“If a student qualifies for special education services, what will we be able to provide them that is different and better than what we can do right now?”
Imagine if that question was at the forefront of every mind in any school team that meets to discuss student intervention data throughout the school year. It’s pointed but powerful, direct but responsive. It has the potential to lead to a more urgent reaction for students who are struggling. Unfortunately, the more traditional approach to Response to Intervention (RTI) is often driven by another guiding question: “How many more weeks of intervention and how many data points do we need to collect before we can refer Tommy for testing?”
Intervention review meetings often have a very distinct look: They are regularly scheduled, perhaps on the last Wednesday of each month, where the only agenda item is to discuss students receiving Tier 3 support. Attendees go down a list of student names, briefly look at a set of progress monitoring data, and either shake their heads in approval or disapproval over whether or not it’s time to refer. It feels oddly similar to Bill Murray’s character from Groundhog Day—once a month, it’s the same conversation, in the same way, about the same kids . . . and yet, nothing ever changes for the student in need. In many cases, the work of collaborative teams is also paused for the week in order to focus on the Tier 3 discussion. These meetings have become so routine that nobody even questions whether they are actually impacting student learning or not. It’s just something on the calendar.
In all fairness, I think the organization of these meetings stems from a place of care and concern, but like many human routines, at a certain point it’s just accepted as the way business is done, regardless of whether or not it makes sense. But there are two fallacies that educators commit when the goal of RTI is to go through the motions of referring students for special education:
- Fallacy A: Special education will fix the student.
- Fallacy B: A student must have services before we can provide them with the support they need.
Special educators serve an incredibly vital role in our schools. They’re experts in instructional strategies and scaffolded planning, and they focus on individual student needs. They should of course be embraced and relied upon as members of their collaborative teams, but let’s be clear: They are not miracle workers. “Schools must transcend the myth that special educators have ‘magic dust’ that enables them to work effectively with students with disabilities” (Causton-Theoharis & Theoharis, 2009). Special educators are certainly a part of the solution but are far from being the sole antidote.
What concerns me even more, though, is the delay that line of thinking has on the support we provide to students. I often hear things like “Tommy would benefit from a smaller group size” or “he needs a lot of support on prerequisite skills” as rationales for referral. While these statements might be true, does Tommy need an individualized education program (IEP) to have those supports put into place? I would argue no. In fact, I would argue that every student is entitled to those things as a part of their general education program.
“RTI’s underlying premise is that schools should not delay providing help for struggling students until they fall far enough behind to qualify for special education, but instead should provide timely, targeted, systematic interventions to all students who demonstrate the need” (Buffum et al., 2010). Not doing so would be akin to waiting for the fire department to show up to extinguish the brush fire in your backyard when you have a spigot and hose within arm’s reach. Instead of accepting a model of waiting for students to fail, we should embrace a model of urgency that supports students here and now.
Let’s revisit the question posed at the very beginning of this blog. “If a student qualifies for special education services, what will we be able to provide them that is different and better than what we can do right now?” Imagine posing this question to teams of teachers discussing student intervention data. If there isn’t a clear and direct answer offered by the team, it isn’t time for a referral. It’s time to try something new for the student right here and now to support them learning at high levels.
References
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2010, October 1). The Why Behind RTI. ASCD. March 15, 2024, https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-why-behind-rti
Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2009, August 6). Creating Inclusive Schools For All Students. AASA. February 22, 2024, https://www.aasa.org/resources/resource/creating-inclusive-schools-for-all-students
Matthew Treadway
Matthew Treadway, EdD, is the former principal of Freedom Elementary School in Shepherdsville, Kentucky, where he led his staff in developing a collaborative culture centered on the three big ideas of a professional learning community.