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