IRIS Module on RTI

Thoughts (before module)

What procedures do you think Rosa Parks Elementary is using to provide services to struggling students? Why are school personnel dissatisfied with this process?

     At the current time, it appears Rosa Parks Elementary is using the “wait to fail” method.  Mrs. Hernandez brought up that she thinks students struggle through her first grade class, move on to higher grades, and continue to struggle.  There isn’t intervention early on, so it takes until third grade, when the students begin to fail.  Then action is required, when the student is already failing.  The special education teacher reiterates that the students who actually need special education services are usually not identified until third or fourth grade, when their skills have fallen so far behind that they qualify.

     Understandably, personnel are dissatisfied with this process because it allows students to fail, and then they have to play major catch-up to get back up to speed.  It’s like some students are driving down the highway at 60 mph, while others are riding bicycles.  Until the bicycle is pulled over for impeding traffic, it continues to chug along, lagging further and further behind the “driving” students.  Metaphorically speaking, it would be almost impossible for the bicycle to catch up to the cars.  In schools, it’s the same way.  The achievement gap increases, so once students are identified for needing extra help, the work needed to catch them up can be daunting.  

What approaches are available to schools to help struggling readers and to efficiently identify students who need special education services?
     Many schools conduct preliminary screenings of all students to see which students are at-risk.  Teachers can use their own remediation techniques, offering extra practice and collaborating with families to work through the struggle.  From my own experience, teachers ask for support from a reading specialist, who may come into the classroom to help the student or pull out the student or a group of students.  In my methods block placement, a 4^th grade classroom, there was reading remediation a few times a week, where groups of students went down the hall to work with a reading specialist.  From what I’ve seen, teachers are overly willing to shove the struggling student off to someone else as if to say, “Here, he’s your problem now.” 
     I’m not too familiar with the referral process, but I think one approach is for teachers to take note of low performance or undesirable behaviors and then refer the child for evaluation.  Schools can conduct a battery of tests, including IQ discrepancy tests, and/or they can use RTI to see if the student responds to more intensive instruction.  Here is where my skepticism shines through.  If a student receives tier 3 instruction and benefits, what is so different from tier 3 instruction and special education?  Aren’t both tier 3 and special education services more intensive instruction than that of the general education classroom?  What happens when a student responds to tier 3 intervention?  Does he/she return to the general education classroom, the place where he/she struggled in the first place?  I just don’t quite get.  That’s not to say that I think every struggling student should be referred for or receive special education services.  I think that intervention should occur before a student is referred or evaluated.  It could simply be that the teaching method and the student’s learning preferences don’t align or that something hasn’t “clicked” yet.

What other information might a school find helpful when choosing which approach to adopt?
     I think schools should look at the research and consider the demographics of the school.  What has been proven to work for the school’s population?  Funding is also a biggie.  What types of resources and support staff are needed?  Can the school afford the cost?

What steps might the S-Team propose to help its struggling readers?        

     I think the special education teacher might propose several specific strategies that can work to help struggling readers.  The team should look at each individual and determine in what area(s) each student struggles (decoding, comprehension, etc).  They can look for trends throughout the school to see if the curriculum is leaving something out, and they can also look for trends in classrooms to see if perhaps the teacher is not including something in his/her instruction.  Once the problem area has been identified, the teacher (or whoever has been appointed the job) can take specific steps to remediate.  The team could also implement steps in the RTI model. 

Response (after module)

What are the disadvantages of the IQ discrepancy model and how does RTI address those concerns?  What might be difficult in implementing the RTI model?

     I could probably go on and on about the disadvantages of the IQ discrepancy model.  This model doesn’t rule out inadequate teaching.  Students may perform below their IQ score if the instruction they achieved is lacking.  With RTI, ineffective teaching is ruled out, since tier 1 provides high-quality, research-based instruction.   Furthermore, all students receive high-quality instruction.  Another disadvantage with the IQ discrepancy model is that there is more potential for teacher bias or testing bias.  RTI uses progress monitoring data, so bias is less likely.   Additionally, the IQ discrepancy model is a “wait to fail” model.  Students must fail before intervention, whereas the RTI approach includes school-wide screening in a preventative manner.  Struggling students are identified before they fall too far behind. 

     With the IQ discrepancy model, students with low IQ and achievement scores would continue to achieve at a low level, since there is no discrepancy.  With RTI, these students would be identified early and given the support needed to remediate their skills.  Also, with the IQ discrepancy model, results from assessments do not inform the instructional process.  The progress monitoring data used in RTI can be used in an ongoing manner, to inform and evaluate the instructional process.  A final advantage of RTI is that it curtails the number of special education referrals. 

     RTI could have some difficulties in implementation.  This new model would call for a new outlook and reform within the school.  Teachers and staff members would need training, and more staff might be needed to work with students in tiers 2 and 3.  Roles within the school might be redefined as well.  Teachers would need to find tests that were not biased towards a certain group of students, and tier 1 instruction would have to be more culturally responsive, which again, would call for training.  Since the RTI model calls for testing and progress monitoring, more of teacher’s time would be spent testing students and plotting data.  Nonetheless, I think the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

Chapter 1 Reflection

            Chapter 1 did a nice job at showing me a mainstream perspective of individuals with disabilities.  This perspective was new to me, as I’ve always had my own opinions.  A theme arose: conformity to the majority.  I have issues with conformity and have argued many times about what’s normal, and why does everyone have to be the same?  Different does not mean wrong or bad; it means different!

            The chapter discussed the invisibility of mild disabilities.  Students with mild disabilities are often overlooked, and so often teachers berate these students.  The constant beating down of a person really damages morale.  That student knows he or she is not up to par.  Hearing it again and again will not make the material come easier. When I’m struggling, I do NOT want someone to point it out, but students with disabilities have their struggles pointed out to them daily. 

            “The barrier between groups can be physical (e.g., an institution wall), or it can be psychological, as when we subtly reduce our expectations of an individual” (Raymond, 2012, p. 11).  I thought this was a powerful statement.  Teachers and non-teachers alike are guilty of lowering expectations for those with disabilities.  The people with disabilities know that the bar has been lowered, and do you think they like it?  My best friend since first grade has a disability, and she absolutely hated it when people reduced her expectations or treated her differently (sometimes even giving special treatment) when she knew she was capable.

            I understand both sides of the “classify or not classify” argument.  I one hundred percent agree that an individual can “become” the classification, by living up (or down) to the stereotypes of that label.  I was always a perfectionist, and before I had the label, I just did my thing, perfecting things I found important.  Once people started labeling me as a perfectionist, I felt that I had to live up to that expectation, live up to the stereotype.  I can see how a student labeled with an exceptionality could feel the need to fulfill the stereotype. 

            Nonetheless, I think classification helps to create a universal system.  Generally, people with X disability have Y traits.  It becomes a problem when people think everyone with Down syndrome has the same impairments and can benefit from the exact same services and supports.  Classification can provide a starting point.  However, each individual is just that, an individual.  Hobbs remarked that classification doesn’t tell an educator what services the student will need.  I support the method of constructing a profile of assets and liabilities, and using that to create service objectives.  Only by looking at the individual child can objectives be meaningful. 

            The history of special education was interesting to read.  Again, we return to the theme of conformity.  Those who did not conform were put away and hidden, not allowed to reproduce. They spent their lives in asylums, in separate, isolated schools, or in separate, isolated classrooms.  Some were sterilized so that they would not pass on the genetic “feeblemindedness” to offspring.  These separate schools and classrooms had curricula to 1) give the students something to do; 2) teach the students the “right” way to behave.  I have a strong dislike of the word “normalization.”  The definition references the norms and patterns of the mainstream society.  Who is to say what is normal?  What is normal here may not be normal half-way around the world.  What is normal to me may not be normal to you. 

            I was floored when I saw the list of court cases supporting equal access to educational services (Raymond, 2012, p. 29).  I guess I can rationalize that it was a different time then, and schools know better than to deny needed services, but I’m not so sure schools are always looking out for the best interest of the student.  Schools often look out for the best interest of their bank account.  I’ve been in classrooms where I hear about districts not wanting to pay for service Z, because service Z is so expensive.  I’ve even heard teachers trying to deny much-needed services.  If this is the case, then who advocates for that child?  Who holds the school accountable for making sure a student’s needs are met?  I’m hoping this block gives me the resources I need, so that I can be the advocate for my students.  I’m awfully passionate and awfully stubborn!