RTI the Response-To-Intervention (RTI) Program

RTI

The response-to-intervention (RTI) program is a "multi-step" approach to providing services and interventions to students who are "struggling with learning at increasing levels of intensity," according to the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). When the RTI approach is used correctly, it has the potential to "limit the amount of academic failure that any student experiences," NCLD explains; it also has the potential to greatly increase the accuracy of evaluations at the special education level of schooling. In addition, the NCLD points out that RTI can identify accurately determine if a child has a learning disability, or if their learning problems relate to "cultural differences" or from "a lack of adequate instruction" (NCLD).

How can RTI be used in the classroom? The National Center for Learning Disabilities extols the benefits of RTI through five bullet points on their Web site: one, RTI reduces the among of time a student must wait for receiving special assistance; two, RTI can reduce the "overall number of students referred for special education services" and increase those who are succeeding; three, RTI provides vital information about exactly what instructional needs the student has; four, RTI reduces unneeded testing that has no links to instructional relevance; and five, RTI ensures that appropriate instruction is indeed provided for students, in particular reading instruction -- prior to placement in special education programs.

The History of RTI

The Center for Policy Studies and Hamline University has published a document ("Response to Intervention: An alternative to traditional eligibility criteria for students with disabilities") that explains how RTI came into being. RTI is also known as the "Problem Solving Model" (PSM), according to the document, and both RTI and PSM are variations of the Scientific Method, which involves: one, the description of the phenomenon; two, the development of a hypothesis; three, a procedure implemented in order to study and predict; four, a collection of data and analysis; and five, an interpretation of the data and the conclusion (Education/Evolving).

And so, in 1984, the scientific method embraced ideas relative to solving problems with students whose reading skills were lacking -- and out of those ideas came the Response to Intervention.

Literature Review -- Response-to-Intervention

Writing in the journal Education Week, Christina A. Samuels explains that in 2009 the federal Institute of Education Sciences (IES) has published a "practice guide on reading instruction" and on RTI; and in the guide the IES has placed its "stamp of approval" to RTI (Samuels 2009). When students are being tested for reading in the early childhood programs, the IES document advises, all students should be screened, Samuels writes, and those students for whom reading does not come early or easy should receive "small group instruction three to five times a week" -- and be monitored at least once a month to determine how they are responding to "intensive lessons" (Samuels).

That having been said, there is still a great deal that teachers do not know about RTI, according to Russell Gersten, who chairs the panel that developed the IES guide. Gersten admits that RTI has been gaining in popularity over the past few years, and yet he is concerned that the RTI-based early screening tools "have the potential of capturing too many students initially." And moreover, Gersten is concerned that the effectiveness of the "most intense level of instruction in RTI" (known in the field as the "third tier") has not bee justified using "large-scale studies" that are "prized by some educational researchers."

Gersten, who is the executive director of Instructional Research Group in California, makes it clear he does not suspect anything untoward resulting from the use of RTI. "There's no evidence of it being harmful, or wasteful," Gersten reports. And indeed the IES guide offers "practical advice" to parents and schools and may well help advance the RTI process.

That same guide was put together using a "good balance" between researchers and practitioners, according to Kathleen A. Whitmire, director of the RTI Action Network and quoted in Samuels' article. Even with a good guide such as IES has put together, "the most motivated educators will still run up against challenges," Whitmire explained. Indeed the RTI model certainly was given a boost in credibility in 2004 when Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; the act states that RTI can be used as part of a process for "diagnosing students with specific learning disabilities" (Samuels).

A recent scholarly article in the Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin (Linder, 2009) reviews a new book by R.L. Allington that suggests that RTI is among the "major issues currently facing American educators." Allington's book offers a lot of information on the best strategies for helping students with reading problems, including making sure interventions such as RTI include large amounts of time "spent with authentic reading rather than other types of activities" (Linder). Allington believes in RTI, Linder notes, but Allington believes that "trained professionals" who are using "research-based reading practices" should be used with students who struggle with reading, and not "commercially-produced, packaged programs" for RTI.

An article in the journal Education and Treatment of Children (Harris-Murri, et al. 2006) sets out to promote RTI as an appropriate approach for "reducing disproportionate minority representation in Special Education Programs for Students with Emotional Disturbances." Harris-Murri and colleagues accept that the RTI model was originally intended for use in determining IDEA eligibility; but research that Harris-Murri reference demonstrates that one of the problems that now need to be addressed is that there is a disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students special education.