In response to large numbers of referrals to the student support
team (SST) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004)
provision supporting a response to intervention (RtI) process, Larrymore
Elementary School expanded its teacher assistance team (TAT) to
include a three-tiered, collaborative, problem-solving approach.
With this model, support is provided to students experiencing academic
and behavior difficulties in the general education environment.
The process involves data collection and analysis to evaluate the
effectiveness of interventions by measuring the student’s
response to the interventions over a period of time. Response data
are then used to make informed decisions about continuing or changing
the type or intensity of specific interventions. Increasing intensity
of interventions is accomplished: (a) by more frequent use and increased
duration of interventions, (b) by delivery of instruction in small,
homogeneous student groups, and (c) by the use of specialists to
address specific student needs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). The expected
outcomes of this process are classrooms and supports that optimize
learning for all students by addressing concerns through intervention
rather than remediation.
As a school functioning as a professional learning community, the
staff at Larrymore is committed to ensuring that students are not
only taught, but that they learn (DuFour, 2004). Therefore, the
school was ready for introduction of the RtI process in the 2006-07
school year. Rtl was presented as a reframing of current practices
rather than as a major change. Most components to support the RtI
process were a part of the existing Larrymore culture; hence, they
began the process by discussing what was not going to change, and
most importantly, how they were going to build upon existing effective
practices (Reeves, 2007).
One such practice was the use of common formative assessments to
redirect instruction and improve the quality of learning (Ainsworth
& Viegut, 2006). Each month, Larrymore students in 1st through
5th grades participate in common formative assessments in reading
and math created by content specialists. After administering the
assessments, classroom teachers are charged with the responsibility
of analyzing the data, identifying students who struggled on skills
assessed, and developing interventions to address the identified
student weaknesses. Results of these assessments are discussed with
administrators and content specialists as part of grade-level professional
development. Discussions involve sharing classroom interventions
and, when necessary, planning for small-group support by specialists
to provide more intensive instruction tailored to students needs.
In addition to this practice, the educators and support professionals
serving on the teams at each tier of the RtI model have the experience
and willingness to do what is needed to help all students. They
are a true reflection of the strong professional community at Larrymore.
The Tier I team consists of the grade-level teams, the Tier II team
consists of designated general educators and content specialists,
and the Tier III team consists of the SST members. The work of these
teams involves cooperation, communication, and a “student-centered”
approach. The collective ability of the team members enables staff
to work together to enhance student achievement through a continuum
of services.
In the first year of using the RtI model (2006-2007), the SST convened
to discuss 19 initial referrals. Of those referrals, 5 resulted
in comprehensive evaluations, and these 5 students were found eligible
for special education services. These numbers reflected a tremendous
difference from the previous year, when SST met on 57 initial referrals,
conducted 25 comprehensive evaluations, and found 18 students eligible
for special education services.
The first-year success of this model was a direct result of the
collaboration among the entire staff and the overall culture of
the school. The process involved no additional staffing or major
changes in school resources. However, it did involve special educators,
general educators, content specialists, counselors, psychologists,
social workers, and administrators working collaboratively in response
to students experiencing academic and behavior difficulties. Most
of all, it involved being proactive rather than reactive by improving
instructional capacity and behavioral supports to meet the specific
needs of students.
References
Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments:
How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Dufour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention:
What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1),
93-99.
Reeves, D. (2007). Leading to change: How do you change school culture?
Educational Leadership, 64(4), 92-94.
