Brown & Doolittle (2008) suggest a four-tier system of RTI application as a way of keeping cultural, linguistic, and ecological considerations a principal component in both assessment and intervention processes. Their model aimed at use with the students from diverse populations emphasizes the need to educate teachers on cultural awareness, diversity, and application of effective teaching strategies in tier 1. In particular, in order to provide effective instruction in tier 1, teachers should ensure that their instruction and assessment are culturally and linguistically congruent. That means that a teacher who is responsible for tier 1 instruction is obliged to know the levels of children’s (ELL’s) language proficiency in their first and second languages. With this knowledge, the teacher does not view the child’s culture and language as liabilities but as a strength on which one should build this child’s education. In this way, at tier 1, teachers are advised to embrace a pedagogy that is rooted in their students’ language and culture as the cultural capital and a point of departure for further studying experiences. Tier 2 of this model is similar to other variants of RTI in that it focuses on carrying out instructional interventions, yet the latter should be linguistically and culturally appropriate. Brown & Doolittle explain that at this level of RTI, students get “a double dose of instruction” which targets specific goals determined during tier 1 assessment. Next, at tier 3, students receive more personalized and more intensive instruction, which again considers the culture and language. Only then, if these culturally responsive intensive interventions turned out unsuccessful, special education is used at tier 4. Having developed detailed instructions for each tier, with consideration of the students’ linguistic and cultural needs, the authors of the model offer a framework for RIT that has the potential of reducing disproportionality in special education placement due to a great emphasis on built-in checking and balancing.
Brown & Doolittle’s (2008) model of RTI implementation responds to the urgent needs of designing current educational process so as to meet the needs of growing linguistically diverse student population and eradicate racial discrimination by preventing disproportional placement of non-Caucasian children into special education. Specifically, in Chapter 12, Varghese & Stritikus (2013) speak about the failure of the modern education system to meet the needs of ELLs, mostly immigrant students, and its policy of making students “forgo the defining elements of their identities – their culture, language, dress, and values” in order to fit into their own (inferior) place in the racial hierarchy of the United States. Likewise, in Chapter 11, researchers Picca & Thompson-Miller disclose the inherent racial social context which is typically hidden in American educational establishments yet demonstrates itself through backstage negative attitude to the people of color. In the context of the problems outlined in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12, Brown & Doolittle’s (2008) model offers a solution to the issues of racial discrimination and culturally/linguistically insensitive instruction in the U.S. schools described by Picca & Thompson-Miller (2013) and Varghese & Stritikus (2013).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Multicultural Education".
Brown & Doolittle’s (2008) study makes a significant contribution to elevating the educational system in the United States to a new qualitative level after a centuries long history of ethnically and racially discriminative practices. It provides a consistent, culturally responsive theoretical framework which has the potential to foster immigrant (and other linguistically and culturally diverse) students’ advancement in education and their moving out of “ELL ghettos” (Brown & Doolittle, 2008, p.229). The importance of this framework is determined by the lack of focus on culturally responsive instruction in RTI training, as described by Hoover et al. (2008). Moreover, another important factor in determining the value of the proposed model is its potential to reduce disproportionality by multi-tier assessment and interventions, as well as by the focus on cultural and linguistic diversity as assets on which to build students’ education. Disproportionality, in other words overrepresentation of minority students in special education, is known to be the result of misidentification as well as misplacement of minority students due to biased assessment or other discriminatory procedures in education. It is deemed ineffective in terms of providing education because it leads to adverse student outcomes. Just as disproportionality plagues the U.S. school education, Brown & Doolittle (2008) framework suggests that unreasonable segregation be overcome with the help of careful assessment and focused interventions.
At the same time, there are apparent controversies that need to be considered when implementing Brown & Doolittle’s (2008) framework. Specifically, one should be aware that if inadequately applied it may hold some children back. This can come as a result of insufficient teacher training and lack of a skill/desire to provide a personalized approach to every child. In particular, Brown & Doolittle (2008) warn that successful RTI application “must include knowledge of each child’s particular experiences and how these experiences may facilitate learning in an American school system” (p.66). Another issue is teacher assessment bias, when teachers may pose higher than necessary language demands. Besides, the RTI process may be misunderstood and misapplied by schools as reported by Sparks (2015), who wrote that “even schools “fully implementing” RTI didn’t always have a bright line between core instruction and intervention” and ended up with mostly a general education approach “with all trade-offs it entails” (Sparks, 2015, p.31).
Finally, the article has corroborated my long-held beliefs in fair education for all members of our society regardless of ethnicity of skin colour. Aware of hidden, mostly backstage racism among my peers, I have always tried to stop them from joking about other races or nationalities and tried to set an example of ethical conduct regarding this issue. Now that I am a part of the U.S. educational system, I will use Brown & Doolittle’s (2008) research to strengthen the RTI process in my workplace. I will do this by paying a greater focus to language and culture as great assets of every minority student.
- Brown, J. E., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response
to intervention with English language learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40 (5),
66-72. - Hoover, J. J., Baca, L., Wexler-Love, E. & Saenz, L. (2008). National Implementation of
Response to Intervention (RTI): Research summary. Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved from http://www.nasdse.org/ - Hosp, J. L. (2008). Response to intervention and the disproportionate representation of
culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education. Retrieved from the RTI
Action Network website: http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/31 - Sparks, S. D. (2015). RTI Practice Falls Short of Promise, Research Finds. Education Week,
35 (12), 1-12. - Varghese, M. & Stritikus, T. (2013). Language diversity and schooling. In James
Banks & Cherry McGee Banks Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, 219-
239. Wiley.
