| dc.description.abstract | This study examined the growth in mathematics and reading achievement, respectively, of 7,587 and 7,807 first through sixth grade students in a large Midwestern, suburban school district implementing Response to Intervention/Multi-Tier System of Supports (RTI/MTSS) between 2013 and 2014. Reading and mathematics achievement growth was measured with the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and RTI/MTSS implementation was measured by the School Implementation Scale (SIS) survey, administered to teachers and administrators. The dependent variable was student growth on the MAP in reading and/or mathematics and the independent variable was level of RTI/MTSS implementation at the grade level and school level. Predictor variables were included for individual level student characteristics (gender, race, socio-economic status, disability, and level of inclusion), classroom level characteristics (teacher education, years of experience, and class percentages of female, racial/ethnic minority, and low SES students, and students with disabilities), and school characteristics (percentage of low SES and racial/ethnic minority students, and students with disabilities). The primary findings of the study indicated a negative effect of RTI/MTSS implementation in the area of mathematics for all students and most significantly for Black students. In the area of reading, RTI/MTSS implementation had no effect on achievement growth of students with and without disabilities, and a substantial negative effect on the reading achievement growth of Black students compared to White students. In mathematics, significant classroom level predictors included teacher education (positive effect), teacher experience (negative effect), and percentage of females in the class (positive effect). Significant school level predictors included percentage of minority students (negative effect) and low SES (negative effect). In reading, significant classroom level predictors included teacher education (positive effect); teacher experience (negative effect); and percentages of females (positive effect), racial/ethnic minority students (positive effect), and students with disabilities in the classroom (positive effects). No significant school level predictors were found for growth in reading achievement. | |
