If people are afraid of RTI it seems to me that they don't understand it. RTI = response to intervention. Isn't that what all of us reading teachers have been asking for for years???? A way to provide services to kids we know are struggling are struggling but who will not qualify for sped because of the discrepency model? I, for one, am thrilled to be able to provide support to those kiddos. If RTI isn't working, it's not because of the model, it's because of how the model is being delivered. RTI doesn't have to be just DIBELS and fluency. Other assessments/screening tools can and should be used either instead of or along with DIBELS. Poor fluency is not a reading deficiency, it is a symptom of a reading deficiency. I have often had teachers tell me that a student's fluency was poor, but never had that been a reason for referral to my Title I class. Now that we are using DIBELS, I am seeing many kids who struggle with fluency. I am finding that it isn't just that they can't say the words fluency and with appropriate expression, they can't "think" the words fluency or with the appropriate expression. And that is the key to understanding what they read. I don't think you will find very many good readers (a very vague term, and not able to be objectively measured) who are not also fluent. I do find fluent word-callers who do not have any idea what they read. While DIBELS may not identify these children, the other measures we have in place will (DRA2, common assessments, etc.) I don't take offense to anyone asking me to be accountable for teaching ALL aspects of reading - which is more than fluency, more than comprehension, more than phonics, more than phonemic awareness, and more than vocabulary - it's all of them. I welcome the accountability factor that is being placed on the schools/teachers in this area. I have spent too many parent conferences trying to explain why darling Johnny needs to be in my reading class when his classroom teacher has given him a B or better in reading on his grade card. I am so pleased to be ale to show parents the data on their child. It helps them better understand what support the child needs.
Maybe I am just extremely fortunate to be in a district that seems to "get it", and support the true balance of literacy instruction. Our building reading cadre last year taught the 7 strategies from Mosaic and 7 Keys and this year we are following the timeline for teaching found on the mosaic site. The teachers are really excited about teaching them and all the kids are talking about metacognition. We have hand signals and it's like a big "secret" in the school that only our students know - they have taken such pride and ownership in their learning. With the classroom teachers taking on this huge responsibility I am freed up to help those kids with the other things, like, uh.... fluency :) (and vocabulary and phonics, phonemic awareness) Our teachers were already used to being held accountable and had to turn in guided reading lists every quarter so that principal could see how "fluid" the groups were and DRA/RR levels had to be reports quarterly as well. We keep an assessment wall in our conference room that does not show teacher or student names on the front of each card, but it is a great visual for keeping us all tuned in to how many kids are having trouble and how much trouble they are having. With these accountability pieces already in place, they are ready to move to the DRA2 and anxious to learn more about fluency instruction/remediation and what they can do to improve that during their guided reading lessons. It doesn't seem appropriate to condemn the RTI model because a district may not be implementing it properly. Just like every other "trend", RTI will swing back and forth a little before settling in to where it belongs. I am hoping that this listserve will not become a political forum (even though I am guilty with this post), and that we will remain focused on sharing positive ideas for improving instruction for the kids. Debbie ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: mosaic@literacyworkshop.org Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2008 8:17:20 PM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago Subject: Re: [MOSAIC] RtI RTI---just like NCLB--- is a good idea gone very, very wrong. What has to happen is data collection. We need to collect evidence and document the damage done and share it with whoever will listen. Data can be a double edged sword. Let's use it for the good of children. It doesn't have to be numerical data...it just needs to be clear and convincing evidence presented to the press, administrators, politicians, anyone who will listen. I read two books on RTI this summer because our district is starting to move this direction. One very positive part of RTI...as it is originally intended...is that we can identify kids for extra help without using the discrepancy model. It always drives me nuts that I have to wait until a child is two years behind before he or she qualified for extra help. By then, it is almost too late and it becomes incredibly HARD to help the child. What saves us in my district is that we get NO Reading First money and no mandate to implement RTI as many of you have described here. We have the chance here to try to improve classroom instruction and find extra time and new ways to use personnel to target children who need the most help. My students need extra time and work in comprehension, so we will be using Soar to Success as an intervention. From what I can tell, this program does NOT seem to be contradictory to best practices as we have discussed here on the listserv. I do not have to use a script...I can use what I know about these kids to plan lessons for THEIR needs. And I can tweak lessons...so far the 'fidelity police' have not made it to this corner of Maryland. SO...having said that...thanks to those who have sent synthesis ideas...Anyone have any great synthesis lessons for primary aged kids---grade 2 and 3? Good book ideas? I can't be the only one who has struggled with this! Jennifer In a message dated 9/2/2008 11:54:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >From Beverly: ..............if we just ignore the RtI-ers, we are able to teach in the way we see is best for our kids. :-( Beverly and others: I am an administrator and I am having a very hard time "ignoring" RtI - it is a law in my state - in fact our law has gone above and beyond the federal guidelines. I do not have a classroom where I can just shut my door and teach the way I believe - which is also supported by tons and tons of research. So, what do I do? Our state is requiring that an enormous amount of resources be put toward this "law" without the first idea of what it means and how it is ruining our kids' education! I am extremely concerned and I have been saying so for over a year with little to no response from anyone. I feel like people are just following the herd - like they've just given up and feel they are doomed to state oversight and WORST practice in education as opposed to best practice. I would hope that those who subscribe to this listserv are the professionals that could actually do something about this. It won't happen if we just moan and groan - teachers pointing fingers at administration and administrators pointing fingers at the state. What are people out there really doing about this?!?!?!?! Carrie K-8, IL **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047) _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@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. _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@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.
