Teach Effectively!

I’ve been reflecting a bit on the way roles of teachers might change as a result of response to intervention (“instruction” or “treatment”; RtI) efforts in the schools. RtI models are basically sifters with screens of different porosity. The screens are periodic checks on pupils’ progress. If a child’s achievement is big, thick, and getting bigger and thicker, she never slips through the first screen (“Tier 1″). If the achievement is not as thick as the size of the holes in the screen at that first level, though, she slips through the screen and gets help at the second level (“Tier 2″). Those who’s achievement is not as big and thick as the holes in the second-level screen slip through the holes and arrive at a more intensive level of services (“Tier 3″). (This is not a perfect analogy, of course.)

There are many questions that arise about the RtI models. What if a child’s achievement is so meager that she really ought to start out getting intensive services? What if the progress-monitoring criteria, the guidelines that say what level of competence is too little, are set too stringently or loosely? Etc.

But, as I mentioned, I’ve been thinking about who’s providing the services at the various levels. The first tier pretty obviously is about primary prevention and should be the responsibility of general education, in my view. The middle tier—the newest level, I think—seems to be one where remedial instruction is required and should be the responsibility of discipline specialists. The third tier is pretty close to special education as it’s usually been practiced.

So, this seems to fit with the graphic representation at the right. We might disagree about the exact percentages I put into that graph, but is the general idea about right?