Earlene L. Holland

Oakland City University

Jack W. Humphrey

Middle Grades Reading Network

University of Evansville

March, 2004

Middle Grades Reading Network

University of Evansville

1800 Lincoln Avenue

Evansville, IN 47722

812-423-5570

mgrn.evansville.edu

jh25@evansville.edu

Funded by the Lilly Endowment Inc.

Executive Summary

     A questionnaire concerning reading was sent to Indiana middle, junior, and senior high schools in 1992 and a report was written at that time.  The same questionnaire was sent to the same schools in 2003.  During this period of time increased interest was shown throughout the nation in reading achievement and high school graduation rates.  The purpose of this report is to share the results about what has happened during that period of time in Indiana middle, junior, and senior high schools concerning staff development, special assistance in reading, time for reading instruction, school library media centers, major influences on reading programs, voluntary reading, family support, school and public library relationship, and priority for reading in schools.  While progress is being made, many of the areas of concern in 1992 continue to exist.

Staff Development.  There is an increase in local staff development for reading teachers, but fewer participate in state and national reading activities.

Special Assistance in Reading.  There is a decline in students receiving special help in reading.  Few school corporations provide Title I support or special reading assistance other than in the primary grades. 

            Time for Reading Instruction.  More middle grades schools are providing reading courses for their students.

            School Library Media Centers.   Spending for school library books is about the same even though the price of books has more than doubled.  Circulation of school library books is lower.

            Major Influences on Reading Programs.  The major influences on reading programs are within local schools and school corporations.  Schools report little influence on their reading programs from professional organizations and Indiana colleges and universities.

            Voluntary Reading.  There is a definite overall improvement in voluntary reading.

            Family Support.  There is no improvement in school programs to encourage parents to read and discuss books with their children.  Only one-fifth of the schools provide such programs.

            School and Public Library Relationship.  Schools continue to report that most of their students do not use their public libraries on a regular basis.

            Priority for Reading.  Schools that have a high reading priority offer more special help in reading, have a higher ratio of reading teachers to students, add many more new books to school library book collections, have a larger school library book circulation rate, and have more members of the school staff who frequently read and discuss books.

Table of Contents

Introduction 

Staff Development for Reading Teachers

Special Assistance in Reading

Time for Reading Instruction  

Major Influence on Reading Programs

School Library Media Centers

Voluntary Reading 

Family Support for Adolescent Reading Development

School and Public Library Relationship

Community Programs to Help Engage Students with Books

Comparison of Schools with Low and High Priorities for Reading

Promising Practices

Study Limitations

Conclusions 

Recommendations

References 

Appendix A:  Middle, Junior, and Senior High School Reading

Questionnaire 

Appendix B:  Reading Course and Program Descriptions

 Tables and Figures

Table 1.    Hours of Staff Development for Reading Teachers

Table 2.    Staff Development for Reading Teachers

Table 3.    Schools with Programs to Encourage Teachers to Read

Table 4.    Frequency that School Staffs Read and Discuss Books

Table 5.    Participation of Indiana Public School Students in ESEA

                 Title 1 Program

Table 6.    Students Two Grade Levels Below Grade Placement in Reading

                  and Number Receiving Special Help in Reading

Table 7.    Remedial Reading Program Available for Students Needing     

                 Special Help (Excludes Special Education)

Figure 1.  Comparison of Elementary and High School Models in Middle     

                 Schools

Table 8.    Major Influence on Reading Programs.

Table 9.    Certified Librarians

Table 10.  School Library Media Center Book Collections and Circulation

Table 11.  Book Expenditures

Table 12.  Estimates by Educators of Percent of Students Who Read for  

                  Pleasure

Table 13.  Reasons Educators Perceive that Students Are Not Engaged

                  with Books

Table 14.  Programs to Encourage Parents to Read to Their Students

Table 15.  Educators’ Estimate of Student Use of Public Libraries

Table 16.  Programs in the Community to Help Engage Students with

                 Books

Table 17.  Priority of Reading in the Schools

Table 18.  Comparison of 20 Schools with Low Reading Priorities and

                 20 Schools with High Reading Priorities, 1992

Table 19.  Comparison of 20 Schools with Low Reading Priorities and

                 20 Schools with High Reading Priorities, 2003

 
Introduction

     The scene is a large rural K-12 school on the first day of the school year.  A kindergarten child appears in the immense (to him) school foyer. The building principal turns toward him as she finished greeting the last of the students on the first day of school.  His tear-stricken, sad, countenance disturbed her. She knelt and hugged him, but his statue-like posture was not responsive.  He did not speak, but the look in his eyes revealed that he felt all alone and afraid. She took him by the hand to his room and left him there. Each morning for two weeks she made sure she gave him a hug as he entered the school building, but the tears still flowed. She stopped by his classroom each day to visit and twice weekly read to the children. She noticed his improvement in the classroom but had never experienced a child who did not respond to a hug.  One day she was not at the entrance to hug this child. When she returned the next day and met him at the door, he ran to her, hugged her, and said, ” I’m glad you came back.” (These were the first words he had spoken to her.) Then he pranced down the hall to his class. Now, it was the principal who had tears in her eyes.  Later that day in a discussion with the teacher the principal learned that the child did not know how to hug and further had never been read to at home.  As reading was a priority in this school, the school library was filled with new books and other print materials, parents were encouraged to share books with their children, reading was taught as a separate subject in grades six through eight, and the entire school community was engaged in contributing to the success of all its students. This child was one of the fortunate students who were nurtured throughout his schooling.

     Many years later as the principal visited the school in another capacity, a student caught up with her as she was walking down the hall and said, “Remember me? You gave me hugs and read to me. I have never forgotten.”  After checking, the former principal learned that this young adolescent was now very successful in school and participated in several extra-curricular activities, including band. Caring administrators, teachers, members of the community, and his family contributed to the eventual academic success of this young man.

     Similar experiences and successes have been witnessed by the authors in many schools across Indiana; however, the authors’ investigations of educational programs in Indiana prisons show that many young adolescents turned to the streets for their education when essential needs were not met through the collaboration of home, school, and community.  Thus many drop out of school because they cannot read and therefore cannot do the work in the various subject areas. According to the Indiana Department of Corrections and the Indiana Department of Education (Kathy Lisby {DOC} & Patti Bond {IDOE}  Personal Communication, December, 2003), in Indiana alone, as contained in the 2002 data, there were 8,594 of 12,059 individuals admitted to Indiana prisons who did not complete the 12^th grade of school. Indiana now spends $20,966 per prison inmate per year. In contrast, the average General Fund expenditure for public school students was $3711 per student in 1992 and $5746 in 2003 (excluding special education students).  Indiana prisons now provide educational programs for inmates that range from teaching basic reading and math skills, preparing for the test of General Educational Development (GED), vocational/technical training, and offering courses leading to college degrees. The return to prison rate in 2003 was 26.9 percent. It is now assumed that with more emphasis on reading and math skills in Indiana middle, junior, and senior high schools as well as in the prison educational programs that the return rate to prison will lessen and inmates will lead more productive lives in the work force when they are released. Data is being collected that will either confirm or deny this assumption.

     In the new millennium a minimum of a high school education is paramount to participate in a productive workforce, and extensive vocational technical training or a college degree further ensures the chances for career and job opportunities.

     The United States Census Bureau (Education Commission of the States, April/October, 2003) survey report states that 31 percent of the nation’s population

have college degrees while in Indiana only 25 percent hold college degrees, thus Indiana ranks 44^th in the nation of the population holding college degrees (IndyStar.Com, 2003).  Indiana’s status has improved somewhat since 1989 when only 13.8 percent of Indiana adults had completed college.  The national average was then 20.3 percent (Kominsky, 1991).  Ironically, one study of students in the 1999-2000 school year revealed that only 31 percent of Indiana high school students were academically ready for college (Greene & Forester, 2003).

     One way to evaluate a state’s relative progress in teaching reading is to analyze standardized test scores. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in 1986 and 1990 summary reports indicate that only 11 percent of thirteen-year-olds in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1990 could comprehend complicated reading material. Yet a summary of results across grade levels four, eight, and twelve over the last two decades reveals that students have mastered decoding skills and can understand specific and sequential information. However, when material becomes more complicated (proficient level and advanced levels), only a few students are competent.  Clearly, reading proficiency increases nationally from grades four through eight but declines between grades eight and twelve.  For some reason, research is showing that as students move into the adolescent years, they tend to read less (Valencia, Hiebert, & Kapinus, 1992; Mullis, Owen, & Phillips, 1990; Langer, Applebee, Mullis, & Foertsch, 1990; Kirsch & Jungeblut, 1986; Applebee, Langer, & Mullis 1988; Langer et al., 1990) which then can lead to lower achievement and lower test scores.  Additionally, these results, along with other disturbing information, indicate that there is indeed a correlation between successful reading and crime, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, and dropping out of school (Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1988).

     More recent 1992 and 2003 NAEP results indicate that there was no significant change in reading scores since 1992, but in 2003 there was an overall gain in eighth-grade scores.  The percent of eighth-graders at or above the Basic level decreased by one point between 2002 and 2003 but was higher in 2003 than in 1992.  Students did score higher at the proficient level in both fourth and eighth grades than they did in 1992.  There was no significant change in fourth-graders from 2002 to 2003.  (Indiana’s fourth graders ranked 16^th in reading on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress but dropped to 30^th at the eighth grade level).  The percentages of twelfth-graders at or above the Basic and Proficient levels decreased between 1998 and 2002.  Scores were lower than in 1992 (National Center for Education Statistics, 1992-2003).

     A study of high school graduation rates in 2000 showed that 84 percent of Asian, 59 percent of Hispanic, 53 percent of black, and 78 percent of white students graduated from high school.  It was concluded that more black and Hispanic students drop out of school than white and Asian students.  Further, students who do not take college-preparatory courses are not as likely to score at the Basic level in reading on the NAEP (Greene & Forester, 2003).  Indiana had a graduation rate of 74 percent in 2000.

     A recent 32 nation study of educational achievement shows that United States students scored in the middle, but results indicate that the gap between the best and worst student scores is wider than in any other country. According to David Hoff (Education Week, 2001) the results reveal what reading experts already know, “More students leave the primary grades as competent readers steeped in the basics, but many fail to refine and build on their skills as they move through middle and high school.” 

     In 1992 the Middle Grades Reading Network funded a study of Reading in Indiana Middle, Junior, and Senior High Schools. This study revealed that:

• Middle grades students had less time allotted to reading in the school curriculum than their counterparts of fifty years ago;
• One-quarter of Indiana schools provided no special assistance for middle-grades students who had fallen behind due to reading failure;
• Over one-third of students who had fallen behind one or more grade levels received no special help;
• Indiana ranked thirty-second nationwide in textbook expenditures;
• Indiana schools spent, on the average, $1.92 per student per year on supplementary classroom reading materials—less than the cost of one paperback book;
• Many teachers received no planned staff development in reading;
• Few schools made efforts to connect with parents and community agencies, such as public libraries, to extend young people’s reading opportunities beyond the school day; and,
• Indiana students ranked forty-second (after adjustments) out of fifty states and Washington, D.C. on SAT scores (Humphrey, 1992, March, No. 4).

     Realizing that much was missing in young people’s lives as readers prompted the Middle Grades Reading Network to establish a stakeholder group to develop a plan (Middle Grades Reading Network, 1995) towards becoming a Community of Readers.  The culmination of extensive research and study by reading stakeholders resulted in the document that states:

     All young adolescents in Indiana need access to the kinds of reading opportunities that will allow them to grow up to be successful members of a literate community.  It is the responsibility of the entire community to offer support for providing these opportunities. Our ultimate goal is the creation of Communities of Readers where each young adolescent will be able to fulfill his or her potential as a reader.

      To that end, we believe that Indiana’s young adolescents deserve:

1. Access to Books   Access to current appealing, high-interest, and useful books and other reading materials in their classrooms, homes, public and school libraries, and other locations within the community.

2. Encouragement to Value Reading   Schools that feature an environment where reading is valued, promoted, and encouraged.

3. Time to Read   Dedicated time during the school day to read for a variety of purposes—for pleasure, information, and exploration.

4. Skilled Reading Leaders   Teachers and school librarians who continually seek to renew their skills and excitement in sharing reading with young people through participation in diverse professional developmental activities.

5. Public Library Support   Public libraries that provide services specifically designed to engage young people’s interest in reading.

6. Community Agency Support   Community-based programs that encourage them in all aspects of their reading activities.

7. Family Support   Opportunities for reading at home and support from schools, public libraries, and community agencies to families with young adolescents to encourage family reading activities. 

8. Reading Role Models   Communities of Readers in which all adults—in school, at home, and across the community—serve as role models and provide guidance to ensure that reading is a priority in young people’s lives.

     By strengthening and bringing together these eight components, we believe that we can make Indiana a Community of Readers in which young adolescents will thrive.  Indeed, it is only in such an environment that young people will have the opportunities to become prepared to meet challenges of the future. (Humphrey, 1995).

     The 1992 Middle Grades Reading Network study documented that there is a weak link in the educational conduit from the elementary to the secondary reading programs. The results clearly showed that many adolescents in Indiana schools were not provided the critical elements found in the Reading Bill of Rights.

     “Reading is the most important, fundamental ability taught in the nation’s schools. It is vital to society and to the people within it. It is the door to knowledge and a capability that can liberate people both intellectually and personally” (National Assessment Governing Board, 1992, p.1).

     In order to create this continuum of meaningful reading experiences for our middle grades and high school students, there must be careful on-going planning and implementation preceded by the genuine commitment of the entire school community and society as a whole. Realizing the importance of this commitment as well as the indisputable realization that our country’s future depends on the ability of societal members to read and carefully discern and comprehend a daily bombardment of information, the Middle Grades Reading Network began a series of

projects to promote reading in Indiana’s middle grades schools.  In conjunction with these projects the Network distributed over 300,000 books appropriate for young readers in Indiana middle, junior, and senior high schools as well as Indiana teacher education institutions (Humphrey, Lipsitz, McGovern & Wasser,1997).

     People can best gain knowledge and understand the thoughts and successes of others through reading (Olcott et al., 1913). It was a famous librarian who once said:  “Through reading, knowledge is made cumulative, so that one generation may stand on the shoulders of the preceding.  It is not its intellect that renders the modern world superior to antiquity, but its intellect, plus the heritage of two thousand years of thought and discovery transmitted to it through books” (Koopman: The Mastery of Books in Olcott et al., 1913, p. 133).

     Realizing this concept, in 1997-2003 the Network supported legislative efforts to fund The Library Materials Grant Program in Indiana that ultimately funded a total of thirteen million dollars for Indiana Kindergarten through grade twelve school libraries. The impact of those funds, matched by school district funds, indicated that there was a substantial increase in book circulation and independent reading as well as book purchases. When the funding was reduced in 2000 and 2001, book purchases also decreased and book circulation increases were smaller. This revealed a direct link between purchasing new books and book circulation that ultimately leads to less independent reading (Plucker, Humphrey, Kearns, & Walter, 2002).

     Because research proves that increased leisure reading improves reading achievement and test scores (Krashen, 1993; Sanacore, 1988; Pearson, 1993; Mullis, Owen, & Phillips, 1990), it can be inferred that a decrease in funding resulting in fewer books and less circulation will result in lower reading achievement and lower test scores.

     During this period more work was done at the state level to promote reading.  In August of 1999 the Indiana State Board of Education approved the revised Kindergarten through grade twelve course titles and course descriptions that shall be taught in Indiana schools. Any other courses taught need a special waiver from the Indiana Department of Education. Over 100 educators and community members participated in this endeavor. The subject of Reading was retained and the orientation to reading skills was strengthened at all levels and aligned with the Indiana reading standards.

     The Indiana Professional Standards Board also recognized the importance of reading in Indiana schools and approved reading licenses for each developmental level at the Bachelor degree level: Early Childhood (Preschool and Primary), Middle Childhood (Intermediate), Early Adolescence (Middle/Junior High), Adolescence/Young Adulthood (High School), and reading specialist at the masters degree level.  Indiana now has 251 middle grades schools that have separate reading classes and can take advantage of teachers with reading licenses.  The Indiana Professional Standards Board also recognized the need for separate reading standards for pre-service teachers and approved new reading standards Kindergarten through grade twelve and for reading specialists at the masters degree level.

Response to Questionnaire

     In order to obtain the data concerning the status of reading in Indiana public middle, junior, and senior high schools, as identified by the Indiana Department of Education, questionnaires were sent to public schools in the spring of 1992 and the spring of 2003.

     A total of 460 or 74.8 percent of the schools responded to the questionnaire in 1992 and 208 or 33.8 percent responded to the 2003 survey.  Although the percent rate of return was much less in 2003 making it difficult to compare results between the two studies, the results are nevertheless revealing. The fact that the response was less in the 2003 survey raises many questions about the actual commitment to reading in Indiana school communities.  Part of the problem may be due to severe budgetary problems within the state that were transmitted to the schools during the 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 school years.

Staff Development for Reading Teachers

      Even though effective instruction in reading has not changed appreciably in the last 100 years, there have been and will be many twists and turns in the process particularly as the school student clientele changes in the special needs categories.

     Morrow (2003) and Bean (2004) remind us that professional development must be a priority, and emphasis should be on assisting teachers to reflect on their teaching practices, research-based strategies, and various pedagogical strategies, as well as striving to develop a professional community within their organizations.  Daniels (2003) urges the development of teacher book clubs that are supported by the school district. This type of professional development not only exhibits teachers as good role models and their own dedication to books and reading but gives a strong message that the district believes in and trusts its staff to pursue the responsibility for continued professional growth and decision-making.

     Further, not only teachers in the field need on-going professional development, the importance needs to be stressed in pre-service education as well. Teachers at various stages of teacher preparation and practicing teachers are at different levels of expertise (Vacca & Vacca, 2002), thus staff development needs to be well-designed, well-planned, and implemented so that attitudes and beliefs change in a positive way and that learning in the classroom is affected.  As a result of a study conducted by the National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction, where 1000 reading teachers were surveyed, Manzo (2003) reported that teacher preparation programs should contain the following critical features: “a comprehensive curriculum that helps students acquire a cohesive knowledge base on literacy; field experiences related to coursework; a vision of literacy and high-quality teaching and preparation; sufficient resources to support the program’s mission; teaching personalized to the individual needs of preservice teachers; autonomy of teacher education programs within institutions; a learning community among faculty, students, and mentor teachers; and continual assessment of students, the program, and faculty.”

     The report concluded that it is the teacher who makes the difference, not the instructional method. The features of this study obviously apply to middle school and junior/senior high school educators as well.

     The proof is in the pudding. Mr. Anthony Alvoredo, Superintendent of # 2 School District in New York strongly believes that quality teachers and good instruction are critical to reading success and higher test scores that would ultimately benefit other areas of instruction. Literacy instruction was the primary focus for the first five years of his superintendency.  He searched for and hired the best teachers he could find and who ultimately assisted in training and collaborating with other staff members. Test scores in all subjects improved (Wagner, 2003).

     Table 1 compiles the Indiana survey respondents’ estimates of the hours of staff development for Indiana’s middle, junior, and senior high school reading teachers. The average amount of time per teacher spent in a year for staff development in reading, including college courses and conferences, was 3.8 hours in 1992 and increased to 12.8 hours in 2003.  However, schools in the 1992 survey listed some language arts teachers as reading teachers, so there were fewer reading teachers but more staff development for them.

Table 1.

     Table 2 shows that in 1992, 51 or 11.2 percent and in 2003, 75 or 37.9 percent of the schools have a planned staff development program for their reading teachers. This includes workshops, seminars, college courses, conferences, and visitations by teachers to other reading teachers’ classrooms. The largest group of schools, 283 or 62.1 percent in 1992 and 71 or 35.6 percent in 2003, have no planned staff development programs for reading teachers, but teachers are active in the local and state reading councils, are involved in other organizations where they can enhance their professional development, and attend college classes. Another 122 schools, or 26.7 percent in 1992 and 52 or 26.2 percent in 2003, have no planned staff development programs; and their staff members do not participate in professional organizations. Overall, results show a distinct increase in planned staff development from 1992 to 2003.

 Table 2.

     Table 3 shows that 112 or 24.5 percent of schools in 1992 and 31 or 16 percent of schools in 2003 have a planned program to encourage teachers to read. In 1992 it should be noted that sixty-five of the schools that have a program to encourage teachers to read are participating in the Teachers Under Cover project sponsored by the University of Southern Indiana and funded by Lilly Endowment Inc. This program provided books for small groups of teachers who read and discuss books of their choice. Without the Teachers Under Cover project, only 47 schools (out of the 458 responding) said that they had programs to encourage teachers to read. There is no data available as to those still participating in the program in 2003. In summary, there are fewer programs to encourage teachers to read.

 Table 3.

     Table 4 indicates the frequency that school staff members report that they read and discussed books. In 1992, 81 or 18 percent and in 2003, 39 or 19.5 percent did so. Overall by 2003, there were fewer programs in effect that encouraged teachers to read, but the frequency that school staff read and discussed books was about the same.

Table 4.

  Special Assistance in Reading

      Students have more difficulty in reading than any other subject because all subjects require reading in order to understand content. Even the bright or average child can have a disability that prevents the adequate development of reading ability and necessitates additional special instruction (Blanchard, 1928). Many students reach middle school and high school without the needed strategies to cope with the depth of reading required and skills to become independent readers and learners.  Many learning opportunities happen in activities after school, yet many disadvantaged youth lack the opportunities to engage in these positive growth opportunities.

     Effective instruction continues to be the key, and in-school and after school tutorial and small group programs that are congruent with classroom instruction (congruent but not “more of the same”) are beneficial to these struggling readers. (Quatroche, 2000; Salinger, 2003).

     The Federal Government’s largest Elementary and Secondary School Program (ESEA Title l) has distributed billions of dollars into programs in order to improve reading and math skills for America’s disadvantaged learners.  These ESEA programs (in effect since 1965 and monetary statistics available since 1980) with funding totals available to Local Educational Agencies (LEA) provided $2.7 billion in 1980 with yearly increases to $6.1 billion in 1992 and $11.7 billion in 2003.  In 2003 Indiana received $146,473,711 of the total dollars allocated to Title l (US Department of Education Budget Office, 2003).

     Yet Title l scores in reading on the 2002 NAEP at the Basic and Proficient levels indicated that schools that did not participate in Title l had higher scores than those schools that did participate in Title l (National Center for Education Statistics, 1992-2003). Since remedial-type students generally have about 1.080 hours of instructional time in school and an average of about seventy-two hours of extra assistance, mostly from Title l and at-risk-type programs that generally take them away from regular classroom instruction, one could hardly expect much improvement in overall academic performance. This places the additional financial burden on the school district to provide more funding to help these students (Rotberg & Harvey, 1993).

     In the 1990-91 school year, 253,438 Indiana public school students were eligible for Title l services, but only 85,598 or 33.5 percent of these students received the needed services. In 2003 there were 143,458 eligible for help and 119,134 or 83 percent received the needed services. The largest number of students served was in the primary grades.

Table 5.

     This focus on the lower grades means that many Indiana middle, junior, and senior high school students are deprived of badly needed help.   Compared to 1992, there is a much higher percentage of students now enrolled in Title I programs and a much lower percentage of students enrolled in subsequent grades.  There are now 105,734 (88.8%) students through the fifth grade that participate in Title I programs while only 12,619 (10.6%) are involved in the sixth through eighth grades and 781 (.6%) in the ninth through twelfth grades.  These figures in both 1990-91 and 2002-2003 may be more serious than indicated, since some educators feel that students in need of remedial services are undercounted in the upper grades. Local school corporations have some discretion in setting priorities for distribution of Title l support. The limited Title l support may be supplemented by other funds in some corporations. (i.e., Remediation and other At Risk funds).  However, it remains true that Indiana school corporations tend to offer much less assistance in reading to students as they move to higher grade levels.

    Table 6 shows that in 1992 there were 35,784 students or 11.3 percent who read two grade levels below their grade placement in reading.  In 2003 the total reading below grade level was 17,595 or 11.4 percent.  In 1992 a total of 22,088 or 61.7 percent and in 2003 a total of 9,448 or 53.7 percent of these students are receiving special help in reading leaving 38.3 percent in 1992 and 46.3 percent in 2003 without any special help in reading.  There is a definite decline in students receiving special help in reading from 1992 to 2003.

Table 6.

     Table 7 shows the extent of programs for students who need special help in reading.  In 1992, while just under one-fourth (106) of the 460 schools had Title l support available, slightly more than one-forth of the schools reported having other remediation programs. In 2003 the number of schools with Title I support dropped to 6.4 percent (13). One hundred thirteen (113) of these schools in 1992 and 47 in 2003 had reading courses. In 1992 almost 27 percent received other help including tutoring services while in 2003 the percent raised to just over 36 percent. Sadly, the remaining fourth in 1992 and 34.2 percent in 2003 report that they have no special help available for their poor readers. Overall, there has been a decline in Title l services and other remedial reading classes in Indiana between 1992 and 2003.

Table 7.