[MOSAIC] RTI

[David Westom]

s
On Oct 8, 2007, at 8:16 AM, jdelich at springfield.k12.il.us wrote:

> 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.
>