RtI: When Things Don't Work as You Expected

  • Response to Intervention
  • 09 November, 2015
  • 18 Comments

          When I arose today I saw lots of Twitters and Facebook entries about a new U.S. Department of Education study. Then I started getting emails from folks in the schools and in the state departments of education. IES Study on RtI

          “What’s going on here?” was the common trope.
          Basically, the study looked at RtI programs in Grades 1 through 3. The reports say that RtI interventions were lowering reading achievement in Grade 1 and while the RtI interventions weren’t hurting the older kids, they weren’t helping them to read better.
          The idea of RtI is a good one, but the bureaucratization of it was predictable. You can go back and look at the Powerpoint on this topic that I posted years ago.
           I’m not claiming that I predicted the failure of RtI programs. Nevertheless, we should be surprised that research-based interventions aimed at struggling readers, with lots of assessment monitoring harmed rather than helped kids. But I’m not. 
          In fairness, this kind of thing can go either way: on the one hand the idea of giving kids targeted instruction generally should improve achievement… and yet, on the other hand, this assumption is based on the idea that schools will accurately identify the kids and the reading problems, will provide additional instruction aimed at helping these kids to catch up, will offer quality teaching of the needed skills (meaning that usually such teaching will have positive learning outcomes), and that being identified to participate in such an effort won’t cause damage in and of itself (if kids feel marked as poor readers that can become a self-fulfilling prophecy with 6-year-olds just trying to figure things out). 
          When RtI was a hot topic I used to argue, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, for a 9-tier model; the point was that a more flexible and powerful system was going to be needed to make a real learning difference. If the identification of student learning needs is sloppy, or the “Tier 2” reading instruction just replaces an equivalent amount of “Tier 1” teaching, or the quality and intensity of instruction are not there… why would anyone expect RtI to be any better than what it replaced? 
          Unfortunately, in a lot schools that I visit, RtI has just been a new bureaucratic system for getting kids into special education. Instead of giving kids a plethora of IQ and reading tests, seeking a discrepancy, now we find struggling readers, send them down the hall for part of their instructional day, and test the hell out of them with tests that can’t possibly identify whether growth/learning is taking place and moving them lockstep through “research-based” instructional programs. 
          In other words, the programs emphasize compliance rather than encouraging teachers to solve a problem.
          First, there is too much testing in RtI programs. These tests are not fine-grained enough to allow growth to be measured effectively more than 2-4 times per year (in some places I’m seeing the tests administered weekly, biweekly, and monthly, a real time waster. 
          Second, the tests are often not administered according to the standardized instructions (telling kids to read as fast as possible on a fluency test is stupid). 
          Third, skills tests are very useful, but they can only reveal information about skills performance. Teaching only what can be tested easily is a foolish way to attack reading problems. Definitely use these tests to determine whether to offer extra teaching in phonological awareness, phonics, and oral reading fluency. But kids need work on reading comprehension and language as well, and those are not easily monitored. I would argue for a steady dose of teaching in the areas that we cannot test easily, and a variable amount of teaching of those skills that we can monitor.
          Fourth, the Tier 2 instruction should increase the amount of teaching that kids get. If a youngster is low in fluency or decoding, he should get additional fluency or decoding instruction. That means students should get the entire allotment of Tier 1 reading instruction, and then should get an additional dose of teaching on top of that. 
          Fifth, it is a good idea to use programs that have worked elsewhere (“research based”). But that doesn’t mean the program will work for you. Teach that program like crazy with a lot of focus and intensity, just like in the schools/studies where it worked before—in fact, that’s likely why it worked elsewhere. Research-based doesn’t mean that it will work automatically; you have to make such programs work.
          Sixth, don’t put kids in an intervention and assume the problem is solved. The teacher should also beef up Tier 1 teaching, should steal extra instructional moments for these students in class, and should involve parents in their programs as well. What I’m suggesting is a full-court press aimed at making these struggling students successful—rather than a discrete, self-contained, narrow effort to improve things; Tier 2 interventions can be effective, but by themselves they can be a pretty thin strand for struggling readers to hang onto.
          I hope schools don’t drop RtI because of these research findings. But I also hope that they ramp up the quantity and quality of instruction to ensure that these efforts are successful.

Comments

See what others have to say about this topic.

EdEd Apr 06, 2017 09:18 PM

Great post Dr. Shanahan - I think we're largely in agreement here. I also hope schools realize that this article largely suggests a failure of RtI as implemented, not theoretically, and not its potential.

I also think you've given some great suggestions for improvement, and schools would be wise to follow them. We somewhat disagree on the testing element - I do see some schools that over-rely on (in my opinion) less effective assessments, such as MAP, but CBM obviously yields results more than 2-3 times per year, is quick & easy to administer, and pretty easy in terms of standardization.

I also disagree somewhat with your comment about skills testing, though not completely. First, skills testing - conceptually - isn't limited to beginning reading skills. Even advanced comprehension tasks are skills, and can be measured as such, though admittedly not as readily with existing, quickly administered assessments. So, the issue isn't so much an over-reliance on skills testing, but - if occurring - on over-reliance on beginning reading skills instruction.

That being said, I don't think our main goal with higher tiers of RtI should be to find "balance," but to find out exactly what students need, then deliver it. If students need beginning skills instruction, that's what they should receive. Where we agree is that we should make sure there is coverage of higher order reading skills in assessments used to plan Tier II+ instruction. To that extent, utilizing newer technology such as CBM comprehension measures, and math reasoning assessments, can be helpful. We also need to NOT just limit ourselves to CBM, but to see other, less frequently administered, skills assessment (e.g., classroom formative assessment) as fair game for informing instructional planning in higher tiers.

Sandie Stone Apr 06, 2017 09:19 PM

Dr. Shanahan thank you for this post. Now, if only those in charge would stop purchasing the latest and greatest, no fail, this is the one, Rti programs and actually let classroom teachers tailor Rti for students. Tell me why I should make my kindergarten student log 90 minutes of time per week on Istation for learning high frequency words. I don't teach using a look and repeat after me approach to reading, instead I use the 6 syllable types and Cued Articulation. My students learn to decode.

11/10/2015

Timothy Shanahan Apr 06, 2017 09:20 PM

EdEd--
The issue on over-testing isn't one concerning the ease of administering CBMs, but the usefulness of the information to be provided. You have to look at the standard error of measurement of those tests. You will find they are fairly large when the tests are given exactly as standardized and even larger otherwise. It would be great to have a test that would reveal if kids were learning or not, but no test can do that if the intended amount of learning growth is smaller than the tests standard error. If a child improves 3 wcpm on an oral reading CBM, you can't even know if that is real growth is the SEM is 10, for example. We are testing too often because we are not paying attention to what these tests are capable of.

Comprehension is just too complex to provide a good quick assessment comparable to DIBELS skills tests. In fact, it doesn't operate like a skill, so the notion that it is just a different skill is not universally accepted, nor is it consistent with the best work on comprehension. Instead of piling the instruction up only where one can test easily, I think the convention should be to always provide some instruction attention to reading comprehension as well. You might provide more comprehension instruction than was absolutely needed, but that's fine by me. If you just follow the tests, then you will expend all the instruction on the skills and abilities that are easily tested. I suspect that is what is happening in far to many RtI programs.

11/10/2015

Denise Kelly Apr 06, 2017 09:20 PM

Thank you again for a thought-provoking article! Being an impatient society as a whole, we seem to continue to try to find a quick-fix hurry up and make thinkers out of the students. True reflective and effective minds come from lots of modeling, discussing and asking the right questions by the adult. It is validating, exposure to rich texts and feedback at just the right timing and pacing. If we would put ourselves in the place of the child as we "do RTI" to them, rather than "with" them, we would see a powerful change in their ability to read, write and think.

11/10/2015

What Are your thoughts?

Leave me a comment and I would like to have a discussion with you!

Comment *
Name*
Email*
Website
Comments

RtI: When Things Don't Work as You Expected

18 comments

One of the world’s premier literacy educators.

He studies reading and writing across all ages and abilities. Feel free to contact him.

Timothy Shanahan is one of the world’s premier literacy educators. He studies the teaching of reading and writing across all ages and abilities. He was inducted to the Reading Hall of Fame in 2007, and is a former first-grade teacher.  Read more

60 E Monroe St #6001
CHICAGO, Illinois 60603-2760
Contact Us Subscribe