State reading test scores suggest something is going right in Howard County: About 60 percent of the school system's third- and fifth-graders scored satisfactorily on the test, among the highest marks in the state.

But those relatively high scores might largely be the product of the county's relatively high concentration of students from fairly affluent homes. And even so, 40 percent of Howard's pupils aren't up to state standards in reading.

Some Howard elementary schools continue to have falling reading scores. And scores for the county's eighth-graders -- like their peers' across the state -- dropped on the recent test, with 34 percent scoring satisfactorily.

"We certainly see our challenges as just as crucial as any other system would see their challenges," says Ann Mintz, county language arts facilitator. "We're still failing [to reach] children."

Against that backdrop, many Howard elementary schools have been tweaking reading programs to increase students' daily exposure to reading instruction.

Mintz says there have been few recent changes to the county's core reading program at the elementary-school level, a program called "Integrated Language Arts" that includes elements of phonics and whole-language approaches to teaching reading. The program is similar to one used in Carroll County.

Some schools are beginning to alter their programs to offer children more reading instruction, and more are finding ways to tailor traditional small group reading instruction to pupils' needs.

Using small homogeneous groups to teach reading is not new. What is new is that the children are directly engaged with teachers for a full period instead of working some of that time at their desks while teachers spread their attention among several groups, Mintz says. That means more teachers are involved in reading instruction.

For example:

This year, Deep Run Elementary in Elkridge created 10 reading teams for its second-graders, who receive an hour of instruction every school day. Previously, homeroom teachers would oversee three reading groups in their classes, meeting with each ability level for 20 to 30 minutes.

With the aid of resource teachers, Columbia's Running Brook Elementary similarly offers small reading groups at each grade level. In addition, the school uses the "Reading Recovery" program, a one-on-one, daily tutoring program for first-graders struggling with reading. A trained teacher works with these students for half an hour to bring them to grade level. Since last school year, the county has trained 12 teachers in Reading Recovery and is training nine others -- with the goal of offering the program at 17 schools.

For almost three years, Clarksville Elementary has devoted half an hour to 45 minutes four days a week to small reading groups run by teachers, reading specialists and aides. The school also offers a "Reading Pal" program, in which fourth- and fifth-graders tutor first- and second-graders in reading for 15 minutes three times a week.

At Clarksville one recent morning, reading specialist Judi Littman drilled seven children on words in the "it" family, such as "quit" and "fit."

"A lot of times, I'll say to you, 'Please blank in your chair,' " Littman prompts from the front of the room. "What was the word, everybody?"

"Sit!" the children exclaim in unison.

Clarksville teachers and administrators believe the small-group model has made a difference in the school's test scores. Almost 79 percent of the school's third-graders scored satisfactorily on the MSPAP test this year, as did 69 percent of its fifth-graders.

Assistant Principal Peggy Dumler notes the improved scores earned the school additional state funds this year. In 1997, only 46 percent of fifth-graders scored satisfactorily in reading and 65 percent of third-graders reached that level.

"We feel really confident that this [the small reading groups] is a big part of it," Dumler says of the school's new programs.

Those sentiments are echoed by Frances Donaldson, principal of Deep Run Elementary.

Donaldson believes the move to the small groups will make a difference in pupils' reading performance. A similar program was in place for several years at Donaldson's former school, Worthington Elementary in Ellicott City, where reading scores for fifth and third grades are relatively high.

Despite progress at the elementary level, Howard officials acknowledge the county's drop in eighth-grade reading scores -- a statewide problem -- concerns them.

Chris Paulis, a reading instruction facilitator for Howard middle schools, says children are inundated with reading in elementary schools because "the elementary teacher is a language arts teacher first of all."

But in middle school, he says, there's a disconnect when children encounter subject specialists. The problem is not that children can't read in middle school, but that they are reluctant to do so.

"Reading seems very different to them in middle school," Paulis said. "In a lot of cases, kids are not even being asked to read in those subject area classes. Teachers find kids reluctant to read. It's easier to give them the content in different ways than reading."

Teachers and administrators at some Howard middle schools are studying ways to address reading in consistent ways. A grant may provide technology for key middle schools to help poor readers, and Paulis hopes to organize a summer reading institute for middle-school administrators.

Mintz says Howard schools must find more ways to reach those who aren't performing well.

And she sees no short-term solutions to the county's remaining reading problems: "If you were to come here 10 years from now, someone would say 'Here's our challenge.' It will never stop."

Tomorrow: Reading in Carroll County schools.

Howard County elementary schools

This table shows the percentage of Howard County third graders who scored at the satisfactory level on reading tests administered as part of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program. The last column shows the school's overall improvement since the tests were first administered in 1994.

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1998 .. 1997 .. 1996 .. 1995 .. 1994 .. Chg.

Maryland .. .. .. .. .. .. 41.6 .. 36.8 .. 35.3 .. 34.0 .. 30.6 .. 11.0

Countywide .. .. .. .. ... 59.3 .. 57.7 .. 53.3 .. 51.1 .. 45.0 .. 14.3

Atholton .. .. .. .. .. .. 72.5 .. 52.6 .. 64.9 .. 52.8 .. 46.9 .. 25.6

Bollman Bridge .. .. .. .. 43.3 .. 58.5 .. 63.2 .. 34.9 .. 43.4 .. -0.1

Bryant Woods .. .. .. .. . 58.8 .. 47.6 .. 69.4 .. 41.5 .. 47.7 .. 11.1

Bushy Park .. .. .. .. ... 73.0 .. 71.3 .. 57.3 .. 54.5 .. 68.8 ... 4.2

Centennial Lane .. .. .. . 74.3 .. 64.0 .. 56.1 .. 58.9 .. 56.6 .. 17.7

Clarksville .. .. .. .. .. 78.8 .. 64.6 .. 55.6 .. 45.0 .. 44.3 .. 34.5

Clemens Crossing .. .. ... 61.3 .. 62.0 .. 63.9 .. 61.2 .. 57.5 ... 3.8

Dasher Green .. .. .. .. . 67.2 .. 42.1 .. 44.9 .. 48.0 .. 40.0 .. 27.2

Deep Run .. .. .. .. .. .. 56.0 .. 48.6 .. 51.6 .. 53.8 .. 44.4 .. 11.6

Elkridge .. .. .. .. .. .. 57.4 .. 49.2 .. 36.8 .. 40.3 .. 23.4 .. 34.0

Forest Ridge .. .. .. .. . 58.0 .. 67.0 .. 60.2 .. 68.5 .. 52.1 ... 5.9

Guilford .. .. .. .. .. .. 46.8 .. 54.0 .. 36.7 .. 52.4 .. 39.0 ... 7.8

Hammond .. .. .. .. .. ... 74.1 .. 62.0 .. 51.1 .. 66.3 .. 59.5 .. 14.6

Ilchester .. .. .. .. .. . 54.2 .. 64.6 .. . NA .. . NA .. . NA .. . NA

Jeffers Hill .. .. .. .. . 50.0 .. 46.7 .. 54.7 .. 40.5 .. 41.8 ... 8.2

Laurel Woods .. .. .. .. . 31.9 .. 43.5 .. 25.6 .. 33.0 .. 22.3 ... 9.6

Lisbon .. .. .. .. .. .. . 58.8 .. 57.8 .. 51.9 .. 54.5 .. 41.9 .. 16.9

Longfellow .. .. .. .. ... 56.2 .. 56.7 .. 50.8 .. 54.2 .. 42.0 .. 14.2

Manor Woods .. .. .. .. .. 48.6 .. 52.8 .. 61.0 .. 48.8 ... 0.0 .. 48.6

Northfield .. .. .. .. ... 64.4 .. 73.8 .. 57.9 .. 48.7 .. 48.2 .. 16.2

Phelps Luck .. .. .. .. .. 56.6 .. 56.1 .. 23.4 .. 51.1 .. 35.6 .. 21.0

Pointers Run .. .. .. .. . 68.5 .. 70.9 .. 54.5 .. 55.0 .. 48.3 .. 20.2

Rockburn .. .. .. .. .. .. 49.5 .. 45.1 .. 42.5 .. 56.5 .. 50.8 .. -1.3

Running Brook .. .. .. ... 22.2 .. 36.2 .. 50.0 .. 43.5 .. 38.5 . -16.3

St. Johns Lane . .. .. ... 54.0 .. 50.4 .. 48.0 .. 50.0 .. 40.0 .. 14.0

Stevens Forest .. .. .. .. 67.7 .. 55.0 .. 81.7 .. 59.6 .. 32.2 .. 35.5

Swansfield .. .. .. .. ... 46.3 .. 47.8 .. 36.6 .. 43.9 .. 62.0 . -15.7

Talbott Springs .. .. .. . 50.7 .. 62.7 .. 54.8 .. 45.5 .. 21.1 .. 29.6

Thunder Hill .. .. .. .. . 65.5 .. 71.0 .. 69.8 .. 52.9 .. 62.3 ... 3.2

Waterloo .. .. .. .. .. .. 55.8 .. 58.3 .. 64.6 .. 52.6 .. 25.0 .. 30.8

Waverly .. .. .. .. .. ... 81.7 .. 66.1 .. 61.5 .. 55.4 .. 50.7 .. 31.0

West Friendship .. .. .. . 64.5 .. 51.5 .. 57.9 .. 50.8 .. 44.4 .. 20.1

Worthington .. .. .. .. .. 68.1 .. 73.1 .. 62.5 .. 54.7 .. 38.1 .. 30.0

Pub Date: 12/24/98