[MOSAIC] RTI

[cathymillr at aol.com]

In some of the exploring of research I have done, I can see that the DIBELS "researchers" and the?RtI "researchers" overlap quite a bit.? 

Cathy
K-5
DE
-----Original Message-----
From: jdelich at springfield.k12.il.us
To: mosaic at literacyworkshop.org; mosaic at literacyworkshop.org
Sent: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] RTI



It is important to read the IDEA wording that includes many repetitions of 
"scientific evidence." The three tiers are built on this assumed "scientific 
evidence." Tier One has been used tell teachers that "core reading" programs 
with "scientific research" should meet the needs of 80% of their readers. 

We now know through the What Works Clearinghouse that NONE of these core 
programs have the scientific research that meets the requirements for 
"scientific evidence." (Only Success for All had more than one scientific study 
to qualify for review, and SFA received a potentially positive rating for 
general reading achievement-but had "mixed results" on comprehension.) 

And, in schools where the "core" program hasn't met the needs of 80%, teachers 
are being pressured to believe its their fault, and/or they need to follow the 
program even more closely (implying the integrity of the program must have been 
compromised). NOT that the core program does not have any scientific evidence to 
support following it even more closely.

The next two tiers are supposed to meet the needs of the next 15% and 5 % of 
struggling readers. And, of course these programs are supposed to have 
scientific research too. All the programs I have seen listed in Tier 2 & 3 do 
NOT have effective ratings at WWC, either. (Surprised?) The programs I have seen 
on these Tiers are supposedly chosen because the their research was supported by 
Oregon Reading First. I wish I were kidding, but this seems like the Twilight 
Zone.

 Interestingly most, if not all of these programs have "potentially positive 
effects" on alphabetics and/or fluency at WWC, but none for comprehension, nor 
general reading achievement. (One in particular had potentially negative effects 
on comprehension. So for all those DIBELS schools pushing reading rate, they too 
might expect to see comprehension to suffer, based on this "scientific" 
program.) 

Importantly, on all the program Tier Frameworks I have seen Reading Recovery is 
not included at any Tier. That is the most interesting because it of course if 
the ONLY beginning reading programs to get the WWC highest rating (strong 
evidence) for general reading achievement. (I think the news that RR was 
black-balled is still being used against it by Special Ed.)

Those who have been using DIBELS are just starting to abandon it in favor of 
AIMSWEB. My question is what "scientific" evidence that using these screens at 
AIMSWEB actually improves reading achievement (on other measures especially) in 
comprehension or general reading achievement.  

RtI requires these screens because the students identified must be compared 
across their entire group of peers. (Claims are made that the screens are good 
for all of course.) They are attractive (screens) because they are CHEAP and 
QUICK, and can be done whole group in some cases. And, I understand the graphs 
are pretty. (But, scoring the writing screens isn't "quick," I've heard.  Of 
course the fluency screen has a timed factor because how else could they graph 
something? So AIMSWEB screens just break reading down into its meaningless parts 
in more/different ways than DIBELS, and I have yet to see the "scientific" 
evidence to support it use either. 

It appears nobody at the U.S. Department of Education has told state Special 
Education departments about the What Works Clearinghouse, or the Reading First 
debacle, so they push blindly forward.

john d.


mosaic at literacyworkshop.org wrote:
>What is RTI and could you please explain the tiering system further.
>Thanks.
>J.Hayden
>
>
>On 10/6/07 6:40 PM, "Plongshell at aol.com" <Plongshell at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> My district started investigating RTI last year and we are using  the tiering
>> system this year. I'm an AIS reading teacher.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mosaic mailing list
>Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org
>To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to
>http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.
>
>Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive

_______________________________________________________
Sent through e-mol. E-mail, Anywhere, Anytime. http://www.e-mol.com




_______________________________________________
Mosaic mailing list
Mosaic at literacyworkshop.org
To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to
http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.

Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive. 



________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com