I had several issues with this model. First, I think that our struggling students need more adult interaction than any other students.  I think those are the very students who don’t get much attention at home and need the care and concern from their teacher at school.  Second, I have been in labs and classrooms where students take the same lessons over and over and never get beyond the level at which they started because there is not good monitoring of the computer software.  Finally, I believe the RTI model intended the Tier 2 interventions to be in a small group setting with a teacher or paraeducator where students have the opportunity to interact with their peers and a mentor to improve their skills.

At the National Title I Conference in Nashville, I attended even more session about RTI.  I learned more about the model and figured out that the human interaction is part of what makes this model successful for many struggling students.  Some students need small group time and another format for learning and more time to get the skills we teach.  RTI provides this for students in using small group format for Tier 2 interventions where students get to interact with the content in a meaningful way with an adult and their peers. Then when students still need assistance the one-on-one tutor or computer program may be the most appropriate learning environment.

I guess what I learned most about RTI was that it is essentially a good teaching model and technology is not necessary for effective implementation.  I can see how from a teacher’s point of view the computer program doing the lessons, progress monitoring, and benchmark testing would save time, but I still question how effective the RTI model is if delivered solely through technology without the human touch.