By Tom Many, EdD
The current reality around RtI represents a real enigma. There is agreement RtI is the most effective way to respond to students who are not learning and the RtI framework is commonplace in our schools, yet implementing the RtI process is one of the most confounding challenges principals face.
In order to shed some light on this conundrum, the U.S. Department of Education commissioned a study of the intervention (RtI) practices of schools across the country. Results of the study suggest in order to successfully implement RTI, principals should ensure four conditions exist in their schools. First, the most effective members of the faculty and staff must be assigned to work with the most vulnerable learners. Second, students must have access to additional time and support without missing direct instruction in core subjects. Third, intervention programs must be frequent enough, and of sufficient duration, to positively impact learning. Finally, teams must use data from multiple sources to make decisions about student participation in intervention (RtI) programs.
Condition #1: Ensure our most effective staff members are assigned to work with our most vulnerable students.
It seems obvious the most effective staff members would be responsible for working with students who are not yet proficient, but that is not always the case. In schools that limited intervention to students performing below expectations, Balu and her colleagues (2015) found a combination of specialists, classroom teachers and paraprofessionals delivered interventions (p. 34). Paraprofessionals represented the most common alternative at 37%, followed by classroom teachers at 26%, and specialists at 18%. (pg. 70)
The question principals must consider is not who but who would best deliver the additional time and support. The choice of who is best suited to provide students with support is based on factors like background and experience, specialized training and expertise, or instructional effectiveness as demonstrated by the performance of a group of students on a recent common assessment. Principals must ensure whomever delivers interventions has the necessary tools and strategies to help students succeed.
Our students deserve the most qualified, not the most available adult to deliver interventions. If the goal is to create interventions that work, principals must commit to assigning our most effective and qualified staff members to work with our most vulnerable and struggling students.
Condition #2: Ensure students have access to interventions without missing direct instruction in core subjects.
Any effective intervention (RtI) program is built upon the belief all students can learn. While it’s true not all students learn at the same time or in the same way, schools functioning as PLCs believe given enough time and support, all students will learn. An effective intervention (RtI) program provides extra support in addition to core instruction. This would seem logical but once again, Balu and her colleagues report this condition was not always present.
Balu et al. found students received additional time and support both inside (during) and outside (in addition to) the core instructional block. In some schools, more than half of all intervention groups met during core (Tier 1) instruction. As a result, not all students received intervention services in addition to their core instructional time. The implication of this practice is “intervention may have replaced rather than supplemented some instruction services during the core.” Balu, 2015, p 60. Too often students are pulled from classroom instruction when they struggle. This practice means our most vulnerable students miss important initial instruction, which causes them to fall further and further behind. Whenever intervention supplants rather than supplements classroom instruction, our underperforming students—those with the greatest needs—may actually receive less direct instruction.
In schools functioning as a Professional Learning Community, principals ensure students have access to additional time and support without missing direct instruction in another core subject. Our struggling students need more time to learn, not less.
Condition #3: Ensure interventions are of sufficient frequency and duration to positively impact student learning.
Our experience has been the frequency and duration of intervention programs falls short of what is recommended. Best practice calls for 90 minutes of reading instruction during core instruction. For students not learning as expected in Tier 1, additional Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 interventions are provided to their core instruction.
Balu and her colleagues found the length of daily intervention sessions fell within a range of 20 and 40 minutes. The research team recommended Tier 2 interventions be delivered three times a week and Tier 3 interventions meet four to five times a week. (p. 33) Using 30 minutes (the mid point of the range) as the standard, students in Tier 2 would receive 90 minutes of additional intervention programming and as much as 150 minutes in Tier 3. This simply is not what is typically available to students in most schools.
Commitment #4: Ensure actionable data is the basis of identification, assignment and movement of students within our Pyramids of Interventions.
Without an assessment system that provides classroom teachers with data generated by a variety of formative and summative measures, “movement between the tiers will depend upon relatively few points of data from a single source.” (Pierce and Jackson, 2017) This practice is problematic because it is based on the assumption all assessments provide actionable data, all students have the same needs, and a standard set of interventions will be equally effective for all students. Unfortunately, none of these assumptions are true.
“Because RtI has proven to be the best way to intervene when students need additional time and support, schools that function as a PLC should not view RtI as a new initiative but instead, as deepening their current intervention practices.” – Austin Buffum, Mike Mattos, and Janet Malone (2018)
Balu and her colleagues focused on reading interventions at the elementary level but their findings are applicable in other settings. What is clear is if schools want to increase the likelihood interventions will help students learn, they must ensure that (1) the most effective staff members work with the most vulnerable students; (2) students have access to interventions without missing direct instruction in core subjects; (3) interventions are of sufficient frequency and duration to positively impact student learning; and (4) data from multiple sources is the basis of identification, assignment, and movement of students within intervention (RtI) programs.
References
Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J. & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016-4000). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Malone, J. (2018). Taking Action; A Handbook for RtI at Work. Solution Tree Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Sparks, S. (2015). Study: RtI Practice Falls Short of Promise. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/11/11/study-rti-practice-falls-short-of-promise.html.
Pierce J. D. & Jackson D. (2017). Ten steps to make RtI work in your schools. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/resource.
Dr. Tom Many is an author and consultant. His career in education spans more than 30 years.
TEPSA News, May/June 2018, Vol 75, No 3
Copyright © 2018 by the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association. No part of articles in TEPSA publications or on the website may be reproduced in any medium without the permission of the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association.
