase the reading abilities of students ages eight through adult within one year, the curriculum is decidedly un-canned, adaptable to various instructional settings, and simple to use. With multiple choice reading assessments on two CDs, formative assessments, blending and syllabication activities, phonemic awareness and phonics workshops, comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages on eight CDs, 390 flashcards, posters, activities, and games (364 pages), even novice reading teachers and para-professionals will be able to use these user-friendly resources to effectively differentiate reading instruction with minimal preparation.

Reading decoding, Dr. Seuss, Krashen, literature based reading, Look Say Method, onsets, phonics, reading wars, rimes, whole language, word families

As an elementary reading specialist and staff developer for five years in the Elk Grove Unified School District in Northern California, I learned from lots of my mistakes.  In the hope that prospective reading specialists, coaches, and staff developers might learn from someone else’s mistakes, I’ve jotted down a few tips. Administrators might learn a few things about professional development and site support, as well.

1. Get to know the teachers that you are working with outside of their classrooms. The staff room should be your starting point for building relationships. Your first contact should never be a classroom observation with your clipboard in hand and the principal in tow. Also, hang out with teachers while they are doing duties. Offer to take a duty assignment at random.

2. Build trust. Although your boss may be the principal or district supervisor, remind teachers that you really work for them and that what they say/share will remain in strict confidentiality (no snitchin’ to the principal). Never say a negative word about a teacher. For example, “Mr. Brown has no classroom management skills and does not teach to the standards” can be better said as “Mr. Brown really cares about improving his teaching craft, as we all do, and is working on classroom management and teaching to the standards.”

3. Be a classroom helper. Offer to help do short workshops with below level readers IN THE ROOM, so that the teacher can keep an eye on you. All teachers want help with their kids. Do individual reading screenings. Offer to help the teacher complete individual diagnostic and formative assessments. You need to earn the right to be heard.

4. Remind teachers that you are there to help and not to evaluate. Remind teachers that you work for them and that what they say/share will remain in strict confidentiality (no snitchin’ to the principal).

5. Offer to take the teacher’s class, so that the teacher can do a peer observation. Teachers rarely have a chance to see each other in action.

6. Offer to do a demonstration lesson and ask for the teacher’s critique of your own teaching and what you share. Ask for criticism and let the teacher see your vulnerabilities and weaknesses as a fellow teacher. All teachers have insecurities.  By showing that you are not perfect, you will open up the channels of communication and trust. Teachers will ask for your feedback and input on their own teaching, if they see you as an equal with the time and resources to help them.

7. Keep staff presentations short and sweet. Don’t be a know-it-all. When at all possible, enable another teacher to become the staff presentation star. Be a coach and let the players take all the credit. Phil Jackson knows how to coach. Michael Jordan and, now, Kobe Bryant get all the glory.

8. Compliment a teacher’s teaching frequently and direct those compliments to that teacher’s colleagues and to administrators. Make teachers feel good about themselves because of you. A brief note is better than a verbal compliment. Every teacher is concerned about his or her reputation among colleagues. Build up; never tear down.

9. Run a school-wide reading incentive program and build relationships with kids. The more the kids like you, the more they will ask their teachers to have you visit their classrooms. Pop into classrooms weekly with cool reading bookmarks and rewards certificates. Eat lunch with the kids and hang out with them on the playground.

10. Find out who the most influential colleague is and start building relationships there.

Here’s a differentiated fluency instructional plan that got me into a dozen classes for 15 minutes, twice a week, for an entire year to rave reviews,
and really opened up teachers to accepting me as their go-to reading coach. The district transferred from that site to another after only one year, but I will always remember the “standing-o” at my last staff meeting, which happened to be attended by my district boss. Yeah!

Mark Pennington is an educational author and is back in the classroom, teaching remedial reading and English-language Arts to middle school students. His Teaching Reading Strategies draws rave reviews from reading specialists and reading intervention teachers.

Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist, is the author of the comprehensive reading intervention curriculum, Teaching Reading Strategies. Designed to significantly increase the reading abilities of students ages eight through adult within one year, the curriculum is decidedly un-canned, adaptable to various instructional settings, and simple to use. Get multiple choice reading assessments on two CDs, formative assessments, blending and syllabication activities, phonemic awareness and phonics workshops, comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages on eight CDs, 390 flashcards, posters, activities, and games. Everything teachers need to teach a diagnostically-based reading intervention program for struggling readers at all reading levels is found in this comprehensive curriculum. Perfect for ESL and Special Education students, who struggle with language/auditory processing challenges. Simple directions and well-crafted activities truly make this an almost no-prep curriculum. Works well as a half-year intensive program or full-year program, with or without paraprofessional assistance. 364 pages

Reading blending, comprehension, decoding, fluency, literacty coach, phonics, phonics activities, phonics assessments, phonics tests, phonics worksheets, reading coach, reading specialist, sound-spellings

Meet Johnny. Although… you probably already know him. In fact, you probably have a Johnny in your class right now. It may also be possible that you also have a few Johnnys that you don’t know about yet. Johnny has reading problems.

Johnny didn’t quite catch on to reading in kindergarten and first grade. His second and third grade teachers did spend a few minutes each day with Johnny, along with a few other students, and he did make some progress. However, by the time Johnny was handed his fourth grade social studies and science textbooks, he was not at all prepared for the multi-syllabic decoding, academic vocabulary, and expository text structure of these books. Apparently, other students had reading problems, because the teacher rarely used the textbooks. Instead, she taught the “power standards” to prepare her students for the standardized tests in both subject areas. His upper elementary and middle school teachers focused on the short stories in the literature anthology and on the assigned “core novels.” The teacher read the stories out loud or had the students take turns reading in “popcorn” style. Sometimes the teachers played the CD recordings. Of course, Johnny’s teachers wisely learned to avoid calling on him to read to protect his self-esteem. Clearly, Johnny’s reading deficits continued to compound.

In middle school, Johnny was placed in an intervention class for language arts. The focus of the class was to teach grade-level language arts standards at a slower pace. Addressing individual reading problems was not the primary focus of class, although the composition of the class was loosely based upon the reading scores of last year’s standards-based test. Johnny scored “Far Below Basic” because he was able to read only parts of the passages. Undoubtedly, a few students were placed in the class because they randomly marked answers on the test. Most of the students in this intervention class did have significant reading problems. However, they did not all have the same reading problems. Some students, such as Johnny, lacked phonemic awareness and could not decode. Other students had poor comprehension or low fluency scores. Still others were English language-learners. A few students were simply placed in the class due to behavioral problems.

Visit most public schools today and you will be able to spot more than a few Johnnys. Unfortunately, the Matthew Effect (Stanovich) is alive and well in our schools today. The rich do, indeed, get richer and the Johnnys get poorer. Students who learn to read well in their primary school years tend to continue this success because they use their reading skills to learn content and vocabulary in their intermediate elementary and middle school years. Students who do not learn to read well in their primary school years fall even further behind in school and the gap between good and poor readers widens. While the statistics indicate that only one in six remedial readers ever close this gap, Johnny can be that one. With the right diagnostic tools and instructional materials, caring teachers can better the odds for their students with reading problems.

Mark Pennington, MA Reading Specialist, is the author of  the comprehensive reading intervention curriculum, Teaching Reading Strategies.Designed to significantly increase the reading abilities of students ages eight through adult within one year, the curriculum is decidedly un-canned, adaptable to various instructional settings, and simple to use. Get multiple choice reading assessments on two CDs, formative assessments, blending and syllabication activities, phonemic awareness and phonics workshops,comprehension worksheets, multi-level fluency passages on eight CDs, 390 flashcards, posters, activities, and games. Everything teachers need to teach a diagnostically-based reading intervention program for struggling readers at all reading levels is found in this comprehensive curriculum. Perfect for ESL and Special Education students, who struggle with language/auditory processing challenges. Simple directions and well-crafted activities truly make this an almost no-prep curriculum. Works well as a half-year intensive program or full-year program, with or without paraprofessional assistance. 364 pages

Reading decoding, intervention, phonics, Reading, reading problems, remedial reading, spelling, worksheets