ࡱ> ` bjbjss 42$hAhAhAhA4Al$uWDDDDDEEEVVVVVVV$+XhZWPLEEPLPLWDD/W8M8M8MPL DDV8MPLV8M8M8MDD 0 ahAZL 8MhM EW0uW8M-[dL-[8M-[8M0E6;G8MHDJ=EEEWW.M EEEuWPLPLPLPL$$$D=hA$$$hA$$$  Third Grade Case Studies SL Smiley May 2007 Educating Students with Reading Disabilities: Issues in Policy and Practice RE 5537 Dr. Devery Mock Appalachian State University My case studies will compare two third grade boys who are currently assigned to my special two week Blitz test preparation class. One boy is certified Learning Disabled and the other is performing well below grade level, but is not receiving Special Education services. I will refer to these boys as Christian and Melik. I will discuss each of their family and home environments, known school history from pre-school to third grade, and their report cards and standardized test scores. Finally, I will compare their current stage of reading development and their current classroom performance. Christian was born on June 14, 1998. He resides with both parents and an older sister. His mother and father are both from Mexico, but moved to the United States before he was born. His older sister is in the fifth grade and is performing on grade level. The family has lived in the same house for at least four years according to records. Both mother and father work outside of the home, but are very supportive of Christians academic needs. Christians mother attends parent conferences by herself, because his father speaks very little English. His mothers highest level of education completed is the eleventh grade, while his father stopped at the sixth grade. Christian has grown up hearing Spanish spoken in his home, although he cannot speak it. In fact, his mother reports that when he was four years old, he could say very few words. Christian attended Bright Beginnings Pre-K program and then transferred to his present school where he began kindergarten. Christian qualifies for free breakfast and lunch. Melik was born on October 17, 1997, about eight months prior to Christian. Melik lives with his mother, his older brother who is twelve, and his younger sister who is five. His older brother has been in and out of juvenile detention centers for several years. I am not aware of his academic status. His younger sister goes to daycare and will be a kindergartner at H.N.E.S. next year. All three children have different fathers. Meliks biological father died when he was just two years old. Meliks mother was born in Jamaica and immigrated to the United States when she was sixteen. Her highest level of education is the twelfth grade. She attends conferences and states that she is concerned about his academic progress. However; at this time she works evenings, so she relies on Meliks aunt (her sister) to help him with his homework. Melik was born in Brooklyn, NY where he attended kindergarten and first grade. He was retained in first grade. The family then moved to Charlotte, NC in time for Melik to start second grade. Once they were able to obtain their own residence, (they were staying with an aunt), Melik transferred to H.N.E.S., his current and third school. Melik is in the free breakfast and lunch program. Christian began his school career in the Bright Beginnings Pre-K program in the fall of 2002 at A.J.E.S. At the end of that year, he only knew the letter O and the number 1. He could not write his name independently. It was noted that he had some difficulty focusing on lessons. His family did meet the reading requirement goal for the year, and attended school functions. He had 5 absences for that school year. He transferred to his present school, H.N.E.S., to begin his kindergarten year in August of 2003. Medical records indicate that his vision and hearing screenings were normal. He was not eligible for Speech/Language services. Many academic records are missing from his file, but those that are included indicate a discrepancy between literacy skills and mathematical ability. Throughout the year Christian continued to struggle with phonological development, only recognizing a few letters of the alphabet. He achieved mastery level for math skills (3) and below grade level for literacy skills (1). He was absent 5 days. Christian entered first grade in 2004. His teacher immediately recognized that he was extremely far behind. Since there were no behavioral issues other than focusing, she suspected a learning disability and began the referral process. Due to his family history, administration placed him in the ESL program, and the Special Ed referral process was halted. His classroom teacher and the ESL teacher both stated that Christian could not remember skills taught from day to day and still did not know all of the letters in his name, even though they were both working with him individually and in a small group setting. Christian earned 1s in Literacy Skills and 3s in Math for the year. He was not retained because he was in the ESL program. He accrued 6 absences that year. Melik began his school career by attending a Pre-Kindergarten Daycare where he completed the program without any noted difficulty. He then started kindergarten in September 2002. His vision and hearing screenings were normal and no Speech/Language services were needed. There is one set of grades for the entire kindergarten year and no other work samples or assessment indicators. His overall Intellectual Development was marked as Needs Improvement. He was marked poorly on maintaining self control and obeying class rules. Attendance records were not recorded in the file. Melik entered first grade in the fall of 2003 and it was noted that he needed glasses. Again, the only report states that he received 1s for all academic subjects. Physical Education was the only exception, where he earned a 3. He missed 24 days of school and was retained for the following school year. In January of 2004, Meliks mother requested that he be referred for academic evaluation. His teacher believed that he could benefit from support services, and so the screening process began. In February, he was placed in a Special Ed setting all day and instructed in all subjects. The ratio in this setting was 12:1. The information given does not define the learning disability area(s). No IEP could be located. In 2004 when he repeated first grade, he began in the Special Ed setting. However, his mother chose to completely pull him out of the program in October. During this second year of first grade, Melik performed on grade level in math and received all 3s. (Again, this is according to the single report.) In Literacy, he was still working below grade level and received 2s. His attendance had improved, as he was absent only 5 times. There are no work samples or assessment results included in the file for either first grade year. After completing first grade, both boys had consistently shown learning difficulties in all areas of literacy. Unfortunately, there were obstacles from home and within the school setting that stood in the way of the boys getting services that they needed. Their mathematical ability seemed to be on track for their grade. Moving forward, the boys are now in the same grade and soon to be in the same school. When Christian entered second grade, he began seeing the schools Reading Specialist for two 30 minute sessions each week. He was pulled out of the regular classroom for these individual reading lessons. He was still in the ESL program. Working together, the Reading Specialist, the ESL teacher, and his regular classroom teacher began the Special Ed referral process again, insisting that this child be screened because the interventions were simply not helping Christian make necessary progress. Testing validated that he was eligible to receive Special Ed services commencing in January 2005 for his Specific Learning Disabilities in Basic Reading, Reading Comprehension, and Written Expression. It was reported that his working memory was a significant area of weakness for him which hindered his acquisition of new knowledge. (See Tables 1, 2, & 3 for Testing Information) He missed 8 days of school. Melik started second grade at a new school in North Carolina. The teachers at his school recognized that Melik was struggling, and since he had been retained in first grade, started the paperwork for additional testing. Before all of the testing could take place, (which his mother was now open to), the family moved, so he had to attend yet another school in his new neighborhood. Testing results showed that Melik was not eligible for Special Ed services based on his test scores. He was still performing well below grade level in reading. Math was becoming harder for him because he had poor reading fluency skills, and couldnt process word problems. He missed 5 days of second grade. (See Table 4 for Testing Information) In second grade, both boys were assessed using the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) program. These results show that Melik is making progress at a higher rate than Christian, even though his scores are still falling below grade level range. (See Table 5 for DIBELS) At this point, Christian is receiving Special Ed services while Melik remains in the regular classroom setting, but receiving Reading Mastery as an intervention. At present, Christian is in the third grade and continues to be pulled out for Special Ed services daily for 1 hour. He takes the NC EXTEND 2 Reading Test, so he does not have Quarterly Reading or Math Test results. The EXTEND 2 Tests are not scored or reported. He did take the Math Pretest. (See Table 6) The upcoming End-of-Grade tests (NC EXTEND 2 in Reading), will be given to him with the following accommodations: multiple test sessions, marks in book, separate setting, extended time, and read aloud. His current report card grades consist of Ds and 1s in all subjects. There was a notation about not completing daily homework assignments. Two absences are reported so far this year. (See Tables 8 & 9) At the beginning of third grade, Melik began seeing the Reading Specialist for three 45 minute sessions in a small group setting. He is pulled out of the regular classroom for this intervention. He receives no accommodations for any of the Quarterly Tests (See Tables 6 & 7) or the upcoming End-of-Grade Test. His most recent progress report shows he has earned a C in both Reading and Writing. He has dropped to a D in Math. He has had 4 absences this year. (See Tables 8 & 9) Presently, Christian is a happy and eager learner who rarely gets in trouble. He still has difficulty focusing, and can only perform two-step directions with accuracy. His working memory deficit is quite apparent when he encounters a new word. When corrected, he doesnt have the ability to remember the same word when he sees it again within the same text. He has learned all of the letters of the alphabet now, but only has a limited amount of words on the pre-primer to primer level stored in memory (his sight words). He can correctly make the initial sound of an unknown word, but cannot correctly decode the rest of the word and quickly gives up. He is still working on writing complete simple sentences. His writing is limited to the same few words used over and over. He rarely takes a risk to write a new word. His handwriting is very deliberate and slow and looks much like that of a first grader. (See Writing Samples) When asked about reading, he will tell you that his favorite book is The Cat in the Hat, but he is unable to read it correctly. He says that he likes how the words sound to him (the rhyming and alliteration) and has been working on segmenting the onset and rime for one syllable words (-at) this year. He is a Compensatory Reader and is performing at a beginning mid first grade level. His Listening Comprehension is much better than his Reading Comprehension. Christian truly enjoys being read to and listens intently, but will not choose to read on his own because its simply too laborious for him to get any pleasure out of the experience. He aims to please his teachers and I worry that he will become more discouraged as he goes through the upper grades. He knows he is behind his peers, but doesnt understand to what extent. He is a very sweet and affectionate boy who still needs much nurturing. I fear that parent support is dwindling as evidence of his low grade on his report card for completed homework. At this time, Melik is a Non-Automatic Reader. He has acquired accurate word recognition skills but this requires much effort as it is not yet automatic for him. He reads word by word and often uses context to help speed him along, but he lacks in the area of comprehension. This year he has worked diligently to learn more difficult spelling patterns and units within words (word families) and sight words, but still confuses some of them and has not yet committed all of them to memory. He enjoys being read to, but will not choose to read on his own. When asked to write, he will do so, but misspells many words and his sentences have little to no correct punctuation. The physical act of writing appears to be effortless for him, as he has neat handwriting skills. (See Writing Samples) In his pull out sessions with the Reading Specialist, he has been instructed on his reading level. She has focused on repeated readings with him to boost word recognition, fluency, comprehension, and overall reading confidence. He has made progress, albeit slow. Melik tells me that he receives little to no supported literature experiences at home, because his mom works until very late at night. Instead, he spends his free time watching television and playing video games, which certainly doesnt help to boost the orthographic knowledge needed to be a better reader! He is a very sensitive and affectionate boy who is acutely aware that he is behind his classmates in reading. When he struggles, he often becomes discouraged and shuts down academically. It is at these times that his behavior sometimes plummets as well. Both Christian and Melik have challenging academic roads ahead of them. They both require very knowledgeable and compassionate teachers to not only boost their self confidence but to understand their learning difficulties/disabilities as well. Parental involvement (or lack there of) will become an even greater factor in school performance as they move through the upper grades. Both boys sincerely want to learn and succeed in school. I hope they are given the chance and support needed to do so. (See Table 10 for Overall Comparisons) TABLE 1 - Christian 12.02.05 Test of Early Reading Achievement 3 (TERA-3)Alphabetic Raw Score 19 Age Equivalent 6y 4m Grade Equivalent 1.2 SS 7 16%tileConventions Raw Score 11 Age Equivalent 5y 10m Grade Equivalent K.7 SS 6 9%tileMeaning Raw Score 9 Age Equivalent 5y 4m Grade Equivalent K.2 SS 3 1%tile Reading Quotient 70, Total SS 16, 2%tile12.09.05 Test of Early Written Language 2 (TEWL-2)Basic Raw Score 21 Age Equivalent 6y 1m 10%tile Quotient 81Global Raw Score 21 Age Equivalent 5y 2m <1%tile Total SS <6512.09.05 Test of Math Achievement 3 (TEMA-3)Raw Score 43 Age Equivalent 6y 9m Grade Equivalent 1.7 35%tile SS 94 TABLE 2 Christian 1.13.06 WISC-IVStandard ScoreVerbal Comprehension Index87Processing Speed Index88Perceptual Reasoning Index94Full Scale Score (IQ)81Working Memory Index65 TABLE 3 - Christian Ability Standard ScoreAchievement Standard ScoreDiscrepancy PointsBasic Reading8170-11Reading Comp.8170-11Written Expression8165-16Math Calculation8194+13Math Reasoning8194+13 TABLE 4 Melik Woodcock Johnson IIIAbility Standard ScoreAchievement Standard ScoreDiscrepancy PointsBasic Reading7778+1Reading Comp.7778+1Written Expression7788+11Math Calculation7796+19Math Reasoning7796+19 TABLE 5 2nd Grade DIBELS Comparison, 2005-2006 Nonsense Word Fluency (Fall only)Oral Reading Fluency (Benchmark 1 -Fall)Oral Reading Fluency (Benchmark 2 Winter)Oral Reading Fluency (Benchmark 3 Spring)Christian - 11Christian - 2Christian - 6Christian - 5Melik - 18Melik - 11Melik - 27Melik - 32 NWF <30 = Deficit (end of 1st grade) Fall: ORF <26 = At Risk, Intensive, Needs Substantial Intervention (>=44 Benchmark, At Grade Level) Winter: DORF <52 = At Risk, Intensive, Needs Substantial Intervention (>=68 Benchmark, At Grade Level) Spring DORF <70= At Risk, Intensive, Needs Substantial Intervention (>=90 Benchmark, At Grade Level) TABLE 6 3rd Grade Pretest Scores, fall 2006 Reading PretestChristianMelikScaled ScoreNC EXTEND 2 (no scores)216%tile1Achievement Level1 Math PretestChristianMelikScaled Score312315%tile611Achievement Level12 TABLE 7 Meliks Quarterly Test Scores for Third Grade Reading, 2006-2007 QuarterPoints ObtainedPoints AttemptedObjectives MasteryPoints PossiblePercent ObtainedAchievement Level184017No report201210491749201314501050281 3rd Grade Achievement Level 3: (percent needed) Qtr. 1 59%, Qtr. 2 59%, Qtr. 3 57% TABLE 8 Attendance Year and Absences by GradeChristian Melik Pre-K 5 absences (2002-2003)Not reported (2001-2002)Kindergarten5 absences (2003-2004)Not reported (2002-2003)First Grade6 absences (2004-2005)24 absences (2003-2004)First Grade (RETAINED)N/A5 absences (2004-2005)Second Grade8 absences (2005-2006)5 absences (2005-2006)Third Grade (to date)2 absences (2006-2007)4 absences (2006-2007) TABLE 9 Grades Achievement Levels By GradeChristianMelikPre-KKnows only letter O, number 1Not reportedKindergartenReading 1, Math 3Overall Needs Improvement First GradeReading 1, Math 3Overall - 1First Grade (RETAINED)N/AReading 2, Math 3Second GradeReading 1, Math 2Reading 1, Math 2 Third GradeOverall DsReading C, Math D TABLE 10 Overall Comparisons (At a glance) Christian (DOB 6-14-98)Melik (DOB 2-17-97)ParentsMom and Dad Mom (Dad is deceased)Highest Education Level CompletedMom 11th grade Dad 6th gradeMom 12th gradeLanguage Spoken at HomeSpanishEnglish (with heavy accent)Parents NationalityHispanicJamaicanSiblings1 older sister, on grade level1 older brother, in/out of detention centers, 1 younger sister not yet in schoolResidencySame house for at least 4 years3 known homes, 2 moves within same yearFree Breakfast & LunchYesYesCurrent Support at HomeYes, but limited due to language proficiencyLittle to none, due to work scheduleSpecial Ed TestingGrade 1 refused due to ESL Grade 2 yes, qualified for certificationGrade 1 Retained Grade 2 no, denied certification for servicesCurrent ServicesSpecial EdReading SpecialistCurrent GradesOverall DsReading C, Math DCurrent BehaviorGoodGood Poorer when frustratedCurrent Stage of Reading Development (Off-Track)Compensatory ReaderNon-Automatic ReaderCurrent Age8 years 11 months9 years 7 months The Cat in the Hat Page 1 The sun did not shine. It was too wet to play. So we sat in the house All that cold, cold, wet day. Page 2 I sat there with Sally. We sat there, we two. And I said, How I wish We had something to do! Too wet to go out And too cold to play ball. So we sat in the house. We did nothing at all. Page 3 So all we could do was to Sit! Sit! Sit! Sit! And we did not like it. Not one little bit. Christian - about 91% accuracy (with self-corrections) Melik - 100% accuracy A Reflection: RTI and Problem Solving SL Smiley Summer 2007 Educating Students with Reading Disabilities: Issues in Policy and Practice RE 5537 Dr. Devery Mock Appalachian State University In this reflection, I intend to discuss Response to Intervention and the Problem Solving method. I will define them and describe their role as it relates to new legislation. A comparison will be made between Problem Solving and Standard Treatment Protocol, and another one between Problem Solving and the current IQ-achievement discrepancy method, in order to clearly address the advantages and disadvantages of using only the Problem Solving approach. In closing, I will state my opinion as an educator, and voice my concerns of North Carolinas decision to implement this procedure. What is RTI? RTI, Response to Intervention, simply stated is a research based systematic method used to identify/assess students early with difficulties/disabilities in reading, with a primary focus on those children who are not responding to instruction. It is a practice consisting of three essential components. First, RTI provides high-quality instruction/intervention that is appropriately matched to individual student needs. This instruction or intervention is one that has proven through research to be effective and produce high growth rates for most students. Second, the students growth/responsiveness is measured over time and compared to that of peer growth rates of expected performance. Third, the data provided by this type of instruction aids educators in making decisions about a students entitlement for special education services, the need for other types of services, or exit from any of these services. (Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation, NASDSE) The degree of intensity and duration of interventions are also determined by the students response to such instruction/intervention across a two, three, or four tiered system. These tiers provide for more intense interventions by using teacher-centered, systematic, and explicit instruction, increase of frequency and duration of instruction, smaller and more homogenous student groupings, and instruction by educators who are experts in their field. (Fuchs & Fuchs 2006) A typical three tier model in RTI begins in the first tier. The instruction taking place in Tier 1 is provided by the general education (classroom) teacher in the regular classroom setting. A good curriculum in addition to effective instruction is provided to all students. Valid, standardized testing takes place to measure the students level of mastery and proficiency. STAR testing and DIBELS are two assessments that allow teachers to analyze data and set goals or change instructional procedures based on the results. At this tier, the teacher is looking to see that the majority of her students meet grade level expectations. The students who do not meet an acceptable achievement level are then identified as needing another intervention and are moved into Tier 2. In Tier 2, a more intense intervention takes place and is adjunct to core instruction. Tier 2 instruction can and may occur outside of the regular classroom setting. Students who make satisfactory improvements in performance skills at the end of Tier 2, are reintegrated back into the regular classroom setting. Those who do not make satisfactory progress are moved into Tier 3 which typically occurs outside of the regular education setting and can involve a Title I teacher, a Reading Specialist, special education teachers, or other remediation programs available at the school. At this level of intense instruction, if a student continues to be unresponsive, individual diagnostic assessments may take place to determine if a child does indeed meet entitlement criteria for special education services. (Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation, NASDSE) What is Problem Solving? Problem Solving is an approach that differs from child to child, because assessment and intervention are personalized based on the childs needs. (Fuchs & Fuchs 2006) This approach requires the discussion of an individual students needs, development of interventions, and analysis of student response. It is favored by practitioners in the Heartland Educational Agency, who have developed a four level model to provide educational assistance in a timely manner. (Grimes 2002) At each problem solving level the same procedures are followed: determine the magnitude of the problem, (If there is a problem, what is it?), analyze its cause, (Why is it happening?) design a goal-directed intervention and carry it out, monitor student progress, make modifications as necessary, (What should be done about it?), and evaluate the effectiveness of the plan to decide the future course of action, (Did the plan work?). (Fuchs & Fuchs 2006) The four levels in the Problem Solving model developed by Heartland are as follows: Level 1 - The regular education teacher meets with the students parents to try to resolve the academic area of concern. Level 2 - The regular education teacher meets with the schools Assistance Team to identify the problem and make a plan for implementing and monitoring an intervention. Level 3 The Heartland staff delivers a redesigned/refined intervention. Level 4 The child is considered for special education. (Ikeda & Gustafson 2002) IDEA 2004 The revised Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act which was signed into law in 2004, states that educators may now use RTI when determining the educational needs of a student. This is different from the past when entitlement was based solely using the IQ-achievement discrepancy formula. The new law contains provisions for RTI to be used in the same areas as the former method: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, and mathematical reasoning. IDEA 2004 also allocates 15% of special education funds to be spent on early intervention programs for all students within the general education setting. This is intended to reduce the high number of students who may be misdiagnosed as Learning Disabled and provide assistance to those students who need substantial intervention but do not meet the LD criteria before they reach academic failure and frustration. (Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation, NASDSE) Obviously, much discussion between special educators, general educators, and administrators must occur to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the RTI procedures and the early identification of academic concerns. Standard Treatment Protocol To discuss both the advantages and disadvantages of using the Problem Solving model, I must first state and define an alternate method in RTI, the one which is preferred by reading researchers: Standard Treatment Protocol. Standard Treatment Protocol provides for intervention using a standard treatment that is scientific in nature, predetermined, and specific for a particular area of concern. It is a systematic method of delivery, often scripted, and occurs over a fixed period of time. It usually takes place within a small group setting. Progress is monitored closely, data is collected, and evaluations and decisions for future instruction are based on the results of the students performance. Advantages and Disadvantages RTI (with Problem Solving and Standard Treatment Protocol) and the antiquated IQ-achievement discrepancy method, both exhibit advantages and disadvantages in identifying students with Learning Disabilities. There are also pros and cons to both when it comes to providing appropriate interventions for students with Learning Disabilities and those students who are the struggling, garden variety poor readers. (Scruggs & Mastropieri 2002) Historically, the IQ-achievement discrepancy formula has been used to identify children as Learning Disabled. The main problem with the discrepancy formula is that the formula varies from state to state, and even district to district. This inconsistency could (and does) show a child to be identified as LD in one school and then transfer to a school where he/she doesnt meet the criteria. Also, with the discrepancy formula, some children may not be deemed eligible, and ultimately slip through the cracks, simply because their score may be off by a few points. Contrary to this, RTI has specific, unvarying tiers that a child must move through during the intervention process. Here, entitlement is based on a significant difference in student performance compared to his/her peers. However; this tiered system takes much time (several weeks at each tier), whereby the testing modules used in the discrepancy method take one or two sittings and then a score is calculated. In this area of assessment, RTI could be viewed as having the advantage over discrepancy due to the amount of data collected over a period of extended time, rather than a test administered over one or two sittings. Discrepancy does use a standardized and globally accepted test, whereby in RTI and Problem Solving, the interventions are developed at each tier and are child specific. If RTI and Standard Treatment Protocol are used, then a standard and evidence based intervention occurs, which doesnt play victim to teacher inexperience or error. In addition, RTI (with either PS or STP) provides interventions and assessments that are directly related to the area(s) of concern. That is to say, precise skills and performance are measured through interventions. Contrary to RTI, the discrepancy method entertains assessment that is often times intrinsic to the student. Also with discrepancy, there is little to no connection between the assessments and the interventions taking place. However, to identify Mental Retardation/Mentally Disabled, standardized testing must take place. In this situation, the IQ-ability score must be regarded as extremely valuable to place these students in a setting beneficial to them. RTI cannot identify MR/MD. RTI/Problem Solving Comes to NC For years educators have been concerned with appropriate and ethical identification of Learning Disabilities. These problems include: over identification, variability, specificity, conceptual considerations, discrepancy issues, early identification, and local implementation. (Scruggs & Mastropieri 2002) Therefore, states like North Carolina are trying to find resolve to these issues and are implementing change to current procedure. With the states adoption of this new RTI/Problem Solving model, it brings to my mind several questions and concerns. I am pleased to see change happening, however it is with baby steps that I believe we should proceed. I agree with Fuchs and Fuchs in that the RTI framework has strong potential, but I believe there are many questions and problems that still need to be worked out before it is implemented. Unfortunately, educators and policy makers at the state level do not think so. Here are my questions, concerns, and opinions: I am concerned with the appropriations of funding where are the monies to fund this going to come from? Special education budgets keep getting cut even though the number of children being served continues to rise. Where and how is staff training going to take place? The four level process is very alarming due to the extensive amount of time a child can potentially be stuck and stagnant within a level. Moreover, a student could easily get caught in a cyclical pattern of moving back and forth from one level to another because the lack of policies and procedures to address such situations. It could easily take an entire year to place a student in an appropriate educational setting! Do we have that kind of time to waste? Also, within the Problem Solving model, who will be responsible for developing an appropriate and effective intervention? How can these interventions be created and measured for effectiveness at the same time? They cant! Are our regular education teachers expected to be experts in all academic areas as well as behaviors? It worries me that inexperienced teachers will have to make critical decisions regarding a students instruction/intervention without the proper knowledge to do so. I believe that a combination of RTI (with PS and STP) and the discrepancy formula should be used to identify both children with learning disabilities and those garden variety poor readers. RTI is a useful screening tool, but not an end-all solution to the over, under, and misidentification problem of LD. Although it spans over a long period of time, I like the fact that RTI will catch students, like my Melik, who does not qualify for special education services, but needs intensive intervention. Without RTI, many of our children will continue to slip through the cracks. It is my hopes that with RTI and Problem Solving, that our children will receive necessary and appropriate instruction and be given the chance to succeed that they deserve. Fuchs and Fuchs summed it up quite nicely when talking about RTIs possibility of preventing chronic school failure that corrodes childrens spirits and diminishes all of us who work on behalf of the public schools. (Fuchs and Fuchs 2006) We all must work together for our children.  6 ; ` j  gh89%;@Ms|<?k!q!E's'''8);)I*o*|++a-n-.//0#0004444;;@@A+Ah)h26 hML9h2 h26 h25h2 h?5h2h?5h2CJ$aJ$h?5h2CJ4aJ4L%./01234b !jF dgd2 d`gd2$a$gd2 $da$gd2F e"$'o*8,/08 ?,A-A.ABAxA $Ifgd2dgd2 d`gd2+A,A8ABAxABBBTCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDDD}EEEEEEEEEEEqFsFFFFFFFFFGG GG޸޸ްްޜޜޜh26CJaJh1]Th26h=^h26CJaJh#h2H*h,Wh26hwh26h h26 h h2 heh2h^h26 h26hkhh26hGh25h2h(h266xAyAAA"B,ekdD$$Ifl$h% t0644 la $Ifgd2ekd$$Ifl$h% t0644 la"B#BrBsBB,ekd$$Ifl$h% t0644 la $Ifgd2ekd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laBBBBC,ekdT$$Ifl$h% t0644 la $Ifgd2ekd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laCCSCTCC,ekd$$Ifl$h% t0644 la $Ifgd2ekd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laCCCC,ekdd$$Ifl$h% t0644 la $Ifgd2ekd $$Ifl$h% t0644 laCCCCDDD Dixkd$$Ifl0H$ t0644 la $Ifgd2 d`gd2`gd2 D!D8D;D~~ $Ifgd2xkd$$Ifl0H$ t0644 la;DFAFDFHFaXXXX $Ifgd2kd$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 laHFIFXF[F^FbFaXXXX $Ifgd2kd$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 labFcFdFeFFFFFFGa\\\\SSSS $Ifgd2gd2kdd$$Ifl\H$Z Z Z Z t0644 la GG$G:G;G* h2>*hah2H* h?5h2hGh25h2h26CJaJ h26h=^h26CJaJ7G$G;G*H*h[h2>* h?5h2h[h25h2 h26h$^h269JJJJkdt $$Ifl֞& uZ$XXXXXXX t0644 la $Ifgd2JJJJJJJJ $Ifgd2JJJJ( $Ifgd2kd $$Ifl֞& uZ$XXXXXXX t0644 laJJJJJJ $Ifgd2JJJJ( $Ifgd2kd $$Ifl֞& uZ$XXXXXXX t0644 laJJJJJJ $Ifgd2JJJ&K(##gd2kd<$$Ifl֞& uZ$XXXXXXX t0644 la&KOKPKQKgKhKKKKKKKfkd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 la $Ifgd2gd2 KKKKK Lkkd($$IflF $x x x t06    44 la $Ifgd2 L LL/LGLtkkk $Ifgd2kd|$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laGLHL_LcLzLtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 lazL{LLLLtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laLLLLLtkkk $Ifgd2kdx$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laLLLLMM-M7M=Mtoooofff $Ifgd2gd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 la=M>MDMbMoMtkkk $Ifgd2kd $$IflF $x x x t06    44 laoMpM}MMMtkkk $Ifgd2kdt$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laMMMMMtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laMMMMNtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laNNN%N8Ntkkk $Ifgd2kdp$$IflF $x x x t06    44 la8N9NENQNcNtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 lacNdNeNfNgNhNiNjNkNlNmNnNoNtooooooooooogd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 la oNpNqNrNsNtNuNvNwNxNyNzN{N|N}N~NNNNNN $Ifgd2gd2NNNNOtkkk $Ifgd2kdl$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laOO)O:OJO[Otkkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 la[O\OtO|OOtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laOOOOOtkkk $Ifgd2kdh$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laOOOO:Ptkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 la:P;PEPePPtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 la;PEPPPPPQ.QQQQQR)RKR|RRRRRRRRTTTTTUUWWnXsXZZ[[c6dDdEd_dDfHfcfgffff}h!h26h^>h26hwh26 hwh2hHh26hMuh26 h25h2CJ$aJ$h2CJ4aJ4h26CJ$aJ$h h26CJ$aJ$h2CJaJh26CJaJ hh2 h26h2hGh261PPPPPtkkk $Ifgd2kdd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laPPPPQtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laQQ.QKQvQQQtkkkkk $Ifgd2kd $$IflF $x x x t06    44 laQQQQQtkkk $Ifgd2kd`$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laQQQRRtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laRR)R.R3RJRtkkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laJRKR|RRRtkkk $Ifgd2kd\$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laRRRRRtkkk $Ifgd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 laRRRRRRRR S$S;SYSZStooooooooooogd2kd$$IflF $x x x t06    44 la ZSaSySSSSSSSTTT%T@TETLTST[TsTTTTTTTTTT $da$gd2gd2TTU UUUUUUULUjUrUUUUUWW]Ed^d h$j d`gd20]0gd2gd2$a$gd2dgd2 $da$gd2ffffkgxg|g~gggg$j/j3j;jllllnDn'oCo r(rss,z/zEzNz$|+|||ilh(] hE\h2 h8Fh2 hEh2h=}h26 hsh2h7h26h(:h26 h25 h26h2h!h260$j.j'oCo r&rs|||~y d`gd2dgd221h:p2/ =!"8#$% B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%B$$If!vh5h%#vh%:Vl t65h%J$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65J$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65J$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65J$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65J$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65J$$If!vh55#v:Vl t65Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z Z$$If!vh5Z 5Z 5Z 5Z #vZ :Vl t65Z R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x $$If!vh5F5L5O5Q5H5L5#vF#vL#vO#vQ#vH#vL#v:Vl t65X$$If!vh5F5L5O5Q5H5L5#vF#vL#vO#vQ#vH#vL#v:Vl t65X$$If!vh5F5L5O5Q5H5L5#vF#vL#vO#vQ#vH#vL#v:Vl t65X$$If!vh5F5L5O5Q5H5L5#vF#vL#vO#vQ#vH#vL#v:Vl t65XR$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x R$$If!vh5x 5x 5x #vx :Vl t65x @@@ 2NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No Listj@j 2 Table Grid7:V02%./01234b !jFeo"8$'(0 7,9-9.9B9x9y999":#:r:s:::::;;S;T;;;;;;;;<<< <!<8<;<<<W<Z<[<q<t<u<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<=======0=3=6=:=;=L=O=R=V=W=f=i=l=p=q=r=s===============>> >>>">%>(>,>->>>A>D>H>I>X>[>^>b>c>d>e>>>>>>?$?;?EDEbEoEpE}EEEEEEEEEEFFF%F8F9FEFQFcFdFeFfFgFhFiFjFkFlFmFnFoFpFqFrFsFtFuFvFwFxFyFzF{F|F}F~FFFFFFFFFGG)G:GJG[G\GtG|GGGGGGGGG:H;HEHeHHHHHHHHHII.IKIvIIIIIIIIIJJJ)J.J3JJJKJ|JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ K$K;KYKZKaKyKKKKKKKLLL%L@LELLLSL[LsLLLLLLLLLLLM MMMMMMMLMjMrMMMMMOOUE\^\ `$b.b'gCg j&jktttvy}@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@000@0@0@0@0@00+AGJ;PfEIanF xA"BBCCC D;DZDtDDDEE:EVEpEEEF,FHFbFGuGGwHPI{IIIIIIIJJJJJJJ&KK LGLzLLL=MoMMMN8NcNoNNO[OOO:PPPQQQRJRRRZST$jFHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`bcdefghijklmopqrstuvwxyz{|}~GH @0(  H c $ ?(L;=< M;= N;= O;= P;=L4YQ;=tBR;=4BS;=t T;=]U;= V;=T#W;= X;= Y;=T Z;= [;= \;= ];=T ^;= _;=, `;=L a;=Ab;= c;=] d;=D3Ye;=f;=Tvg;=<h;=$>ri;= j;=DŸ k;=t l;=m;≠cn;=L o;=Tp;=|x q;=|]r;=,s;=D) G G  %%((Y9Y9<<==>>>>??MMMOOvv      !"#$%&'0 T T    %%((`9`9<<==>>>>??MMMOO(v(v    !"#$%&'B%*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=(*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState9'*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace ('(%%'%%''''''''''''('(''9B9;e>> >>>">%>(>,>->>>A>D>H>I>X>[>^>b>c>>>>?;?EDEbEoEpE}EEEEEEEEEEFFF%F8F9FEFQFcFdFFFFFFFFGG)GJG[G\GtG|GGGGGGGGG:H;HEHeHHHHHHHHHII.IvIIIIIIIIJJJ)J.JJJKJ|JJJJJJJJ@$.`@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial"hWAnBWAnB!r4VV2QHP)?2Third Grade Case StudiesW MICHAEL SMILEYW MICHAEL SMILEYOh+'0  (4 T ` lxThird Grade Case StudiesW MICHAEL SMILEYNormalW MICHAEL SMILEY2Microsoft Office Word@@vFP@vFPWAn՜.+,0 hp|   BV Third Grade Case Studies Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FuaData X1Table-[WordDocument42SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q