Ciullo, Lembke, Carlisle, Thomas, Goodwin, and Judd (2016) set out in this article to address the gap of understanding how Response to Intervention (RTI) operates at a middle-school level (which is defined in this study as grades six to eight). The authors explain how most studies focusing on literacy instruction focus on elementary schools, with a few looking at secondary schools. Very few look specifically at literacy instruction in middle schools.

The authors analyzed literacy intervention sessions in middle schools who operated within district-wide RTI frameworks, and found that the interventions were often not evidence-based. Some were not even academic, but logistical.  Most activities that were observed did not include evidence-based interventions such as explicit instruction, strategy instruction, the use of graphic organizers, and independent practice opportunities. The authors note scheduling, access to screening and monitoring tools, pervasive reading difficulties, and a testing-oriented mentality were challenges in implementing RTI at middle schools. The authors note that their findings reinforce a previously observed “research to practice gap,” where interventions are not evidence-based (54).

At the end of the overview, the authors discuss ways that middle school RTI could be improved, including through teacher training and professional development. They suggest that teachers spend more time teaching “generalizable strategies that students can apply across subjects” to prepare them for high school (54). Spending time explicitly teaching comprehension strategies, vocabulary strategies, and notetaking will all improve students’ outcomes in middle school and beyond (54). Teacher preparation programs and professional development opportunities could both focus on RTI strategies in middle school to ensure that teachers at this level are ready to effect change.

I agree very strongly with the authors that “middle school may be the final opportunity to remediate persistent reading difficulties” (45). I feel like administrators, teachers, and students all throw their hands up when students can’t yet read at middle school, but these few malleable years, before academics become critical, are an opportunity to improve literacy. We should ensure that our interventions in these years are evidence-based and effective.

The article focuses principally on policies 6, 9, and 10. Policy 6 is to provide explicit instruction with modelling and ample opportunities to apply skills. The observations in the study focus on whether or not teachers’ interventions are explicit and systematic, and whether students are given opportunity to practice these skills. Policy 9 is to equip teachers with the knowledge and resources to provide high-quality intervention. The authors advocate for teachers being better prepared to effect change in literacy interventions through better teacher preparation programs and focused professional development opportunities. Policy 10 is to ensure that intervention is supported by high-quality curriculum materials that use evidence-based practices. Teachers should have access to resources and materials that allow them to effectively and explicitly teach literacy skills. They should not have to create programs or interventions themselves, and should be given support to properly teach literacy skills in middle schools.

Reference

Ciullo, S., Lembke, E. S., Carlisle, A., Thomas, C. N., Goodwin, M., and Judd, L. (2016). Implementation of evidence-based literacy practices in middle school response to intervention: An observation study. Learning disability quarterly 39(1): 44-57.