community framework is the right work.
If RTI Works, Why Is There Still an Achievement Gap?
In fall 2015, the following headline appeared on Education Week’s front page: “Study: RTI Practice Falls Short of Promise” (Sparks, 2015). The research, which the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance conducted, studies the yearly reading progress of over twenty thousand grades 1–3 students. It finds that first graders who received reading interventions actually did worse than identical peers who did not receive the RTI support. More troubling, students who were already in special education or older than average for their grade performed “particularly poorly if they received interventions” (Sparks, 2015, p. 1).
Yet, when you dig deeper, the researchers find that the implementation practices at a majority of the participating schools were misaligned to the guiding principles of RTI, including the following.
► Sixty-nine percent of schools in the impact sample offered at least some intervention services during Tier 1 core instruction. As noted, “In such schools, intervention may have displaced instruction time and replaced some small-group or other instruction services with intervention services. As a result, reading intervention services may have been different from, but not necessarily supplemental to, core reading instruction” (Balu et al., 2015, p. ES-11). A basic tenet of RTI is that we should provide interventions in addition to effective Tier 1 core instruction, not in place of it. When students miss new critical grade-level core curriculum to receive interventions, it is akin to having students take one step forward (improvement in a remedial skill), while taking one step back (missing a new essential grade-level skill).
► The study finds that “even in schools using the more traditional model of providing intervention services only to readers below grade level, classroom teachers played an additional role and provided intervention services to 37 percent of those groups in Grade 1” (Balu et al., 2015, p. ES-11). RTI advocates that staff members with a higher level of expertise in a student’s target area of need should be the ones providing the interventions. While a classroom teacher might meet these qualifications, it would be unrealistic to expect that same teacher to always have more effective ways to reteach this skill to the same students who did not learn it the first time. Our experience is that teachers don’t save their best instructional practices for Tier 2 interventions. More often, teachers provide students with the same pedagogies from core instruction, only in a smaller group setting.
When interviewed about this study, coauthor Fred Doolittle states, “We don’t want to have people say that these findings say these schools aren’t doing RTI right; this turns out to be what RTI looks like when it plays out in daily life” (as cited in Sparks, 2015, p. 1). We strongly disagree with his interpretation.
To apply this conclusion to a similar situation, we know that there is tremendous consensus in the medical field regarding the best ways to lose weight in a healthy and effective way. According to the Cleveland Clinic (n.d.), “To lose weight, you must eat fewer calories or burn up more calories than you need. The best way to lose weight is to do both.” Translated into practice, this means the best diets should include eating better and regular exercise. Armed with this knowledge, millions of Americans each year commit to diets based on these principles, yet more than 90 percent of their efforts fail (Rodriguez, 2010). Should we assume then that the current research behind losing weight is at fault? Should medical researchers conclude, “We don’t want to hear that people aren’t dieting right—this turns out to be what eating fewer calories and burning up more calories looks like when it plays out in daily life.”
In reality, and as the Cleveland Clinic (n.d.) makes note of, the reason why most people don’t lose weight is because they briefly commit to eating somewhat better and increasing their exercise but ultimately fail to make these practices part of their ongoing lifestyle. Likewise, many schools are committing to some disjointed efforts at interventions but are failing to fully commit to the collaborative, learning-focused PLC lifestyle required to ensure every student’s success.
Common Missteps When Implementing RTI
While we disagree with Doolittle’s interpretation of the findings, unfortunately, the study’s results—that many schools are failing to see the gains in student achievement that RTI can provide when implemented well—did not surprise us. We have directly led the RTI process as site and district practitioners and have subsequently assisted hundreds of schools around the world. Throughout our travels, we have found that many site educators, district administrators, and state policymakers misinterpret key concepts, skip critical steps, look for shortcuts, and fail to discontinue traditional practices that are counterproductive to the RTI process. In addition to the two RTI implementation mistakes from the study (Sparks, 2015), nine other common missteps include the following.
1. Viewing RTI primarily as a process to identify students for special education
2. Viewing RTI as a regular education process
3. Building interventions on an ineffective core instructional program
4. Failing to create a guaranteed and viable curriculum
5. Using mismatched and misused assessments
6. Relying too heavily on purchased intervention programs
7. Perpetuating ineffective interventions
8. Focusing too much on what the staff cannot directly influence
9. Assuming some students are incapable of learning at high levels due to innate cognitive ability or environmental conditions
There is an important secondary benefit of RTI—educators can use it as a process to identify students with learning disabilities.
Viewing RTI Primarily as a Process to Identify Students for Special Education
There is an important secondary benefit of RTI—educators can use it as a process to identify students with learning disabilities. When all students have access to essential grade-level curriculum, highly effective initial teaching, and targeted interventions when needed, a vast majority of them succeed. If a student does not respond to these proven practices, it can indicate a potential learning disability and would justify a comprehensive evaluation of the student’s unique learning needs.
Unfortunately, many educators too quickly assume that a student’s failure in core instruction means he or she has a disability (Prasse, n.d.). When educators begin the RTI process assuming that a student’s struggles are likely due to a potential learning disability, then they usually view the tiers as the mandatory steps to achieve special education placement. Rigid time lines and laborious documentation then drive the process, and special education placement is the predetermined outcome.
Even if the RTI process worked perfectly to identify students with learning disabilities, what great benefit would we expect this qualification to provide these students? An objective analysis of special education’s impact since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 concludes that it has not only failed to close student achievement gaps but has actually been detrimental to achieving this outcome.
The graduation rate for students with special needs was 61 percent in 2014—almost 20 percent lower than for regular education students (Diament, 2014). Students with special needs are underrepresented in postsecondary education (Samuels, 2010) but overrepresented in prison. It is estimated that at least one-third and up to 70 percent of those incarcerated received special education services in school (Mader & Butrymowicz, 2014). These statistics are not meant to condemn special education teachers’ heroic efforts. Instead, it demonstrates the limitations of
