Best Guesses and Remaining Challenges

By Daryl F. Mellard
Center for Research on Learning, University of Kansas

In the absence of scientific literature evaluating an overall application of RTI to the secondary school setting, we have to rely upon overall “best guesses” to envision what will effectively work for RTI in the middle and high schools. Here, I present some of these ideas as described in the literature.

Class schedule considerations
Burns and Gibbons (2008) suggest examples of the secondary level of RTI in middle and high schools, based upon whether the school follows a traditional or block schedule. In a school with a traditional scheduling of six to eight periods of 50 to 60 minutes each, Burns suggests that one period be used for remedial reading. The downside with this approach, however, is that it doesn’t allow for flexible grouping, as a student would have to remain in the remedial class for the entire semester or year due to the difficulties involved with switching classes. A second approach in a traditional setting involves the use of a content area such as social studies to deliver remedial reading. The materials used for teaching the subject matter could be used at the same time to teach reading strategies.

In schools that use block format scheduling with periods that last 90 minutes and rotate on a frequent basis, Burns recommends a typical secondary-level intervention classroom be divided into three small groups of five to seven students each. He contends that this approach would allow the size of the classroom to increase from 12 to 14 students to 21 students with two teachers. More students would be assisted while maintaining a small student to teacher ratio.

Burns and Gibbons (2008) make several suggestions to improve the implementation process for all schools, both elementary and secondary. First, school-wide planning needs to occur at least once a month; ideally it should occur once a week. During this time, staff would discuss difficulties and collaborate, with a focus on reviewing student data. Second, all resources should be assigned to a grade level rather than to individual classrooms. For example, a paraprofessional would move among classrooms for the entire grade rather than remaining in one classroom. Finally, they stress the need for creativity and cooperation in staff and administrators in dealing with scheduling and resource allocation.

Integrating literacy instruction
Torgesen (2004) offered recommendations for improving reading skills in middle and high school. His recommendations included a 45 to 60 minute per-day session every day during which every professional in the school teaches reading and literacy. Students with lowest reading skills are taught in small groups (four to six students), and instruction is provided to different groups based on need in the categories of word level skills, advanced decoding, fluency, comprehension strategies, and critical thinking and analysis in reading and writing. He recommends that each school adopt a comprehensive literacy and language arts program that has been written for older children. Finally, each school should be prepared to create different classes of 15 to 20 students based on skill levels when first entering the school. Most students are predicted to be in this program for two to three years.
 
Individualizing the interventions
Neal and Kelly (2002) also offered characteristics of successful reading intervention programs. Of primary importance to their model is the idea that individual student needs are considered; there is no “one size fits all” to education. They advocate an apprenticeship model of teaching and learning, with appropriate materials selected and a focus on accelerative instruction. They suggest that emphasis be placed on the role of fluent responding, and provisions should be made for affirmation of successes.
 
Mastropieri and Scruggs (2005) do not present a unified model of RTI at secondary level, but they stress that the most important thing to consider at the secondary level is the “pace and level at which instruction proceeds.” The interventions must be designed so that they match the learning pace of the student.

Again, these recommendations for implementation are the best guesses based on the respective authors’ experiences and views of RTI. Further research investigating RTI at the secondary level will provide a basis for further refinements.

Remaining Challenges

We still have a long way to go with studies of RTI. I will outline some of the challenges that remain.

Sugai (2004) describes several problems with implementation of RTI at the secondary level. The process of fully implementing an RTI model in secondary schools can take five to eight years, rather than the three to five years typically needed in elementary schools. His focus for RTI is in relation to student behavior, so whether this timeframe is applicable to academics is untested.

Johnson and Smith (2008) found that RTI implementation at the junior high school level raised several additional challenges. A primary concern is the cost of implementation to individual schools. Funding becomes an issue when the school does not receive any additional funding before beginning implementation of the program. Reallocation of funds becomes necessary and this may negatively impact other important programs and initiatives (Johnson and Smith, 2008). Finally, as the program continues, the school will need to address the following priorities: developing a standard protocol “bank” of interventions for both behavior and academic concerns, further staff development, improving communication with parents, and further development of appropriate CBM tools.

Duffy (2007) raises similar concerns, stressing the need for “multiple, universally administered, standardized, reliable and valid measures that can help identify students who are not keeping pace with their peers across a number of subject areas.” She also discusses the need for ongoing discussion with general and special education teachers, focusing on their changing roles and responsibilities. Interventions will require a strong cooperation between the teachers as well as shared additional responsibilities.

Conclusion

Many questions remain regarding RTI implementation at the secondary school level and key points remain unanswered. My thoughts are that in the next posting I’ll offer a brief review of components associated with RTI: screening, progress monitoring, tiered levels of services, and fidelity of implementation. If you have a particular interest, feel free to offer your suggestions. I want this to be useful to you.

References

Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York: Routledge.

Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. U.S. Department of Education, National High School Center.

Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L. (2008). Implementation of response to intervention at middle school: Challenges and potential benefits. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 46-52.

Neal, J. C., & Kelly, P. R. (2002). Delivering the promise of academic success through late intervention. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 18(2), 101-117.

Sugai, G. (2004). Schoolwide positive behavior support in high schools: What will it take? Paper presented at the Illinois High School Forum of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Naperville, Illinois.

Torgesen, J. (2004). Current issues in assessment and intervention for younger and older students. Paper presented at the NASP Workshop.

Comments

[Charles Johns]

Daryl:

Great post! It's hard for many of us in secondary ed. to reconcile the long time frame that full implementation takes. The Sugai piece importantly points out that it takes more time than most literature (based on elementary implementation) suggests.

I look forward to your future posts.

Charles Johns

[Becky]

I am seeing children at the secondary level who have received support and intervention at the elementary level, but are now struggling because there are no effective supports in place for them when they get to jr. high and high school. The philosophy of RTI is that it will reduce the number of students experiencing difficulty at the secondary level by intervening early, but the fact remains that some of these students will need continued support throughout their school careers. As the graduation requirements are becoming more demanding, schools are placing increasingly higher priority upon them, and neglecting the very essence of academic success in the process. This is such an important topic. I'm so glad to see you addressing it, and I hope that others will offer suggestions and ideas to help us overcome the many challenges of implementing RTI at the secondary level.

[Michelle Baulig]

Our middle school is in the process of building a master schedule to include time for intervention. It's a tough process. We are eager to view actual schedules and plans from other districts who have gone through this process. Can you recommend some next steps?

[Michelle Baulig]

Our middle school is in the midst of preparing a schedule to include time for intervention. We are eager to view the schedules/plans of other middle schools who are implementing RTI. Can you help?

[Daryl Mellard]

Michelle,
You are not alone in your struggles with how RTI fits in secondary settings. Our general observation is that secondary level implementation is more complicated.
You asked for examples. We are in the process of evaluating implementation in about 30 middle schools. I am hesitant to recommend any one site without looking at their outcome data and the context in which the RTI framework was implemented.
You probably don't want to wait though for us to finish our evaluation. Here are contacts for two schools that seem to be moving in a good direction and they have had to wrestle with the scheduling issue.
Lori Smith is the building administrator of Cheyenne Mountain junior high in CO. Her email is [email protected]

I need to check back with a contact person at another school to be sure that I can post the contact info. If approved, I'll post the info here.
thanks.
Daryl

[Michelle Baulig]

Thanks so much, Daryl! I'll email Lori Smith and the other person you refer.

[Danielle P.]

It will be interesting to see how the secondary setting fits into RTI. Hopefully an easier way will be found to help out with the secondary settings. It is sad to see that students are doing well in the elementary level, and then beginning to struggle at the secondary level.