Words
matter. When I hear the phrase,
“response to intervention,” I get hung up on the word intervention. Response to
Intervention (RtI) refers to a framework for improving instruction. The term gained notoriety in the
re-authorization of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA, 2004), when the concept of RtI was allowed (some might say encouraged or
mandated) to be used as an alternative process for identifying students with
specific learning disabilities. I will
not go into the components or research behind RtI, but I will recommend reading
Fuchs & Fuchs (2006) or Fisher & Frey (2010) for additional
background.
Back to the
word “intervention.” In an RtI
framework, educators use assessment data to help improve education and supports
for students. The word “intervention,”
unfortunately, has shaped the implementation of RtI. It is unfortunate, because
RtI is often associated with struggling students, and RtI discussions typically
revolve around ways of fixing students. Instead, we should be using the
assessment data to have discussions about how to change instruction and
learning in the regular classroom in order to reduce the number of students who
are not meeting benchmarks. We, as
educators, need to shift the focus away from fixing students to fixing our
instructional practices to engage more learners and meet their needs in the
regular classroom.
RtI should
be about Responsive Instruction that monitors student progress, provides
feedback to students, and differentiates in the regular classroom. Instead of investing in pullout
interventionists, schools should be investing in specialists and instructional
coaches who “push-in” to classrooms in order to help teachers differentiate
instruction, content, and processes for their students.
Fisher,
D., & Frey, N. (2010). Enhancing RTI: How to ensure success with effective
classroom instruction and intervention. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Fuchs, D. and
L. S. Fuchs (2006). "Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why,
and how valid is it?" Reading
Research Quarterly, 41(1): 93-99.
