4. • Developed in New Zealand in the 1970’s by Professor
Mary Clay
• The U.S. began using the program in 1984 with First
Graders
• Available to nonprofit schools that agree to follow the
guidelines of the program
• 30 minutes of one-on-one tutoring daily for 12-20 weeks
• Differentiated lessons using little books
• Observational survey and running records to assess
throughout
• 1 year training program for teachers
• Inputting of data into IDEC (International Data Evaluation
Center)
5. PRO’s of the Program
• Cleary laid out
elements
• One-on-one help
• Differentiated lessons
• In-context teaching
• Strong teacher
training
• Data collection
• Frequent assessment
• Positive gains
CON’s of the Program
• Sending teachers to
training
• Staffing
• Money for books
• Number of students
reached
• Possible ethnic
achievement gap
• Only 1 year
6.
7. • Developed at Johns Hopkins University in 1986
by Robert Slavin & Nancy Madden
• Goal is to prevent early school failure
• Used with students in K-3rd grade
• 5 essential strategies (see next slide)
• Multiple strategies used
• Pre-made lessons
• Teacher as a facilitator
• Collect and analyze data
9. PRO’s of the Program
• Increase reading
achievement
• Help cut the ethnic
achievement gap
• Ready made lessons
• Multiple strategies
• Schoolwide support
team
• SFAF training and
help
CON’s of the Program
• Scripted lessons
• Must be a schoolwide
implementation
• Only for early
intervention
• Student mobility
issues
• Grouping and
scheduling difficulties
10.
11. • Federal Education Program for K-3
• Developed after 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
• Funds allocated by National Government to states, then to
districts and schools
• The goal of the program is to have all students reading ongrade level by the end of the 3rd grade
• 5 essential components taught daily in 90 minute periods
• 7 instructional design elements
• Requires schools use Scientifically Based Reading
Research (SBRR)
• Teachers trained to be effective teachers using data to
drive instruction
12.
13. PRO’s of Program
• Some positive gains
• Various teaching
methods used
• Repeated vocabulary
exposure
• Promotes readers that
are active and
purposeful
• Repeated and
monitored oral reading
• Phonics and phonemic
awareness taught in
small groups
CON’s of Program
• Developed by the
government – not
educators
• Scripted curriculum
• Limited benefits
• One-size-fits-all policy
• Teachers forced to
participate
• More than $6 billion
dollars spent by the
government on the
program
14.
15. • Conceived after the 2001 NCLB and 2004 Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
• Created by many organizations and coalitions
• Data-based decision making is at the heart of the RTI
process
• Three major elements (see next slide)
• Made up of three levels or tiers
• Goal is to intervene before long-term problems or
negative outcomes are experienced
• Teachers and teams discuss accommodations to
differentiate within the classroom for students in RTI
process
• Used for academic and behavior problems
16.
17. PRO’s of the Program
• Useful for all
elementary schools
• Minimal training
required
• Early identification of
problems
• Leads to student
success
• Helps differentiate
between which
CON’s of the Program
• Middle Schools have
not been successful in
implementing
• More work for
teachers
• Teachers need
training on effective
strategies
• Extra meetings and
conferences
18. Click below to read my Reading
Compensatory Paper in full text.
READING COMPENSATORY PAPER
19. References
Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A. C. K., Chamberlain, A. M., & et al.
(2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of
success for all. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 701731.
Compton-Lilly, C. (2010). Learning about mason: A collaborative lesson
with a
struggling reader. Reading Teacher, 63(8), 698.
Compton-Lilly, C. (2011). Counting the uncounted: African american
students in
reading recovery. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(1), 3.
Consumer guide for success for all. (1993). Retrieved October
21, 2013, from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/OR/ConsumerGuides/success.html
Glasswell, K., & Ford, M. P. (2010). Teaching flexibly with leveled texts:
More
power for your reading block. Reading Teacher, 64(1), 57.
Hanselman, P., & Borman, G. D. (2013). The impacts of success for all on
reading
20. IRA issues statement on reading first report. (cover story). (2008). Reading
Today, 25(6), 1.
Kersten, J., & Pardo, L. (2007). Finessing and hybridizing: Innovative literacy
practices in
reading first classrooms. Reading Teacher, 61(2), 146.
Klingner, J., Cramer, E., & Harry, B. (2006). Challenges in the implementation of
success for
all in four high-need urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 106(4), 333.
National center on response to intervention. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from
http://www.rti4success.org
National dissemintation center for children with disabilities. (2012). Retrieved
October 21,
2013, from http://nichcy.org/schools-administrators/rti
Prewett, S., Mellard, D. F., Deshler, D. D., Allen, J., Alexander, R., & Stern, A.
(2012).
Response to intervention in middle schools: Practices and outcomes. Learning
Disabilities
Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 27(3), 136.
Reading first studies find limited benefits. (2008). Reading Today, 26(3), 3.
Reading first: States report improvements in reading instruction, but additional
procedures
would clarify education's role in ensuring proper implementation by states:
GAO-07-161.
21. Schwartz, R. M., Hobsbaum, A., Briggs, C., & Scull, J. (2009). Reading recovery
and evidencebased practice: A response to reynolds and wheldall (2007). International Journal
of
Disability, Development & Education, 56(1), 5.
Spear-swerling, L., & Cheesman, E. (2012). Teachers' knowledge base for
implementing
response-to-intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 16911723.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.kennesaw.edu/10.1007/s11145-011-9338-3
Success for all foundation. (2012). Retrieved October 21, 2013, from
http://www.successforall.org/
Torgesen, J. K. (2009). The response to intervention instructional model: Some
outcomes from
a large-scale implementation in reading first schools. Child Development
Perspectives, 3(1),
38.
U.S Department of Education. (2009). Reading first program. Retrieved October
21, 2013,
from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., &
Danielson,
L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties
after grade
Thanks for viewing this
