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
No comments:
Post a Comment