New Response to Intervention - Assignment Example

? Response to Intervention Response to Intervention Introduction IDEA legislation has revolutionized the way we educate children with special needs in America. Valuable services, specially trained staff, and numerous other educational opportunities are now afforded to this student population. In the past, classroom intervention techniques were largely the same between regular and special education classrooms. This was primarily due to the fact that special education was simply not a big priority pre-IDEA. In recent years, however, educational reform has seen fit to implement a new Response to Intervention (RTI). This is a, “Tiered system designed to integrate assessment, instruction, and data-based decision making to improve the outcomes for all students in both regular and special education classrooms” (Kubiszyn & Borich, p. 57). There is a set purpose to RTI, along with various benefits and challenges, that are worthy of study and this forms the basis for this paper. The Purpose of RTI Response to Intervention is designed to provide the classroom teacher with a tiered approach to managing classroom instruction. This method is designed to differentiate students and allow teachers the opportunity to determine what interventions, or instructional modifications, might be needed for their students based on past performance. The RTI system is actually geared to combine the areas of assessment, instruction, and data based decision making in an effort to improve outcome for all students, no matter if they are in a regular or special education classroom (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2009, p. 57). Students that do not respond well to the first tier of services would then be monitored according to the second tier. This is usually about 15% of the student population (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2009, p. 57). The second tier would involve teachers monitoring those students and providing them with more intensive instruction. The monitoring of this instruction would be ongoing and would be supplemented with regular formative assessments. Those students that do not respond to this second tier would then be considered for special education evaluation, in line with recent IDEA legislation. The purpose of the RTI system, therefore, is to be able to identify students with academic difficulties much earlier than was possible with previous intervention techniques. The goal is that this Response to Intervention technique will serve to support increased achievement levels on behalf of all students. This is line with the current major objectives put forth in recent regular and special education reform movements (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2009, p. 57). The RTI system can also serve to differentiate and identify students in a class who might have a specific learning disability. If this can be accomplished early on, then the possibilities of such students overcoming these special needs can be radically increased. The Benefits of RTI The benefits of the Response to Intervention system are many. The emphasis of RTI is on early detection of potential learning difficulties that children may be experiencing. By identifying certain problem areas, teachers and other educational staff can monitor the student more closely to determine what specific instructional needs they might have. Response to Intervention also places a great deal of importance on research-based instruction. This means that the method used in the classroom are tried and tested, and have shown positive results time and again. As such, RTI looks to benefit all children, both regular learners and students with special needs. This includes students that, “Enter school with limited literacy and language proficiency, as well as children with disabilities” (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2009, p. 73). By implementing a method of regular academic monitoring of every student, teachers are more able to quickly determine any problem areas that might be evident in a child’s learning development. There are formative assessments that are continually administered at each of the three tiers. If a student remains in tier one for example, the teacher is flexible to devote more time to assessing students in tier 2, in addition to providing them with some modified instructional techniques that are more suited to their current level of learning development. With past intervention systems, measurement error was a big concern and problem. Many students were improperly assessed due to the fact that only one single set of data was considered when measuring their progress. Response to Intervention has addressed this by mandating that multiple data points be considered before making the claim that an accurate picture of the student has been attained (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2009, p. 73). This means that a minimum of eight data points must be considered in the data based decision-making process when using RTI. The use of multiple data points allows educators to really see not only a student’s current level of performance, but also their growth in key areas over time. In the past, these two concepts were difficult to relate together because it was not possible to graphically depict a student’s progress over time, making the entire process quite labor intensive considering the number of students involve. Response to Intervention certainly appears to have addressed these concerns by streamlining the process on one hand, while providing more detailed and in-depth information on the other. The Challenges of RTI With any radical new change in an organization, there are bound to be some challenges along the way. The promise of RTI is a big one. This is a revolution method of altering the way educators have utilized intervention techniques for decades. As such, many make the claim that the promises are simply too unrealistic. With the number of special needs students being serviced today, coupled with the responsibility to help regular education students reach their full potential, some would argue that there is not a way to make RTI fit every classroom situation. The dynamics of the classroom are such that some teachers may feel boxed in and forced to accommodate a system change that simply does not fit their unique teaching environment. Since RTI is being phased in over time in most schools around the nation, it is important to note these challenges so that they can be considered during the process of change. The initial concern surrounding RTI revolves around some technical issues. Namely, the reliability, validity, and fairness of curriculum-based measurements (CBM) have been called into question. These issues have not quite been resolved, and many educators are claiming that, “It is time to reexamine the evidence-base with regard to the technical and psychometric characteristic of CBM” (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2009, p. 73). It is not acceptable to educators to simply hear that the CBM is a valid and reliable formative assessment. This summation is much too broad in scope, so the challenge remains to prove its worth as an assessment practice that creates a sound intervention strategy. Some studies have pointed out that students in elementary school tend to benefit well from the process of RTI, yet upper grades have not shown the same promise, as indicated by a recent study conducted on eighth-grade students (Kubiszyn, 2009, p. 74). Kubiszyn and Borich (2009) notes that other have also called into the question the overall process or RTI (p. 74). The challenge here is to further evaluate the true reliability and validity of the entire RTI decision-making process, rather than rushing to completely overhaul the system before adjustments can be made. Some believe that the assessment is not accurate enough to meet the requirements for fairness under the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests that is currently in force. A further challenge seems to hinge on full implementation of the RTI process. The expectation is that all schools will be using RTI in order to streamline the intervention process; no matter what school a child may be attending. This does not yet appear to be the case. While the implementation of RTI has exploded in recent years, it still remains uneven. This means that a child may go to one school and be measured academically using RTI, only to move and change schools the following year to a location that does not utilize the RTI system (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2009, p. 74). This can cause confusion for the student, and frustration for the parents and teachers. Much thought must go into the implementation of RTI on a nationwide scale in order to provide the maximum benefit to the population of student’s experiencing learning disabilities of various sorts. This challenge, according to many scholars, may be the biggest obstacle that must be overcome to get RTI implemented on a truly national level (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2009, p. 74). Overcoming the Challenges Many of the challenges facing RTI can be overcome with a more cautious and balanced approach. Instead of implementing the system on a district-by-district basis, guidelines should be considered whereby the adoption of RTI is mandated by a certain date. Recent surveys have revealed that nearly all districts in the country have either implemented, or are planning to implement, RTI (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2009, p. 72). This shows promise should the trend continue. Remaining states, however, have shown some reluctance due to concerns over the reliability and validity of the formative assessments. Until this concern gets resolved, they will likely delay the implementation process on their own. In order to avoid this, further study must be conducted to address the issues of instrument reliability and to prove that RTI is effective as currently being implanted. If there are adjustments that need to made, those should be made quickly in order to encourage all districts nationwide to adopt Response to Intervention, rather than being forced to do so. The Importance of Early Intervention In conclusion, Response to Intervention is designed to simplify the assessment process, while also providing educators with a balanced approach to ensuring that all students receive any instructional modifications that they may need to learn effectively. Kubiszyn and Borich (2009) states that, “RTI holds promise for earlier identification and more effective intervention with academic difficulties than has occurred previously” (p. 75). This is exciting and revolutionary. By monitoring student progress effectively and often, teachers can identify certain learning difficulties and disabilities earlier than was ever possible before. Students who have difficulty learning are more likely to lose interest with school, which can lead to behavioral difficulties. This is due to the fact that they may not understand what is taking place in the classroom and they can quickly feel that they are falling behind. Children, however, lack the capacity to always express what they are feeling. It is up to the educator to monitor their progress and make adjustments as needed. This was the rationale behind IDEA legislation in the first place. Our educators are being called upon to identify student’s who need special assistance, and then school’s are expected to provide the services that they need. Absent a system such as RTI, however, schools are often ill equipped to truly monitor student progress and it can take years to diagnose a problem. RTI aims to solve this problem by providing a systematic method of identifying student’s who need assistance by utilizing the three-tiered approach. This also avoids students who are excelling from being held back by being forced to take formative assessments that they truly do not need. This enables teacher’s to focus their assessments on student’s in tiers 2 and 3, thereby dramatically reducing the time need to identify certain problem. This early intervention will allow student’s to get back on track in school, improve their self-esteem, and have a more positive outlook on life. It benefits the school, child, and society. Reference Kubiszyn, T., and Borich, G. (2009). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice. New York: Wiley and Sons. Read More