by Rena Mincks
Once again my district is mandating a top down decision. The powers that be have just decided to join the RTI (Response to Intervention) acronym band wagon. Yes, I know it has been around for about 10 years or so, but now there seems to be some funding opportunities, so why not?
Well, I will attempt to say why not. First a bit of history, as I understand it, RTI was an attempt by Special Education to fix General Education. IDEA realized that there were just too many referrals and too many students in Special Ed. Therefore, let’s test students so we have enough data points, plot and graph these points, and then suggest an intervention that will “fix” this student before having the student receiving special education services.
So now, my little first grade students (average age 6) will not have a DIBELS (Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills) and MAP (Measures of Academic Progress). The MAP test is done on the computer. This data will then be used to qualify students for Title One reading support or further testing for Special Ed. Consideration.
We have been in school four full days and I can already tell you which students will do just fine, which students need additional opportunities to learn and time to practice phonics, phonemic awareness, reading, addition, subtraction, measurement, number and letter writing, and which students will need accommodations to challenge them.
It is difficult to see students unable to use the computer lab for approximately twelve weeks a year due to testing. I believe most teachers can arrive at the same conclusions with out waiting five weeks to receive data which that may or may not guide instruction. I would rather our district put forth some effort to look more closely at Universal Design for Learning. (http://www.udlcenter.org).
UDL looks at providing multiple means of representation, action and expression and engagement, not one intervention to fit all. It is about options and flexibility of educators. I think it is important to recognize that learners differ in ways that they can navigate a learning environment and express what they know. The tests my first grade students will be subjected to are just a moment in time a data point. I believe that my students are real people and much more than a point on a grid or graph. Let’s get back to educating children and not just collecting data, which takes precious time away from instruction, practice and learning. I will just treat this like a bandage, rip it off quickly and let the healing begin. I see the RTI as another plan that will fail due to the lack of funding or will just fade away and make room for the next acronym.
For 30 years as a teacher of primary kids, I have operated on the Any Fool Can See principle. And any fool can see that the spread between what is developmentally appropriate for 7- and 8-year-old children and what is demanded of them on these tests is widening. A lot of what used to be in the first-grade curriculum is now taught in kindergarten. Is your 5-year-old stressed out? Perhaps this is why.
Rena-
“I believe that my students are real people and much more than a point on a grid or graph. Let’s get back to educating children and not just collecting data”
A feeling I think all of us share. I believe data from formative assessments are critical and non-negotiable elements of what should drive our instruction. But data collection for the sake of data collection (or elaborate spreadsheets)is indeed a time sucker we can ill afford. “Powers that be” as you put it need to recognize that data is only as valuable as what you are able to do with it which requires time for analysis and reflection. We need to choose wisely the data that will give us the most guidance for the time spent.