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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected]; [email protected] 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. [email protected] wrote: >What is RTI and could you please explain the tiering system further. >Thanks. >J.Hayden > > >On 10/6/07 6:40 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >[email protected] >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 [email protected] 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 _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] 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.
