Category: Response to Intervention (RTI)

The Essential Components and Teacher Education of RTI

A valid response to intervention (RTI) program provides the necessary support and instruction to students who are struggling to maintain appropriate grade-level expectations for reading and math. The program provides different layers of more intense, focus instruction based on individual student’s learning needs. The program was first mandated in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2002 by United States Congress. RTI was also mandated in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 2004. The mandate remained a part of the policy when NCLB was updated and renewed under the name of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2017. This act was put into place to provide students who lag behind their fellow classmates support earlier in their formal educational career, with the hope of alleviating special education services. It was also determined that the earlier students were supported the less emotional trauma students would endure and the less financial burden individuals would be to the educational process and society.

Essential Components of RTI

The major components of a valid response to intervention (RTI) program are rather simple. How the components are developed or formed and maintained to accommodate the students present increases the complexity of the program. Each program should include three major components: (a) systematic assessment measures-screenings, diagnostic, and progress-monitoring, (b) research-based instruction taught sequentially and at times taught explicitly to meet the educational needs of all present students-instruction in the regular classroom, supplemental and more intensive instruction, and (c) use of current student data to form student instructional lessons. Each program should also have a mode of communication within its infrastructure. Communication that flows between all entities of the RTI program. Each program will seem similar, but different.

Essential Teacher Knowledge

Teachers of a successful RTI program should have the following knowledge and skills: (a) literacy development and instruction, (b) how to use data to inform instruction, (c) how to differentiate instruction, (d) how to collaborate, (e) be a lifelong learner, (f) how to use interpersonal and communication skills, and (g) how to use necessary technology (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). Teachers should also be knowledgeable about how to use various types of assessments, such as progress monitoring, curriculum-based, and universal screens.

The leadership team of an RTI program is responsible for the oversight and direction of professional develop opportunities related to RTI. The campus coordinator usually heads the leadership team and is often a reading specialist. This person is often the liaison between the district and school. The leadership team should be knowledgeable about teachers current instructional abilities and education. The leadership team should also know what types of on-going teacher professional develop that should take place in order to maintain an effective RTI program. Research suggests that on-going professional develop of a successful RTI program should include the following: (a) systemic curriculum, (b) effective instruction, (c) direct instruction, (d) specified instructional materials, (e) key instructional components, (f) CBM assessments, (g) videos and/or observations of classroom instruction, (h) data graphed against goals, (i) student progress monitored monthly, and (j) decisions regarding curriculum and instruction based on data (Kashima et al., 2009). Professional learning can take place in a variety of different venues, such as one-on-one with district personnel or in a seminar format (White et al., 2012). The leadership team of an RTI program should also be knowledgeable about current research and resources related to effective intervention curriculum and instruction. RTI is a living breathing model that must remain flexible to meet the learning needs of their current students.

References

Bean, R. & Lillenstein, J. (2012). Response to intervention and the changing roles of schoolwide personnel. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 491-501. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01073

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of RTI: A closer look at leadership, parent involvement, and cultural responsivity. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 1-11.

White, R., Polly, D. & Audette, R. (2012).  A case analysis of an elementary school’s implementation of response to intervention. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73-90.  doi: 10.1080/02568543.2011.632067

 

 

The Benefits of Determining and Addressing Students Literacy Needs – Early

Students of all economic and cultural backgrounds arrive at institutions of formal education assuming that educators will be able to teach them how to effectively read and write. Some will have the knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, some will have knowledge of how to hold a pencil and write. Some will know how to read. Some will have good oral language skills. Some will have good social emotional skills. Some will show up without any of the previous skills. They will be all put into the same classroom. The teacher is expected to meet the learning needs of all students throughout the day.

There are tools that teachers should have available to ease the “craziness” of having 20-25 students that are all at different levels of learning and social behavior. One tool is universal screening of early or foundational literacy knowledge and skills. Universal screenings are very short probes to determine which students may lack the necessary skills to be successful in their current grade. These screenings usually assist in determining which students may need additional small group or one-on-one instruction to learn foundational learning skills. These screenings also assist in determining students who might need further diagnostic assessment and different instruction for various learning disabilities, such as dyslexia. These short probes are usually used in partnership of teacher observation and completed assignments to increase the validity of the universal screening outcomes.

These probes should begin in kindergarten, and the findings a focus of instruction during Grades K-3. The earlier a student(s) learning needs or lack of knowledge and skills are address the less the student(s) will struggle. Students who receive earlier intervention instruction usually skip the deep emotional scars. Left unmeet these students usually spend their time clawing their way through their day, trying to avoid the shame of not be able to fully participate. Often students just need a few weeks of intense instruction in kindergarten. I have yet to meet a student who didn’t want to function at grade-level with their peers.

The types of probes are dependent on student age and ability. A student in kindergarten should be assessed in phonemic awareness and rapid automatic naming skills. A student in Grade 2 should be assessed in some of the previous probes along with word reading of both regular and pseudonym words. These are usually given three times a year within an instructional response to intervention (RTI) model* that focuses on academics-literacy and math. The probes and intervention instruction begin to separate students with true learning disabilities from those who didn’t gain or learn the foundational skills necessary before entering the formal educational setting. This also ensures that students with true disabilities receive more accurate instruction and assistance earlier than later for their disability.

Students who receive explicit, direct instruction in Grades K-2 for the lacking foundational literacy skills usually “catch-up” to grade level expectation and maintain their intervention gains. Some students will need assistance throughout their formal academic instruction. Students who receive the right academic intervention instruction will avoid many latter social emotional issues. The cost to society and formal education escalates, as students maturate and cannot effectively participate at their grade-level. The earlier students’ lack of foundational skills is addressed; the less funding is needed to bring up them up to grade-level. Students’ brains are more malleable during their younger years.

* Each RTI model should be different, but similar in nature to reflect the students’ academic learning needs and the resources available. All RTI models will have tiers or levels of instruction. Most RTI models in Grades K-4 focus on developing reading skills. Some RTI models may focus on behavior. Behavior focused RTI models may assist in determining the learning levels of students, as behavior often signals a lack of academic skills necessary to function at grade-level. Once the academic needs are meet the behavior issues usually melt away.

In my next blog, I will describe the necessary components and teacher education of a successful RTI program.

References

Moll, K., Georgii, B. J., Tunder, R., & Schulte-Kӧrne (2022). Economic evaluation of dyslexia intervention. Dyslexia, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1728

Ray, J. S. (2017). Tier 2 intervention for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826

Possible Team Members of an Effective Response to Intervention Model (RTI)

Every RTI model will have a different ring or configuration depending on the needs of current students and available resources to make the mechanism run smoothly. The following players should be considered as part of an effective RTI model.

  1. The regular classroom teacher. The classroom teacher is responsible for core instruction in Tier 1 of RTI. Kashima, Schleich, and Spradlin (2009) stated that regular education classroom teachers should administer universal screening to students in order to determine their current level of achievement. They should also analyze student achievement data and differentiate curriculum and instruction based on their analysis of the data (Kashima et al, 2009a; Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). Teachers should also collaborate with parents and other professionals to provide feedback about student progress in the classroom using data from direct and indirect assessments (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012).
  2. The literacy coach. The literacy coach usually experiences an increase in management responsibilities and in their involvement of evidence-based instruction (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). Coaches monitor teacher knowledge of curriculum, instruction, gathering data, and data usage. The literacy coach provides on-going coaching of evidence-based curriculum and instruction or curriculum and instruction that have proven to increase student achievement (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b). Coaches also support the principal during the RTI implementation process. Coaching includes developing and promoting team management of student instruction through collaboration.
  3. The reading specialist. Reading specialists provide focused and frequent instruction to students in Tier 2 of the RTI model (Kashima, Schleich & Spradlin, 2009b). They generally provide Tier 2 instruction in small group settings. Reading specialists analyze student data and make advisements related to student achievement. Reading specialists also collaborate with other educators and parents regarding student achievement data, placements, and progress monitoring.
  4. The special education teacher. The special education teacher should become more involved in the development and delivery of the core curriculum, instruction, and assessment in the regular education classroom (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Kashima, Schleich & Spradlin, 2009b). Special education teachers are a resource for regular teachers in developing differentiated instruction for students at different levels of instruction (Kashima et al., 2009b). They assist and administer student assessments and analyze the related data. They also assist in the placement and development of educational plans for individual students. Special education teachers should collaborate with other educators in both a team and an individual format about student data and possible student placements (Kashima et al., 2009b). Special education teachers usually deliver one-on-one instruction in Tier 3 of the RTI model.
  5. The school counselor. The school counselor provides advice regarding placement of students. School counselors often serve as the liaison between different services, such as intervention services or diagnostic assessments. School counselors are responsible for making decisions based on student and school data (Ryan, Kaffenberger, & Carroll, 2011).  They serve as the coordinator of Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions.  District-level and school-level RTI leadership teams also collaborate on a regular basis regarding how to effectively implement the RTI model. School counselors also serve on RTI leadership teams and collaborate with other members of the leadership team and with community members, such as parents.
  6. The school psychologist. Implementing RTI affects the job functions of a school psychologist. School psychologists should have training in the following components that were developed by Colorado Department of Education through an alignment of state and federal regulations related to RTI: (a) leadership, curriculum, and instruction; (b) assessment; (c) problem-solving processes; (d) school climate and culture; and (e) family and community engagement (Crepeau-Hobson & Sobel, 2010). The school psychologist is often the liaison between the district and school because they serve on both the district and school site leadership teams (O’Conner & Freeman, 2012). They are knowledgeable in cognition and child development. School psychologists often administer diagnostic testing in relation to RTI placement. Psychologists usually assist in developing and implementing data collection and dissemination (Crepeau-Hobson & Sobel, 2010; Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b). Psychologists are seen as experts in analyzing educational assessment data and should teach other educators how to analyze data (Kashima et al., 2009b). Psychologists usually advise collaborative teams that can include parents on possible intervention strategies and student education plans (Crepeau-Hobson & Sobel, 2010).
  7. The speech pathologist. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association states that the speech pathologist role in RTI includes “screening, assessing, and training children and adolescent with reading and written language disorders” (Kerins, Trotter, & Schoenbrodt, 2010, p. 289). Speech pathologists, therefore, should be knowledgeable in how to help students master phonological awareness skills. Speech pathologists also collaborate with classroom teachers, parents, and special educators. Many speech pathologists are members of a collaborative team that develops students’ educational plans for intervention and provides intervention instruction. The role of speech pathologists is that of professional consultant (Kerins, et. al, 2010).

There are other possible members of an effective RTI team. The previous possibilities were discovered during my research of the RTI model in preparation of my dissertation research.

 

References

Bean, R. & Lillenstein, J. (2012). Response to intervention and the changing roles of schoolwide personnel. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 491-501. http://doi/10.1002/TRTR.01073

Crepeau-Hobson F., & Sobel, D. (2010). School psychologist and rti: analysis of training and professional development needs. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 4(4), 22-32.

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of RTI: A closer look at leadership, parent involvement, and cultural responsivity. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 1-11.

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of RTI: A closer look at evidence-based core curriculum assessment and progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Center for Evaluation & Education, 1-12.

Kerins, M., Trotter, D. & Schoenbrodt, L. (2010). Effects of a tire 2 intervention on literacy measures: lessons learned. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 26(3), 287-302. doi: 10.1177/0265659009349985

O’Connor, E., & Freeman, E. (2012). District-level considerations in supporting and sustaining rti implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 297-310. doi: 10.1002/pits.21598

Ryan, T., Kaffenberger, C., & Carroll, A. (2011). Response to intervention: An opportunity for school counselor leadership. Professional School Counseling, 14(3), 211-221.

The Essential Educators of an Effective Response to Intervention (RTI) Model

RTI is an instructional model used to better ensure that all students learn how to read and write. An effective model will reach 80% of learners at the first level of instruction. Tier 1 instruction should include differentiation and scaffolding to reach students on the cusp of not ingesting and owning the necessary skills for knowing how to effectively read and write. Tier 2 instruction is for students not able to grasp the instruction in Tier 1 and should include more precise explicit, systematic instruction. This instruction is usually received in a small group environment with other students needing similar instruction. Tier 3 and above levels of instruction should be assessed, direct, and strategic instruction that has the potential of meeting the needs of each student at these levels. Students receiving Tier 3 instruction often have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). These students usually receive one-on-one instruction and are often part of special education classes. Some of these students receive part of their instruction in a regular classroom, as well as individualized instruction outside of the classroom. Each model will be different to meet the needs of students present. Each model usually includes different essential educators that make the gears of the model work effectively. Individual schools often use “more user-friendly names” for their RTI model that better fit the community its serving.

Individual schools in partnership with the district leaders develop school instructional leadership teams for effective implementation and sustainment of a RTI model. The district should provide the knowledge of the framework for a RTI program and be available to provide support and direction to the school leadership team. School-level leadership teams might include the (a) principal, (b) school psychologist, (c) educational diagnostician, (d) reading specialist, (e) special education teacher, (f) general education teacher, (g) occupational therapist, (h) literacy coach, and (i) the school counselor (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Ryan, Kaffenberger, & Carroll, 2011; Tyre et al., 2012). School leadership teams are responsible for analyzing data, student placement, and instruction (Kashima, Schleich & Spradlin, 2009a; Nellis, 2012; Tyre, Feuerborn, & Beisse, 2012). The roles of the leadership members should reflect the needs of present students.

School administrators or principals are key to effective implementation of the RTI model (Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b; Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; White, Polly, & Audette, 2012). Administrators are responsible for setting the direction and culture of the school and professionally developing individuals at the school-level, in relation to implementing RTI with fidelity (Kashima, Schleich, & Spradlin, 2009b). These individuals should possess both interpersonal and communication skills to effectively lead or participate in conversations that provide both critical and positive feedback about the RTI process (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). This feedback should be given with (a) respect and should take note of their input, (b) provide data to support the feedback, and (c) focus on student learning and outcomes. Administrators are also responsible for developing “risk free zones” to encourage open collaboration. They should focus on empowering educators to effectively provide instruction to meet the needs of all students (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012; Kashima et al., 2009b). Administrators are also responsible for “establishing an infrastructure for school-wide student screening” and “ensure that student data is properly managed” (Kashima et al., 2009b, p. 2). These individuals should “conduct routine classroom walk-throughs, observations, and discussions to provide feedback and ensure reliability” of the RTI program (Kashima et al., 2009b, p. 2). Administrators are usually the backbone of the RTI model.

More about other possible leadership team members in my next post.

References

Bean, R. & Lillenstein, J. (2012). Response to intervention and the changing            roles of schoolwide personnel. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 491-501.                 http://doi/10.1002/TRTR.01073

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of                 RTI: A closer look at leadership, parent involvement, and cultural                      responsivity. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 1-11.

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of                 RTI: A closer look at evidence-based core curriculum assessment and              progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Center for                       Evaluation & Education, 1-12.

Nellis, L. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in                          response to intervention implementation.  Psychology in the Schools.                 49(3), 245-256.

Ryan, T., Kaffenberger, C., & Carroll, A. (2011). Response to intervention:                An  opportunity for school counselor leadership. Professional School                    Counseling, 14(3), 211-221.

Tyre, A., Feuerborn, L., Beisse, K., & McCready, C. (2012). Creating                              readiness for response to intervention:  An evaluation of readiness                    assessment tools. Contemporary School Psychology, 16, 103-114.

White, R., Polly, D,. & Audette, R. (2012). A case analysis of an elementary              school’s implementation of response to intervention. Journal of                            Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73-90.                                                                      http://doi/10.1080/02568543.2011.63206

 

 

 

Structured Literacy Supports All Learners-Dyslexic, ESL

Structured Literacy Supports All Learners:  Students At-Risk of Literacy Acquisition—Dyslexia and English Learners

Abstract

Learning to read is a complex endeavor that requires developing brain connections. The brain connections for reading written words begins forming during the development of oral language. The maturing of oral language and reading instruction continue the growth of the necessary brain connections to read and write. Structured Literacy instruction helps to develop and strengthen brain connections for reading and processing written language. Structured Literacy encourages educators to teach the essential literacy foundational skills during the pre and primary school years, so students have a better chance of achieving and maintaining proficiency in literacy. 

This article was published in the Texas Association for Literacy Instruction Yearbook, Volume 7, September 2020, Chapter 5, p. 37-43, downloadable at  http://www.texasreaders.org/yearbooks.html.

Is Response to Intervention (RTI) for General or Special Education Students?

When I am discussing RTI with educators many seem to believe that the RTI model is special education. In a research article titled The Blurring of Special Education in a New Continuum of General Education Placements and Services, Fuchs et al. (2010) describes that the meaning of RTI is interpreted differently by regular education teachers and those who provide support for at-risk students. General education teachers usually reflect the RTI model through the lens of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2002)/Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015). Those working in general education usually define RTI as “a reformed service delivery that emphasizes early intervention and the unification of general education and special education, which in turn facilitates adoption of challenging standards and accountability for all” (Fuchs et al., 2010, p. 304). General education teachers support collaboration among teachers to improve student learning and focus more on assessment and instruction than cognitive abilities. This group also emphasizes problem solving and differentiated instruction.

Whereas the educators supporting students at-risk, such as resource, speech, special education, etc. view the RTI model through the lens of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (2004). Their view defines RTI as a model to promote early intervention and to increase the validity of identifying students who may have a learning disability (Fuchs et al., 2010). Educators supporting students at-risk place more value on cognitive, linguistic, and perceptual data to inform the type of intervention treatment. Educators working with at-risk students believe that students who are unresponsive to instruction in Tier 2 should be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team using student data. Fuchs et al. also noted that educators supporting at-risk students recognize that instruction should be evidence-based, explicit, and top-down or researcher determined. This group usually relies more on student data and effective research-based interventions.

The RTI model was designed for educators to develop a multitiered instructional system to deliver standards-based, grade-level, student-supported curricula and instruction based on the current needs of present students and the resources available to support the RTI model at their school. A healthy RTI model should reach most struggling students, freeing-up special education services for students who have the most severe learning needs.

I described a typical RTI model in an October 2018 blog post as having three tiers of instruction, some may have more.

  • Tier 1 instruction is taught using research-based curriculum and instruction that is differentiated to meet student learning needs. Tier 1 takes place in the general classroom, taught by a regular classroom teacher. Tier 1 should meet the learning needs of 80% of the students. Students who are struggling to meet the expectations of Tier 1 are referred for Tier 2 instruction, using universal screeners and classroom data. Students can skip tiers to better match individual learning needs.
  • Tier 2 instruction becomes more intense using explicit systematic instruction based on student learning needs. Tier 2 instructions can be taught by regular classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, reading specialist or special education teachers. Tier 2 instructions typically take place outside of the regular classroom, in a small group setting. Students are progress monitored, usually once a week to ensure that the curriculum and the intensity of instruction are meeting student learning needs. Data from monitoring is used to adjust curriculum and instruction. Students not showing progress after a specified time at Tier 2 are referred for Tier 3 instruction.
  • Tier 3 instruction becomes more intense and individualized. Some students may need more diagnostic testing to better pinpoint their particular learning needs. Tier 3 is usually taught in one-on-one settings by a paraprofessional, reading specialist or special education teacher. Tier 3 in some models is special education.

Each tier of the RTI model typically has a team of educators that support the instruction and movement of students in and out of that tier. Team members usually include the regular classroom teacher, reading specialist, special education teacher, and or the RTI liaison. Team members may also include administrators, parents, community liaisons, and other educational professionals, such as speech pathologist or psychologist.

 

References

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S. & Stecker, P. (2010). The blurring of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-323.

Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W.D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades, a practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.

Kashima, Y., Schleich, B., & Spradlin, T. (2009). The core components of rti: A closer look at evidence-based core curriculum, assessment and progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 1-11. https:ceep.indiana.edu

Ray, J. (2017). Tiered 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

 

What is Structure Literacy Instruction – Pillars 1 & 2

Structured literacy instruction includes six pillars or parts of language development-oral and written.  Structured literacy instruction is taught explicitly and systematically, beginning with Pillar 1. Structured literacy may be used to teach literacy at all levels of instruction, such as Tier 1-general classroom, Tier 2-intervention usually taught in small groups, Tier 3-intervention usually taught in one-on-one group setting, or special education.  The number of levels for instruction in a RTI model may be different for each school, depending on the learning needs of the current students and the available resources.

Pillar 1 is phonology, the study of spoken sounds (phonemes)—rules of how sounds are encoded, such as why these sounds follow this pattern to form this sound(s). Individuals should have phoneme awareness skills before learning how to read.  This is the ability to hear, identify, and manipulated individuals sounds in spoken words.  Phoneme awareness is part of phonological awareness.  Phonological awareness is the ability to process and manipulate letter sounds, rhyming words, and segmenting of sounds within words. The study of phonology usually increases student ability to spell, pronounce, and comprehend written words. 

Pillar 2 is sound-symbol correspondences or the relationship(s) between phoneme(s) and grapheme(s).  This may be referred to as phonics instruction that teaches predictable or the constant rules of sound-symbol correspondences to produce written language.  At this stage students learn one-on-one correspondence, for example the written letter B represents this phoneme or sound.  Students begin decoding and encoding words as they begin to learn the sound-symbol correspondences.  Student knowledge of the phoneme(s) and grapheme(s) relationships usually increases student ability to read, comprehend, and spell written language.

I will include pillars 3 and 4 of structured literacy instruction in my next post.

References

Birsh, J.R. (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore:  Paul H. Brookes Pub Co.

Henry, Marcia K. (2010).  Unlocking literacy effective decoding and spelling instruction.  Baltimore:  Paul H. Brookes Pub Co.

International Dyslexia Association, dyslexiaida.org/what-is-structured-literacy/

Moats, L. (2000). Speech to print. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub Co.

Diagnosing Dyslexia

The information in this blog is focused on developmental dyslexia, which is acquired through genetics.  Usually, students who acquire dyslexia through environmental causes can be flagged or diagnosed using the same information.

The definition of dyslexia is:

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin.  It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities.  These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction.  Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge (International Dyslexia Association, 2002).

I am not big fan of labeling students for various reasons, but labeling must occur if the student is not getting the support and instruction that they need to acquire literacy skills.  Students will continue to struggle to acquire and use grade-level literacy skills, if they do not learn foundational literacy skills during their early elementary school days.  Most students can receive the support and instruction that they need to remain at grade-level through a response to intervention (RTI) or multitiered program.   RTI is a program that when implemented with fidelity can provide instructional lessons at student learning level, in addition to their regular classroom literacy instruction.  Some students will need more intense intervention that may include special education services, which requires the development of a 504 or IEP plan.  This will depend on your school’s literacy program and student learning needs.

Diagnosing dyslexia can be tricky and complex.  Dyslexia affects approximately 3 of every 20 students.  Dyslexia is blind to ethnicity and socioeconomic status.  Some students will “scream” dyslexia, many will not. Some students will never be diagnosed.  Children of parents diagnosed with developmental dyslexia have a 50% higher chance of having dyslexia.  It is also important to note that students can show traits of dyslexia, but not have developmental dyslexia.

Diagnosing dyslexia usually begins with a screening of student literacy skills.  A screening is a series of short probes or assessments used to learn student reading ability.   Most schools universally screen students three times a year.  Universal screenings can flag students who may have dyslexia, this will depend on the reading probes used to screen students.  Some probes have a stronger correlation to reading deficits normally found in individuals diagnosed with dyslexia.  Student knowledge of phonological awareness is a stronger flag until Grade 2, when rapid automatized naming tests (RAN) or reading fluency probes become a stronger flag (Ray, 2017).  Usually students that show a deficit in decoding nonsense words are dyslexic.  Teacher observations of student reading ability can strengthen the validity of a word decoding outcome.  There are also “private” on-line screenings.  Use on-line screening with caution, as not all screenings are valid.  The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreenTM was developed by Dr. Sally Shaywitz, a professor and researcher in Learning Development at Yale University. This screening can be used for students in kindergarten and Grade 1.  The screener can be found at https://dyslexia.yale.edu/, the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity.  Students who show signs of literary deficits or traits of dyslexia may be assessed deeper or more extensively by a trained educational professional.

Diagnosing Dyslexia

The Gillingham (1955) formula of diagnosing dyslexia was developed by Anne Gillingham while she was working for Dr. Samuel Orton in the early 1900s.  She believed that standardized achievement tests were not a valid method to diagnose students’ reading deficits or to place students in remediation.  Gillingham determined that the following seven assessments should be given to students one year before beginning reading instruction: (a) intelligence, (b) optical or vision, (c) family history, (d) motor pattern or skills, (e) visual sensory recall skills, (f) auditory sensory recall skills, and (g) kinesthetic sensory skills.  The data from each assessment should be compiled and analyzed for each child.  The child is then placed into a classroom setting, based on the analyzed outcome of these assessment.  Gillingham noted that when students were assessed correctly and place in the proper programs, many of the emotional issues disappeared.  Gillingham also noted that occasionally the analyzed placement needed to be revisited as the child progressed through their formal education.  Gillingham (1956) believed that teachers in the regular classroom were the first to identify students at-risk for reading acquisition.

Today, dyslexia can be diagnosed by a neuropsychologist who specializes in educational disabilities, in particular dyslexia.  The process includes three or four hours of testing that can be quit tiring for students.  Most public schools do not have licensed psychologists trained to administer the depth of assessment required to diagnose dyslexia.  Students can also be diagnosed using MRI imaging.  This method of diagnosis should be used with caution, as very few people know how to conduct or correctly read the MRI screening images for dyslexia traits.

Ray, J.S. (2017).  Tier 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading.  (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).  Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

Universal Screening

In my last post I defined universal screening as:  a series of short, easy-to-administer probes of 1-3 minutes used determine student learning level.  The data from universal screening is used to determine those students who are at-risk for reading acquisition and for student placement in the response to intervention model.  Universal screening is usually given three times a year.  This screening should identify 90% of the students who may be at-risk for reading acquisition.  Universal screening is often used to monitor student progress and as a diagnostic assessment to determine students’ individual learning needs.

Universal screening is a vital component of the response to intervention (RTI) model. Screening students with the right assessment probes at the right time is essential to an effective RTI model.  Students should be assessed for proficiency of their current grade level.  Students not showing grade level proficiency should be placed in tiers or groups of focused instruction to improve their literacy skills.  The groups may look different in each classroom or school depending on the current learning needs of present students.  Students should be monitored to ensure that current placement is effective for them.

The following is a timeline for the types of universal screeners that should be used to determine students who are at-risk for literacy acquisition.  This table was developed while I was conducting research for chapter 2 of my dissertation.

Table 1

Universal Screening Grade Level Timeline

 

Reading Skill

 Column A

Gersten et al., 2009

 Column B

Kashima et al., 2009

 Column C

Lam & McMaster, 2014

 Column D

NJCLD, 2011
 

Letter naming & fluency

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

 
Phoneme segmentation Grade K-1 Grade K-1
Phonemic awareness

Nonsense fluency

  

Grade 1

 Grade K-3
Word identification Grade 1-2 Grade K-3
Oral reading fluency Grade 1-2 Grade 1 Grade K-3 Grade K-3
Sound repetition Grade K-1
Vocabulary Grade 1
Reading comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Listening comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Written expression Grade K-3
Basic reading skills Grade K-3
Oral expression Grade K-3

 Note: Column A was adapted from “Assisting Students Struggling with Reading:  Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades” by R. Gersten et al., 2008, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2009-4045, p. 13. Column B was adapted from “The Core Components of RTI: A Closer Look at Evidence-Based Core Curriculum, Assessment and Progress Monitoring, and Data-Based Decision Making by Y. Kashima, B. Schleich, and T. Spradlin, 2009, Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, p. 6.  Column C was adapted from “A 10-Year Update of Predictors of Responsiveness to Early Literacy Intervention” by E. A. Lam and K. L. McMaster, 2014, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 37(3), p. 143.  Column D was adapted from “Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation of Students with Learning Disabilities” by The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2011, Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 3-16. 

Other references

Gilbert, J., Compton, D., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations for a four-step screening system. NIH Public Access, Author Manuscript. Retrieved from  http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903290 doi:10.1177/1534508412451491

Kilgus, S. P., Methe, S. A., Maggin, D. M., & Tomasula, J. L.(2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (r-cbm): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 377-405. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.002.

Ray, J.S. (2017). Tier 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading.  (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Facebook
Twitter