Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso educativo Open Access |
| Language: | en |
| Published: |
1975
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED137462 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- Central 1974-1975 Title I Remedial Services for Eligible Nonpublic School Pupils; Reading Skills Center Component, School Year 1974-1975. Berger, Kenneth Diagnostic Teaching Elementary Education Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Private Schools Program Evaluation Reading Centers Reading Improvement Reading Skills The 1974-1975 Reading Skills Center component of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I Remedial Services for Eligible Nonpublic School Pupils Program was designed to provide intensive diagnostic-prescriptive reading instruction for students in grades four through eight who had evidence of reading retardation in excess of two and one half years below their nominal grade level. Priority for participation in the program was given to those pupils who had previously participated in the Title I nonpublic school corrective reading program and who had made little or insufficient progress. Students attended centers in groups of five students per teacher. They received instruction for three to five sessions per week in class periods ranging from 45 to 60 minutes. Two teachers were located at each of the eight centers so that a total of about four hundred students could be served. Instruction centered around the use of the Random House High Intensity Learning System in Reading. This system is composed of three major components: the classroom management system, a library of reading materials, and a staff development program. The classroom management system contains a compilation of 500 specific reading objectives with a listing of the precise instructional activities that foster the attainment of the specified objectives. The evaluation objective, "showing significant improvement in reading", was achieved. Program strengths included a favorable teacher student ratio, the quality of the teaching staff and their effort, skillful supervision, the selection of appropriate facilities and materials, and the eclectic approach of program staff. (Author/AM)