Making Response to Intervention More Accessible

I always have such great conversations and idea-bouncing with my email buddy, a school psychologist in Ohio. She emailed me today with a question/query/frustration that I'm sure TONS of us, including myself deal with: teacher push-back and reluctance to adopt the Response to Intervention (RTI) model. Here's some of what she had to say:

"Myself and another psych in the district are trying to create a framework and/or standard protocol model for the RtI process... [T]here is a great deal of talk about the resistance we are facing in developing an intervention framework... My frustration is trying to foster teacher buy in.... I want to move towards identifying students area of weakness, developing a student specific goal and then selecting the appropriate intervention for said deficit... Right now, the IAT type meetings {student support team meetings, I imagine} we have involve the teacher complaining, the Interv. Spec. doing a small reading group and DIBELS and in 4-6 weeks saying no progress-evaluate. UGH!"

Agreed, agreed, 100%! With RTI now the legal requirement for eligibility, the mode into special education is going to be changing a lot, potentially without a lot of support to the people who have to do and/or monitor the interventions: the teachers! No wonder they fight back... they don't have the support, training, time, or understanding of the model in order to implement RTI the way it's "supposed" to be done. It's much easier to stand by the old "test and place" or "discrepancy" models, which are not as fair to the child as RTI is.

My district is huge and there's no guidelines or mandates about how RTI should be done or what it's expected to look like, only that we have to be doing it. We have no specific intervention building staff, and some of our reading/math support staff don't work with the kids, only coach the teachers. We do have a lot of tutors come in from local colleges, and are putting before and after school tutoring/homework help in place, but it's hard to monitor.

I try to be basic with RTI for my teachers, and think about it more like differentiation than a separate intervention... I think people get scared by the term "intervention." What I've found in requiring academic RTI data is that teachers are doing way more differentiation than you and they realize, and when you're trying to scrounge things together, many things can be recorded as intervention. For instance: pre-teaching vocab, re-teaching lessons, shortened assignments, reduced items per page, graphic organizers/outlines, visual aids (i.e. a reminder card on the desk of steps for writing a paragraph), specially spaced lined paper, practice writing sight words in sentences, math manipulatives (tiles, cubes, counters, charts), etc. These are things teachers typically do in a classroom, but if only a few kids are getting it, it's an intervention. Sure, there are bigger things too, like special tutoring, small groups, individual pull-out, etc, but those are often too cumbersome, time-consuming, and disruptive for teachers to wrap their heads around.

My biggest obstacle is getting good, sold, appropriate data. I can get beautiful narratives and excellent information to fill into Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), but if I don't have the numbers, it's less than useful. We use the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELs) pretty extensively for reading assessment. Every kiddo gets a quarterly progress monitoring, and those who are at the strategic (1 year behind) or intensive (2+ years behind) level get monitoring much more often. Usually, I have to rely on DIBELs and reading program lesson tests (pre- and post-) for my data. What I found from past experiences is that you don't have to have nationally normed, well-known sources of data for it to be useful and meaningful. Using things like the Dolch word lists, Fry's high frequency words, and other DIBELs measures aside from Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) are useful too [Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Initial Sound Fluency (ISF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), and Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (PSF) are good for the little kiddos, especially to measure decoding interventions].

In short, I try to remember that teachers are limited in their time, resources, and ability to conduct interventions. Make it as simple yet effective as possible for them and give them easy data tracking ideas. Meet them where they are. Remind them of all the differentiation they actually do, and find away to quantify it.

Readers, please share how your school/district manages RTI! How do you get teachers to "buy in"? What do you do to help/field/alleviate their frustrations? What sources of data have you found to be easy yet effective to implement?

Don't forget to check out and "Like" my Facebook page!