I am at a public charter school within a public school system. The system wanted the charter school, so it works better than most partnerships. It is the district's special education dept. that is trying to implement 3 tiers & RtI. In general they know very very little about effective reading instruction. Part of our agreement with the district hinges on specail ed services. (We get 80% of their state per pupil allocations, and they provide things like busing, spec ed, and food services in varying degrees. They love programs. We do not use a core reading program at our school either, but the district does. They do not even begin to understand the 3 tiers & RtI they are trying to force onto schools. Their psychologists have so little training in reading, but they love numbers.
It is sad. john [email protected] wrote: > >John- thanks for putting everything out there for and about RTI- Our >district sent us to a one day workshop last year-presented by people who have >dealings with Oregon U and Dibels, and at the end of it the 3 of us (reading >specialists) still had no idea what it was. However we are being told to >implement >it this year-basically we're just following the tiering methods! And our >district uses NO core programs for reading except for Fountas & Pinnells >reading >and writing workshop models. So-Either states have to figure out what they >need to do to satisfy these new requirements, or we are just spinning our >wheels. Does your district attempt to implement RTI? >Michelle-NY-25 reading > > >n a message dated 10/8/2007 12:00:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >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. > > > > > > > >************************************** See what's new at http://www.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. _______________________________________________________ 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.
