Response to Intervention
(RTI) provides a comprehensive service delivery system designed to prevent
academic problems, detect problems that do occur early, and intervene quickly
to reduce the adverse consequences of learning or behavioral problems. One main purpose of RTI is to provide a
coordinated system of effective and efficient instruction and intervention for
all students in the schools. Another primary
purpose of RTI is to diagnose specific learning disabilities (SLD) when
students do not sufficiently respond to provided instruction and intervention (Baker, Fien, Baker, 2010).
Do Response to Intervention (RTI) processes provide
the most effective opportunity to institutionalize formative
assessment as a process for optimizing learning? Basic information about state planning and
implementation of the Response to Intervention (RTI) approach within six
Southeast Region states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North
Carolina, and South Carolina, as well as three local education agencies were examined
by Sawyer, Holland, and Detgen,
(2008). Results of the study found four
main reasons why these states adopted RTI.
These included:
- To address disproportionality;
- To promote overall student achievement;
- To better integrate general and special education; and
- To inform, or possibly determine, special education eligibility for students with learning disabilities.
A qualitative case study conducted by Dimick
(2009) of administrators and teachers of a mid-sized, urban K-8 school examined
views and knowledge about RTI. Results
of the surveys, interviews and focus groups indicated that RTI components and
critical elements may be improved during implementation. Specifically, results identified the value of
increased leadership, training, communication, and teacher buy-in.
Implementation
of RTI offers a system of coordinated services that provides instructional
and behavioral interventions to at-risk students at earlier points in time while
possibly identifying students with SLD at earlier ages. The result can be mitigation of the adverse impact
of the disability or actual prevention for students developing disabilities (Stecker,
Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2008). Other
researchers (Deno, Reschly, Lembke,
Magnusson, Callender, Windram, & Stachel, 2009) identified the benefits of a
school-wide progress monitoring system developed in partnership between university
personnel working with an urban elementary school’s teachers and administration
to develop and implement RTI.
Universal
screening has become accepted as part of an effective RTI process. Progress monitoring has also been accepted as
an inherent part of RTI. However, have
districts, school leaders, and teacher preparation programs made the need for
alignment between RTI programs and formative assessment processes sufficiently
clear?
Historical and organizational perspectives provide plausible
explanations for problems related to the practice of formative assessment (Dorn, 2010). Is the practice of formative assessment for
instructional and intervention decisions poorly understood because definitions
are ambiguous, adoption is inconsistent, and prognosis for future use is
questionable? If so, how might a
top-down approach ensure the needed professional development to align RTI
programs and formative assessment processes? System change leading to clear alignment between
RTI programs and formative assessment processes should include identification
of school-level personnel to coordinate the
collection of formative-assessment data as part of progress monitoring analysis
and reporting in relation to RTI processes. This endeavor must also involve teacher preparation programs
providing sufficient opportunities for teacher candidates and educational
leaders to practice embedding formative assessment processes within progress
monitoring expectations as part of an effective RTI program.
To cite:
Anderson,
C.J. (February 28, 2018) Aligning effective response to intervention programs
to formative assessment
processes. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
References:
Baker,
S., Fien, H., & Baker, D. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early
grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of
tier 1 and tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(9),
1. Retrieved from https://journals.ku.edu/FOEC/article/view/6693/6068
Deno,
S. L., Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., Windram,
H., & Stachel, N. (2009). Developing A school-wide progress-monitoring
system. Psychology in the Schools, 46(1), 44-55. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ824903
Dimick,
K. (2009). Response to intervention research to practice: Exploring a school
in transition---a case study. (M.S., California State University, Long
Beach). , 142. Retrieved from https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/305180430.html?FMT=ABS
Dorn,
S. (2010). The political dilemmas of formative assessment. Exceptional
Children, 76(3), 325. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/201096956
Sawyer,
R., Holland, D., & Detgen, A., (2008). State policies and procedures and
selected local implementation practices in response to intervention in the six
southeast region states. issues & answers. REL 2008-no. 063.Regional
Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502697
Stecker,
P., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2008). Progress monitoring as essential
practice within response to intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly,
27(4), 10. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/read/1P3-1614105741/progress-monitoring-as-essential-practice-within-response
