High School Teachers’ Sense-Making of Response to Intervention: A Critical Practice Analysis

Abstract

Response to intervention (RtI) is touted as an equity-focused provision of special education policy that holds promise for reducing overrepresentation and providing academic opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. However, teachers working to implement RtI have encountered complex challenges that stifle equitable outcomes. Employing the zone of mediation (ZOM) as the critical practice analysis framework, this qualitative study examined six high school teachers’ sense-making and engagement within an RtI framework, with specific attention to their data-based decision making (DbDM) for CLD students. We used an inductive analysis approach and developed three themes: (a) limited understanding, training, and support; (b) top-down accountability pressures; and (c) deficit views on student performance. These findings situated within the ZOM framework underscore complexities that render the promise of equity for CLD students impotent within an RtI model.

Culturally Responsive Data-Based Decision Making in High School Settings

“…Consequently, teachers may feel the need to protect students by moving them through tiered interventions to secure special education placements. Placement into special education may exclude students from graduation requirements associated with high-stakes testing, thus, exclusion from assessment prevents students from failing graduation exams (Kressler & Cavendish, 2019). This misuse of decision-making systems creates additional barriers for diverse students who historically experience school marginalization.…”

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students With Learning Disabilities: Building a Framework for Addressing Equity Through Empirical Research

“…Given its emphasis on effective instruction and the prevention of academic difficulties, RtI has also been identified as process with the potential to both increase student achievement and decrease inappropriate referrals of CLD students to special education (Hoover et al, 2008;Ortiz et al, 2011). However, a number of challenges must be overcome in order for RtI to meet the identified goals, not the least of which involves ensuring the provision of culturally and linguistically relevant instruction and intervention (King-Thorius et al, 2014;Kressler & Cavendish, 2019;Nichols et al, 2017;Orosco & Klingner, 2010;Orosco & O'Connor, 2014). Currently, national consensus on how to best address the needs of CLD students prior to or during the learning disability identification process does not exist (Scott et al, 2014).…”