Response to Intervention

           Response to Intervention, or RTI is part of our educational landscape. There are numerous models to consider its components, with a three-legged stool or a pyramid as some of the most common visuals. RTI is powerful because it helps educators break down the components of student-centered instruction and provides structures when students aren’t responsive to Tier 1 instruction. In fact, the model is designed to get support to students as quickly as possible using research-based interventions and data to inform instruction (Texas Education Agency, n.d.). Typically Tier 1 instruction includes classroom-wide support for all students. Tier 2 provides more specific support for a student who demonstrates gaps in mastery of concepts. Tier 3 is typically more intensive support, which may be provided in a small group with greater frequency. Teachers progress monitor to ensure that students are receiving the level of support to master concepts.

I read “Five (Good) Ways to Talk About Data” and “Doing RTI Right.” The two articles are similar because they both focus on some of the details of implementing an RTI model that makes a big difference in student achievement. I learned many ways to reconsider RTI through my research. In many cases, the time that districts and campuses invest in comprehensive RTI processes doesn’t show up in student results. In some cases, this breakdown happens when campuses focus more on the theory behind the RTI model and less on the practical aspects of implementing the actual instruction (Bryson et al., 2021). This might include a lack of focus on which staff members take responsibility for progress monitoring or a failure to choose a specific intervention that responds to student areas of growth most effectively. Datnow and Park (2021) discuss how professional learning committees, or PLCs, need to move beyond contrived collegiality to a shared sense of responsibility for all students across a grade level or campus. In the teacher team meetings that are a central component of RTI, teachers need to be open to authentically sharing ideas and the respectful, productive disagreement that is a normal, expected part of these conversations. Data teams also need to be solutions-focused, rather than focusing on a few data points to make a case that’s based more on teacher intuition or campus traditions. This may also include ensuring that the data campuses collect is actually helpful to inform instruction and target interventions.

               Based on these two articles, my district has room for growth in our use of data to inform instruction and in the ways we discuss data in our PLC time. For one, I see that students who are struggling often receive services from the special education staff or other specialists, like a campus certified academic language therapist (CALT). Once that student is being served by multiple teachers, it becomes less clear who is responsible for that student’s progress, and it becomes harder to know exactly what strategies are best supporting the student’s progress. As Bryson et al. (2021) say, this is the big handoff, and it’s not always helping the student to progress as much as possible. General education teachers should maintain the primary responsibility for student learning, but they need to be given time to understand what strategies are being taught in other small groups across campus and how to best reinforce those effective practices in their classroom, too. In addition, our campuses need to broaden our understanding of PLCs beyond just structured collaboration time. As Datnow and Park (2021) say, there are essential components for quality conversations about data. Part of what I see that’s missing is a focus on what each PLC needs to accomplish through data discussions. It often feels like there’s a focus on comparing student performance across classrooms or focusing on filling out the forms needed to document the meeting. There needs to be a balance between productive team conversations and the overall goal of instructional improvement in the service of student needs.

Bryson, M., Maden, A., & Schultz, S. (2021, June 29). Doing RTI right. ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/doing-rti-right

Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2021, June 29). Five (Good) ways to talk about data. ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/five-(good)-ways-to-talk-about-data

Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Response to intervention. https://tea.texas.gov/academics/special-student-populations/special-education/programs-and-services/response-to-intervention#:~:text=Response%20to%20Intervention%20%28RtI%29%20is%20an%20approach%20that,idea%20is%20to%20help%20all%20students%20be%20successful.