During the past 11 months, I’ve written a lot about how our district has applied differentiated instruction in the classroom. Many of our teachers are now using, and even perfecting their use of DI, and we are thrilled with the progress many have made so far.  Yet now, as we embark upon the third year of this initiative, a large portion of the conversation we encounter is centered not only on DI but also on Response to Intervention (RtI). As we rollout the initial phases of our district’s RtI implementation plan, we realize that we face a potential dilemma -- what Allan and Goddard (2010) refer to as “initiative fatigue.” Too often, as a profession, we are guilty of splintering initiatives rather than overtly connecting them, and I’m sure some staff will be looking at our efforts in this area as one more separate thing “to do” rather than seeing it as part of an overall cohesive plan.

But having worked on our district’s secondary RtI committee for the last three years, I know that RtI is a natural fit with DI, if effectively implemented.  After all, RtI is a strategy for moving all students from one step in learning the standards to the next. Sounds a lot like DI, doesn’t it? The core principles of each are supported by research and common sense. Both concepts, DI and RtI, essentially ask us to consider what intervention efforts we are making in our classrooms and in our schools to ensure all students are successful. A growing body of research shows us that there is an undeniable connection between DI and RtI, so we have pledged that DI must become an expectation before we look for other interventions for students. We are working to expand our view of DI and RtI to encompass a proactive vision of preventing student failure. We realize that we cannot control what has happened before the student got to us; however, we can and should control what happens to the student while he or she is in our charge.

DI is the foundation of classroom interventions at Tier I of the RtI pyramid.  Teachers provide access to a high-quality curriculum for all students by implementing strategies that support the philosophy of DI, while continuously monitoring each student’s level of success. Through on-going assessment (both formative and summative), the teacher is able “to keep a continuous finger on the pulse of students' progress and thus design differentiated lessons more accurately” (Allan and Goddard, 2010). Students who do not responded to Tier I efforts may be placed in Tier II. Interventions at Tier II may include programs, strategies, and procedures designed and employed to supplement, enhance, and support Tier I. Our Tier II interventions will typically utilize a differentiated instruction model as well but in a smaller group setting.

The art of packaging the two initiatives and helping teachers see the connection is essential to the implementation process. The key is in discovering how to get teachers to see the connection. We know that professional development will play a vital role in the implementation of RtI. We also realize that we must overtly communicate the symbiotic connection between DI and RtI. Allan and Goddard (2010) express this belief as well:

Much of the frustration that educators experience as they attempt to implement multiple instructional approaches could be avoided with improved professional development, in which teachers are introduced to the concepts and research and then supported as they implement these initiatives over time.

As two prevailing methods for addressing the needs of all learners, RtI and DI, RtI can potentially strengthen and deepen the DI practices that continue to unfold on our campuses. Indeed, that would be powerful!  I am curious about your experiences with implementing RtI on your campus. Were you able to combat “initiative fatigue” by helping your teachers see the link between DI and RtiI?  If so, share with us how you were able to do so. We would appreciate the opportunity to learn from you.

Reference:

Allan, S. and Goddard, Y. (2010). Differentiated Instruction and RTI: A Natural Fit. Educational Leadership, 68 (2).

Dr. Glenda Horner is the Coordinator for Staff Development in the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District in Houston, Texas. She will be blogging about her district’s journey in implementing Differentiated Instruction during the 2010-2011 school year. 

To learn more about ASCD’s On-Site Capacity Building Services, go to www.ascd.org/oscb .