This paper provides a broad examination of Response to Intervention (RTI), a multi-tiered service delivery model increasingly adopted in U.S. schools as an alternative to the traditional IQ–achievement discrepancy approach for identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). The paper reviews RTI's core principles, tiered structure, and application in preschool settings, then critically analyzes assessment methods used to classify students as responding or non-responding. Special attention is given to the identification challenges facing twice-exceptional students—those who are both gifted and learning disabled (G/LD)—and the risk that RTI's absolute performance benchmarks may produce false negatives for this population. The paper also addresses sociocultural equity concerns, including how risk-factor labeling, cultural bias in standardized interventions, and low teacher expectations may disadvantage students from non-mainstream backgrounds.
Over the past decade, rapid changes have occurred in general educational practice to increase the focus on early identification of and intervention for students considered at risk. The aptly named Response to Intervention (RTI) model of service delivery is generally described as a multi-tiered model whereby students receive interventions of increasing intensity, with movement from one level to another based on demonstrated performance and rate of progress (Gresham, 2007). This sizable paradigm shift has been influenced in part by recent special education legislation, which allows the practice of RTI as an alternative to the traditional "IQ–achievement discrepancy" model of learning disability identification and allows 15% of federal special education funding to be allocated toward early intervening services (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004).
Moreover, RTI has gained favor in light of mounting evidence suggesting that intensive intervention during the primary grades is effective for remediating academic difficulties (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2010). Practitioners may also intuitively gravitate toward an RTI model of practice, which has more ideological appeal than traditional models in the sense that it emphasizes identifying and solving problems as soon as possible rather than waiting for students to fall far behind their peers before providing additional services (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2006).
Currently, much of the published literature on full-scale RTI implementation is focused on conceptual and logistical issues related to RTI. Furthermore, a majority of the empirical studies relevant to RTI are focused either on case studies of RTI implementation in particular schools or on intensive intervention with students in the early elementary grades. Dozens of studies have documented the effectiveness of specific interventions for remediating skill deficits in reading (Vaughn et al., 2008) and math (e.g., Mong & Mong, 2010). Additionally, a growing body of research is devoted to establishing the technical adequacy of screening and progress-monitoring assessments to support the RTI process and the identification of students with learning disabilities (Burns, Scholin, Kosciolek, & Livingston, 2010). Despite mounting empirical evidence and widespread ideological support, however, educators are far from united in support of this initiative, with one of the most hotly debated issues being the use of progress-monitoring data to make valid and reliable decisions about special education eligibility (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).
Whereas RTI within the early elementary grades has garnered more support and substantial research attention over the past several years, a comparative dearth of empirical literature has been published regarding RTI implementation in either preschool or secondary settings. Although supporters continue to promote expansion of the model beyond elementary school, most would agree that substantial implementation issues remain that need to be addressed. Among the most frequently cited barriers to the extension of RTI service delivery are systems and organizational barriers (e.g., scheduling, personnel), insufficient measurement tools, and a lack of evidence-based intervention strategies that can be implemented on a large scale beyond the elementary setting (Vaughn et al., 2010).
Unfortunately, most of the extant literature at all levels appears to take one "side" or the other, either supporting or opposing RTI implementation, thus perpetuating the ideological debate and overlooking the possibility that sufficient knowledge exists to implement some—but not all—elements of RTI. It appears, however, that there is substantial middle ground in this debate. By identifying and critically examining current strengths and weaknesses, it will be possible to recommend steps toward evidence-based practice, capacity building, and sustainability in preschool settings, without overstepping the bounds of current empirical support. Ultimately, a long-term approach to organizational development—with adoption of an RTI model representing an aspirational rather than a practical short-term goal for service delivery—is favored.
Response to Intervention has been described as an alternative approach to identifying and providing instruction to students who do not make progress in the regular education curriculum. Instead of waiting until there is a measurable discrepancy that would qualify a student for specialized services, a teacher can intervene with effective, targeted instruction as soon as a child shows signs of difficulty. Although there are common basic principles that apply to all models of RTI, many embody a three-tier plan (Johnston, 2011). Tier 1 involves all students who receive classroom instruction. In an initial screening process, the teacher determines the achievement levels of all students and identifies a group of children who may be at risk for a reading disability (RD). Students who fall below a "cut point" or a set score move to Tier II for small-group instruction of targeted skills, where progress is monitored twice monthly. The decision to move a student back to Tier I or on to Tier III for more intensive instruction is based on the data collected during the monitoring process. Students who make acceptable progress return to Tier I (whole-class instruction), and students who fail to make progress move on to Tier III. This tier provides more intensive, individual instruction or, in some cases, results in a referral for special education evaluation (Davis, Lindo, & Compton, 2007).
RTI represents a more proactive way to identify children who may be at risk for a learning disability because students can receive interventions as soon as screenings show they are not benefiting from instruction (Fuchs & Young, 2006). RTI may also benefit English Language Learners (ELLs) because, unlike the discrepancy model—which requires a delay until English skills develop before intervention in reading is provided—the RTI plan can offer support as soon as there is evidence that students are not meeting grade-level benchmarks (McIntosh, Graves, & Gersten, 2007). Clearly, RTI has the potential to improve upon the "wait to fail" model that requires students to be significantly delayed before intervention is provided. Since intervention can begin earlier, students' reading abilities can improve before they fall too far behind. Researchers have found that many students who received Tier II services—defined as small-group instruction twice a week for thirty minutes—went on to be successful in the general curriculum (Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006). As the use of RTI increases in schools, it becomes important for educators to think deeply about the implications of the model and how RTI will affect the students in their classrooms.
"Challenges and proposed models for preschool RTI"
"Core principles and SLD eligibility assessment methods"
"RTI limitations for gifted students with learning disabilities"
"Cultural bias, risk labeling, and equity in RTI"
Many states in the U.S. have implemented RTI as the only means to identify students with specific learning disabilities. RTI is not a failure in detecting and identifying students with learning disabilities, but studies have shown that RTI produces increased false positives. Another issue is the increased number of false negatives, which has received little attention. It is very important that more than one model be used to identify learning disabilities in children, especially when children have dual exceptionalities (both SLD and GT). Lowering the cut-off score may be more useful in identifying children with learning disabilities, thereby allowing more students access to RTI services. However, at present, RTI is an important initiative used in school systems throughout the United States.
You’re 18% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.