1 - Effective Classroom interventions

(Anna) Through this multi tiered model, students will be monitored for success within each individual tier. Within this system you can see each student's learning progress, and if they require more intensive support interventions, throughout each tier (Hughes and Dexter, 2011). Tier one utilizes a universal screening system. This system uses short assessments, 3 times a year, to identify students who are displaying deficits within the general education curriculum (Hughes and Dexter, 2011). (Halee) However, each school may utilize their own assessment schedule, as long as multiple assessments are conducted throughout the school year to monitor and increase or decrease in academics. Response to Intervention: Implications for the Proficiency of Early Childhood Special Educators, suggests that assessments be conducted every grading period. These assessments allow for early intervention and a more intense intervention, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). (Anna) Tier two utilizes special interventions such as small group instructions (McMaster and Wagner, 2007). When small groups are formed, teachers utilize research-based interventions to promote their learning. Tier three involves individualized intensive instruction with a possible referral for special education services (Hughes and Dexter, 2007). Research-based interventions are furthered in this tier to individualized instruction based on the learners needs.

Benefits and Challenges to Implementing RtI

Benefit #1: Early Intervening - Yesenia Diaz

One of the benefits of Response to Intervention is Early Intervening. Early Intervening is a process in which students are helped through research-based screenings and interventions. This process is for all students, not only those who have disabilities. The biggest advantage of Early Intervening is that it does not wait for students to continuously struggle and eventually fail academically in order for intervention to take place. Screening usually takes place in a two-step screening process. During the first step, students must meet a high benchmark score in order to weed out the students who clearly do not need services. During the second assessment, a more complex detailed assessment is conducted to identify students who need services and also those who were considered false-positives (Turse & Albrecht, 2013, p. 87).

Moreover, Early Intervening allows all students to receive high-quality instruction in a general education setting. As each child is unique, so are their learning needs. When a child is evaluated, appropriate instruction is generated for this child. This allows the child to receive a more detailed and personalized instruction that is guaranteed to help bridge learning gaps. In Tier 1 of RTI, Teachers deliver high-quality instruction using research-based practices. Students are closely monitored to make sure they are meeting specific benchmarks. In this tier, a teacher can also modify instructions to personalize instruction even more for the child using specialized re-teaching skills and smaller group settings (Brown & Doolittle, 2008, p. 70).

Another reason why Early Intervening is a benefit of RTI is because it also reduces inappropriate referrals and placements in special education for students with and without learning disabilities. According to Hallan and Mock (2003), African American and Hispanic students are more likely to be disproportionately identified as learning disabled. This may be because of cultural bias, but studies also show that poverty does play a role in a student’s literacy development. Lack of qualified teachers, administrators, and supplies in low income areas contribute to learning deficiencies, which can in turn create inappropriate placements for students. Moreover, students could have a learning deficiency in language arts, but may have strengths in another subject. Through the process of Early Intervening, adequate assessments can help reveal the students learning strengths and weaknesses.

Benefit #2 Halee Harville

Tier decisions based on objective data

RTI is a multi-tiered approach implemented with high-quality instruction to monitor progress of students. At the center of the RTI model is data collection. Data collection is objective because it lacks the bias of personal opinion. According to, Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities, evaluations utilized for data collection originate from multiple assessments of the students; from standardized tests to curriculum based assessments. This data is utilized to monitor students progress and make instruction based decisions. Through analyzing the data, educators can see trends and patterns emerge. According to, Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities, data based documentation is meant to be a continuous monitor of student progress even in intervention. The process begins with weekly monitoring of all students, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). This is for only a short time, and not to exceed eight weeks, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). This start of collection data can be called “baseline data” and can be utilized to analyze and identify the problem, (Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities). If students are meeting expected benchmarks then there is no need for further intervention. However, if the objective data collected in this period shows that a student(s) are not meeting expectations then they are moved to RTI tier 2, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). Tier 2 provides the struggling students with intensive services and interventions along with their general education classes, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). This period should take longer than the first, but no more than one grading period. Students are reassessed to examine their progress or lack thereof. By assessing students again we begin to see patterns and trends in the data. We can see if the intervention is beneficial or if the student is stagnant. According to,m Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H. “students who continue to show little progress at this level of intervention are then considered for more intensive intervention as a part of tier 3.” Moreover, with continuous monitoring educators are able to determine effectiveness and make modifications if necessary, (Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities).

Moreover, the effectiveness of objective data collection and continuous monitoring can be seen in Implementation of Response to Intervention at Middle School by Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L. This article examines the implementation of RTI in middle school. When starting the implementation process the school put together a team to collect and analyze individual student data, (Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L., 2008). Firstly, the school utilized their students’ standardized test schools in reading, math, science and writing. The school was able to identify that 80% of their students were meeting benchmarks, (Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L., 2008). The assessments are continued throughout the school year and data is collected. The screening schedule was set for fall, winter, and spring; this allows for educators to target students struggling base on the continuous progress monitoring, (Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L., 2008). The data collected allows for educators to move students to their appropriate tiers. If a student is not meeting requirements the progress monitoring allows for educators to create a more effective intervention; the more data collected the more accurate interventions can be. Continuing on, the article concludes that “the implementation of screening and progress monitoring tools, although still in its infancy, provides an objective means of early identification of students needs,” (Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L., 2008). Objective data provides the basis of progress monitoring in the RTI model and can majorly and positively impact early intervention.

Challenge #1 - Anna Ballinger

Collaborating to integrate Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction

As identified by Hoover and Love (2011), integrating tier one and tier two of the Response-to-Intervention model can prove challenging. Tier one utilizes a universal screening tool. This tool has assessment measures used to focus on specific skills of each child (Hughes and Dexter, 2011). Tier two includes specialized interventions placing low-performing students into small groups to be provided extra support (McMaster and Wagner, 2007). With this implementation, general education teachers are being asked to perform tasks they are not well-versed with. As RTI is implemented into classroom settings, it is important to continue teacher training to provide general education teachers with the knowledge to effectively engage in RTI (Barrio and Combes, 2015).

To effectively implement RTI, general education and Special education teachers need to have an understanding of research-based interventions required in tier one and tier two (Harlacher, Nelson Walker, and Sanford, 2010). General education teachers are discouraged by the process, and implementation of RTI procedures (Barrio and Combes, 2015). With this barrier, special education teachers will need to collaborate with general education teachers to provide support for what intensive interventions should look like and how to teach utilizing research-based instruction methods (Harlacher, Nelson Walker, and Sanford, 2010). This collaboration of teachers may prove to be difficult in the school setting. General education teachers have a classroom full of students, some of which require more intensive services within the RTI model. Teachers now have to conduct skill acquisition assessments (tier one) while engaging with special education teachers to provide support to intensive intervention students who qualify for small groups (tier two).

Therefore, the RTI model can prove challenging to integrate tier one and tier two into the school system. RTI is a complex multi-tiered model that has many benefits as well as challenges it presents to teachers. Some things that can help with decreasing or eliminating this challenge include continued staff training on research-based interventions, monitor the effectiveness of the interventions implemented, and how to best deliver interventions in a general education classroom.

Challenge #2: Abigail Graham

Distinguishing learning differences from disabilities in diverse learners

As diversity and inclusion have increased in the classrooms so have the challenges. Response to intervention or RTI, was implemented to assist with the challenges by differing from the previously practiced criteria while offering different tiers of learning assistance and evaluation that is more specific to the learners needs. Hoover and Love ( 2011), describe Response to intervention (RTI) as an “Evolving practice; a school-based, collaborative consultation RTI model offers a process that enables a school to apply RTI principles to its unique setting and concerns”. RTI offers early intervention by identifying needs of learners earlier rather than later. RTI also utilizes valuable and objective data to evaluate or screen for which tier would best apply to the learner. However, “Instruction is based on cultural classroom routines” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). While a plethora of work and education goes into the training and implementation of RTI there have been challenges in distinguishing learning differences from disabilities in diverse learners. This challenge has been identified by Hoover and Love (2011) and others. This challenge has the potential to allow team leaders, teachers and other professionals utilizing RTI to misinterpret cultural differences and a disability and vice versa.

Furthering on the importance of distinguishing learning differences from disabilities, Hoover describes this RTI challenge best when he stated "Response to intervention must assist educators to better clarify linguistic and cultural appropriate behaviors to avoid the continuation of misinterpreting these behaviors as disability characteristics" (Hoover, 2009b, p. 39). Another implication with this challenge has been identified that “students from minority groups are overrepresented among those with scores in the slow learner (SL) range” (Daley, Spencer, & Wodrich, 2006). Daley, Spencer, & Woodrich (2006) concluded that since RTI was implemented it has allowed a misrepresentation of students with cultural differences such as minority groups to be labeled as students with learning disabilities that has the potential to allow these students to be subjected to stigmatization. Identifying cultural learning differences from disabilities is a challenge of RTI that is not represented in the RTI criteria.

Furthermore, there is objective research that further supports the implications of the previously described challenge regarding assumptions and subjective understanding of cultural differences. Ordonez-Jasis & Ortiz, 2006, found that there are common beliefs that children that use a second language are not prepared for school and their second language will negatively impact their achievement and abilities in school. This supports the discussed challenge due to its ability to affect the quality of these culturally diverse student’s education due to social-cultural assumptions. Untrained educators and team leaders that are not educated that this popular belief is not evidenced or supported by objective, empirical data have the potential to execute bias when making educational or tier decisions regarding second language students.

The main conclusion that can be drawn from RTI when utilized by team leaders and educators is the challenge of distinguishing cultural learning differences from learning disabilities has the capability to subject children to stigma, bias, and has led to an increasing population of minority individuals being mislabeled with learning disabilities. Along with the increasing needs in classrooms for cultural diversity and inclusion, response to intervention, RTI, faces many cultural, diverse, and inclusion challenges.

References

Barrio, B. L., & Combes, B. H. (2015). General Education Pre-Service Teachers’ Levels of Concern on Response to Intervention (RTI) Implementation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38, 121-137. doi:10.1177/0888406414546874

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

Hallahan, D. P., & Mock, D. P. (2003). A brief history of the field of learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 16–27). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Harlacher, J. E., Nelson Walker, N. J., & Sanford, A. K. (2010). The "I" in RTI: Research-Based Factors for Intensifying Instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(6), 30-38.