Response to Intervention Reflection - ltl.appstate.edu

attentionclewInternet and Web Development

Feb 2, 2013 (4 years and 8 months ago)

179 views

Candace Barnes


RE 5210
-
Dr. Ward


11/30/2010


Reflection



Response to Intervention is becoming
the “fad” throughout schools to help struggling
readers
.

What educators must realize is that

Response to Interventions can take

on many
diffe
rent forms throughout the state and its
school districts.
RTI is an instructional approach that
provides early intervening services to struggling students and that

can be used to identify
students who have learning disabilities. Two common options for imp
lementing

RTI are the
Problem Solving Model
an
d the Standard Protocol Model
. Although they
are both

RTI models
,

th
ere are many

distinct differences than similarities.


To begin
,

educators must know t
he purpose

behind response to intervention. It
starts
with knowing how

well children respond

to instruction in the classroom
,

which can consist of
dynamic measures of learning that occurs across successive levels of intervention. Focus is
placed on those children who are not responding to instruction.

The RTI assumption

is that
when provided with quality instruction and remedial services, a student without disabilities will
make satisfactory progress.

By giving quality instruction to students with no disability there wil
l
be no children falling behin
d, which leads to two of RTIs interconn
ected goals. The first being

to identify at risk students early
on
so that they may receive more intensive prevention services
prior to the onset of severe deficits. Sec
ondly, identify students with a learning disab
ility (LD)

who are repeatedly unresponsive to validated, standardized forms of instruction and instead
require individualized data based instruction.
The aim is to prevent students from being
unnecessarily d
esignated as learning disabled. Unlike with the

discrepancy model that required
students to “wait and fail
,”
IDEA 2004 now allows states to move from this discrepancy
approach to RTI for LD identification. Keep in mind that LD may be understood as chronic non
-
responsiveness to generally effective inst
ruction, meaning they need extra support.

At a glance

the
problem s
olving

m
odel

and
the
standard p
rotocol

m
odel

appear to be
comprised of

the same components, but through a detailed examination they are indeed different.

Problem solving is
defined as a
process that includes a systematic or explicit analysis of a
student’s behavior or academic difficulties that uses this analysis, and any assessment activities

(teacher made tests or benchmarks)
, to provide the foundation for a planned, systematic set of
i
nterventions. These interventions are then monitored and evaluated to determine effectiveness.

This model consists of four tiers.
The intent of the problem
solving process is to resolve the
problem using the necessary resources. The end result could be

entitlement to special educat
ion.
The problem
solving process consists of defining the problem, developing a plan, impl
ementing
that plan, and evaluating progress
.


Another well known

RTI

multi
-
tier model

is standard
protocol. The standard protocol ap
proach involves exposing students to consistent intervention
that meets the needs of
a variety of learners, along with
monitoring progress repeatedly to the
response
,

which involve
s rigorous data collection, and analysis.

Most importantly this approach
is

supported by a strong research base.

The model for standard pro
tocol consists of
three tiers.
The main focus is diagnosing students with a reading “disability”.

Both problem
-
solving and
standard protocol conduct a universal screening of all students, h
ave developed teams to manage
and analyze
the data collected, as well as

progress monitor
ing student performance to evaluate
the interventions that are being implemented into daily instruction.

As mentioned before there are differences among the RTI
models

problem s
olving and
standard protocol
.
Minimal results
have been produced for

the p
roblem
solving

model as well as

a
few

published or unpublished studies detailing its effectiveness. Available studies are typically
marked as unidentified samples o
f schools
/students
,

which neglect to give information regarding
how long students remain
ed

unresponsive before

receiving effective remediation. Furthermor
e,
problem
solving failed to explain how long students

can remain in the same tier. Also,
negligible

information
is given
about what and how interventions are implemented into core
-
curriculum
instruction.

This model claims to be targeted towards setting individualized plans for students,
but yet everything is related towards student behavior and how tha
t needs to be improved along
the way. Additionally, the personnel responsible for implementing interventions are school
psychologist, title 1 reading teacher
s
, ELL teacher
s, special education teachers, tutors, etc
.

One
arising issue is that individual sc
hools within the same district can follow a substantially different
RTI model as long as it is claimed to be part of the RTI framework.



Among the problem solving model there are four tiers.
Other variations of this model
may have 4 or less tiers.

All students begin in the general education classroom, but can be
referred due to teacher concern.
Tier 1

takes place in the general ed
ucation

classroom

and

consists of 3 major components: curriculum standards or behavioral ex
pectations to be met by
stu
dent,

selection of activities/services that wil
l support classroom instruction,
and resources for
parents and students to use at home to reinforce learning. Some examples of tier 1 interventions
include an accountability system for class work, dolch word cards and activities, as well as
having Leapfrog books for home use. First off,

the solutions given
for
possible intervention are
classroom management issues

not academic
. Second, teachers can make suggestions as to what
should take place outside of school but cannot mandate it.

For a st
udent to move to Tier 2 data
must show no gro
wth even with the implementation of interventions
. A
lthough what is being
measured is
still
uncertain

there is no systematic decision processed, as well as no screening or
progress monitoring
.
Ti
er 2 consists of those students who did not succeed in Tier

1, but
conti
nue to remain in the general education

classroom while receiving multiple interventions

by
the classroom teacher
. In Ti
er 2 a problem
solving checklist is started and will continue on to
Tier 3. While in Tier 2 data is collected and even if
student does not respond to intervention they
can remain in this tier, but will revise intervention. This is where other professionals become
involved in helping decided interventions whether they are specialized or not.
It is evident that
the main focus

is on the number of professionals involved rather than on the student. Also,
n
otice that the
problem solving

model mentions nothing on the intensity level
s throughout tiers.

Examples of interventions are phonemic awareness activities, 1:1 or group couns
eling services,
and ADHD screening process. The only good solution in this tier would be phonemic awareness
activities, but what if the person implementing the intervention knows nothing of this. The 1:1
services should be a given at this point, but

that

is likely due to students being in the general
education classroom.

Moreover, just because a student struggles to become a proficient reader
does not mean they should be tested for ADHD.


If

student continues to remain non
-
responsive to intervention
s they can continue to revise
interventions or progress to Tier 3; parent can request movement earlier on even if team does
not. Once again those students who land in Tier 3 did not respond to previous interventions.
Where and who student receives interv
entions a
re unclear. During this tier progress monitoring
begins. Possible interventions include home
-
based interventions in math, intensive reading
interventions, and an individualized behavior contract. Once again there are vague descriptions
as to wh
at
and
how interventions will be applied, as well as saying an uncertified person such as
the parent will be required to implement interventions at home. Lastly, student behavior is
reviewed again. If a student is not a behavior problem to begin with the
n that would never apply.

In the end if a student continues to show no growth then entitlement will be considered meaning
they may qualify for special education.

In contrast,
s
tandard protocol uses standardized forms of measurement such as
curriculum
-
based measurement (CBM)

and all interventions are researched based

(Stan Deno
founder of this)
.
This model consists of only three tiers. Tier 1 focuses on all students in the
general education class

where grouping must be flexible
. In the gen
eral education

classroom
,

st
udents should be reading 90 minutes a

day. Screening is done in the beginning through
programs such as DIBLES or STAR. Students who are below the lowest cut score are deemed
“at risk” for failure. Also with screening, progres
s monitoring is done.

Those students who are
thought to be “at risk” complete a brief weekly progress monitoring assessment for 6
-
8 weeks.
Purpose of progress monitoring is to determine whether a student is responding adequately to the
instructional prog
ram and to inductively design individualized instructional plans for students
who are struggling.
Those who fail to progress then move to Tier 2.

Tier 2 intervention focuses
is on students identified at
-
risk for reading difficulties, and who have not res
ponded to Tier 1
efforts.

Research has shown that in Tier 2 an additional 30 minutes is added daily to

Tier 1
instruction. Extra instruction

takes place outside of the
general education

classroom with a
certified tutor hired and trained by research staf
f. Also, progress monitoring is the key
assessment in this tier. Tier 2 is where the most intense intervention occurs. It is key here that
educators increase instructional time and decrease the student to teacher ratio, as well as use
research
-
based int
erventions
.

If progress monitoring shows that the student i
s not making
sufficient gains

then they move to Tier 3 to be tested for special education. In Tier 3 50
-
minute
sessions are added to Tier 1 instruction, but groups are even smaller with only 2
-
4
students.
Tutors are hired and trained once again by research staff.

In Alexander County, North Carolina, the school distr
ict has implemented the problem
solving model in many of our elementary and middle schools. The middle school that I wor
k at
current
ly uses the problem
solving model but only in the 7
th

grade. Every student has to take part
in the universal screenings which are short tests that take 5 or fewer minutes. The test measure
word fluency and word recognition. This is done for both math and reading. In theory, these
screenings are supposed
to identify students. At my school those results are no
t

really used for
anything as I’m told by the lead RTI instructor. The scores from the universal screening are
supposed to be entered into AIMSWebb that way scores can be compared. Once again the
in
structor said that they do not do this either due to it taking too long
to enter scores into the
computer. In the end the school basically uses student EOG scores as the primary identifier and
qualifier for RTI. Currently, there is only one 7
th

grade tea
cher in the entire middle school
implementing interventions for both math and ELA.

Each class consists of twenty plus students.

It is considered to be a Tier 2 intervention. However, school
-
wide we have only officially
implemented Tier 1 meaning we do T
ier 1 paper work. In order for someone to be referred to the
SIT team, the teacher must implement Tier 1 and 2. Classroom teachers, solely, are responsible
for interventions at Tier 1. Tier 2 interventions are simply consulting outside experts such as a

counselor, other teachers, etc. Tier 3 would be the SIT team. The classroom teacher is
responsible for implementation unless otherwise noted in the RTI paperwork.


The key to success is to realize that intervention must be instruct
ion, not behavior. Th
e
problem
solving model has the potential to become something great, especially if incorporating
research
-
based interventions.
It is obvious to see that within my own work
-
place RTI is not
being implemente
d correctly even by the problem
solving standards.

To begin with the
screening needs to be taken more seriously and actually calculate and use the data collected.
Also, progress monitoring needs to be included as well as providing the essentia
l 90
-
minutes a
day during daily

instruction. Currently, 7
th

grade class periods are
only 70
-
minutes longs which
are

not enough time for effective instruction
. Furthermore, pull
-
outs for interventions should
begin in Tier 2 so that students ca
n begin to receive more intense small group
instruction. Most
importantl
y, intervent
ions must be researched based. If the school combined both RTI models it
would strengthen the schools RTI model in making it more reliable and actually help correct
reading problems while giving struggling readers a sense of success.

















Analysis Table


How did/could this student fall
through the crack using the
discrepancy approach?

How could this student fall
through the crack using the
problem solving model of RTI?

Ruby:



IQ: 83
-
Functioning
in the Low Average
Range



Entered EC

in K for
HI



5
th

grade
-
NC Ext2



Absent from school
numerous days


































Was not identified
until the 4
th

grade
as being
SLD=setting her up
for failure



If identified earlier
she would not
currently be reading
instructionally at an
early 1
st

grade



If caught earlier she
could have received
more intense
reading instruction



Discrepancy Issues
with the WISC
(Wechsler
Intelligence Scale
for Children) and
WJ (Woodcock
Johnson); lacks
correlation



Accurate screening
not taking place
within s
chool system



Lack of progress
monitoring



Lack of research
-
based interventions



Identify slow learners
as LD



Parents, teachers, or
others only have to
provide a referral to
have student
identified



Identify slow learners
as LD (Specificity
-
can’t differentiate

b/w
delayed and learning
disabled)



RTI PS Model is
fluid, always
changing between
schools



No IQ identification
test



Sit in a Tier for too
long while receiving
no intense reading
instruction



Professionals not
highly qualified to
teach reading or
provide i
nterventions


Nathan:



IQ: 84
-

Functioning
in the Low Average
Range



Entered EC in 3
rd

grade



4
th

grade
-
NC Ext2



Moved numerous
times



Wasn’t identified
SLD until the 3
rd

grade=setting him
up for failure



Currently reading
instructionally at a
1
-
2 level



Doesn’t accurately
measure young
children (2
nd
-
3
rd

grades)



Discrepancy Issues
with the WISC
(Wechsler
Intelligence Scale
for Children) and
WJ (Woodcock
Johnson); lacks
correlation



Accurate screening
not taking place
within school system



Lack of progress
mo
nitoring



Lack of research
-
based interventions



Identify slow learners
as LD (Specificity
-
can’t differentiate
difference b/w
delayed and learning
disabled)



Parents, teachers, or
others only have to
provide a referral to
have student
identified



RTI PS Model i
s
fluid, always
changing between
schools



No IQ identification
test



Sit in a Tier for too
long while receiving
no intense reading
instruction



Professionals not
highly qualified to
teach reading or
provide interventions



Problems for both discrepancy and
RTI


Identify those who need extra help



False Positives


Tells you that you have a problem when you really don’t have a problem (extra caution)



False Negatives


Explains you don’t have a problem, when in reality you do have a problem (retain more
often
than we identify)



True Positives


Discover individual does have a problem



True Negatives


Individuals experiencing no problems



Over Identify


costly