Ambiguity of the Terms in Response To Intervention(RTI)


This article is motivated by  the confusion associated with the naming of RTI which stands for Response To Intervention. The meaning of Intervention here is clear enough so it appears. For example, the use of medication as short-term intervention for students with ADHD was widely accepted as efficacious starting around 2008. So the “medication is intervening” to ameliorate the condition OR rather the team of academicians and doctors collaborated and agreed on this treatment for this disability.

Now the Response of most student to periodically ingesting the hyperactivity disorder medication is less daydreaming and less disruptive behavior which is great for the teachers and principals, BUT does the Intervention of Daytrana circulating through your child’s vascular system improve their academic achievement?  This is primary reason it remains a controversial practice.

RTI has come to mean the trend in special education and gen ed to guarantee all decisions about available services and programs are data based  rather than subject to whimsical opinions or capricious assumptions of not necessarily well trained educators and administrators.

This makes RTI an improvement over the days when African Americans were  labeled special needs because of their predilection for speaking Ebonics or AAVE. Does anybody know if is being maintained? I would like to hear from their content writers on matters that relate to their plight in American Public Schools battling against systemic bias and institutional racism.


0 comments on “Ambiguity of the Terms in Response To Intervention(RTI)Add yours →

Leave a Reply