Lou Danielson on the promise and challenges of Response to Intervention
In my view, the emergence of Response to Intervention (RtI) reflects a fundamental change in educators’ views of children’s learning that has been implicit in some education practices. I think that we have often functioned as if we believed that 10-15 percent of children would not become proficient readers and have been quite comfortable with an approach in which large numbers of students entered schools without prerequisite skills and in which these students along with some others would never become proficient readers. Response to Intervention offers an alternate and more optimistic future for these children; that is, if we increase the intensity of instruction focused on the specific skill deficiencies, we can greatly accelerate learning to the point that large numbers of these children will become proficient readers.Of course, RtI is not just a belief. The article ("Response to Intervention") cites some of the research that supports the benefit of early and intensive intervention in reading. The research is also providing much more detail about the technology of implementing effective RtI. This research provides information on important issues, such as how to monitor student progress as well as the rate of progress and level of achievement that should be considered responsive. Research will continue to inform our practices, even though many schools are already implementing RtI with good results. We have much to learn from these sites. The Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education is currently funding the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, which has identified some schools across the country that have considerable experience implementing RtI. This center has also conducted important research on RtI, particularly as it relates to identification of children with learning disabilities.
When well implemented, RtI incorporates tools and interventions that have both been found to be effective, particularly in the content area of early reading. However, it is critically important that sites implementing RtI evaluate their efforts to determine that they are, in fact, implementing the research-based elements of RtI and to assess the impact of their efforts. Large-scale evaluations of RtI will be needed to assess impact and also to determine the extent to which there are negative, unanticipated consequences occurring, such as those mentioned by Michael Gerber.
The article addresses the use of RtI in early reading instruction in which the knowledge base supporting RtI is sound. We will need more research in other content areas to similarly support the use of RtI in such areas. This is not really a criticism of RtI, because this research is necessary to support effective instruction in other content areas, whether implementing RtI or not.
There has been a great deal of concern that many children are identified with learning disabilities because they have not received high-quality interventions, particularly in early reading. One problem is that there has not been a systematic way of ensuring that poor readers have received high quality instruction. RtI, when implemented well, will help enable schools to “rule out” this explanation for low achievement. RtI may then provide the dual benefit of helping to ensure that children who can become proficient readers with intensive instruction will do so and that children who have a disability will receive special education.
Dr. Danielson is the Director of the Research to Practice Division of the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education where, among other functions, he directs several projects that are helping states and school districts to implement RtI.
