This is the reading instruction show on your host as always, Dr.
Andy Johnson.
Topic of today's podcast is RTI response to intervention.
And we are looking at standardized tests, screening devices,
dysgraphia, and a whole bunch of other stuff.
But RTI stands for response to intervention.
As the name indicates,
the goal is to see how students respond to an intervention and reading,
math or writing.
Students response to the intervention determines whether they get additional
help. Now, to begin with, at the start of it all,
there's a basic screening of some sort.
If problems are identified by the basic screening,
students start in tier one.
If they don't respond here, they move into tier two.
But if they do respond, they quit the intervention.
In other words, if the intervention is successful,
students should not need the intervention.
But if they don't respond to tier two, they move into tier three.
Keep in mind that interventions of any kind are designed to become obsolete.
Interventions are not meant to be forever kinds of things.
If your RTI is successful and students have responded to your intervention,
you should not need the intervention.
All the RTI stuff should fade away in a perfect world.
But we know that's not going to happen.
RTI was not meant to be a set of permanent ability groups
occurring outside the classroom.
However, the question is, if students respond to tier two,
do they go back to tier one, or are they forever fixed?
And do they leave RTI completely?
If they respond to tier three, do they go back to tier two,
or are they forever fixed?
Well, let's take a look at percentile rankings and screenings.
In reviewing some schools, RTI plans a standard RTI.
The RTI plans a standardized reading achievement test is used as a screening
device for reading.
Here, students are put in tiers one, two, or three reading intervention groups
based on their percentile rankings on these standardized tests.
For example, if you're in the 10th percentile or below, you go to tier three.
If you're in the 11th to 40th percentile, you go to tier two.
And if you're in the 41st to 60th percentile, you go to tier one.
What could be simpler than that?
But when you live in the world of standardized tests and percentile
rankings, there is this thing called a normal distribution of scores
that is beautifully displayed in the bell-shaped curve.
Here, half the population is reading below average.
That's called normal, a normal population or a normal distribution of scores.
But if everyone was reading above average, eventually average would become below average
and above average would become average and below average would become really below average.
You get the idea.
In a normal distribution of scores, half the students in a school should score below average.
That's called normal.
Now, that doesn't mean that we don't give each and every student the help they need
so that they are reading, writing and doing math at their very best.
And yes, we want all students to read at grade level.
That's an excellent goal.
But at the same time, it's an unrealistic goal.
In a normal distribution of scores, there's always going to be a 10th percentile
and a 40th percentile and a 60th percentile.
But the real problem is this.
If percentile rankings are used to determine tiers, you essentially set up perpetual
ability groups, some of which must leave the classroom to get extra help.
And the problem with pull-out services when they're pulled out from the classroom
is what do you pull them out of?
What is so unimportant that students can miss three to five times a week?
And if it's so unimportant, why are you doing it to the rest of the students in the first place?
All right, let's take a look at some screening devices.
RTI calls for some sort of screening device to determine if students are responding
to instruction in a general education classroom.
Another problem with using standardized tests for a screening device is that they do not
match classroom instruction, hopefully.
In other words, good reading instruction in a general education classroom looks very
much different from the content on a standardized test.
Also, RTI calls for benchmarks measured three or four times a year to determine if students
are making adequate progress.
Benchmarks are the goals teachers set for where they think students should be in terms
of progress and performance.
The screening device used for initial assessment is the screening device for
the screening device used for initial assessment should be somewhat related to the benchmarks
or goals.
Now, are you going to give standardized tests three or four times a year?
Is that what you're saying?
That's the problem with using standardized tests for screening devices.
Finally, the screening device should have some semblance to the progress monitoring measures.
Progress monitoring are the quick, simple assessments measures given every two to four
weeks to see how well students are responding to the intervention.
And of course, since progress monitoring measures measure the response to instruction
taking place, they should be directly related to the instruction taking place.
Now, even those with an imperfect ability to think would tell you that it makes no sense
to teach one thing and measure another.
And I know what you're thinking.
Okay, Mr. SmartyPants, what would you use for a screening device?
What would I suggest for a screening device?
Well, for reading a simple maze page or paragraph.
Remember, it's a screening device, not a diagnostic.
Maze can be quickly given in large group.
You could have two or three maze pages or paragraphs over successive days.
You could have varying levels.
The maze is great for word recognition because readers have to use letter clues as well as
semantic and syntactic clues.
And readers are also using the context of the page or paragraph to create meaning or to
comprehend.
The maze is more like real reading and it's a screening device, not a diagnostic, not
an achievement test.
All right.
What about for writing?
For writing, RTI, remember, focuses on reading, writing and math.
For writing, you really can't give a standardized test, can you?
Although some people have tried really, really hard to do so.
Yes, I guess you can measure spelling and grammar and punctuation in artificial
context on a standardized test, but these are not writing.
There are also computer scored writing assessments where students are given a
writing prompt and given a time limit to write.
The set structure and grammar of their written products are then analyzed and scored.
As well, there are writing tests where students are given a writing prompt and a
time limit and their writing samples are sent off someplace to be scored by human
scores using rubrics who score them on structure sentences as well as mechanics.
But these are all surface level measures to an artificial writing situation.
So how would you determine if students had trouble writing?
How would you determine who was and was not a struggling writer by their writing?
Yes, you would collect writing samples.
These would be two or three samples of authentic student writing products based
on their ideas and written using the process that real writers use.
Pre-write draft, revise, edit, get feedback over time, not in a cram
20 or 30 minute time limit.
Real writers, I don't get a time limit when I write.
Then you'd use some sort of holistic scoring measure like a rating checklist to
rate students' authentic written products based on a set of criteria.
But the bigger question here is why?
Most writing disabilities are really teaching disabilities.
Everybody can learn to write and everybody can achieve their full writing
potential if they are taught correctly within a general and setting.
This means teaching the process of writing, pre-write draft, revision, edit,
share, repeat as necessary.
And this usually means less teaching and more writing and responding.
But this does not mean that there are not places for small,
temporary, flexible groups to work on specific things.
But here's one, two, and three for writing.
I don't think so.
All right.
Now, let's look at dysgraphia.
I'm sure you're asking, well, maybe struggling writers have dysgraphia.
How do you cure dysgraphia?
For goodness sakes, you give it a fancy name and it becomes a thing.
You call it a brain disorder and it becomes more of a thing.
You get for-profit entities selling products and doing workshops and it really becomes a thing.
But that thing really is a silly thing.
So let's look at some of the stuff you find on the web.
Dysgraphia is a learning disability that affects right now.
Dysgraphia is a learning disability that affects writing abilities.
It can manifest itself in difficulties such as spelling, poor handwriting,
and trouble putting thoughts on paper.
Dysgraphia is a neurological disorder of written expression.
It impairs right ability in fine motor skills.
And here's a news alert, by the way.
Spelling, legibility, word spacing and sizing, and expression are not part of the five-step
writing process.
What about the National Center for Learning Disabilities?
It's a national center.
They must be experts, right?
Well, they include symptoms of dysgraphia, including the following.
Trouble forming letter shapes, tight, awkward, or painful grip on a pencil.
Difficulty following a line or stain within the margins.
Trouble with sentence structure or following rules of grammar when writing, but not when speaking.
Difficulty organizing or articulating thoughts on paper.
To which I would say to all of this, pish posh.
Forming letters, holding a pencil, stain within margin, even rules of grammar.
Well, here's the thing.
These can all be magically cured by a computer.
And by the way, difficulty organizing or articulating thoughts on paper.
That's called a first draft.
If you would have seen the first draft of this podcast, I would have been diagnosed with dysgraphia.
Some groups even break dysgraphia into subsections.
You got your motor dysgraphia and your spatial dysgraphia and your linguistic dysgraphia.
And the educational systems can say, well, it's not that we don't know how to teach writing.
They have a brain disorder.
You see, they got themselves a case of dysgraphia.
It's their fault.
It's a medical thing.
I see a lot of imperfect thinking going on here.
Is there such a thing as clown dysgraphia?
What about dyscalcula?
Well, I'm a literacy guy.
I swim in my own lane.
But again, giving something a name does not make that something a name.
Something more of a something.
So let's look at RTI emotions and behaviors.
Once upon a time, RTI was designed to get students who are struggling with reading,
writing, and math, the immediate help they needed without them being formally identified
by the special education system.
The whole point of RTI was to avoid special education services.
It was never meant to be an extension of special education services.
As stated in an earlier podcast, RTI was also used as a method to identify students
for special education services in the area of learning disabilities,
not EBD, emotional behavioral disorders.
It was only after students failed to respond to tier three interventions for reading,
math, or writing that they would be considered for assessment for special education for learning
disabilities in the areas of reading, math, or writing.
Learning disabilities, reading, math, or writing, learning, not emotional behavioral
disorders.
And again, idea defines a learning disability as an imperfect ability to listen,
think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
Not included in this list of imperfect abilities is an imperfect ability to
behave or an imperfect ability to emote.
A learning disability is not a behaving disability.
A learning disability is not an emoting disability.
It's an imperfect ability to learn things.
In regard to our RTI, it's an imperfect ability to learn to read, write, and do mathematical
calculations.
Now, some will say that behaviors get in the way of learning.
Behaviors are the cause of learning difficulties, they say.
If those darned students would just behave correctly, then they would learn.
The problem is with the student.
The student is defective.
Therefore, the student must be modified or changed.
So, we begin to see behaviors or behavioral interventions creeping insidiously into RTI.
But don't be fooled.
Once behaviors are included in RTI, it is no longer RTI.
It's something completely different like multi-tiered systems of support.
And we'll get to that in the next podcast.
Now, some RTI plans include PBIS, positive behavioral interventions and supports.
And some even ABA applied behavioral analysis.
To be clear, RTI is concerned with reading, writing,
writing, and math.
Yes, behaviors sometimes get in the way of learning, but behaviors are a result of multiple causes.
Behaviors are an effect of something else.
To try to duct tape over the effect, the behavior, without addressing the cause,
demonstrates an imperfect ability to think. RTI was designed for learning disabilities,
not disorders of emotions or behaviors.
Why are behaviors getting mixed up in the whole RTI thing?
RTI, well, not perfect, is pretty good.
But then along came MTSS, multi-tiered systems of support.
The behaviors just couldn't leave well enough alone, could they?
But the question is why?