Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Response to Intervention Analysis

Response to Intervention Analysis
 

Currently, in the United States of America, the education systems throughout the 50 states are in the process of implementing the Response-to-Intervention (RTI), a three tiered system of student evaluation and instructional assessments into classroom testing components with hopes to further the successes of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) measures, and support and reinforce the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) already in place through school systems, all in order to improve education outcomes. Overall, the hope is to achieve documented improvements for all students in the nation, no matter what learning capacities, through more frequent methods of testing and measuring standards of learning and comprehension. In our textbook, Educational Testing & Measurement: Classroom Application and Practice, it states, “In the end, the RTI system holds promise to foster better and earlier identification and more effective intervention which academic difficulties than has been possible previously. As a result, RTI may support improved achievements for all students, the major objective of both regular education and special education reform movements,”(p.56). The ultimate goals is to integrate all of the testing measures and laws into a more positive pattern for our education system, which supports all types of students, through better monitoring and more frequent assessment opportunities, and more individualized and simplified interventions.

The Response-to-Intervention is broken into a three tier system, and all is standardized by more than one annual summative assessment in categorizing students learning abilities. The RTI employs testing and evaluation measures such as the tiered, integrated, research-based intervention systems, universal screening processes, progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. In the textbook, it states, “All teachers must now learn about RTI. This is in part because RTI is required, but also because RTI has great potential educational benefit. If properly implemented, RTI has the potential to enhance the early identification and remediation of academic difficulties in the regular classroom by utilizing frequent formative assessment results to directly inform instructional decision making, to the potential benefit of students, teachers, schools, and society,”(p.57). Therefore, through different layers of measurements through different types of testing and research methods, there can be earlier detection of struggling learners, to allow time and more attention early on for different levels of students learning abilities.

The three tiered system is part of this process in determining which students require what type of attention and additional instructions. The Tier 1 involves an early on screening and testing process in a regular classroom setting, but tests are formative and more frequent and set in a traditional classroom setting. The Tier 1 is designed for students that are quick to comprehend and can succeed the standards with little intercession or further instructions. Students that fall behind this average, students that require more assessment or closer instruction, will then go into a Tier 2, where they are given additional opportunities to understand classroom material with more attention and hands on instructions, which on average includes about 15% of students, whom are continually monitored through the processes, which are followed by frequent formative assessments and curriculum based measurements. From this point, based on how these students react to the intense instructional interventions, and whether or not it has been effective, it is determined whether or not further evaluation is needed for the individuals. For students that are not able to adjust and succeed under the Tier 2 instruction, and for students that are not effected positively by the close interactions and increased intensity of instructional practices, they are then considered for Tier 3 instruction, which lends the students to the referrals of special education evaluations, where even different measures are taken for the individuals in supporting them towards their success as students, and towards their success on annual standardized tests such as the NCLB and adequate yearly progress (AYP) reports. Overall, the whole system as an working unit, supports to improve education outcomes and measurements for both regular students and special education students alike.

The textbook states, “Taken together, IDEIA, NCLB, and RTI are expected to drive even greater integration of regular and special education in the future. Regular education teachers must be prepared for this change. Sooner or later, all teachers in training must learn at least the basics of the RTI approach and should understand how it differs from and complements traditional summative assessment approaches,”(p.60-61). It continues on the following page, “At the same time, RTI approaches are not intended to replace the summative, high-stakes testing approaches that are required by the NCLB Act. Instead, RTI, required by the IDEIA, is intended to complement and reinforce the accountability requirements of the NCLB,”(p.62).

Ultimately, by the school systems putting into practice the Response-to-Intervention testing measure, we as educators, can only advance our students by identifying where specific attention is needed early on in the school year, so that all students can receive the attention necessary to achieve better scores in annual testing assessment measurements. Once problem areas for specific students can be identified early in the curriculum, then there is much more opportunity to apply different types of teaching and learning methods which will allow them to succeed. With summative assessments only done annually, and usually all within a day, problem areas can not be determined and therefore cannot be helped or assisted until after scores have gone into place. This is one of the only ways to succeed in our scores and to catch up to the speeds of other countries scores. In a sense, with early detection of education problem areas, we as educators are at a better access to different methods to help assist slower learners in their climb to the top with other students, and therefore we give equal opportunities for all students, on a fair level, as opposed to just relying on annual tests to determine, in hind-sight, areas needed for improvement. This is done with methods such as universal screening, which is done to all students, early on in the school year, and up to three times per school year. The textbook states, “By repeatedly screening for lack of responsiveness to Tier 1 instruction, the hope is that students at risk for academic failure will be identified early enough that their deficiencies can be effectively remediate by Tier 2 instruction, enabling their prompt return to Tier 1 instruction,”(p.65).

The next component of RTI, is the progress monitoring, where all students whom have gone to Tier 2 or Tier 3 levels, are tested formatively on a continual basis to monitor progress very closely within very short time frames. This assures that these students are given many possibilities to respond to different methods of learning, and measure comprehension more frequently, to assure they are keeping up, and to know where more help is necessary to achieve understanding and comprehension of scholastic materials for individual students. This allows fair and equal opportunities to all students alike, both general education and special education. The textbook states, “CBM or other progress -monitoring data are collected on a repeated, frequent basis, rather than in simple pre- or post-test fashion. Thus, instead of measuring a student’s skills acquisition at a single point in time, the child is assessed on an ongoing basis over the course of instructions to evaluate the effect of instructional interventions,”(p.66). Therefore, by identifying the effects of different course instructions, and determining what is effective for different students with difficulties early on, with progress monitoring, we as educators can help students achieve their best, by giving them the necessary time and attention to succeed in areas where they may have otherwise been overruled. The next component is the data-based decision making, where Tier divisions are decided early on, and where schools measure in ways to overcompensate students that may be struggling early on in order to avoid missing certain students that meet the borderline of assessment understandings. This allows for the time and chance for each students that is walking the line, to have opportunities to improve before it is too late for them and they have fallen behind.

There are some challenges facing the implementation approaches to Response-to-Intervention in this country. First of all there are two approaches under debate, the standard protocol method applied to Tier 2 and the problem solving method applied to Tier 2 interventions. The textbook states, “The standard protocol (SP) approach to RTI includes the delivery of one clearly specified Tier 2 research-based intervention appropriate for the identified academic difficulty. Decisions are made according to clearly specified guidelines, and the instruction is also delivered according to clearly specified guidelines and procedures,”(p.69). Therefore, the standard protocol approach is simplified and to the point, and is general and systematic in dealing with Tier 2 levels. Students are squeezed into this standard protocol based on similarities, and are intervened by a typical process that remains steadfast. On the other hand is the problem solving approach, and textbook states, “The problem-solving (PS) approach to RTI utilizes a team approach to the identification and analysis of a learning problem. The team then develops, implements, and evaluates an individualized intervention to address the learning problem. Thus, different students in the same classroom would typically have different instructional interventions,”(p.69-70). So, here, with this problem solving method, students are individualized and given a wide range of prospects suited to fit their specific situations in developing understandings and comprehensions. With this method there is major flexibility and it is open to changes and alterations with each individual student. It is hard to tell early on which approach is more effective, and it at this point in time it is mostly up to opinions, until further measures have been taken to execute the practices over time to see which one is ultimately more successful.

The other challenges facing the initiations of RTI, include the need to train all educators and staff members in order for program to successfully take off. This requires a lot of alterations for current educators even if they are not involved in special education, they must still be involved and aware of the changes that will come with different levels of testing. Then there are the controversies of technical and cultural issues with different testing measurements, as to whether they are just and concise in regards to measuring different intelligences and different cultural backgrounds. This is a slippery slope if any because of the variety of cultures and differences in backgrounds, upbringings, and intelligences. This can only be understood and combated by applying and practicing different measures of testing and protocol.

In our textbook, it states, “Similarly, Fletcher (2008) noted the importance of evaluating the reliability and validity of the RTI decision making process. Braden, Kubiszyn, and Ortiz (2007) emphasized that further study was needed to determine whether RTI meets the reliability, validity, and fairness requirements of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests (AERA,1999). Orosco et al. (2007) noted that the lack of emphasis on culturally responsive RTI may have significant, potentially negative, long-term impacts on decision making for culturally and linguistically diverse learners throughout our schools,”(p.72-73).

Therefore, it seems there is much skepticism as to whether or not the RTI can meet up to the standards and diversities of the growing American student population. However, if we do not begin to attempt these methods, we will never know. We must apply methods first, and then work on adjusting them as they grow along with the student population. This can only happen through practice of the integrated assessments, and only time will tell if we can adjust to all the different needs of all the different students, with all different language and cultural backgrounds. There are indeed challenges for RTI moving forwards into the future, but educators must face this bravely and open-mindedly, and only then can we see if the applications can be successful. The final issue mentioned has to do with the adequacy of training educators across the nation, and keeping the training in alignment through different oppositions that schools and educators may bring up. “Finally, since RTI implementation requires a paradigm shift for many professionals, uncertainty, frustration, and resistance to changes should all be expected as RTI implementation increases across the country (Richards et al., 2007),”(p.73). Therefore, the confrontations ahead of us are a matter of how we as a nation are able to handle the transition, into the new methods, for a more successful education system. The power is in our hands, and it is up to schools and educators to make the best out of these new and improved methods of measuring students intelligences, and it is up to us, as to whether we want to the future of our education system to prosper. At this point in time, as we fall behind in national ratings, we are crying for changes and the Response-to-Intervention, could very well revolutionize our education system for the better, and it has the potential to create new and better paved roads for generations to come when they are up against other countries and new technological advances.

As stated in the beginning, currently, in the United States of America, the education systems throughout the 50 states are in the process of implementing the Response-to-Intervention (RTI), a three tiered system of student evaluation and instructional assessments into classroom testing components with hopes to further the successes of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) measures, and support and reinforce the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) already in place through school systems, all in order to improve education outcomes. The future is our grasp, and we must have the bravery and spirit to go forth with these changes, we must put more energy and compassion towards students, in order to secure a better future for Americans and our education system.



 

 

 

 

References

Kubiszyn, Tom & Borich, Gary (2010). Educational Testing & Measurement: Classroom Application and Practice (9th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ. (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2010).

No comments:

Post a Comment