DOD Schools: Additional Reporting Could Improve Accountability for Academic Achievement of Students with Dyslexia
Published: 2007-12-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Many of our nation's military and civilian personnel depend on Department of Defense (DOD) schools to meet their children's educational needs. These schools provide a range of educational services including programs for students with disabilities and those who struggle to read, some of whom may have a condition referred to as dyslexia. To determine how DOD supports students with dyslexia and how it used $3.2 million in funds designated to support them, GAO was asked to examine: (1) what professional development DOD provides its staff to support students with dyslexia and how the fiscal year 2004-to-2006 funds designated for this purpose were used, (2) what identification and instructional services DOD provides to students who may have dyslexia, and (3) how DOD assesses the academic achievement of students with disabilities, including dyslexia. To address these objectives, GAO conducted a survey of all school principals and interviewed agency officials, school personnel, and parents in six school districts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DOD provides a mix of online and classroom training to teachers who work with students who struggle to read, and DOD used 2004-to-2006 funds designated for professional development on dyslexia, in particular, to supplement these efforts. Most of the online and classroom professional development prepares teachers and specialists to assess student literacy and provides them with strategies to teach students who have particular difficulties. For the 2004-to-2006 funding for professional development on dyslexia, DOD supplemented its existing training with online courses that include specific modules on dyslexia and tools to assess students' literacy skills. DOD identifies students who struggle to read--some of who may have dyslexia--through standardized tests and provides them with supplemental reading instruction. DOD uses standardized tests to screen its students and identify those who need additional reading instruction, but these schools do not generally label them as dyslexic. To teach students they identify as struggling readers, DOD schools primarily employ an intensive multimedia reading program that is highly regarded by the principals, teachers, and parents GAO interviewed. Those students whose performance does not improve through their enrollment in supplemental reading programs or who have profound reading difficulties may be eligible to receive special education services. DOD is subject to many of the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 on the education of students with disabilities. Students with dyslexia may qualify for these services, but they must meet program eligibility requirements. DOD uses the same standardized tests it uses for all students to assess the academic achievement of students with disabilities, including those who may have dyslexia, but does not report specifically on the outcomes for students with disabilities. A primary goal of DOD's strategic plan is for all students to meet or exceed challenging academic standards. To measure progress towards this goal, DOD assesses all students' academic achievement and school performance by comparing test scores to a national norm or to a national proficiency level. Overall, students perform well in reading compared to U.S. public school students. DOD disaggregates test scores for students with disabilities but does not report such information publicly. In contrast, U.S. public school systems under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 must report such data. Without this information, it is difficult for parents, policy makers, and others to measure the academic achievement of students with disabilities relative to all other students in the DOD school system.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The children of many of our nation’s military and civilian personnel  overseas and on certain military bases in the United States depend on the  Department of Defense (DOD) schools to meet their educational needs— from prekindergarten through 12th grade. Through the Department of  Defense Education Activity, DOD serves about 90,000 students in 208  schools worldwide and provides a full range of educational services to its  students, including supplemental reading programs for struggling readers  and special education services for children with disabilities. Some  students who struggle to read may have a condition referred to as  dyslexia, a brain-based learning disability that impedes a person’s ability to  read. DOD schools are subject to many of the same requirements that  apply to public schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education  Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), such as the requirement that they  provide a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities,  but are not subject to the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of  2001 (NCLBA). However, DOD has adopted its own framework for  assessment and accountability.
To support students with dyslexia in DOD schools through professional  development of teachers and staff, the conference committee for defense  appropriations designated $3.2 million in funding for fiscal years 2004-to- 2006. While DOD has broad authority to use these funds for general  operations and maintenance expenses, your committee expressed interest  in whether and how DOD provides support to students with dyslexia. In  response to these questions, we examined: (1) what professional  development DOD provides its staff to support students with dyslexia and  how the fiscal years 2004-to-2006 funds designated for this purpose were  used, (2) what identification and instructional services DOD provides to  students who may have dyslexia, and (3) how DOD assesses the academic  achievement of students with disabilities, including dyslexia.
To meet these objectives, we obtained documentation from DOD,  conducted a Web-based survey of all 208 DOD school principals, visited or  interviewed by phone officials and parents in six school districts, and  interviewed agency officials and representatives of education  organizations. We obtained several agency reports including: a 2007 report  to Congress on DOD’s efforts to assist students with dyslexia and a 2005  survey of DOD special education personnel. We reviewed relevant federal  laws, regulations, and agency guidance and also obtained information on  DOD’s obligation and disbursement of funds designated for professional  development on dyslexia. We reviewed the agency Web site for schools’  student performance data. For our Web-based survey of all DOD school  principals, we received completed surveys from 175—an 84 percent  response rate. We visited school officials and parents of struggling readers  in two of the three areas (the Americas and Europe) overseen by the  Department of Defense Education Activity. We contacted schools in the  third area (the Pacific) by phone. We selected 6 of DOD’s 12 school  districts, 2 from each area, using the following criteria: (1) geographic  dispersion, (2) representation of all military service branches, (3) variety  of primary and secondary schools, and (4) range in the proportion of  students receiving special education services. We interviewed  representatives from organizations such as the International Dyslexia  Association and the National Association of State Directors of Special  Education. We also obtained summary reports on the scientific evidence  on the effectiveness of DOD’s supplemental reading programs from the  Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse and the Florida  Center for Reading Research, organizations that compile and evaluate  research on reading. We did not evaluate the quality or sufficiency of the  professional development provided. We conducted our work between  January 2007 and October 2007 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. See appendix I for details of our  methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD oversees a worldwide school system to meet the educational needs  of military dependents and others, such as the children of DOD’s civilian  employees overseas. The Department of Defense Education Activity  (DODEA) administers schools both within the United States and overseas.  In school year 2006-07, DODEA had schools within 7 states, Puerto Rico,  Guam, and in 13 foreign countries. DOD has organized its 208 schools into  three areas: the Americas (65), Europe (98), and Pacific (45). Almost all of  the domestic schools are located in the southern United States. The  overseas schools are mostly concentrated in Germany and Japan, where  the U.S. built military bases after World War II. Given the transient nature  of military assignments, these schools must adapt to a high rate of  students transferring into and out of their schools. According to DOD,  about 30 percent of its students move from one school to another each  year. These students may transfer between DOD schools or between one  DOD school and a U.S. public school.
Although DOD is not subject to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001  (NCLBA), it has its own assessment and accountability framework. Unlike  public schools, DOD schools receive funding primarily from DOD  appropriations rather than through state and local governments or  Department of Education grants. U.S. public schools that receive grants  through the NCLBA must comply with testing and reporting requirements  designed to hold schools accountable for educating their students and  making adequate yearly progress. DOD has adopted its own accountability  framework that includes a 5-year strategic plan, an annual report that  measures the overall school system’s progress, and data requirements for  school improvement plans. The strategic plan sets the strategic direction  for the school system and outlines goals and performance measures to  determine progress. In annual reports, DOD provides a broad overview of  its students’ overall progress, including the results of standardized tests.  On DOD’s Web site, DOD publishes more detailed test score results for  each school at each grade level. DOD also requires each school to develop  its own improvement plan that identifies specific goals and methods to  measure progress. School officials have the flexibility to decide what goals  to pursue but must identify separate sources of data to measure their  progress in order to provide a more complete assessment. For example, if  a school chooses to focus on improving its reading scores, it must identify  separate assessment tests or other ways of measuring the progress of its  students.
DOD is subject to many of the major provisions of IDEIA and must include  students with disabilities in its standardized testing. However, unlike  states and districts subject to NCLBA, DOD is not required to report  publicly on the academic achievement of these students. States and public  school districts that receive funding through IDEIA must comply with  various substantive, procedural, and reporting requirements for students  with disabilities. For example, they must have a program in place for  evaluating and identifying children with disabilities, developing an  individualized education program (IEP) for such students, and periodically  monitoring each student’s academic progress under his or her IEP. Under  IDEIA, children with disabilities must be taught, to the extent possible,  with non-disabled students in the least restrictive environment, such as the  general education classroom, and must be included in standardized testing  unless appropriate accommodations or alternate assessments are required  by their IEPs. Although DOD schools do not receive funding through  IDEIA, they generally are subject to the same requirements concerning the  education of children with disabilities. However, unlike states and  districts that are subject to NCLBA, DOD schools are not required to  report publicly on the performance of children with disabilities on regular  and alternate assessments.
Definitions of dyslexia vary from broad definitions that encompass almost  all struggling readers to narrow definitions that only apply to severe cases  of reading difficulty. However, DOD and others have adopted a definition  developed by dyslexia researchers and accepted by the International  Dyslexia Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping  individuals with dyslexia. This definition describes dyslexics as typically  having a deficit in the phonological component of language, the individual  speech sounds that make up words, which typically causes difficulty with  accurate or fluent word recognition, poor spelling ability, and problems in  reading comprehension that can impede growth of vocabulary. Recent  research has identified a gene that may be associated with dyslexia and  has found that dyslexia often coincides with behavior disorders or speech  and language disabilities and can range from mild to severe. Nevertheless,  the percentage of people who have dyslexia is unknown with estimates  varying from 3 to 20 percent, depending on the definition and  identification method used. Research promotes early identification and  instruction for dyslexics to help mitigate lifelong impacts.
section_title: DOD Offers Professional Development to Teachers of Struggling Readers and Has Used Funds Designated for Dyslexia to Support That Effort
paragraphs: DOD offers professional development to all staff to help them support  students who struggle to read, including those who may have dyslexia, and  used designated funds to supplement existing training efforts across its  schools. This professional development prepares teachers to assess  student literacy skills and provides strategies to help instruct struggling  readers. DOD used funds designated to support students with dyslexia for  the development of two new online training courses containing modules  on dyslexia, for additional seats in existing online courses, and for  additional literacy assessment tools.
subsections: section_title: Professional Development for Staff Working with Struggling Readers Mainly Focuses on General Literacy Assessment and Instruction
paragraphs: DOD offers professional development to all staff who teach struggling  readers, including students who may have dyslexia, primarily through  online courses. The department offers online training courses through a  professional development series known as Scholastic RED. These courses  are DOD’s primary professional development on literacy for general  education teachers. According to DOD, the department began offering the  courses during the 2003-04 school year. DOD officials told us that since  that time about half of the nearly 8,700 teachers in DOD schools have  taken at least one Scholastic RED online course. Of the school principals  who responded to our survey, almost all indicated that some of their staff  members, including administrators and general and special education  teachers, had participated in Scholastic RED training. Beyond Scholastic  RED courses, DOD officials we interviewed told us that general education  teachers also receive literacy development through instructional training  in subject areas other than reading. For example, professional  development on teaching at the middle school level may include guidance  on how to enhance students’ reading skills through the study of a  particular science.
Most professional development for staff working with struggling readers  focuses on the assessment of student literacy skills and presents strategies  for instructing students who struggle to read, some of whom may have  dyslexia. Scholastic RED online courses train teachers in five basic  elements of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, comprehension,  phonics, fluency, and vocabulary. Research suggests that both phonics and  phonemic awareness pose significant challenges to people who have  dyslexia. According to course implementation materials, the training is  designed to move beyond online course content and allow participants the  opportunity to apply new skills in site-based study groups as well as in the  classroom. Some principals and teachers indicated their schools follow  this model with groups of teachers meeting to discuss best practices for  applying Scholastic RED knowledge and resources in their classrooms.
DOD districts and schools sometimes offer their own literacy training  through a localized effort or initiative. Professional development unique to  a DOD district or school may be offered by a district’s special education  coordinator. For example, the special education coordinator in a domestic  district told us she offers literacy training to all staff, explaining that she  tries to create a broader base of professionals who can more accurately  identify and instruct students who are struggling readers. Regarding  overseas schools, administrators in Korea told us they offer in-service  workshops to help teachers improve student literacy, reading  comprehension, and writing.
DOD designed and provided additional training on literacy instruction for  most special education teachers and other specialists under a special  education initiative. The training provided these staff members with  courses on how students develop literacy skills and how to teach reading  across all grade levels. According to a 2004-05 DOD survey on the  initiative, over half of special educators and other specialists said they had  completed this training. Since the 2003-04 school year, special education  teachers and other specialists have received training on topics such as the  evaluation of young children’s literacy skills and adjusting instruction  based on student performance. The department also provided speech and  language pathologists specialized training to help them assist struggling  readers, including guidance on basic elements of literacy instruction and  development, such as phonological awareness and vocabulary  development.
DOD offers another literacy professional development program for special  education teachers and other specialists known as Language Essentials for  Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS). According to the department,  LETRS is designed to give teachers a better understanding of how students  learn to read and write, showing instructors how to use such knowledge to  improve targeted instruction for every type of reader. According to our  survey results, about 10 percent of schools had staff who had taken this  course. The LETRS course is based on the concept that once teachers  understand the manner in which students approach reading and spelling  tasks, they can make more informed decisions on instructional  approaches for all readers. Much like the other literacy training DOD  offers, LETRS modules contain reading instruction approaches on areas  that may present challenges for those who have dyslexia: phonemic  awareness, vocabulary, and reading comprehension.
Overall, DOD staff told us the literacy training the department offered was  useful for them, with some indicating they wanted additional training. In  responding to our survey, more than 80 percent of the principals who said  their staff used Scholastic RED courses rated them as very useful for  specialized instruction. Principals we interviewed told us their teachers  characterize Scholastic RED concepts as practical and easy to apply in the  classroom. While teachers we interviewed told us Scholastic RED training  is helpful, some special education teachers indicated the course material is  basic and better-suited to meet the developmental needs of general  education teachers than special education teachers. For example, one  special education teacher we spoke to said Scholastic RED courses do  little to enhance the professional skills of special education teachers  because many of these teachers have already received advanced training  on reading interventions. Special education teachers did indicate,  however, that training offered through the department’s special education  initiative has provided them with identification strategies and intervention  tools to support struggling readers. Regarding the impact of the initiative’s  training, a DOD survey of special education teachers and other specialists  found that over half of respondents said they had seen evidence of  professional development designed to maximize the quality of special  education services, and most had completed some professional  development. The department did report, however, that respondents  working with elementary school students frequently requested more  training in areas such as phonemic awareness, while respondents working  with high school students requested more professional development in a  specific supplemental reading program used at DOD schools: Read 180.  Moreover, teachers we interviewed in both foreign and domestic locations  said they would like additional training on identifying and teaching  students with specific types of reading challenges, including dyslexia. For  example, one special education teacher we interviewed told us this  specific training could help general education teachers to better  understand the types of literacy challenges struggling readers face that in  turn could help teachers better understand why students experience  difficulties with other aspects of coursework.
section_title: Designated Funds Were Used for Online Courses That Include a Component on Dyslexia and for Additional Tools to Assess Student Literacy
paragraphs: DOD reported it had fully obligated the $3.2 million designated for  professional development on dyslexia, with about $2.9 million for online  courses and literacy assessment tools. Between fiscal years 2004 and 2006,  the conference committee on defense appropriations designated a total of  $3.2 million within the operation and maintenance appropriation for  professional development on dyslexia. As of September 2007, DOD  reported it had obligated these funds for professional development in  literacy, including online training courses containing components on  dyslexia. Reported obligations also included tools to help teachers identify  and support students who struggle to read, some of who may have  dyslexia. DOD obligated the remaining designated funds for general  operations and maintenance purposes. All related obligations, as reported  by the department, are outlined in table 1.
The online training included two newly developed courses that may be too  new to evaluate and the purchase of extra seats in existing Scholastic RED  training courses. The first of the new training courses to be fully  developed was Fundamentals of Reading K-2. According to DOD, this  course was designed to present teachers with strategies for instructing  struggling readers in the early K-2 grade levels and contains six modules  on the components of reading, including a specific module on dyslexia.  The K-2 course was first made available in January 2006 to teachers who  participated in a pilot project.  DOD then opened the course to all teachers  in February 2007.  According to our survey results, 29 percent of the  schools serving grades K-2 had used the course by the end of the school  year. Nearly half of those school principals who indicated their staff used  the course, however, did not indicate the extent to which it had been  helpful in supporting struggling readers. It is possible the course is still too  new for DOD schools to evaluate as some principals indicated on our  survey that they had not heard of the course or they were not aware it was  available to their staff. The second of the new online training courses,  Fundamentals of Reading Grades 3-5, is not fully developed for use at this  time. According to DOD officials, the course will be available to all staff in  the 2007-08 school year and will also contain six modules on the  components of reading, including a module on dyslexia. Additionally, DOD  reported purchasing another 1,100 seats in selected Scholastic RED online  training courses. The department also added a page entitled, Help your  Students with Dyslexia to its main online resource site that is available to  all teachers.
DOD reported also using designated funds to purchase electronic literacy  assessment tools and other instruments that were widely used in DOD  schools, one of which received mixed reviews on its usefulness. DOD  reported obligating about one-third of the designated funds for the  Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assessment  tool. The DIBELS assessment allows a teacher to evaluate a student’s  literacy skills in a one-on-one setting through a series of one-minute  exercises that can be administered via pen and paper or through the use of  a hand-held electronic device. By using the exercises, teachers can  measure and monitor these students’ skill levels in concepts such as  phoneme segmentation fluency, a reading component that often gives  dyslexics significant difficulty. DIBELS was used to help identify  struggling readers in at least half of the schools serving grades K-2,  according to our survey results, and DOD plans to begin use of the  assessment in additional locations during the 2007-08 school year.
However, school officials and teachers had mixed reactions regarding the  ease and effectiveness of using DIBELS to help identify struggling readers.  In responding to our survey, about 40 percent of principals whose schools  used DIBELS to help identify struggling readers indicated it was very or  extremely useful, about 30 percent indicated it was moderately useful, and  about 20 percent indicated it was either slightly or not at all useful.  Several principals we surveyed indicated that they liked the instant results  provided by the DIBELS assessment. For example, one principal called the  assessment a quick and easy way to assess reading skills, saying it  provides teachers with immediate feedback to help inform decisions about  instruction. Others indicated the assessment is time-consuming for  teachers. One kindergarten teacher we interviewed said that it is  challenging to find the time to administer the test because it must be  individually administered. Another principal expressed concern about the  difficulty in using the electronic hand-held devices, saying the technology  poses the greatest challenge to teachers in using the DIBELS assessment.  According to DOD officials, the agency is currently evaluating its use of  DIBELS, searching for other assessment tools, and will use the results to  determine whether to continue using DIBELS or replace it with another  tool. DOD purchased four other instruments to aid teachers in the  evaluation of literacy skills; however, the tools are targeted to specific  reading problems. According to DOD officials, they selected these tools  because they measure specific skills associated with dyslexia. Table 2  shows reported use of each literacy assessment tool across DOD schools.
section_title: DOD Screens Students to Identify Those Who Struggle to Read and Provides Them with Supplemental Instruction
paragraphs: DOD schools identify students who have difficulty reading and provide  them with supplemental reading services. DOD uses standardized tests to  determine which students are struggling readers, although these tests do  not screen specifically for dyslexia. DOD then provides these students  with a standard supplemental reading program. For those children with  disabilities who meet eligibility requirements, DOD provides a special  education program in accordance with the requirements of IDEIA and  department guidance.
subsections: section_title: DOD Schools Identify and Support Struggling Readers, Although the Schools Do Not Specifically Screen for Dyslexia
paragraphs: Schools primarily determine students’ reading ability and identify those  who struggle through the use of standardized assessments. DOD uses  several standardized assessments, including the TerraNova Achievement  Test, and identifies those students who score below a certain threshold as  having the most difficulty with reading and in need of additional reading  instruction. DOD requires that schools administer these reading  assessments starting in the third grade. However, some schools  administer certain assessments as early as kindergarten. For example,  some schools used Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills  (DIBELS) to identify struggling readers in grades K-2. In an effort to  systematically assess students in kindergarten through second grade, DOD  plans to identify assessment tools designed for these grades during school  year 2007-08 and require their use throughout the school system. In  addition to assessments, schools also use parent referrals and teacher  observations to identify struggling readers. Several school officials with  whom we spoke said that parent feedback about their children to school  personnel and observations of students by teachers are both helpful in  identifying students who need additional reading support. Like many  public school systems in the United States, DOD school officials do not  generally use the term “dyslexia.” However, DOD officials told us they  provided an optional dyslexia checklist to classroom teachers to help  determine whether students may need supplementary reading instruction  and if they should be referred for more intensive diagnostic screening.  According to our survey results, 17 percent of schools used the checklist  in school year 2006-07.
DOD schools provide a supplemental reading program for struggling  readers, some of whom may have dyslexia, a program that has some  support from researchers and has received positive reviews from school  officials, teachers, and parents we interviewed. The program, called READ  180, is a multimedia program for grades 3 through 12. It is designed for 90- minute sessions during which students rotate among three activities:  whole-group direct instruction, small-group reading comprehension, and  individualized computer-based instruction. The program is designed to  build the reading skills, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary,  fluency, and comprehension. In responding to our survey, over 80 percent  of the school principals indicated it was very helpful in teaching struggling  readers. Several school administrators stated that it is effective with  students due to the nonthreatening environment created by its multimodal  instructional approach. Several teachers said the program also helped  them to monitor student performance. Several parents told us that the  program increased their children’s enthusiasm for reading, improved their  reading skills, and boosted their confidence in reading and overall self- esteem. Some parents stated that their children’s grades in general  curriculum courses improved as well since the children were not having  difficulty with course content but rather with reading. At the secondary  level, however, school officials stated that some parents chose not to  enroll their child in READ 180 because of the stigma they associate with  what they view as a remedial program. According to the Florida Center for  Reading Research, existing research supports the use of READ 180 as an  intervention to teach 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students comprehension  skills, however; the center recommends additional studies to assess the  program’s effectiveness.
Certain districts and schools have implemented additional strategies for  instructing struggling readers such as using literacy experts, offering early  intervention reading programs, and prioritizing reading in annual  improvement plans. In the Pacific region and the Bavaria district, literacy  experts work in collaboration with classroom teachers and reading  specialists to design appropriate individualized instruction for struggling  readers and monitor student performance. All of the elementary schools in  the Pacific region offer reading support to struggling readers. Some  schools offer early reading support in grades K-2. Certain districts offer  early intervention to first and second graders in small groups of five and  eight students, respectively. Some schools in Europe provide intensive  instruction to students in first grade through Reading Recovery, a program  in which struggling readers receive 30-minute tutoring sessions by  specially trained teachers for 12 to 20 weeks. According to the Department  of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse, Reading Recovery may have  positive effects in teaching students how to read. Several superintendents  and principals we interviewed said that improved reading scores was one  of the school’s goals in their annual school-improvement plan, which is in  line with DOD’s strategic plan milestone of having all students in grades  three, six, and nine read at their grade level or higher by July 2011. For  example, to improve reading scores, officials in the Heidelberg District  developed a literacy program requiring each school to identify all third  grade students who read below grade level and develop an action plan to  improve their reading abilities.
section_title: DOD Schools Provide Special Education Services for Eligible Children with Disabilities
paragraphs: Those students whose performance does not improve through their  enrollment in supplemental reading programs or who have profound  reading difficulties may be eligible to receive special education services.  DOD provides this special education program in accordance with the  requirements of department guidance and the IDEIA, although DOD is not  subject to the reporting and funding provisions of the act. According to  our survey results, almost all schools provided special education services  in the 2006-2007 school year.
The level of special education services available to students with  disabilities varies between districts and schools, and may affect where  some service-members and families can be assigned and still receive  services. DOD established the Exceptional Family Member Program to  screen and identify family members who have special health or  educational needs. It is designed to assist the military personnel system to  assign military service members and civilian personnel to duty stations  that provide the types of health and education services necessary to meet  their family members’ needs. In general, parents with whom we spoke said  that they were pleased with the services their children received in DOD  schools at the duty locations where they were assigned.
DOD conducts a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment to evaluate  whether a student is eligible to receive special education services under  any of DOD’s disability categories, and most parents we interviewed were  complimentary of the program. A student who is identified as having a  disability receives specific instruction designed to meet the student’s  academic needs. A team comprised of school personnel and the student’s  parents meets annually to assess the student’s progress. While the majority  of parents we interviewed were complimentary of DOD’s special  education program, a few expressed concern that their children were not  evaluated for special education eligibility early enough despite repeated  requests to school personnel that their children needed to be evaluated for  a suspected disability. According to DOD officials, department guidance  requires school officials to look into parent requests, but officials do not  have to evaluate the child unless they suspect the child has a disability.  However, they must provide parents with written or oral feedback  specifying why they did not pursue the matter.
Students with dyslexia may qualify for special education services under  the specific learning disability category, but students must meet specific  criteria. To qualify as having a specific learning disability, students must  have an information-processing deficit that negatively affects their  educational performance on an academic achievement test resulting in a  score at or near the 10th percentile or the 35th percentile for students of  above average intellectual functioning. There must also be evidence  through diagnostic testing to rule out the possibility that the student has  an intellectual deficit.
DOD schools provide children with disabilities instruction through two  additional programs that have some research support. Fifteen percent of  our survey respondents were principals of schools that used the  Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program (LiPS), a program that helps  students in grades prekindergarten through 12 with the oral motor  characteristics of individual speech sounds. According to the What Works  Clearinghouse, one research study it reviewed in 2007 suggested the LiPS  program may have positive effects on reading ability. Our survey results  indicated that 37 percent of schools serving grades 7 through 12 used a  program called Reading Excellence: Word Attack and Rate Development  Strategies that targets students who have mastered basic reading skills but  who are not accurate or fluent readers of grade-level materials. According  to a Florida Center for Reading Research report, there is research support  for the program, but additional research is needed to assess its  effectiveness.
section_title: DOD Assesses All Students Using Standardized Tests but Does Not Report Separately on the Academic Achievement of Those with Disabilities
paragraphs: DOD assesses the academic achievement of all students using  standardized tests. The department administers the TerraNova  Achievement Test to students in grades 3 through 11. Test scores  represent a comparison between the test taker and a norm group designed  to represent a national sample of students. For example, if a student  scored at the 68th percentile in reading, that student scored higher than 68  percent of the students in the norm group–the national average is the 50th  percentile. DOD uses these scores to compare the academic achievement  of its students to the national average. In addition, DOD schools  participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),  known as the nation’s report card, which provides a national picture of  student academic achievement and a measure of student achievement  among school systems. According to an agency official, DOD administers  NAEP to all of its fourth and eighth grade students every other year. The  NAEP measures how well DOD students perform as a whole relative to  specific academic standards.
Overall, DOD students perform well in reading compared to the national  average and to students in state public school systems, as measured by  their performance on standardized tests. The latest available test results  showed that DOD students scored above average and in some cases  ranked DOD in the top tier of all school systems tested. According to the  2007 TerraNova test results, DOD students scored on average between the  60th and 75th percentile at all grade levels tested. The 2007 NAEP reading  test results ranked the DOD school system among the top for all school  systems. Specifically, on the eighth grade test, DOD tied for first place  with two states among all states and jurisdictions and on the fourth grade  test, tied with one state for third place.
All students, including those with disabilities, participate in DOD’s  systemwide assessments using either the standard DOD assessment or  alternate assessments. In some cases, students who require  accommodations to complete the standard assessment may need to take  the test in a small group setting, get extended time for taking the test, or  have directions read aloud to them. Some students with severe disabilities  may take an alternate assessment if required by the student’s  individualized education program. An alternate assessment determines  academic achievement by compiling and assessing certain documentation,  such as a student’s work products, interviews, photographs, and videos.  According to an official from DODEA’s Office of System Accountability  and Research, DOD provides an alternate assessment to fewer than 200 of  its roughly 90,000 students each year.
For use within the department and in some districts and schools, DOD  disaggregates TerraNova test scores for students with disabilities. DOD  officials reported that they disaggregate scores for the entire school  system, each area, and each district, in order to gauge the academic  performance of students with disabilities. DOD’s policy states that DOD  shall internally report on the performance of children with disabilities  participating in its systemwide assessments. According to DOD officials,  they use the data to determine progress toward goals and to guide  program and subject area planning. According to our survey results, over  90 percent of DOD schools disaggregate their test scores by gender and  race and about 85 percent disaggregate for students with disabilities for  internal purposes. Some school officials told us they use test data in order  to track students’ progress, assess the effectiveness of services they offer  students, identify areas of improvement, and assess school performance.  For example, one Superintendent who shared her disaggregated data with  us showed how third-grade students with disabilities made up over half of  those who read below grade level in her district.
DOD does not generally report disaggregated test scores for students with  disabilities. DOD’s annual report provides data at each grade level, and  test scores posted on its Web site provide data for each school. DOD also  reports some results by race and ethnicity for the NAEP test.  However,  DOD does not disaggregate its TerraNova test data for students with  disabilities or other subgroups. A primary goal of its strategic plan is for all  students to meet or exceed challenging academic content standards, and  DOD uses standardized test score data to determine progress towards this  goal. Disaggregating these data provides a mechanism for determining  whether groups of students, such as those with disabilities, are meeting  academic proficiency goals. However, unlike U.S. public school systems  that are subject to the No Child Left Behind Act, DOD is not required to  report test scores of designated student groups. According to DOD  officials, they do not report test results for groups of fewer than 20  students with disabilities because doing so may violate their privacy by  making it easier to identify individual students. Where there are groups of  20 or more students with disabilities, DOD officials said they do not report  it publicly because it might invite comparisons between one school and  another when all of them do well compared to U.S. public schools. DOD  officials did not comment on any negative implications of such  comparisons.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: On the whole, DOD students perform well in reading compared with  public school students in the United States, and in some cases DOD ranks  near the top of all school systems, as measured by students’ performance  on standardized tests. DOD has programs and resources in place to  provide supplemental instruction to students who have low scores on  standardized tests or who otherwise qualify for special education services,  some of whom may have dyslexia. The department generally includes  these students when administering national tests. Nevertheless, by not  reporting specifically on the achievement of students with disabilities,  including those who may have dyslexia, DOD may be overlooking an area  that might require attention and thereby reducing its accountability.  Without these publicly reported data, parents, policymakers, and others  are not able to determine whether students with disabilities as a whole are  meeting academic proficiency goals in the same way as all other students  in the school system. For example, high performance on the part of most  DOD students could mask low performance for students with disabilities.
section_title: Recommendation
paragraphs: To improve DOD’s accountability for the academic achievement of its  students with disabilities, including certain students who may have  dyslexia, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense instruct the  Director of the Department of Defense Education Activity to publish  separate data on the academic achievement of students with disabilities at  the systemwide, area, district, and school levels when there are sufficient  numbers of students with disabilities to avoid violating students’ privacy.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD  concurred with our recommendation. DOD’s formal comments are  reproduced in appendix II. DOD also provided technical comments on the  draft report, which we have incorporated when appropriate.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Director  of the Department of Defense Education Activity, and other interested  parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any questions  about this report. Contact points for our offices of Congressional Relations  and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Major  contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine: 1) what professional development DOD  provides its staff to support students with dyslexia and how the fiscal year  2004-to-2006 funds designated for this purpose were used, (2) what  identification and instructional services DOD provides to students who  may have dyslexia, and (3) how DOD assesses the academic achievement  of students with disabilities, including dyslexia.  To meet these objectives,  we interviewed and obtained documentation from DOD and others,  conducted a Web-based survey of all 208 DOD school principals, and  visited or interviewed by phone officials and parents in six school  districts.   We conducted our work between January 2007 and October  2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Interviews and Documentation from DOD and Others
paragraphs: To obtain information on how schools support students with dyslexia we  interviewed officials from the Department of Defense Education Activity  (DODEA) and the Department of Education, as well as representatives  from the International Dyslexia Association and the National Association  of State Directors of Special Education.  We obtained several DODEA  reports including: a 2007 report to Congress on DODEA’s efforts to assist  students with dyslexia, a 2006 evaluation of DODEA’s English and  language arts instruction, and a 2005 survey of DODEA special education  personnel.  We reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and DOD  guidance, and also obtained information on DOD’s obligation and  disbursement of funds designated for professional development on  dyslexia.  We also reviewed the DODEA web site for schools’ student  performance data to determine how DOD assesses the academic  achievement of students with disabilities.  We also obtained summary  reports on the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of DODEA’s  supplemental reading programs from the Department of Education’s What  Works Clearinghouse and the Florida Center for Reading Research, two  organizations that compile and evaluate research on reading.
section_title: Survey of Principals
paragraphs: To gather information concerning dyslexic students in DoDEA schools,  including how DoDEA schools identify dyslexic students and the  instructional services provided to such students, we designed a Web-based  survey.  We administered the survey to all 208 DODEA school principals  between May 10, 2007 and July 6, 2007, and received completed surveys  from 175 school principals—an 84 percent response rate.  In order to  obtain data for a high percentage of DOD schools, we followed up with  principals through e-mail and telephone to remind them about the survey.  We also examined selected characteristics to ensure that the schools  responding to our survey broadly represent DODEA’s school levels,  geographic areas, and special education population.  Based on our  findings, we believe the survey data are sufficient for providing useful  information concerning students with dyslexia.
Nonresponse (or, in the case of our work, those DOD school principals  that did not complete the survey) is one type of nonsampling error that  could affect data quality.  Other types of nonsampling error include  variations in how respondents interpret questions, respondents’  willingness to offer accurate responses, and data collection and  processing errors.  We included steps in developing the survey, and  collecting, editing, and analyzing survey data to minimize such  nonsampling error.  In developing the web survey, we pretested draft  versions of the instrument with principals at various American and  European elementary, middle, and high schools to check the clarity of the  questions and the flow and layout of the survey.  On the basis of the  pretests, we made slight to moderate revisions of the survey.  Using a web- based survey also helped remove error in our data collection effort.  By  allowing school principals to enter their responses directly into an  electronic instrument, this method automatically created a record for each  principal in a data file and eliminated the need for and the errors (and  costs) associated with a manual data entry process.  In addition, the  program used to analyze the survey data was independently verified to  ensure the accuracy of this work.
section_title: Site Visits and Phone Interviews
paragraphs: We visited school officials and parents of struggling readers in two of the  three areas (the Americas and Europe) overseen by DODEA and contacted  schools in the third area (the Pacific) by phone.  For each location we  interviewed the district Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent,  school principals, teachers, and special education teachers.  At each  location we also interviewed parents of struggling readers.  Each group  had between two and seven parents, and in some cases we interviewed a  parent individually.  To see how DOD schools instruct struggling readers  we observed several reading programs during classroom instruction  including Read 180, Reading Recovery, and Reading Improvement, as well  as the use of literacy tools such as the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Literacy  Skills.  We selected 6 of DOD’s 12 school districts, 2 from each area, using  the following criteria: (1) geographic dispersion, (2) representation of all  military service branches, (3) variety of primary and secondary schools,  and (4) range in the proportion of students receiving special education  services.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Harriet Ganson, Assistant Director, and Paul Schearf, Analyst-In-Charge,  managed this assignment.  Farah Angersola and Amanda Seese made  significant contributions throughout the assignment, and Rebecca Wilson  assisted in data collection and analysis.  Kevin Jackson provided  methodological assistance.  Susan Bernstein and Rachael Valliere helped  develop the report’s message.  Sheila McCoy provided legal support.