Literacy Response Journal

As you read the variety of articles for next time, focus on making connections between the Mesmer and Mesmer article on RTI and at least one of the other assigned readings. What conceptual similarities or differences do you see?

You may also make a connection between one of the assigned readings and something we have already read, like Tovani or one of the Routman chapters. Be specific, referring to quotes, passages, or page numbers. How does this connection help your understanding of important literacy issues?

It was interesting to read the Mesmer and Mesmer article, because in my mind, there are parallels with the Cooper article. Drawing on the ideas discussed about the RTI(Response to Intervention) theory, the discrepancy model of the IDEA(Individuals with Disabilities Act)in the Mesmer and Mesmer article, and Cooper's Literacy, Helping Students Construct Meaning article brought me to a realization. Rather, I would say this was a solidfying point for my understanding of teaching, knowing, and assessing literacy issues. From the Mesmer and Mesmer reading, I have discovered that the ever present discrepancy model that is all too familiar in the school systems can and has been used as a tool for diagnosis of literacy skills. However, the discrepancy model does not serve the purpose of helping the student to gain the necessary literacy skills, unlike the RTI theory and Cooper's Literacy model.

From the Mesmer and Mesmer reading, the discrepancy model strikes me as a method of collecting data, which when working with students (human subjects), numbers and scores cannot be concretely quantified and therefore, cannot be completely accurate or reliable sources of information. As educators and reading specialists, should we be concerned with the discrepancy model, the RTI model, or the Cooper model? Does a track record of sucess or failure determine our decisions of which model is best suited to students? How will we know which is best when each student's emotional, cultural, environmental conditions, to name a few, vary widely? (Mesmer and Mesmer, p. 282).

To further examine the discrepancy model, here is information as described by Mesmer and Mesmer.

"The discrepancy model has drawn four major criticisms. First, it requires that a learning problem becomes considerably acute in terms of an IQ/achievement discrepancy before a learner can receive additional support, a problem called “waiting to fail” (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003, p. 139). Second, establishing a discrepancy is not necessary to improve outcomes for struggling readers, as students both with and without a discrepancy are qualitatively the same in their literacy instructional needs (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan,& Young, 2003; Vellutino et al., 2000). Third, the IQ/achievement discrepancy has shifted focus away from understanding the impact of other possible factors, such as opportunities to learn (Walmsley & Allington, 2007). These factors need to be considered prior to determining that a learning disability exists. Fourth, under the discrepancy model, many districts and states have seen skyrocketing percentages of students identified as learning disabled, particularly minorities (IRA, 2007; Walmsley & Allington, 2007)" (Mesmer and Mesmer, p.280).

In light of the discrepancy model, the RTI theory, is described by Mesmer and Mesmer as "in this article we focus on RTI as an initial referral and identification process for students suspected of having learning disabilities" (Mesmer and Mesmer, p. 283).

The RTI theory follows this structure also found on page 283:

Step 1 - Universal literacy practices are established.
Step 2 - Scientifically valid interventions are implemented.
Step 3 - Progress of students receiving intervention instruction
is monitored.
Step 4 - Individualize interventions for students who continue
to struggle.
Step 5 - A decision-making process to determine eligibility for
special education services occurs when necessary.

Reviewing, step 2 of the RTI theory, parallels in my mind, the RTI theory with Cooper's model of Literacy. In addition, as Cooper's model of "Literacy: Helping Students Construct Meaning" focuses on applying metacognitive strategies such as making connections, monitoring, inferencing, and synthesizing (Cooper, p. 139) so to does the RTI theory beginning in step 2. Although, in the RTI there is small group targeted classroom instruction to support the student's literacy development, Cooper's model is also similar in that there are clear reading guidelines that the student can apply to reading and literacy comprehension. Another important part of literacy development as seen in both the RTI theory and Cooper's model are text selections and in choosing the right books for the student's success.

Encompassing both the RTI theory and Cooper's model, I have drawn similarities in the application of literacy guidelines and interventions, metacognitive thinking strategies assessed independently and in small group instruction, and appropriate text selection. Both of these models can be literacy screening tools because they propose a multi-dimensional view of a student's learning and understanding of literacy skills, unlike the discrepancy model, which only charts a linear model. Although, there are currently limited screening tools available for assessing literacy skills, this is an exciting time of new discoveries.