Running Head: A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention Kelly Diekemper Drake University

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention Abstract

Across the United States, schools are finding it more and more difficult to respond to the growing and diversifying needs of all students. The civil rights bill that was enacted by Congress in 2001, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), can explain one of the major contributors to this issue. This bill has been noted for being a milestone in educational policy and history. With this act brought new challenges, such as the new standards that were required for schools. NCLB created stringent requirements for schools and connected individual state funding with rigorous academic results (Kaufman & Blewett, 2012). Unlike many of the other previous laws that have been enacted for the Special Education community, such as the Individuals with Disability Act, or the mandate for Free and Appropriate Public Education, the mandate of NCLB extends to students of all abilities. The mandate of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in schools, as noted by the tenants of NCLB, has caused state and district wide transformations in order to raise student standardized test scores (Haretos, 2005). In essence, the importance that has been placed upon measureable yearly goals and the race to the top, has caused many school administrators to search for a new solution. One of the ways that states, districts, and schools are taking responsibility is through the implementation of a comprehensive and multi-tiered system to assist struggling learners (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). The changing nature of our countrys educational system over the last decade has prompted the introduction and integration of Response to Intervention (RTI) into schools across the nation.

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

Presently, schools are moving towards a well-researched and broad method that can help assist with the rising issue of AYP and serving its students accordingly. For this reason, Response to Intervention (RTI) is an educational model that has begun to surface in schools across the United States. This paper will specifically detail the tenants that comprise RTI, including the 3 tiers, progress monitoring, assessment, and intervention. So, too, will it explain the differences amongst research findings, overall approaches, and how it applies to multiple facets within the realm of education. RTI is a system that encompasses a variety of different items. For one, it is not limited to serving the needs of one specific need of a student. Rather, RTI aims to serve both the academic and behavioral supports of students (Response to Intervention, 2011). While RTI does address some of the specific academic needs that may be present in the classroom, alongside some of the behavioral interventions and plans, it also seeks to cater to students needs for two specific reasons. The ultimate goal of RTI focuses on support in school, so that students can leave the kindergarten through twelfth grade experience, ready for life, in many senses. Regardless of whether or not it serves individuals at the elementary level or the secondary level, RTI provides educators and administrators with a structure that is adaptive. In other words, teachers have the opportunity to customize the public education experience for all children in their classrooms (Todtfeld 2013). RTI is an efficient system created with 3 specific tiers. Within this, it seeks to provide students with daily experiences of high quality instruction and intervention (Williamson 2012). In no way should tiers be seen as barrier; rather, they should be distinguished for providing the necessary structure. The existence of the tiers are a necessity, as they should be seen as an easier, and more organized way for students to

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

access support. Haynes (2013) really says it best when he describes how the RTI tiers are about creating a support system so that students can reap as many benefits from the direct instruction that they receive. The first tier of instruction is most applicable to the everyday student. This student would be placed in the category of universally designed instruction. When making decisions in this specific arena, tier 1 aims to represent 80 to 90 percent of students (Iowa Department of Education, 2011). Besides the academic side of things, the procedures for behavioral issues for tier 1 students should also be considered. At this first level, the universal solution for behavior issues would begin in a consultation between the parent and teacher (Salvia 2007). This would be assuming that consultation has already occurred between the teacher and that student, and whatever subsequent punishments delivered, as necessary. The second tier of instruction is aimed towards those students who may be in need of a little bit more of assistance; take for example a smaller group instruction. In this condition, a stratified group of students are being targeted for support. The statistics indicate that tier 2 decisions will typically comprise anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of students (Response to Intervention, 2011). In terms of tier 2-behavior consultation, this includes a consultation with building resources (Salvia, 2007). At this level it could include extended personnel that may be in the school, such as a school counselor or resource officer present on the school campus. The third tier of instruction includes a very intensive level of support for students. Typically, this would entail the smallest amount of students. This tier advocates for highintensity level of support. Normally, tier 3 would represent the absolute smallest amount of

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

individuals in an RTI program. According to the Response to Intervention, (2011), this could mean 1.5 percent of students involved. At this highest level, it may include Special Education services, or a referral for an IEP, if the tier 3 instruction does not prove to be beneficial. With tier 3 behaviors, there are couple of things that can and may be implemented. The first would be to work with a group of individuals, say an IEP team, to work through extended problem solving (Salvia 2007). A common theme amongst all tiers is the key element of high quality instruction (Haynes 2013). These tiers look identical in the comparison of students, regardless of whether there is academic or behavioral instruction being implemented. It should be noted that these tiers are designed so that students can best work their way towards proficiency (Response to Intervention, 2011). Unique to RTI in comparison to other existing educational reform models is the fact that it places the utmost importance upon progress monitoring. Without the implementation of progress monitoring, the tiers, and organized system of RTI would not exist. Although the process can be time consuming, as teachers routinely collect and analyze student work and data, it is essential for RTI to both succeed and continue to be effective in the long-term (Johnson & Smith, 2011). Progress monitoring assists with the decision making process. Typically, administrators are looking for the students who are not succeeding in the typical classroom setting (Williamson, 2012). The combination of routine progress monitoring, along with the implementation of data based decision making, is what truly distinguishes RTI was a working process (Johnson & Smith, 2011). According to Hughes & Dexter (2011), the tiers slightly differ in their screening practices. Take for example, Tier 1. Within this level, universal screening must be

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

conducted for the general population for students 3 times a year. For the students that may fall into the at-risk population of Tier 1, they may also be required to be monitored monthly. Tier 2 is slightly different. Under these parameters, this more specialized version of intervention must be monitored from week to week. As stated prior, the level 3 tier typically works with the monitoring that may coincide with and IEP, or specific Special Education Referral. It is vital for teachers to be well versed in the practices of RTI, too. It is a necessity, so that they are able to make the necessary changes in student instruction or benchmark goals. This is where assessment piece is enacted. Every piece of research published on RTI capitalizes on the necessity to make data-driven decisions. This also coincides with need for continual data collection and use (Salvia, 2007). Its clear how the whole system of RTI comes full circle; each and every part is interrelated. The decisions and data that are collected in the RTI process greatly affect important educational decisions. This also translates to intervention in the classroom. For example, within assessment, schools typically look at scores on large-scale achievement tests. However, because these exams cover a broad range of information, they dont necessarily explain to the teacher the exact type of lesson this student may need, let alone the knowledge that the student actually holds. Rather, Salvia (2007) suggests that teachers look into better predictors of student knowledge, along with standardized exams. Take for instance, the students past report cards, or perhaps their score on their last unit exam. RTI is not limited to one specific population of students; rather, it is applicable at all levels and seeks to find those students in need, but also those excelling above and beyond grade level. This is one of the distinct advantages of RTI; it caters to every student, whether

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

they are in a talented and gifted program, or in need of special education. Regardless, it allows students to access the proper supports or classes more quickly than if they had simply been working through a school without RTI. The perfect rendition of this was explained in Williamson (2012), in which a Positive Learning Community is described. This specific tenant of RTI seeks to increase students achievement in the classroom, while focusing on educating students in the least restrictive environment. Today, the research has grown extensively in the direct area of RTI implementation and reading. According to Williamson (2012), one of the major reasons for the primary emphasis on RTI and reading is in part to readings applicability across various curriculum. As education continues to progress, there is even more pressure for students to perform, and to perform well. RTI has even begun to show up as soon as the early childhood level. Within the academic arena, it has been found that the benefits of RTI can impact both the oral language and reading ability of students (Manz, Hughes, Barnabas, Bracaliello, & Ginsburg-Block, 2010). Essentially, what this means is that if and when this model is implemented in an earlier level of education, the better chance for positive outcomes, and ultimately, student achievement. Not only has RTI sought to improve specific outcomes for students, but it has also looked at building long-term and effective structures in schools. In the piece by Johnson & Smith (2011), the school was able to create a Reading framework and screening process for their students that all fell within the 3 typical tiers that make up RTI. The majority of the research that has been published is somewhat mixed on the final opinions regarding Response to Intervention. While there have been several studies that indicate positive significant differences in student outcomes, there has also been

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

research that indicates otherwise. It is vital to look at what didnt work, too. For example, the work of Todtfeld (2013) specifically looked at the effectiveness of RTI in Elementary Schools. Their specific variables looked at a simple construct, whether RTI implementation made a difference in student achievement. The groups that comprised this work included the control group (no RTI), 1 year of RTI, and 2 years of RTI. Unfortunate to this field was that no significant difference was found between these variables, particularly in relation to English Language Arts performance. Without a doubt, this is something that raises concern. However, in contrast to the findings of Todtfeld (2013), the work of Hughes & Dexter (2011) indicated that students in kindergarten through 4th grade made significant gains in elementary reading. Significant to this particular study was that researchers specifically assessed student gains on Curriculum Based Measures (CBM). To better understand what comprises the CBM, it is important to note that they are simply referring to the assessments that address the students annual goals across different subjects (Salvia 2007). These reading gains were demonstrated when students were exposed to at least 30 weeks of RTI. The long-lasting effects and impact of RTI have also extended into the research evaluating the progress and growth of Middle School students. In the specific instance of Williamson (2012)s research, it indicated that test scores extracted from a year without RTI implementation did not differ from test scores extracted from a year including RTI implementation. While this information is somewhat disappointing, this construct definitely allows for further investigation. In essence, the work of Williamson (2012) simply indicated that there was no immediate effect on student test scores, while RTI was being implemented. However, this also opens up the possibility for further research, which

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention could potentially indicate the positive benefits of RTI over the long-term course of

performance. The sample sizes of these populations are of concern, considering that they were relatively small. Additionally, there is no, one, perfect way of controlling the different dynamics or specific implementation of the RTI interventions across the nation. In the future, it would be great to see stricter guidelines regarding the implementation of RTI, and more rigorous research conducted above and beyond restricted outcomes. For example, the hope would be to expand the literature of RTI implementation beyond the parameters of general academics and behavior, even beyond reading. It is great to evaluate RTIs effectiveness to each and every academic discipline. With such contrasting findings, it demonstrates the clear need for more research and evaluation of this educational model. In order for the research in RTI to progress forward, research need to be replicated, and generalized to larger and more diverse types of schools throughout the country. Current educators need to continue to look at the newly emerging research to determine whether this is worth a district investment, especially those with limited funds. One of the most important take-aways from this data is that while RTI has demonstrated student gains, in many cases it was not able to demonstrate more significant gains in comparison to a control group (Todtfeld 2013). While RTI addresses many of the needs of students Monday through Friday, 7am to 3pm, it does not quite account for those students that need assistance beyond what RTI can offer in a typical school day. Because NCLB and the push for AYP, schools, particularly those in Iowa, are looking at how they can integrate RTI in more of the non-typical programs. One of the major reasons for this shift in culture by educational administrators results from ever-changing students. One specific group that should be taken into consideration is At-

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention Risk student population. The specific and meta-analytic research of Lauer, Akiba,

10

Wilkerson, Apthrop, Snow, Martin-Glenn, (2006) have explored this construct. In their research of Lauer et al (2006), they assessed the impact of out-of-school-time (OST) programs, those that may include after-school programs and summer schools. The major push for this has been to help supplement those students who may be labeled in Tier 2 or 3 of RTI, who may continue to demonstrate low achievement. The findings of Lauer et al (2007) provides new insight for some of the other conflicting RTI findings. The meta-analyses that they conducted indicated significantly positive effects in two major academic areas. The first was in student gains in reading, while the other was demonstrated in students math achievement. The conclusions of their research indicate that there may be hope for RTI. If students were to be supplemented with RTI in the classroom, while still having access to an OST program, there is a great chance for student success. It is clear that the need for further research could better evaluate the power that these two educational frameworks could potentially have. In the long term, it could potentially transform what tier students could even is placed under the terms of RTI. Generally speaking, the model of RTI is pretty simple to understand. While the implementation of such a program presents a whole different set of challenges, its worth looking into the future of RTI. The research and reviews of all RTI components discuss in the depth training that is necessary for this process to truly succeed. If this were to be implemented today, it would take extensive professional development across a school or district (Williamson, 2012). Like most things, this also comes at a cost. Due to the financial situation of many schools, this type of extensive training may not be available, nor may it be able to be supported long-term.

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

11

RTI is an educational model that seeks to meet students where they presently are, and provide the best services for them so that they may succeed. It should be noted that RTI is not an approach that is one and done. Rather, it is an approach that must be ongoing. It must incorporate all facets within the school, and do so through a multi-step approach, especially in order to help struggling students (Todtfeld 2013). While there are still many unanswered questions about RTI, it also offers a glimmer of hope for educational researchers. As more data is collected, it will assist with deciding whether or not RTI is worth the cost and potential benefits for districts and their students. Hopefully, as Response to Intervention continues to grow, and the methodologies further improve, educators will be able to provide the academic and behavioral supports to each any every student, to ensure success above and beyond the parameters of school and into life (Response to Intervention, 2011).

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

12

References Haretos, C. (2005). The no child left behind act of 2011: Is the definition of adequate yearly progress adequate?. Kennedy School Review, 629-46. Haynes, H.A. (2013). Multi-tiered systems of supports: An investigative study of their impact on third grade reading test scores in an urban district. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 73, Hughes, C. A., & Dexter D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 4-11. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.534909 Iowa Department of Education, Office of Iowa's RTI State Implementation Team. (2011). Response to intervention, guidance document. Des Moines. Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L.A. (2011). Response to intervention in middle school: A case story. Middle School Journal, 42(3), 24-32. Kaufman, A., Blewett, E. (201). When good enough is no longer good enough: How the high stakes nature of no child left behind act supplanted the Rowley definition of a free and appropriate public education. Journal of Law & Education, 41(1), 5-23. Lauer, P.A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthrop, H.S., Snow, D., Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275-313. Manz, P.H., Hughes, C., Barnabas, E. Bracaliello, C., & Ginsburg-Block, M. (2010). Review: A descriptive review and meta-analysis of family-based emergent literacy interventions: To what extent is the research applicable to low-income, ethnic-

A Current Perspective on Response to Intervention

13

minority or linguistically-diverse young children?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25409-431. doi:10.1016/j/ecresq.2010.03.002 Salvia, J. (2007). Assessment in inclusive special education. (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Todtfeld, D. (2013). A study of the impact of response to intervention on student achievement scores in elementary schools. (Master's thesis, Northwest Missouri State University).