Traditional teaching methods prove ineffective when addressing a large, diverse classroom where learners have diversified needs. Learning disabilities are increasingly prevalent in American classrooms. Teachers require an inclusive approach without sacrificing the quality of teaching. Therefore, educators require skills that address the needs of special needs children through interventions that cater specifically to their conditions. Response to intervention teaching proposes a framework that assesses children’s learning disabilities and effectively addresses them through research-backed intervention strategies. RTI utilizes three-tier stage interventions that identify students with special needs in classrooms and offer an intensive method if the student fails to respond to earlier interventions by interweaving the learner’s interests into the curriculum.
RTI employs three strategies that assess the student’s needs and recommend a relevant intervention strategy. The first applies to all grade levels and addresses roughly 80% of all students (Ruiz, 2019). The level is the primary level of failure and is a general assessment of the student’s needs and requirements. According to Savitz et al. (2021), there are variations in how this tier’s initiatives work across American states. Specifically, despite an apparent need for response to intervention strategies in secondary schools, most states have chosen to use intervention strategies in children between the grade of 6 and 12. Due to the versatility of the tier, tits strategies are widely applicable to varying learning institutions despite the age differences in the students.
The second tier consists of more intense strategies and a targeted approach to teaching class content. The educator will attempt to create more time with the student in and out of the classroom and usually caters to 15% of the student base (Ruiz, 2019). The difference between the second and third stages lies in the intensity and frequency of use in teaching interventions. Björn et al. assert that the theoretical framework in second-tier instruction includes initiatives such as modified instruction and systematically assessing students to determine their learning disabilities (2018). Subjects such as Math that require detailed instruction present difficulty with learners who require evidence-based learning to identify learning disabilities and subequently implement a framework that adjusts to their needs. At this stage, the teacher dedicates strategies specific to the learner’s strengths to ensure they understand the learning objective (Savitz et al., 2021). However, the differences in American and Finnish classrooms lies primarily in the purpose and definition of response to intervention learning. Both countries acknowledge the need to address learning disabilities, whereas Finland lacks a formal definition of the interventions and strategies used in the classroom. The lack of a well-structured timeline relegated to three-tier stages diverts the students’ efforts and does not address their disabilities.
Tier 3 is the most intense stage and caters to students that do not respond aptly to the first two stages. Highly individualized teaching and targeted instruction define the framework for this stage and contain only roughly 5% of the students (Nilvius & Svensson, 2021). The child’s learning disability is determined and its effects on the child’s educational efforts are categorized and analyzed. The learning disability’s impact occurs through continual tests and informal meetings created by the educator to improve the chances of content retention. According to Nilvius and Svensson (2021), tier 3 entails one-to-one instruction every week as an addition to the general curriculum rather than replacing it. Using the RTI model established in the United States, Swiss teachers identify disabilities and address them through intervention strategies tailored to the learner’s disability.
The Charlotte County Public Schools Board in Florida oversees six special education facilities and four middle schools that use the RTI model. The state has implemented tier 1 intervention strategies in all schools and collects assessment tests to determine students’ learning outcomes. Furthermore, educators offer supplemental support concurrently with the core academic learning material under tier 2 strategies. Moreover, individualized instruction emanates from educators, and parents in the state are encouraged to seek evaluation for their children. Schools must seek consent for the disability evaluation or deliver a reason to the contrary within 30 days and schedule a test within another 60 days.
In my classroom of 7th Grade students, I am quite sure that a few of them need more help than I feel I can provide in my classroom. I had been considering referring some of them for testing for exception education. However, before I could do so, I was advised of Response to Intervention and told I must implement the procedures in my classroom. The methods I will be using are establishing subject-specific objectives, targeted content instruction, and the use of grouping, material reinforcement, and positive feedback to struggling students. The records I will keep consist of weekly details of the student’s progress, the learnig intervention strategies used, and the level of parent input. These records will tabulate the intervention strategy used per tier 2 learning outcomes and comprehensively analyze the learner’s results. I hope to see the results of identifying specific learning disabilities and an improved understanding of the educational material consistent with each student’s learning level.
This case study will focus on six middle school students who display difficulties learning sentence structure in the English language. All students are roughly 12 to 13 years and display various educational and learning disabilities. I will use tier 2 intervention strategies to qualitatively collect data and identify learning patterns. Continuous assessment tests tabulated weekly and compared to the reading requirements of the class grade will conduct the data. Teachers will conduct the assessment in and out of the classroom to maximize the intensity needed to ensure core content retention.
|Name||Week 1||Week 2||Week 3||Week 4||Intervention Used||Parent Input||Results|
|Jordan||Present||Present||Present||Present||Direct individual instruction on sentence structure||Full involvement and support||The student shows an understanding of the subject material|
|Hailey||Present||Present||Absent||Present||The student was grouped with Max||parent involvement is consistent||Improved confidence in oral and presentation skills|
|Max||Present||Present||Present||Present||Use of feedback and student grouping||No parental involvement||The student displays an excellent grasp of content|
|Stephen||Present||Present||Present||Present||Reinforcement and recognition of class performance||No resources for projects are sent home, but parent input is present||The student shows a lack-luster understanding of the subject material|
Response to Intervention has proved successful in my 7th-grade class case study. An intense and targeted approach using a proven strategy has aided Stephen and Max in distinguishing the objectives expected from an English class, and they successfully understand the course material under modified learning. Additionally, Max, who displayed learning difficulties regarding the language, boosted his confidence when grouped with Hailey. The latter displays signs of Attention deficiency, proving the credibility of RTI in identifying specific learning disabilities. Aligning her with group members assisted in focusing her energy and attention. However, Stephen’s learning disabilities require more intense learning in line with tier 3 strategies. A dedicated approach that is direct and consistent daily rather than weekly will aid his comprehension skills on the subject. His educational difficulties reveal Autistic behavior, and I would recommend further learning at a special needs facility. Direct involvement and intense instruction are a critical part of RTI and have proved successful in Jordan’s case, whose focus on the sentence-verb agreement has shown consistent growth in recent assessment tests. The student’s skills in math had to be differentiated from the curriculum’s content and his thinking re-oriented to suit the course’s learning requirements. In response, the student’s performance improved significantly.
In conclusion, Response to Intervention is a teaching strategy that tests students’ performance and adjusts the learning curriculum to suit their needs. In contrast to special needs learning, RTI applies to all schools and grades. The policy’s effectiveness lies in implementing more intensive strategies until the student’s learning outcome aligns with the school requirements. Moreover, educators use research-proven methods to ensure student readiness is exceptional in their classroom. RTI can be employed by stating the learning objectives, providing direct instruction to students, and using a hands-on approach that uses figures and constant feedback to grasp overall performance. The use of RTI in Florida has proven effective ad increased material retention in students. Using focused initiatives that track the student’s progress reveals specific learning disabilities allowing educators to deliver class content more effectively.
Björn, P. M., Aro, M., Koponen, T., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2018). Response-to-intervention in Finland and the United States: Mathematics learning support as an example. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. Web.
Nilvius, C., & Svensson, I. (2021). Efficacy evaluation of a full-scale response to intervention program for enhancing student reading abilities in a Swedish school context. Reading and Writing, 35(5), 1239–1264. Web.
Ruiz, M. I. (2019). Beyond traditional response to intervention: Helping rural educators understand English learners’ needs. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 39(1), 35–53. Web.
Savitz, R. S., Allen, A. A., & Brown, C. (2021). Variations in RTI literacy implementation in grades 6-12: A national study. Literacy Research and Instruction, 61(1), 18–40. Web.