RTI, Educational Research and Accountability - Essay Example

RTI, Educational Research and Accountability RTI, Educational Research and Accountability Describe the Relationship between RTI and other national efforts to improve student outcomes (IDEA, RTTT, etc.) Response to intervention (RTI) refers to education model applied in facilitating the process of identifying students with high risk of having trouble in learning processes (Gersten, Compton, Connor, Dimino, Santoro, Linan-Thompson & Tilly, 2008). On the other hand, Race to the Top (RTTT) focuses on requirements that should be met through teaching and learning process in order to facilitate improved students’ performance.

Furthermore, Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) refers to policies that have been established to facilitate increase of standards related to achievement for students with learning disabilities. RTI, RTT and IDEA are interlinked by sharing a common objective of improving the performance of students through learning and teaching process. Nevertheless, RTI have a direct connection to IDEA since the latter is applied in identifying students with learning disabilities: who are the beneficiaries of IDEA (Fletcher, Stuebing, Lyon, Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2005).

Moreover, RTI model is also applicable in RTTT to facilitate the process of meeting requirements in teaching and learning (Marzano & Pickering, 2001). Therefore, these relationships have raised attention among numerous educators, who are seeking ways to raise standards of students’ achievement (Heggen, Karseth & Kyvik, 2010). In addition, RIT in RTT and IDEA is commonly applied through strategies to explore potential of formative evaluation as an approach of raising students’ performance (McCardle, Scarborough & Catts, 2001).

In this case, by raising standards of content for their students, educators ensure that all achievement gaps are bridged to assisting students with learning disabilities (Arne & Easton, 2009). Besides, educators apply RIT model in order to increase their effectiveness in teaching academic content. 2. What is your perspective on research-based education? Does it restrict teacher decision-making? ESEA mandates research-based strategies; do you use any? Identify them and how effective they are (or are not) Research based education has aspects of policy development that requires a research to be conducted in order to base teaching and learning procedures on results of this research (Jonasson, 2011).

Therefore, the interpretation of this perception is evident through a notion that is relevant and easy to support. However, given that, the research-based education has elements of policy development; some policies may be subjected to forces in educational and social systems leading to determination based on inherent or unequivocal policy (Bridges, Smeyers & Smith, 2009). Therefore, this influences decision-making by teachers based on the extent, which their perceptions are affected by informed policy.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) mandate research-based strategies focusing on measurable IEP objectives relate to interventions that are based on evidence (Arne & Carmel, 2010). Moreover, these recommendations are made through consideration of making relevant decisions regarding students’ assessment. In fact, one of the mandates that I use is “Improving the Student Achievement.” Moreover, it is a crucial mandate for increasing students’ growth by use of effective data systems offering substantial information for driving instructional practices to assist students with learning disabilities.

In this case, I ensure that I have administered all evaluations that are set by ESEA based on the parameters for students’ IEPs (Brustein & Manasevit, 2009). Therefore, mandates of ESEA research-based strategies are considered in developing objectives that can be evaluated to determine the students’ growth (NACAC, 2010). Furthermore, they assist in making a substantial contribution in improving the performance of students’ with learning disabilities, using relevant guidelines and intervention strategies. 3. Is accountability MORE than just tests?

What should an effective "accountability system" look like? According to Reeves (2004), test scores offer a representation of a piece of accountability data; thus, they should be interpreted through a context of information in relation to things that are done by the school. On the other hand, accountability refers to an imperative, which is faced by administrators in schools and board members (Reeves, 2000). Therefore, accountability can be considered more frequent compared to the recitation of these test scores (Reeves, 2003).

In this case, the scores gathered from a test may depict students, teachers and leaders’ achievement within the school, but they do not reflect accountability of administrators (Reeves, 2001). However, accountability may be considered a compilation of test scores, and through this perception, it is changed into constructive strategy applied in communicating to the public and other reforming schools. Nevertheless, despite this relationship, accountability cannot be equated to the test scores (Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2004).

Reeves’s perception towards education is crucial due to the ideas established through his arguments in relation to accountability. In fact, these arguments are applicable in the process of improving students’ performance and achievement of academic goals (Reeves, 2001). Moreover, accountability establishes a transparent educational system in order to facilitate the process of communicating to the public about student’s performance, teachers and leaders. Therefore, in my opinion, accountability facilitates transparency in the school system since it is not possible to communicate to the public without transparency.

References Arne, D. & Easton, J. (2009). Education Highlights Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Department of education Highlights. Retrieved on Feb 11 2013 from   Arne, D. & Carmel, M. (2010). A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. United States Department of Education. Alexandria, VA: Education Publications Center Brustein & Manasevit. (2009).

ESEA Reauthorization - Overview. Retrieved on Feb 11 2013 from Bridges, D., Smeyers, P. & Smith, R. (2009). Evidence-Based Education Policy. What Evidence? What Basis? Whose Policy? New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Committee on Education and the Workforce. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Raising Student Achievement in America’s Big City Schools. Hearing before the Committee on Education and the Workforce U.S. House of Representatives one Hundred Eighth Congress Second Session: Serial no. 108-65.

washington:  U.S. government printing office Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S. & Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades.

A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Heggen, K., Karseth, B. & Kyvik, S. (2010). The Relevance of Research for the Improvement of Education and Professional Practice. In S. Kyvik & B. Lepori (Eds.). The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions outside the University Sector. Striving for Differentiation. New York: Springer Jonasson, J. (2011). Problems with the implementation of Research-Based Teacher Education Reform.

Retrieved on 11 Feb 2012 from McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S. & Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining and preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 230–239. Marzano, R. & Pickering, D. (2001). Classroom strategies that work. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. NACAC. (2010). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Reauthorization: 2010 Recommendations. NACAC Policy Recommendations. Retrieved on 11 Feb 2013 from Reeves, D. B. (2000). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations.

Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press. Reeves, D. B. (2001). Holistic accountability: Serving students, schools and community. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Reeves, D. (2003). High Performance in High Poverty Schools: 90/90/90 and Beyond. New York: Simon & Schuster Reeves, B. (2004). Evaluating Administrators. Leading in Tough Times Pages. 61(7): 52-58 Reeves, B. (2001). If You Hate Standards Learn To Love The Bell Curve: Education Week. New York: Center for Performance Assessment