Home ::
If you haven’t heard the acronym RTI yet, you will. It stands for Response to Intervention and represents a tectonic shift in the way students can be referred for special education services. Although it originated with the reauthorization of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, its impact is just starting to be felt by general education teachers all over the country. It came about as a reaction by Congress to the apparent overidentification of learning disabled students represented in special education.
Additionally, the primary method for determining whether a student had a learning disability was via a severe-discrepancy model, in which students were tested, and those found to have a severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement were considered learning disabled. However, the severe-discrepancy model has been criticized by some as a “wait to fail” model that identifies students as learning disabled who could be helped by just getting more effective instruction. As a result, in reauthorizing the IDEA in 2004, Congress changed the law so the criteria for determining whether a child has a learning disability must not require the use of a severe-discrepancy model and must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention.
The 3-tier model of intervention
According to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE), these changes in law focused national attention on what was termed a growing successful practice in the general education classroom – RTI as a tool for assessing and working with struggling learners. In most RTI programs, students are given a basic screening early in the school year to spot any potential educational deficiencies. Those who have difficulties are given additional tests to allow school-based teams to target the problems and develop an approach to addressing them. Students are then given intensive education in a multi-tiered system of service delivery. The small numbers of students who don’t respond well to any interventions are considered to be at the top of the tiers and are more carefully evaluated for possible referral to special education services. Although there is no national model for how to deliver RTI services, the 3-tier model is considered a “best practice” and is the one being used by the major RTI trainers in Texas.
Tier I is the foundation and contains the core curriculum (both academic and behavioral). The core curriculum should be effective for approximately 80-85 percent of the students. Tier I interventions focus on group interventions for all students and are characterized as preventive and proactive.
Tier II interventions serve approximately 15 percent of students. Interventions are targeted group interventions. Students at Tier II continue to receive Tier I instruction in addition to Tier II interventions. Based on performance data, students move fluidly between Tier I and Tier II.
Tier III serves approximately 5 percent of students. Students at this tier receive intensive, individual interventions. Once students reach target skills levels, the intensity and/or level of support is adjusted. These students also move fluidly among and between the tiers.
The issue of appropriate instruction
Another important change in IDEA was that a child may be determined to have a specific learning disability if, among other things, the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or meet state-approved grade level standards in certain areas. To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the IEP Team must consider:
- Data demonstrating that prior to, or as part of the referral process, the child was provided with appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and
- Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction.
Clearly, the requirements that a school show that a child’s underachievement is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math, and that a child does not respond well to the delivery of scientific, research-based intervention, such as RTI, require more of regular educators in terms of intensive instruction and documentation. TCTA is well-aware of the paperwork burdens many educators are already experiencing, and the increased burden these requirements will impose on teachers.
New responsibilities fall to regular education teachers
The theory behind RTI is that regular education teachers will be able to accurately identify the students’ problems, and effectively deal with them before they become pervasive enough to merit referring the student to special education. The burden rests, therefore, on regular education teachers who must be skilled at giving students these research-based interventions. Additionally, there are concerns that although RTI has shown success with children just learning how to read, the research base is less solid for older students and students in other academic subjects. Further, some parents are concerned that the use of RTI will unnecessarily delay their child’s ability to get needed services via special education.
Although the reauthorized IDEA allows schools to use up to 15 percent of federal special education funds on early intervention programs, some question whether this is enough to pay for the labor-intensive requirements of RTI.
New RTI websites provide practical assistance
Although few could argue with the theory behind RTI, the practical implications of its effect on how schools and educators operate are far from realized, given its relatively new appearance on the education scene. In a move to provide technical assistance to schools in implementing RTI, a newly created National Center on Response to Intervention (http://www.rti4success.org) was formed, which is funded by a five-year, $14.2 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education. Additionally, the RTI Action Network, sponsored by the National Center for Learning Disabilities, offers assistance to educators at the school level (www.ncld.org/rtinetwork). As RTI becomes more of a major practice by schools, time will tell whether the theory behind the method and the reality of its usefulness in assessing student eligibility for special education actually coincide.
It is important to note that the law does not require school districts to use RTI. In fact, it only requires states to allow districts to use a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention. Texas allows districts to continue to instead use a severe-discrepancy model if the district so chooses.
Web posted: 04/01/08 from The Classroom Teacher, Spring 2008
