Students attend school and are expected to receive differentiated high-quality instruction (2011, Alber). Ideally all students should be able to experience success in learning when they receive Tier 1 instruction, but the reality is that struggling learners and students with learning differences are taken through RTI to support academic deficits (2011, Alber) and “prevent difficulties from escalating to the need for special education evaluation” (2015, Sparks). A need for special education evaluation occurs after teachers take a student through Tier 2 and 3 instruction (2011, Alber). The problem with RTI is that some schools experience success (2011, Alber) while others experience a regression in student growth compared to struggling students who did not receive more targeted instruction (2015, Sparks).
I found this to be an oxymoron because RTI is a “proactive intervention model” (2011, Alber) designed to target struggling learners’ deficits with consistent research based high quality instruction designed to improve learning (2015, Sparks). The research-based programs unfortunately are not always teachers delivering the instruction, but programs designed by companies and sold as curriculum that will address all the needs of the struggling student (2011, Alber). This raises the question of why teachers are not more involved in the decision-making process of RTI (2011, Alber). Since teachers are the ones that are in the forefront of delivering Tier 1 instruction it makes sense to give them a voice in what tools or programs will be used to address the deficits of the student.
On the other hand, it is also concerning that teacher delivery of instruction and intervention is not as clear cut and not defined as clearly as it once was because the line is starting to blur (2015, Sparks). When this happens, the teacher spends more time focusing on specific skills so the students miss out on broader concepts and are not able to pull the concept together or develop a full understanding of the learning objective (2015, Sparks). To improve outcomes schools also need to leverage the interest of students as stakeholders in the material they are learning so that their thinking evolves from what the teacher teaches me to “our work, our learning, our ideas” (2011, Alber).
I think the lesson here is that teachers don’t always need to panic because students are low. Instead, teachers should teach the students in Tier I instruction without blurring the line between Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction. Students also need to become more invested in their learning so that they can close gaps. I guess the bottom line is that both teachers and students worry about scores on state tests because of the pressure that comes from the school and district. “Our school districts need to stop putting so much faith in things (a process, model, or program), and start having a lot more faith in people” (2011, Alber) maybe then we will have more consistent learning and performance from our students.
References:
Alber, R. (2011, April). Interventions for Failing Students: What Matters Most? Edutopia. Retrieved on September 27, 2022 from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/what-matters-most-student-academic-intervention-rebecca-alber
Sparks, S. (2015, November). Study: RTI Practice Falls Short of Promise First Graders Who Were Identified for More Help Fell Further Behind. Edweek. Retrieved on September 25, 2022 from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/study-rti-practice-falls-short-of-promise/2015/11
