Student Achievement Teacher's Response to Intervention RTI

Review of Literature

Introduction

Teachers are responsible for students success and achievement. A student who passes well in school has a chance of acquiring numerous opportunities in the global market. However, students who fail in school are likely to fall into poverty or be dependent on others. Hence, teachers are tasked with ensuring that the needs of all students are met. Fortunately, there has been lots of evidence to prove that Response to Intervention (RTI) is an approach that can help us give every student academic support required to effectively learn (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005). RTI’s fundamental principle is that learning institutions should not wait for students to lag in class for the student to be eligible for special education and offer them the help they need. Instead, learning institutions should offer directed and orderly interventions to all learners as soon as they determine the need.

The theoretical framework of Response to Intervention (RTI) starts at the national level. This literature review will outline RTI at the national, state, and system levels. It will also identify the basis and shows the procedure required at each level. It also has a section that describes the findings of various researchers regarding RTI.

Student Support Team Process before RTI

Before the implementation of RTI, schools applied the Students Support Team process. This process was intended to offer support to the student and teacher through a combined team approach with key stakeholders. SST was created because the collaborative approach works when coming up with plans for students with learning disabilities. SST was a valuable tool because it provided an effective educational program for learners (Barrio & Combes, 2015). 

Student Support Teams prove to be more effective in learning institutions whereby the teachers are responsible for all students and can help them in collaborative problem-solving. The process entailed basic steps that focused on individual student needs, ways of learning, program efficiency, and communication. Before and during the first meeting, the team members collect relevant information on the student’s past and present educational and behavioral performance. The information was mainly from sources such as parents, official school records, and anecdotal records. The team would then meet to discuss, evaluate the information acquired, and decide whether more information is needed. The team would then develop an individual educational plan tailored depending on the student’s strengths and weaknesses.

Plans and techniques are suggested and supported by all the team members involved in the implementation process. It is at this time that a timeline for a follow-up is established. The developed educational plan is effected for a certain period, and supplementary data is gathered if necessary (Barrio & Combes, 2015); and the team would have regular meetings to discuss student progress and supplementary information that may be presented. In case there is a demand to change the education plan, the alterations will be done during the SST meeting.

Lastly, there is the ongoing monitoring and evaluation that is a significant part of the SST process. If the education plan proved successful and no disability was discovered, the team continued to observe the student progress and decide when to support the classroom plans. However, if a disability were discovered, the team would advise that they go for psychological testing. Upon completing the test, the team will hold another meeting to discuss eligibility for special education (Barrio & Combes, 2015). 

Many learning institutions struggle to benefit from RTI because they misguidedly view RTI as just a new method of qualifying learners for special education by directing the efforts to regular education interventions before referring the students who lag in class to traditional special education testing and placement. Other schools are just implementing RTI to not be on the wrong side of the law and stay legal.

The problem of disproportional representation

Gravois, & Rosenfield (2006), analyzes the problem of disproportional representation of minority students in special education. Although there have been recommendations offered to help solve the problem, two challenges are still unsolved. The first is that the extent of the problem has not been fully defined, and second, there have been no interventions within schools to help address the problem. Disproportionate placement is defined as representing a certain group of learners at a rate that is different compared to that found in the overall population.

The problem of disproportionate representation can occur if the learners’ placements are overrepresented or underrepresented when looking at their presence at comparing it to their representation in the overall population. Gravois & Rosenfield (2006) focus on the overrepresentation of minorities in special education and their under-representation in programs set up for gifted and talented learners. The minorities, in particular, are the African American students who are selected for special education.

The number of Black students identified for special education is disproportionate compared to that of their white peers. According to Gravois & Rosenfield (2006), the number of African American students who are mentally disabled students is twice the rate of other races. There is data analysis from the various State Department of Education presented to back up this claim.

Furthermore, Gravois & Rosenfield (2006) use general calculations such as risk indexes, odds ratios, and composition indexes to describe disproportionate representation in the literature. Each of these calculations helps one view the same data from various angles. For example, the risk index offers a percentage of a certain group (e.g., African American) that has been listed in a specific category (e.g., mental retardation); on the other hand, the odds ratio makes a comparison between two different groups. The end goal is to develop a better understanding of the impact.

The first theme addressed in the literature addressing disproportionality is the effect of cultural differences on tutor perceptions and practices concerning minority learners. According to the writers’ research, some tutors argue that minority learners are selected for special education classes to improve how tutors deal with culturally diverse learners. They provide ideas about how teachers can develop new perceptions and practices that will lead to greater student achievement and cut down the number of inappropriate referrals to special education. The second theme is biasing in assessment procedures used when selecting the minority learners for special education services. Lastly, the article addresses the effectiveness of prereferral when dealing with students’ academic needs before selecting special needs services.

According to Gravois & Rosenfield (2006), Instructional Consultation Teams (IC Teams) are to be used in the problem-solving processes to ensure quality instruction and intervention is provided to them. This will improve student academic achievement, especially the minority students, and the number of learners selected for evaluation or placement in remedial services will reduce. The IC Team model’s consistent application has led to decreased total referrals and placements of learners in special education.

A study conducted by Gravois & Rosenfield (2006) shows the effect of implementing IC Teams on the special education referral and placement patterns of minority learners when compared to other learners in different schools in the same area. The study results show an effect on the disproportionate evaluation and placement of minority learners compared to schools that continue to apply their traditional prereferral process. In the schools with IC Team, the number of minorities decreased in the three disproportionality indices concerning referral for assessment and placement into special education. The IC Team’s implementation in project schools led to decreased risk indexes, odds ratios, and composition indexes of assessment and placement of minority students.

National Guidelines for RTI

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) was reauthorized by the president in December 2004. The act aimed to provide national guidelines for school systems and teachers dealing with students who have or are suspected of having disabilities. IDEA is a federal act, which governs how states offer early intervention services to disabled students. After being reauthorized in 2004, the Act stated that all learners had the right to receive a free and appropriate education to make them ready for advancement and independent living.

All public schools develop an individualized education plan for students who qualify under the federal and state eligibility requirements. The act requires that public schools develop an individualized education plan for students who meet the federal and state eligibility requirements. Since IDEA comprises assessment practices that are more flexible concerning determining eligibility for services, a broader range of assessment tools and approaches could be applied to determine if a student needed special education services (Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002).

States and districts were granted by IDEA (2004) the legal burden for the implementation of problem-solving models such as RTI. According to IDEA 2004, scientific, research-based interventions in the learning disability eligibility process are allowed even though it was not mandatory. The Act further states that if districts choose to use RTI, then RTI cannot be excluded. 

IDEA supports the use of evidence-based interventions and stresses the use of early intervention services. The main goal of IDEA has been to ensure that there is early intervention to prevent a child from being required to have special education services. RTI is a model that uses the funding provided by the federal government for special education to support vulnerable students through a multi-layer model of service delivery, using research-based strategies, positive behavioral supports, and evidence-based literacy instruction (IDEA, 2004).

Before RTI, several national educational initiatives and policies aim to improve underachieving students’ performance. In 1990, the National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD) took part in research studies to improve reading disability. As a result, they came up with improved reading and intervention strategies for struggling readers. The institute also concluded that using QI achievement discrepancy to conclude if one has a specific learning disability eligibility prevents children from receiving treatment before the effective time for intervention has passed.

In 1980, the National Research Council Panel on Minority Over-representation was formed and was tasked with publishing reports connected to the concern about the over-representation of minorities in special education. The reports emphasized the lack of research validating special education advantages for minority students (NRCP, 2000). In 2002, the panel wrote a report that emphasized prevention and intervention to reduce the factors that increase the chances of minority children being placed into special education programs. The panel suggested a four-tier intervention model and a fresh approach to determining eligibility for special education. Among the recommendations was RTI.

RTI Framework

According to (Aspiranti et al., 2019), Response to intervention (RTI) is an intervention method applied to offer academic services and interventions to learners. The two main purposes of RTI are; to offer a preemptive service delivery model and determine and determine suitability for special education services under the classification of a specific learning disability (SLD). As states are starting to necessitate RTI data as part of an SLD identification, the suitability requirements’ alteration is a paradigm shift in various school districts’ operations and beliefs.

RTI came into place with the re-authorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. This Act offered states the choice of determining whether a student responds to scientific, research-based intervention to select a student in need of special education. A child is only eligible for special education if the child’s academic performance remains poor after intensive intervention implementation. Powers et al. (2008) outline the training and professional development requirements of school psychologists for successfully implementing an RTI model.

According to Kratochwill & Shernoff (2004), it is important to identify issues related to evidence-based practice and how the school psychology profession can contribute to developing and disseminating evidence-based interventions (EBIs). Kratochwill & Shernoff (2004) discusses five assumptions presented that can help the Task Force deal with the integration of EBIs in practice. Where information is specified, intervention requires an evidence-based approach.

RTI can be used more widely across learning institutions as a problem-solving method that shapes instruction and influences intervention choices, suitability for special education programs, and special education programs (Batsche et al., 2006). Although many schools have applied the RTI approach due to IDEA 2004 regulations, it is clear among the practitioners that the implementation of RTI will take some time and will require ongoing professional development of school teachers and psychologists at all levels of RTI to effectively serve learners.

Multi-Tiered System of Supports

Sometimes, MTSS and RTI are used interchangeable, and this causes misunderstandings among professionals. In Florida, RTI incorporates academic and behavioral instructions and interventions. RTI in Florida is described as a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) used to provide quality instruction and intervention depending on the student’s needs (Castillo et al., 2011).

According to Sugai and Horner (2009), the Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) helps organize and educate learners through different support levels. MTSS is a wider term that covers several tiered support systems. One of the tiered support systems that focus on academics is Response to Intervention (RTI). Other tiered support systems address behavioral issues; they include; Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and School-Wide Positive Behavioral Support (SWPBS). Although the basic themes vary, MTSS models have some mutual features, including (a) universal screening to help in the early identification of learners that fail to respond to evidence-based instruction, (b) multiple tiers of intervention that intensifies the intervention, (c) uniform problem-solving procedures for decision-making, (d) data collection used to adjust instruction, (e) highlighting on the significance of integrity, and (f) assessments that assist in guiding instruction and placement (Sugai & Horner 2009). MTTS has two main goals; improve student achievement and also recognize students with learning disabilities. Sugai and Horner (2009) state that MTSS has developed due to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004), which requires no child in school is left behind.

Incorporating academic and behavior support into one system has been an area of increasing interest as systems need many resources to implement and sustain (McIntosh, Goodman, & Bohanon, 2010). Many agree that academic and behavioral support should be put together. This is because there is evidence that problem behavior is linked with low academic performance and vice versa. According to McIntosh, Goodman, and Bohanon (2010), there is a more likelihood that students with low academic skills will fall into depression later in life.

The Three Tiers of RTI

Tier One

Generally, all students are participants on this level. The students are provided access to a standard-based curriculum implemented with instruction. It also includes differentiated evidence-based learning modeled to individual student needs. Instructions are based on the data collected and reviewed. When Tier one is carried out in this way, about 80% of students will be eligible for the general education classroom. Thus, it will reduce the number of children referred and placed in special education classrooms.

Tier Two

Tier Two is centered on needs-based learning. If a student has not successfully responded to Tier One, the students are moved to Tier Two. Students are offered a standard intervention protocol that focuses on their specific academic or behavioral challenges on this tier. These students are selected using universal screening data, state assessment data, comprehensive assessment data, and Tier One assessment data. A fundamental part of this tier is the progress monitoring process. Progress is monitored to analyze the student’s response to the intervention, and decisions are made based on the student’s response. When Tier Two is carried out in this manner, many students will be eligible for the general education classroom.

Tier Three 

Tier three entails steady and accurate delivery of an intervention. The intervention may be very intense. At this level, the RTI process is more individualized and diagnostic. The school teachers often request county-level specialists to join the problem-solving team. To discover the reasons why the students are not performing as expected, they may use scientific analysis. Careful analysis in this tier helps most students move back to Tier One or Tier Two. The decision is made after close monitoring of the progress. During the intervention, students who respond successfully start to receive less and less intervention. More and more instructions are given to students who do not respond successfully to the intervention. However, if the students are still unresponsive at this level, the RTI team has to come together and decide if a referral is needed for specialized instruction.

Special Education Services

This level involves special program placement for students in need of additional support. This tier involves special education and gifted education services. The services can be offered in a general classroom setting or a different setting. Tier Four is for students that we’re unable to respond to the previous three tiers. These kinds of students require additional support and meet eligibility criteria for special program placement. The students are suitable for gifted learning and special education. Because of the tiers in place before specialized services, more struggling students will be successful and will not need the intervention on this tier. Tier four offers instructions for students with disabilities and need special education and related services. If a determination has been made stating that a child has a disability, the school system does not require additional documentation for prior interventions.

The role of School Psychologists

The role of School Psychologists in the RTI model includes developing interventions for students, screening to identify issues early enough, monitoring progress, offering professional development for tutors, and taking leadership roles to support the implementation of RTI at a system level. School psychologists play a significant role in RTI teams as they interpret data and help general and special education teachers make proper decisions from the data (Aspiranti et al., 2019)

However, schools underutilize the expertise that a school psychologist can offer in the RTI process. School psychologists are trained to offer assessment, intervention, and consultation; this helps in the RTI process. Although school psychologists have diverse training, they focus more on eligibility-related assessment activities and less time on intervention and consultation. A school psychologist is likely to offer more if their role is divided into equal parts assessment, intervention, and consultation (Aspiranti et al., 2019)

There has been a growing worry amid the teachers and school psychologists on how a problem-solving approach such as RTI may affect their roles. Traditionally, the role of a psychologist has mainly been that of a psychometric. However, in recent years, a school psychologist is viewed as a problem-solver. They must join their understanding of psychology and education to offer the best services to the students. School psychologists apply their strengths in collaboration, consultation, and interventions. They are working in environments that allow them to offer a wider variety of services that will be more meaningful to students. School psychologists now partake in ensuring academic competence and offering social and emotional support (Little, 2013).

However, the role of a school psychologist in RTI is not properly defined. A school psychologist’s role has been altered from a predominantly psychometrician to an active problem-solver. This will require the school psychologists to be ready for change and additional training (Little, 2013).

Implementation of RTI

According to CDE (2009), there are several ways of implementing RTI. Each process depends on a tiered service delivery model that occurs within three to five service tiers (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2008). The three-tiered method depends on primary instruction happening in the general education classroom. If a learner does not show progress in the general education curriculum, they are directed to tier 2 for further instructions and core instruction. Suppose the learner does not progress at tier 2. In that case, they are moved to tier 3, which entails increased time in the targeted academic area, a change to a different curriculum adopted by that State Board of Education, and a decrease in student to teacher ratio.

The use of the RTI model has limited to primary school settings. According to Duffy (2007), numerous studies show the effectiveness of RTI for primary school students. However, there is a limited study directed to the RTI model for students in secondary school. RTI is effectively applied in elementary and junior high school settings (Duffy, 2007). Even though there is no systematic approach in ascertaining the elements that lead to the inconsistency of RTI in the primary and secondary school settings, the purpose of RTI is to recognize students with learning disabilities and offer intervention for them– may essentially clarify the difference.

According to Vaughn et al. (2008), RTI is applied when screening students who have trouble reading and providing intervention to fulfill each student’s needs. According to (Johnson, Smith, & Harris, 2009), since the identification of learning disability often occurs in elementary school years and the relevant intervention for high school learners may not be as effective to elementary learners. There may be a demand for additional resources in changing the focus (Vaughn et al., 2008). In short, there may be challenges as a result of early identification and intervention as well as the different methods of learning in elementary and secondary students.

Despite the challenges, RTI should be implemented for secondary students too. Lipka, Lesaux, and Siegel (2006) report that reading intervention for secondary schools is still important. This is because a number of the students receive inadequate reading instructions and because the students did not undergo early intervention, they do not cope well with the requirement of learning to read.

Implementing RTI in a secondary school will entail providing individual-level interventions and creating a school-level support structure, not just identifying students at risk. To achieve this, general and special education teachers must closely monitor progress and select the best interventions (Johnson, Smith, & Harris, 2009). Special education teachers are not equipped to understand instructions for general education; hence, they cannot make effective comments. Equally, general education teachers do not have adequate training to respond to students’ special needs with disabilities, and the use of jargon in teaching may be viewed as a problem.

At each content level, different instructions are given. Insufficient knowledge on general education and special education also contributes to implementing RTI in a school setting where the tutors assume that the learners should have prerequisite skills, such as reading.

Research Related to RTI

In a case study centered on a survey of administrators and teachers in an urban school district, participants pointed out that RTI tiers and significant elements were unavailable due to decreased leadership, training, and teacher buy-in (Dimick, 2009). RTI is often viewed as a ‘wait-to-fail’ model because it requires students to underperform before they are identified and offered intense interventions. This model replaced the discrepancy model, which has been the only way to identify students with learning disabilities in the past.

The discrepancy model selects learners with disabilities by comparing their educational success to their IQ scores. According to Fuchs (2003), this model has been criticized because it is inconsistent and biased. RTI seems to be the model supported by most states. Furthermore, it appears that ever since RTI was implemented, there has been a decrease in cases of special education referrals. The Institute of Education Sciences described RTI as a complete early detection and prevention strategy that helps struggling students before they lag (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The model assumes that if a learner is unresponsive to an increase in intervention levels, and data supports this, then that learner is eligible for further assistance that may include special education services (Gresham, 2007). However, before the referral to special education services, learners are offered several chances and interventions to improve their weakness area. This results in fewer referrals to special education (Gresham, 2007).