Response to Intervention (RTI): Models, Assessment, and Equity

Introduction to Response to Intervention

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).

Literature Review

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.

Overview of RTI and Its Tiered Structure

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.

Conclusion

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.

Students with dual impairments who are included in general education classrooms are also included in this initiative by virtue of their placement in general education, yet little attention has been paid to the unique issues of high-quality instruction by qualified personnel for these students. It is imperative that professionals who work with students who are dually impaired be fully aware of administrative decisions as they relate to the use of RTI with this population. Increased awareness of G/LD students and the insufficiency of RTI to identify them are necessary—but not sufficient—conditions to increase the likelihood that these students will be provided with an education suitably designed for their dual exceptionalities. The absolute nature of the low achievement markers designed to distinguish between NR and R in RTI must not be used to determine the relative underachievement that is characteristic of SLD, and particularly among G/LD students. RTI assessment schemes and discrepancy-based approaches must be allowed to coexist and complement each other so that all students—including those with the most complex profiles—receive appropriate identification and support.

References

Aikens, N. L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 235–251.

Barnett, D. W., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C. (2007). Achieving science-based practice through response to intervention: What it might look like in preschools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17, 31–54.

Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 485–486.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 8–12.

Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282–296.

Burns, M., Scholin, S., Kosciolek, S., & Livingston, J. (2010). Reliability of decision-making frameworks for response-to-intervention for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 102–114.

Coleman, M. R., Buysse, V., & Neitzel, J. (2006). Recognition & response: An early intervening system for young children at-risk for learning disabilities. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Institute.

Davis, N. G., Lindo, E. J., & Compton, D. L. (2007). Students at risk for reading failure: Constructing an early screening measure. Teaching Exceptional Students, 39(5), 32–37.

Drame, E., & Xu, Y. (2008). Examining sociocultural factors in response to intervention models. Childhood Education, 85(1), 26–32.

Ehren, B. J., & Whitmire, K. (2009). Speech-language pathologists as primary contributors to response to intervention at the secondary level. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30(2), 90–104.

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.

Fuchs, D., & Young, C. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73(1), 8–30.

Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L., Bryant, J., & Davis, G. N. (2008). Making "secondary intervention" work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21, 413–436.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 89, 14–20.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.

Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2007). Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Special Topics in Early Childhood Education, 27, 198–213.

Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical foundations. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 10–24). New York: Springer.

Hauser-Cram, P., & Sirin, S. R. (2003). When teachers' and parents' values differ: Teacher ratings of academic competence in children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 813–820.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

Jackson, S., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Harjusola-Webb, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Romani, J. M. (2009). Response to intervention: Implications for early childhood professionals. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 424–434.

Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Alternative models of learning disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 569–572.

Johnston, P. (2010). An instructional frame for RTI. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 602–604.

Karnes, F. A., Shaunessy, E., & Bisland, A. (2004). Gifted students with disabilities: Are we finding them? Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 16–21.

Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 113–127.

Krochak, L. A., & Ryan, T. G. (2007). The challenge of identifying gifted/learning disabled students. International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 44–53.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525–531.

McIntosh, A. S., Graves, A., & Gersten, R. (2007). The effects of response to intervention on literacy development in multiple-language settings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 197–212.

Mong, M., & Mong, K. (2010). Efficacy of two mathematics interventions for enhancing fluency with elementary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 273–288.

Morrison, W. F., & Rizza, M. G. (2007). Creating a toolkit for identifying twice-exceptional students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(1), 57–76.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 249–260.

Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2003). Introduction. In S. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 3–10). New York: Guilford.

New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9–37). London: Routledge.

Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One school's implementation of RTI with English language learners: "Referring into RTI." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–288.

Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response-to-intervention: Ready or not? From wait-and-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145.

Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.

Stephens, K. R., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66, 219–238.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., Voeller, K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Snyder, P. (2006). Integrating frameworks from early childhood intervention and school psychology to accelerate growth for all young children. School Psychology Review, 35, 519–534.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). A response to "Competing views: A dialogue of response to intervention." Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 58–61.

Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J., Denton, C. D., et al. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3–21.

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Murray, C. S. (2008). Monitoring response to supplemental services for students at risk for reading difficulties: High and low responders. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 234–243). New York: Springer.

Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 157–169.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2010). Tier 3 interventions for students with severe reading problems. Theory into Practice, 49, 305–314.

Woodcock, R. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery tests–revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.