Teaching them comprehension and computation skills will not be enough—they need to be able to analyze, synthesize, evaluate, compare and contrast, and manipulate and apply information.
We will erode our children's and world's future by limiting our vision to teaching only the skills and knowledge presented in our state assessments.
Because learning styles and instructional needs vary from student to student, we must provide each student with targeted instruction —that is, teaching practices designed to meet his or her individual learning needs. We also know that students don't all learn at the same speed. Some will need more time to learn. That is the purpose of RTI—to systematically provide every student with the additional time and support needed to learn at high levels.
If a school has asked the right questions, then how would this new way of thinking affect a school's RTI efforts? Quite honestly, it would transform every tier. In Tier 1, the school would start by ensuring that every student has access to rigorous, grade-level curriculum and highly effective initial teaching.
The process of determining essential student learning outcomes would shift from trying to cover all required standards to a more narrow focus on standards that all students must master to be able to succeed in the future. A collective response will be required to ensure that all students learn, so teacher teams would work collaboratively to define each essential standard; deconstruct the standard into discrete learning targets determine what each student must be able to know and do to demonstrate proficiency ; identify the prior skills needed to master the standard; consider how to assess students on each target; and create a scope and sequence for the learning targets that would govern their pacing.
Schools may continue to use such resources as textbooks as primary Tier 1 resources, but only by selecting those sections that align to what the team of teachers has determined to be essential for all students to master.
The school would understand that differentiation for individual student needs cannot be optional at Tier 1. Whether in an elementary math lesson or a secondary social studies lesson, teachers must scaffold content, process, and product on the basis of student needs, setting aside time to meet with small groups of students to address gaps in learning.
The direct, explicit instruction model contains the structures through which differentiation can take place. This thinking contradicts the approach taken by many schools that have purchased a research-based core instructional program and dictated that this program constitutes the only instructional material that teachers can use. This quest for fidelity sometimes becomes so rigid that each teacher is required to teach the same lesson, on the same day, following the same script.
Although we agree that schools should implement scientifically research-based resources, we also know that not all students learn the same way.
In addition, because not all students learn at the same speed, we would plan flexible time into our master schedule to allow for reteaching essential standards for students who require it as well as providing enrichment learning for students who have already demonstrated mastery. At Tier 2, the school would use ongoing formative assessment to identify students in need of additional support, as well as to target each student's specific learning needs.
In addition, teachers would create common assessments to compare results and determine which instructional practices were most and least effective in Tier 1. Giving students more of what didn't work in Tier 1 is rarely the right intervention!
Most Tier 2 interventions would be delivered through small-group instruction using strategies that directly target a skill deficit. Finally, because the best intervention is prevention, the effective RTI school would use universal screening data to identify students lacking the prerequisite skills for an essential standard and then provide targeted Tier 2 or Tier 3 support before delivering core instruction on that standard. At Tier 3, we would start by guaranteeing that all students in need of intensive support would receive this help in addition to core instruction—not in place of it.
If our goal is to ensure that all students learn at high levels, then replacing core instruction with remedial assistance not only fails to achieve this outcome, but also tracks at-risk students into below-grade-level curriculum. Because Tier 3 students often have multiple needs, intensive help must be individualized, based on a problem-solving approach. It is unlikely that a single program will meet the needs of a student in Tier 3, as many of these students are like knots, with multiple difficulties that tangle together to form a lump of failure.
Because of this, a school focused on meeting the needs of every student would develop a problem-solving team, composed of a diverse group of education experts who can address the students' social, emotional, and learning needs. The purpose of this team would not be to determine what is wrong with the student but to identify the specific needs the student still experiences after Tier 2 intervention, quantify them, and determine how to meet them.
Schools need to deliver Tier 3 interventions with greater intensity than Tier 2 interventions. They can do this by increasing both the duration and frequency of the intervention and lowering the student—teacher ratio Mellard, At Tier 3, it is also important to quantify the student's specific learning needs. It would not be enough to say that a student's problem is "reading. If a school diligently applies these practices, a vast majority of students will never need to be referred for special education testing.
In the rare case that this level of support does not meet a specific students' needs, the student may indeed have a learning disability. In this case, special education identification would be fair and appropriate. Although the purpose of RTI is not special education identification, a school will identify far fewer students for these services if they ask the right questions and take preventative steps.
Schools that fail to do so will continue to blame students for failing, which will perpetuate the over-identification of minority, English language learning, and economically disadvantaged students into special education. The secret to capturing the right way of thinking about RTI comes down to answering this question: Why are we implementing Response to Intervention?
The answer lies in why we joined this profession in the first place—to help children. Our work must be driven by the knowledge that our collaborative efforts will help determine the success or failure of our students.
RTI should not be a program to raise student test scores, but rather a process to realize students' hopes and dreams.
It should not be a way to meet state mandates, but a means to serve humanity. Once we understand the urgency of our work and embrace this noble cause as our fundamental purpose, how could we possibly allow any student to fail? Buffum, A.
Pyramid response to intervention: RTI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when students don't learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Burns, M. Meta-analytic review of response-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models.
Journal of Psycho-educational Assessment , 23 , — D'Agostino, J. A meta-analysis of reading recovery in United States schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26 1 , 23— Gunderson, S.
The jobs revolution: Changing how America works. Though there are several approaches to RTI, when the term RTI is used in this module, it refers to the standard protocol approach sometimes referred to as standard treatment protocol approach because the S-Team at Rosa Parks has decided to use this particular approach at their school. This module will continue the Rosa Parks story. To learn more about the Standard Protocol Approach, click here.
Universal Screening or Class-Wide Assessment. Students whose achievement is less than desired are identified. All students receive high-quality classroom instruction using empirically validated techniques.
Students receive frequent progress monitoring of academic skills, and those who do not meet desired benchmarks become eligible for Tier 2 services. Condition or characteristic of having been proven through high-quality research to be accurate or to produce positive results. Tier 2: Targeted Interventions Secondary Prevention.
The standard protocol provides all students receiving Tier 2 with the same, empirically validated intervention. This intervention is often provided in a small-group setting for a set period anywhere between 10—20 weeks , with frequent progress monitoring.
Students within the small groups may possess heterogeneous or homogeneous skills. For example, a small group might include one student who has problems with reading fluency, another who has poor phonemic awareness, and another who has difficulties with phonics skills.
By using a four-step problem-solving process within the MTSS framework, all members of an educational team—from administration to teachers and support staff—will be seeking to not only deliver high-quality individualized instruction, but to use data-driven decision-making to select and implement research-based interventions for struggling students. MTSS gives educators a means to address the academic and non-academic needs of students, both of which are critical components for student growth and achievement.
A short interview with Dr. Liz Brooke about returning to school post-pandemic, and how Lexia Learning uses the science of reading to create edtech that can empower ALL students and educators, regardless of the learning environment. Home Resources Blog Posts. Don't have time to read? Listen Now » In education, there seems to be an acronym for everything. What is RTI? What is MTSS? MTSS is similar to RTI in the following ways: Features a continuum of multiple supports for students based on their level of documented need Delivers interventions and services in a multi-tiered support structure, which utilizes increasingly intensive interventions and supports in Tier 2 and Tier 3 Emphasizes high-quality instruction at all levels While RTI and MTSS have many similarities—for instance, both models require frequent progress-monitoring and data-driven instruction—there are some key differences that should be noted to explain the difference between these two models.
It can be thought of as an umbrella that covers many different approaches and interventions, including: Curriculum design Positive behavior intervention and supports PBIS Teacher learning and collaboration Collaboration between school and family in problem-solving Both RTI and MTSS are a change from previous approaches that require the intentional redesign of programs and supports to address needs.
Back To All. You Might Also Like. An Interview with Dr.
0コメント