Critique of the National Evaluation of Response to Intervention: A Case for Simpler Frameworks

Abstract

In 2010, the Institute of Education Sciences commissioned a much-needed national evaluation of response to intervention (RTI). The evaluators defined their task very narrowly, asking “Does the use of universal screening, including a cut-point for designating students for more intensive Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, increase children’s performance on a comprehensive reading measure?” Their regression-discontinuity analysis showed that first-grade children designated for (but not necessarily receiving) more intensive intervention in the 146 study schools performed significantly worse than children not designated for it. There were no reliable differences between designated and nondesignated students in Grades 2 or 3. The provocativeness of these findings notwithstanding, the evaluation’s focus and design weakens its importance. RTI implementation data were also collected in the 146 study schools. These data suggest many of them were not conducting RTI in a manner supported by research and policy. Such findings and others’ evaluations of RTI advance the idea that simpler frameworks may encourage more educators to implement RTI’s most important components with fidelity.