AYP - Adequate Yearly Progress: A statewide accountability system mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which requires each state to ensure that all schools and districts make Adequate Yearly Progress ... More »

"If you don't have data you believe in, look for ways to gather data you can use. Once you are confident in the data, look at how you can best use the resources you currently have in place." [Read full story »]

— Brian Miller, Principal, IA

Submit your story and let your voice be heard too.

Why should we undertake Response to Intervention (RTI) when we already have several other initiatives going on in our district?

Response from Ann Casey, Ph.D.: RTI is a framework that could be used as an organizing tool for all of our work in education.  The main intent of RTI is to ensure students receive targeted instruction early so all students can be successful. In RTI, we integrate measurement/data systems to focus instruction by using a problem solving process.  These components are the framework...[read full response]

Submit a question to our experts.
What percentage of school staff are involved in RTI in your building?
RSS Feed

Add to Technorati Favorites
Let’s Stop Pulling Kids From Reading to Give Them Reading
 
Written by W. David Tilly III, Ph.D., Director of Innovation and Accountability, Heartland AEA 11, IA, on August 18, 2008
Often in my workshops, I tell groups if they are going to remember only one thing from my presentation that will raise reading achievement more than anything else for struggling students, remember this:  Let’s stop pulling kids from reading to give them reading.  What do I mean?  Well, I don’t know if your schools are like the schools I work with most often, but when kids struggle in reading, especially if they ultimately receive special education services, the most frequent "intervention" that is tried is to give them one period a day (usually about 45 minutes) of reading instruction in a small group, somewhere away from the general education setting.  Often this instruction is provided at a slower pace, in materials that are not as challenging as the materials being provided in general education.  And importantly, this instruction is often provided at the SAME TIME as the general education reading instruction.

What’s wrong with this picture?  Let’s see, if we look at this from a common sense standpoint, do children with developmental reading problems need overall less reading instruction than typically developing kids or do they need more reading instruction?  I live with a 12-year-old daughter.  One of the new statements I hear often in my household is "Duh Dad!"  Of course struggling students need more instruction than typically developing students.  So what’s so bad about pulling them out to get it?  At least 2 things.  First, they are missing what’s going on in the general classroom, and if we ever are going to get them back full time learning in the general education classroom, they need to be taught in those materials.  Second, often times when we pull kids out from general education instruction, they actually get less direct instruction than they would if they stayed in the general curriculum in the first place.

The vision of special education in 1975 was not that children with disabilities would receive services.  The vision was that those services would be effective.  The vision was that struggling students would receive super charged instruction, from teachers with more training than the average bear, using effective strategies, with smaller student-teacher ratios.  And that based on this instruction, many students would work their way back into the general instruction.  In short, we need to teach more in less time and catch kids up!

To reach this vision, we must STOP PULLING KIDS FROM GENERAL EDUCATION READING INSTRUCTION TO GIVE THEM READING instruction.  Now, I’m not talking about doing goofy things here.  Like, let’s not subject a non-reader to 25 minutes a day of sustained silent reading.  If we do this, I will guarantee, it will not be sustained, it will not be silent and it will not be reading.  Most kids, however far behind they are, can benefit from some components of core instruction.  So when students struggle, let’s examine closely what components from core instruction they can benefit from, let’s continue providing that to them, then let’s provide additional reading instruction matched to the student’s specific instructional needs. 

The next predictable question that will come up is "What will we pull them out of then, if not reading?"  I will answer this question as the parent of a child with a reading disability:  "I don’t care!"  If she can’t read, she can’t do science.  If she can’t read, she can’t learn social studies.  Heck, if she can’t read, she can’t even do math the way we teach math these days.  We must realize that everything in schools cannot be equally important.  And if we’re going to prioritize one thing at the top of the list, it has got to be reading.



Readers' Comments (9)

Posted by P. Koppinger, on August 19, 2008
I agree that children who are struggling with reading need more practice in reading both in and out of the classrrom. This is the ideal! Unfortunately, in the world of our schools, with demanding schedules and "special" classes, it is almost impossible to meet all these individual needs. Classrrom teachers try their best to be flexible and to schedule 'reading' when all the children are present... but with so many children receiving special services and therapies, it is not an easy chore!!
 

Posted by S. Taylor, on August 19, 2008
I heard of a school that all students receive reading in their gen ed. room. Those needing reteaching, go to special teachers from 11:00 to 11: 35.  
This includes any Title I reading teachers, Special Rdg. teachers, Gifted/TAG teacher, and Special Ed. teachers, plus any teachers whose kids are at a 'special' or eating lunch. This was how reading was made a priority at that Iowa school.
 

Posted by Shelly, on August 19, 2008
I agree that students have to be able to read before they can do anything else, but I am just wondering how we can have 94% pass reading standardized tests but only 74% pass the math. If their reading is showing improvement, shouldn't the math then go up as well? Aren't we doing them a diservice by taking them out of the other subjects that can be a time for fun and exploration especially if reading is a battle. Students should have a chance to work in other subjects of interest. Reading or not, there are some valuable hands on problem solving activities that pulled students miss out on.
 

Posted by Susan, on August 20, 2008
This proposal assumes that what is happening in the general ed classroom is of value to the kid with learning disabilities. This is not necessarily the case. If the general ed teacher is using "whole language" then the student is much better off being somewhere else. 
 
Although it may seem to make common sense, this proposal is too general and may not apply to the situations of individual students, teachers, and schools.
 

Posted by David M., on September 22, 2008
First of all, I agree that it does not make much sense to pull students who need more reading assistance from general education reading classes. After all, least restrictive environmental principles should dictate that students deserve the opportunity to succeed in this setting, with the appropriate services and modifications. Ultimately, we should want to give our students the chance to grow in the general education setting whenever possible. Certainly it makes sense that an elective course should be replaced for additional reading instruction, as opposed to switching a general education r
 

More comments...

Add your comment



mXcomment 1.0.6 © 2007-2009 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved