Schools have only been in session for a few weeks. Already parents are troubled by reading problems their children are bringing home from school. It’s painful to hear of an otherwise happy child who succumbs to anxiety and distress over school due to reading.
Reading should be a joyful experience. But for many children—reading is a nightmare.
Response to Intervention (RTI)—the supposed miracle assessment and intervention program–got its start as part of the IDEA reauthorization in 2004, and was universally administered to all children, in many school districts, under No Child Left Behind.
RTI was developed to find reading problems early and to prevent children from being placed in special education.
I wrote a post for Anthony Cody’s Living in Dialogue blog on January 24, 2015, stating the reasons RTI is problematic. And another on my own website.
In November, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education published a study showing that students who received RTI for reading did worse than those who did not participate in the program.
Also troubling, is that RTI was placed into schools without enough evidence to indicate it would be a successful program. It was not as “scientifically proven” as we were led to believe.
The program came about around the same time as Reading First—a federal program columnist Anne C. Lewis called the “U.S. Department of Education’s ‘little Enron’ scandal.” Reading First was swept under the rug and forgotten. I wrote about Reading First in Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students.
In “Response to Intervention: Ready or Not? Or, From Wait-to-Fail to Watch Them-Fail,” RTI was described as not ready for prime time.
Response to Intervention (RTI) models of diagnosis and intervention are being implemented rapidly throughout the schools. The purposes of invoking an RTI model for disabilities in the schools clearly are laudable, yet close examination reveals an unappreciated paucity of empirical support for RTI and an overly optimistic view of its practical, problematic issues. Models are being put into practice without adequate research and logistical support and neglect the potential negative long-term impact on students with disabilities.
Although the notion of RTI as a process of service delivery may have potential to be helpful to both regular education and special education, the extant evidence does not support the seemingly unbridled enthusiasm for its current readiness status from its proponents who appear to have been overly optimistic and often incomplete in their presentations of the RTI model, with regard to its research support, ease of implementation, breadth of applications in the schools, clarity of what constitutes responsiveness, and the ability of the RTI model to benefit children with learning disabilities (LD).
To be fair, there are some parents and teachers who like RTI. Others believe, and there has been evidence, that schools don’t always fully implement RTI. They don’t have the resources or the manpower to carry out the program like they should.
But many parents and teachers resent RTI. They believe it keeps children from getting the special education services they need and should get under IDEA.
RTI should not be confused with special education. Since RTI, there have been fewer resource classes and support for students with learning disabilities—particularly for children with dyslexia.
It has been two years since the results of the 2015 study were published. Students continue to be evaluated with RTI, and placed into Tiers for remediation, even though it has been identified as a failed program. Millions have been spent. Students deserve something different when it comes to reading.
- Return to resource classes and other in-class support systems.
- Provide adequate assessment and assistance with programs known to work.
- Ensure that teachers get strong backgrounds in reading including dyslexia, and support to implement good reading programs.
- Provide parents with a voice at school board meetings and within their local schools in meetings with teachers and administrators.
At this point, we should provide parents with programs that address the reading remediation needs of their children. RTI does not seem to be that program.
Recently, distinguished Vanderbilt professors Douglas and Lynn S. Fuchs, co-authors of RTI, defended the program with the following claims:
- Schools didn’t implement the program rigorously enough.
- RTI needs a simpler structure.
- We shouldn’t conclude that RTI is a failure.
If the Fuchs want to see RTI continue as a program, they should go back to the drawing board. In the meantime, it’s troubling to see schools hang on to a program shown not to work.
References
Lewis, Anne C. 2006. “Dramatis Personae.” Phi Delta Kappan. 88(4): 259-60.
We had an instance here in TN in which schools were using RTI as a dumping ground for kids that got good grades, were not learning disabled but did not test well. So they dumped them in RTI to protect their precious test scores from being negatively affected by these students that did poorly on the practice tests. It is all a racket.
Hi Karen, I think everyone does it differently. Some schools haven’t got the resources or the staff for the interventions. Also, resent that ALL students have to sit through so much testing. Thanks!.
This article really makes no sense. The person writing this doesn’t even have a fundamental understanding of what RTI is. She keeps referring to “it” as a program. RTI is not an intervention or curriculum or program. She needs to further her understanding before writing an article disputing its effectiveness. Ugh! While you’re researching what RTI really is, try to research the effectiveness of special education programming or lack thereof.
Please read the U.S. DOE study. I provided a link. The other report as well. I understand some people like RTI, but many parents and teachers disagree. Many believe as I do that it is meant to keep students from special education.
Do you have a preference in which model is used to identify student with a specific learning disability?
Yes. Thank you for asking that question!
A qualified teacher who has studied reading instruction thoroughly, should be able to spot children exhibiting learning disorders early. Preschool teachers can spot signs too if they are well-prepared. They can note speech problems, gross and fine motor difficulties at play, even social interaction issues. It helps if they have manageable class sizes. They can discretely flag trouble spots and contact parents especially in the case of speech and language difficulties. And I know it’s not perfect but I also still prefer the discrepancy model. And later if a child is identified as having dyslexia or some other disability there are ways to help them. Preschool and kindergarten in my opinion should be pure delight for reading and play.
RtI is a problem solving model for all academic areas-not just reading. It also serves as a framework for problem solving with behavior. Research supports that if a school’s “core” instruction is not providing for a large enough percentage of students to be successful, then the core needs to be looked at to determine what is not being implemented correctly with the curricular materials or the methods of instruction.
I understand that many in education believe special education assistance and support should be provided for students. But if we provide special education services for too large a percentage of students then what makes it special.
The “whole” education process, student behaviors, academic skills, social learning and on and on need to be addressed first in the Tier 1. Then move to Tier 2 and Tier 3 as needed. There should not be a smooth and straight path to special education services. Data needs to exist to determine need and disability.
Get the facts straight.
I have stated this several times now. The U.S. Dept. of Ed. did a study that shows children who do RTI do worse than those who don’t. Cite another report too. Please check out the links and spend some time reading them. I did not write them.
You say “research supports.” O.K. could you show me the unbiased study? I will read it.
And where do you get that so many are in special education? It’s my understanding that some schools don’t even have resource classes anymore.
Getting a student into special education has always been a thoughtful process that required much teacher/parent feedback and professional and parent meetings.
The decision was never made lightly.
But some parents want services for their children and RTI shouldn’t present a roadblock.
You should really read more widely. Developing such a die-hard opinion based on one or two studies and some anecdotal evidence is lazy. I expect more from my third-graders. This comes across as a “Karen-type” rant.
Ouch! I read about reading all the time because it is an area dear to me and I used to teach it. If RTI is so wonderful, why is there such an uproar about how teachers teach reading and low reading scores? Sorry. Can’t have it both ways. I still think about RTI. I fear it pushes children to be reading too early.
For the record, I really hate the “Karen” references. I have friends named Karen who are good people. Stop it. Everyone should simply stop it. It is demeaning and unkind.
We started doing RTI this year at my high school in Nashville, Tennessee. The program’s name has been changed to PLT (Personal Learning Time). I have a Tier II intervention group of 14 students, which is too many for me to “personalize” instruction. I see these students every day for 40 minutes. A big problem is that I have been given no materials other than website links. Teachers are on their own when it comes to creating a curriculum. Fortunately, I am a Reading teacher with a Masters degree in Reading. Other teachers do not know how to teach reading, so PLT class is essentially free time for students.
Wow! Seems like changing the name of programs is name of the game lately (like Common Core to Next Generation) . However, what you describe is sad. Thanks for sharing.
After not getting my son tested I told them for my grandson just test him and he qualified for an IEP I told the school RTI they could do but I did not want to wait for testing they did not like it but he got tested and got an IEP Sooner not later!
Great point, John! I’ve heard you must be adamant about getting testing and an IEP, but it can be done. RTI should not keep a child from getting services if needed. Thanks.
I believe that by law they are required to do testing if it is demanded. RTI cannot be used to delay testing for special education services.
Correct. They have to do the testing…which in no way is used to answer the three SLD eligibility questions. So you are putting your kid through 6 hour long tests for nothing. Educate yourself.
The problem with being tested for sped is that a lot of parents don’t know they can require it. That’s what I have been told. And it is difficult to get their child tested. It must be demanded.
That is incorrect; it is a team decision
The school is not required to conduct a formal evaluation just because a parent requests/demands it. Whether to evaluate or not is a team (including the parent) decision. If the team decides not to evaluate and the parent still insists they have the opportunity to file for due process. This is the law set forth in the IDEA.
I didn’t say they were required to do it, but usually if a student is having difficulties teachers know it. Most take such a request seriously. With RTI some parents feel like they are being steered away from a sped placement.
I have been out of the classroom for too long to remember the specifics of RtI, but I do remember that it was developed as a response to the growth of the special education population and the associated costs. Originally it was supposed to provide an avenue to see whether a student’s problems could be addressed with more short term, intense instruction, The process was supposed to be time limited, but it began to morph into a pseudo-program that was taking the place of special education services when it shouldn’t have. In many cases, a child who is struggling with learning issues needs to be assessed through a case study process without delay. RtI was being used to circumvent that system. It is a shame because I believe there are legitimate uses for RtI; good teachers who have had the necessary resources and support have instituted such additional supports without a formal structure for decades. It is unfortunate that by mandating a procedure, people will look for ways to subvert its purpose.
Good gen. ed. teachers with manageable class sizes can spot children who are not developing well. Assessing all children with RTI sometime using lousy DIBELS can turn children off to reading. They often bring in unqualified individuals to do the testing. I’ve always believed that RTI was meant to steer children out of special education. RTI was used in Texas where they placed on cap on who could get special ed. services.
People need to do some research on the benefits of an IEP and the long term effects. They are pretty sad, so pushing for kids to get an IEP sooner is not a good solution. Why not offer some great reading interventions instead.
Please read the U.S. DOE study. If it doesn’t work it doesn’t work. No one has ever pushed a child to get an IEP unless the teachers and parents signed off on it. There have always been many steps to getting an IEP. Some parents want services for their child.
What research on the benefits of IEP & long-term effects are you citing? And if substantiated, might that not reflect poor implementation due to the underfunding noted in this post plus the state-budget-slashing since 2007?
Anecdotally 2 of my 3 kids (1 bipolar, IEP 6th-12th) the other severe adhd IEP 3rd-12th) benefited tremendously from their IEP’s. These two musicians who struggled mightily K-12 were admitted to Music-Tech college majors & got good grades there.
The differences in IEP implementation from one district to another are all about the $, I expect. Ours is a well-funded school in a moderately wealthy area. If Congress were to up its IDEA funding even to 30% (double the historical funding but still below the goal), perhaps the benefits my kids got by virtue of local funding could be extended far & wide.
Thank you, Viv. Excellent points! Thank you for sharing. And I absolutely agree with you. IEPs can be helpful when done right. It is also great to hear some positive feedback about IEPs I am so happy your children did well.
My school uses MAP as the deciding factor for RTI. We try to explain why not good or bad, but we aren’t listened to
Interesting how everyone follows different rules for how to use RTI.
We use RTI at my school, and have for the past 7 years. It never seems to make a difference, and we do implement with fidelity. Get this, I have 30 minutes of Core reading time, 30 minutes of Tier 2 intervention, and 30 minutes of Tier 3 intervention. If I had more time for holistic reading, maybe I wouldn’t have to have intervention for 20 kids in a 4th grade class?
I’m with you, Dave. Thank you.
It has been implemented at my tn high school. It takes up an extraordinary amount of time and resources. When I was personally involved in it, it took valuable time away from my classes.
Not as much seems to be written about RTI at the high school level, so thank you for sharing, Roy.
Roy and Nancy,
I am currently a high school special education teacher in Memphis, TN. Before my current teaching position, I was a high school special education teacher in Mississippi. RTI in a high school setting simply doesn’t work. It takes up valuable class time for both students and teachers. In my experience, resource classes were some of the best tools a student and teacher had, But, sadly, it seems resource classes are a thing of the past even though every special education teacher I know says they are much better for student growth.
Hi Scott, Thanks for sharing your experience with RTI. I agree with you and also agree with you about resource classes. I think students get more individualized attention.
The flaw in it is obvious to a mother. The problem is that it is seperate and unrelated to any class work. Yet you are looking for an improvement in classroom learning. It is contrived. My child needed a tutor to walk her through the over complicated assignments.
Yes! My son is in 2 “connection” classes. 1 for reading and 1 for math but they do their own work and assignments instead of helping him with his regular class work which is too difficult for him to do alone. So a child that struggles with academics is placed in 7 academic classes with no art no music and no physical education. So frustrating!!
No art, music, or PE is troubling. Along with all that you both say, I would hate reading. I appreciate your sharing.
I teach kindergarten and our school implements 45 minutes of school wide RTI time every morning. We also are required to have a 150 minute reading block and a 60 minute math block. Reading is not fun for children anymore because you are not allowed to read for enjoyment….. it has to have a “purpose” and the “purpose” always seems to be for testing and data. I fear the damage we are being forced to do to our little ones. They don’t necessarily have learning problems… they are just not developmentally ready for this overload of information and skills.
This is a huge worry! I am troubled by the push to identify problems when it is normal development. Thank you, Michelle.
Absolutely agree with you!!
One point of clarification would be that RtI is really a framework not a program—a framework of identification of learning needs and then implementing research based interventions to address those needs. RtI should be happening with students who have an IEP to document there “response to” the interventions being provided as part of their IEP goals.
Why? When children do worse with RTI than without it? Teachers taught what was required on the IEP long before RTI.
I really like this post too much because Nancy is highlighting today’s biggest headache of any parents. This kind of programs sometime demoralize the students as well as their parents.
I’ve been a school psychologist for almost 30 years. I have endured endless rounds of reading wars from the sidelines.. I’ve seen and heard of all kinds of nonsense that’s presented as evidenced-based reading interventions: re-teaching developmental motor skills like crawling on the floor, placing colored lenses over text, conducting reading interviews (do you like to read better in a chair or on the floor?), and teaching kids to use picture clues when they can’t read a word. Telling students that good readers guess unknown words is not teaching reading! Telling a student when they don’t know the word to simply try to “sound it out” is not teaching reading. Finally, the most ridiculous intervention was when reading specialists railed against fluorescent lights in the classroom and made teachers provide reading instruction in the low light with a only a floor lamp or two on. It had no basis in science. And there are some universities that are still espousing whole language as the best method to teach reading to most students…. based on no or flawed evidence. It is shameful.
When I saw an enthusiastic teacher leading a group of 3 first graders in a Tier III reading intervention that was Orton Gillingham based, I almost cried with joy. Finally, struggling readers were getting what they needed for 45 minutes. every day. They were highly engaged in learning. No boring busy work — just lots of interaction with manipulatives (tiles etc) and white-boards. Finally, I witnessed intensive and individualized instruction.! Compare that to the special education classroom which had 13 students to 1 teacher for 30 minutes of reading instruction. Which would you chose for your first grader who is struggling to read? I’m not dissing that SPED teacher…. she had just recently transferred to that school
Conversely, I have observed many Tier III intervention groups in classrooms in middle schools and some elementary school and have left the classroom feeling sick to my stomach. Groups were too large and teaching was not nearly explicit enough. Middle and high schools simply call groups of students doing make-up work “response to intervention.” They do not know what to do. This is not intensive intervention, it is a study hall. If some people think this is RTI, no wonder they hate it! I would hate it, too. But this is not an example of response to intervention. Don’t be fooled! Accountability should be the heart of the IEP and RTI. Like SPED, RTI is much more likely to succeed if it has the infrastructure to the support teachers who implement Intervention Plans or IEPs. Support is needed no matter if you are SPED or Gen ED.
Another problem is that many Data Teams are not trained in interpreting progress monitoring data and resources are too limited to make the best decision for each student receiving interventions.
Years ago, a parent at an IEP team questioned the SPED teacher “How do you know that my child is making progress on that reading goal? Show me the data!” The SPED teacher could not respond. She did not have any data. Both Intervention Plans and IEP goals require accountability. Assuming the interventions are appropriate and were implemented with fidelity, if the student’s achievement gap is getting wider, that’s a good sign that the student should be referred for an evaluation for a special education! If data teams don’t know when to refer a student for an evaluation, that’s a serious problem. I’m not typically granted the time to attend Data meetings…..but that’s another story.
Prior to RTI, General Education teachers were “supposed” to provide interventions in general education to struggling students before they could be referred for an evaluation. But there was no accountability. There was no plan in place to improve the student’s skills, no way to measure progress with any fidelity, no training, and no resources to support the teacher. In fact, teachers may have been reluctant to provide interventions to a struggling student because it might improve the student’s skills just enough to prevent them from qualifying for special education services In other words, the outcome of the intervention could cause the achievement/ability gap to narrow just enough so that the student would not qualify for special education. That’s sounds ridiculous but I can understand why not intervening could be construed by some people as an act of compassion so the student could get help they needed SPED.
That was very hard for me to say but let’s go on….
As the result, many students languished in the classroom waiting until they got further and further behind — as they needed low achievement standard scores to obtain a sufficiently wide enough discrepancy in favor of their IQ. Heaven help those students who had no gap…both a low IQ and achievement! For the most part, the achievement/ability gap was an arbitrary and unfair way to identify students for a specific learning disability.
https://ec.ncpublicschools.gov/disability-resources/specific-learning-disabilities/sld-policy-addendum-and-resources/SLDManual_Final.pdf
What’s Wrong With IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
1. The classification lacks validity. IQ-discrepant students and students with low achievement consistent with IQ who do not meet criteria for an intellectual disability do not differ practically in behavior, achievement, cognitive skills, response to instruction, and neurobiological correlates once definitional variability is controlled (Stuebing et al., 2002).
2. Although it is not an intuitive finding, IQ is not a strong predictor of intervention response when the initial level of academic development is included (Stuebing, Barth, Molfese, Weiss, & Fletcher, 2009).
3. Brain activation profiles of these students are not meaningfully different (Simos, Fletcher, Rezaie, & Papanicolaou, 2014; Tanaka et al., 2011).
I have to teach Tier II Intervention for 40 minutes 3 times a week. All of my materials are photo-copied. My real problem is that I have to test students every other week. Why??? It’s not like reading improvement is going to occur this frequently! The testing is awkward. The kids feel weird about it and so do I….because I know it isn’t valid!!
That testing is ridiculous! I’m sorry you have to do this. Thanks for sharing thought, Susan.
Thank you for this! I kept thinking the same thing as I read. RtI is not a program, but a framework for supporting a variety of needs in a variety of learning and behavioral areas. There are programs that you use to meet this goal. I’m wondering if RtI has been unsuccessful because it’s purpose is misunderstood. It would be interesting research based on this post. From a purely informal observational standpoint based on 3 districts I’ve worked for, it works really well in those that take the time to plan and implement correctly. In my current district, parents and teachers love it because students don’t have to have a disability to get the help they need. Food for thought.
You said, “I’m wondering if RtI has been unsuccessful because it’s purpose is misunderstood.”
This is used to redirect blame for programs that don’ t work to teachers.
Students where RTI was used did worse than students who didn’t get it.
And children without a disability shouldn’t have to sit through all the assessment. They would have done well anyway.
The question is, why are we paying for a failed program (framework) when it has been shown not to work?
I agree with not needing to test the top 50%. What’s the point? It’s taking time away from instruction.
I think Erica hit this right on the head. As a school psychologist, I always wondered before RTI (and PBIS), how were students being identified by teachers as potential candidates for special education, particularly for learning or behavioral difficulties? It was probably not as objective as it is within an RTI framework. Furthermore, consider the use of RTI at a systems-wide level. For example, what happens when one teacher refers a third of her classroom for learning difficulties while another teacher in the same grade, same school refers none of her students? ALL of that data can be very useful within the framework of RTI (or a Multitiered Systems of Supports/MTSS). What happens when 40% of School A’s population is not successful in Tier 1, whereas 10% of School B’s population (within the same district, same grade levels) is not successful in Tier 1? Then it looks like School A needs to reexamine their Tier 1 curriculum and perhaps consult with School B. (By the way, the recommended guideline is that 80% of students in a school can progress with Tier 1 alone without the need for further intervention; 15% may require Tier 2; and for the remaining 5% the first two tiers are not sufficient and they need Tier 3).
A third of the class referred? What special programs exist anymore to assist students? And that certainly sounds like a lot of students.
Teachers used to have to document academic and behavioral difficulties. Much thought along with testing and lots of meetings went into placement decisions.
I thought it was a better way of looking at a child’s difficulties.
Also, teachers have always collected information (data) on children. We’ve had simple and more complex reading assessments for years. And really, most children don’t need to be put through this. I think it could detract kids from reading who actually love to read!
its not evaluative enough
Our students that are struggling are put on tiers so that they can try small group work or Reading Recovery to see if that helps before going to SPED or Dyslexia testing. I thought the RTI framework was put into place to try out different interventions to see if the students could improve without needing SPED or Dyslexia. Are you saying that you think the RTI process takes too long and the students don’t get help soon enough? My K-5 school in Texas has 2 SPED teachers with paras helping and are overloaded. The Dyslexia teachers are too. It seems to me we are not understanding how these kids are learning or are not trained to notice early behaviors and we have an epidemic of children needing help. What is it that we in K-1 are not doing that helps the kids start out right so that they don’t need so many interventions or why are there so many students who do need help today versus 20 years ago??
You shouldn’t have to test the whole class and waste everyone’s time to determine which children have reading difficulties. And doing this so early raises questions.
A hunch of mine is that children are being pushed to read beyond their development too soon. Kindergarten really shouldn’t be the new first grade.
Yes! We are pushing them to read before they are developmentally ready. My district wants kids reading at a fountas & pinnell level D by end of kindergarten! Idiocy.
The fact that you call RTI a “program” shows that you have no knowledge whatsoever of RTI. In fact, several of your wording choices exemplify your ignorance on the topic.
There isn’t enough time or space to explain in this format. As someone who attempted to educate teachers and administrators about RTI, I can tell you first hand that the biggest problem with attempting to implement the appropriate and research based assessments and interventions is the unbelievable pushback from teachers and administrators to the idea, the lack of real and appropriate training and the lack of resources. My experience is that people begrudgingly did a halfass job on what they were forced to implement while bein supervised by someone who understood it even less. Then they call it RTI, blame all the worlds problems on it, and go back to not working with ALL students and instead passing them on to SPED – i.e. Getting them out of their hair. Diet and exercise work when ACTUALLY done. The research so far on the results of RTI are like going to Weight Watchers for one day, saying you don’t believe it will work, not following it and then complaining that you’ve actually gained weight when you’re “on” Weight Watchers.
You can snipe all you want at me, the fact is the research shows thus far that it doesn’t work, and those who promoted the program said it was “scientifically proven.” It wasn’t.
You attempted to educate others about RTI? May I ask your title?
Teachers I know are almost always open to trying new approaches. The fact that so many don’t care for RTI speaks volumes. They have tried for years to make it work. There is usually never enough manpower for all the assessment. More importantly, many parents don’t like it either.
Also, blaming the teachers doesn’t work. Teachers should be included on any new idea that affects how they teach. If they aren’t able to do the program, I’m sorry, the model, like they are supposed to, something is wrong with it. If there isn’t enough money provided, something is wrong with it.
You can defend yourself all you want with attacks to my background. You site ZERO. Credible sources and just gave a blog you’ve been called out on. If you REALLY must know I have a Masters plus 30 in School Psychology, an additional Masters in Educational leadership, and an additional 30 credit hours in school related coursed. I have served K-12 directly as a school psychologist, and spent 6 years as an RTI and PBIS consultant. I know the research. You don’t. I’m not teacher blaming. Like every professional thee are good and bad. And my experience in RTI shows me intelligent teachers embrace it and have success with it. Again, it’s NOT a program. I’m sorry your district didn’t train you, please be a role model and educate yourself before you attack a persons background. I’m scared to death you have a blog teachers follow.
Imagine if people invested as much time learning about RTI as they do bashing it? ????
Whoa! Cool down. I am not attacking you. I merely wondered why you were defending RTI so vigorously. I wondered if you were a professor with ties to the program, or a an administrator. Now I know. Thank you for telling me.
First, I’m not sure you read the post. I cite the U.S. Dept. of Education report that claims students do worse with RTI than those who don’t go through it. And another report that states RTI was never “scientifically proven.” I did not write those reports.
While it is true that I have not administered the program ( I am no longer teaching), I have read a lot about it. And I have heard from many teachers and PARENTS who don’t like it. I wrote a post for Anthony Cody’s blog that was well received. The link is there. I understand how RTI works. You seem to be attacking me just because I disagree with you.
If you read the post, I acknowledge that there are those who claim it isn’t administered well, but it is due to the lack of resources–not teachers.
I also stated, to be fair, that some like the program.
I am troubled that a school psychologist is complaining about teachers doing RTI. Teachers and school psychologists should work together. And claiming that those teachers who disagree with you that it works, or they have trouble administering it, are not intelligent
I am not sure in what capacity you have helped those teachers when they are left to administer RTI. For some it seems to be a nightmare.
But I am especially troubled that this program does so much assessment so early. And that along with this we are seeing diminishing special ed. services.
I taught special education for 25 years mostly learning disabilities. Was certified in emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, dev. disabilities, gifted and I have a PhD in education leadership.
Let’s just agree to disagree on RTI. I wish you well.
If RTI is repealed, what is the replacement? I see a reference to in-class support systems, resource classes, and reading programs. What specifically are these? I hope they would be targeted to the evident needs of the students or the classroom. Wouldn’t teachers and parents want to know if these programs are effective, if students are responding to whatever interventions you are referring to? Then if these reading programs and in-class support systems aren’t working, I would think teachers and especially parents would want them to be changed. If we agree on these points, I’m not sure how what you are suggesting is outside of the basic framework of RTI/MTSS.
Resource classes used to provide an hour or two a day of intensive reading remediation with a teacher who specializes in corrective reading and/or learning disabilities.
These teachers also work along with general ed. teachers to help students succeed in the general class.
In class assistance could be worked out with a general and special ed. teacher co-teaching. The student would get intermittent help from a resource class teacher.
There have been many reading programs created throughout the years.
The discrepancy model used to be used instead of RTI but qualified teachers should work with a variety of professionals and parents to determine if a student needs reading or math assistance.
Massive screening of children with so much assessment especially when they are so young is troubling.
Again, this all sounds to me like you are describing Tier 1, 2 and 3 support. If it is the assessment that is so troubling, I agree that students are overassessed, but I blame that on the state tests that are extraordinarily time-consuming and have virtually nothing to do with RTI since they provide no usable data in a timely manner. Good universal screeners are brief and results are immediate. One of the best (oral reading fluency) takes less than 5 minutes per student and is very predictive of general reading ability. The reason all students should be screened three times per year is so we can objectively assess whether Tier 1 instruction is effective. If it is the age that students are assessed that is so troubling, I would say that the sooner a deficit is detected, the better it can be remediated. I don’t like the idea of Kindergarteners sitting at a computer for 30 minutes taking an anxiety-provoking test, but there are more appropriate, more brief measures out there.
I’m not sure Lauren if you read what I wrote:
“In November, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education published a study showing that students who received RTI for reading did worse than those who did not participate in the program.
Also troubling, is that RTI was placed into schools without enough evidence to indicate it would be a successful program. It was not as “scientifically proven” as we were led to believe.”
I see that the authors of the DOE study you linked go to great links to point out that the research is intended to look at the students assigned to intervention groups who are near cut points for a given level of risk. The methodology of course did not use random assignment to groups but instead an analysis of regression. On Page 45 they determine that the Impact group schools provided more intervention and used data to make decisions more frequently than the comparison group. Table 4.1 also shows that more students in the intervention groups were moved to less intensive interventions after receiving services, implying that their reading skills improved. A smaller number progressed to the most intensive level of intervention. The negative effect was noted in the one narrow group of 1st grade students (those close to the cut point and assigned to intervention) and on one measure of ability. The 2nd grade intervention group showed an insignificant improvement and there was no difference within the 3rd grade group. It’s a good study in many ways but I am not certain your interpretation that it reflects that the overall framework of RTI is harmful is well founded after reading the entire document. On another note when a parent requests evaluation it is important to know that the school must meet with the parent and discuss the concern. As a team they may then decide to pursue further evaluation or not based on the existing evidence. They may also decide to collect more information and meet again at a later date to make a decision. The evaluation process itself in many districts is very much dependent on reviewing all relevant factors including the amount of exposure to high quality intervention and how well the skills improved as a result. Simple discrepancy has long been plagued with problems such as the impact of a low subtest or domain level score pulling down the full scale score or broadest measure of G. That makes it much more difficult for those students to exhibit a 15 or 20 point difference between scores. It has always been a crude measure of a varied and nuanced set of needs that we call learning disabilities. I believe ,based on my years of experience and readings in the literature, that the framework of RTI is promising and a good starting point for organizing the approach to meeting all kids needs. It is afr from simple and there is as of yet no easy recipe to follow but I believe as we continue to gather good research like the one you cite we will learn and improve as a profession of educators.
RTI in my opinion is a waste of time for certain students. There are students who need it; but there are some who do not and if a parent knows their child and tells the school “this is what is going on.. here is how we can work together” then don’t do RTI, work with the parent! Parent knows their child best! Especially if a child is gifted and doesn’t have a learning disability but has a sensory, which doesn’t go under RTI ring. So does RTI Fail? Yes and no. In this case, yes. but for others it doesn’t.
Thanks for your input, Liz. I agree. Teachers and parents working together as a team is what’s best for children. It should be a motto!
Angie was correct…. this was not about the overall effectiveness of RTI…. it was on the impact of RTI on marginally eligible students….not the full range of students..
Unlike earlier studies, which address the overall effectiveness of RtI, this study’s research design answers a question about effective targeting, by comparing the outcomes for students just below and just above the cut point of eligibility for intervention. This approach provides an estimate of the impact of interventions on the students slightly below grade-level reading standards, rather than for the full range of students served by interventions. This impact on the marginally eligible student served is important for assessing the effective targeting of intervention resources, but it does not assess whether the RtI framework as a whole is effective in improving student outcomes or whether reading interventions are effective for students well below grade-level standards .????
Obviously you did not read carefully enough…..
I am a tutor, and almost a reading specialist (2.5 classes away from graduating). I despise the RTI process. I understand that we are trying not to provide too much support, but it means students who need the most help are halfway through the school year before they actually get the help they need. I have a student I tutor who just got moved to Tier II… and we are halfway through the second quarter.