by Christopher J. Lonigan and Timothy Shanahan. Educational Researcher May 2010 39: 340-346
This rejoinder provides responses to the conceptual concerns expressed in the nine critiques published in this issue of Educational Researcherof the 2008 National Early Literacy Panel report. It explains the necessity of adhering to clearly established study selection parameters in conducting trustworthy meta-analyses and the need to be cautious in claims made on the basis of empirical evidence. The rejoinder summarizes the report's extensive analyses of language development data and highlights substantial empirical evidence that contradicts the critics' claims about alphabetic code-related skills. Also included are pointed discussions of the critics' conceptual arguments concerning shared reading activities, parent/home literacy programs, English-language learners, and early childhood education.
Our Dynaread team members are required to hold themselves accountable for serving our clients in adherence with our core values...
Dynaread has been developed in the trenches of actual remediation, with our feet firmly planted on the ground. Scientific research is essential (and we consistently use it), but we also understand the realities at home and in school. Not all homes have two parents, not all Dad's or Mom's are always home, there is oftentimes no money, schools lack staff or funding. We listen, we observe, we discuss, and we build the best solutions we can for older (ages 7+) struggling readers.