Why should I care about implementing RtI at the Secondary Level?

The rationale for "doing" RtI at the Secondary Level

1. Federal Mandates
Current educational practices for all learners originated out of legal mandates, e.g., Civil Rights Act of 1964, Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. The most recent re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act of 1965, re-named as No Child Left Behind of 2001 (NCLB), has been the dominant and often controversial force in driving recent education practices. For example, there are over 100 references to the use of “scientific research-based instruction” in NCLB. In addition, NCLB mandates that all educators are “highly qualified,” (Section 1119), that academic standards are challenging and rigorous, and that schools maintain adequate yearly progress towards these standards (Section 1111). These kinds of mandates put considerable pressure on all schools to measurably demonstrate achievement and be held accountable for a lack thereof. Let’s digress briefly to review the federal mandates that drive our practices, and how they assist in promoting the practices we talk about when we say “RtI.” In 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or IDEIA) was reauthorized. This law was originally called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in the 1997. A critical change in the IDEA 2004 was the option to utilize a “process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention,” in the identification of students with learning disabilities (IDEA §300.307). This was in response to preponderance of research showing overidentification of students with learning disabilities when in fact they weren’t getting effective instruction, particularly in the area of reading (e.g., LD Summit, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Reading Conference, 2001). Taken together, NCLB and the IDEA direct educators to provide effective, research-based instruction through general education in order to prevent students from experiencing school failure and/or becoming misidentified as learning disabled due to ineffective or inconsistent instruction or curriculum.

2. RtI practices are cost effective in a era of decreasing resources and increasing accountability
Some debate exists as to whether utilizing RtI as an instructional framework was reactive or preventative because the language of RtI first appears in the IDEA 2004. The reactive camp views RtI as strictly a special education initiative aimed at identifying students as LD in a different manner. The preventative camp views RtI as a system level initiative focusing on prevention of school difficulties across a multi-tiered, continuum of service that includes a special education eligibility component for special learning disability. We (and many others) view RtI as a proactive, preventative framework that is a general education initiative, as well as a framework that transcends reading, writing, math, and social/behavior instruction. While we should first and foremost care about implementing RtI in our secondary schools because, frankly, it is a framework of well-established, research-supported practices; however, a timely reality is that commitment to implementing a RtI framework with integrity means that time and resources are invested as efficiently and effectively as possible. The goal is to prevent school failure and, simultaneously, all the other costly outcomes that go along with that.

3. The costly outcomes of school failure
We have a problem: Not all of our children are receiving the education they deserve. Marion Wright Edelman (2009) used the phrase the “cradle-to-prison pipeline” in her critique of school policies and procedures that punish and reject students rather than proactively intervene and teach needed skills. Teaching practices that are ineffective and reactive lead to increased low achievement, poor mental health, chemical use, poorer overall physical health, and incarceration (e.g. Moretti, 2007). National longitudinal studies show that about 75% of students with reading problems in third grade will have them in ninth grade (Shaywitz et al. 1999 in Diamond, 2004). In addition, students with reading problems suffer additional emotional and psychological consequences including low motivation, anxiety, and lack of self-efficacy (Wigfield and Eccles, 1994 in Diamond, 2004). Furthermore, approximately 17% of school-aged students require mental health services, although only 1% of these students receive them (Merrell & Walker, 2004). The National Assessment of Adult Literacy in Prison (2003) reports that only 43% of prison inmates had earned a high school diploma or equivalent (Greenburg et al, 2007). In addition, 78% of prison inmates scored at a basic or below basic level on three literacy scales (prose, document, and quantitative) compared to only 54% of the general household population[1]. About 17% were diagnosed with a learning disability. These are the “other costly outcomes” that are fostered when our students can’t read or do not have appropriate social skills. How do we know they are costly? Student achievement in eighth grade is highly correlated with attending college (NELS, 1988), and earning a bachelor’s degree translates into being in the 70% of top income earners in the United States (McKinsey Global Institute, 2009). This means less reliance on public resources, and an increase in thoughtful, literate members of our communities. Consider that enrolling juvenile offenders in quality reading instruction reduces the national re-arrest rates by 20% or more (Brunner, 1993) (an intervention, by the way, that works far better to reduce recidivism than boot camp (Sherman et al., 1997)). Less kids in prisons means more kids available to be in school, learn skills, earn diplomas, go to college, and join the workforce. Imagine if highly effective literacy programs occurred in conjunction with highly effective instruction in all content areas as well as teaching appropriate social skills for all kids who were incarcerated. We’d have a recipe of alterable variables to depopulate our prisons and increase the population of literate, civil, and productive citizens in our society. Better yet, what if we could intervene before the “cradle-to-prison pipeline” reaches prison? In 2006, the United States spent $599 billion dollars on K-12 education (NCES, 2006), with about 80 billion of those dollars spent on special education. We currently spend three times more on jails than per pupil (Edelman, 2009). While research supports investments in prevention and intervention practices to start at birth and into early childhood (e.g., NELP, 2008), these same efforts in secondary settings can and will work effectively (Snow, 2002; Alliance for Excellent Education, 2005; Sugai et al., 2004). A school-wide commitment must be made to the “walk” and the “talk” of prevention and intervention practices at the secondary level. These practices must be predominant in the daily instruction of all students (both general and special education) for academics and social/behavior. Readers at basic or below basic levels many be unable to find information in a newspaper article or pamphlet, accurately read and comprehend instructions on a medication container, or compute math beyond addition, e.g., calculate the costs of multiple items from an order form or restaurant menu.