Rachel Monroe
RE 5210
11-30-10
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.