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?
I thought that there were some interesting parallels between the Mesmers' article and Au's chapter on "Literary Instruction in Multicultural Settings." I found it noteworthy that the Mesmers noted that "learning disabilities cannot be diagnosed when appropriate instruction, socioeconomic status, culture, sensory issues, emotional oissues, or English as a second language may be of concern (p.281). This seems important in light of some of Au's findings, in particular with regard to a teacher's failure or inability to recognize or be aware of cultural differenences when ascertaining literacy. Although the Mesmers are primarily concerned with RTI's approach to increase the quantity and quality of instruction for struggling readers, one cannot help but wonder if many students are improperly or incorrectly diagnosed with a reading disability when in fact it may have more to do with what Au describes as the common mistake of some teachers to assume that students share mainstream assumptions about reading and literacy. This is why it is so important for assessments and other evaluation materials used in RTI to be valid and reliable without racial or cultural bias.
This issue is accentuated when one considers the ever increasing number of ELL students in our public schools, and the fact that very few teachers Very are trained to work with students who have diverse language backgrounds, let alone diverse cultural traditions. However, it does raise one troubling issue, sinc the RTI approach to identifying learning disabilities rests heavily on the ability of general educators to prevent serious learning difficulties by meeting the needs of the overwhelming majority of their students. Even though RTI is commonly considered to be a "general education" initiative, it seems that the Mesmers article is directed specifically to school psychologists and special educators. What is desperately needed is more directly relevant information, data and strategies to the needs and concerns of general educators. At the same time, the ever-present paradox of trying to implement some of Au's themes and practices into the general education classroom rears its ugly head. A good teacher has to make sure that he or she is not making any literacy assumptions and/or evaluations with any sort of cultural bias, lest a student is wrongly diagnosed with literacy problems, while at the same time implementing some of Au's ideas could in fact help delay or impede timely recogniztion of true literacy problems within students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, all of this has to take place in the context of a busy teacher attending to the literacy needs of all of his or her students.
I guess for me the biggest question left unanswered is how compatible are "Response to Intervention" and "Culturally Responsive Instruction," and assuming that they can both, in fact, be implemented, are we targeting a relatively narrow demographic of students in order to address literacy problems in the classroom. I wish I had the answer.
Just as a side note, one other problem I had with the Au article is when she extols the virtues of talk-story-like reading lessons, stating that its main purpose is for the "group to come to a shared understanding of the story being read." (p. 116) I guess I understand this approach in the younger grades and ages, but I am always fearful when there is a "consensus result" to literacy, since I can envision minority views or opinions of a literary work being either alienated, intimidated or overridden in such a setting. I am sure Au did not intend that, but I think sometimes there is a tendency, especially among children, to pick up on what the majority of students are thinking or saying, and are either unable or unwilling to give voice to a minority opinion or interpretation.
Edcamp Independent Schools is coming to San Francisco 2/27/16
-
If you are planning to be at NAIS in San Francisco this year (or will be in
the Bay Area), don't miss Edcamp Independent Schools, a free edcamp
experienc...
10 years ago


Fred,
ReplyDeleteI made a similar, though not nearly as sophisticated, connection between Au and Mesmer in my blog post at Teaching Reflections. I'm not sure it is a concern to target a relatively narrow demographic since my understanding is that RTI is, by definition, highly individualized. I don't necessarily see "culturally responsive instruction" and RTI as being separate things that need to be compatible. Rather, I thought the intervention strategies must be culturally responsive if teachers want them to work effectively.
Fred, I had similar questions like yours regarding culturally responsive intervention. Basically, I agree that teachers shouldn't work for the recite and regurgitate method of thinking for any child, no matter their culture. Like you, I don't have the answers yet either. Hopefully, we come come to some conclusion when we are in the midst of our own classroom.
ReplyDelete