RTI Case Study: Evaluating Interventions for a Struggling Reader
This paper examines a Response to Intervention (RTI) case study involving a 10-year-old third-grade student whose reading scores declined consistently over the course of a year despite multiple instructional interventions. The analysis evaluates what the interventionists did correctly — providing structured attention and systematic documentation — and what they did incorrectly, namely failing to assess non-instructional variables such as biological, psychological, and socioeconomic factors. Drawing on scholarship by Reschly, Goldstein, Farmer, and Hawkins, the paper recommends a holistic, whole-child assessment approach and suggests targeted professional development opportunities for teachers. The paper also discusses how NCLB and IDEA frameworks apply to the case.
- Introduction: Background on student's declining reading scores
- What Is Being Done Correctly: Positive aspects of RTI attention and documentation
- What Is Being Done Incorrectly: Critique of narrow, repetitive intervention methods
- Suggestions for Improvement: Whole-child assessment drawing on scholarly frameworks
- NCLB, IDEA, and RTI in Practice: Federal policy frameworks applied to the case
- Professional Development for Teachers: Skills teachers need beyond classroom instruction
- Conclusion: Summary of findings and holistic intervention argument
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper moves logically from description to evaluation to recommendation, giving each section a clear and distinct purpose that builds on the previous one.
- It balances acknowledgment of what practitioners did right with a substantive critique of their methodological limitations, avoiding one-sided judgment.
- The use of multiple scholarly sources (Reschly, Goldstein, Farmer, Hawkins) to support the recommendation for a whole-child approach gives the argument theoretical grounding rather than relying solely on opinion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied case study analysis: it uses a real student scenario as the evidence base and evaluates it against established educational frameworks (RTI, NCLB, IDEA) and scholarly theory. This technique — moving from observed data to theoretical explanation to practical recommendation — is a core method in education and social science writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a background narrative establishing the student's situation, then splits its evaluation into two clearly labeled sections (correct and incorrect practices). It follows with recommendations grounded in cited scholarship, a discussion of relevant federal policy frameworks, a section on teacher professional development, and a brief conclusion. The structure mirrors a standard professional case analysis report.
Introduction
The rights and wrongs of general and special education teacher practice, and Response to Intervention (RTI), are demonstrated through case studies, which can be effective tools for learning. Interventions that address student development can be a delicate process because of the many different factors — both external and internal, ranging from social and economic environment to biological and psychological disabilities — that must be considered before the right intervention can be performed. This paper uses one student's case in order to better understand how interventions can help or hurt a student's progress.
The student in question is a 10-year-old in the 3rd grade whose reading level has consistently declined over the past year. In 2004, her reading level as measured by the Idaho Reading Indicator was at or near grade level. Four months later, at the start of 2005 and midway through the school year, her reading level had dropped to below grade level. Instead of advancing, her scores showed regression. This trend continued throughout 2005, and the various interventions that were utilized — including additional time spent in different reading level groups and a small 1-on-2 group with special teacher focus — did nothing to reverse it. Different books and approaches were also employed, and different assessments were conducted, such as the DIBELS oral reading fluency assessment, but the student still fell short of her reading goals.
What Is Being Done Correctly
What is being done correctly in this case is that the student is receiving attention and extra assistance as a means of helping her develop and boost her reading skills to where they should be for her grade level. Even if the overall result is negative, this RTI method is helpful in that it provides a comprehensive assessment of her development over a given period. As one intervention fails after another, it suggests that other factors may be contributing to her regression — whether internal or external. For example, her sight may be impaired, or she may be experiencing dyslexia. She may be facing difficulties in her home life that cause her to lose focus and attention during reading. She may have a learning disability that is becoming more apparent as the demands of advancing reading levels increase.
In short, there are a number of variables that need to be considered and evaluated in order to find out why the interventions are failing. The fact that interventions are occurring at all is a positive sign and demonstrates that care and attention are being given, even when results are negative. They at least allow teachers to rule out ineffective methods and move toward something else.
What Is Being Done Incorrectly
Rather than continuing to apply the same intervention approach — that is, more concentrated efforts at reading instruction — the student's external and internal variables should be tested in order to determine whether the cause of her regression is related to something outside her control and outside the teacher's control. There is no indication that the interventionists ever considered these possibilities. This is problematic because, instead of launching one intervention after another using the same methodological approach (concentrated efforts on improving reading exposure), the interventionists should be conducting a standardized assessment in which these variables can be systematically monitored and evaluated.
Suggestions for Improvement
As Reschly (1996) asserts in his assessment of students with learning disabilities, the primary suggestion for improvement focuses on taking a comprehensive view of the situation — not just the student in isolation. Children are products of their environment as well as of their biology and psychology. This is also the position of Goldstein (2014), who advocates employing "sympathetic methods" that incorporate the whole life and activity of the student — including home life and social life — in the intervention, rather than simply swapping out teachers, books, or learning styles.
In other words, the barrier to progress may not simply be the result of a cognitive deficit. Non-cognitive barriers may also be responsible for the regression. This point is noted by Farmer et al. (2004) and Hawkins (2010) in their studies of inner-city minority youths and the problem of educational success for this group. According to the theoretical frameworks offered by Farmer (2004), Hawkins (2010), Goldstein (2014), and Reschly (1996), a better approach to helping a student in this situation would be to evaluate her condition in terms of psychological barriers, biological barriers (such as impaired eyesight), needs barriers (Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for instance), and home life barriers. This deeper, whole-child assessment should help to reveal the specific obstacles affecting her reading performance. Clearly, changing teachers or reading methods alone is not the solution.
Conclusion
The student's regression as a reader is clearly not the result of a lack of the right book or the right teacher. The various interventions have employed these methods with no better results. In fact, the worsening condition suggests that something is affecting the student's biological, psychological, or socioeconomic environment. Each of these variables should be considered before identifying her as a student with a learning disability, in order to avoid stigma or misdiagnosis. There is more to a student than just the classroom, and this is precisely the point made by the various theoretical approaches drawn upon in this assessment.
References
Farmer, T. W., Price, L. N., O'Neal, K. K., Man-Chi Leung, Goforth, J. B., Cairns, B. D., & Reese, L. E. (2004). Exploring risk in early adolescent African-American youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1–2), 51–59.
Goldstein, D. (2014). The Teacher Wars: A History of America's Most Embattled Profession. New York: Doubleday.
Hawkins, B. (2010). Economic recession, college athletics, and issues of diversity and inclusion: When White America sneezes, Black America catches pneumonia. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 3(1), 96–100.
Reschly, D. (1996). Identification and assessment of students with disabilities. Special Education for Students with Disabilities, 6(1), 40–53.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.