Relations Between the CCSS and RTI in Literacy and Language

PERSPECTIVES ON RTI387RELATIONSBETWEENTHE CCSSAND RTI INLITERACYAND LANGUAGEKaren K. Wixson ■ Marjorie Y. LipsonInternational Reading Association (IRA)members are committed to improvingliteracy instruction and learning for allstudents. Two current initiatives, Responseto Intervention (RTI) and the Common CoreState Standards (CCSS) for English languagearts (ELA; National Governors Association &Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010),have the potential to positively influenceprogress toward this goal. Both the legislationauthorizing RTI and the professionals involved inits implementation have argued that RTI is bothan alternative approach to identifying students aslearning disabled and a strategy for reducing thenumber of students who develop serious learningdifficulties.Most states have adopted multitiered approachesto RTI that emphasize effective curriculum,instruction, and assessment in the regular classroom,as this first “tier” of instruction/intervention isexpected to address the needs of 80% to 85% ofThe department editors welcome reader comments. Karen K. Wixsonis dean of the school of education at the University of North Carolinaat Greensboro, USA; e-mail kwixson@uncg.edu. Marjorie Y. Lipson isProfessor Emerita at the University of Vermont, Burlington, USA; e-mailmlipson@uvm.edu.The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 6 pp. 387–391 DOI:10.1002/TRTR.01058 © 2012 International Reading AssociationR T

388RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CCSS AND RTI IN LITERACY AND LANGUAGEstudents. Because the CCSS willdirect the content of the curriculum,instruction, and assessment in ELAfor students in at least the 45+ statesthat have adopted them, they will mostcertainly have a significant impact oninstruction and intervention within anRTI approach to teaching and learning.This column explores the implicationsof the CCSS-ELA for RTI in the areas ofliteracy and language.BackgroundThe CCSS, like most academic contentstandards, are designed to provide aconsistent, clear understanding of whatstudents are expected to learn. They aredesigned to be robust and relevant tothe real world, reflecting the knowledgeand skills that our young people needfor success in college and careers. Theconcept of college and career readinessis a driving force behind the CCSS.College and Career Readiness (CCR)standards for the end of 12th gradewere developed first. These CCRstandards then served as the basis forthe development of the kindergartenthrough grade 12 (K–12) standards,which are intended to function aslearning progressions that lead toachievement of theCCR standards.The CCSS-ELA provide anintegrated view ofliteracy and language,highlighting the areaswithin the ELA—reading, writing,speaking/listening,and language. ForK–5, the reading andwriting strands arefurther delineated bytext type—literatureand informational.The grade 6–12standards are first organized by ELAand subject matter to distinguishwhich standards are the responsibilityof the ELA teacher and which are tobe addressed by subject area teachers.Within the ELA portion of the grade6–12 standards, the organization issimilar to that of the K–5 standards(i.e., all four areas of the languagearts, with reading and writing brokendown by literature and informational).In contrast, the subject area sectionsaddress only reading and writing, andthese areas are broken down accordingto history/social studies and science/technical subjects.RTI is focused on determiningwhether students are respondingto instruction and intervention ina manner that indicates they aregaining the knowledge and skillscharacteristic of mature, effectivereaders. The CCSS-ELA documentdescribes mature, effective readers inthe form of a “vision” of what it meansto be literate in the 21st century (p. 3)and a “portrait” of what students whoare college and career ready in ELA“look like” (p. 7). The vision statementemphasizes that students who meet theELA standards “readily undertake theclose, attentive reading that is at theheart of understanding and enjoyingcomplex” texts, and “habitually performthe critical reading necessary to pickcarefully through the staggeringamount of information availabletoday.” Furthermore, “they activelyseek the wide, deep, and thoughtfulengagement with high-quality literaryand informational texts that buildsknowledge, enlarges experience, andbroadens world views.”The portrait of students who meet theStandards includes several attributescommonly identified as good habitsin the areas of ELA—attributes suchas (a) demonstrating independence;(b) building strong content knowledge;(c) responding to the varyingdemands of audience, task, purpose,and discipline; (d) comprehending aswell as critiquing; (e) valuing evidence;(f) using technology and digitalmedia; and (g) understanding otherperspectives and cultures. In short,the emphasis on college and careerreadiness in the CCSS-ELA raises thebar for what students are expected to“Because the CCSS will direct the content ofthe curriculum, instruction, and assessment inELA...they will most certainly have a significantimpact on...an RTI approach.”R TThe Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 6 March 2012

390RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CCSS AND RTI IN LITERACY AND LANGUAGEAccording to these claims, students areexpected to do the following:■ Read closely and critically to comprehenda range of increasinglycomplex literary and informationaltexts■ Produce effective writing for arange of purposes and audiences■ Employ effective speaking and listeningskills for a range of purposesand audiences■ Engage appropriately in collaborativeand independent inquiry toinvestigate/research topics, posequestions, and gather and presentinformation■ Use oral and written languageskillfully across a range of literacytasks.Approaches to assessment in RTI willneed to encompass a wide range of measuresto address the breadth and depthof the content expectations in the CCSS-ELA. Educators should anticipate thatmany students, even those who areaccurate and fluent, might not fare wellon these assessments.InstructionThere is little doubt that there will be agreater need for integrated instructionto address the CCSS-ELA emphasison higher order skills, increased contentknowledge, and ability to engage withcomplex texts. For example, the PARCCconsortium has released ModelContent Frameworks for ELA/Literacy(PARCC, 2011), which consist offour instructional modules per gradelevel (grades 3–8 and high school).These modules are designed to bothreflect key elements of the CCSS-ELAand support the development of theassessments.As such, each module is structuredso that students read complex textsand analyze, research, write, andspeak about a variety of these textsthroughout the four-module sequence.This includes the use of grade bandlevelcomplex text (leveled textsthat are below grade band level incomplexity cannot be a substitute,because the standards indicate thatstudents should be reading gradeband-level complex text) and the use ofinformational text in elementary schooland literary nonfiction in secondaryELA classes, along with buildingexpertise and experience regarding atopic or concept.The proposed modules begin withgrade 3, but it is clear that studentswill need a different type of beginningreading instruction to be preparedfor the type of integrated instructionjust described. Beginning readinginstruction will need to help studentsgain control of early reading skills asquickly as possible and prepare them forthe integrated instruction expected inupper grade levels.These goals are embodied inan approach such as the researchbasedInteractive Strategies Approach(Scanlon, Anderson, & Sweeney, 2010),which teaches children, including thosewho are struggling with language andliteracy, to use what they have learnedindependently and flexibly. This type ofearly literacy instruction is essential ifstudents are to succeed with the morechallenging texts and tasks that layahead.Higher expectations are likely toresult in even greater variability instudent performance and increasedneed for differentiated approachescharacterized by RTI. The ModelContent Frameworks make it clear thatto succeed on the PARCC assessments,students need to have opportunitiesfor independent reading of a widerange of materials on a variety oftopics. Such independent readingmust include texts at the readinglevel of students as well as texts withcomplexity levels that will challenge andmotivate them.Although the PARCC Draft ModelContent Frameworks released in“Higher expectations are likely to result in evengreater variability in student performance andincreased need for differentiated approachescharacterized by RTI.”R TThe Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 6 March 2012

391RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CCSS AND RTI IN LITERACY AND LANGUAGEAugust 2011 stated that “some studentswill need additional scaffolding andcoordinated interventions designed toaccelerate their development towardthe independent reading of gradelevelcomplex texts” (p. 6), no suchstatement appears in the final versionof the Model Content Frameworks,released in November 2011. We believethat this will be essential for successfulimplementation of the CCSS-ELA, andthat schools will need to provide a muchwider array of learning opportunities forstudents identified as struggling than isavailable in many approaches to RTI.Looking AheadIRA members are uniquely positionedto provide leadership in the complexpolicy arena of RTI and CCSS. The RTIGuidelines adopted by IRA lay out theelements for a successful approach—onethat is systemic and preventative. Helpingstudents to be successful early on meansthat they are likely to spend more timein the core classroom, where they willexperience the rigorous and excitingcurriculum envisioned by CCSS-ELA.Our approaches to prevention,however, are unlikely to succeed ifthey are too narrow. They need toaddress the entire range of knowledgeand skills necessary to succeed in thecurricula, instructional approaches,and assessments emerging fromimplementation of the CCSS-ELA.Further, effective early intervention/prevention is critical if we do not want tostrand a whole segment of our studentpopulation, isolating them from thedemanding and important curriculumpromoted by CCSS-ELA.REFERENCESIRA. (2010). Response to Intervention: Guidingprinciples for educators from the InternationalReading Association. Newark, DE: Author.Retrieved November 1, 2010, fromwww. reading.org/Libraries/Resources/RTI_brochure_web.sflb.ashxJohnston, P. (2010). An instructional frame forRTI. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 602–604.doi:10.1598/RT.63.7.8Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (Eds.). (2010).Successful approaches to RTI. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.National Governors Association & Councilof Chief State School Officers. (2010,June). Common core state standardsfor English language arts & literacy inhistory/social studies, science, andtechnical subjects. Retrieved August14, 2011, from www. corestandards.orgPartnership for Assessment for Readinessfor College and Careers (PARCC).(2011, August). PARCC draftmodel content frameworks for ELAliteracy.Retrieved September 15,2011, from www.parcconline.org/parcc-content-frameworksPartnership for Assessment for Readinessfor College and Careers (PARCC). (2011,November). PARCC model content frameworksfor ELA-literacy. Retrieved December26, 2011, from www.parcconline.org/parcc-content-frameworksScanlon, D.M., Anderson, K.L., & Sweeney,J.M. (2010). Early intervention for readingdifficulties: The interactive strategies approach.New York: Guilford.Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium(SBAC). (2011, August 9). Review draft:Content specifications with contentmapping for the summative assessmentof CCSS-ELA. Retrieved September 27,2011 from www.k12.wa.us/smarter/Resources.aspxWixson, K.K., & Valencia, S.W. (2011).Assessment in RTI: What teachers andspecialists need to know. The ReadingTeacher, 64(6), 466–469. doi:10.1598/RT.64.6.13www.reading.orgR T