RTI for Behavior Shouldn't Mean Students Can't Get in Trouble Until After Extensive Intervention

Is RTI making behavior worse?

I don't know how widespread this is, but I'm hearing some reports that RTI policies are allowing students to get away with a behavior several times before there's any consequence for it in an effort to give the teacher a chance to put some sort of intervention in place.

And I like RTI.

I like the idea of intervening.

I like the idea of tier one supports that suggests that it's not always a good idea to escalate more than we might need to, right?

It's a good idea to do something modest and something universal and only put a more drastic step in place if we really need to.

Like if a student is struggling with reading or math, we don't immediately give them an IEP.

We try to provide some universal supports.

We try to provide some targeted interventions.

And as students move from tier one to tier two to tier three, we get more evidence about what they need and what they're struggling with.

And it makes sense to me, as far as I know, like this is a valid idea to apply to behavior.

But the way I'm hearing it is that the student is not able to get a consequence unless they have done something multiple times.

Like the specific I saw said that a teacher could get cussed out three times before they were allowed to write a a referral for the student.

They had to put interventions in place for the first two misbehaviors.

And I think for a lot of behaviors, there is no appropriate classroom intervention, right?

The appropriate classroom step is to refer the student to the office because these are not behaviors that can be managed at the classroom level.

Like if a student completely loses it on a teacher, cusses out the teacher, you know, obviously the lesson cannot continue with that student in the classroom.

The student needs, you know, I'm not saying they need a suspension for that, but they do need to be out of the classroom for a while so that the lesson can continue, the student can calm down and there can be some sort of modest consequence.

for that.

And if you try to take away the consequence and replace it with an intervention, that's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

That's really taking away something that we know works in exchange for something that we don't know will work.

There's not any behavioral science that says you can take a behavior that has a consequence and eliminate the consequence and do something else instead in order to prevent that behavior from recurring.

Nobody thinks that.

Nobody says that directly.

And yet that's the assumption that's baked into some of these policies that have a smart-sounding label on them.

And again, I'm in favor of RTI.

I think there's very good research behind RTI.

But that doesn't mean it's always done in a smart way.

So let me know if this is happening in your school or district.

RTI for behavior, I feel like we have to be very, very careful with because if we're not careful, while we're collecting evidence, things can fall apart, right?

This idea that it takes time to gather evidence of whether an intervention is working.

And whether a student needs a more intensive intervention, like that shouldn't change the fact that if there is a serious misbehavior, they need a consequence right away or the behavior is going to continue.

And it's a fool's errand to try to change behavior while also eliminating the consequences that normally constrain that behavior.

So let me know what you think about this and let me know what's happening in your organization regarding RRTI and behavior.