s On Oct 8, 2007, at 8:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. > > > [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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
