The Power of RTI and Reading Profiles

Louise Spear-Swerling

• Publisher: Brookes Publishing
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781598577938
• Topic: Personal Development
• Subtopic: Writing & Presentation Skills

This one-of-a-kind text explains why RTI is today's best approach for preventing reading difficulties—and how research on reading profiles can enhance the power of RTI. For practitioners, the book provides a complete, evidence-based blueprint for using RTI and reading profiles in tandem to plan effective core literacy instruction and help struggling readers in Grades K-6, whether they have disabilities or issues related to experience (e.g., ELLs, children from poverty backgrounds). For researchers and policymakers, the book describes ways to help ensure higher reading achievement for every student, including improvements in core reading instruction, use of RTI practices and the Common Core State Standards, and teacher preparation.

READERS WILL

• understand why RTI is the best approach for preventing reading difficulties—and why RTI should be used in identification of learning disabilities
• learn how diverse reading problems can be understood in relation to poor reader profiles
• discover how to make sound, research-based decisions about core reading curricula, interventions, and RTI practices such as universal screening
• explore the most effective interventions for key components of reading and language
• learn to identify and address word recognition difficulties, comprehension difficulties, and "mixed" reading problems involving both decoding and comprehension
• clarify which skills and knowledge every teacher of reading should have
• examine ways to better prepare educators to teach at-risk readers

PRACTICAL MATERIALS:

The case studies and practical examples cover a broad range of reading problems and help make the latest research findings applicable to everyday practice.

1

Introduction

Especially when trying to achieve sweeping, ambitious change, policy makers sometimes invoke the maxim “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” usually attributed to Voltaire. This adage suggests that an insistence on perfection can impede meaningful, though imperfect, progress. New social and educational policies can never be perfect, but they surely should be an improvement over what they have replaced, and improvements would seem more likely if scientific evidence and data are used to inform policy changes. Regrettably, with regard to educational practice in reading, policies have sometimes been neither perfect nor good—nor informed by scientific evidence. To illustrate these problems, let us begin with the story of an unhappy little boy: a struggling reader whom I call Anthony.

ANTHONY’S STORY

Anthony was an African American student in a K–6 school in a large urban district. Like Anthony, most children who attended the school were African American children or English language learners (ELLs) from low-income backgrounds. The school had the achievement problems of many large, low-income districts, and the majority of the children there routinely failed to meet the goal for reading on the state-mandated achievement test. Indeed, one year the percentage of fourth graders meeting the goal on the state-mandated reading test was an appalling zero.

In hindsight, Anthony’s difficulties, which involved problems in learning to sound out printed words, were evident even in kindergarten and early first grade; at the time, however, because he was a quiet, compliant, well-behaved child, and because many of his classmates seemed needier than he did, teachers overlooked his difficulties. Still, by the beginning of second grade, Anthony’s reading problems could not be ignored. The only avenues for intervention at Anthony’s school involved the goodwill of individual educators, an overburdened remedial reading program, and special education. When the first two avenues failed to improve his reading difficulties, his third-grade teacher referred him for a comprehensive evaluation, a process that involves gathering and interpreting extensive test data and other information to determine if a child is eligible for special education. To be eligible, a child must fit into a disability category such as specific learning disability (LD), intellectual disability (ID), emotional disturbance (ED), or autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Anthony clearly did not meet criteria for ID, ED, or ASD, but his problems did seem similar to those of many children with LDs. However, Anthony’s state required an IQ–achievement discrepancy for a child to be eligible for services in the LD category, meaning that Anthony’s IQ had to be substantially higher than his reading achievement for him to obtain services under this category. Anthony’s comprehensive evaluation yielded standard scores for word decoding and reading fluency that were quite low—in the mid-70s, around the fifth percentile—demonstrating that his reading problems were severe and certainly warranted intensive intervention. Unfortunately, his IQ—at 84—was not high enough relative to his achievement for him to meet eligibility criteria for LDs in his state. Even worse, because Anthony’s IQ was slightly below average, although well above the cutoff for an ID, it led some of his teachers to think that maybe he was, well, not too smart (or phrased more delicately by one examiner, “functioning close to his potential”). His IQ test led many teachers to attribute Anthony’s reading failure to limited capacity to learn and to conclude that nothing more could be done for him. Anthony certainly believed that he was not too smart, and his ongoing lack of progress in reading provided further evidence to support that belief. Now somewhat less well behaved and compliant than he had been in first grade, he continued to flounder until his fifth-grade teacher, a determined woman who was not inclined to take Anthony’s IQ test score too seriously, finally found him the kind of help that he needed at a nearby university reading clinic.

In fact, Anthony had a genuine disability: He was dyslexic. As a preschooler, he had an important warning sign of future reading difficulties, early language delay, although his language abilities appeared to have caught up by the time he entered kindergarten, and at the time of his comprehensive evaluation, all his oral language scores were well within average range. Low reading achievement was rampant at Anthony’s school, but Anthony’s difficulties with learning to decode unfamiliar printed words, a central problem in dyslexia, were severe even relative to those of his classmates and required intensive intervention at the university clinic before he began to make progress. His family history also suggested dyslexia: Although Anthony’s mother read well, his father had had very serious difficulties learning to read and was illiterate. Yet, despite the fact that dyslexia is the most well-researched reading disability and that much is known about how to identify and help students with dyslexia learn to read, Anthony did not receive the help he needed until he had experienced years of failure. At that point, he was very far behind in reading; his difficulties were influencing his ability to function in all school subjects and were compounded by his embarrassment and his conviction that he was incapable of learning. Now a teenager, Anthony is definitely doing better with appropriate intervention, and he is happier—at least, as happy as the average adolescent. Still, his reading problems could have been addressed much earlier, saving him considerable anguish, making intervention far less complex and difficult, and perhaps leading to better long-term outcomes for him.

Other students at Anthony’s school, though not dyslexic, had very similar reading problems to his, revolving around word decoding skills; they could have benefited greatly from some of the same assessments and interventions that might have helped Anthony—had his school only used them. Of course, not all the struggling readers at Anthony’s school had problems with decoding: Some learned to decode words with ease but still could not comprehend well what they were reading. Some children’s difficulties emerged early in schooling, like Anthony’s; other children’s reading problems emerged later, in the middle- or upper-elementary grades. However, an existing and continually emerging body of scientific evidence that is mapping the processes involved in typical reading development, as well as the processes implicated in common reading problems, can greatly inform assessment, instruction, and interventions for all these students. The right educational practices could have made a great difference, especially if they had been implemented not only by the occasional, unusually determined or knowledgeable teacher but, rather, on a more systemic basis—in a coordinated effort involving all teachers. Furthermore, the types of assessments, instruction, and interventions that could have helped children at Anthony’s school can help children at all schools, regardless of the populations they serve.

THEMES OF THIS BOOK

Anthony’s story illustrates two broad themes that form the foundation for this book. The first involves a theoretical model that provides an educationally useful way to conceptualize reading development, as well as a wide array of common reading difficulties, and that is grounded in current scientific evidence about language and literacy. This evidence is both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary in nature. It includes research and research collaborations involving the fields of not only reading and education (e.g., Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2008; Chall, 1967, 1983; Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010; Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010; Valencia, 2011) but also special education (e.g., Compton et al., 2010; Fuchs et al., 2012; Siegel, 1988, 1989, 1999), speech and language (e.g., Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006), cognitive psychology (e.g., Cain & Oakhill, 2008; Ehri, 1991, 1997, 2005; Scarborough, 1998, 2005; Stanovich, 2000; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994), behavioral genetics (e.g., Grigorenko, 2005; Olson & Byrne, 2005), and neuroscience (e.g., Cutting et al., 2013; Pugh & McCardle, 2009). This way of conceptualizing reading problems could have greatly improved reading outcomes for Anthony and his classmates without the risks and potential damages of IQ testing.

The second theme of the book involves a groundbreaking shift in educational policy, termed response to intervention (RTI) or multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), with wide implications for serving students in general education as well as for identifying those who need special education. This shift represents both a great challenge and an unparalleled opportunity for contemporary educators. Together, RTI and scientific evidence can greatly advance educators’ abilities to identify and effectively teach struggling readers as well as prevent some reading problems altogether.

An Educationally Useful Way to Conceptualize Reading Problems

Evidence suggests that most struggling readers—whether they have actual disabilities or problems stemming primarily from experiential factors such as inadequate instruction, poverty, or limited knowledge of English—exemplify one of several common profiles and patterns of reading difficulties (e.g., Badian, 1999; Catts et al., 2006; Catts, Compton, Tomblin, & Bridges, 2012; Huemer & Mann, 2010; Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Lesaux & Kieffer, 2010). The profiles and patterns involve sets of strengths and weaknesses in specific reading and language abilities, often with a characteristic underlying dynamic. An understanding of these profiles and patterns is vital to early identification and intervention with struggling readers as well as to effective educational practices for preventing reading problems.

For example, as a kindergartner and first grader, Anthony had a profile involving specific difficulties learning to decode printed words, coupled with average oral vocabulary and comprehension; when not addressed successfully in intervention, those decoding problems inevitably prevented him from developing fluent reading and impaired his reading comprehension despite his ability to comprehend when listening. However, certain screening procedures could have identified Anthony’s risk of reading difficulties well before second grade, and research-based interventions could have helped address his reading problems if applied promptly and with sufficient intensity. Even if these steps did not eliminate all of Anthony’s reading difficulties, they would have at least kept him from falling so far behind and likely avoided some of the emotional consequences of severe reading failure.

Although the most important assessments for helping Anthony and other struggling readers involve specific reading and language assessments, other types of tests may sometimes be useful, including tests of specific cognitive abilities that can influence reading performance such as working memory and executive function. In specific cases, IQ tests can even sometimes be relevant, for instance, to rule out (or rule in) a genuine ID. However, routine IQ testing should not be done, because IQ testing does not provide information needed for planning reading interventions and because this testing involves significant risks, as Anthony’s case illustrates. These risks are especially pronounced for low-income and minority students but are certainly not unique to those populations.

Many educators, as well as the public (including most parents), believe that IQ tests measure something fixed, immutable, and of overwhelming importance: a child’s broad capacity to learn in the future. In this regard, IQ tests are like no other tests given in education. Most people, including most educators, think that reading difficulties can be improved through intervention and that even specific cognitive weaknesses, such as working memory problems, can be amenable to compensation; however, for limited intelligence, as represented in a child’s IQ score, they believe there is no remedy. Despite these widespread beliefs, however, extensive environmental influences on IQ test performance are well documented (Nisbett et al., 2012), and long-standing reading difficulties, circumscribed language or cognitive impairments, and limited knowledge of English may all affect students’ performance on IQ measures (Gunderson & Siegel, 2001). The phenomenon of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), the tendency of test takers to perform badly when they are aware of negative stereotypes of their intelligence, may also lower some struggling readers’ IQ test performance. Researchers have typically studied stereotype threat in relation to racial, gender, or socioeconomic differences (Nisbett et al., 2012; Walton & Spencer, 2009), but negative stereotypes of poor readers’ intelligence also exist. If ever there were individuals vulnerable to believing such stereotypes, it is those with a history of repeated failure in reading, such as Anthony. Furthermore, although IQ tests do tap a subset of important cognitive abilities, they are not strong measures of many other important abilities, such as creativity and practical intelligence (Sternberg, 1985) or decision making and judgment (Stanovich, 2009).

Finally, the use of an IQ–achievement discrepancy to identify LDs as required by Anthony’s state and others involves not only the potential risks and problems associated with IQ testing but many additional problems as well (to be discussed further in Chapter 2). A different approach to the identification of LDs is possible, one that would have yielded much better results for Anthony and for many of his classmates.

The Opportunities Presented by Response to Intervention

Alternative approaches to using an IQ–achievement discrepancy in identification of LDs are permitted by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, popularly termed IDEA 2004), the federal law most pertinent to identification of disabilities for students in K–12 schools. One alternative approach involves RTI. RTI bases provision of intervention simply on need; a child does not have to fit in a category or have a special education label in order to receive extra help. The emphasis is on early identification and prompt intervention, with more intensive intervention for children at greater levels of risk. Advocates of this model tend to conceptualize children with genuine LDs, in part, as those who fail to make adequate progress even when they are provided with intensive, research-based interventions effective for most struggling readers. Other criteria must also be met, but IQ testing is not necessary in order to identify children for extra help or, usually, even for special education.

Had this model been in place at Anthony’s school, educators likely would have caught his reading problems early, and he would have received intervention quickly. Even if ultimately he still required special education, with appropriate early intervention, he almost certainly would not have been so far behind by the time he received special education services, which also would not have been yoked to an IQ score that led many adults to lower their expectations for him. Moreover, many other students at the school could have benefited from the interventions provided in RTI as well as RTI’s emphasis on ensuring good classroom reading instruction, whether or not those students had actual disabilities. For example, a number of authorities (e.g., Gerber & Durgunoglu, 2004; Gersten et al., 2007; Rivera, Moughamian, Lesaux, & Francis, 2008) have noted the value of RTI models for students who are ELLs. Students with disabilities other than LDs also could have profited from an emphasis on early identification, prompt intervention, and effective general education practices. For instance, students with ASD often are identified for services even before entering kindergarten, and RTI criteria are not relevant to the diagnosis of ASD. Nevertheless, these students would often be included in a general education classroom for part of the school day and could benefit from effective classroom practices in reading as well as other areas such as behavior.

Achieving successful implementation of an RTI model is not easy for school districts, and although most states have some level of RTI implementation, individual states vary greatly in the extent to which they promote and provide guidance to districts on RTI (see, e.g., http://state.rti4success.org). Among other challenges, RTI requires a systemic approach, and therefore, individual teachers, no matter how capable or well intended, cannot implement it on their own. Using RTI to identify LDs entails particular challenges, and RTI should never be the sole criterion for identification. Nevertheless, weighed against the many problems of past identification practices for LDs, as well as the potential to radically improve instruction and intervention for large numbers of children, RTI represents a dramatic advance in educational policy.

Either of the preceding concepts by itself—the use of profiles and patterns to understand reading difficulties or the use of RTI models in reading—can be enormously valuable to educators in helping students with reading difficulties. Together, the two concepts provide a powerful approach, a blueprint, for preventing, ameliorating, and addressing reading difficulties on a large scale—not only in some of the nation’s most vulnerable schools but in all schools.

OVERVIEW OF RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION/MULTI-TIERED SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

RTI models grew out of public health approaches to disease prevention, representing a blend of evidence-based educational practices with population-based systems approaches to education (Vaughn, Wanzek, Woodruff, & Thompson, 2007). The systems aspect is why individual teachers cannot implement RTI on their own: RTI requires the involvement of an entire school or school district and, hence, the leadership of administrators and other school officials. An emphasis on systems is essential to ensure that general education is maximally effective for most children and that at-risk students are not overlooked. Without a systemic approach, the gains made with one teacher in one grade may be lost with a far less effective teacher in the next; a child may flounder, as Anthony did, until an unusually determined teacher comes along; or children’s instruction may simply lack efficiency and consistency, problems likely to affect the more vulnerable readers the most negatively. The term multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) sometimes is used in lieu of RTI to emphasize the systemic nature of the approach as well as its use of tiered interventions for children at different levels of risk. Although the focus in this book is on using RTI in the domain of elementary reading, RTI models have been applied to a wide range of domains, including mathematics (e.g., Gersten et al., 2009) and preschool education (e.g., Coleman, Buysse, & Neitzel, 2006). Furthermore, virtually all RTI models address behavior as well as academics (e.g., Sugai & Horner, 2005) in recognition of the interplay between behavior and academic achievement.

Common Features and Assumptions of Response to Intervention

Approaches to implementation of RTI vary, but in the following list are some features central to all RTI models (e.g., Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005), described here in relation to reading:

• Universal screening and progress monitoring. RTI involves screening the entire school population for potential risks in reading, with children’s progress monitored regularly and with additional diagnostic testing of at-risk children as needed.

• Provision of intervention for children determined to be at risk, with more intensive...