Middle School Myths

What Myths Have to Be Dispelled to Make RTI Viable at Secondary Levels?

Middle, junior, and high schools are very different places from elementary schools and, in fact, are different from each other. To facilitate the development of beliefs, values, and a culture supporting RTI adoption, common myths have to be dispelled. Several myths related to adolescent literacy discussed by Ehren, Lenz, and Deshler (2004) can be adapted to the larger context of RTI:

Myth #1: It is fruitless to spend time and money on struggling adolescents because they have passed the point at which instruction or intervention can make a real difference.

Secondary educators may be less than enthusiastic about RTI implementation because they may be pessimistic about what can be accomplished with older students. They may think that struggling adolescents are beyond help and that significant problems, especially with literacy, should have been taken care of in elementary school. Surely, we would all love to see problems identified and ameliorated earlier than middle, junior, or high school. However, RTI at the elementary level is just now being implemented, often inconsistently, across the country, so it should not be surprising to find students in secondary schools who are struggling with literacy. Not only would it be unconscionable to give up on older students, but it would also be ill-informed. Evidence exists that intervention with them can be effective. (For example, see O'Connor & Bell, 2004; Scammacca, et al., 2007; Schumaker & Deshler, 1992; Vaughn, Klingner, & Bryant, 2001).

Myth #2: Instruction that works with young children will be equally effective for older students.

For secondary schools charting an RTI course, it would be a mistake to import wholesale the models, programs, and techniques from elementary school. We should not assume that instruction validated at the elementary school level will be effective in middle, junior, and high schools. For example, although we have learned much in recent years about emergent literacy intervention with young children, the same practices may or may not be effective with older students at beginning literacy levels. The unique learner and setting characteristics have to be considered in designing appropriate assessment and instructional approaches at secondary levels. Adolescents are not just bigger primary grade children, even though they may be reading at similar levels. Furthermore, middle, junior, and high schools are far different organizations from elementary schools; therefore, programs have to be tailored to those settings.

Myth #3: Literacy is not the job of secondary educators.

Although secondary-level RTI approaches may expand beyond a literacy focus, as has been the trend at the elementary level, no doubt literacy will continue to be a linchpin. This would make sense, because content mastery at the secondary level depends so much on literacy proficiency. A sticking point, however, is that secondary educators do not always see literacy as their role and often express the opinion that literacy should have been taught by elementary level teachers. An additional factor is that content literacy may not have been a part of many teachers' college preparation programs.

Secondary teachers have to recognize and accept their roles with literacy for all students, not just those who struggle; connections must be made between content mastery and content literacy. Furthermore, administrators need to promote a shared responsibility for academic achievement with literacy roots as a school-wide mission and foster a systematic approach to addressing student needs.

Myth #4: Little can be done for students who are not motivated to engage in learning.

It is certainly true that adolescents unmotivated to learn in school will not succeed. It is not true that nothing can be done about it. Motivation involves a complex set of issues that are not our focus here. (For more information on this subject, see Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Hock, Deshler, & Schumaker, 2005; Moje, 2006; Pajares & Urdan, 2005). Suffice it to say at this point, with respect to implementing RTI, that meeting students' individual learning needs can provide a boost that struggling adolescents need to persist in their efforts. Unmotivated, unsuccessful adolescents labeled as "lazy" may put forth greater effort if they are getting the help they need. Also, by participating in their own progress monitoring, they can track their own gains and find additional motivation in doing so.

What Opportunities Does RTI Afford Middle, Junior, and High Schools?

Educators who have seen school initiatives come and go can become jaded about "one more new thing" and may think of RTI in that light. On the other hand, they may think about the current success rates of all the students in their schools and consider whether RTI might hold some promise for addressing the challenges they face in educating adolescents.

Teachers are under enormous pressure to have students meet state standards in specific content areas. In an RTI context, focus on scientifically based instruction means that teachers will be encouraged to examine their teaching practices and to differentiate instruction to enhance student learning. Such attention on good, universal instruction will enhance teachers' success in helping students meet standards.

Students who struggle with content, especially those who cannot read the textbooks and other learning materials, may need more help than classroom teachers can give. An RTI approach can address in substantive ways the literacy problems inhibiting student success without overburdening content area teachers in the remediation of fundamental literacy skills. Different interventions would be available in a tiered RTI approach. For example if a student is far below grade level in reading, an intensive reading class, taught by a reading specialist may be available.

It has been a common practice in secondary schools to deliver the help that struggling students need by trying to make them eligible for special education programs. Not only is this solution more costly, but it also involves labeling an adolescent as a student with a disability, which he or she may not be. Not all students who need help will wind up qualifying for special education services, leaving many without assistance unless other options are available. When large numbers of students in a school are struggling, administrators must worry about whether the school will meet accountability requirements for adequate yearly progress. With RTI, schools will have a mechanism for helping students make the expected amount of progress. Furthermore, if students do need special education, they will not fail to qualify for services because they do not meet discrepancy criteria.

An additional opportunity is that an RTI approach implemented well may provide a systematic way for secondary schools to address the needs of all the students who come through their doors. Rather than depend on individual teachers or isolated programs, RTI will involve a coordinated effort across faculty. It provides a framework within which resources can be used wisely to provide student support and increase teachers' perception of their efficacy. RTI deals with increasingly intensive interventions for students—no one teacher or group of teachers is solely responsible. Implementation of a tiered approach to instruction and intervention means that a school acknowledges that one size does not fit all and that data can be used to make decisions about who needs what, how much, and when.

What Challenges Exist with RTI at Secondary Levels?

Many of the same challenges faced at the elementary level will also be faced at the secondary level. What increases the challenge at the secondary level is the complexity of the organization and the nightmare of scheduling, especially in high schools. The definition of tiers is an issue—who, what, how, and for how long? How intensive should the third tier be before it can be considered "specialized" and, therefore, more appropriately a special education service?

Developing structures to deliver intervention within the framework of middle, junior, and high school in ways that are palatable to adolescents can be difficult. For example, the one-on-one tutorial approach used in elementary schools during the school day may be disruptive to the operation of a typical middle or high school and may also be met with resistance from adolescents who would prefer not to be singled out. Other structures, such as a class within a class, a lab, before- or after-school programs, special elective courses, and co-teaching, may be considered.

Also, it is difficult (although not impossible) for secondary schools to promote flexible movement across tiers within a semester course schedule. Then, too, in high school there is the issue of credits; students must be sure to take the courses they need to earn a diploma. If a student needs substantial intervention, he or she may not be able to meet graduation requirements in the 4 years typically allotted for high school.