Critical analysis of RTI legislation and implementation

¶ … RTI or response to intervention protocol as applied to elementary schools. The first thought about the article is the title of it. The way the article was titled did not demonstrate the topic as best as it could. It was not informative and was oddly formed into a question that didn't showcase what the article was truly about.The problem is clearly stated as it pertains to RTI and states it in the title.

The article asks if RTI implementation will promote effective early intervention and represents a valid means of LD identification. (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006) It states that RTI may be helpful in aiding to locate and identify students with learning disabilities. It can also help with reading and intelligence. The hypothesis showed the writer's desire to prove how RTI is helpful. It did this through the well crafted sections, specifically the section explaining what RTI is. It helped in defining important terms. The problem appears to not be very significant and the assumptions are clearly stated as mentioned before.

Coverage of the literature does appear to be adequate. This is shown through the various in depth explanations of important terms throughout the article, providing information based on studies. Such terms discussed are: Monitoring at-risk students, Multitiered instruction as well as further analysis of RTI. "A standard treatment protocol is an alternative to problem solving. Whereas the problem-solving approach differs from child to child, a standard treatment protocol does not. (Fuchs & Fuchs 2006)

The structure in discussion of the terms and the analysis of RTI led to me concluding it was well organized. It would have been better had it displayed more concrete facts like charts and data analysis to really see if their assumptions are indeed correct. The answer to the hypothesis wasn't directly answered. Important findings that were mentioned were noted. This was especially true when it came to the section "Special education costs." Any information mentioned there was cited and had concrete information.

What was vague was the relationship the problem connected to previous research. It was unclear and didn't really inform much concerning the heart of the matter. It feels as though there are too many unanswered questions. Ironically there is a section that specifically speaks of this but fails really to answer much.

Research design is described fully with the varying sections. It does not offer much in terms of a concrete solution. It's more of a slightly backed up theoretical solution. The weaknesses in the research design are minimal to the sectioning off of topics. Data methods are described in the mentioning of information and its source. This was apparent in the "Special education costs" section. "the proportion of children with LD in the general U.S. population skyrocketed from less than 2% in 1976 -- 1977 to more than 6% in 1999 -- 2000. This increase has proved expensive for school districts because, on average, it costs two to three times more to teach children with disabilities" (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006) Data-gathering methods are appropriate but lack established validity. It does appear to be displayed correctly.

In regards to data analysis, there were no data charts or graphs to represent data. There was harldy any analysis of data. It stated stats in regards to learning disabilities children and the proposed effect RTI may have in identification, but lacks any concrete details. This in turn led to very abstract and vague answers focused on explanation of the benefits of RTI.