Response To Interventions Reflection Paper
RE 5210-375
Fall 2010
Amy Reep
Response to Intervention is a multi-tiered system that involves measuring a student’s success, or
lack of, to specific interventions through different levels of intervention. RTI got its roots in research by
Stan Deno through the University of Minnesota. While working with special education teachers, they
discovered that children could benefit from intense interventions before they fail. He suggests that you can
give a screening assessment in order to determine who may struggle, then provide those students with
remedial instruction and measure success through Curriculum Based Measures over a period of time.
Then the teacher can design lessons based on needs that have been determined or focus on strategies
that have been successful.
RTI was developed in order to overcome difficulties with the inadequacies using the discrepancy
formula when determining eligibility for placement in the exceptional children program. When Deno first
developed his RTI, his goal was not for the program to be used for determining eligibility, but to offer
varying levels of intervention to students who are not responding to effective classroom instruction
otherwise. Unlike the older discrepancy model that was used in the past, the RTI model begins in
Kindergarten and works with children throughout their schooling, should the need arise.
Currently there are two divisions of Response to Intervention that are currently being used
throughout many states. Standard Protocol focuses on three different levels of intervention. Everyone in
the classroom receives tier one in standard protocol. It involves students receiving effective core reading
classroom instruction. Everyone is given a screening assessment at specific points in time, usually 2-3
times per year depending on grade level, and then anyone who is caught performing below “par” on the
assessment is then progress monitored through a standardized assessment. Then the teacher is able to
determine who is making progress through the progress monitored collection data, and those students who
are continuing to struggle. Those students that are not making progress after effective teaching and poor
assessment data would be moved on to tier two. Tier two provides intensive research based instruction for
these children. The students are pulled from the regular classroom to receive this additional instruction by
highly trained reading specialists with advanced knowledge in the given field (reading or math if math is the
weakness). This pull out group would have a reduced class size (1 specialist:3 to 6 students or if a
paraprofessional is used 1 :3) and the time spent with this instructor would be in addition to the amount of
reading they’re already receiving in the regular education classroom. Again there CBMs would be given
and progress would be monitored. Several research based interventions may be done at this level to
ensure that a child is receiving best practices for that student. The time spent in tier two can vary, however
it needs to involve multiple opportunities for success/ unresponsiveness. If after this intensive intervention
the child is successful, the child would move back into the regular classroom. However, if the child is not
making sufficient progress, the child would move to tier three. Before deciding to move the child to the
third tier Fuchs identified three primary considerations for progress monitoring at tier two: you should
measure what you are teaching in order to determine if the intervention is working, students with severe
reading problems should be monitored more frequently and that well developed (standardized) progress
monitoring data is used to measure responsiveness. Tier three in the Standard Protocol involves
placement in the special education program. There may be additional standardized tests that will occur to
determine eligibility and labeling of disability in this tier. This tier should only be used if the student is
nonresponsive to multiple research based interventions implemented in a small group with a specialized
reading instructor along with reading instruction from the regular ed classroom teacher. At this level,
children may be pulled out of the classroom for some amount of the day and receive direct intensive
interventions from a special education reading teacher or reading specialist. It is important to note that all
instruction and interventions used in the Standard Protocol version of RTI are standardized and research
based. The interventions are performed by specialists and progress is monitored frequently. There are
many benefits to this model. Among those are the standardized model. Each tier is broken down with
specific research based interventions, not behavior based suggestions by colleagues. Progress is
constantly monitored. The interventions are performed by specialists, not over stressed regular ed
teachers.
The other version of Response to Intervention stems from the Heartland AEA of Iowa. Currently,
this is the method that North Carolina has chosen to adopt. It is titled the Problem- Solving Process. The
research supporting this model’s beginnings stems from behavior consultation research. In North Carolina,
it is implemented differently throughout the state. Some counties use this as pre-referral to special
education services, while others use the problem solving model as placement for special education. This
model also consists of a tiered movement for struggling students, however problem solving involves 4 to 5
(depending on rather regular classroom instruction is used as tier 0) tiers. In this model, there are no
systematic interventions- suggestions are made by parents, colleagues, and specialists at the county level.
Tier one consists of students who are having difficulty responding to classroom instruction. The person
creating and implementing interventions are parents and the regular classroom teacher. The only
assessments completed here are teacher preferred or in the upper grades, scores on an End of Grade test.
A student may move to tier two if the interventions are not working or they may stay at tier one and the
teacher/parent may decide to try more interventions. Tier two is for any child in the classroom that is not
successful in the regular class. At this point the teacher begins to gather and chart data on this child based
on success of the interventions that they are completing themselves. Again there are numerous possibilities
for multiple interventions at this level. A child can move to tier three or continue in tier two if response is not
made to interventions. If they do stay at this tier, additional interventions are administered and data is
collected on the child’s response to the new intervention. The interventions at this point may be suggested
by a Student Success Team at the school level which may consist of a social worker, other teachers, and
an administrator. The interventions that are suggested vary by school also, some may be moving the child
closer to the front of the room, have a peer check assignment book daily, or repeated readings at child’s
instructional level. There are no standard research-based interventions for specific grades or situations.
Also the person who completes the paper work, implements the interventions, and records the data is the
same person- the regular education teacher. If the Student Success Team feels the child is not making
adequate progress at tier two, the child may be placed in tier three, or again may stay in tier two with new
interventions suggested to try. In tier three, the process becomes more formal. There is a meeting with an
extended problem solving team and the classroom teacher to discuss more interventions to try with the
struggling student. A specialist, i.e. school psychologist, from the county may be brought in help make a
plan for the student. The plan suggests possible solutions as to why the student is struggling, ways to
address the problem, and measurement of progress tool according to North Carolina’s Department of
Instruction website article. At this stage, interventions become data driven and use instructional
assessments to measure progress. All instruction is still occurring in the general classroom and reading
instruction is from the classroom teacher. She/He is responsible for implementing the plan and collecting
the ongoing data. Then the teacher will analyze the data and evaluate the plan with the Student Success
Team after intervention has occurred for a specific amount of time. At this point the child may move to tier
4, entitlement for special education, decide if further standardized testing (i.e. IQ and achievement tests)
will need to occur, or the child will remain in tier 3 and the plan will be recycled. At any tier the child can be
moved down through the tiers until they are once again unsuccessful and need to begin with tier one again.
There are components about the state’s adoption of the Problem Solving Model of RTI that I do
like. I admire how in the beginning grades there are standard assessment tools like AIMS web and
DIBBELS that can be used. These are school based and any teacher would be able to infer information
about the child’s reading development based on the scores on these assessments. Also this lets teachers
know of difficulties that specific children may have and instruction can be developed based on that weak
skill for the targeted group of children. I do feel that this may also help students who fall through the cracks
previously based on the discrepancy formula due to a low IQ and not meeting the state’s determination of a
needed 15 point discrepancy between ability and performance. However there are many more concerns I
have that outweigh the benefits. The largest problem with the Problem Solving Model is that there are no
standard interventions that are suggested. Many of the suggested ones are behavior based, or are
unreasonable. My administration does not take into account time in class or classroom size when making
intervention suggestions. I also feel that they often do not understand the frustration that classroom
teachers feel about continuing to implement interventions that are not working but this time for a longer
period each day. I believe that interventions suggested by the Standard Protocol would be more productive
and ensure that structured learning is occurring. Another concern that I have with Problem Solving Model
is the people who are performing the interventions. In my school, the classroom teacher is responsible for
all interventions. Unfortunately, not all teachers are sufficiently trained in the area of reading through
college courses to meet the needs of struggling readers. Until I began the Masters process I would have
had great difficulty in helping my pre-primer readers. Also not all teachers follow through with the
interventions they say they are doing and not all reading instruction that occurs on a daily basis is effective.
In our school, paraprofessionals are also implementing intervention in the lower grades (upper grades are
left to fend for themselves). Not only are these assistants not trained in reading, they are working with eight
to ten kids in a “reduced group size”. I do not feel that this is a productive way to get struggling readers the
assistance that they need.
I feel that my school can increase the likelihood that the Problem Solving model will benefit
students at my school by doing several things. The first one I would suggest is to hire a reading specialist.
We are not a Title One school, and have no one other than a RTI paraprofessional to work with the
students. This lady was rehired through federal funding and has gone to a workshop on the state’s RTI
process. She works with only the first and second graders at our school. She does not sit in on out Student
Success Team meetings. She has several other paraprofessionals that assist her in her class time of thirty
minutes with up to ten students per class. I feel that a reading specialist would have more knowledge
about specific reading interventions that may promote more student success. Also I would have this
person attend the SST meetings and suggest research based interventions instead of various
recommendations from colleagues. Switching classes is a mandate at my school for the upper grades. I
feel that this needs to be looked at as well in order for Problem Solving Model to be successful. Currently I
teach one hundred fifth graders reading, in one hour blocks each day. My students do not have a period in
the day for me to pull them to complete interventions. All interventions must be completed during their one
hour of regular classroom instruction. Two of my students are at tier three and it is suggested that I work
directly with these students thirty to forty minutes a day individually. This is all but impossible, when I am
responsible for effective classroom reading instruction also for the 23 other students during that time
period. I believe that in order for classroom switching to be successful, the children should be limited to two
ninety minute classes with a remediation/enrichment or SSR time completed in homeroom. In order for a
language arts block to be successful there should be ninety minutes of effective teaching every day for our
regular learners, and even more for struggling readers. We are in an elementary setting and time needs to
be given to help those students who do not receive outside assistance at home. Finally, the only grades
that currently receive the standardized assessments of progress monitoring are the K, 1 st , 2nd , and this
year 3rd grades. I would like to see that the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades also receive standard measurement
tools. I feel that this would elevate the pressure from teachers to create their own versions and eliminate
the bias a teacher can put into her assessments. Overall, I also feel that staff development should be
mandated at least once every three years in the area of reading. I feel that it needs to be an effective
course that helps teachers hone in on difficulties they have in teaching reading. Some may even need a
course that reenergizes them in this area and exposes them to new resources and ideas. In this staff
development, interventions that are research based could be discussed and modeled so that a teacher isn’t
afraid to try it in the classroom (I had the reading clinic in mind). I feel that North Carolina’s Problem
Solving Model of RTI can be beneficial if these steps are implemented at my school.