Synopsis of Denny’s article
Deeney, T. A. (2010). One-Minute Fluency Measures: Mixed Messages in Assessment and Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 440–450.
This article explores the issues of the response to intervention (RTI) and Learning Disabilities in quite a systematic manner. The author, Deeney, intended to examine the effectiveness of one-minute fluency assessments that have been in great use by district schools around the United Kingdom. The difficulty that influenced the author into examining the correlation existing between one-minute fluency assessments and instructional delivery is whether the time used in assessing learners remains favorable to every learner in the same classroom. Influenced by the federal policies and initiatives such as the National Reading Panel, the fluency assessment of this kind is becoming a contentious matter given the disparities in intellectuality, mental abilities, attitude, and pace of learners in classrooms. Despite the validity and reliability of this reading assessment technique, much remains anticipated in the context of its effectiveness of achieving whole results in assessing students reading abilities and progress.
In the author’s argument, the one-minute fluency assessment approach hampers equitable academic achievement to all learners, given the availability of different intellectual or even physical abilities within the classroom settings. While trying to understand the negative correlation between this reading assessment approach and educational outcomes, Deeney identifies several considerable facts that impeach the effectiveness of this educational strategy among learners. This assessment affects three imperative drivers of comprehension, including accuracy, rate, and prosody. According to the author, one-minute fluency assessment affects learning accuracy in the sense that speedy reading hampers students’ ability to comprehend and understand what they are reading. Therefore, this aspect becomes a challenge for students with learning disabilities. This approach is harmful to learning prosody, which refers to the reader’s ability to read efficiently. Finally, the author argues that using a one-minute fluency assessment strategy affects the reading rate in the sense that learners’ reading automaticity remains affected since faster reading does not guarantee to understand.
Synopsis of Fuchs article
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2009). Responsiveness to Intervention: Multilevel Assessment and Instruction as Early Intervention and Disability Identification. The Reading Teacher, 63(3), 250–252.
The article by Fuchs and Fuchs sought to examine the effectiveness of responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) program that just as noted by the previous author aimed at identifying learners with specific learning disabilities and improving their reading abilities. The article demonstrates the importance and reliability of responsiveness to intervention (RTI), but feels like the integration of the programs differs distinctively from school to school. The article simply examines the effectiveness of RTI within schools, identifies a continual misunderstanding of the program, and highlights numerous ways in which the strategy deems imperative. Fuchs and Fuchs note that despite being a common belief that integrating this approach is mandatory and school administrations may suffer staff unemployment or incarceration, there exist great disparities in its integration. There are different RTI frameworks “in different places with some schools using two tiers while others using seven tiers” (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2009, p.250). The intent of this study was to guide how schools should practice RTI.
However, the document does not describe any preferred set of assessments or instructional tiers. It provided certain suggestions on the use of the RTI program for instructive rationale only. The article, though not presumed to subjugate or alienate learners with a disability to some extent, argues in a manner suggesting that special education should not exist. In indicating how schools should practice integrating RTI, the International Reading Association presented three levels of prevention services to employ in the RTI program. They included primary prevention, secondary prevention, and tertiary prevention. The primary prevention in the RTI framework involved general “instructional practices that instructors can employ to students, core instructional programs with classroom schedules that assist in differentiating instruction, and accommodations that permit admittance for all students” (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2009, p.250). The secondary prevention level included the ordinary form of group training guided with certain time protocols. The tertiary prevention service level is where a teacher identifies personal end-year goals in instructional material suitable for students’ needs and integrates a more validated tutoring program for students who fail to prove responsive to the primary and secondary prevention levels.
Comparative analysis of the articles
Similarities
The two articles topically touch on similar issues within the Response to Intervention (RTI) or Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) approach that emerged to identify students with certain disabilities and an approach that pushes school administrators to integrate meaningful assessment and intervention strategies to enhance school performance. The two articles contend that the RTI program is nonetheless a substantial idea in promoting academic achievement and enhancing teachers’ professionalism, especially through integrated instructional delivery systems. The two articles come into a concession that the intention of the Response to Intervention educational approach may remain unsuccessful, confusing, and destabilized given the different disparities in their integration, application, and consumption from one school to another. They indicate that the intention of RTI is constantly suffering from misinterpretation, misunderstood, and misrepresented. The articles note that there exists a greater disparity between teachers’ perception and regulations propelling integration of RTI on the intentions of the program.
The article’s basic aim is to highlight some of the challenges protracting from the integration of the RTI educational program where the impact falls to both the learners and the school administration staff. They both examine how schools misunderstand the intention of the RTI program. The two articles give in-depth coverage of the prospection of the RTI program and aim at establishing the prevailing confusion on the integration of the program. In the analysis, Fuchs and Fuchs (2009) notice a great dissimilarity in the level at which schools integrate Responsive to Intervention program, with some incorporating heavily exhaustive two tiers instruction while others are integrating seven-tier, instructional models. Further, Deeney (2010) highlights similar issues about the controversial integration of the RTI program when this research reveals a great disparity in the manner at which entire districts interpret and integrate the RTI program. They both argue over how schools undertake instructional delivery and assessment to ascertain performance.
Instructional delivery and assessments that suit learners despite their differences in intellectuality is the core subject in both studies where authors seek to identify appropriate means of integrating RTI without causing bias in educational achievement. For Deeney (2010), this study is specifically on the consequences of some policies integrated into the RTI program where one-minute fluency assessment bears the most appropriate assessment technique in identifying individuals with learning difficulties. Nonetheless, the approach seems to alienate slow learners and, thus, does not promote effective learning. In conclusion, the author notices the misunderstanding of the real meanings of fluency and concludes that the National Reading Panel’s recommendation on one-minute fluency measures subjugates equitable access to education. For Fuchs and Fuchs (2009), though the solution concentrates on securing administrators’ healthy affairs, employment, and escaping incarceration, it is imperative as it also provides a possible framework of handling class instruction and assessment. The three levels of prevention services, viz. primary, secondary, and tertiary, seek to provide a sustainable solution to learners and teachers.
Differences
Even though the two articles admit that the RTI program is quite reasonable in its intention, the documents raise differing opinions regarding the program’s impact on learning. The article by Deeney (2010) is highly critical in the manner in which some policies within the RTI seem to affect learning as that of teachers assessing learners’ fluency regularly. In other words, the document is heavily critical of certain policies governing the integration and implementation of RTI in the context of equitable achievement of education for all learners. On the other hand, the article by Fuchs and Fuchs (2009) rests the blame, not on the program. Still, the school administration and it seeks to provide a possible solution that would aid teachers in integrating proper instructional approaches and undertaking assessments. Therefore, in this sense, though they present almost similar sentiments on RTI, the articles differ on opinions, ideas, and perceptions on the prevailing challenging marring implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) approach.
The two documents differ on their objectivity and primary purposes as one intends to cover the student’s concern. At the same time, the other remains centered towards providing teachers and instructors with solutions in the context of practicing the Response to Intervention program. The document by Deeney (2010) is passionate and concerned about the welfare of student’s achievement before the integration of policies that affect learning and assessment in schools. The article highlights how the one-minute fluency assessment approach recommended by the National Reading Panel influences the equitable achievement of education amongst learners by affecting three important vehicles to comprehension, including prosody, reading rate, and accuracy. For the research provided by Fuchs and Fuchs (2009), the article indicates how it percepts the issue of teachers failing to acquire appropriate instructional and assessment approaches that may result in layoffs, imprisonment, and it slightly covers its impact on child health and development. Simply, one article seeks to enhance instructors’ competence while the other propagates equitable educational achievement.
Information specificity is another aspect that can reveal the disparities existing between the two articles discussing the impact and effectiveness of Response to Intervention. The document by Deeney (2010) unveils how the use of certain policies integrated within the RTI by the National Reading Panel affects learning equitable access to education, analyses situations why learners fail to achieve using one-minute reading fluency and discover the continual disparities between instructional delivery and assessment. Still, it fails to recommend possible solutions to avert the prevailing problem. Instead, it continuously disregards everything resulting from one-minute fluency assessment. On the contrary, the document presented by Fuchs and Fuchs (2009) does not provide any analysis of the prevailing situation that triggers the undertaking of the study, and it does not provide circumstances that lead to failure of RTI. Still, it ensures that it produces quite a significant framework. Despite having a shallow analysis of the RTI program in the context of the provision of such frameworks, the problems articulated by Deeney (2010) can find a possible solution from this framework.
Reference List
Deeney, T. A. (2010). One-Minute Fluency Measures: Mixed Messages in Assessment and Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 440–450.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2009). Responsiveness to Intervention: Multilevel Assessment and Instruction as Early Intervention and Disability Identification. The Reading Teacher, 63(3), 250–252.