RTI…Re-Engagement with Thoughtful Intent
Picture this student. This is the student who consistently gives 100% to all tasks. Assignments are submitted on time. This student follows all of the rules, even when there is a substitute in the room, and works to help you in any way possible. They are kind to their peers and reach out to ensure others are included. And, this student is struggling significantly to learn foundational content and skills. Consider the data that follows from two years of testing.
What do you tell the student’s caregivers when they come in for a conference? Do you focus on what a “good kid” they are and not directly address their academic needs? It can be easy to allow perceptions about being a “good kid” or “well-behaved” to overshadow significant academic needs. Relationships can impact decisions about equitable access to a school’s response to intervention (RTI) programming. Taking it a step further, response to intervention programming can end up widening gaps, rather than shrinking them, if not intentionally well-designed.
Response to Intervention is a prevention-focused educational strategy that became part of mainstream K-12 programming with the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Its history is actually rooted in earlier research on learning disabilities (Preston et al., 2015) and the overrepresentation of students of color within special education programs (Sabnis et al., 2020). The historical discrepancy model that was used to identify learning disabilities ignored factors such as instruction, classroom management, or curriculum in contributing to differences in learner outcomes (Sabnis et al., 2020). RTI’s premise is noble - ensure there is dedicated time for learners to get the support they need without missing core content instruction. Having a specific time dedicated for learners to get extra help on skills they are struggling to acquire makes sense in many ways. It was intended to PROMOTE equity. The problem lies in the unintended consequences.
To begin, RTI is a deficit-focused approach to learning. Often educators work together to look at data around student learning to identify gaps and needs. In many cases that data is based on standardized or interim assessments. While those tools have merit, it can be lagging and they are often insufficient when trying to look at a learner as a whole child. Looking at the data in this way leads to educators making assumptions about the reasons for students’ difficulties or attributing challenges to factors beyond our locus of control (Sabnis et al., 2020). When we make assumptions about why students struggle we run the risk of providing the wrong support to address the real problem.
Another issue is the way RTI can lead to a narrowing of curriculum and instruction. RTI programming tends to focus on developing basic skills in literacy and mathematics. Teachers design targeted, small-group instruction intended to address that particular skill. This is typically characterized by skill and drill types of learning intended to ensure students develop foundational concepts. Rather than focusing on the learners’ strengths and interests, the attention is on what is lacking. At the same time, while students experiencing challenges are provided with remedial instruction, those who are succeeding are often provided with cognitively rigorous enrichment opportunities. The hyper-focus on building skills, while other students go deeper in their learning, can exacerbate, rather than shrink achievement gaps. It can also limit opportunities for students to creatively engage in arts, science, and social studies activities to build stronger thinking skills (Watanabe, 2008). When this is coupled with the disproportionate number of black and brown learners who are likely to receive such targeted instruction due to historically lower academic achievement (Castro-Villarreal et al., 2016) the equity issues are magnified.
Taking this a step further, it has been said that repeating the same actions and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. This is exactly what we tend to do with struggling learners. Teachers develop small groups for remedial instruction, and students often repeat learning experiences. They learn the same strategies, engage in additional practice, and maybe move more slowly through steps in learning. And then we are surprised when there is little or limited growth. Struggling learners need a new way to engage with the learning so that it is relevant and meaningful, and helps them to develop deep understanding. Doing this requires educators to carefully consider future units of study and where those opportunities for re-engagement exist. It also requires educators to have a deep understanding of alternative research-based strategies to implement.
If we want RTI to be a tool that truly supports greater equity in educational outcomes, we need to focus on both achievement and growth for all learners. Picture runners lined up to begin a race, only some of those runners have to start behind the others. To “catch up” requires those runners to go faster than the others or take a different route to cut off some of the distance. We ask struggling learners to do this every day, especially when we consider overall achievement as being of greater importance than growth. Then there is the learner who demonstrates strong academic achievement as they begin the school year. If that learner maintains their skills but fails to show strong growth, is that equitable?
So, what is the solution? How do we effectively support the academic needs of this learner, and so many others who are still showing evidence of gaps in learning as a result of the pandemic? What if we looked differently at RTI, intending to provide students with opportunities to Re-engage with content with Thoughtful Intent? Here are five ideas that can help you shift the narrative of RTI:
Be thoughtful about providing strengths-based focus when students are practicing skills. No one enjoys being reminded over and over again about their weaknesses. When we can collaborate with learners through conferencing to identify and build on strengths, we can capitalize on opportunities to accelerate learning. Conferencing with learners allows for a shared responsibility for identifying the next steps in learning.
Be proactive, rather than reactive. Instead of filling gaps and remediating skills that were missed in earlier learning, identify the most important concepts students need to learn and focus there. Knowing what power standards are critical for future learning, and which ones we can let go if needed, will provide students with developmentally appropriate, timely access to content that is coming. This will increase their confidence and access to learning within core instruction.
Design practice WITH students. Clearly articulate the learning goals, dedicate time for learners to reflect on their progress, allow learners to make choices in showing how they know or what they need next, and design multiple pathways for students to achieve and demonstrate mastery. This transparency can help students feel empowered and not be siphoned off into long-term groupings with no clear exit. Interventions should be a timely response to data with clear goals. A student may need a quick 5-minute conference, an additional mini-lesson attended by invitation or choice, or additional practice options. How will you/they know when they have it? Time, not learning, should be the variable.
Consider the range of instructional settings and strategies that can be used to provide additional opportunities to learn and/or reinforce skills. Be intentional about how data is used to make instructional decisions. Often, re-engagement can occur during a quick conference or a small group mini-lesson during practice time. Learners can also be empowered to make decisions around what they want to practice, based on the learning goals they have set for themselves.
Be transparent about how we all have strengths and needs. We can model this with learners, sharing personal goals and struggles. We can also intentionally use time during which all learners engage in self-assessment, goal setting, and reflection on specific academic, behavioral, and global skills. Working with learners, and their caregivers, to share strengths and learning needs serves to provide the space for honest conversations about the next steps in learning.
Think back to the student you visualized at the beginning. While they may experience challenges, each one has their own unique set of strengths and interests. Building upon those, using student-centered approaches, rather than being obsessed with filling gaps, is one way we can work towards achieving more equitable outcomes for all our learners. If we start to think about RTI from the perspective of re-engaging with thoughtful intent, maybe our learners will not only make the gains necessary to fill gaps but also discover something about themselves as learners in the process!
References
Castro-Villarreal, F., Villarreal, V., and Sullivan, J.R.( 2016). Special Education Policy and Response to Intervention: Identifying Promises and Pitfalls to Advance Social Justice for Diverse Students. Contemporary School Psychology 20 (1): 10–20.
Preston, A., Wood, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2016). Response to intervention: Where it came from and where it’s going, preventing school failure. Alternative Education for Children and Youth (60)3, 173-182. DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2015.1065399
Sujay Sabnis, Jose M. Castillo & Jennifer R. Wolgemuth (2020) RTI, Equity, and the Return to the Status Quo: Implications for Consultants, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 30:3, 285-313, DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2019.1674152
Watanabe, M. (2008). Tracking in the era of high-stakes state accountability reform: Case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 489–534.