Response to Intervention (RTI): A Literature Review

Introduction

Teachers are responsible for students' success and achievement. A student who performs well in school has a chance of acquiring numerous opportunities in the global market. However, students who fail in school are more likely to fall into poverty or become dependent on others. Hence, teachers are tasked with ensuring that the needs of all students are met. Fortunately, there is substantial evidence to prove that Response to Intervention (RTI) is an approach that can help give every student the academic support required to learn effectively (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005). RTI's fundamental principle is that learning institutions should not wait for students to fall behind in class before offering them the help they need or determining their eligibility for special education. Instead, learning institutions should offer directed and orderly interventions to all learners as soon as a need is identified.

The theoretical framework of Response to Intervention (RTI) begins at the national level. This literature review outlines RTI at the national, state, and system levels. It identifies the basis of RTI and describes the procedures required at each level. It also presents the findings of various researchers regarding RTI's effectiveness and implementation.

Student Support Team Process Before RTI

Before the implementation of RTI, schools applied the Student Support Team (SST) process. This process was intended to offer support to the student and teacher through a combined team approach involving key stakeholders. SST was created because the collaborative approach proves effective when developing plans for students with learning disabilities. SST was a valuable tool because it provided an effective educational program for learners (Barrio & Combes, 2015).

Student Support Teams proved to be most effective in learning institutions where teachers were responsible for all students and could assist them through collaborative problem-solving. The process entailed basic steps that focused on individual student needs, learning styles, program efficiency, and communication. Before and during the first meeting, team members collected relevant information on the student's past and present educational and behavioral performance. This information was drawn primarily from sources such as parents, official school records, and anecdotal records. The team would then meet to discuss and evaluate the information acquired and determine whether additional information was needed. The team would then develop an individual educational plan tailored to the student's strengths and weaknesses.

Plans and techniques were suggested and supported by all team members involved in the implementation process. A timeline for follow-up was established at this stage. The developed educational plan was implemented for a set period, and supplementary data were gathered if necessary (Barrio & Combes, 2015). The team held regular meetings to discuss student progress and any supplementary information that was presented. If there was a need to change the education plan, the alterations were made during the SST meeting.

Ongoing monitoring and evaluation formed a significant part of the SST process. If the education plan proved successful and no disability was discovered, the team continued to observe student progress and determine when to support the classroom plans. However, if a disability were discovered, the team would recommend psychological testing. Upon completing the assessment, the team would hold another meeting to discuss eligibility for special education (Barrio & Combes, 2015).

Many learning institutions struggle to benefit from RTI because they mistakenly view it as simply a new method of qualifying learners for special education — directing efforts toward regular education interventions before referring students who lag behind to traditional special education testing and placement. Other schools implement RTI merely to comply with legal requirements rather than to genuinely improve student outcomes.

The Problem of Disproportionate Representation

Gravois and Rosenfield (2006) analyze the problem of disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Although recommendations have been offered to help solve the problem, two challenges remain unresolved. First, the full extent of the problem has not been precisely defined, and second, no effective within-school interventions have been established to address it. Disproportionate placement is defined as representing a certain group of learners at a rate that differs from their proportion in the overall population.

The problem of disproportionate representation can occur when learners' placements are either overrepresented or underrepresented relative to their presence in the general population. Gravois and Rosenfield (2006) focus specifically on the overrepresentation of minorities in special education and their underrepresentation in programs designed for gifted and talented learners. African American students, in particular, are disproportionately selected for special education.

The number of Black students identified for special education is disproportionate compared to that of their white peers. According to Gravois and Rosenfield (2006), African American students identified as mentally disabled are placed at twice the rate of other racial groups. Data analysis from various State Departments of Education is presented to support this claim.

Furthermore, Gravois and Rosenfield (2006) use general calculations such as risk indexes, odds ratios, and composition indexes to describe disproportionate representation. Each of these calculations provides a different perspective on the same data. For example, the risk index offers a percentage of a certain group (e.g., African American) that has been placed in a specific category (e.g., intellectual disability), while the odds ratio compares two different groups. The overall goal is to develop a clearer understanding of the scope and impact of the disparity.

The first theme addressed in the literature on disproportionality is the effect of cultural differences on teacher perceptions and practices regarding minority learners. Some researchers argue that minority learners are selected for special education in part due to gaps in how teachers interact with culturally diverse students. Ideas are offered about how teachers can develop new perceptions and practices that will lead to greater student achievement and reduce inappropriate referrals to special education. The second theme concerns bias in the assessment procedures used when selecting minority learners for special education services. The article also addresses the effectiveness of prereferral interventions in meeting students' academic needs before a referral to special education is made.

According to Gravois and Rosenfield (2006), Instructional Consultation Teams (IC Teams) should be used in problem-solving processes to ensure that quality instruction and intervention are provided to all students. This approach is intended to improve student academic achievement, particularly for minority students, and to reduce the number of learners referred for evaluation or placement in remedial services. Consistent application of the IC Team model has led to decreased total referrals and placements of learners in special education.

A study conducted by Gravois and Rosenfield (2006) examined the effect of implementing IC Teams on the special education referral and placement patterns of minority learners compared to those of other learners in different schools in the same area. The results showed a meaningful effect on disproportionate evaluation and placement of minority learners in schools using IC Teams compared to those continuing traditional prereferral processes. In IC Team schools, the three disproportionality indices — risk indexes, odds ratios, and composition indexes — all decreased with respect to referral for assessment and placement into special education.

National Guidelines and Legislative Framework for RTI

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized by the president in December 2004. The act aimed to provide national guidelines for school systems and teachers dealing with students who have or are suspected of having disabilities. IDEA is a federal act that governs how states offer early intervention services to students with disabilities. After being reauthorized in 2004, the act stated that all learners have the right to receive a free and appropriate education to prepare them for advancement and independent living.

All public schools must develop an individualized education plan for students who qualify under federal and state eligibility requirements. Because IDEA incorporates more flexible assessment practices for determining eligibility for services, a broader range of assessment tools and approaches can be applied to determine whether a student needs special education services (Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002).

IDEA (2004) granted states and districts the legal authority to implement problem-solving models such as RTI. According to IDEA 2004, the use of scientific, research-based interventions in the learning disability eligibility process is permitted, though not mandatory. The act further states that if districts choose to use RTI, it cannot be excluded from the process.

IDEA supports the use of evidence-based interventions and emphasizes early intervention services. The primary goal of IDEA has been to ensure early intervention so that children are less likely to require special education services later. RTI is a model that uses federal special education funding to support vulnerable students through a multi-layered service delivery model, using research-based strategies, positive behavioral supports, and evidence-based literacy instruction (IDEA, 2004).

Before RTI, several national educational initiatives and policies aimed to improve the performance of underachieving students. In 1990, the National Institute for Child Health and Development (NICHD) participated in research studies to improve reading disability outcomes, resulting in improved reading and intervention strategies for struggling readers. The institute also concluded that using an IQ-achievement discrepancy model to determine specific learning disability eligibility often prevented children from receiving treatment before the optimal window for intervention had passed.

In 1980, the National Research Council Panel on Minority Over-Representation was formed and tasked with publishing reports related to the concern about the overrepresentation of minorities in special education. Those reports emphasized the lack of research validating special education benefits for minority students (NRCP, 2000). In 2002, the panel published a report emphasizing prevention and intervention to reduce the factors that increase the likelihood of minority children being placed in special education programs. The panel suggested a four-tier intervention model and a new approach to determining eligibility for special education, among the recommendations of which was RTI.

The Three Tiers of RTI and Special Education Services

Generally, all students participate at this level. Students are provided access to a standards-based curriculum delivered through differentiated, evidence-based instruction tailored to individual student needs. Instruction is based on data that is regularly collected and reviewed. When Tier One is implemented in this way, approximately 80% of students will succeed in the general education classroom, thereby reducing the number of children referred to and placed in special education classrooms.

Tier Two is centered on needs-based learning. Students who have not responded successfully to Tier One are moved to Tier Two, where they receive a standard intervention protocol focused on their specific academic or behavioral challenges. These students are identified using universal screening data, state assessment data, comprehensive assessment data, and Tier One assessment data. A fundamental component of this tier is progress monitoring. Progress is tracked to analyze the student's response to the intervention, and decisions are made based on that response. When Tier Two is implemented effectively, many of these students will ultimately be eligible for instruction within the general education classroom.

Tier Three entails consistent and precise delivery of a highly intensive intervention. At this level, the RTI process becomes more individualized and diagnostic. School teachers often request county-level specialists to join the problem-solving team. Scientific analysis may be used to identify the reasons why students are not performing as expected. Careful analysis at this tier helps most students return to Tier One or Tier Two. The decision is made following close progress monitoring. During the intervention, students who respond successfully gradually receive less intensive intervention, while students who do not respond receive increasing levels of support. If students remain unresponsive at this level, the RTI team must convene and determine whether a referral for specialized instruction is warranted.

This level involves special program placement for students who require additional support. It encompasses both special education and gifted education services, which can be provided in either a general classroom setting or a separate setting. This tier is intended for students who were unable to respond to the previous three tiers and who therefore require additional support and meet eligibility criteria for special program placement. Because of the interventions provided in prior tiers, fewer struggling students will reach this level. Tier Four provides instruction for students with disabilities who require special education and related services. If a determination has been made that a child has a disability, the school system does not require additional documentation of prior interventions to proceed.