1 – Effective Classroom interventions

Benefits and Challenges to the Response to Intervention (RtI) Model in the Educational Setting

Overview of RtI

If there were a structured framework that educators could implement to benefit all learners, would you use it? This framework would allow educators to identify the need for more intensive forms of instruction with children who have learning disabilities and are not meeting academic standards. A screening assessment would be used for all students in a class to help educators identify children who may have a learning disability. Response to Intervention (RtI) is a more formal and systematic prereferral process used in many school districts today (Heward et al., 2018, p. 41). By using the RtI model, identification of learning disabilities shifts from a “wait to fail” model to one of early identification and prevention (Heward et al., 2018, p. 145). One basic idea of the RtI model is that high quality instruction should be used in the classroom in order to rule out ineffective instruction as a reason for low academic performance (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3). If a child responds poorly to high quality, scientifically proven and validated instruction, then it is possible to eliminate instructional quality as a reason for poor performance and provide evidence for a disability (Heward et al., 2018, p. 45). When we talk about high-quality instruction, we are referring to the effective use of curriculum and instructional techniques and strategies that have been scientifically proven through research (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3). A student is said to be responsive if the student shows adequate growth once high-quality instruction has been implemented (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3), and this process serves as a preventative strategy (Heward et al., 2018, p. 45). 

The RtI model is a multi-level approach, consisting of a universal screening and 3 tiers (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3). The universal screening is a measure used with all students to identify those who are at risk for academic failure (The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3).  During Tier 1 of the RtI model, students are receiving high quality instruction in the classroom and their progress is typically monitored weekly (The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3). In Tier 2, students identified to be struggling during Tier 1 receive regular education and additional support from a teacher (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3). Tier 3 includes general instruction as well as high-intensity intervention for the few students identified after Tier 2 (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p.3). Intensive intervention given in Tier 3 may include 1:1 teaching, but it is important to note that this final Tier of RtI is not the same as special education (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020). 

In a K-12 general education classroom, students with greater instructional needs are receiving Tier 2, and Tier 3 services. It is crucial for educators to focus on the additional resources these children need such as extra instructional time, incorporating small group instruction to increase intensity of service, and narrowing instructional focus on what's being taught. In a general classroom, Tier 1 instruction would incorporate all standards during instruction, where with Tier 2 and Tier 3 students, the teacher focuses more on a specific skill and strategy through differentiated instruction to assist struggling students reach their academic goals. Application of data assessments in the classroom to evaluate these struggling students are also needed and used to determine if the applied intervention is resulting in academic growth. 

There are several benefits and challenges to using the RtI approach. Benefits include the identification of learning disabilities and early intervening (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 4). Some challenges to implementing RtI include appropriate training and teacher support, and misidentification of learning disabilities (Kranzler et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2020). Providing high-quality instruction in a general education classroom is the first step to minimize or prevent academic challenges. Including small group interventions before students demonstrate academic failure have proven to exhibit big gains in struggling students (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 1). These challenges can be addressed by providing teachers and staff members with a more intensive and continuous training program as well as progress monitoring in order to increase the effectiveness of RtI. 

Benefit #1 – Identification of Learning Disabilities (Bethany Moore)

RtI is a multi-tiered system of supports used to identify students who may have learning disabilities and as a means to provide a progressive intervention for these students (Cakiroglu, 2015; Catts et al, 2013; Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3). One major benefit to using the RtI model in education is the ability to identify learning disabilities in children (The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 4). Prior to the RtI model, students were often identified using IQ-achievement discrepancy formulas (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 2). IQ-achievement discrepancy formulas are designed to identify students with learning disabilities after they have already failed to succeed (Cakiroglu, 2015; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 2). In fact, in the late 1900s, school districts would typically wait until the end of second grade or beginning of third grade before determining learning disabilities in students (Gersten & Dimino, 2006). As the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) gained traction, the implementation of IQ-achievement discrepancy formulas began to be replaced with the RtI model (Cakiroglu, 2015; Klinger & Edwards, 2006). The shift from the IQ-achievement discrepancy model to the RtI model has had far-reaching, positive impacts for many students of varying abilities and cultures (Cakiroglu, 2015; Catts et al., 2013; Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; Klinger & Edwards, 2006). 

The major advantage to the RtI model is that it can detect learning disabilities before failure has time to take place (Cakiroglu, 2015). According to Cakiroglu (2015), the RtI model of identifying students with learning disabilities can increase the likelihood that these students truly have academic needs that should be addressed. In particular, RtI can be useful for identifying students with reading disabilities before they fall behind their peers (Cakiroglu, 2015; Catts et al, 2013; Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; Gersten & Dimino, 2006; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 3; VanDerHeyden et al., 2007). This is done by ensuring that students experiencing trouble with reading have received high-quality instruction before being referred to special education, delivering special education or related services as soon as the struggle is identified, and using the classroom data from RtI to inform these decisions (Cakiroglu, 2015; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 4). Reading disabilities have been accurately identified in children as early as kindergarten using this method (Catts et al., 2013). Research summarized in Gartland and Strosnider (2020) indicates early identification and prevention programs could result in a 70% reduction in the number of students with reading problems. Proponents of RtI believe that if a child can read by the end of first grade with proficiency, they will remain a good reader for the remainder of their life (Gersten & Dimino, 2006). In addition to identifying reading problems, the RtI model has the potential to aid in identification of emotional behavioral disorders in English language learning students (Cakiroglu, 2015). 

While RtI was designed to be used in the general education classroom, the data collection from RtI can assist with identification of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) (Cakiroglu, 2015). However, schools may need additional funding, resources, and training for teachers when seeking to identify students with EBD (Cakiroglu, 2015). In addition to identifying EBD, the RtI model can help identify English language learning (ELLs) students in need of assistance (Cakiroglu, 2015). 

Recent studies conclude that the use of RtI is helpful in identification of learning disabilities in many areas and populations (Cakiroglu, 2015; Catts et al., 2013; Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; Gersten & Dimino, 2006). Because of its versatility, professionals can also use the data collected via RtI to inform decision making for special education eligibility (Gartland & Strosnider, 2020; The IRIS Center, 2006, p. 4). As educators become more knowledgeable about the RtI process and receive appropriate training, this system has the potential to revolutionize the education system for all students, especially those with learning disabilities. When students are identified with learning disabilities more quickly, they are likely to have better outcomes from this intervention process (Cakiroglu, 2015). 

Benefit #2 – Early Intervening (Kimberly Alpiste)

A child’s success plays an extremely important role in an educator’s goal. Our priority is to acknowledge that not all learners can comprehend at the same speed, and may experience difficulties with their academic progress. Response to Intervention (RTI) is a process that focuses on detecting students struggling with comprehension of content before they fall behind their peers. Early Intervening is a major benefit through the application of RTI to provide students the opportunity to succeed before they fail. Early detection of struggling students and the implementation of RTI has been shown to reduce the number of referrals for special education (Werts, Carpenter, & Fewell, 2014). It’s crucial to ensure that all students are presented with high-quality instruction in the general education classroom, as well as promoting early intervention the moment the student demonstrates a struggle. 

Early Intervening through RTI has also assisted with the teacher's ability to provide effective differentiated instruction based on the student’s individual needs (Werts, Carpenter, & Fewell, 2014). High quality instruction and providing modifications to struggling students have been shown to increase student achievements and promote student success (Werts, Carpenter, & Fewell, 2014). This process has also proven to benefit schools, through better collaboration between teachers and parents to better assist parents so that they are aware of their child’s struggles as well as their achievements. 

RTI is a process that focuses on early intervening following a multi-tiered approach, which involves early detection of students that struggle in the classroom. Research has shown that early intervening has been proven to assist English Language Learners (ELLs) by applying research-based practices to meet the individual needs of students (Bown & Doolittle, 2008). As an educator, it’s important to consider instruction and interventions based on the student’s cultural background and life experiences in the RTI framework. To help ELL students achieve success early intervention instruction needs to be adjusted to personalized needs and monitored to see if they are reaching the appropriate benchmarks (Bown & Doolittle, 2008). 

Early Literacy is one of the most crucial skills needed in a young child’s life, yet is observed to be one of the main struggles in a young student’s life. Phonological Awareness deficits have been studied to come together with difficulties in reading. Evidence has shown, with early intervening as soon as preschool years have made progress in individuals’ literacy (Kruse, Spencer, Olsezewski, & Howard, 2015). The main focus and benefit of RTI is to intervene and prevent difficulties with literacy development through a multi-tier process. Promoting smaller group assistance and identifying children that are struggling early through instruction have made a large impact on literacy development (Kruse, Spencer, Olsezewski, & Howard, 2015). 

Overall, recent studies have shown that the application of RTI in preschool classrooms has assisted educators with monitoring student progress through high-quality instruction. It has also assisted teachers with identifying students that require further assistance and move into a different tier, for appropriate phonological awareness instruction (Kruse, Spencer, Olsezewski, & Howard, 2015). Furthermore, benefits of RTI through the application of early intervening has been shown to prove instruction through assessment data and application of differentiated instruction.

Challenge #1 – Appropriate training and teacher support (Andrea Olivares)

Response to Intervention is a multitiered model which focuses on preventing, identifying and addressing learning difficulties before the students fall behind and fail (Thomas et al., 2020). Some key elements of this model are screening tools used to identify students that are struggling, the multi tiered model to intervention, and lastly the continuous monitoring of each student’s progress to facilitate data-based decision making (Thomas et al., 2020). 

Aside from all of the benefits of RtI such as identifying learning disabilities and early intervening, there have been some challenges when it comes to using this model in the school system. One important challenge to be addressed is the lack of appropriate training and support for teachers. Some districts have limited resources available for getting started, scaling up the framework for the entire district, and sustaining implementation (Thomas et al., 2020). Teachers that also develop concerns about implementing RtI in their classroom, can have a harder time implementing key elements such as data-based decision making and progress monitoring (Thomas et al., 2020). If the teachers are not having appropriate training in these areas, then the effectiveness of the program is at risk as well as teacher self-efficacy which is an important part of the program’s success (Thomas et al., 2020). 

It is of great importance to provide teachers with the necessary tools and skills to support each learner to the best extent possible, as well as empowering them to explore different options to address the school’s needs (Hoover & Love, 2011). As stated by Fuchs & Bergeron, a skilled and responsive teacher will be able to observe where each student stands as well as design instruction that supports each learner. 

In a study discussed by Thomas et al., found that increased teacher efficacy was associated with positive RtI outcomes. It has also been suggested in research that a cause of failure to correctly implement RtI is the lack of support structure (Thomas et al., 2020). Teachers are finding RtI challenging to implement because of the lack of training and understanding of the process (Thomas et al., 2020).  This has been a central issue in many school districts trying to implement RtI, however having a collaborative consultation team can maintain staff support (Hoover & Love, 2011). According to the article District Evaluation of RTI Implementation: Success, Challenges, and Self-Efficacy, successful implementation of RtI in schools requires a support system as well as training and continuous evaluation of implementation; teachers must be given opportunities to engage in training and have access to updated and recent information. In the article Supporting School-Based Response to Intervention: A Practitioner’s Model, school staff received state or district training about the general and main components of implementing RtI; this professional development training empowered staff and increased their self-efficacy. In order to be successful implementing RtI, teachers must be prepared and have consistent support from the school and district (Fuchs & Bergeron, 2013).

Challenge #2 Misidentifying students with learning disabilities (Vanessa Lopez)

Response to Intervention or RTI, when carried out correctly and with fidelity enhances the education of students who are struggling to learn. RTI is a multi-tiered model which encompasses 3 tiers. With the use of these 3 tiers students who are struggling to achieve academic success are identified using a universal screening measure (The IRIS Center, 2006, p.4). The screening measure used to identify students in the first part of RTI and in Tier 1 varies among all schools around the nation. The varied use of screening methods among schools raises flags for concern, on whether the screening measures are resulting in accurate conclusions of students with learning disabilities.

  This multi-tiered model has many advantages for students with true learning disabilities, but also brings disadvantages when misidentification of a learning disability can be brought upon a student who simply needed more help in a certain area. For example, Cakiroglu (2015) found that an uneven amount of attention and research had been given to problems in reading with RTL versus RTL being used for math. He concluded there might be a discrepancy on whether RTL is identifying learning disabilities or reading disabilities.

Misidentification of students with a learning disability not only has negative effects on the misidentified student, but also on the nationwide education system (Cakiroglu, 2015). The cost of teaching a student with a learning disability doubles in comparison with the cost of a student without a disability, therefore misidentifying students with learning disabilities can also bring negative consequences to the nation’s education budget (Cakiroglu, 2015). One of the negative effects of misidentifying a student is having a person go through life believing they have an actual learning disability, when in reality all they needed was a bit of extra help in certain areas.

Brozo (2010) highlighted that adolescents have higher chances of succeeding in academics and in their adulthood when they perceive themselves as legitimate and successful students. Brozo (2010) also stated that the first tier in RTI is the most important tier, but also the most unreliable, he stated that if responsive literacy instruction is provided at the first stage of RTI, this could prevent many adolescent students from moving into tier 2 and tier 3; this in-turn will avoid the stigma of participating in remedial courses. What students perceive about themselves academically may also have an impact on future academic success.

  A best practice of the RTI model is to provide students with high-quality general education classroom instruction before deciding to use RTI, this is done to make sure the student has the highest chance of succeeding before using more intrusive measures, such as RTI (Cakiroglu, 2015; The IRIS Center, 2006). “high-quality” general education is a broad definition and can entail different levels across school-districts and classrooms; therefore, a student may or may not progress from tier 1 to tier 3 in one classroom versus another due to higher quality instruction in another classroom or school-district.

  Kranzler et al. (2019) conducted a study on whether the RTI model over-identifies children and youth with specific learning disabilities who have a slight shortcoming in general cognitive abilities. The study concluded that the RTI model does over-identify students with weaknesses in general cognitive abilities. RTI model for identifying students with learning disabilities assumes that all students of the same grade and age group should advance at similar rates and have the same or similar learning abilities, Kranzler et al. (2019) argues this thinking is flawed and that an expected underachievement is not a disability.

References

(Anna) Through this multi tiered model, students will be monitored for success within each individual tier. Within this system you can see each student's learning progress, and if they require more intensive support interventions, throughout each tier (Hughes and Dexter, 2011). Tier one utilizes a universal screening system. This system uses short assessments, 3 times a year, to identify students who are displaying deficits within the general education curriculum (Hughes and Dexter, 2011). (Halee) However, each school may utilize their own assessment schedule, as long as multiple assessments are conducted throughout the school year to monitor and increase or decrease in academics. Response to Intervention: Implications for the Proficiency of Early Childhood Special Educators, suggests that assessments be conducted every grading period. These assessments allow for early intervention and a more intense intervention, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). (Anna) Tier two utilizes special interventions such as small group instructions (McMaster and Wagner, 2007). When small groups are formed, teachers utilize research-based interventions to promote their learning. Tier three involves individualized intensive instruction with a possible referral for special education services (Hughes and Dexter, 2007). Research-based interventions are furthered in this tier to individualized instruction based on the learners needs.

Benefits and Challenges to Implementing RtI

Benefit #1: Early Intervening – Yesenia Diaz

One of the benefits of Response to Intervention is Early Intervening. Early Intervening is a process in which students are helped through research-based screenings and interventions. This process is for all students, not only those who have disabilities. The biggest advantage of Early Intervening is that it does not wait for students to continuously struggle and eventually fail academically in order for intervention to take place. Screening usually takes place in a two-step screening process. During the first step, students must meet a high benchmark score in order to weed out the students who clearly do not need services. During the second assessment, a more complex detailed assessment is conducted to identify students who need services and also those who were considered false-positives (Turse & Albrecht, 2013, p. 87).

Moreover, Early Intervening allows all students to receive high-quality instruction in a general education setting. As each child is unique, so are their learning needs. When a child is evaluated, appropriate instruction is generated for this child. This allows the child to receive a more detailed and personalized instruction that is guaranteed to help bridge learning gaps. In Tier 1 of RTI, Teachers deliver high-quality instruction using research-based practices. Students are closely monitored to make sure they are meeting specific benchmarks. In this tier, a teacher can also modify instructions to personalize instruction even more for the child using specialized re-teaching skills and smaller group settings (Brown & Doolittle, 2008, p. 70).

Another reason why Early Intervening is a benefit of RTI is because it also reduces inappropriate referrals and placements in special education for students with and without learning disabilities. According to Hallan and Mock (2003), African American and Hispanic students are more likely to be disproportionately identified as learning disabled. This may be because of cultural bias, but studies also show that poverty does play a role in a student’s literacy development. Lack of qualified teachers, administrators, and supplies in low income areas contribute to learning deficiencies, which can in turn create inappropriate placements for students. Moreover, students could have a learning deficiency in language arts, but may have strengths in another subject. Through the process of Early Intervening, adequate assessments can help reveal the students learning strengths and weaknesses.

Benefit #2 Halee Harville

Tier decisions based on objective data

RTI is a multi-tiered approach implemented with high-quality instruction to monitor progress of students. At the center of the RTI model is data collection. Data collection is objective because it lacks the bias of personal opinion. According to, Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities, evaluations utilized for data collection originate from multiple assessments of the students; from standardized tests to curriculum based assessments. This data is utilized to monitor students progress and make instruction based decisions. Through analyzing the data, educators can see trends and patterns emerge. According to, Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities, data based documentation is meant to be a continuous monitor of student progress even in intervention. The process begins with weekly monitoring of all students, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). This is for only a short time, and not to exceed eight weeks, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). This start of collection data can be called “baseline data” and can be utilized to analyze and identify the problem, (Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities). If students are meeting expected benchmarks then there is no need for further intervention. However, if the objective data collected in this period shows that a student(s) are not meeting expectations then they are moved to RTI tier 2, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). Tier 2 provides the struggling students with intensive services and interventions along with their general education classes, (Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H., 2010). This period should take longer than the first, but no more than one grading period. Students are reassessed to examine their progress or lack thereof. By assessing students again we begin to see patterns and trends in the data. We can see if the intervention is beneficial or if the student is stagnant. According to,m Mack, F. R.-P., Smith, V. G., & Straight, H. “students who continue to show little progress at this level of intervention are then considered for more intensive intervention as a part of tier 3.” Moreover, with continuous monitoring educators are able to determine effectiveness and make modifications if necessary, (Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities).

Moreover, the effectiveness of objective data collection and continuous monitoring can be seen in Implementation of Response to Intervention at Middle School by Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L. This article examines the implementation of RTI in middle school. When starting the implementation process the school put together a team to collect and analyze individual student data, (Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L., 2008). Firstly, the school utilized their students’ standardized test schools in reading, math, science and writing. The school was able to identify that 80% of their students were meeting benchmarks, (Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L., 2008). The assessments are continued throughout the school year and data is collected. The screening schedule was set for fall, winter, and spring; this allows for educators to target students struggling base on the continuous progress monitoring, (Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L., 2008). The data collected allows for educators to move students to their appropriate tiers. If a student is not meeting requirements the progress monitoring allows for educators to create a more effective intervention; the more data collected the more accurate interventions can be. Continuing on, the article concludes that “the implementation of screening and progress monitoring tools, although still in its infancy, provides an objective means of early identification of students needs,” (Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L., 2008). Objective data provides the basis of progress monitoring in the RTI model and can majorly and positively impact early intervention.

Challenge #1 – Anna Ballinger

Collaborating to integrate Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction

As identified by Hoover and Love (2011), integrating tier one and tier two of the Response-to-Intervention model can prove challenging. Tier one utilizes a universal screening tool. This tool has assessment measures used to focus on specific skills of each child (Hughes and Dexter, 2011). Tier two includes specialized interventions placing low-performing students into small groups to be provided extra support (McMaster and Wagner, 2007). With this implementation, general education teachers are being asked to perform tasks they are not well-versed with. As RTI is implemented into classroom settings, it is important to continue teacher training to provide general education teachers with the knowledge to effectively engage in RTI (Barrio and Combes, 2015).

To effectively implement RTI, general education and Special education teachers need to have an understanding of research-based interventions required in tier one and tier two (Harlacher, Nelson Walker, and Sanford, 2010). General education teachers are discouraged by the process, and implementation of RTI procedures (Barrio and Combes, 2015). With this barrier, special education teachers will need to collaborate with general education teachers to provide support for what intensive interventions should look like and how to teach utilizing research-based instruction methods (Harlacher, Nelson Walker, and Sanford, 2010). This collaboration of teachers may prove to be difficult in the school setting. General education teachers have a classroom full of students, some of which require more intensive services within the RTI model. Teachers now have to conduct skill acquisition assessments (tier one) while engaging with special education teachers to provide support to intensive intervention students who qualify for small groups (tier two).

Therefore, the RTI model can prove challenging to integrate tier one and tier two into the school system. RTI is a complex multi-tiered model that has many benefits as well as challenges it presents to teachers. Some things that can help with decreasing or eliminating this challenge include continued staff training on research-based interventions, monitor the effectiveness of the interventions implemented, and how to best deliver interventions in a general education classroom.

Challenge #2: Abigail Graham

Distinguishing learning differences from disabilities in diverse learners

As diversity and inclusion have increased in the classrooms so have the challenges. Response to intervention or RTI, was implemented to assist with the challenges by differing from the previously practiced criteria while offering different tiers of learning assistance and evaluation that is more specific to the learners needs. Hoover and Love ( 2011), describe Response to intervention (RTI) as an “Evolving practice; a school-based, collaborative consultation RTI model offers a process that enables a school to apply RTI principles to its unique setting and concerns”. RTI offers early intervention by identifying needs of learners earlier rather than later. RTI also utilizes valuable and objective data to evaluate or screen for which tier would best apply to the learner. However, “Instruction is based on cultural classroom routines” (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). While a plethora of work and education goes into the training and implementation of RTI there have been challenges in distinguishing learning differences from disabilities in diverse learners. This challenge has been identified by Hoover and Love (2011) and others. This challenge has the potential to allow team leaders, teachers and other professionals utilizing RTI to misinterpret cultural differences and a disability and vice versa.

Furthering on the importance of distinguishing learning differences from disabilities, Hoover describes this RTI challenge best when he stated "Response to intervention must assist educators to better clarify linguistic and cultural appropriate behaviors to avoid the continuation of misinterpreting these behaviors as disability characteristics" (Hoover, 2009b, p. 39). Another implication with this challenge has been identified that “students from minority groups are overrepresented among those with scores in the slow learner (SL) range” (Daley, Spencer, & Wodrich, 2006). Daley, Spencer, & Woodrich (2006) concluded that since RTI was implemented it has allowed a misrepresentation of students with cultural differences such as minority groups to be labeled as students with learning disabilities that has the potential to allow these students to be subjected to stigmatization. Identifying cultural learning differences from disabilities is a challenge of RTI that is not represented in the RTI criteria.

Furthermore, there is objective research that further supports the implications of the previously described challenge regarding assumptions and subjective understanding of cultural differences. Ordonez-Jasis & Ortiz, 2006, found that there are common beliefs that children that use a second language are not prepared for school and their second language will negatively impact their achievement and abilities in school. This supports the discussed challenge due to its ability to affect the quality of these culturally diverse student’s education due to social-cultural assumptions. Untrained educators and team leaders that are not educated that this popular belief is not evidenced or supported by objective, empirical data have the potential to execute bias when making educational or tier decisions regarding second language students.

The main conclusion that can be drawn from RTI when utilized by team leaders and educators is the challenge of distinguishing cultural learning differences from learning disabilities has the capability to subject children to stigma, bias, and has led to an increasing population of minority individuals being mislabeled with learning disabilities. Along with the increasing needs in classrooms for cultural diversity and inclusion, response to intervention, RTI, faces many cultural, diverse, and inclusion challenges.

References

Barrio, B. L., & Combes, B. H. (2015). General Education Pre-Service Teachers’ Levels of Concern on Response to Intervention (RTI) Implementation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38, 121-137. doi:10.1177/0888406414546874

Brown, J. E., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention with English Language Learners. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40(5), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990804000509

Hallahan, D. P., & Mock, D. P. (2003). A brief history of the field of learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 16–27). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Harlacher, J. E., Nelson Walker, N. J., & Sanford, A. K. (2010). The "I" in RTI: Research-Based Factors for Intensifying Instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(6), 30-38.