The Power of RTI and Reading Profiles

A Blueprint for Solving Reading Problems

by

Louise Spear-Swerling, Ph.D.

Southern Connecticut State University New Haven

About the Author

Louise Spear-Swerling, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Special Education, and Reading and Coordinator, Graduate Program in Learning Disabilities, Southern Connecticut State University, 501 Crescent Street, New Haven, Connecticut, 06515

Dr. Spear-Swerling’s research interests include literacy acquisition, reading difficulties, and teacher education, and she has published many peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on these topics. In addition to consulting for K–12 public schools and state departments of education, she has for more than 3 decades helped prepare both general and special educators to teach reading.

The Role of Teacher Effectiveness in Children’s Reading Achievement

When I first began my career as a teacher of reading, my classroom happened to be next door to that of a veteran educator with a sterling reputation for teaching literacy. During spare moments, operating on the theory that a good model can be worth a thousand words, I often lingered by my classroom door to observe this teacher working with her students. Happily, her reputation turned out to be well deserved. Although I had been fortunate to have good preservice preparation in reading, over time, I learned a great deal from observing this teacher’s wonderful model—about how to teach explicitly and unambiguously, provide clear and constructive feedback, and engage and motivate children at different levels of achievement. This chapter considers the knowledge and skills needed to be a successful teacher of reading as well as how schools of education might better prepare elementary-level educators to teach reading to children from a variety of backgrounds and with a range of instructional needs, including the kinds of students discussed in the past three chapters. No teacher can be maximally effective without the right supports, such as an appropriate curriculum, books, and administrative leadership; furthermore, knowledgeable, well-prepared teachers certainly will not eliminate all reading problems. However, there are good reasons why many researchers and policy makers have focused on trying to improve teacher quality. First, effective teachers matter, especially (though not only) for children with a vulnerability to reading difficulties. Moreover, unlike certain variables that may influence children’s reading progress—genetic inheritance, poverty, and many disabilities—teacher quality is relatively amenable to change through teacher preparation and professional development. Research suggests that there is copious room for improvement in teacher preparation practices, improvement with the potential to help retain capable teachers in the profession and increase many students’ reading achievement.

RESEARCH ON EFFECTIVE TEACHERS OF READING

One recent line of research has employed a statistical measure of teacher effectiveness termed value-added, an indicator of individual teachers’ contributions to the achievement of their students. For example, Chetty and colleagues (2011), who studied math and reading achievement scores of Grade 4–8 students from a large urban district, first calculated predicted estimates of each student’s performance based on the performance of other students with similar background characteristics and prior achievement. They then compared those predictions to students’ actual performance, with differences averaged across a given teacher’s students. They ranked all teachers of a particular subject (reading or math) on these average differences; high value-added teachers were in the top 5% of the teacher distribution in terms of student outcomes, and low value-added teachers were in the bottom 5%. Chetty and colleagues found that when a high value-added teacher started teaching students in a cohort, or when a low value-added teacher stopped teaching, student achievement in reading improved. Conversely, achievement declined when a low value-added teacher started teaching a particular cohort of students or a high value-added teacher stopped teaching it. Similarly, the results of Nye and colleagues (2004) indicated substantial differences among teachers in the ability to promote students’ reading and mathematics achievement and showed that teacher effects on achievement were especially large in schools serving students from low-SES backgrounds.

TEACHERS’ DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT READING

Yet another line of work on teacher quality involves studies of teachers’ disciplinary knowledge for teaching reading. Early studies of teachers’ disciplinary knowledge focused on teachers’ understanding of English word structure and phonics— for example, teachers’ abilities to count phonemes and morphemes in words, identify phonetically irregular words, classify words by syllable type, or explain common spelling generalizations. Recent studies have attempted to use measures of teacher knowledge that encompass all five components of reading as well as classroom scenarios requiring the application of disciplinary knowledge. The results of these studies suggest that even experienced, credentialed teachers often have difficulty with tasks measuring phonics knowledge or understanding of phonemic awareness. For example, in studies that my colleagues and I have done, licensed teachers have repeatedly confused phonemic awareness with knowledge of letter sounds. These findings about teachers’ limited knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonics suggest that many struggling readers have difficulties centering on decoding and that the mission of special educators is to help children with the most serious reading problems.

CORE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS FOR TEACHERS OF READING

A s shown in Table 10.1, all prospective teachers of reading require core knowledge and skills in at least five areas:

1. Knowledge about typical reading development and common reading difficulties, including explain phases of reading development, influence of socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic factors.
2. Knowledge about the structure of language: segment phonemes, identify syllable types, and explain common spelling generalizations.
3. Research foundations: recognize importance of ongoing professional development.
4. Assessment: explain technical adequacy of tests and administer assessments for screening, progress monitoring.
5. Instruction: provide explicit, systematic teaching of the five components of reading and differentiate instruction for varied needs.

IMPROVING PRESERVICE TEACHER PREPARATION IN READING

Here are a few specific suggestions for state departments of education, schools of education, and policy makers focused on preservice preparation:

• Require the equivalent of at least 12 credits of preparation involving reading for all candidates whose certifications will include teaching reading, with integration of supervised field experiences well before student teaching.
• Promote high expectations and substance in teacher education; quality of preparation is as important as quantity.
• Ensure that preparation in reading is delivered by faculty with the appropriate expertise.
• Develop interdisciplinary preparation programs; candidates cannot be well prepared in programs narrowly focused on a single field.
• Adopt a research-based teacher licensure exam in reading for all initial certification candidates, ensuring candidates have the necessary knowledge.

These steps would provide a comprehensive framework for enhancing the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs to equip future educators with the essential tools needed to support students’ reading development.