Jackie Jenkins
RE 5210
Reflection Paper
11/30/10
Within the RTI (Response to Intervention) process there are two distinct models. The models operate very differently and each has its own strong points as well as weaknesses. The first model, as described by Fuchs, Fuchs and Vaughn is referred to as standard protocol and began as a model to identify learning disabilities in reading. This model does as the name implies, sets a very standardized procedure that is carried out wherever the model is in place. This model consists of three tiers. The first tier is for all students and takes place in the regular education classroom. The instruction taking place in this tier is good, solid classroom instruction for all students. It is ensured that the instruction taking place in the classroom is good quality instruction by coaches who can assist teachers with their classroom reading instruction. The assessments used during this tier are universal screening probes that are used to over-identify students who may be at risk for having a reading disability. Students who are caught during this universal screen are then progress monitored for six to eight weeks to see if they make progress. If the student does not show growth during progress monitoring they are moved to tier two.
During tier two of the standard protocol model students who were not making progress during tier one are pulled out of the classroom for at least thirty minutes a day of extra reading instruction by a trained teacher or assistant. There are very specific guidelines as to the number of students who can be in an intervention group and also direct guidelines as to how the students are remediated. Because this model only has one true level of “interventions” it is ensured that the interventions are intense and consistent. This plan also allows for fidelity from classroom to classroom and school to school to ensure that each student in the tier is getting the same quality of intervention. During this level students are assessed using progress monitoring. If they are not showing sufficient growth and/or it is decided that the student should be tested for special education they move to tier three.
Tier three of this model is cognitive testing for special education. If the student meets the requirements for special education they are given an IEP and special services. If they do not meet the requirements they are moved back into the tier two intervention stage. This model is consistent and does not place all the responsibility on the classroom teacher alone. It is expensive to implement and required a large amount of training and resources but has the ability to really help students succeed and get students the help they need. It is efficient and does not allow students to get “trapped” in the system. It allows for students to be identified and targeted for interventions early in their school career. This model is drastically different from the problem solving approach to RTI.
The problem solving approach to RTI began in Iowa and in the field of behavior research. It is now being used for behavior, math and reading. There are four (or five) tiers of interventions and the movement through the tiers is much more subjective and loosely defined. Regular classroom instruction is not defined in a tier using this model so it would really be pre-tier or tier zero A student enters tier one when they are having problems. They may be identified using a universal screening or other classroom assessments/ observations- there is no standardized way that students enter this tier. This intervention takes place in the regular classroom and includes some suggestions for parents to use to intervene at home. The specific interventions to use are not defined and neither is the process for when students will move to tier two. It is stated that the child will move to tier two when they are not responsive to the interventions in tier one.
When a student enters tier two they continue to get intervention in the regular education classroom. The classroom teacher may get ideas for interventions from other professionals (other teachers, counselors, etc) but is responsible for performing the interventions. During this tier data is collected and if the student is not responding the teacher or student support team can decide to try a different type of intervention while staying in tier two or move to tier three. There is no limit as to how many interventions can occur while remaining on tier two.
When the student enters tier three they will continue to get interventions in the classroom or possibly by other people outside of the classroom- it is not directly stated who will be performing the interventions nor what type of intervention the child will receive. Students continue to be progress monitored and the teachers use this date to determine when the child should try a new intervention (still on tier three) or possibly move to tier four and be tested for special education. In this tier, as in tiers one and two, the student can receive an unlimited number of interventions before having to move to tier four.
Using the problem solving model, tier four may be additional interventions or it may be determining eligibility for special education. Some areas use the fact that the student is on tier four to determine that the student does need special education. Other areas supplement this stage with cognitive assessments. It is unclear what happens to students at this stage if they do not place into special education.
One of the major differences between the standard protocol model and the problem solving model is the great deal of subjectivity in the problem solving method. Unlike the standard protocol method, there are no standard interventions used in problem solving. In some instances this lack of rigidness would allow a school to make the process work for them and teachers would use quality interventions and they would be successful. However, in some instances teachers would not use research-based interventions and consequently not know if students were really capable of growth or not. This subjectivity leads to a huge variability from school to school and county to county causing problems when a child moves. Problem solving does not have clear definitions for when a child will move from tier to tier and thus a child can spend years in this process and get nowhere. The problem solving model also puts a majority of the responsibility for coming up with and implementing interventions on the classroom teacher causing frustration and stress. The problem solving model may lead to under-identification of students with learning disabilities since teachers may feel the burden and not begin the process and because students can stay in the process indefinitely. This model does allow for early interventions and identification.
North Carolina has chosen to implement the problem solving method of RTI. As a teacher I have concerns with this choice. The subjectivity of the process and lack of standard procedures is what concerns me the most. As a school we have been doing RTI for about two and a half years. In that time the process within our school has changed countless times. This has led to a large amount of teacher frustrations and I have heard of many teachers that have decided to forego putting a child in the process due to the headache and constant changing of the system. When teachers are not working towards getting children the help they need, due to a process, that is a major concern for me. I wonder what benefit the state saw in the problem solving method over the standard protocol method. Surely they were aware of both options. Looking at the two choices on paper, the standard protocol method looks leaps and bounds more productive. I know that it is considerably more expensive to implement and that money plays a large role in decision making. I am sure that money had a large part in this decision. If the state wants problem solving to work, I feel that they have to set some parameters that will make problem solving more like standard protocol. There has got to be standard interventions that are used on each tier state-wide, or at least county-wide. Each school has to be on board with using the same research-based interventions at each level. There also have to be more clearly designated steps that move a child from tier to tier. A system that allows children to stay stagnant in a tier, getting interventions that may not be appropriate or helpful, will inevitably fail students.
In my school I think that we do need standard interventions and steps to move students from tier to tier that would hopefully come from the state or county in order to be standard with other schools. There needs to be a time limit we set for how long a student can remain in each tier. We also really need help to carry out interventions. At this time, we do not have a reading specialist at our school nor do we have any teachers or other professionals that help us think of interventions or implement them. This responsibility is solely that of the classroom teacher. It is unrealistic and frustrating for teachers to try to teach their class, fulfill all their other responsibilities during the school day, and pull multiple students to work with them the amount of time needed to make a difference. In fact it is impossible. The only person we have at our school who is able to “help” us with RTI is our RTI assistant. She means well but, by no fault of her own, does not know how to help us. She is not trained in reading interventions. It would be helpful to us if she could be used to progress monitor our students or help us by pulling students to conduct interventions (after she was trained). Better yet, we could hire some teachers to do intervention groups similar to those described by standard protocol. We also need to set standards as to the amount of time and the group size that should be used in each tier. Problem solving could work if measures are taken to make the model more closely aligned with standard protocol and the variability and subjectivity are decreased.