Response To Intervention Process Research Articles

Equity in Literacy Education: A Case Study of Tier 2 Personalized Instruction

According to the NAEP, proficiency in reading is reported to be 67% in 4th-grade students. General education classroom teachers are responsible for providing Tier 1 and 2 instruction, including interventions in Tier 2. However, many teachers are unsure about implementing interventions and have had negative experiences with Response to Intervention (RTI), finding the process frustrating and overwhelming. This case study examines the effectiveness of teachers who have seen an increase in reading levels and student interest. The research explores the teachers’ perceptions, experiences, and skills of the current implementation of RTI using Gibbs’ Reflective Practice as a theoretical framework. Data collected from individual interviews and observations are analyzed using open coding. Themes and concepts are identified from the interview and observational data. These findings inform educators and higher education teacher educators about Tier 2 implementation and equitable, personalized instruction in the RTI process, aiming to strengthen the implementation and effectiveness of Tier 2 interventions in the general education classroom.

Beyond Traditional Response to Intervention: Helping Rural Educators Understand English Learners’ Needs

Response to intervention (RTI) allows schools to support the academic success of English learners (ELs) while helping educators rule out cultural or linguistic differences and educational background as the root of ELs’ academic or behavioral struggles. However, in rural schools, insufficient training in how to effectively instruct ELs and limited experience teaching ELs due to local demographics may lead RTI teams to prescribe inappropriate interventions or to avoid putting ELs through the RTI process altogether. The framework proposed in this article guides rural RTI teams through the process of considering the factors that might be influencing the performance of struggling ELs to provide these students with the supports they need to benefit from core instruction and tiered interventions.

Culturally Responsive Data-Based Decision Making in High School Settings

Engaging in culturally responsive practices is considered best practice in classroom instruction, particularly within diverse schools, however, when making data-based decisions, there is little guidance for culturally responsive practitioners on how to engage in this work. This article introduces a model of culturally responsive data-based decision making (CR-DBDM) by outlining culturally responsive practices and combining them with Deno’s IDEAL (Identify, Define, Explore, Apply, and Look) problem solving model. The article provides members of high school-based problem-solving teams (PSTs), working within a response to intervention (RTI) framework, suggestions for decision making in ways that do not contribute to the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education and empowers students and families by valuing their voices throughout the RTI process.

Response to Intervention (RtI) and the Impact on School Psychologist Roles: Perceptions and Acceptance of Systems Change

This study examined school psychologists’ perceptions and acceptability of a state-mandated response to intervention (RtI) model. The purpose of this study was to examine the role school psychologists play in the RtI process as well as investigate factors influencing school psychologists’ involvement in RtI. A survey was disseminated through snowball sampling to school psychologists to identify the impact of RtI on school psychologists’ roles as well as district preparedness. A principal component analysis identified four clear survey components. Results from survey participants (n = 80) showed that most school psychologists felt prepared to implement RtI, but did not believe their school would be able to implement RtI with fidelity. Additionally, school psychologists working in schools already using RtI procedures felt more comfortable and confident with RtI than schools not already using RtI. The current study suggests that mandatory state-wide RtI implementation can be beneficial, but more training for teachers and administrators is needed.

Identifying Head Start Children for Higher Tiers of Language and Literacy Instruction

The application of Response to Intervention (RtI) to early childhood settings presents many opportunities and challenges; however, it remains unclear how best to implement this framework in settings in which children at risk of academic difficulty are overrepresented, like Head Start. One of the first steps in implementing any RtI process is the effective and efficient identification of children who are in need of additional instructional support (e.g., Tier 2 or Tier 3). This process is critical as it directly affects the amount of resources needed to support children appropriately—a factor that is particularly concerning for programs that primarily serve children who are at risk of social, emotional, or academic failure difficulties. The purpose of this study was to investigate the proportion of at-risk children who may be in need of additional instructional support when screening and norm-referenced measures are administered at the beginning of the year. In addition, the proportion of at-risk children who continued to need additional support after receiving approximately 6 months of Tier 1 instruction was examined.

School Psychologists’ Willingness to Implement RtI: The Role of Philosophical and Practical Readiness

After the change in IDEIA, different models of response to intervention (RtI) have been practiced widely in American school systems. School psychologists are in an important position to facilitate RtI practice and provide professional development in order to help their school systems successfully undergo this transformation. However, there is a paucity of research regarding school psychologists’ readiness to perform such a meaningful role. In this exploratory study, a sample of 62 practicing school psychologists completed a survey evaluating their practical and philosophical perceptions of RtI and the relationship with their willingness to support RtI implementation. Results from a multiple regression analysis indicated that only practitioners’ philosophical readiness, but not their practical readiness, made a unique contribution to their willingness to use or facilitate an RtI process. Implications for pre-service and in-service professional preparation and practice are discussed.

The Law in the Special Education Literature: A Brief Legal Critique

* Given the central role of law special education, exemplified by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is fitting that the literature is replete with refereed journal articles specific to the legal dimension of various key issues of professional practice. However, the issue is the quality, added to the quantity, of these legal articles special education journals.To examine the extent and nature of this quality dimension, this brief critique examines an illustrative legal article Behavioral Disorders, diagnosing common symptoms and underlying problems. This critique is intended as a constructive salutary diagnosis, although such rigorous assessments are typically less than welcome. The framework consists of these primary legal sources: (a) the U.S. Constitution, (b) federal legislation and regulations, and (c) the court decisions that apply the preceding sources and fill gaps with contract and common law. In addition, due to the administrative structure of the IDEA, hearing and review officer decisions, the state education agency complaint resolution process reports, and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) policy interpretations serve as tangential supplementary sources. The forums for legal dispute resolution extend to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) due to the overlapping scope of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and its sister statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act. For a roadmap of these alternate avenues under the IDEA and Section 504, see Zirkel and McGuire (2010).The next section of this critique examines an article discussing selected legal issues specific to students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) as a relatively representative example. The subsequent sections briefly identify (a) prevailing symptoms of the special education literature's treatment of legal issues illustrated by the critiqued article, (b) systemic factors that contribute to these prevailing symptoms, and (c) initial suggestions for moving the field forward.Illustrative ArticleSmith, Katsiyannis, and Ryan (2011) described their article as an in discussion of current law involving students with E/BD the areas of (a) response to intervention (RTI) and Child Find procedures, (b) required mental health services, and (c) the controversial uses of restraint to manage aggressive behaviors (p. 185). Careful examination with a legal lens reveals that the treatment is not in-depth and that the selection of these areas as is questionable. For the sake of economy of space, the lens is zoomed on the first area-RTI-and less magnified for the other two-mental health services and restraints.Response to InterventionFirst, RTI is not legally critical for students with EB/D because the IDEA (2012, 11414(b)(6)) provides recognition of RTI only with regard to the identification of students with specific learning disability (SLD), not any other classification, including emotional disturbance (ED) or other health impairment (OHI). The Office of Special Education Programs, which administers the IDEA, has made clear that the use of RTI with other suspected disability classifications is a matter of state law (Letter to Brekken, 2010). Thus far, only a handful of state laws have extended RTI beyond SLD, and Louisiana is the only one to extend to ED and/or OHI (Zirkel, 2011b). Even within SLD, the component of RTI these state laws is notably limited, contrast with nonbinding state guidelines (Zirkel, 2011b). For the IDEA, OSEP has clarified that it would be inappropriate to assume that an adopted RTI process must be based on and/or that this [RTI] process extends to other classifications more closely connected to behavior (Letter to Zirkel, 2011).Second, rather than in depth and case law, Smith et al. (2011) provided an undifferentiated mix of court decisions, hearing officer decisions, state complaint resolution reports, OSEP policy interpretations, and OCR letters of findings that, as a representative sample, is both overand under-inclusive with regard to RTI. …

Response To Intervention: Research And Practice

Responseto Intervention (RTI) is a service model designed to meet the learning needs ofstudents prior to diagnosis and placement in special education settings. Results of a quantitative quasi-experimentalresearch study to investigate the relationship between the RTI plan andself-reported implementation practices among general education elementaryteachers in a Florida school district using analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealedno significant difference between demonstration school and comparable schoolgeneral education teachers self-reported practices, self-reported implementation success rates, orself-reported data collection responsibilities.Recommendations for professional development opportunities for allteachers, paraprofessionals, and administrators involved in the RTI process basedupon analyzed research study data are included.

Chalk Up Another Productive Year

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderSchool Matters1 Jun 2012Chalk Up Another Productive Year Dixon DeborahMA, CCC-SLP Dixon Deborah Google Scholar More articles by this author , MA, CCC-SLP https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.SCM1.17072012.28 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In One of the best parts of working in a school setting is celebrating two New Year’s Eves: one on December 31 and one on the last day of school. Another year is ending and that wonderful summer break is on the horizon. As with New Year’s Eve, the “end-of-school eve” gives speech-language pathologists an opportunity to reflect on the year. As it does throughout the year, the ASHA schools team spends this time reflecting on the state of school practice at the national level. ASHA staff monitor issues in local communities; engage with special interest groups and individual members; and visit schools in the D.C. metropolitan area. What were the highlights? What will school-based SLPs face next year? What are the key issues in school practice? Here is what we found this year. Response to Intervention (RTI). Members report that they have become more involved in the RTI process in their districts. SLPs are providing direct instruction, conducting screenings, offering suggestions for classroom-based instruction, modeling, and co-teaching with general education teachers. Although their specific roles vary considerably across the country, most SLPs are involved in some way at all three tiers of instruction. SLPs report that many learning challenges that previously required an individualized education program now can be resolved through RTI, saving time, reducing paperwork, and achieving the same outcomes. It is important for SLPs to become an integral partner in RTI. Look for future articles about RTI in upcoming issues of The ASHA Leader. Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Most states are adopting the standards as the basis for instruction. The standards provide SLPs with an opportunity to continue to embrace curriculum-based instruction, as the CCSDs reflect so many of the goals typically addressed by an SLP (see “ Core Commitment,”The ASHA Leader, April 3). The standards focus on issues such as asking and answering questions, producing clear and coherent writing, engaging effectively in a range of collaborative discussions, demonstrating command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage in writing and speaking, and determining the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases—basically the semantic, pragmatic, phonological, morphological, and syntactic goals SLPs already address. SLPs are incorporating these standards into RTI and their work with students with special needs. Early next year, ASHA will publish a book for SLPs and teachers on RTI instruction based on the CCSD. Value-Added Assessment (VAA). More states and local districts are basing teacher and other school professional evaluations on student scores on state assessments. Districts are using VAA to make decisions about retention, salary increases, bonuses, and placement for school professionals. With the assistance of members, ASHA staff evaluated information about VAA and found that no system addresses the unique roles and responsibilities of SLPs and other related service providers. Therefore, as an alternative to VAA, ASHA created the “ Performance Assessment of Contributions and Effectiveness of Speech-Language Pathologists” (PACE) as a resource for members (see “ ASHA Develops Alternative to Teacher Assessment System”), along with checklists and PowerPoint presentations. Members are encouraged to research how VAA is being used in their district, and to advocate for an evaluation system such as PACE that takes into consideration SLPs’ specialized skills and responsibilities. Equally important in end-of-year reflections is thinking about the work you have done in direct service. School-based SLPs have contributed greatly to the tremendous growth in academic and social skills of students across the country. Reviewing the evidence and implementing new approaches to treatment, assessment, and service delivery, while establishing strong relationships with students, family, and staff, have made a difference in many lives. Congratulations on another successful school year! Author Notes Deborah Dixon, MA, CCC-SLP, director of school services, can be reached at[email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 17Issue 7June 2012 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Jun 1, 2012 Metrics Downloaded 42 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2012 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Integrating Dynamic Assessment and Response-to-Intervention in Reading Instruction

Integrating Dynamic Assessment and Response-to-Intervention in Reading Instruction

Response to Intervention: An Opportunity for School Counselor Leadership

This article describes a novel implementation of a response to intervention (RTI) model at the elementary school level, with particular focus on the role of the school counselor. The RTI process was used with all K-2 students as a way of delivering research-based best practice to all students, and as a way of documenting the educational progress of students identified as at risk for school problems. A member of the development and implementation team, the school counselor collected data to estimate the impact of the model on student progress after the first year of data collection. The article also shares implications for the role of the elementary school counselor.

Feature Article: Response to Intervention: An Opportunity for School Counselor Leadership

This article describes a novel implementation of a response to intervention (RTI) model at the elementary school level, with particular focus on the role of the school counselor. The RTI process was used with all K-2 students as a way of delivering research-based best practice to all students, and as a way of documenting the educational progress of students identified as at risk for school problems. A member of the development and implementation team, the school counselor collected data to estimate the impact of the model on student progress after the first year of data collection. The article also shares implications for the role of the elementary school counselor.

Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary

Response to Intervention (RTI) is an instructional framework through which schools can provide early intervention for students experiencing academic and behavioral difficulties. It is also promoted as an alternative to the IQ-discrepancy model for identifying students with learning disabilities. Most states have developed, or are developing, models of RTI that can be used by school systems and the topic of RTI is frequently written about in educational journals and spoken about at professional conferences. The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with a summary of the research base related to the typical components of the RTI process, as well as the evidence base for RTI when implemented in its entirety.

A Year in the Life of RtI: The First Year

Abstract A speech-language pathologist in a public elementary school (grades K-5) was asked to become a participant in reviewing a district design of Response to Intervention (RtI) services, while initiating a building based RtI program for speech-language therapy. The instructional support team (IST) would serve as an initiator and facilitator for the SLP, RtI process and the targeted struggling learners. The purpose of this article is to review the development and changes made to an RtI program during the first year of enactment.

What Special Education Directors Say about RTI

An e-mail survey of special education directors was conducted to ascertain practices related to implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) processes in North Carolina schools. The data indicate that special education directors have information about RTI as a method of identifying students with disabilities, but there is little consensus on the procedural steps for implementation of the RTI process. Multiple professionals were named as persons to be responsible for collecting data, interpreting graphs, and determining students' responsiveness or nonresponsiveness to instruction. Finally, no consensus was found on whether the discrepancy model should be retained or dropped.

Response to Intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail.

Response to Intervention (RTI) models of diagnosis and intervention are being implemented rapidly throughout the schools. The purposes of invoking an RTI model for disabilities in the schools clearly are laudable, yet close examination reveals an unappreciated paucity of empirical support for RTI and an overly optimistic view of its practical, problematic issues. Models are being put into practice without adequate research and logistical support and neglect the potential negative long-term impact on students with disabilities. Many implementation problems exist: (a) the vagaries of critical details of the model in practice; (b) the lack of consideration of bright struggling readers; (c) the relativeness, contextual, situation dependent nature of who is identified; (d) the worrisome shortcomings of the RTI process as a means of diagnosis or determination of a disability; and (e) the apparent lack of student-based data to guide effective choice of approaches and components of intervention. Practiced as a model of prevention, the authors agree with the concept of RTI. As the authors witness its application to disability determination sans the benefit of a reliable and valid empirical basis, the potential benefits to some children with disabilities remain an unproven hypothesis while the potential detriment to some children with disabilities remains a very real possibility.

Response to Intervention: Prevention and Remediation, Perhaps. Diagnosis, No

Fletcher and Vaughn (this issue) describe recent changes to federal laws governing special education eligibility for specific learning disabilities focusing on what is commonly known as response to intervention (RTI). We are concerned about what appears to us as a selective review of empirical support for RTI and a consequently overly optimistic view of many practical issues surrounding the implementation of RTI models that neglects the potential negative long-term impact on the range of students with and without a learning disability. These include (1) the lack of a firm evidence base reflected in vagaries and ambiguity of the critical details of the model in practice; (2) the worrisome shortcomings of the RTI process as a means of diagnosis or determination of a disability; (3) the contextual, situation-dependent nature of who is identified; (4) the seeming lack of consideration of bright struggling readers in the RTI process; and (5) the apparent lack of student-based data to guide the most effective choice of approaches to, and specific components of, intervention.

Response to Intervention as a Suggested Generalized Approach to Improving Minority AYP Scores

The Response to Intervention (RTI) model has been of growing interest to educators for several decades, culminating in the 2004 enactment of federal regulations. The mutual and cooperative dependence between research and practice is evident regarding practical RTI implementation. The RTI process shows promise to meet the individual education needs of diverse populations. An Alaska school district that includes rural/remote schools and varied populations including minority majority classrooms describes its positive experience with the RTI process. The RTI process may be a key to improving minority student Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) scores. Further statistical research is clearly warranted.

Progress Monitoring as Essential Practice within Response to Intervention

Response to intervention (RTI) encompasses a process for evaluating whether students react to evidence-based instruction as expected. Typically considered a multitiered, prevention-intervention system, successive levels of instructional support are provided when a student's response to the academic program is sufficiendy poor, particularly as compared to his or her peers' responses. In 2004, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; P. L. 108-446) allowed for a student's response to research-based intervention to be part of the process for identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Rather than requiring the traditional aptitude-achievement discrepancy approach to identification, which sometimes necessitated years of poor academic achievement before a student might qualify for special education services (i.e., a wait-to-fail model), IDEIA allows for continued poor response to validated instruction as a means for documenting that a student's disability may require specialized services to produce appropriate learning outcomes. In other words, if a student continues to perform poorly despite the implementation of scientifically validated instruction, then inadequate instruction is eliminated as a cause for the student's insufficient learning. Instead, the student's lack of appropriate response to otherwise generally effective instruction is, in part, evidence for the presence of a disability. Within a multitiered RTI system, students are likely to receive help at earlier stages in their learning with perhaps some disabilities even being prevented from developing or their overall impact lessened. This preventive aspect has prompted many schools to adopt an RTI framework as a means for reforming their educational practices (e.g., see Tilly, 2006). As potential LD identification is embedded within this preventive framework, however, schools are faced with questions about how best to operationalize this process. Professional concerns expressed about using RTI as a part of SLD identification typically revolve around issues related to instruction and assessment. Although sound instruction is paramount to successful implementation of RTI, assessment data should drive decision making. Therefore, we argue that progress monitoring comprises one of the most critical features of successful RTI implementation. Careful progress monitoring aids teachers and student support teams in making instructional decisions throughout all levels of the RTI system and provides data to corroborate SLD identification. We propose a sample framework for RTI implementation within the context of elementary-level instruction in reading that is based on available research. We identify critical aspects of both instruction and assessment that must be addressed by schools as they operationalize RTI. Also within this multitiered framework, we describe how progress monitoring data can be used to provide salient information regarding the presence of a learning disability. Last, we discuss additional challenges rural schools may face when carrying out RTL Instruction and Assessment Within an RTI Framework Tier 1: Primary Prevention Instruction. Most models of RTI involve multiple tiers, or levels, of instruction aimed at preventing (a) inadequate instruction from being implemented over sustained periods of time and (b) disabilities from developing or becoming more severe. The first tier of such a framework occurs as general education instruction. Because data used from an RTI process for potentially identifying students with SLD must show lack of adequate response to scientifically validated instruction, Tier 1 must necessarily involve implementation of instructional practices that have been tested empirically. Schools must be able to defend that the core programs and instructional procedures used by their teachers have been generally effective in promoting student achievement or that specific instructional components within diese programs have empirical validation for improved achievement. …