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.
Resource Allocation and Accountability in RTI
The practice of RTI offers a glimmer of hope that special education is shifting from an almost begrudging compliance with regulation toward outcomes-based education. Quantifying results and encouraging school and educator accountability are critical for performance outcomes. States have inconsistently applied the principles of IDEA and RTI in particular. With ongoing issues related to lack of accountability for resource allocations and the absence of formalized reporting methods to the Department of Education, it is difficult to track the effectiveness of specific special education programs. States need to surrender some of their control over education in order to better standardize a federal policy or program of effective reporting.
Research shows that there is a clear need to differentiate between special education spending and spending in mainstream classroom environments, allocating resources according to student needs within the RTI framework (Stahl, 2016). Koegel, Koegel, Ashbaugh, and Bradshaw (2013) also point out that the heterogeneity in inclusive classrooms presents unique challenges for accountability and resource allocation. Education administrators can develop creative methods of accounting on a student-by-student basis to provide statistics and data that can be used to assess the efficacy of specific interventions, especially those related to the RTI strategy being used. Performance outcomes remain critical: educators need a cohesive method of reporting their students' performance throughout the stages of RTI, ensuring that resources are being allocated effectively and that individual students are responding to the methods being used. When those methods prove ineffective on a case-by-case basis, they can be altered until the student responds and shows improvement. The RTI framework offers tremendous long-term benefits for both individual students and schools in general, but only an outcomes-based strategy will help improve resource allocation.
References
Koegel, L.K., Koegel, R.L., Ashbaugh, K., & Bradshaw, J. (2013). The importance of early identification and intervention for children with or at risk for autism spectrum disorders. International Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 16(1): 50–56.
Stahl, K.A.D. (2016). Response to intervention. The Reading Teacher, 69(6): 659–663.
Special Education Referrals and Restrictive Placements
As Cortiella and Horowitz (2014) point out, a "dramatic shift" in the ways disabilities are identified has led to a reduction in referrals to special education services (p. 13). Other factors relevant to this decline include the use of RTI, which "might result in greater numbers of struggling students receiving early assistance in general education and ultimately reducing the need for special education classification" (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014, p. 13). Therefore, the reduction in overall referrals can be framed as a net positive, reflecting the effectiveness of early identification and intervention strategies as implemented through RTI and the IDEA framework.
However, Kurth, Morningstar, and Kozleski (2015) point out that states are not setting rigorous enough improvement goals "to reduce restrictive placements," which can be detrimental to student outcomes (p. 227). Moreover, Kurth, Morningstar, and Kozleski (2015) refute claims that referrals have actually been diminishing, citing data showing that restrictive placements have "remained essentially unchanged over the past decade" (p. 227). Referrals to special education placements that are considered restrictive also tend to be disproportionately concentrated among students with low-incidence or severe disabilities (Kurth, Morningstar & Kozleski, 2015). These signs indicate that IDEA principles are working toward allocating special education funding more appropriately to serve the populations that need more targeted and restrictive interventions. Nevertheless, there is a clear need to differentiate as early as possible between students who require restrictive interventions and those who do not — and who would benefit more from an RTI approach that intervenes early enough to avoid a referral in the first place. If inclusivity is the goal, then current funding allocation should not encourage states to artificially under-identify but rather to reform the processes and goals of identification itself.
References
Cortiella, C. & Horowitz, S.H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Kurth, J.A., Morningstar, M.E., & Kozleski, E.B. (2015). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(3): 227–239.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.