RTI in Schools -- Are we all on the same page?

Individual components of Response to Intervention have been validated by research as effective educational practices, but there has yet to be research done on the process as a whole. This lack of a comprehensive model that the educational community can agree on has led to some discrepancies in how RTI is implemented in different schools as well as differing viewpoints about RTI's purpose.

RTI and Special Education

Much of the controversy surrounding RTI is related to its role in identifying students with disabilities. Educational psychology professor emeritus, Cecil R. Reynolds, expressed criticism in an interview of the use of RTI in identifying students with learning disabilities. He noted that students may not respond to intervention for many different reasons. A learning disability is just one of many possibilities. However, he claimed that some states are too quick to assume that if a student is not responding to intervention, then they must have a learning disability. According to Reynolds, the original intent of RTI was to provide early, targeted intervention to prevent students from falling behind -- and not to be a diagnostic tool. Now the two purposes have been intertwined. "We make a mess of it," he said.

In 2011, the federal Office of Special Education responded to concerns that RTI was slowing the process of serving students with learning disabilities. Although federal regulations mandate that states permit RTI to be used as part of the criteria for identifying students with learning disabilities, on January 21, 2011, the Office of Special Education issued a memo that a student's involvement in the RTI process cannot delay the evaluation process for a student suspected of having a learning disability. However, the controversy continues. Some parents and parent advocate groups complain that students with learning issues are given ineffective interventions or that the next steps for when intervention doesn't work are not clear. More than these complaints, parents name inconsistency in implementation as their number one concern.

Controversies Over RTI's Purpose

Part of this inconsistency may stem from the different ways schools view RTI's purpose. Joseph R. Jenkins, a special education professor at the University of Washington explained these dueling viewpoints: "Does RTI implementation raise all the boats? Or is it really about the struggling learners? I think the way it's practiced is whole school reform. It has been adopted as big, data-based school reform, whereas the original intent, at least half of it, was to identify students with disabilities." He is not alone in his concerns. Many experts disagree on whether RTI is best used as a diagnostic tool or a strategy to improve education for all students. However, many educators seems resistant to critique of RTI as a whole process. Mr. Jenkins described their attitude as: "We already know RTI works; don't even talk to me about that question."

My Opinion

As an educator using RTI, I admit to sharing some of that resistance to criticism. RTI has given me a clear model for how to support all of my students in a way that is objective, systematic and data-based. I think when RTI is used correctly -- the intervention constantly responds and adjusts to on-going data, a team of people communicate regularly to assess and meet the students' needs, and further action is taken when the intervention is not effective -- it can be extremely powerful. However, I do believe that there is work to be done to establish a clear and thorough model for how RTI should be implemented as a whole process, that has been fully research supported, and to answer the big questions about RTI's role.

What is the reader's opinion? Is RTI best used to identify students with learning disabilities or to improve instruction for all students? Or can it be effectively used as both?

Works Cited

Sparks, S. D. (2011). Experts Say RTI’s Use May Outrun Its Research Base. Education Week, 30(22), s16. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

Kelleher, M. (2011). Some Parents Remain Leery of RTI’s Benefits. Education Week, 30(22), s14, s15. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

Samuels, C. (2011). RTI Can’t Delay Special Education Evaluations, Feds Say. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2011/01/rti_cant_delay_special_educati.html

My RTI - Initial Progress

For the past couple of weeks, I have been implementing the interventions the team suggested for Pablo, and so far things look promising. We have been doing daily phrase reading, building his fluency until he is able to read the connected sentences smoothly. The intervention materials are wonderful. At the top there is a list of the multisyllabic words in the sentences. The sentences below are separated into phrases by dashes. He practices reading the list of multisyllabic words first. Then I have model for him how to read the phrases smoothly. If he makes an error, I wait to see if will self-correct. If not I point at the word, and he attempts it again. If he struggles again, I tell him the word. I let him finish all of the sentences, and then I have him repeat the ones where he made an error. Our goal is 100% accuracy. Once he has reached that goal, I have him read the sentences without the dashes (which I typed up). We continue practicing the whole sentences until he is able to read those with 100% accuracy as well.

We chose this intervention because we determined that Pablo's fluency issue was not related to major phonics gaps or phonological processing. Rather, he seems to struggle with fluency in connected text. The special education teacher suggested this phrase-reading intervention to help Pablo to mentally break the text into manageable chunks.

In all honesty, after the problem-solving meeting I felt skeptical. I had been doing daily repeated readings with Pablo practically since the beginning of the school year, and it hadn't worked. I feared this would be another intervention that would fail him. Secretly, my hope had been that he could join the special education teacher's daily reading group, thinking this might be the extra support he would need. But the assessments we gave him did not indicate that he shared the needs of the Tier 3 intervention group that our special education teacher runs. Instead, I continued to be on my own for helping him.

However, after two weeks of the intervention, I am beginning to feel hopeful. I gave Pablo an ORF assessment after about a week and a half, and he improved by 2 words, which is exactly on target for my rigorous rate of improvement (ROI) of 1.5 words per week. Even more exciting, his reading level has grown from a 12-18 in the past month (using the Rigby PM assessments - similar to the DRA) because he has finally been able to meet the fluency target of 95% accuracy on all the assessments I have given him so far. His comprehension has always been strong, and he is able to retell the text with all the important details and answer questions about the story. Previously, it was always his fluency that prevented him from passing the assessments.

It is great to see his fluency growing in multiple assessments, and Pablo is proud of his recent progress, as is his mother. He is still below grade level, but this intervention seems to be working. I am hoping that this improvement continues until Pablo catches up, or at least gets close to where he needs to be. We'll see.

My RTI - The Problem Solving Process, Stage I

Pablo's StoryIn late January, I filled out a form nominating my student Pablo (name has been changed for confidentiality purposes) for the problem-solving process. As I described earlier, Pablo has been a part of my most intensive small group since the beginning of the year. He has received at least an hour of small group instruction dedicated to fluency and comprehension for all of the school year. Also, at the beginning of the year, I set up a repeated-readings intervention for him in which he reads a passage for 1 minute and I count how many words he read correctly and how many errors he made. We graph his score (words correct per minute) and set a goal for next time. He repeats the same passage four days in a row (one reading per day).

Pablo showed initial growth. Both his reading level and his fluency went up initially in the fall. After that, however, his growth platformed. However, since October, his levels have stayed the same, despite all of the intervention. For the latest oral reading fluency benchmark test, he scored only 33 WCPM. The benchmark (expected) score is 65-82 WCPM. As Pablo's level stays the same, he falls increasingly behind his classmates.

The First Meeting

Over a month after I referred Pablo to the problem-solving process, we finally had his meeting. I informed his mother about our concerns over the phone, and she came to the meeting. We discussed his strengths (comprehension) and needs (fluency). His mother agreed that she saw these same struggles at home, and that he seemed very unmotivated to do his homework. At the conclusion of the meeting, we decided we needed more information about his abilities. Our special education teacher decided to give him a phonological processing assessment to see if he had gaps in his phonemic awareness, and I gave him the CORE phonics screening. I was hopeful we would find some answers that would guide us to help Pablo.

The Second Meeting

Fortunately, both myself and the special education teacher got our assessments done quickly, and I pushed for us to meet as soon as possible. During hte meeting, our special education teacher revealed that Pablo had fallen in the "normal" range for all the areas of the assessment. Similarly, the CORE phonics screening revealed no significant gaps. I have mixed feelings about these results. Of course, I am happy that Pablo has no major phonics or phonemic awareness struggles that may indicate a learning disability. But I can't help feeling a little disappointed that we couldn't find a clear way ahead.

So now what?

After discussing Pablo a bit more, we decided that his primary struggle was fluency in connected text. The special education teacher and I discussed that the texts I am having him read may be at his frustrational level, which is inhibiting his growth. The special education teacher suggested that I seek out materials for him to practice reading phrases. Once he is able to read phrases with a high degree of fluency, we will move him back to passages. I will work with passages at a first grade level so that they are more at his instructional level.

But... is it enough?

I am happy to have a direction to move forward, but I am also terrified that it won't be enough. I am also frustrated that it took so long for me to get this basic advice. I understand the need for a process and involving parents. I also understand that there are many students in my school that require attention. All the same, I wish I could get some more outside help for Pablo. I've been his teacher for almost two years, and I can't help but feel that I am failing him. I hope that these new strategies will wokr for him.

Why RTI - The Research Behind It

Response to Intervention is still a relatively new process, as is the research behind it. However, the research that has come out is promising, especially when it comes to reducing the number of students identified with learning disabilities. That number has been consistently decreasing since 2005, just a year after the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This reauthorization mandated that states must allow districts to use RTI as a tool to help qualify students for special education, which leant credibility to the process and increased its prevalence. As the prevalence of RTI has exploded, the number of students referred for special education has declined.

RTI Elements Show Promise

Many specific elements of RTI have been supported by research. Reports from the National Academies examining math and reading revealed that using universal screening measures to identify students at risk and implementing targeted instruction for those students improved learning. Studies by Sharon Vaughn of the Center of Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas in Austin supported the use of Tier-2 interventions to give extra instruction in a student’s area of needs. The interventions were effective when they occurred in a small group setting for 20-30 minutes a day.

School Success Stories

Specific schools and districts have demonstrated the impact of RTI on their student achievement. The Sanger Unified School District near Fresno, California credits RTI as one of the initiatives that helped turn its schools around. In 2004, the district was one of 98 lowest performing districts in the state and was not making sufficient annual progress. Only two years later, it exited the improvement program and was being recognized for several honors for its astounding growth. California uses a point system called the “academic performance index” to assess school performance, with a range of points between 200-1,000. In 2004, the Sanger District was scored at 599 points. In 2010 it got 805 points, just above the target of 800. Another example of the district’s improvement is the found in state test scores. In the 2004-2005 school year, only 35% of students were sufficient or above in English/language arts and only 44% reached proficiency in math. More recently, 58% were proficient in English/language arts and 67% were proficient in math. Similar improvements were seen in special education test scores.

Twenty four percent of the district’s diverse student body were English-language learners and 67% qualified for free and reduced-price lunch. Although the district had many quality teachers prior to the improvement program, the collaboration amongst teachers was limited and the process for referring students to special education was unclear. Some teachers referred many students for special education and some referred very few. If a student didn’t qualify for special education, there was no process for what to do for them.

RTI has changed this. Now students that are struggling academically are getting the support they need, whether or not they qualify for special education. Teachers are collaborating to meet those needs, and there is a clear process in place to educate students at all levels. Students move fluidly between interventions as their needs change, which reduces the stigma of students being pulled out for special education.

The White Church Elementary in Kansas City has seen similar improvements since the implementation of RTI. IN 2000, only 40% of students were proficient or above on state reading tests. A decade later, their scores were 90% proficient or above.

Reservations about RTI

Despite the body of research supporting individual elements of RTI and the testimonials of schools and district that have seen results, some experts caution that there is still much research to be done on the process as a whole. In a 2010 study, Matthew K. Burns at the University of Minnesota drew attention to the fact that there has been no randomized, controlled trial study of the entire RTI process. This is most likely due to the fact that such a study would be an enormous undertaking, requiring the participation of many schools that were using a very similar framework. The data that was used to group students and how it guided instruction, as well as the results for each of the three tiers would need to be examined, as would the training that teachers received in the process.

Conclusion

Although such a study has yet to be done, the research that we do have on the individual elements demonstrates that RTI gets results. It is a concerted, informed effort to educate students intelligently by targeting their exact needs. RTI recognizes that students come with diverse backgrounds, struggles and strengths, and that one educational model will not work for all. Thus each student must be taught in a way that works for him or her. RTI provides a clear model for how to do so without over-taxing teachers or stigmatizing students. Additionally, the process remains fluids as students grow and needs change. The results of these successful schools and districts highlight just how powerful it can be.

Works Cited

Samuels, C.A. (2011). An Instructional Approach Expands Its Reach. Education Week, 30(22), s2-s5. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

Samuels, C.A. (2011). Calif. District Uses RTI to Boost Achievement for All. Education Week, 30(22), s6-s8. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

Sparks, S.D. (2011). Experts Say RTI’s Use May Outrun Its Research Base. Education Week, 30(22), s16. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

Shah, N. (2011). Serving All Kids, No Exceptions. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/speced/2011/08/

Photo by Manny Crisostomo for Education Week

Image taken from www.edweek.org

RTI and My Classroom

RTI is so ingrained into how things are done at my school that I had been using the process without even realizing it. With the support of my mentor and master teachers, I used my universal screening assessment at the beginning of the year to create small groups of students with similar abilities and needs. Then I determined how much intensive instruction each group would need and built my instruction around that. I planned intensive small group instruction based on the needs that were demonstrated by the assessment. Ongoing formative assessment has helped me to adjust my groups and my instruction as needed, as well as to gauge the effectiveness of my small group and whole group instruction. After doing research into Response to Intervention, I realized that RTI is exactly what I’ve been doing in my literacy class.

Tier I

Currently, I have a total of fifteen students in my literacy class. From that number, I have created four small groups with similar needs. Nine of my students are on track to reaching grade level. I meet with these students about once a week to check in and practice some standard second grade skills in a smaller setting. These are my Tier I students (split into two small groups). I know by their growth that most of their needs are met during my whole-group instruction. In a true RTI model, I would not meet with them in small group at all. However, I do like to meet with them once a week for about 15 minutes to assess their progress and to give them more individual feedback than I am able to do during whole group.

Tier 2

An additional four students are behind but do not have far to go to catch up to their peers. These are my “at risk” Tier 2 students. I was meeting with these students in a small group setting twice a week for 15-20 minutes. After doing more research into RTI, I realized that I needed to adjust my schedule to meet with them more frequently. Starting this week, I made small changes to my benchmarking schedule so that I will be able to meet with them three times a week. I am excited to see how they will benefit from this extra intervention time, and I am hopeful that it may be the extra push they need to get them to grade level. Their greatest needs are fluency and comprehension.

Tier 3

Lastly, I have two students that are far behind their grade-level peers. One student moved here about two weeks ago from Mexico. For the purposes of this blog, we will call her Cecilia. I still have much to learn about her. She reads very laboriously and slowly, but with a high level of accuracy. Despite her slow pace, she also can demonstrate that she understands what she read by re-telling the story and answering comprehension questions. However, her spelling is very poor. She will often leave out a letter if a word has a consonant blend. I am very curious to see what kind of growth Cecilia shows with the support she is getting at this school.

My other student struggles enormously with reading fluency. For this blog I will refer to him as Pablo. I noticed his fluency difficulties at the beginning of the year and set up an intervention for him. We meet daily to do a one-minute oral reading fluency test. Pablo has a bar graph that we examine each day before taking the test and set a goal. After the test, we review how many words he read correctly compared to his goal and how many errors he made. We practice reading those error words again. Then he colors in his score. Pablo reads the same passage four days in a row, and he is encouraged by the improvement he makes with each read. He knows that when he reads a new passage for the first time, he will not reach the same level of the previous passage that he had practiced four times. However, we set a goal that is higher than his first read of the previous passage. Our ultimate goal is that the first read numbers go up each time. At the beginning of the year, this was the case. However, in the past few months his fluency has stagnated. His spelling also continues to be very poor. Like Cecilia, he will often leave out a letter when there is a consonant blend. He also confuses his R and his D, and I have asked our speech pathologist to meet with him to determine if this is also a speech issue.

The Problem Solving Process

It has become clear that Pablo needs more support than I can give him. I filled out a referral to the Problem Solving Team at our school and informed his parents of my concern. We have a meeting set up for March 7 during which I will present my data and explain my concerns about Pablo’s needs. From there, the Problem Solving Team will decide what actions to take. A possible action would be to place him into a Tier 3 intervention group with the special education teacher. I hope that this is the outcome of this meeting because I believe his needs are greater than those of my other students, with the possible exception of Cecilia.

Pablo used to be part of a Tier 2 intervention group. Now that a student has arrived with similar needs (Cecilia), I have created my own separate Tier 3 group that I will meet with four times a week for 15 minutes each. I will also continue my ORF intervention for Pablo, at least until we can discuss whether it is a good strategy during our Problem Solving meeting.

It is not a “true” Tier 3 intervention because I am not a specialist and I do not have a systematic, intensive, research-support program to give them. I will continue to use my knowledge of fluency and phonics instruction for their intervention. We will see what happens for Pablo as a result of the problem-solving meeting, and what kind of growth Cecilia shows in this school setting. In the meantime, I will give them the best Tier 3 intervention that I am able.

The image demonstrates the Tiers of intervention in my classroom and how much instruction (whole and small group) my students receive in a week.

RTI and Assessment

The RTI process is driven by data. According to the National Center on Response to Intervention, universal screening assessments, given to all students, are used to identify students that are at risk and may need a different tier of support. It is important that teachers used research-based assessments that are not affected by cultural and language differences.

Once students are placed into tiers, the teacher must continuously progress monitor them to gauge the effectiveness of the intervention. Teachers must constantly re-examine data and make instructional decisions based on the data, whether they be to adjust the instruction to better meet students' needs, move a student to a more intensive tier or "graduate" a student back to tier 1. The higher the level of intervention, the more frequently a teacher must progress monitor because the student has farther to go. The teacher must be assured at all times that the students are making adequate growth. If this is not happening, a teacher must adjust her instruction, increase the intensity of the intervention, or get other specialists involved. Assessment ata drives the RTI process at every level, ensuring that no child is overlooked at that educators have a clear, objective way of monitoring every student's achievement.

Information and image from the National Center on Response to Intervention.

Works Cited

National Center on Response to Intervention. What is RTI? Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://www.rti4success.org/whatisrti

What is Response to Intervention?

I would describe Response to Intervention as a systematic, deliberate and data-driven process for tailoring a child’s education to his or her unique needs and abilities. The goal is to help each student achieve grade-level expectations with the understanding that different children will need different degrees and types of support to get there. Response to Intervention (hereafter referred to as RTI) creates a clear and objective framework for determining these needs through the use of standardized data. Thus a teacher is not relying on subjective classroom observations or personal opinions of a student’s ability. It is “no excuses” approach to ensure that every student’s educational needs are met, regardless of background, economic status, home language, or any other factor.

Response to Intervention is characterized by early identification of students that are at risk for learning issues and reaching them through targeted instruction, or interventions. The intention of these interventions is to give students the additional support they need to meet grade-level expectations. RTI was initially used as a tool for special education and early reading instruction. Currently the use of RTI has expanded to all subjects and grade levels(Samuels,2011).

History of RTI

RTI gained leverage nationally when the Reading First program, a component of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, recommended its use and when the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act mandated that states must allow districts to use RTI as one method for identifying students with disabilities. Since then, its prevalence has grown exponentially. In a 2010 survey, 61% of district administrators either had already implemented RtI in their districts or were in the process of implementing it (Samuels,2011).

How RTI Works

According to the book Teaching Reading to Students Who Are at Risk or Have Disabilities (Bursuck & Damer, 2011), RTI is a type of multi-tiered system with the additional step that it can be used to identify students with learning disabilities. In a multi-tiered system, regular research-based assessments are given to all students, and those that seemed to be struggling were placed into more intensive tiers of instruction. Tier I is the general classroom curriculum, ideally taught to all students, Tier 2 provides more small group support of the curriculum, and Tier 3 often consists of an intensive, alternative program given in small group, usually by a special education teacher (Bursuck & Damer, 2011).

Effective Tier I instruction should be sufficient for about 80% of students. An additional 15% or more will need focused support in Tier 2 to be successful. These students will receive the universal instruction in Tier I, but will need extra small group review and practice of the concepts and skills in order to truly master them. The remaining 5% will have needs beyond what Tier 2 intervention can meet. They will often need an alternative program that is explicit and systematic. Some of these students may have pervasive reading disabilities and should receive special education services. Students with learning disabilities may be included in Tier 3 interventions or become a separate Tier 4 group, depending on the model (Bursuck & Damer, 2011).

Works Cited

Bursuck, W.D., & Damer, M. (2011). Teaching Reading to Students Who Are at Risk or Have Disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Samuels, C.A. (2011). Monitoring Progress: Response to Intervention’s Promise and Pitfalls. Education Week, 30(22), s2-s5. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org.

Image taken from http://www.sterncenter.org/resources/rti