Russian
psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner created a developmental systems theory to
explain the impact of the microsystem and macrosystem on human
development. The microsystem consists of
those closest to a person such as family, friends, and school. The macrosystem is made of larger components
such as community, religious affiliation, state, and political influence (Belsky,
2010). The American education system
impacts the development of students in tremendous ways, second only to their
families. For most parents, nothing is
more important than their children, and the parents of children with exceptional
needs are often more voracious in their educational goals for their
children. The American education system
bears a tremendous responsibility to provide free appropriate public education
to all learners, both typically developing and those with exceptional
needs. For students to be successful,
supports must come from both the micro and macro systems, and when intervention
is necessary, the confluence of these systems becomes even more important. “The best intervention is prevention”
(Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2012).
RTI stands for Response
to Intervention, which refers to a multi-tiered system of supports identified
for all students, those with exceptional needs and those who learn by the
general curriculum. The purpose of RTI
is to integrate resources, dissolving the territorial boundaries between
special education, Title 1, and general education. RTI involves taking a multi disciplinary
approach to assessing students’ needs on how to best deliver high-quality,
research-based instruction based on the belief that all students can learn (Laferriere
Lecture, 2015).
Intervention
is most effective when implemented early on.
Assessment and supports are available from the state to children from
0-36 months old. The school system
begins its responsibility when children reach the age of 3 and continues until
they graduate from high school. In the
book Simplifying Response to
Intervention: Four Essential Guiding Principles, the authors preface this
entire concept by emphasizing urgency.
Proactivity is paramount, and every student and every family is
different which presents unique and ever-changing challenges to effective
intervention. Intervention integrated
with quality education is a moral responsibility, not a privilege, and it can
be difficult, but not impossible. It
requires professionals to first attempt to reach all students in meaningful
ways, differentiating as opposed to labeling.
Educators, counselors, families, and those in supporting roles need to
attend to and identify those children at risk before they fall too far behind (Buffum
et al., 2012).
Buffum
et al. list the 4 Cs of RTI:
1.
Collective Responsibility – Why are we here?
2.
Concentrated Instruction – Where do we need to
go?
3.
Convergent Assessment – Where are we now?
4.
Certain Access – How do we get every child
there?
Collective
responsibility may be the most significant aspect of RTI because it is centered
on the idea that education is a collaborative event both in teaching and
learning. It involves the entire system
to provide appropriate opportunity to all students within the core curriculum
and those identified as needing additional supports. It includes school wide teams as well as
teacher teams taking on the arduous task of challenging the old ways of
thinking and transforming them into a collectivist focus. If educators are asked whether or not they believe
all students can learn, they will all agree yes, but they will follow their
answers with qualifiers about things beyond an educator’s control such as the
condition of home life, economic conditions, and intrinsic motivation (Buffum
et al., 2012). It is true that educators
cannot change much of that, but what happens during school time is within their
control, and it is their responsibility to execute purposeful plans during that
time. Learning needs to be the focus,
not just teaching.
So what can I
do? I can demonstrate the
acknowledgement and acceptance of a collectivist culture within the educational
realm. I can vocalize my intentions and
motivate others to join me. I can find
out whom and seek help from interdisciplinary teams within the school system
and offer my assistance and insight to the highest level possible for the good
of the student. These teams are made up
of administrators, teachers, counselors, therapists, specialists, community
resources officers, and parents and students, too. If there is a team building committee or a
teacher team structure on which I can serve as an ambassador for “regular”
teachers, I could join. I can also
encourage others to and personally participate in ongoing learning. In respectful ways, I can hold myself and
others accountable for promoting cultural change within the school where I
teach and the community as a whole.
Once educators
commit to collaborative intervention, the next step is determining where to go. Learners vary in skill level, and those who
qualify for added supports and services vary even more. The whole purpose of RTI is to reach all
students on all levels before those determined “at risk” fall too far behind or
are cast to the wayside. RTI is grounded
in the notion of implementing research-based strategies for teaching. It has purpose. This concept refers to concentrated instruction,
which has 3 parts: 1. Define the learning objectives (core
instruction). 2. Conceptualize what modification and
accommodations will be offered and to whom.
3. Design formative assessments
that accurately reflect student achievement (Buffum et al., 2012).
This
is no easy task. Core standards have
been established, but the number of standards is grossly disproportionate to
the amount of time a teacher has to cover them.
Teachers prioritize standards by choosing which ones work best with the
curriculum and which ones will generate the best outcome. Besides, true learning can happen beyond
standard measurement. As a teacher my
job will be to implement the chosen standards that other teacher teams and I
collaboratively create. It will also be
my job to not just view the standards as one-dimensional but as having multiple
dimensions that include depth, demonstration, and endurance. Additional time and support for
differentiated learners and those in need of remediation and enrichment should
also be considered when planning instruction (Buffum et al., 2012). It’s a continual process that requires
ongoing attention from teachers and administrators to ensure that goals are
being met and that assessment is dealt with in timely, productive, meaningful
ways. My job in this is to work with the
systems around me and consider not just academic achievement but also
behavioral achievement from real data sources.
I’m just one person, but I’m part of the team in a multi-tiered support
system.
All
students are given assessment probes to measure achievement throughout the
year. Those who are Tier 1 students
needing the least amount of intervention are assessed at least 3 times a year
whereas Tier 3 students who need ongoing assessment, are probed more often up
to several times a week (Laferriere Lecture, 2015). The purpose of regular assessment is to
ensure that students are progressing. If
students are not demonstrating increased achievement or are regressing, then
the curriculum and implementation strategies should be reevaluated. Systematic, measurable learning objectives
are established to determine where students are and where they need to go. Convergent assessment means to identify,
determine, monitor, and revise assessments to obtain the most accurate evidence
of student learning (Buffum et al., 2012).
Again,
my role as a teacher is to actively take part in the teacher team component of
RTI. Assessment criteria includes
attendance, behavior, and grades in addition to research-based universal tests.
These formative tests are administered several times a year, and I will be
asked to provide results, so record keeping will be key. It will be crucial for me to effectively
convey classroom expectations and make myself present in the hallways, for
example, to give students a chance to succeed behaviorally and academically. Reading carries tremendous weight as a
foundation for all learning. As a future
English teacher, I will need to know my students and assess their reading and
writing abilities fairly in order to identify those who may need extra
support. I must also be willing and able
to teach remedial learners the skills they need to make progress.
Certain access is
the fourth component of RTI. Certain
access encompasses the final result of RTI – that every student will receive
the necessary support to be successful (Buffum et al., 2012). It requires that all systems work together to
produce the intended outcome. It is a
universal promise that the school district will deliver the appropriate time
and support each child needs in order to learn.
One part of this involves the proper placement of students in the most
effective teacher/learner environment.
Identifying the students who need support is going to determine the best
intervention (Buffum et al., 2012).
RTI
and certain access do not just have to happen on the macro level. The idea of prevention being the best
intervention includes teacher responsibility to know her students chart their
progress or lack thereof. Ongoing pre
and formative assessment will be crucial to monitoring students. A quarterly report card might not be enough
if needs are discovered until the entire first quarter is over. Grading should also be valid and measurable
to ensure that learning objectives are met.
The bottom line is for me to design the class purposefully, treat
students equitably, differentiate successfully, assess fairly, revise and
extend when necessary, and collaborate frequently.
I should follow the proper steps
for referring students who need additional support.
As a pre-service, non-SPED
teacher, my opinion on RTI would be that RTI encompasses the implementation of
an enormous system that we cannot completely control. Sadly, time and place constrains make the
implementation of RTI difficult because a child’s needs for time and support
can vary child to child, even day to day (Buffum et al., 2012). My job is to know my students and commit to
working collaboratively with the intervention supports in place to best serve
students according to their individual needs.
My job is also to practice acceptance and collaboration to promote a
culture of commitment to social justice.
My motives in doing so should be in accordance with the principles, culture,
and purpose of the school where I teach, and I should have a mind for
continuing education and exposure. I
should also keep in mind that the goal of any education is to create cohorts of
functional, thoughtful, and productive people, not to pass a test or master a
certain standard. Society has made some improvements in the ways we think about
and implement intervention strategies, but it is a continual process. I believe if we, as a body of educators, can
trudge through the discomfort of change, we as a society will reap the long-term
benefits of offering a rich experience for our students.
Belsky, J. (2010). Experiencing the
lifespan (2nd ed.). New York: Worth. Print.
Buffum, Austin G.,
Mike Mattos, and Chris Weber. Simplifying Response to
Intervention:
Four Essential Guiding Principles. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree, 2012. Print.
Laferriere, EDSP 306 Class Lecture
2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment