Relations Between The CCSS And RTI In Literacy And Language

CCSS and teachers together need to be viewed as “sponsors of literacy” (99). Scherff discovered that her teaching strategies already fit into the CCSS, which inspired her to develop a chart including critical and higher-order questions and discussion starters along with the CCSS nine anchor reading standards questioning approaches for each level. Two doctoral candidates were asked to collaborate and describe how the CCSS fits into their role as teachers. The first candidate, Allison Wynhoff Olsen describes her initial fear of the standards and how to implement them in her classroom. Her mentor showed her how to bundle and combine aspects that met CCSS. It is important to work with the standards because “educators have agency to help all students work toward powerful literacy education” (104). Olsen introduces Simon’s article “Starting with What Is’: Exploring Response and Responsibility to Student writing through Collaborative Inquiry” to show a new way of reviewing student papers collaboratively with other teachers instead of “individually from a deficit perspective” (105). This kind of approach encourages students to more freedom to express themselves and create a “broader social change” (105). Teachers must incorporate the CCSS in their classroom; however, they must also take into consideration the needs of each student and adjust their teaching strategies to reach the common goal of promoting literacy. The second candidate, Emily Nemeth describes two students demonstrating different learning styles and how teachers needs to keep in mind the needs of each unique student when designing classroom plans following the CCSS. She stresses the importance of supporting preservice teachers with “theoretical and pedagogical framings” to accompany the CCSS they must abide by in the classroom (109). The CCSS fails to take

Wilson, Faggella-Luby, & Wei (2013) present a cogent plan for Tier 3 Response to Intervention (RTI) for secondary students with reading disabilities, content, and pedagogy planning tools, content instruction, and instructional method implementation. Both research application lacks concerning Tier 3 RTI in high schools (Wilson et. al). RTI is curriculum that addresses the learning needs of all students that also includes screening and monitoring progress. Continuing, Wilson et. al define Tier 1 RTI, core curriculum for all students serving the needs of 80% of students, Tier 2 RTI, small group instructional intervention, serving the needs of 15% of students, and Tier 3 RTI, an intense one to one intervention for students who continue to struggle beyond Tiers 1 and 2, serving 5% of students. Wilson et al. provides information the reader needs to understand in the article without clutter, expressing their writing with economy (Zinsser, 2013). The article is unified in theme, gives enough information without giving too much, and follows a clear progression (Zinsser). “More simple, than complex” (Henson, 1999, p. 58), Wilson et. al’s article is an example of good writing.

Upon completion of the research for this paper, I am able to see how comprehension is embedded throughout all of the ELA standards of Common Core. The importance of teaching students in a way in which they are exposed to all components of reading, and in a way which offers the potential to teach students at all present levels was made clearer. Through the reading of this week’s sources, I see now how the

The Common Core has been developed as a nationwide measurement for student progress. Officially launched in 2009 as a federal funding bill, the standards identify skills that every student residing in the United States should master in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics from kindergarten through 12th grade (Gewertz, 2015). The Common Core itself is not a curriculum, however, it identifies rigorous objectives that must be met by a school’s curriculum. The purpose is to initiate a deeper focus on developmental learning by using interdisciplinary instruction. This redefines the way that students learn because their progress is no longer assessed on the outcome of their performance, but by the process that has allowed them to reach the

This is a very important component in education to be aware of and when you are a teacher. I interviewed a first-grade teacher at my local elementary school to gain more information about the processes that our local schools go through for professional training, interventions, and in the classroom to ensure that students are developing their abilities in reading. My main focus was on what our school’s process was, how support is given, professional training offered, and what more is needed to be done to increase success for students.

Common Core State Standards define expectations for students in four strands under English Language Arts: reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language. The goal is that all students will demonstrate mastery in these areas as they become college or career ready. Further, the Common Core highlights the capacities of the literate individual. In the world of special education, too many students in high school struggle with literacy. There are Intensive Reading Clinic courses available to students with mild to moderate disabilities in Long Beach Unified School district. Of the various curriculums used in these classes, the LindaMood Bell Visualizing and Verbalizing program has gotten positive feedback from students and teachers.

In the state of South Carolina, the high school English standards contain six parts: inquiry-based literacy, reading literary text, reading informational text, writing, communication, and disciplinary literacy. The South Carolina Common Core Reading Standards (2015) explicitly state for students in high school “Reading, writing, communicating, thinking critically, and performing in meaningful, relevant ways within and across disciplines are essential practices for accessing and deeply understanding content (pp. 107).” Additionally, these standards, if followed by the classroom teacher, creates students who are college and career ready by challenging them to participate in interdisciplinary study and curriculum integration through real-world

In chapter seven of Pathways to the Common Core by Lucy Calkins, Mary Ehrenworth, and Christopher Lehman (2012), the authors explain that teachers often dismiss the Common Core writing standards as unrealistically high demands for their students, but clarify that through examination of the standard in a horizontal fashion, the standards are ultimately realistic and attainable. Calkins, Ehrenworth, and Lehman encourage teachers to begin with reading the kindergarten standards (no matter which grade level you teach) and look at the trajectory through next grade levels. The chapter continues by explaining that viewing the standards in this fashion and collaborating with teachers across grade levels will not only create a more realistic view of the standard, but allow students to meet the learning objectives through smaller steps across each grade level (Calkins, Ehrenworth & Lehman, 2012).

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are regarded as a detestable beast by many in the educational field. For those who teach literacy, this is not an uncommon idea or ominous threat, yet for those who have never taught literacy and are now expected to implement writing and reading comprehension student learning expectations (SLE), this can be a daunting task. CCSS along with the Arkansas Department of Education insist on this being done (2013). Many times the CCSS were listed on the lesson plans at the high school to soothe the conscience of the educator and to appease the administration, but they were not taught effectively or briefly skimmed over with the students. With the advent of the

RtI works at its best when personal from across the school, including administrators, general education teachers, special education teachers, supplemental specialists, music and gym teachers, and counselors all collaborate to support the framework, because each staff member shares equal responsibility for the success and failure of all students (Shapiro 2011). RtI needs the full support of all staff members, because it does not show immediate results and could take between 3-5 years to see its positive impact. RtI gives schools the chance to correct literacy issues, and fix the problem early, before students’ progress forward where they pay for it long into their future.

In regards to the reading program it is appropriate for each special education and at-risk student. The reading program is implemented with specifications acquiescing to their individual education programs (IEP), and recommended reading levels. Although the students are working together in a small group in the second tier of the intervention process, each student progresses according to individual achievement based on goals designated in their IEP, and teacher recommendations based on their current reading grade level. The individual responsiveness of each student determines whether they transition to the third tier of the RTI process, or if they are able to appropriately progress at the current level of intervention. Presently, the two at risk students have maintained the status quo, not progressing sufficiently, and have

When implementing Common Core Standards in English language arts, educators must be mindful of literacy strategies and continue to use those evidence-based practices within the framework of the Common Core. Some of the important strategies for elementary school teachers to focus on are fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, phonics and writing skills.

The article “Relations Between the CCSS and RTI in Literacy and Language” begins with explaining that there is decline in learning literacy and literacy knowledge in students. Response to Intervention (RTI) and Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts (CCSS-EL) are considered the solution to the literacy problem (Wixson, 2012). The authors of the article go in to great detail to explain RTI and CCSS and there collaboration in the process of improving literacy and language.

Another source of confusion occurs particularly in the Reading and English Language Arts division of the Common Core State Standards. In the CCSS manual for Reading and English Language Arts, there are three appendices; appendix B furnishes a list of stories, poetry, read-aloud stories, read-aloud poetry, informational texts, and read-aloud informational texts deemed suitable for each grade level beginning with kindergarten. Some entertain the idea that the texts provided in the appendix are the definitive materials that must be read in each grade; however, the books given simply serve as a benchmark. The founders of the CCSS believe the listed texts possess a quality and complexity and breadth, appropriate for students as they continue

There have been many changes to the English Language Arts curriculum due to the Common Core. The three key shifts that occurred due to the Common Core are: an increase in exposure to complex texts and academic language, a stronger focus on pulling evidence from texts, and reading more informational and nonfiction pieces. These shifts have had a large impact on the ELA (English Language Arts) curriculum in the classroom. Some of the changes in secondary education include additional attention to vocabulary, writing, and nonfiction texts. The changes in the classroom do require more time and can sometimes be very strenuous on teachers, especially in the area of writing. In elementary classrooms there has become a strong focus on phonics to aid