Morris,

Kylie Morris
October 28, 2018

Educational Policy and Impact of RTI

In attempts to “bridge the achievement gap,” school districts are under pressure to implement

assessment strategies that reach a wide diversity of learners. Supporters of these assessments claim

they improve student understanding in math and reading, but what are some potential drawbacks?

This purpose of this inquiry is to investigate the impacts Response to Intervention (RTI) has in the

classroom as it relates to student achievement, teacher expectations, and long-term sustainability.

The RTI Model

In the classroom, teachers are faced with many challenges in addressing underperforming

students as well as ensuring that they don’t fall far behind. Response to intervention (RTI) is a model

for the early identification and prevention of reading disabilities (Nielsen, et al., 2013). An efficient

RTI framework relies on timely assessments and feedback, thus systematically supporting student

achievement. Assessing and addressing student discrepancies in understanding is key to designing a

more individualized learning plan. Most often, RTI is organized into three tiers: within the first, all

students receive scientifically based instruction within general education settings; within tiers 2 and

3, interventions are organized hierarchically in relation to intensity. As intensity increases, the

number of students requiring interventions decreases (Waitoller & Thorius, 2015). While students in

all tiers of the RTI model should not lose time away from their general content classes, students in

tier 3 intervention may be pulled for additional intensive intervention.

Data driven assessments are used throughout the process, including vetted curriculum and

learning tools. Waitoller & Thorius, 2015 maintain that RTI requires scientifically based core
 Morris, 2

reading curricula in general education classrooms, in response to which students are expected to

progress, including students with and at risk of being labelled with (dis)abilities. By using carefully

selected intervention materials, and assessments, schools can more easily monitor growth by ruling

out curriculum as a potential barrier to learning. The inability to support children before they

“failed” did not lend much chance of academic success as students progressed though their school

system. Research conducted by Fisher & Frey (2011) found that RTI was born from a realization

that students identified using a discrepancy formula (achievement in comparison to IQ) had to “wait

and fail” before receiving specialized instruction as required by federal law.

RTI and the Student

RTI has shown to be effective for catching students in younger grades before they fall too far

behind. Research suggests that screening for risk for RD in kindergarten can have acceptable levels

of accuracy (Catts, Nielsen, Bridges, Liu, Bontempo, 2013). As an effective assessment tool, more

needs to be considered for using RTI at the high school level for students that have continued to

struggle academically. Previous assessments have denied opportunity to students that do not identify

as dominant culture, through the use of exclusive vocabulary, non-native languages, and unrelatable

questions. Some in the special education research community have viewed RTI as a promising

practice for addressing educational inequities, including the disproportionate representation of

students of color in special education (Waitoller & Thorius, 2015). Students can be easily supported

through response to intervention, as it is a school-wide framework that can use as a resource to

improve reading and math skills. RTI aims to ensure that students are not misrecognized as having

deficits, therefore avoiding further stigmatization (Waitoller & Thorius, 2015).

The other side of the argument is that RTI inherently suppresses the academic identity of

students by categorizing students into tiers based on their academic performance. While the
 Morris, 3

assessment work to identify individual needs for growth, a point can be raised that RTI still works to

categorize students based on varying abilities. Waitoller & Thorius (2015) further explain that

response to intervention practices still rely on disability labels to access the most intensive and

sustained tier of intervention (Tier 3); these labels contribute additional oppressions to diverse

learners, related to their devalued status within a racially stratified society and their disproportionate

representation in low-income groups.

Teacher Impacts

Teachers are often faced with “wearing many hats” when it comes to the list of

responsibilities we take on in the profession. Adopting a new framework in the classroom can seem

dauting and exhaustive. Response to Intervention requires full teacher commitment as well as

ongoing data analysis. Barrio & Combes, 2015 state increased responsibilities associated with RTI

and inclusive approaches may exacerbate the pressure teachers feel. After a school study, researchers

also found that professional development was critical to ensure that RTI efforts were successful

(Fisher & Frey, 2011). This added component means that time outside of the classroom is necessary

for teachers to feel competent enough to support the RTI framework in their classrooms. Because the

process depends on effective interventions and the assessment of these interventions, the idea that

many of the tasks of RTI fall on a team of persons including the general education teacher is

reasonable (Werts & Carpenter, 2013). Ultimately, “burnout” is a major component of teacher

turnover in schools. In order to ensure that RTI is helpful to the student and the teacher, a support

team is necessary to assist with assessment and data analysis. Research conducted by Fisher & Frey,

2011 proved it took the whole school to commit to competencies so that all teachers had access to

progress monitoring data (Fisher & Frey, 2011). If RTI requires consistent progress tracking, as well
 Morris, 4

as intensive intervention strategies, the teachers and school community need to support one another

for the framework to be successful.

Sustainability

It can be hard for teachers to know what teaching strategies have merit, and which will come

and go. With a heavy load of responsibilities, committing to something new can feel overwhelming.

Response to intervention also has its drawbacks when it comes to teacher buy in. According to Werts

& Carpenter 2013, teachers stated that they were overwhelmed. Time, extra duties, and increased

amounts of testing were barriers to successful implementation. Studies conducted by Barrio &

Combes, 2015 found that pre-service teachers showed lower levels of interest in implementing RTI,

others stated they needed more preparation and working knowledge before they felt comfortable

practicing the framework.

Many teachers understood themselves to be the primary person responsible for implementing

response to intervention, some discouraged by the components and challenges of implementation

(Barrio & Combes, 2015). While many schools understand that a successful RTI framework requires

constant collaboration, there are still some difficulties when it comes to practical application in

secondary education. High school principals perceived RTI as important but understood that

significant changes would be necessary (Werts & Carpenter, 2013). In larger schools, especially,

directing funds to new educational frameworks like response to intervention can prove to be

difficult. The work and dedication required to make RTI successful long term can be problematic.

According to Fisher & Frey 2011, the lack of assessment information results in an inability to

provide meaningful intervention. Even with all other components of RTI in place, proven

assessments can continue to be an obstacle in perpetuating this educational policy.

 Morris, 5

In conclusion, response to intervention has shown to improve the reading and writing

proficiency of student, especially when implemented at a young age. This early improvement

through RTI can help negate the need to identify some students as having a learning disability.

While response to intervention can be helpful in boosting confidence in students as they build their

academic schema, it does have some drawbacks. In order to be successful, it takes a great time

commitment to analyze student data in order to correctly place students in the appropriate tier of

intervention. Teacher and administration buy-in plays a role in the success of RTI. Intensive, and

continued professional development is integral as teachers gain the necessary skills to sustainably

use RTI in the classroom. Major shifts in class schedules are needed to fully incorporate RTI without

the need to pull students from their core content classes. Finally, with the components necessary for

successful implementation, a school RTI team could help manage the time burden on teachers,

provide consistency, and support a sustainable framework

 Morris, 6

References:
Barrio, B.L., Combes, B.H. (2015). General Education Pre-Service Teachers’ Levels of Concern on
Response to Intervention (RTI) Implementation. Teacher Education and Special Education The
Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 38(2), pp.
121-137. doi: 10.1177/0888406414546874.
Catts, H.W., Nielsen, D.C., Bridges, N.S., Liu, Y.S., Bontempo, D.E. (2013). Early Identification of
Reading Disabilities within a RTI Framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(3), pp. 281–
297. Doi: 10.1177/0022219413498115.
Fisher, D., Frey, N. (2011). Implementing RTI in a High School: A Case Study. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 6(2), pp. 99-114. doi: 10.1177/0022219411407923
Waitoller, F. R. and Thorius, K. K. (2015), Playing hopscotch in inclusive education reform: examining
promises and limitations of policy and practice in the US. Support for Learning, 30(1), pp. 23-
41. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.12076.
Werts, M. G., & Carpenter, E. S. (2013). Implementation of Tasks in RTI: Perceptions of Special
Education Teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(3), pp. 247–257. doi:
10.1177/0888406413495420.