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 EducationMuch 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 PurposePart 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.orgKelleher, 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
RTI and Special EducationMuch 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment