Lipson's article in The Reading Teacher, "Diagnosis: The Missing Ingredient in RTI Assessment" is a common sense approach in the intervention process. The big surprise here is that it had to be said--diagnosis should have been a part of RTI from the very beginning. One question follows: How else are you going to determine what to do if you don't know what's wrong?
*Statements with which I totally agree ...
"All students deserve high-quality first instruction."
*Statements I know are true but I find to be unconscionable....
"...the school adopts a one-size-fits-all intervention...."
(But of course I know we all do this--it is just so unscrupulous!)
*Statements for which I am not sure if I agree...
"...instruction focused on the wrong thing not only does not help students, but it may actually be harmful." --Aside from the correlative conjunction error--of course it helps teachers if we know what's wrong in order to "fix" deficiencies.
Question: Why have too many students been identified as sped? Because interventions were not put in place to raise students' ability or...what?
But the article ends with such a positive note. Here is a recap of what the article says we should do...
Use the QRI-5 (or other assessment) to identify word recognition accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.
Determine if accuracy is affected by phonics decoding, sight word recognition, or both
Examine differences between/among results in comprehension, fluency, and word identification.
Use the student profile form to look at multiple measures to identify areas of concern
Determine if additional assessment is needed (i.e. miscues might warrant a modified miscue analysis or strong comprehension usually indicates that vocabulary is fine)
Determine instruction needed
In conclusion I would like to learn more about classroom interventions and good instruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment