RTI Reflection Paper



RTI Reflection Paper

The Response to Intervention program has two main models: The Problem Solving and The Standard Protocol Versions. The Problem solving model has five tiers of intervention and progress monitoring; whereas the Standard Protocol model has three. Fuchs and Fuchs remarks the increase in tiers is a difference in how we deal with those who are identified. They explain that the less tiers included in a model the more likely we are working towards disability identification, the more tiers included in a model the closer we are to full inclusion of exceptional children. The Problem solving model is meant for early intervention of student who are struggling. The Standard Protocol approach hopes to not only intervene early, but also to identify students for learning disabilities. The largest differences between the two models deal with identification, variability, and specificity.

The problem solving model has more variability from school to school and less specificity in terms of interventions and instructions. This model begins with the first tier not listed as part of the approach, but included as general education instruction. The official first tier listed in the graphic model is to serve and intervene with students who are caught in a benchmark screening or reading assessment, or any children referred with issues. The intervention for this tier is done in the classroom, with parent and teacher working together, to find a process that will aid the child to become better at a particular reading skill; such as fluency or comprehension. The child is then progress monitored to check for success or non-success with the skill. Based on student progress, an intervention can be modified to increase success or the child can be moved on to tier two if the problem seems to greatly affect the student even after the increased support. There is no time limit given for intervention, intensity of intervention given, or time spent in this tier before moving on. Tier two is for students not responding to tier one, and is implemented by the classroom teacher after receiving recommendations from other school professionals on how to better help the child. Data is once again collected and if no response is seen, the intervention is revised or other professionals help devise a better intervention. In tier one and two of the problem solving model there is a possibility for multiple interventions to be given within the tier before moving on. If a student continues his/her non response to the invention at tier two, they are moved to tier three for more team support. At this point, the teacher and other team members create interventions and progress monitor the student. If there is still no response, the student moves to the last tier and is looked at for entitlement and special education consideration. This may involve other achievement testing, IQ testing or further intervention strategies before placement.

The Standard Protocol version of RTI is similar to the problem solving method in its early intervention approach; however, there is less variability among the type of intervention given, more specificity in terms of intensity and time spent on intervening, and a faster move towards identification of learning disabled students. This model begins with all students in tier one receiving quality instruction from the classroom teacher. All classroom students are screened and those that are caught in the screen as potential struggling readers are closely progress monitored. If they are not making progress or having successes during this intervention period, they move to the next tier, much like the problem solving model. The difference at Standard Protocol tier two is students are given extra instruction by an expertise in the specific area that students need intervention. This is also given outside of the classroom with a reduced student teacher ratio, or small group setting. These students are once again progress monitored at tier two, and those that do not respond adequately to the intensive intervention move to tier three. At tier three, students are given individualized instruction and eligibility determination for special education services. According to Fuchs and Fuchs, this individualized instruction is continuously assessed and has increased intensity. They also discuss that this model works hard to indentify students who need attention, quantify response to intervention among those who were targeted, and give individualized instruction for those who are the most unresponsive to continued intervention. The standard protocol tiers are intense, extra instruction that is given for a certain amount of specified time with a reduced student-teacher ratio. All interventions are carried out according to the plan set by the model. It has more fidelity checks, is research-based, and requires more money to carry out successfully.

In my opinion, I believe the state department of instruction should have looked more closely at comparing and contrasting the Problem Solving model and the Standard Protocol model before deciding which teachers should use to help the most students possible. If they would have looked at the benefits and successes of each more closely, I think they would have seen what I have seen over the course of discussing and researching both options. The Problem Solving model has many flaws that become apparent soon after reading about the program, not to mention when it comes to actually implementing the program. I believe the best option for RTI interventions is the Standard Protocol model. If we want students to receive the best quality early interventions in a standard way across the board, and help those children that indeed need the services, our best bet is to use the standard protocol model. There is also more data and research on the standard model, as well as an increased amount of benefits and success stories. I realize that it would cost more money to implement in all school systems, require more personnel, and require fidelity checks; but I feel that it is the best option if we want students to receive quality instruction and assistance when needed.

My main concerns for continuing the use of the problem solving model in North Carolina is the inconsistency with interventions, time and implementation. According to my experience, students who enter RTI in one school have completely different interventions, time in tiers, and movement in the tiers than what is completed at my school. When I have discussed the process with colleagues in the same district, it does not take long to see the many differences and frustrations we have from lack of “protocol”. This makes it difficult to see the success stories and improved differentiation for students that we are hoping to gain from this program. It would be much easier to implement and continue interventions if there was a certain formula for all schools in our state to adhere to.

Another issue that creates a great deal of concern, especially as a graduate student in the area of reading, is to be told that students should be instructed in reading on their correct instructional reading level so that they can build fluency and comprehension; but then be asked to progress monitor and intervene with students on a level that is far above what they are reading at successfully (or at their grade level). It seems counterproductive to catch a student in a fourth grade screen and know they are struggling; do further testing to find their reading level is second grade, and still probe them at a fluency rate of 132 words per minute/4th grade level. As if finding a struggling reader and given them material above their head is not enough, I am also asking them to be assessed at a level the are not capable of without instruction in weak areas from previous grade levels. I know their issue is not necessarily the screen that caught them; there is perhaps a missing link in instruction.

I have also found that upper grade students, like those I teach, who are constantly in the RTI program year after year, have learned to read quickly on the fluency probes just to get a high score; instead using all aspects of their reading instruction to understand and read fluently. I worry am I am teaching them to be quicker readers just to complete the probe and focus only on one area of a reading skill with them; instead of teaching them to be BETTER readers. I even think some students make it through the entire set of problem solving tiers and receive repeated, varied interventions for a skill, yet never really have their true reading problem diagnosed. Many times this is once again because a skill tested by the progress monitoring was something that did not address the true issue that student was struggling with. Several students I have seen enter the current problem solving RTI model have wasted valuable years of instruction because they are not truly receiving the appropriate help at the right level that they so desperately need. They are also still in whole group settings, with students in wide range of levels.

My last issue that I am starting to see is under identification. Many teachers feel the paperwork and progress monitoring is so burdensome, they will often not move students along in hopes that continuing interventions will work after a while. This causes students to become “stuck” in tiers, when they really should be moved along. This is not helped when school professionals want to wait out interventions and do not give specific time instructions on moving tiers. Even when students make it to tier four, it will often take over a month to decide if they are placed or continue in that tier. Along with this issue, many teachers are using the RTI screenings as their main source of information for struggling readers; instead of taking a closer look at their actual informal reading inventory. They assume students in the problem solving model are the only ones struggling, when in actuality, the CBM’s and cloze procedures are not giving the entire story. The informal reading inventory must be done to find appropriate reading levels, and give us insights into issues with sight words, spelling, fluency, and comprehension.

I think the problem solving model could increase its benefit with students at my school if the process were more consistent; allowing for a standard set of interventions that are intense and proven to be successful. This would allow us to see more accurate measures of how to increase students reading ability across North Carolina, and it would help teachers have a model of how to better implement success into all classrooms. I also think our teachers need to be given more effective and intense training on this model, intervention techniques, progress monitoring and benefits for students. Many times, programs like the problem solving RTI model are thrown into the laps of teachers, without much instruction given on how to use the program successfully. I feel as though the process and procedures were not thoroughly explained nor were we given examples of how to implement this program effectively into the general education classroom for all students to gain benefit from. If teachers are to be truly “highly qualified” at their jobs, they must be given the correct amount of training on how to best increase the rate of success for students needing interventions with the model. This would take money and time, but with the right specific instructions, tools, resources, and effective communication with administration and experts; it could be a wonderful way to step in a help children early on. To lessen the load of this training, I also believe the tiers should be condensed. The increased paperwork and load of moving students through many tiers, that we know are unsuccessful, does little to help the child; it is really just stalling time. By condensing the number of tiers, we could create less of a chance for students becoming “stuck” in a tier and not moving on to receive additional help. It would also aid in the consistency: in the amount and time spent on an intervention, the intensity at which it is delivered, and the use of other professional opinions, that many teachers want to understand. Also, the less time we waste in tiers with no results, the faster we will be able to get students the help they need. In closing, I think the problem solving approach could be improved if it was more valid, specific, and consistent.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download