Running head: ARTICLE SYNTHESIS - INTERVENTIONS
Article Synthesis - INTERVENTIONS
Jeremy B. Johnson
East Carolina University
1
ARTICLE SYNTHESIS - INTERVENTIONS
2
Response to Intervention (RTI) is an educational philosophy that has swept across the
country in recent years. Many see RTI as the best answer to help ALL students be successful in
the classroom. The underlying premise of RTI is that schools should not wait for students to fail
before providing them with help. They should instead provide specific interventions to students
as soon as they demonstrate need (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2010). This is a very logical
approach that in theory should be adopted by all schools if the best interest of each individual
student is truly a priority. The unfortunate reality is that RTI is an ambiguous initiative that is
too often misunderstood to be implemented with fidelity.
Generally speaking, there is no one RTI method. Districts are free to implement it
however they choose (Yaccino, 2008). This ambiguity and lack of consistent, clear instructions
has created a program that is “open for interpretation.” Many school administrators have one
idea of RTI, while teachers have a different view. Parents are often confused about the process
and well. Therefore, the “mystery of RTI” often prevents the program from ever realizing its
true potential.
School administrators frequently have various misconceptions about RTI. Some view
RTI as simply a new way to qualify students for special education. Others think of RTI as just
another “hoop to jump through”, viewing the initiative from a compliance perspective.
Therefore, they direct their schools to do just enough to meet mandates or stay legal. Some
administrators approach RTI as a means to raise test scores, which too often leads to practices
that go against the guiding principles of RTI (Buffum et al, 2010). This confused approach from
school leaders has a “trickle-down effect” that negatively impacts RTI implementation in the
schools.
ARTICLE SYNTHESIS - INTERVENTIONS
3
Teachers also have misconceptions about the RTI process. This seems almost inevitable
when school leaders are confused about the purposes of RTI. Some districts have adopted
scripted, evidence-based core instruction programs and insist that all teachers implement the
program with fidelity. These programs are designed to deliver uniform instruction and therefore
produce uniform data for decision making. This bothers some teachers as they feel that their
flexibility and creativity are stifled as a result of these programs. Another concern regarding
teachers is that if implemented incorrectly, teachers will be completely overwhelmed by the
various aspects of the program (Yaccino, 2008). Without proper training, RTI can become an
all-consuming nightmare. Unfortunately, the vast majority of teachers (both new and veteran) are
not trained in RTI. Not all teacher education programs introduce RTI concepts to their students
(Samuels, 2011). In fact, with the exception of a few universities, RTI is not taught to would-be
teachers except in special education programs. This is problematic because RTI should not be
viewed as a special education initiative, but a general education philosophy (Sawchuk, 2011).
The inevitable result of all of this confusion is confused, frustrated parents. Parents of
special education students worry that their children will receive less social and emotional support
through the shift to RTI and early generalized interventions (Trotter, 2013). Parents also worry
about the length of time that the process takes. They are concerned that the process takes too
long and is not always implemented well enough to help their children who are struggling
academically (Samuels, 2011).
When one examines RTI as an educational philosophy, there is much to like. Early
interventions help children when and where they need it most. Children aren’t required to fail
before “red flags” appear. However, correct implementation of RTI takes time and resources. In
our era of “hurry up” and instant gratification, the process is often hurried along without the
ARTICLE SYNTHESIS - INTERVENTIONS
4
proper foundation being laid. Until school districts, teachers, universities, and other educational
stakeholders fully commit to this process, confusion and frustration will continue to be the norm.
ARTICLE SYNTHESIS - INTERVENTIONS
References
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2010). The why behind RTI. Educational Leadership,
68(2). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/oct10/vol68/num02/The-Why-Behind-RTI.aspx
Samuels, C. (2011). An instructional approach expands its reach. Education Week, 30(22).
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/02/22rtioverview.h30.html?tkn=ZYPFoJqHsF78qmk2sIjeHxYg1ts5%2FxzeHqKA&print=1
Sawchuk, S. (2011). RTI makes few inroads into the nation's education schools. Education
Week, 30(22). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/02/22rtiteachertraining.h30.html
Trotter, G. (2013, 03/26/2013). Subtle changes ahead for special education in district 36.
Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-26/news/ct-tlns-0328-winnetka-special-ed-20130327_1_special-education-school-districts-rti
Yaccino, S. (2008). New strategy to keep kids out of special ed. US News & World Report.
Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2008/07/25/new-strategy-tokeep-kids-out-of-special-ed
5