ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
You seem to be missing the qualifier that I did not intend to say that the studies indicated 100% of poor readers remain poor readers.
As promised, I started a new thread in Education.
A revision on my part. The seminal study (Juel, 1988) was a longitudinal study of students from first through fourth grades, so to be precise my claim should have said that poor readers in first grade remain poor readers in fourth grade (with a probability of .88).
But how many of them change later? I was a poor reader in first through fourth grades, but later became a better reader. This would seem to violate rules of brain function in catagory 3.