As changes in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) take effect, the term “response to intervention” (RTI) gains key significance. The goal of RTI is to reduce special education designations for children whose primary problem is with reading instruction.
Realizing that RTI will affect many of its members, the International Reading Association is developing books, articles, case studies, and study group modules to help explain RTI and describe effective RTI programs. Watch future issues of Reading Today and the IRA website for information on these resources as they become available.
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD), whose members include IRA and other national and international organizations, has prepared a report entitled Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities. The report examines the concepts, potential benefits, practical issues, and unanswered questions associated with RTI and learning disabilities.
The report notes that an RTI approach has three core concepts: 1) application of scientific, research-based interventions in general education; 2) measurement of a student’s response to these interventions; and 3) use of the RTI data to inform instruction. The consensus of the 14 organizations forming the 2004 Learning Disabilities Roundtable was that data from an RTI process should include the following:
1. High-quality, research-based instruction and behavioral supports in general education.
2. Scientific, research-based interventions focused specifically on individual student difficulties and delivered with appropriate intensity.
3. Use of a collaborative approach by school staff for development, implementation, and monitoring of the intervention process.
4. Data-based documentation reflecting continual monitoring of student performance and progress during interventions.
5. Documentation of parent involvement throughout the process.
6. Documentation that the timelines described in the federal regulations are adhered to unless extended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parents and a team of qualified professionals.
7. Systematic assessment and documentation that the interventions used were implemented with fidelity.
The report also notes that three major developments concerning the education of students with learning problems have come together to establish RTI as a promising approach.
1. Long-standing concerns about the inadequacies of the ability-achievement discrepancy criterion have accentuated the need to develop alternative mechanisms for the identification of children with learning disabilities (LD).
2. Special education has been used to serve struggling learners who do not have LD or other disabilities. An RTI approach may reduce referrals to special education by providing well-designed instruction and intensified interventions in general education.
3. A number of recent research studies on reading difficulties, particularly studies coordinated by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), have demonstrated that well-designed instructional programs or approaches result in significant improvements for the majority of students with early reading problems.
The 2004 revision of IDEA addresses the use of RTI in two respects, says the report. First, it allows for the use of RTI data as part of an evaluation for special education to assist in the identification and determination of eligibility of students with LD, conceivably as an alternative to using the ability-achievement discrepancy criterion. Second, it creates the option of using up to 15% of Part B funds for “early intervening services...for students...who have not been identified as needing special education or related services but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment.”
Although there is no universal model of RTI, many variations can be conceptualized as elaborations on or modifications of the following three-tiered model:
Tier 1: High-quality instructional and behavioral supports are provided for all students in general education.
Tier 2: Students whose performance and rate of progress lag behind those of peers in their classrooms, school, or district receive more specialized prevention or remediation within general education.
Tier 3: Comprehensive evaluation is conducted by a multidisciplinary team to determine eligibility for special education and related services.
Potential benefits of an RTI approach include the following, according to the report.
1. Earlier identification of students by means of a problem-solving approach rather than by an ability-achievement discrepancy formula.
2. Reduction in the number of students referred for special education and related services.
3. Reduction in the overidentification of minority students.
Of course, the use of RTI also raises some questions and concerns. One concern, according to the report, is whether RTI is prone to systematic errors in identifying students with LD. Other questions involve the resources needed and issues relating to personnel roles and competencies.
In field hearings earlier this year, IRA asked the Department of Education to designate reading teachers as service providers in the RTI process. IRA has posted information about response to intervention on its website at http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/focus_rti.html.
For further information about the new NJCLD report, visit their website at www.ldonline.org/njcld/.
New report discusses response to intervention. (August 2005). Reading Today, 23(1), 3.
Journals
Reading Today