• Frequent and ongoing assessment of all students.
• Early identification of learning and behavioral needs.
• Data-driven, shared-decision making on intensity and type of interventions.
• Continuous progress monitoring of a student’s response to these interventions.
• Increased levels of intensity of intervention.

However, they may not reflect the fact that an RTI approach calls for general education to address the learning needs of at least 80% of students nor the evidence that difficulty with literacy is the reason for 50 to 80 percent of learning disability classifications.

To ensure that the perspectives of classroom teachers and literacy professionals are represented in the national conversation about RTI, we would like to hear from IRA’s membership about their experiences with RTI so far, good and bad, and any comments that might guide the Commission’s work. Given that IRA membership includes classroom teachers, literacy specialists, special educators, and an array of other specialists and stakeholders, the range of perspectives is likely to be much broader than other surveys to date.

To contribute your experiences, please click on the following link and complete the survey.

http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/?p=WEB229JF37HXWZ

How can using RtI ensure that informed decisions are being made about the instruction students need to succeed and also offer support in closely monitoring student growth?

Come and view our online video transcript of the FOR-PD Content Area Chat, “Matching Texts to Students”. This chat was conducted on July 22, 2009 with our guest speaker, Dr. Sherron Roberts.

You can now view it by visiting the following link. https://admin.na3.acrobat.com/_a826512158/p93349723/

Please feel free to share it with your colleagues.

Your Thoughts: How do you match texts with students? How will you increase the motivation and engagement with texts this school year?

• How do you rate yourself as a reader and writer?
• How do your abilities and understandings help you relate to your students’ needs, engage your students with text, and assist those struggling with reading and literacy skills?
• Do you feel you reflect enough on your own learning and reading skills/strategies?

• Is the text we’re using more appropriate for fluency instruction or comprehension instruction?
• Do students need comprehension strategy instruction if all they’re expected to do is retell and answer questions?
• We may need to rethink our ideas about the nature of comprehension.

“Are we teaching kids to do all the things that comprehension strategy instruction asks us to do if we are only expecting kids to live up to an out-of-date, low-level definition of comprehension? Kids have intellectual capacity to do so much more. I asked far, far, far too little of students when I was in the classroom and I wonder how far-spread this habit is in our country today, both in the richest and poorest districts.”

What are your thoughts about what we do or not do in the area of comprehension instruction?

See a landmark article by Michael Pressley titled, “Comprehension Instruction: What Makes Sense Now, What Might Make Sense Soon” http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html

What active comprehension strategies do you teach in your classroom? How do you choose which strategies to use?