Blog #2: IRIS Module on RTI

Thoughts before completing the module:

I think that the procedures that Rosa Parks Elementary School is using to try to provide struggling students with assistance could be improved.  It seems as though the school is genuinely trying because of the formation of the S-Team, which basically establishes that some students do have difficulties in some areas and do need assistance.  I think it's great that Mr. Hess was concerned for his students, but I feel as though since the student's reading levels have been cumulatively low, the teachers the student previously had could have done something earlier in his education.  I believe that recognizing that there is a problem is the first and most major step.  I also think that the S-Team is doing all they can to provide necessary students with special education.  I believe that the school personnel are dissatisfied with this process because students who genuinely need special education services are not getting them because their skills do not lack in enough areas, but some students who should not necessarily qualify for special education services are receiving them instead.

Some approaches available to help struggling readers are pull out programs, which should only be implemented if completely necessary once all other options are ruled out, IEPs for students so teachers know where students need to be, training for teachers so that they have experience and knowledge necessary to teach in inclusive classrooms, and cooperation from other staff members (such as the formation of S-Teams so all teachers are on the same page) and family members.  If the student's education is the main focus from everyone around that child, then the student will be sure to succeed more than before.

I definitely think that the school would find previous grade reports helpful when choosing which approach to adopt.  For example, in the case of the student in the module, he had problems in previous grades that were never addressed.  I think that if the student's needs were addressed earlier than third grade, implementation of a plan now might not be necessary.  If the second grade teacher had word that the student had a rough time in reading in first grade, he could have tried an RTI type of tiered plan in which instruction was intensified so that the student could progress rather than fall behind even more.  I think the school as a whole should address what type of school they want to be (whether an RTI tier typed school which allows for multiple attempts to solve problems, or a school who tests once and then judges students from there, ex: IQ discrepancy model).  I think that the school personnel needs to talk about each student on an individual basis, grade by grade, to determine what is best for each particular student.

To help its struggling readers, the S-Team might has several options.  I think some of the simpler ones could be to have the student be paired with a reading buddy, so that he is still gaining the information in classes such as math and science that he needs, but he is not tripped up on trying to read to access the information.  Another option would be to have more visual clues for the student so that reading does not occupy all time in the classroom.  The student seems so focused on trying to read the text that there is no way he is actually comprehending the other subjects.  I think if the text was simplified for the student (not dumbed-down in any way, just simplified) then he can definitely benefit from staying in an inclusive classroom.  Personally, I do not think this particular student needs any type of Tier 2 or Tier 3 RTI intervention in this school.  I believe that his teachers and S-Team members are completely capable of keeping him in a Tier 1, general education environment.

Response after completing the Module:

The disadvantages of the IQ discrepancy model are very unfair for students who struggle in school.  Students who need special education because their expected and actual achievement scores are too close together, even if they are very low (below proficient).  Unfortunately, by the time students have a discrepancy between the expected and actual achievement scores, it is often too late in their education for them to do anything about it and they are more behind their classmates then they would have been if they followed a routine such as RTI, where lacking in proficiency can be caught early on.  Because of the faulty IQ discrepancy model, students who do not necessarily need special education are being pulled out of general education to take the spots that other students who are not proficient can benefit from.

RTI addresses these disadvantages by observing and evaluating each student on an individual basis rather than just as a part of a test.  RTI allows for a variety of strategies to be tried and tested before a student is placed directly in special education.  I personally think this is a great idea.  Although it may be a challenge for teachers, especially if there are multiple students being evaluated using RTI in one class, I think it is the job of the teacher to do everything in her power to make sure these students do not lose any more learning time because of being pulled out and placed directly in special education.  When other methods of helping a student learn can be implemented, pulling them out to a special education classroom should be the last resort.

I think that the most difficult part of implementing the RTI model would be if there are multiple students that need to be evaluated in a classroom.  It can be hard on the teacher to try to adapt or modify her teaching strategies for a variety of learners.  I think it can also be difficult for the S-Team to work together to make sure everything is being done so that students do not move up to the next tier of the RTI model.  All teachers and administrators (as well as parents) should be working together with the student to make sure that the student is doing his best to try and stay on track with his general education classroom.  I think that overall, RTI is a great model and as long as communication and teaching strategies are used to their full effect, there really are no major concerns with the model itself.

Chapter 1: Perspectives on Disability

After reading chapter one, I feel much more educated about the proper way to refer with people who have a disability.  I feel like the most important pieces of advice to remember from this chapter are that every individual is unique, and their disabilities can be just as unique as they are.  Another important piece of advice is to always use people first language and the active voice instead of the passive voice.

I think that our community as a whole has come a long way since the early days of disabilities and the middle ages, where people were outcasted or experimented on simply because they were different.  I think that it is very important that we progressed since those times, institutionalizing less people with disabilities and allowing them more of an equal opportunity to show their excpetionalities rather than hide them.  I feel like IDEA is allowing more families to get the support their children need to be able to attend general education classrooms (if the necessary IEP calls for it), and is allowing for students to feel more "normal" being placed in general education classrooms, regardless of the negative aspects some may see from inclusion and mainstreaming.

One thing that sort of bothered me from this chapter was the fact that they called integration or mainstraming "normalization" in the past.  I feel as though just because a student is already in a general education classroom, they are not necessarily normal.  Everyone at some point or another has struggled in their education, and just because they are supposidely on track with their peers, it does not mean they are normal.  There may be some children in special education settings that are normal based on the qualifications of grades, but have some behavioral problems keeping them from being in general ed.  Just because a student is in a general education classroom, it does not mean they are normal and that any other student not placed in general ed is not normal.

I have had an experience like this while working at a day care this past summer.  I worked with children who ranged in age from 1 year to 13 years of age, 3 of which were children with Autism.  Two of these 3 students were siblings, a year apart, who could not be any more different.  Brendan, a six year old with autism was very well behaved and very intelligent.  Brendan could tell you all about trains and how they worked, about the sports he loved to watch, and about what he did at home with his daddy.  His nine year old sister, Jess was the complete opposite.  Although very polite, she would throw intense temper tantrums if she did not get her way.  There were times where she would literally throw herself on the ground and scream to the point of vomiting to prove how badly she wanted something.  The third child with autism was Jason, a nine year old who was very energetic and always happy.  He never threw screaming fits like Jess and barely talked, so he never told stories or explained processes like Brendan did.  However, Jason was a very violent child.  He threw toys and chairs, bit all the time, and would spill everything just to get a rise from the teachers.  His behavior was awful, but he was a very intelligent little boy who loved to sort things by color, shape, and size.  He knew when he did something wrong and loved being prepared for the schedule of the day.  He always knew what was coming next.  These three kids taught me so much about how different a diagnosed disability could be in different cases.  This was my prime example of a real life situation from this chapter, reminding me that no two cases of a disability is the same and it is so important not to generalize students based on their disabilities.