RTI and Special Education: Progress, Policy, and Equity
This paper examines four interconnected issues in special education practice centered on Response to Intervention (RTI). It explores the importance of standardized progress monitoring and fidelity to evidence-based practices, the need for strategic resource allocation aligned with student needs, trends in special education referrals and restrictive placements under IDEA, and the overuse of suspension as a disciplinary tool—particularly its racially disparate impact. Drawing on peer-reviewed research, the paper argues for stronger federal standards, outcomes-based accountability, early identification, and restorative alternatives to punitive discipline in special education settings.
- RTI Fidelity and Progress Monitoring Standards: Need for defined RTI procedures and federal standards
- Resource Allocation and Accountability in RTI: Accountability for RTI resources and student-level tracking
- Special Education Referrals and Restrictive Placements: Trends in referrals, placements, and early identification
- Suspension, Discipline, and Civil Rights in Special Education: Racial disparities in suspension and restorative alternatives
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each section directly integrates peer-reviewed citations to ground its policy arguments in empirical research, lending credibility to the author's recommendations.
- The paper moves logically from classroom-level implementation (RTI fidelity and monitoring) to systemic concerns (referrals, placements, and discipline), creating a coherent policy narrative.
- The author avoids abstract prescription by proposing specific, actionable interventions — such as distinguishing differentiation from intervention and limiting suspension to safety-threatening situations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses evidence synthesis: rather than summarizing one source at a time, the author weaves multiple citations together to build a cumulative argument. For example, the section on referrals acknowledges conflicting findings from different studies (Cortiella & Horowitz vs. Kurth et al.) and resolves the tension analytically, a hallmark of graduate-level critical engagement.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized as four numbered response sections, each addressing a distinct facet of special education administration. Each section opens with a research-grounded problem statement, develops the implications, and closes with a policy or practice recommendation. Reference lists follow each section, reflecting a discussion-post or coursework format rather than a traditional monograph.
RTI Fidelity and Progress Monitoring Standards
Targeted individualized interventions and regular progress monitoring — key components of Response to Intervention (RTI) — are occasionally missed due to a lack of fidelity to best practices and recommended guidelines grounded in evidence-based instructional strategies. As a future director of special education, I would ensure that RTI is both responsive and responsible, beginning with the development of standard procedures for progress monitoring. Research on specific learning disabilities shows that the tiered structure of RTI can be especially helpful, but only when RTI is defined precisely, because vagueness leads to inconsistent and unreliable results with children (Hauerwas, Brown & Scott, 2013). There is no "clear national definition of what specific RTI data a local multidisciplinary team must have in hand to make a determination of" specific learning disabilities (Hauerwas, Brown & Scott, 2013, p. 102). Stahl (2016) also found that schools "were implementing RTI on their own without the support of a research team or external funding," leading to a lack of fidelity to professional standards of competency (p. 659). Therefore, I would ideally like to work in the realm of public policy in education to help evolve federal standards for RTI that could help educators more effectively implement research-based practice.
Another important issue in increasing the use of effective progress monitoring and research-based instructional strategies by classroom teachers would be to mobilize both human and fiscal resources. As Stahl (2016) points out, schools need to be made more accountable for their resource allocation strategies. I would ensure that my school not only followed the best practices evident in recent research on RTI and cognitive science but also adhered to best practices for accountability and professional standards. Stahl (2016) recommends distinguishing differentiation from intervention, allocating resources according to student need, and tracking tier movement at the grade level — all of which are feasible interventions in any particular school.
References
Hauerwas, L.B., Brown, R., & Scott, A.N. (2013). Specific learning disability and response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 80(1): 101–120.
Stahl, K.A.D. (2016). Response to intervention. The Reading Teacher, 69(6): 659–663.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.