Response to Intervention (RTI) Promise and Reality

Theory of RTI “Dual Discrepancy” Model Focus on Reading Difficulty A “multiple gating” model Purported to Support eligibility determination of students with learning disabilities; Early Identification; Promotes early identification of students at risk for academic failure; Replaced the “Wait to Fail” Model.

Dual Discrepancy Learning difficulty is detailed into two observable problems Low academic achievement Limited “rate of improvement” compared to similar peers Academic achievement may have multiple reasons Development Curriculum exposure Opportunity to learn Rate of Improvement may have multiple reasons Accuracy of learning at time of examination Fluency of learning at time of examination

Basic components of RTI Tiered system of intervention Use of progress monitoring assessment Interventions predicated on “scientifically-based” instruction

Research Base of RTI (cf. Hughes and Dexter, 2016) Lots on Progress monitoring, mostly using CBM (e.g. DIBELS) Mostly on students without disabilities at the elementary level Holistic evaluation of programs based Limited findings Evidence that Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions are conflated in practice (cf. Sparks, 2015, Balu et al 2015) Lack of research evidence supporting “scientifically based” reading interventions for culturally/linguistically diverse learners with and without disabilities (cf. Barrera, 2003, Barrera & Liu, 2010)

Perceived Benefits of RTI Enhances instruction and offers a renewed emphasis on “best practice” instruction for all students. Tailored instruction directly toward any identified academic deficits of students. Increased understanding of the academic skills of each student in the classroom. Promotes the collaboration efforts of the general and special education teachers.

THE “VERY BASIC” STEPS OF RTI Implement schoolwide screening measures (e.g., DIBELS and AIMSweb). Benchmark Screenings (Fall/Winter/Spring). Determine the needs of the students from the collected data. Follow the three-tier system to make decisions regarding interventions that can be made. Determine the effectiveness of the chosen implemented intervention. If intervention shows, from progress monitoring data, no sign of student progress, change the intervention.

Tiered System Three-Tier System 75%-85% Monitor Fall/Winter/Spring Targeted Group Intervention (General Education Classroom with Support) (Title 1, Reading Specialist)   ▪Some students (at-risk) ▪High efficiency ▪Rapid response Universal Intervention (General Education Classroom) ▪All settings ▪All students ▪Preventative ▪Proactive 5%-10% Monitor Weekly Tier 3 10%-15% Monitor Monthly Tier 2 75%-85% Monitor Fall/Winter/Spring Benchmark Screening Tier 1 Intensive Individual Intervention (Special Education) ▪Individual students ▪Assessment- and IEP-driven ▪High intensity ▪Longer duration Three-Tier System Adapted from The General Educator’s Guide to Special Education (Maanum, 2009, p. 172).

Intervention Strategies Tier 1 or 2 placement (general education teacher). Difficult decisions regarding specific interventions or strategies to attempt with a student (problem solving team). Interventions do include the behavioral and social areas (effects academics). Interventions (less restrictive to more restrictive). Jim Wright’s Web site (www.interventioncentral.org) is for intervention ideas.

Differentiated Instruction Theory General classroom approach to teach students as individuals Provide support for individual progress monitoring Focus on curriculum and standards for all to meet Not to be confused with individualized instruction

Practices Needed for RTI to Work with Diverse Urban Learners Responsive learning strategies based in student experiences Curriculum-based Assessment—Checking for learning that has been taught Examining research-based practices and how they interact with diverse learners Teaching content and then monitoring progress for acquisition, maintenance, and generalization

Roles of Assessments In General and Special Education General Educators use Informal assessments Criterion-referenced Practice exams for standardized state accountability exams (MCAs, MTELL equivalents) Special Educators use Formative curriculum-based assessments Formal curriculum-based measures Standardized Academic and Behavioral Assessments Both Groups must Evaluate testing data from formal academic , intellectual, behavioral, and adaptive developmental assessments from specialists on IEPs Observable assessments from other sources including other teacher data available through IEPs

Additional Reading Hughes C. & Dexter, D. (2016). Field Studies of RTI Programs, Revised (available for download at RTI Network, http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/field-studies-rti-programs) Sparks, S. (2015) Study: RTI Practice Falls Short of Promise: First Graders Who Were Identified for More Help Fell Further Behind. Education Week, Nov. 11, 2015 Barrera, M. & Liu, K. (2010). Challenges in assessing the academic progress of linguistically diverse exceptional learners through RTI progress monitoring with general outcomes measurement. Theory into Practice Special Issue (J. Klingner & M. Orosco, Eds.), 49 (4), 273-280. Barrera, M. (2006). Roles of definitional and assessment models in the identification of new or second language learners of English for special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (2), 142-156. Barrera, M. (2003). Curriculum-based dynamic assessment for new- or second-language learners with learning disabilities in secondary education settings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(1), 69-84.