By Marjorie Y. Lipson and Karen K. Wixson
You are probably hearing more and more about RTI—Response to Intervention, sometimes called Response to Instruction. The International Reading Association has been working on this topic with various groups and individuals for more than a year and has been posting information, resources, and support materials on its webpage at www.reading.org/resources/issues/focus_rti.html.
Now, however, two recent developments will heighten the attention this topic receives by IRA members. During the past month, IRA announced its partnership in sponsoring the RTI Action Network, a program of the National Center for Learning Disabilities (www.rtinetwork.org). In addition, IRA President Barbara Walker has created a commission on RTI. The charge of the commission follows:
RTI is a rapidly evolving concept that touches a wide range of students, teachers, and schools. Although the idea was conceived in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act legislation of 2004, the implications are far-reaching for regular and special education practitioners alike. RTI engages teachers and specialists in the selection of appropriate classroom reading instruction, continuous monitoring of student learning, and encouragement of the adaptation of instruction to meet the changing needs of all students. This makes way for systemic educational reform. To be part of this systemwide reform, IRA must link the talents of its membership with opportunities for involvement in implementation and professional development.
A listing of the full membership of the commission can be found at the end of this article.
RTI emerged from the reauthorization of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) in 2004. For many years, parents, educators, and policymakers had called for changes in the way students were identified with specific learning disabilities.
The new provisions were meant to address several of these issues, including the following:
1) problems with the prevailing model that reduced identification to a discrepancy between achievement and ability,
2) provisions that limited opportunities for early identification and intervention, and
3) concerns about over-identification of students without appropriate reference to the quality of their educational opportunity. Reading professionals have always been involved in these discussions because the vast majority of determinations of learning disability are based on difficulties in the area of reading.
Under the new IDEA provisions, states are not required to use a discrepancy model in determining eligibility for special education services. Instead, local education agencies may use a process that determines the extent to which a child is responding to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation. It is this portion of the reauthorization that has come to be known as RTI. It is important to understand that neither RTI itself, nor any particular iteration of RTI, was specifically identified in the law (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2005).
Virtually everyone involved with struggling readers is excited about the promise of identifying student difficulties early, reducing the number of students who require special education services, and establishing a closer working relationship among professionals engaged in the education of our most vulnerable students. The revisions to IDEA invite a systems approach to working with struggling students and some common attributes of an effective system, including the following: high-quality, evidence-based classroom instruction, universal screening, and continuous progress monitoring.
Because RTI rests on a platform of good first instruction, one of the most significant aspects of its promise is the focus on the quality of classroom reading instruction and related support services for struggling students. This also means that conversations spill out of conventional special—regular education relationships and open the door to genuine systemic change. IRA has both an opportunity and a responsibility to be engaged in helping to realize this promise.
Despite the possibilities for positive outcomes, many educators are concerned that the promise may not be realized. Paramount among the concerns is that, despite the clear intent that educators work collaboratively, some states and districts have not been inclusive in early discussions about possible models for RTI. This often happens because schools or districts have not established effective communication between and among the classroom teacher, the reading teacher, and other specialists—all of whom must be involved if RTI is going to be successful. At the same time, regular educators have been slow to get involved because they may have thought RTI was a special education initiative that didn’t involve them. The result has been that only one or two models of RTI are being presented as the way to implement the initiative.
In addition, concerns about progress monitoring, a key feature of RTI, have generated conversations about the appropriate types of assessment. Ideally, instruction would dictate the content and form of assessment, but it is clear that in some cases assessments and the desire for quick and easy information has resulted in a narrowing of the reading curriculum. If progress is monitored on only one or two dimensions of reading, then these one or two things will become the most important focus for instruction, at the expense of other equally important components. In addition, if the progress monitoring is done in a particular way—then that specific task will likely take on importance that may not be warranted.
Furthermore, many concerned reading professionals worry that there is too little attention being paid to issues surrounding instruction itself—both good first instruction and more intense support. The idea of responsive teaching—teaching that responds to the specific needs of individual students—especially for culturally and/or linguistically diverse students—is critically important but does not appear to be a matter of much conversation (Klingner and Edwards, 2006). What, exactly, should be the nature of initial ("tier 1") instruction, and what types of additional support are provided when that is not enough ("tier 2")? These and other concerns and issues of deep interest to IRA members will be addressed by IRA’s Response to Intervention Commission over the coming months.
The commission is in the process of organizing an RTI Commission Network within IRA. Initially, this network will have a representative from each of the state IRA councils and will be charged with helping the commission to get a comprehensive picture of what types of RTI actions are taking place in the various states. Once it is up and running, the network will likely expand so that others can become actively involved. For now, contact your state council to find out who has been designated to the network and let that person know that you are interested in participating in RTI-related activities.
Cochairs
Marjorie Y. Lipson, University of Vermont
Karen K. Wixson, University of Michigan
Board liaison
Barbara Walker
Members
James Baumann, University of Wyoming
Laura Broach, Reading Specialist
Carol Connor, Florida State University
Jamal Cooks, San Francisco State University
Karen Costello, East Lyme (CT) Board of Education
Barbara Ehren, University of Central Florida
Sandra Goetze, Oklahoma State University
Peter Johnston, The University at Albany-SUNY
Jannette Klingner, University of Colorado at Boulder
Barbara Laster, Towson University
Nonie Lesaux, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Barbara Marinak, Penn State University
Susan Watts-Taffe, University of Cincinnati
Mary Zolman, Arlington (VA) Public Schools
Klingner, J., & Edwards, P. (2006). New directions in research: Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108—117.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from www.ldanatl.org/pdf/rti2005.pdf.
New IRA commission will address RTI issues. (August 2008). Reading Today, 26(1), 1, 5.
Journals
Reading Today