Reflection of RtI
Kristen Reynolds
November 2010
Two uniquely different approaches to, possibly, place students in a school’s Exceptional Children’s (EC) program have emerged. Both the Problem Solving and Standard Protocol models of Response To Intervention (RTI) use tiered systems to provide intervention and possible EC placement for North Carolina students. While both models use a number of tiers for students to pass through before EC placement and have a few other similarities, there are many differences that arise when one critically looks at both models.
North Carolina has officially adopted the Problem Solving model as its form of RTI. This model essentially uses four tiers in which students receive intervention before they are placed in the EC program (Tier IV). In the first tier, students may be screened by a county or school adopted program such as, DIBELS or AIMSweb. North Carolina does not dictate or suggest any type of screening program to place students in tier I, but only offers solutions of “an accountability system for class work” or “Dolch word cards” (DOE website). The process for moving a student to Tier II is simply discussing with a “Student Success Team” (SST) whether or not the child is making progress at tier I. North Carolina does not identify what data is to be used to determine if a child is “making progress,” only that teachers or interventionists should use “research based interventions.” Possible Tier II solutions are an “ ADHD screening process” or “phonemic awareness activities.” For this model, vague suggestions are given for how to move students from one tier to another and what interventions or solutions might be used to help the student make progress. In Tier III, more interventions are given and if students still do not respond, the SST can decide if the child should be entitled to EC services or if the child needs more intervention in Tier IV. The Standard Protocol model is unlike this in that it has straightforward guidelines and principles for educators and interventionists to follow when moving students from tier to tier and what interventions may be used.
The Standard Protocol model has three tiers with the second tier being the only intervention tier. All students begin in Tier I and are screened with some form of data- driven program. The screen may over identify students, but teachers will progress monitor those students who seem to have difficulty and then determine which students are not making progress and need to move to Tier II. In Tier II students receive interventions outside of the classroom from a reading specialist or other highly trained professional. In this tier,the goal is for interventions to be “intensive enough to provide students with a reasonable opportunity to ‘catch-up’ to grade-level expectations” (Fuchs, 59). Also, to have successful interventions, schools must “decrease the [intervention] group size…and increase the amount of time allotted for interventions each day.” Unlike the Problem Solving model, these are specific ways to meet students’ needs during one tier of intense intervention rather than three tiers of unspecific interventions. When students do not make progress during this intervention tier, they are moved on to Tier III where students are tested using standardized tests for IQ and academic achievement. The Problem Solving Model does not use standardized testing to help support progress monitoring data collected by the teacher. In Standard Protocol, based on progress monitoring data and standardized test scores, students are placed in the EC program and an Individualized Education Plan is put in to place.
These two systems use different numbers of tiers and have different backgrounds in what is appropriate for interventions. Both models suggest that students need intervention before being placed in an EC program, but from the above descriptions, less-intense intervention is happening in all tiers in the Problem Solving model, and in one intense tier in the Standard Protocol method. Standard Protocol provides specific guidelines for teachers and interventionists to follow, where as the Problem Solving model’s approach is vague and incomplete.
Having grown up in North Carolina’s schools and now that I am an educator in the public school system, I have had the opportunity to see the Discrepancy model and now the Problem Solving model. I do acknowledge that there are concerns with the discrepancy model and its efficiency in placing students, but I have even stronger concerns with the Problem Solving model that has been adopted and imposed on North Carolina school systems and on a smaller level, teachers.
According to the Fuchs’ text, “RTI includes earlier identification, stronger focus on prevention, and assessment with clearer implications for academic programming.” I agree that RTI provides earlier intervention in most cases, but there is an issue with how long students may stay in tiers in the Problem Solving model. Many times students will stay in one tier for years at a time because they are showing just enough growth to stay at their current tier. The Discrepancy model or Standard Protocol model would not allow this. North Carolina has not provided specific standards for how long one student should stay on one tier (i.e., how many data points a child should stay under their goal before they need to move to the next level).
North Carolina also does not indicate what program or progress monitoring format school systems should use. This is a problem when students move from one county to another or even when they move from one school to another. If different schools are using different progress monitoring formats, then students’ data will not be consistent and movement from one tier to another or into the EC program is much more difficult. Data and testing formats must be consistent for teachers and interventionists to adequately place students where they need to be.
Another concern that I have is the lack of direction in what interventions should be used when working with RTI students. According to North Carolina, any “researched based” intervention can be used to provide intervention for a student. What defines “researched based”? If a teacher finds one article on the Internet that says a certain intervention works, does this mean that it is the correct intervention to use with a certain student? “For interventions to be effective, instructional time during interventions needs to be highly focused and aligned with the primary instruction as well as the needs of the student. The extent to which each of these elements is emphasized is related to the student’s instructional level.”(Fuchs, 58-59)
According to this statement, interventions need to be specific to the student. Not all “research based” interventions will work for every child. The interventions must be a best fit for the student’s instructional level. There also must be appropriate personnel administering these interventions, as well. Fuchs’ states “possible personnel include classroom teachers, certified teachers or reading specialists, or highly trained and supervised paraprofessionals.” (p. 55) Guidance teachers, music teachers, art teachers, and physical education teachers are highly qualified in their areas of instruction, but most are not highly qualified to teach math or reading interventions to students who need intense instruction.
RTI, like the discrepancy model, is used to identify students who are Learning Disabled (LD). If we only use an intervention model, how can we be sure that students are not Intellectually Disabled (ID)? The only way to determine if a student is ID is to secure an IQ score. Students who are ID may need federal funding later in life and may need this identification to help them.
My greatest concern is that we are not using a combination of instructional methods to place students in the Exceptional Children’s program because these methods are expensive or more involved. I believe in not doing so we are shortchanging our children. We must think critically about what instructional practices best benefit our students. It is their lives and education that are at risk.
The educators at my school are constantly trying to better their instruction practices so that our students are receiving the highest quality education. No teacher at my school has been trained by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction on how to effectively complete RTI. Currently, my school has just adopted the AIMSweb program to progress monitor students. Unfortunately, due to funding, we have not been trained on the program and were told, “the more you play with it, the better you will understand the program.” This is unacceptable for our students. If we are required to use a program, we need to have proper training on how to administer probes and collect data.
Along with learning programs to efficiently collect data, our school needs to set consistent norms so that all teachers are moving students from tier to tier at the same point in data collection. Some teachers may move students after they have fallen below a certain norm for four data points. Others will move a child to the next tier after five or six data points below the norm. We need to have consistency across grade levels and classes so that all students are at the same advantage in tier progression.
Instead of consulting school psychologists for possible “research based” interventions, our school should consult reading or math specialists. If our goal is to provide the most intense intervention possible, then we need to seek advice from professionals who are aware of such interventions.
Another improvement my school could make is for all teachers to be aware of what North Carolina states (or does not state) about RTI. We need to become advocates for best practices in placing students in the EC program. The only way that we can do this is to know the best cumulative way to collect data and place students, who need EC services, in the EC program as quickly as possible.