Analysis: Response To Intervention

Response to Intervention (RtI) came about initially in answer to the over-identification of struggling students as special education students. It was developed starting in the late 1970s by numerous researchers seeking a method of identifying learning disabilities that avoids the problems of the discrepancy model. Many educators were concerned that too many students were being identified as having a learning disability, not because they actually had one, “but because they had not been successful in a general education program” (Prasse, 2010). Many were also concerned that students with a true learning disability were not receiving the help they needed quickly enough. Before RtI, the accepted

In the United States today, 38% of children in the fourth grade have been recognized as reading way below the level of their peers. Many of these children are identified with a learning disability and receive remedial instruction in the resource rooms. (Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R., Gooden, R., & Rentum, K. E.)

As in any research based program there are benefits and challenges. One of the biggest benefits of RTI is it has the ability to transform how we educate all students. When implementing Response to Intervention it helps to treat learning disabilities, identifies students with disabilities, classifies every student’s strengths and targets the specific disability. Perhaps the greatest benefit of an RTI approach is that it eliminates a “wait to fail” situation because students get help promptly within the general education setting. As soon as assessment data indicates a problem area for a student, interventions are put into place to address these concerns. One of the biggest challenges that are occurring is that RTI is still uneven; some districts use it and some do not and because of this it becomes a challenge. There is confusion as to what RTI is and whether schools are required to use. In addition, the evidence based and differentiated instruction is one of the issues in response to education. “Interventions that are research based but not feasible are not likely to be implemented with fidelity, which would undercut the validity of RTI decision making” (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2010,

Wilson, Faggella-Luby, & Wei (2013) present a cogent plan for Tier 3 Response to Intervention (RTI) for secondary students with reading disabilities, content, and pedagogy planning tools, content instruction, and instructional method implementation. Both research application lacks concerning Tier 3 RTI in high schools (Wilson et. al). RTI is curriculum that addresses the learning needs of all students that also includes screening and monitoring progress. Continuing, Wilson et. al define Tier 1 RTI, core curriculum for all students serving the needs of 80% of students, Tier 2 RTI, small group instructional intervention, serving the needs of 15% of students, and Tier 3 RTI, an intense one to one intervention for students who continue to struggle beyond Tiers 1 and 2, serving 5% of students. Wilson et al. provides information the reader needs to understand in the article without clutter, expressing their writing with economy (Zinsser, 2013). The article is unified in theme, gives enough information without giving too much, and follows a clear progression (Zinsser). “More simple, than complex” (Henson, 1999, p. 58), Wilson et. al’s article is an example of good writing.

(Carta, Greenwood, Atwater, McConnell, Goldstein and Kaminski 2015) believe that using Response to Intervention (RTI) or the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) in preschool programs will begin to change the way children read in kindergarten and in the future. Their study set out to show the value of identifying and preventing learning problems early and the importance of individualized instruction in a preschool setting. Out of six hundred and fifty-nine children in sixty-five Pre-K classes in four different states, these individuals did a study of Tier 1 instruction involving Kansas City, Mo/KS; Columbus, OH; Eugene-Springfield, OR; and Minneapolis, MN.

Students can be identified as having a learning disability by using a process based on their response to research-based interventions along with an IQ-achievement discrepancy. These scientific, research-based interventions, which are tiered approaches to school based service delivery, are generally known or called response-to-intervention (RtI) models. RtI models are early intervention approaches that involve children’s responses to evidence-based interventions which are implemented on three different levels of intensity. To achieve prevention goals, RTI schools are structured, arranged, staffed, and lead differently than traditional schools. Along with using a tiered approach, schools that use RtI models also use progress monitoring. They use a vital flow chart of students, within and across tiers of services, to maintain a positive response to intervention. School-wide RtI is characterized by multiple tiers of risk and support. Students within RtI schools are considered to be placed across three, sometimes four, tiers of risk ranging from no risk to very high level of risk. There is no right or wrong amount of tiers schools can use, but the majority of schools use a three tier system. The expectation of Tier 1 is that about 80% of students will be making expected progress in

Intervention/Response: CM received a called from Corporal Williams on Prichard Police Department stating she needs to meet with consumer. CM informed Corporal Williams she will give her a call once she makes it to consumer home. CM traveled to consumer home for the purpose of monitoring and assessing needs. CM was accompanied with CM Shamaiya Williams. CM arrived at consumer home and knocked on the front door. Consumer answered door and met with CM on the front porch. CM contacted Corporal Williams and informed her she was at Consumer home. While waiting for Corporal Williams to arrive CM and consumer discussed consumer medications regimen. Consumer has been taking her morning medications. CM educated consumer on the importance of her taking

I am an excellent candidate to assist school leadership with surpassing its annual goal. As a Turn Around administrator, I developed the skills and systems to review school improvement plans, analyze and disaggregate data, look for trends and gaps and implement scientific researched based intervention. I worked with principals to implement Response to Intervention (RtI) program. At the end of the program was a significant increase in student proficiency rate on formative and summative assessments. I used different strategies to address concerns with achievement gaps on formative and summative assessment, student and staff discipline and attendance and community involvement. I supported and implemented several mentoring programs. Several lives

Response to Intervention is a program that is often viewed as an alternative to special education services because of it focuses on academic, behavioral, and socioemotional problems (Dougherty, 2014, p 293). Also, it used as a “data-based process to establish, implemented, and evaluate interventions that are designed” to improve the outcomes of human services (Dougherty, 2014, p 294In hopes of helping school wide problems a multitiered program is establish that “involves universal, targeted and intensive levels of intervention, assessment and exactness” (Dougherty, 2014, p 294). Tier one is dedicate to the entire student body and has a list of objectives that must be met. Tier two is dedicated to those students who show a significant risk of

Intervention/Response: CM traveled to consumer’s home for the purpose of monitoring and assessing needs. CM arrived at consumer home and knocked on the door several times. Consumer answered the door. Consumer was trembling and her clothes were not on properly. Consumer stated someone tried to rape her. Consumer neighbor walked to consumer’s home and stated consumer was screaming and yelling for help. Consumer neighbor stated consumer told him someone tried to rape her. CM contacted the Prichard Police department. Consumer stated that the same person raped her on Friday and she did not report it because she was scared. While waiting for the police consumer took her morning medications. Once Prichard Police arrived Consumer was able to file a

I like how you touched on behavior being one of the reasons why the Response to Intervention/Instruction (RTI) model not being as effective as it could be for struggling students’ academic performance. Behavior issues are one of the underlying issues that must be addressed at some schools within the United States, in order for the RTI model to be properly implemented and actually work. I believe that a school should attempt to address issues such as these, before trying to implement RTI. A pre-assessment step should be added to the RTI pre-assessment process and/or requirements that forces school teachers and staff to take a look at factors such as behavior to determine whether or not they should continue to pursue implementing the Response

Currently the way disabilities are diagnosed has changed from the previous years. According to Colarusso et al., (2013) general education teachers play a large part in recognizing learning disabilities in the regular classroom. With the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) there are a more people involved in the decision making process. The team consist of a Data Team. This team analyzes data from benchmark tests given throughout the year. My school gives three benchmark tests a year, in math and reading. As soon as a student falls below a certain percentage they are tagged for intervention, more than the classroom teacher gives. There is a three tier system, tier one starts in the general education classroom and as more intervention

It is interesting to see that both of our institutions utilized the same Response to Intervention (RTI) process to gather data based on a student's failing grade. Like you have mentioned, this process is helpful in determining the weaknesses of that student, and identifying the academic risk before the end of the school year. On many occasions, when an educator fails to identify the student at risk, that student more likely will fail toward the end of the year. My institution use that intervention beforehand to prevent the student from failing the entire year. I found this intervention to be effective in analyzing the data informed decision-making before it is too late. Thank you for

“Many children fail to reach proficient levels in reading only because they do not receive the amount and type of instruction they need” (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Morrison, Bachman, & Connor, 2005 2005; Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small,

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA) in combination with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law are significantly changing the way classroom teachers, reading teachers, and special education teachers are identifying students’ needs and delivering instruction. Response to Intervention (RTI) is becoming the prevailing model for schools in Wisconsin and across the nation to address the learning needs of all students.