Enhancing RTI
How to Ensure Success with Effective Classroom Instruction and Intervention
Douglas Fisher / Nancy Frey
Chapter 1 – Choose Your Adventure:
How RTI2 Affects the Educational Environment
“Teaching every child is hard work. With that hard work, though, comes a group of learners who are prepared to participate in society. This learning occurs in the classrooms or well-prepared teachers who are undaunted by student learning variations because they believe that each child is an individual and that individuals exhibit differences in growth due to many factors, including carefully selected instructional interventions.”
The focus of Chapter 1 is a comparison of the interventions and supports in three scenarios which include a traditional school, a RTI school, and an RTI2 school. In the traditional school earlier iterations of the prereferral process were often seen as a necessary formality that almost always led to special education testing. The RTI school the focus was to examine interventions that might prevent referral to testing. The difference in the RTI2 school is to enhance the RTI process and continually examine classroom instructional design. Consultation and collaboration with other professionals and families is essential.
Chapter 2 – Response to Intervention:
Defining and Refining the Process
RTI was designed as a way to encourage teachers to vary instruction and time to create a constant level of learning. A core assumption of RTI is that all students can reach high levels of achievement if the system is willing (and able) to vary the amount of time students have to learn and the type of instruction they receive. In the old view of learning instruction and time were the constant and outcomes/learning varied, but in the new view of learning instruction and time vary and outcomes/learning are the constant.
Tier 1 is the core instruction and 75-85 percent of students should make sufficient progress through core instruction alone. Tier 2 is supplemental intervention and approximately 10-15 percent of students at one time or another requires supplemental instruction in addition to the core instruction. Tier 3 is intensive intervention. Approximately 5-10 percent of students will require an intensified approach that includes more time, a lower teacher-student ratio (typically 1:1), individualized lessons that target weaknesses while leveraging student strengths, and a sophisticated cadre of assessment tools to monitor progress and diagnosis difficulties. It is imperative that teachers first consider individual students’ responses to quality core instruction before recommending supplemental and intensive interventions. They must also determine which students respond to the interventions and continue adapting instructional routines and time to achieve the desired results. RTI2 begins with a strong core instruction built on a gradual release of responsibility model (Fisher/Frey) with strong assessment to monitor progress, and improve instruction in all tiers. RTI2 emphasizes a collaborative approach to classroom support and anticipates that some students will periodically cycle through interventions.
-Marianne
I liked what Marianne said- " In the old view of learning instruction and time were the constant and outcomes/learning varied, but in the new view of learning instruction and time vary and outcomes/learning are the constant." This is why formative assessment is so important. I think we are moving in the right direction but teachers still need support implementing formative assessment.
ReplyDeleteThe RTI process goes along with our data teams. When we collect our data we will be able to see if 75-85% of the students are proficient with just our instruction. How do we ensure that this is happening? I think pre-assessments will help determine what instruction needs to take place. Will our pacing guides take away from this? I think they should be used as just a guide.
I'm trying to come up with ideas of how to help the students that need intensified instruction. I think planning with the special education teachers would help immensely. They could offer ideas on how to help these students.
I think there are a few things mentioned in these first two chapters that are vitally important. First, we must have quality instruction in the classroom. Obviously you will always have some teachers who are stronger than others. But how to we ensure that all students are receiving quality instruction? I think our research-based decisions in data teams can help with this factor (although teachers have to apply it with efficacy). Also, we must use continued formative assessment in order to guide our instructional practices and to follow the RTI2 model. Schmoker also told us this! It is not enough to DO a ticket out the door. We must USE them inform our teaching. Finally, our staff needs to view all of our students as having the ability to learn their curriculum. The comments about Adam in the traditional school setting are sometimes not far off from what we hear. We need to stop blaming the students and start problem solving in a collaborative manner. Again – data teams does this for us. However I think the blame game still takes place. How can we stop that?
ReplyDeleteI really like the chart on page 13. It is a good way to compare/contrast the supports that are in (or not) place. I think this process (RTI2) is a reality check for all teachers. We should not just allow special education to take students over or be an excuse… by that I mean, it should not be the resort we go to when our efforts fail. We need to utilize the expertise of and plan with the Special Education Department but work with them more rigorously in the classroom setting. Just like with reading, this is a part of each grade level and each content area.
ReplyDelete“RTI was designed as a way to encourage teachers to vary instruction and time to create a constant level of learning” (p. 15). I think this is what the district has been trying to do with differentiation all along… I hope the RTI process will help teachers see this is a necessity. Students should not just be sitting there, no matter what their capabilities.
I think the data collection that is necessary with RTI will be a struggle… I see those Solution Focus templates in my head…
The district is really going to have to support our school and others if they want to live by this model. Like the text says on pages 24-25, tier 3 is one-on-one with individualized lessons! I know how many of our students could potentially be in this category if we continue the way we have been… who, what, where, when, and HOW?! I hope the district thinks about the cuts they made when the implementation of RTI becomes difficult.
I’m not trying to be a “Debbie Downer” but even after discussing this with people like Kathy Learn at our coaches meetings last year, this process seems a stretch for our district at this point. I hope they don’t try to make less people do more work!
See you tomorrow,
Rachel
RTI2 fits well with the Schmoker model of continuous checks for understanding, but the differentiated instruction needs to take place within this cycle as well. In order to reach all of our students to become “a group of learners who are prepared to participate in society,” we need to focus on how we can give them what they need. Our staff needs more practice with this as well as resources. The gradual release of responsibility not only encourages students’ confidence and mastery of the material, but it also assists in preparing them for the real world (something I try to remind myself of regularly).
ReplyDeleteWe’ve spent time discussing with our staff how “regular” instruction will only reach 75% (or so) of our students. We’ve split the data wall into our tiers to keep a focus on those students who need more interventions, as well as to ensure all of our students see growth. I think we’re on the right track, but need to keep it up and reach further.
The question I struggle with is how to make sure everyone is on the same page in changing our behavior to benefit our students. I think holding everyone accountable is part of the solution. Implementing RTI2 will take more time in planning and getting to know the strengths and struggles of our students. However, isn’t this part of the basics when it comes to teaching?
I agree with Debbie/Rachel, in the fact that there needs to be more one-on-one instruction in our building, and we need more educated bodies to do this. DI can help with this, but I worry that there are many students who won’t be able to get that one-on-one in all of their classes.
The RTI2 model fits with a lot of what we are already doing through data teams and what we plan to implement with the fisher/frey model of I do, we do, you do it together and you do it alone. This format being completed while formative assessing after each section. I agree with some posts above that stated more work or professional development for our staff needs to be done covering formative assessment. I think that some teachers feel it needs to be something completed and handed in to be graded.
ReplyDeleteI really like the process of identifying struggling students and making the appropriate accomodations to assure learning. DI and small group instruction. This fits our data teams but I feel we need to use the process for our own curriculums as well.
Rachel mentioned planning time with the special ed. department should be used. They are our "critical friends" and need to be utilized more frequently.
I did not know much about RTI before reading these chapters but now that I have more knowledge on the process, I think it is imperative that we use our data team meetings more effectively. I know that we have the different categories on the board, but we did not have the expertise or knowledge to discuss the Tier 2 and Tier 3 students in an appropriate way. As individual teachers, I think we understood who was in far to go and in extensive support, but I do not think we handled those students correctly. As Rachel said, we will definitely have to be creative about the Tier 3 students. The book talks about utilizing specialists, coaches, and SpEd teachers with the Tier 3 students but it would be nice if the core teacher could work one-on-one with the Tier 3 students while the other adult worked with the Tier 1 and Tier 2 students.
ReplyDeleteIf we want all students to be successful, we can no longer use excuses or play the blame game. I think one way of helping solve the problem is to make sure ALL staff are knowledgeable in RTI. Just from reading the first chapter with the different scenarios really clarified the process for me, and I don't know if it would be a bad idea for everyone to read it. As Rachel said, the chart on page 13 really sums up the differences. Is this something we could introduce at a Wednesday staff meeting or during our PD data team meetings?
I agree that a lot of the information in the RTI book blends well with the Schmoker Book. I think we need to enhance our data teams to include the RTI components. Moreover, we need to really work on reaching the tier three students, keeping in mind that this work will help make all students reach their achievement goals. It occurs to me that both books remind us to not blame the students and to focus on adult behavior. In other words no excuses.
ReplyDeleteThere is a real focus on building mastery and the gradual release model will blend seamlessly with our goals. Rachael makes some good points about the data collection piece and the old solution focus sheets. I found that process to be laborious and time consuming, with little impact. It is also worht noting the reliance on formative assessment as the lesson is taught. I believe we need to make certain that all of our teachers feel comfortable with this assessment process and do not rely on quizzes and tests for assessment.
Response to Intervention is a valuable component to add to our building. It goes hand-in-hand with what we are doing in Data Teams for the students who are not quite proficient, yet. RTI is seemingly very similar to differentiated instruction, which we are and have been doing as individual teachers for several years now.
ReplyDeleteHowever, RTI is hard work. I think that what Jen said about how, planning with the special education teachers would help immensely, is dead on. As educators we need to figure out ways to work smarter, not harder. We have to all be willing to collaborate and use as many of the resources that we have at our disposal as possible. This includes special education teachers, teachers of different content areas, teachers of different grade levels, exploratory class teachers, administrators, para educators (which should be much more accessible this year), C.I.T. members, etc.
It is a corny statement that is cited too often, but it is true - it takes a village to raise a child. And it takes a whole school to teach a student. We all have to work together to successfully incorporate RTI into JB Young, and allow ALL students to learn - regardless of the rate at which they learn.