show support for the school. Then it started to go wrong.

My assistant stuck her head in the door and advised me that my wife was on line two. I excused myself from the patient and hurried to the front desk to take the call. As I pushed the button the receiver filled with the sounds of Debbie's sobs. Immediately I was concerned. My thoughts ran to the safety of our children or a possible death in the immediate family. My wife's sobs were gradually replaced by her broken voice. The elementary school had called. We were scheduled for a parent teacher conference which would include the principal and the school's resource teacher. Jennifer it seems wasn't reading on grade level. There was a problem.

Initially there was denial. I recall discussing the situation with Debbie on my arrival home that evening. We both recalled how we had questioned Jennifer's progress the previous year. In several of the parent teacher conferences we had both directly asked Jennifer's teacher if she was on grade level. We were always assured that she was. It had been some time since either Debbie or I had been in elementary school. We both remembered learning our ABC's in the first grade. This fact had struck both of us earlier when Jennifer was in kindergarten. I remember asking her kindergarten teacher why the alphabet was being stressed so strongly, so early. The answer I received was that children entering first grade were now supposed to be ready to read. The goal was to have the children reading by the time they were in the second grade. Debbie and I had both observed that Jennifer wasn't "really" reading in the first grade, but how well is a first grader supposed to be able to read? We didn't know.

So how was Jennifer identified as having a reading problem, and how did she escape detection the prior year? These were questions that both Debbie and I had. As to identification, our school system tested all entering second graders for reading ability and reading comprehension. If a child fell below a certain level they were identified as "at risk" and placed in a special Title 1 reading program for which the school had special Federal funding. The "at risk" children were taken from their regular classrooms once per day and tutored in small groups by the special Title 1 teacher. As luck would have it, the Title 1 teacher to whom Jennifer was assigned, was the same one who had lost her first grade classroom position as a result of poor performance, it was Jennifer's previous teacher.

On the issue of Jennifer escaping detection in the first grade, and we the parents being provided constant assurances that Jennifer was "on grade level", the answer surfaced quickly at home as we assumed parental responsibility for Jennifer learning to read. Our school system was using the whole language method to teach reading. If you don't know what the whole language method is, in brief it is a system of reading in which the memorization of letter patterns and words are emphasized over the sounds that the letters make. Jennifer had been memorizing the passages out of her reading books by listening to us, her teacher, and her classmates read them. When it was her turn to read in class Jennifer just regurgitated what she though she had heard. As she remembered 80 percent of it the teacher just assumed she was stuck on a few words and provided her assistance with finishing. She demonstrated herself to be an average reader in class, even though she was unable to read at all!

Now that the problem with Jennifer's reading had been identified, Debbie and I both began to aggressively assist her. As we now understood the problem with Jennifer, we also began to better supervise and teach Tiffany as well. No repeats at the "at risk" title would be allowed. Debbie first, and then I, started to drill Jennifer with phonics. At first there was a little confusion, but quickly she caught on. The progress was amazing. In a scant three months Debbie had Jennifer reading above grade level. She was no longer behind her class, rather she was ahead.

While we were engrossed in the progress Jennifer was demonstrating at home, we had paid little attention to the evaluation process that was occurring at school. By history there is a family tendency towards dyslexia on Debbie's side. The school system had jumped on this when we initially brought up this potential problem when Jennifer's reading deficiencies were first identified. It seems that Jennifer's "at risk" status took a back seat to the possibility that she might have a bonafide learning disability. Only later would we learn that a student being classified as learning disabled increases the amount of Federal money that a school receives. Jennifer had been evaluated by a school system psychologist, screened by a school nurse, and been provided remedial training through the Title 1 program. A report had been prepared with her name on it, she was to be re-tested, and we were to meet with the school resource teacher, principal, and the Title 1 teacher. Her future educational course was to be charted within the public education system.

It was a big deal when the day arrived. I had canceled all of my patients for that morning so that I could attend. There we were, seated at a large round table in a small conference room, the resource teacher, the principal, the Title 1 teacher, Debbie and myself. Markedly absent was Jennifer. She was still in her classroom. She was to be removed and re-tested by the Title 1 teacher momentarily while we discussed the outcome of the prepared report with the others in attendance. The principal started the discussion with his gratitude to us for our support of the school. He was almost apologetic for this happening to us.

The resource teacher opened the report. The findings of the psychologist were laid upon the table. Jennifer