Rti…ut-oh!

ClickHandlerHave you heard the news?  IES (Institute of Education Sciences) has published their report on Rti (Response to Intervention) and the results are…not good.  Here is a link to the complete report.

Here is what people are saying:

  • Assignment to Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention services in impact sample schools had a negative effect on performance on a comprehensive reading measure for first-graders just below the Tier 1 cut point on a screening test. The estimated effects on reading outcomes in Grades 2 and 3 are not statistically significant. (IES Report)
  • Each state’s Department of Education has provided a “blueprint” regarding implementation of RTI in their state as a guide, but there seems to be no real guidance as to who, what, when, where, how often, etc.  In addition, many schools are only purchasing one-size-fits-all “research-based” programs that do not individualize instruction to the needs of their specific students and/or demographics.  Also, many teachers are not receiving professional development, appropriate resources, or support throughout implementation.  Lastly, many of these intervention classes are not run by “highly qualified” educators and in fact have parents, paraprofessionals, and instructional assistants delivering instruction with the only training encompassing how to operate the chosen program.  (Rachelle Savitz)
  • Learning is not a Response to Instruction…Effective Instruction is a Response to Learning (Ken Goodman)
  • It isn’t a wonder that things are not working as well as planned when teachers are not allowed to use their own expertise and are told to simply follow a script, regardless of their students’ needs. (Rachelle Savitz)
  • Yes, the term has never sat well with me. As if kids are broken. Addicts get interventions. Foreign conflicts get interventions. Kids get taught.  In reality what I see for tier two instruction is just another book leveling gone wrong or a different phonics worksheet.  Tier three is usually a hot mess with too many adults coming in contact with a child during the day and walking in and interrupting the class.  Instead of trying to customize reading instruction based solely on discreet skills why not try to find our what kind of stuff kids like to know.  Maybe learners will have a better response to passion than intervention. (Greg Mcverry)
  • Instead of giving kids a plethora of IQ and reading tests, seeking a discrepancy, now we find struggling readers, send them down the hall for part of their instructional day, and test the hell out of them with tests that can’t possibly identify whether growth/learning is taking place and moving them lockstep through “research-based” instructional programs. (Timothy Shanahan)
  • The tests are often not administered according to the standardized instructions (telling kids to read as fast as possible on a fluency test is stupid). (Timothy Shanahan)
  • it is a good idea to use programs that have worked elsewhere (“research based”). But that doesn’t mean the program will work for you.  Research-based doesn’t mean that it will work automatically; you have to make such programs work. (Timothy Shanahan)
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s