- What is Response to Instructional Intervention?
RTII is a preventative response to students who are having difficulty learning. According to Crockett and Gillespi (2007) RTI, “is the term used for a schoolwide method of delivering early intervention to struggling students through the systematic coordination of services across a general and special-education,” (p. 1). Furthermore, as one article adds (2015) adds;
“ the word intervention is key to understanding what RTI is all about. The goal is for the school to intervene, or step in, and start helping before anyone falls was really far behind. RTI isn’t a specific program or type of teaching. It’s a proactive approach to measuring student skills in using this data to decide which types of targeted teaching to use,” (p. 1).
There are three tiers to each level of intervention. The common denominator between the three tiers is what Stecker (2007) says, “that progress-monitoring data are used for decision making,” (p. 50). In this three-step process for student intervention, program-monitoring data captured from the teacher, is deciphered and depending on the outcome of the assessments, the student is placed into tier 1, 2 or 3 level intervention. At certain intervals between each tier, teachers, administrators and other education specialists recommend research-based programs and strategies as ways to improve the students’ learning outcomes.
To bring context to the three levels of student intervention models, each tier will be explained in greater detail. As Stecker (2007) explains, “a universal screening,” approach begins the process of Tier 1 where teachers can employ a variety of assessments (i.e. formative, summative and/or diagnostic) to determine the general population and/or designated students who are considered at risk. As teachers review the data from the results, they determine if students as Stecker (2007) defines as, “Specific Learning Disabilities,” (SLD). After student program data are assessed, the teacher develops an instructional intervention strategy. This first tier may involve small groups of students in the classroom with orchestrated programs developed by the teacher. Through dialogue with parents, administration and other education supports, the teacher monitors the progress of these students every 5-10 weeks. After this time period, the teacher conducts another assessment to see if the instructional process has worked. If the intervention strategy has not improved learning outcomes, then the teacher has to determine whether to change their instructional practice and/or develop supplemental activities for students. If they have not demonstrated progress, then the teacher must move the student(s) to the 2nd tier.
The second tier involves a more strategic approach to student learning interventions which can include the classroom teacher, an educational specialist, para-professional worker who specializes in the area where tier two students need interventions. For example, teachers can decide to continue on their own approach to intervention and/or involve other teacher specialists, educational psychologists and/or language therapists. Depending upon the student’s specific learning disability, whether it be a speech impediment, phonemic awareness, etc., an individual IEP can focus on 30 minute intervals with educational specialists, programs in small groups of four. The duration of the intervention may last upwards of 8-12 weeks and include periodic assessments to determine if the program data warrants change and/or move towards tier three.
The third and final tier is more individually focused with interventions involving special education teachers, education psychologists and the teacher. Although assessments and program data are still collected during this stage, the intervention strategies are more focused to the student’s specific learning disability. According to Stecker (2007), the intervention strategies emulate special education;
“…instruction planned according to student needs, (b) development of measurable annual goals, (c) progress- monitoring data used to inform instructional decision-making, and (d) special educators train to work with students with disabilities typically delivering instruction,” (p. 51).
Since this approach emulates the special education methods to delivery, the duration may be for longer term, in smaller group settings and include isolated classrooms.
In summary, the three-tier approach to Response to Intervention and Instruction strategies must follow a consistent, but effective sequence of interventions to instruction. To remain consistent for classroom instruction, teachers need to ensure that in each tier, the instructional approach must pass the litmus test of research-based decision making. Furthermore, as Stecker (2007) adds, “…reconfiguring school resources to assist students at different levels of instructional intensity establishes a system of educational service for all students you need before they experience a lengthy cycle of failure,” (p. 55). Therefore, consistency to teaching methods, assessments and commitment from all educational leaders must have pedagogical congruency for overall student success.
- Are there any issues with RTI?
With all school programming and implementation of new ideas, administration must consider various factors before implementation of an RTII model. For instance, the motivation for an intervention approach must be for school improvement and not a cost-cutting approach because Special Education costs can be excessive. Furthermore, even before the intervention strategy can begin, the right infrastructure must be in place as Crockett and Gillespi (2007) explain, “ It’s success hinges on the coordination of adequate resources, valid assessments, effective interventions, and highly trained professionals, which are often in short supply,” (p. 2). Therefore, before the RTII plans can gain momentum, administration need to consider how taxing it is on policy and professional development as the process does take time to implement. The actual academic attainment for students may be thwarted if administrators determine before an RTII Model is developed if weak teacher instruction and student external influences impacted assessment results. There are some other considerations to consider if schools are to adopt an RTII Model that must be recognized. Firstly, Crockett and Gillespi (2007) explain, “the delaying appropriate treatment for students with disabilities is one of the greatest perils among the promises of RTI…students suspected of having disabilities can be referred for a comprehensive evaluation to determine their eligibility for special education. All of these and many other concerns of the RTII models must be considered before school administrators can move towards n RTII Model.
- How would schools even begin to employ an RTII?
In any new school initiative, it is imperative that a structure be in place as well as an articulated and methodical program implementation for RTII Models. Principals, teachers and other professionals must ensure that there exists consistencies to program implementation as senior teachers who have fallen victim to many ‘fly by night’ programs may be resistant to change. Therefore, to implement an RTII Model in an elementary school, special education specialists, teachers, parents, principals must be involved at different capacities to ensure student success is the key ingredient for change.
At the beginning of the school year, before teachers begin day one of student orientation, they must begin by examining their Student’s Cumulative Folders to review previous student learnings, their personal history (i.e.-allergies, medical, etc.) to ensure they get to know their students before assigning seats. Another method of determining designated students is to also gather previous year’s standardized assessment results to see where students succeded in reaching benchmarks. As Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) as recommend, “ …from a measurement perspective, perhaps the best strategy it is to assess every student in the grade on a screening tool with a benchmark that demonstrates utility for predicting and of your performance on high stakes tests,” (p. 93).
If practitioners decide to begin at the beginning of the year to assess students, then during the first week teachers can conduct a universal assessment on literacy skills to determine the strengths and weaknesses of their students. If 80% of the students are at grade level and meeting the benchmarks, then the core curriculum will be implemented while the “at risk” children will be placed periodically into smaller groups through for the first five week at 30 minute intervals. Since the teacher will be what Crockett and Gillespi (2007) called, “primary prevention,” is a tier one approach where the instructor will develop and assign supplemental assignments for the students. After week five, students will be re-assessed and after sharing results with the principal, determine if students move to either tier two or join the general class.
When students move to Tier Two, then it is assumed as Crockett and Gillespi (2007) call, “Secondary Prevention,” where the intervention strategy is more research-based. This second phase of the intervention strategy would determine if a student is placed into one of two groups; Standardized Protocol and/or the Problem Solving Model. The Standardized group is more academic and will include more specialized academic advisors that include the special education teacher, administrator, teacher, para-professional and the parents. On the other hand, the other model will focus on behavior and include the teacher along with a local education team that can share best practices on classroom behavior programs. After twelve to fifteen weeks both teams will provide their recommendations for the designated students and decide placement after a more standardized assessment is conducted.
For Tier three, the student will receive more intensive and standardized learning interventions that are more localized using a specialized team of special education members, the principal, speech and language pathologists and other para-professional staff. The student will receive individualized instruction on a one-on-one basis with the school ‘task team’ to implement standardized programming and assessments. The duration and length of the student’s program will be much longer and include regular assessments. In the meantime, the student will remain in their peer’s classroom in regular intervals, but have a designated teacher-aide to work alongside them throughout the core curriculum instruction.
With all three tiers of the school RTII program, the principal will be involved in all capacities to ensure the success of the program is developed and maintained. For instance, as Crockett and Gillespi (2007) cite Fuchs and Fuchs (2007);
“…assessing the quality of classroom instruction, identifying students who need help, evaluating the effectiveness and fidelity of interventions, involving parents, using progress monitoring data in evaluations for special education, and designing special education as part of the most intensive level of support to address individual needs unresponsive to valid interventions,” (p. 4).
These characteristics would be the responsibility of the administration putting together task teams within the school and division office to ensure all resources are available for the student. Individual Education Plans (IEP’s) will be included at each phase of tier three to ensure research-based decision-making and assessments are employed and reviewed along the way.
Any closing comments to the RTII?
As the RTII is developed and implemented in the school system, it is important to once again note that aside from having the principal involved in initiating the process, it is imperative that teachers include the special education teachers. As Atkins, Allison and Cole and Cummings (2008) suggest, “Special education teachers, with their knowledge of assessment, instruction, and individualized interventions, are uniquely positioned to impact and assist schools as they begin to fully implement RTII procedures,” (p. 24). Therefore, it would seem obvious to all stakeholders within the learning community to include specialized education instructors who are well versed in the multitude of assessments to capture the behavior and academic weaknesses of students and how to remedy those obstacles within the school program.
The Response to Intervention Instruction model must be orchestrated carefully and have all education responders included in the planning and implementation of the student plan. In particular, there should be a framework for each tier of the RTII whereby a team of educators, specialists and administrators use research-based decision-making with assessment tools correlated for each tier. It is also important that a strategic plan be articulated in the plan if students achieve success with the intervention that the resolution to the problem allows for them to move up or down on the three tiers. Furthermore, parents and students need to be a part of the problem solving as to determine if social-economic factors may factor into the equation. In all, principals, specialists and district office need to support any and all RTII models in the school.
Bibliography
Morin, Amanda. (2014-2017). Understanding Response to Intervention. Retrieved from www.understood.org/en/school-learning/special-services/rti/understanding-response-to-intervention#item0.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly. New Directors in Research. (pp. 93-99).
Crockett, D., Gillespie, D. (2007). Getting Ready for RTI: A Principal’s Guide to Response to Intervention. Education Research Service. (Volume 25, No. 4, pp-1-9).
Cummings, K., Cole, C., Allison, R., Atkins, T. (2008). Response to Intervention: Investigating the New Role of Special Educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, (Vol. 40, No. 4, pp 24-31).
Stecker, P. (2007). Tertiary Intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, (Vol. 39, No. 5, pp 50-57).