Reflection for 10/18
Week 3:
Our conversation during class last week’s class got me thinking about the relationship between the new “Response to Intervention” legislation and Understanding by Design theory. Then, I began to contemplate the relationship the same new legislation has with Universal Design.
First, Understanding by Design: At our district, we have been implementing UbD for about three years now. In that time, we have also increased the number of Connected Math units we teach, adopted a reading anthology for teaching LA, bought new social studies textbooks, and continued the use of the Foss science program and the Write Traits writing program. It has been somewhat of a challenge to plan UbD units while still meeting all the district benchmarks and teaching the programs we are asked to use in our classrooms.
RTI calls for the use of programs that have been tested and are supported by research. My best guess is that this means we will be using more programs that are created by textbook companies that have the staff and resources to conduct product testing. I am beginning to wonder what effect this will have on our abilities to create UbD units that are designed to meet benchmarks and the individual needs and interests of our population. How much can we alter a standardized program before its results are no longer research-based?
I hope I’m seeing this as a “glass half empty” scenario and that the actual legislation will be more flexible and allow us to continue to tweak our lesson plans to suit the needs of our learners and employ UbD. In the last few years, we have found ways to use the tested-programs and still make changes to further promote student understanding.
I hope the people behind RTI have the best of intentions. I am concerned about programs that bring about massive changes for all kids – and all teachers. One-size-fits all fixes seldom bring about positive and lasting change. I would like to do some more research on RTI to see if this policy was tested for effectiveness in a school district or two or whether it was looked at from a more budget-minded angle.
On the other hand, I do think this RTI legislation may be a better match with Universal Design. Because we will be looking at ways to help kids with specific learning issues, we will most likely look to assistive technologies and other programs to help provide timely interventions for kids who need them. I think UD can become a useful tool to help kids and teachers reach desired learning outcomes. But, again, here, I worry about UD technology being seen as a fix in and of itself – without proper staffing to help students learn the technology and modify student programs. If we can do this, I think we can meet desired learning outcomes.
I am looking for more information on RTI. I hope I can find a way to better match UbD with UD and the changes we will see because of RTI.
Any suggestions?
Reflection | Comment (1)One Response to “Reflection for 10/18”
Leave a Reply
Jeesh, Amanda. Had I known you were going to throw RTI at me I would’ve read this before 10 pm!! Let me see if I can jump-start my sleepy brain here.
The simple answer (not necessarily the most complete) is that RTI is an approach to diagnosing a learning disability and, therefore, is targeted at research-based instructional approaches to intervene with the specific learning characteristics of an individual student. This is really the antithesis of universal design. Whereas a classroom teacher is well-equipped (ideally) to apply her expertise in delivering the curriculum in differentiated ways, RTI implementation will requre the expertise of specialists in learning disabilities. There is certainly collaboration between and among the classroom teacher and the specialists, but the RTI process is still in the hands of special educators or other specialists. Again – oversimplifying things – the theory behind RTI is that when everything else has failed (best practices in currriculum and instruction (which ideally includes UD) and the customized research-based intervention), the student is identified as having a learning disability and therefore qualifies for special education services.
I don’t know whether anything I’ve said has been helpful. I grapple with the same issues, but my thought process always goes back to roles, responsibilities, and purpose. I see RTI and UD as having separate purposes. UD may certainly benefit a student with unique learning needs – the same student may qualify for special ed services in a school in which UD is not practiced. When UD is implemented effectively, the desired result is that fewer students will need to receive special ed or remedial services. Again, this is the simplified perspective from which we can begin a complicated conversation.
I agree so very much with your concerns about over-reliance/confidence in the use of assistive technology for kids with disabilities. We at ALLTech are receiving more and more inquiries that indicate that teachers and parents see the tech as the “solution.” It is not. For some kids, it’s not even a part of the solution. For many, it is a piece of the solution. Regardless, the process for determining the appropriateness of potential technologies is critical, followed by the necessary services to ensure that implementation is properly achieved.
So, I don’t know how this post went! I obviously don’t have the answers, but I am definitely a willing participant in the struggle to understand how RTI will formally fit into best classroom practices. While I have my perspective, a policy or understanding will need to be developed within schools. I commend you for being so far ahead of this issue…you raise questions that aren’t on the radar of most educators.
Cynthia