28 years.
That's how many years I've managed to cobble together as a teacher, specifically a reading teacher.
I make note of this believing, possibly incorrectly, that this will lend more credibility to my comments.
RTI/SRBI revealed itself to schools in 2004, almost twenty years ago, and the idea driving it was relatively simple.
RTI asked for educators to understand that in general any class instruction delivered to a body of students would be grasped by about 80% of students with little additional follow-up needed. Of the remaining students, 10-15% of those would need mild, additional instruction to understand the ideas being taught. The remaining percentage, 5% or so, would need more than daily, business-as-usual instruction from a teacher to understand.
This lagging handful of students would receive support from an interventionist, a specialist in math or reading who was armed with scientifically-proven-to-work systems for teaching either discipline. The interventionist would set a period of 8-20 weeks where additional practice in areas of assessed weakness were noted and work to resolve them. At the end of the intervention period, the student is either dismissed from the additional support, elevated to more time with the specialist, or the present plan (deemed effective) is continued until any gaps in learning are gone.
I am leaving out many details of course but this is the essential concept to RTI/SRBI. I know this because I'd read, and recently re-skimmed, the monstrous 250 page PDF from the State of Connecticut that explained this plan.
Here are my bullet point understandings of RTI/SRBI in action over the last 20 years.
* There is no perfect RTI/SRBI model or remediation program. This is not to say that there aren't models and programs that are not better than others and/or even generally appropriate and impactful.
* It is a sort of gatekeeper to Special Education referrals. I write, sort of, because the document makes it clear that it is not a gatekeeper to referrals or SPED but this is often how it ends up. Rarely does a child leapfrog the RTI/SRBI process and head to referral from within a school. Anyone can refer a student for SPED testing, direct referrals are rare and almost always get tabled until a high-level intervention has been conducted. Generally, it takes a staunch parent request to skip over the RTI/SRBI process. I am not writing this to denigrate schools or suggest the best interest of the student isn't in the minds of the ones tasked to educate them. I am merely giving the reality of the situation. For all intents and purposes, RTI/SRBI is a gatekeeper to SPED.
* SRBI model is premised on the very young. K-3. Full disclosure: I have not researched the history of RTI/SRBI. I have come across oodles of research articles and workshops that all demonstrate RTI practices for the earliest years of reading, i.e. K-3. Think on this. The model was designed and tested around the earliest stages of reading and then deemed so useful, it should be applied right up the ladder through HS. This idea is well-intended but it is also as if all sense of developmental understandings regarding the young as learners at different stages of their lives was heaved out the window. It also misunderstands entirely what higher level reading entails.
* The SRBI model has brought with it the idea that learning at older levels occurs in steps and through discrete skills, i.e. the exact same way it does for those K-3. It does not. Reading is a complex process to begin with and it only becomes more complex as we move beyond grade three. It is one thing to list a character trait or two for a fictional person. It is entirely different to see the many, sometimes conflicting, traits these fictionalized beings have. There is a true nuance at work the higher up the ladder one goes, because real people are nuanced.
* Adding to the bulleted idea above: The State of CT recently put out a short list of approved K-3 Reading Curriculum Models/Programs. There are a few reasons why the list is less than 10 out the many, many options that exist. One, there is recognition that the term "evidence-based and scientifically-based" are not so easily met by most all-in-one programs. Two, some of those on the review committee have a stake in the outcomes of that approved list. I believe Colorado University is behind Dibels, an -at-present- free means of performing running records with student readers.
* This next item I've heard ad nauseam from a range of specialists whose responsibility is to see that interventions are valid, occur with fidelity, and are meeting goals: You choose one skill, develop it quickly, and move on to the next skill. Ummmm, what? Choosing one skill to focus on while ignoring others disregards the way comprehension is formed, it lends itself to controlled reading over the wide-ranging styles of reading that exist. Not to mention it tends to have the additional negative effect of stultifying a reader's interest. Hey kids, we're going to work on summaries for the next 8 weeks! Let's get pumped!
* We should remain keenly aware that these programs and materials we're often expected to adopt come from organizations with entrepreneurial ends in mind. E.g. Dibels. Research and years of experience strongly suggest that there is no single program that resolves learning needs. If I am recalling correctly, the Reading First program was denounced after years of use as not having improved student learning against control groups and having cost states and the government millions.
* The rapidity and ease with which students learn drops as they become older. Those who're ages 0-5 learn far more rapidly than those who're 11-12. The suggestion here is that students will and do need more time in SRBI support as they get older.
* The new generation seems to have focusing issues we've not seen in those that have come before it; and all forms of electronics seem to be at the root of this. I'll concede that every older generation likely complains about the younger generations not being as driven, responsible, and focused but it's hard to ignore the daily reality all staff must contend with -short attention spans. Developing reading in such an environment is exponentially challenging and requires more than the normal class day can provide.
My thinking on the best approaches to intervening on a student's behalf is to revisit what makes for good instruction at each developmental level. Phonics, phonemics, and spelling are all good points of focus for our youngest. As student move into those upper elementary years, the focus may still be on some of these areas but should shift more deeply into comprehension at all levels. As students move into their middle school years, comprehension development comes front and center, as should study skills and more composed writing. Can an intervention still include fluency and decoding? Yes.
I do support several areas at once. Everything is dependent on where a student is when they arrive in my room. If they still need direct and systematic decoding instruction or phonemic development, they get this. And, they receive comprehension work too -if assessments suggest this as a need. (I do sometimes have students who can understand what they read but cannot read with fluidity or decode well enough and that's their only area of given support.)
How I support these students is a heavy blend of published materials that have their instructional lineage dating back to instructional practices before my time, the materials that come from our ELA curriculum, and the many, many, many articles, short stories, and excerpts of good writing that I've collected over the years. The aim at all times is on hitting as many needed areas as possible for as long as it takes.
Time is the other confused element in the RTI process. I grasp that we do not want students stuck in a world of help and support for their entire academic careers, but framing everything in 8-12 week periods and expecting giants leaps for all is not realistic. Some students truly need a lot of additional support over a long time. No one is denying them a referral either. That is always in the back of an educator's mind when a student cannot seem to close their learning gap.
I recommend, for those that made it this far, that you read Richard Allington's article "What Really Matters When Working With Struggling Readers". He too recognizes the fallacy of RTI as a one-fit approach to helping students.
