DOD Schools: Additional Reporting Could Improve Accountability	 
for Academic Achievement of Students with Dyslexia (06-DEC-07,	 
GAO-08-70).							 
                                                                 
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.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-70						        
    ACCNO:   A78670						        
  TITLE:     DOD Schools: Additional Reporting Could Improve	      
Accountability for Academic Achievement of Students with Dyslexia
     DATE:   12/06/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Academic achievement				 
	     Accountability					 
	     Developmental disabilities 			 
	     Disabilities					 
	     Education						 
	     Education program evaluation			 
	     Educational research				 
	     Educational standards				 
	     Educational testing				 
	     Financial management				 
	     Funds management					 
	     Learning disabilities				 
	     Persons with disabilities				 
	     Schools						 
	     Students						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-70

   

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

December 2007: 

DOD Schools: 

Additional Reporting Could Improve Accountability for Academic 
Achievement of Students with Dyslexia: 

DOD Schools: 

GAO-08-70: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-70, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Science 
and Technology, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Many of our nationï¿½s military and civilian personnel depend on 
Department of Defense (DOD) schools to meet their childrenï¿½s 
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. 

What GAO Found: 

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 studentsï¿½ literacy skills. 

DOD identifies students who struggle to readï¿½some of who may have 
dyslexiaï¿½through 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 DODï¿½s strategic plan 
is for all students to meet or exceed challenging academic standards. 
To measure progress towards this goal, DOD assesses all studentsï¿½ 
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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends DOD improve accountability for the academic achievement 
of students with disabilities, including certain students who may have 
dyslexia, by publishing separate data on their performance. In 
commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the 
recommendation. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-70]. For more information, contact 
Cornelia Ashby, (202) 512-7215, or [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

DOD Offers Professional Development to Teachers of Struggling Readers 
and Has Used Funds Designated for Dyslexia to Support That Effort: 

DOD Screens Students to Identify Those Who Struggle to Read and 
Provides Them with Supplemental Instruction: 

DOD Assesses All Students Using Standardized Tests but Does Not Report 
Separately on the Academic Achievement of Those with Disabilities: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Interviews and Documentation from DOD and Others: 

Survey of Principals: 

Site Visits and Phone Interviews: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix III: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Use of Funds Designated for Dyslexia Support (FY 2004-06): 

Table 2: Literacy Assessment Tools, Purpose, and Use: 

Table 3: Districts and Schools Selected for Visits or Phone Interviews: 

Abbreviations: 

CTOPP: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DODEA: Department of Defense Education Activity: 

DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills: 

FCRR: Florida Center for Reading and Research: 

IEP: Individualized Education Program: 

IDEIA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004: 

LETRS: Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling: 

LiPS: Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program: 

NAEP: National Assessment of Educational Progress: 

NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: 

OWLS: Oral Written Language Scales: 

TOWRE: Test of Word Reading Efficiency: 

TWS-4: Test of Written Spelling, Fourth Edition: 

WWC: What Works Clearinghouse: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

December 6, 2007: 

The Honorable Bart Gordon: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Science and Technology: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

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),[Footnote 1] 
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.[Footnote 2] 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. 

Results in Brief: 

DOD provides both online and classroom-based professional development 
to teachers who work with students who struggle to read, and it used 
2004-to-2006 funds designated for professional development on dyslexia 
to supplement those efforts. Most of this professional development 
prepares teachers to assess student literacy and provides them with 
strategies to teach students who have particular difficulties, such as 
reading comprehension and fluency. The department offers its staff 
training online through a professional development program known as 
Scholastic RED, a series of courses that focuses on raising reading 
achievement and improving classroom instruction. In responding to our 
survey, almost all principals indicated their staff had taken these 
courses, and more than 80 percent of the principals rated the classes 
as very useful for such specialized instruction. Also, under a recent 
initiative, DOD provided its special education teachers and 
specialists, such as speech therapists, with training on how students 
develop literacy skills and how to teach reading across all grade 
levels. According to a survey conducted by DOD, most special education 
teachers and specialists surveyed said they had completed this 
training. With the 2004-to-2006 funding designated to support students 
with dyslexia, DOD purchased additional seats for its Scholastic RED 
courses, purchased tools to assess students' literacy skills, and 
developed two online courses that include specific modules on dyslexia. 
The online professional development includes a newly developed course: 
Fundamentals of Reading K-2 and a course under development for grades 3 
to 5. After piloting the K-2 course, it was made available to all 
teachers in February 2007, and according to our survey results, 29 
percent of the schools serving those grades had used it by the end of 
the school year. The grades 3-to-5 course, according to DOD officials, 
will be available systemwide to all staff in the 2007-08 school year. 

DOD relies on standardized tests to identify students who struggle to 
read, including those who may have dyslexia, and DOD provides them with 
supplemental literacy instruction, such as a multimedia program. DOD 
uses standardized tests to screen students and identify those who may 
need additional reading instruction. Like many public school systems in 
the United States, DOD school officials generally do not use the term 
"dyslexia" but rather identify struggling readers. According to DOD 
officials, however, the department has provided an optional checklist 
to all schools to help them identify students who may have dyslexia, if 
they choose to do so. Our survey results indicated that 17 percent of 
schools used it during the 2006-07 year. On instruction for struggling 
readers, DOD schools primarily employed an intensive multimedia reading 
program. Schools used this program to instruct all students who fell 
below a certain threshold on a standardized assessment test. Some 
schools, districts, and geographic regions used additional strategies, 
such as tutoring with a literacy specialist, including in kindergarten 
and the early grades. 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 
pertaining to the education of students with disabilities. Students 
with dyslexia may qualify for these services, but they must meet 
program eligibility requirements. 

DOD assesses the academic achievement of its students with 
disabilities, including dyslexia, through the same standardized tests 
it uses for all students, but it does not report on the outcomes for 
students with disabilities. A primary goal of its strategic plan is for 
all students to meet or exceed challenging academic standards, and DOD 
has established an accountability framework to measure progress toward 
this goal. DOD assesses all students' progress and school performance 
by comparing test scores to a national norm or to a national 
proficiency level and reports these scores on its Web site as well as 
in its annual performance report. The reported test scores for reading 
show the average for DOD students at each grade level. Overall, DOD 
students perform well compared to public school students. However, 
while students with disabilities, some of whom may have dyslexia, are 
included in these data, DOD does not report separately on their 
academic achievement. In contrast, U.S. public school systems under the 
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 must report such data. DOD officials 
and most of the school principals we surveyed disaggregate test scores 
for students with disabilities for internal use. However, DOD does not 
report this information in its annual report or on its Web site. DOD 
officials said they do not disaggregate test results for small groups 
of students because it may violate their privacy. For large groups of 
students with disabilities, DOD officials said they do not report 
disaggregated data publicly because it might invite comparisons between 
one DOD school and another when DOD believes that all their schools do 
well compared to U.S. public schools. DOD officials did not comment on 
any negative implications of such comparisons. 

To improve DOD's accountability for the academic achievement of its 
students with disabilities, we recommend that DOD 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. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with 
the recommendation. 

Background: 

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.[Footnote 3] 
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.[Footnote 4] 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. 

DOD Offers Professional Development to Teachers of Struggling Readers 
and Has Used Funds Designated for Dyslexia to Support That Effort: 

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. 

Professional Development for Staff Working with Struggling Readers 
Mainly Focuses on General Literacy Assessment and Instruction: 

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. 

Designated Funds Were Used for Online Courses That Include a Component 
on Dyslexia and for Additional Tools to Assess Student Literacy: 

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.[Footnote 5] All 
related obligations, as reported by the department, are outlined in 
table 1. 

Table 1: Use of Funds Designated for Dyslexia Support (Fiscal Years 
2004 to 2006): 

Use of funds: Literacy assessment tools: Dynamic Indicators of Basic 
Early Literacy Skills; 
Amount obligated: $268,881. 

Use of funds: Literacy assessment tools: Four other tools; 
Amount obligated: $1,072,851. 

Use of funds: Online courses: Fundamentals of Reading K-2 and 3-5; 
Amount obligated: $1,109,029. 

Use of funds: Online courses: Scholastic RED (additional seats); 
Amount obligated: $425,645. 

Use of funds: Other: General operations and maintenance; 
Amount obligated: $321,361. 

Use of funds: Other: Supplies; 
Amount obligated: $2,233. 

Total; 
Amount obligated: $ 3,200,000. 

Source: Department of Defense Education Activity. 

Note: These funds were designated by the conference committee for 
defense appropriations. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 6] 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. 

Table 2: Literacy Assessment Tools, Purpose, and Use: 

Assessment tool: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills 
(DIBELS); 
Purpose: Assesses literacy skills of students in grades K-2 to help 
identify struggling readers; 
Usage (percentage of all DOD Schools, unless otherwise indicated): 
51[A]. 

Assessment tool: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP); 
Purpose: Measures a student's phonological processing skills; 
Usage (percentage of all DOD Schools, unless otherwise indicated): 68. 

Assessment tool: Oral Written Language Scales (OWLS); 
Purpose: Measures a student's sight-word and phonemic decoding skills; 
Usage (percentage of all DOD Schools, unless otherwise indicated): 56. 

Assessment tool: Test of Written Spelling, Fourth Edition(TWS-4); 
Purpose: Measures a student's spelling skills; 
Usage (percentage of all DOD Schools, unless otherwise indicated): 37. 

Assessment tool: Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE); 
Purpose: Measures a student's written and oral language skills; 
Usage (percentage of all DOD Schools, unless otherwise indicated): 52. 

Source: GAO 2007 survey of DOD school principals. 

[A] This percentage represents the percentage of DOD schools with 
grades K-2. The DIBELS assessment is most appropriate for use in grades 
K-2 to help identify struggling readers. 

[End of table] 

DOD Screens Students to Identify Those Who Struggle to Read and 
Provides Them with Supplemental Instruction: 

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. 

DOD Schools Identify and Support Struggling Readers, Although the 
Schools Do Not Specifically Screen for Dyslexia: 

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.[Footnote 7] 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. 

DOD Schools Provide Special Education Services for Eligible Children 
with Disabilities: 

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. 

DOD Assesses All Students Using Standardized Tests but Does Not Report 
Separately on the Academic Achievement of Those with Disabilities: 

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.[Footnote 8] 

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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Recommendation: 

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. 

Agency Comments: 

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 [hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Cornelia M. Ashby: 

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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. 

Interviews and Documentation from DOD and Others: 

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[Footnote 9] and the Florida Center 
for Reading Research,[Footnote 10] two organizations that compile and 
evaluate research on reading. 

Survey of Principals: 

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. 

Site Visits and Phone Interviews: 

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. 

Table 3: Districts and Schools Selected for Visits or Phone Interviews: 

Area: Americas; 
Country(ies): United States of America; 
District: Kentucky; 
Location: Fort Knox, Kentucky; 
School: Van Voorhis Elementary; 
MacDonald Intermediate; 
Scott Middle; 
Fort Knox High. 

Area: Americas; 
Country(ies): United States of America, Puerto Rico, and Cuba; 
District: New York, Virginia, Puerto Rico, Cuba; 
Location: Quantico, Virginia; 
School: Ashurst Elementary; 
Russell Elementary; 
Quantico Middle/High. 

Area: Europe; 
Country(ies): Germany; 
District: Heidelberg; 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany; 
School: Patrick Henry Village Elementary; 
Heidelberg Middle; 
Heidelberg High. 

Area: Europe; 
Country(ies): Germany; 
District: Kaiserslautern; 
Location: Ramstein Air Force Base, Germany; 
School: Ramstein Elementary; 
Ramstein Intermediate; 
Ramstein Middle; 
Ramstein High. 

Area: Pacific; 
Country(ies): Japan; 
District: Japan; 
Location: Yokusuka, Japan; 
School: Ikego Elementary; 
Sullivans Elementary. 

Area: Pacific; 
Country(ies): Korea; 
District: Korea; 
Location: Seoul, Korea; 
School: Seoul Elementary; 
Seoul Middle; 
Seoul American High. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: We visited schools in the Americas and Europe and phoned school 
officials and parents at locations in Japan and Korea. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Department of Defense: 
Education Activity: 
4040 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22203-1635: 

November 9, 2007: 

Ms. Cornelia Ashby: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G. Street, N.W.: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Ashby: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD response to the GAO draft 
report, "DoD Schools: Accountability for the Academic Achievement of 
Students With Dyslexia Could Be Improved with Additional Reporting," 
dated October 25, concurs with the report recommendation as shown in 
the enclosure. 

The Department would also like to express its appreciation to the GAO 
staff for their professionalism and assistance during this review. 

Signed by: 

Joseph D. Tafoya: 
Director: 

Enclosure: 
As stated: 

GAO Draft Report - Dated October 25, 2007 GAO Code 130635/GAO-08-70 

"DOD Schools: Accountability for the Academic Achievement of Students 
with Dyslexia Could Be Improved with Additional Reporting" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendation:  

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends 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 system-wide, area, district, and school levels when 
there are sufficient numbers of students with disabilities to avoid 
violating students' privacy. (p. 19/GAO Draft Report): 

DOD Response: Concur: The total number of students with disabilities by 
grade level is large enough that DoDEA can report on the academic 
achievement of students with disabilities at the system-wide, area, and 
district levels without violating student privacy. Data cannot be 
reported at the school level because of the low number of students with 
disabilities at each grade level. The data can be disaggregated to 
report student performance by: grade level, gender, and specific 
learning disability (students with reading problems). DoDEA can also 
report the overall performance for students who took an alternate 
assessment.

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Cornelia Ashby, (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The IDEIA is the most recent reauthorization of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

[2] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-359, at 226 (2005); H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-
622, at 120 (2004); and H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-223, at 120 (2003). 

[3] 10 U.S.C. ï¿½ 2164(f) and 20 U.S.C. ï¿½ 927(c). In addition, DOD has 
also adopted guidance that outlines its approach to providing special 
education services to children with disabilities. DOD Instruction 
1342.12, Provision of Early Intervention and Special Education Services 
to Eligible DoD Dependents (Apr. 11, 2005). 

[4] Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S. E., and Shaywitz, B.A., 'A definition of 
dyslexia,' Annals of Dyslexia, (2003). 53, 1-14. Dyslexia is a specific 
learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. Word recognition 
and other difficulties typically result from a deficit in the 
phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation 
to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom 
instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems such as 
reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede 
growth of vocabulary. 

[5] Unless otherwise specified in statute, committee reports do not 
establish binding legal requirements on an agency's use of funds. 

[6] The remaining 10 percent did not respond to the question. 

[7] In school year 2006-2007, DOD required schools to administer the 
TerraNova Achievement Test in grades 3-11, the Developmental Reading 
Assessment in grade 3, and Scholastic Reading Inventory in grade 6. 

[8] Lee, L., Grigg, W., and Donahue, P., The Nation's Report Card: 
Reading, 2007, (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education 
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 
Education, 2007). 

[9] The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was established in 2002 by the 
U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. WWC 
publishes reports on the organization's review of studies that discuss 
the effectiveness of educational interventions. 

[10] The Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) was established in 
2002 and is jointly administered at Florida State University by the 
Learning Systems Institute and the College of Arts and Sciences. FCRR 
uses scientifically based studies of reading programs to evaluate and 
report on the programs' strengths and weaknesses. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

*** End of document. ***