1 - Effective Classroom interventions

RtI Assignment

Bethany Moore, Kimberly Sleiman, Andrea Olivares, Vanessa Lopez

Overview of RtI

If there were a structured framework that educators could implement to benefit all learners, would you use it? This framework would allow educators to identify the need for more intensive forms of instruction with children who have learning disabilities and are not meeting academic standards. A screening assessment would be used for all students in a class to help educators identify children who may have a learning disability. Response to Intervention (RtI) is a more formal and systematic prereferral process used in many school districts today (Heward et al., 2018, p. 41). By using the RtI model, identification of learning disabilities shifts from a “wait to fail” model to one of early identification and prevention (Heward et al., 2018, p. 145). One basic idea of the RtI model is that high quality instruction should be used in the classroom in order to rule out ineffective instruction as a reason for low academic performance (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3). If a child responds poorly to high quality, scientifically proven and validated instruction, then it is possible to eliminate instructional quality as a reason for poor performance and provide evidence for a disability (Heward et al., 2018, p. 45). When we talk about high-quality instruction, we are referring to the effective use of curriculum and instructional techniques and strategies that have been scientifically proven through research (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3). A student is said to be responsive if the student shows adequate growth once high quality instruction has been implemented (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3), and this process serves as a preventative strategy (Heward et al., 2018, p. 45).

The RtI model is a multi-level approach, consisting of a universal screening and 3 tiers (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3). The universal screening is a measure used with all students to identify those who are at risk for academic failure (The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3). During Tier 1 of the RtI model, students are receiving high quality instruction in the classroom and their progress is typically monitored weekly (The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3). In Tier 2, students identified to be struggling during Tier 1 receive regular education and additional support from a teacher (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3). Tier 3 includes general instruction as well as high-intensity intervention for the few students identified after Tier 2 (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3). Intensive intervention given in Tier 3 may include 1:1 teaching, but it is important to note that this final Tier of RtI is not the same as special education (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020).

In a K-12 general education classroom, students with greater instructional needs are receiving Tier 2, and Tier 3 services. It is crucial for educators to focus on the additional resources these children need such as extra instructional time, incorporating small group instruction to increase intensity of service, and narrowing instructional focus on what's being taught. In a general classroom, Tier 1 instruction would incorporate all standards during instruction, where with Tier 2 and Tier 3 students, the teacher focuses more on a specific skill and strategy through differentiated instruction to assist struggling students reach their academic goals. Application of data assessments in the classroom to evaluate these struggling students are also needed and used to determine if the applied intervention is resulting in academic growth.

There are several benefits and challenges to using the RtI approach. Benefits include the identification of learning disabilities and early intervening (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 4). Some challenges to implementing RtI include appropriate training and teacher support, and misidentification of learning disabilities (Kranzler et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2020). Providing high-quality instruction in a general education classroom is the first step to minimize or prevent academic challenges. Including small group interventions before students demonstrate academic failure have proven to exhibit big gains in struggling students (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 1). These challenges can be addressed by providing teachers and staff members with a more intensive and continuous training program as well as progress monitoring in order to increase the effectiveness of RtI.

Benefit #1 - Identification of Learning Disabilities (Bethany Moore)

RtI is a multi-tiered system of supports used to identify students who may have learning disabilities and as a means to provide a progressive intervention for these students (Cakiroglu, 2015; Catts et al, 2013; Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3). One major benefit to using the RtI model in education is the ability to identify learning disabilities in children (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 4). Prior to the RtI model, students were often identified using IQ-achievement discrepancy formulas (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 2). IQ-achievement discrepancy formulas are designed to identify students with learning disabilities after they have already failed to succeed (Cakiroglu, 2015; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 2). In fact, in the late 1900s, school districts would typically wait until the end of second grade or beginning of third grade before determining learning disabilities in students (Gersten & Domino, 2006). As The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) gained traction, the implementation of IQ-achievement discrepancy formulas began to be replaced with the RtI model (Cakiroglu, 2015; Klinger & Edwards, 2006). The shift from the IQ-achievement discrepancy model to the RtI model has had far-reaching, positive impacts for many students of varying abilities and cultures (Cakiroglu, 2015; Catts et al., 2013; Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; Klinger & Edwards, 2006).

The major advantage to the RtI model is that it can detect learning disabilities before failure has time to take place (Cakiroglu, 2015). According to Cakiroglu (2015), the RtI model of identifying students with learning disabilities can increase the likelihood that these students truly have academic needs that should be addressed. In particular, RtI can be useful for identifying students with reading disabilities before they fall behind their peers (Cakiroglu, 2015; Catts et al, 2013; Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; Gersten & Dimino, 2006; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3; VanDerHeyden et al., 2007). This is done by ensuring that students experiencing trouble with reading have received high-quality instruction before being referred to special education, delivering special education or related services as soon as the struggle is identified, and using the classroom data from RtI to inform these decisions (Cakiroglu, 2015; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 4). Reading disabilities have been accurately identified in children as early as kindergarten using this method (Catts et al., 2013). Research summarized in Gartland and Strosnider (2020) indicates early identification and prevention programs could result in a 70% reduction in the number of students with reading problems. Proponents of RtI believe that if a child can read by the end of first grade with proficiency, they will remain a good reader for the remainder of their life (Gersten & Dimino, 2006). In addition to identifying reading problems, the RtI model has the potential to aid in identification of emotional behavioral disorders in English language learning students (Caikroglu, 2015).

While RtI was designed to be used in the general education classroom, the data collection from RtI can assist with identification of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) (Cakiroglu, 2015). However, schools may need additional funding, resources, and training for teachers when seeking to identify students with EBD (Cakiroglu, 2015). In addition to identifying EBD, the RtI model can help identify English language learning (ELLs) students in need of assistance (Cakiroglu, 2015).

Recent studies conclude that the use of RtI is helpful in identification of learning disabilities in many areas and populations (Cakiroglu, 2015; Catts et al., 2013; Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; Gersten & Dimino, 2006). Because of its versatility, professionals can also use the data collected via RtI to inform decision making for special education eligibility (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 4). As educators become more knowledgeable about the RtI process and receive appropriate training, this system has the potential to revolutionize the education system for all students, especially those with learning disabilities. When students are identified with learning disabilities more quickly, they are likely to have better outcomes from this intervention process (Cakiroglu, 2015).

Benefit #2 Early Intervening (Kimberly Alpiste)

A child’s success plays an extremely important role in an educator’s goal. Our priority is to acknowledge that not all learners can comprehend at the same speed, and may experience difficulties with their academic progress. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a process that focuses on detecting students struggling with comprehension of content before they fall behind their peers. Early Intervening is a major benefit through the application of RTI to provide students the opportunity to succeed before they fail. Early detection of struggling students and the implementation of RTI has been shown to reduce the number of referrals for special education (Werts, Carpenter, & Fewell, 2014). It’s crucial to ensure that all students are presented with high-quality instruction in the general education classroom, as well as promoting early intervention the moment the student demonstrates a struggle.

Early Intervening through RTI has also assisted with the teacher's ability to provide effective differentiated instruction based on the student’s individual needs (Werts, Carpenter, & Fewell, 2014). High quality instruction and providing modifications to struggling students have been shown to increase student achievements and promote student success (Werts, Carpenter, & Fewell, 2014). This process has also proven to benefit schools, through better collaboration between teachers and parents to better assist parents so that they are aware of their child’s struggles as well as their achievements.

RTI is a process that focuses on early intervening following a multi-tiered approach, which involves early detection of students that struggle in the classroom. Research has shown that early intervening has been proven to assist English Language Learners (ELLs) by applying research-based practices to meet the individual needs of students (Bown & Doolittle, 2008). As an educator, it’s important to consider instruction and interventions based on the student’s cultural background and life experiences in the RTI framework. To help ELL students achieve success early intervention instruction needs to be adjusted to personalized needs and monitored to see if they are reaching the appropriate benchmarks (Bown & Doolittle, 2008).

Early Literacy is one of the most crucial skills needed in a young child’s life, yet is observed to be one of the main struggles in a young student’s life. Phonological Awareness deficits have been studied to come together with difficulties in reading. Evidence has shown, with early intervening as soon as preschool years have made progress in individuals’ literacy (Kruse, Spencer, Olsezewski, & Howard, 2015). The main focus and benefit of RTI is to intervene and prevent difficulties with literacy development through a multi-tier process. Promoting smaller group assistance and identifying children that are struggling early through instruction have made a large impact on literacy development (Kruse, Spencer, Olsezewski, & Howard, 2015).

Overall, recent studies have shown that the application of RTI in preschool classrooms has assisted educators with monitoring student progress through high-quality instruction. It has also assisted teachers with identifying students that require further assistance and move into a different tier, for appropriate phonological awareness instruction (Kruse, Spencer, Olsezewski, & Howard, 2015). Furthermore, benefits of RTI through the application of early intervening has been shown to prove instruction through assessment data and application of differentiated instruction.

Challenge #1 - Appropriate training and teacher support (Andrea Olivares)

Response to Intervention is a multitiered model which focuses on preventing, identifying and addressing learning difficulties before the students fall behind and fail (Thomas et al., 2020). Some key elements of this model are screening tools used to identify students that are struggling, the multi tiered model to intervention, and lastly the continuous monitoring of each student’s progress to facilitate data-based decision making (Thomas et al., 2020).

Aside from all of the benefits of RtI such as identifying learning disabilities and early intervening, there have been some challenges when it comes to using this model in the school system. One important challenge to be addressed is the lack of appropriate training and support for teachers. Some districts have limited resources available for getting started, scaling up the framework for the entire district, and sustaining implementation (Thomas et al., 2020). Teachers that also develop concerns about implementing RtI in their classroom, can have a harder time implementing key elements such as data-based decision making and progress monitoring (Thomas et al., 2020). If the teachers are not having appropriate training in these areas, then the effectiveness of the program is at risk as well as teacher self-efficacy which is an important part of the program’s success (Thomas et al., 2020).

It is of great importance to provide teachers with the necessary tools and skills to support each learner to the best extent possible, as well as empowering them to explore different options to address the school’s needs (Hoover & Love, 2011). As stated by Fuchs & Bergeron, a skilled and responsive teacher will be able to observe where each student stands as well as design instruction that supports each learner.

In a study discussed by Thomas et al., found that increased teacher efficacy was associated with positive RtI outcomes. It has also been suggested in research that a cause of failure to correctly implement RtI is the lack of support structure (Thomas et al., 2020). Teachers are finding RtI challenging to implement because of the lack of training and understanding of the process (Thomas et al., 2020). This has been a central issue in many school districts trying to implement RtI, however having a collaborative consultation team can maintain staff support (Hoover & Love, 2011). According to the article District Evaluation of RTI Implementation: Success, Challenges, and Self-Efficacy, successful implementation of RtI in schools requires a support system as well as training and continuous evaluation of implementation; teachers must be given opportunities to engage in training and have access to updated and recent information. In the article Supporting School-Based Response to Intervention: A Practitioner’s Model, school staff received state or district training about the general and main components of implementing RtI; this professional development training empowered staff and increased their self-efficacy. In order to be successful implementing RtI, teachers must be prepared and have consistent support from the school and district (Fuchs & Bergeron, 2013).

Challenge #2 Misidentifying students with learning disabilities (Vanessa Lopez)

Response to Intervention or RTI, when carried out correctly and with fidelity enhances the education of students who are struggling to learn. RTI is a multi-tiered model which encompasses 3 tiers. With the use of these 3 tiers students who are struggling to achieve academic success are identified using a universal screening measure (The IRIS Center, 2006, p.4). The screening measure used to identify students in the first part of RTI and in Tier 1 varies among all schools around the nation. The varied use of screening methods among schools raises flags for concern, on whether the screening measures are resulting in accurate conclusions of students with learning disabilities.

This multi-tiered model has many advantages for students with true learning disabilities, but also brings disadvantages when misidentification of a learning disability can be brought upon a student who simply needed more help in a certain area. For example, Cakiroglu (2015) found that an uneven amount of attention and research had been given to problems in reading with RTL versus RTL being used for math. He concluded there might be a discrepancy on whether RTL is identifying learning disabilities or reading disabilities.

Misidentification of students with a learning disability not only has negative effects on the misidentified student, but also on the nationwide education system (Cakiroglu, 2015). The cost of teaching a student with a learning disability doubles in comparison with the cost of a student without a disability, therefore misidentifying students with learning disabilities can also bring negative consequences to the nation’s education budget (Cakiroglu, 2015). One of the negative effects of misidentifying a student is having a person go through life believing they have an actual learning disability, when in reality all they needed was a bit of extra help in certain areas.

Brozo (2010) highlighted that adolescents have higher chances of succeeding in academics and in their adulthood when they perceive themselves as legitimate and successful students. Brozo (2010) also stated that the first tier in RTI is the most important tier, but also the most unreliable, he stated that if responsive literacy instruction is provided at the first stage of RTI, this could prevent many adolescent students from moving into tier 2 and tier 3; this in-turn will avoid the stigma of participating in remedial courses. What students perceive about themselves academically may also have an impact on future academic success.

A best practice of the RTI model is to provide students with high-quality general education classroom instruction before deciding to use RTI, this is done to make sure the student has the highest chance of succeeding before using more intrusive measures, such as RTI (Cakiroglu, 2015; The IRIS Center, 2006). “high-quality” general education is a broad definition and can entail different levels across school-districts and classrooms; therefore, a student may or may not progress from tier 1 to tier 3 in one classroom versus another due to higher quality instruction in another classroom or school-district.

Kranzler et al. (2019) conducted a study on whether the RTI model over-identifies children and youth with specific learning disabilities who have a slight shortcoming in general cognitive abilities. The study concluded that the RTI model does over-identify students with weaknesses in general cognitive abilities. RTI model for identifying students with learning disabilities assumes that all students of the same grade and age group should advance at similar rates and have the same or similar learning abilities, Kranzler et al. (2019) argues this thinking is flawed and that an expected underachievement is not a disability.

References

Brown, J. E., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention with English Language Learners. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(5), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990804000509

Brozo, W. G. (2009). Response to Intervention or Responsive Instruction? Challenges and

Possibilities of Response to Intervention for Adolescent Literacy. Journal of Adolescent

& Adult Literacy, 53(4), 277–281.

Cakiroglu, O. (2015). Response to intervention: Early identification of students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 7(1), 170-181. https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.10399

Catts, H. W., Nielsen, D. C., Bridges, M. S., Liu, Y. S., & Bontempo, D. E. (2013). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413498115

Fuchs, W. W., & Bergeron, B. S. (2013). Viewpoints from the field: Impressions from teachers and administrators on the challenges and successes of RTI implementation in illinois. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 41(2), 3-12. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.lib.uwf.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=cabb4b20-8c81-415f-b9a0-87122ee70eb1%40sessionmgr4006

Gartland, D., & Strosnider, R. (2020). The use of response to intervention to inform special education eligibility decisions for students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720949964

Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.41.1.5

Heward, W., Alber-Morgan, S., & Konrad, M. (2018). Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education (11th ed.). Pearson.

Hoover, J. J., & Love, E. (2011). Supporting School-Based Response to Intervention: A Practitioner’s Model. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(3), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104300305

Klinger, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.41.1.6

Kranzler, J. H., Yaraghchi, M., Matthews, K., & Otero-Valles, L. (2020). Does the

Response-to-Intervention Model Fundamentally Alter the Traditional Conceptualization

of Specific Learning Disability? Contemporary School Psychology, 24(1), 80–88.

Kruse, L. G., Spencer, T. D., Olszewski, A., & Goldstein, H. (2015). Small Groups, Big Gains: Efficacy of a Tier 2 Phonological Awareness Intervention With Preschoolers With Early Literacy Deficits. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_ajslp-14-0035

The IRIS Center. (2006). RTI (part 1): An overview. Retrieved from https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti01/#content

Thomas, E. R., Conoyer, S. J., & Lembke, E. S. (2020). Districtwide evaluation of RTI implementation: Success, challenges, and self‐efficacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(3), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12226

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.004

Werts, M. G., Carpenter, E. S., & Fewell, C. (2014). Barriers and Benefits to Response to Intervention: Perceptions of Special Education Teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(2), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051403300202