Abstract

This paper begins to explain the purpose of RTI and explain how No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) and (IDEIA, 2004) support the implementation of RTI on improving students ‘outcomes (Greenwood, Bradfield, Kaminski, Linas, Carta & Nylander, 2011). Second, it describes the use of RTI as alternative method to identify student with learning disability. Third, it reviews the RTI process from Tier 1 to Tier 3 instruction. Fourth, it discuss the issues on RTI related to teachers who implement the intervention. Finally, recommendations are offered that encourage both general and special education teachers to collaborate together on sharing resources, discussing students’ progress, and demonstrating instructional techniques.

The Limitations of Response to Intervention

Response to intervention (RTI) is a multi-tier approach to scaffolding instruction for a variety of learners and includes high-quality, research-based instruction and a continuum student assessments (James et al., 2014). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) allows for the discontinuing of IQ-achievement discrepancy formulas as the only tool for identification students in the learning disability category (Bradley et al.,, 2005; Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Questions about eligibility for specific learning disability (SLD) promoted professional organization and advocacy groups to find a better model to assess and identify students in the SLD category (Bradley et al., 2005). Gersten and Dimino (2015) explained that the purpose of RTI is not only to provide an intervention for students who are at risk for school failure but also to develop a more valid assessment in order to identify students with SLD. Policies in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEIA 2004) likely support the implementation of RTI and have put the spotlight on improving students’ outcomes through early and sustained use of evidence-based practice (Greenwood, et al., 2011). The Response to intervention process is implemented within the general education classroom so, general education teachers are the major instructors who deliver the RTI model to all students.

In the literature, criticisms of RTI claim that general education teachers have experience working with a groups of students and not individual students (Stayton & McCollum, 2002). This leads to the questioning whether RTI can be successful when teachers are not incapable of delivering or differentiating instruction to meet students’ needs. RTI is implemented on three levels that called tiers. There are other limitations related to uncertainty regarding the RTI process in Tiers 2 and 3 that limit the clarity and understanding of RTI as a framework. Thus, this paper will present the purpose of RTI from a policy lens and explain how RTI is implemented from Tier 1 to Tier 3. It also discusses limitations of RTI, especially focusing on teachers who deliver instructions. Lastly, recommendations will be identified to improve RTI for students who are struggling and identify students with learning difficulties

RTI vs. Discrepancy Model

Numerous researchers discussed the assessments used for identifying learning disabilities. Since 1975, there has been much debate on how to identify and serve students with learning disabilities and how to serve those who are at risk of failure (Richards, Pavri, Golez, Canges, & Murphy, 2007). The definition of specific learning disabilities (SLD) was manifested from the discrepancy model (Werts, Lambert, & Carpenter, 2009). Werts and his colleagues (2009) explained “discrepancy model as the difference between a student’s expected response to instruction and his or her actual response” (p. 245). The Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) required the Individual Education Plan (IEP) team to find a child with a specific learning disability if there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one of these categories: oral expression, reading, writing, listing, and math (Bradley et al., 2005).

Criticisms of the discrepancy model are presented in the literature. For instance, (Bradley et al., 2005) was concerned about how much discrepancy was required to identify students with SLD. Bradley and his colleagues (2005) found that the eligibility criteria were not well operationalized. State policies vary from state to state (Reschly & Hosp, 2004).

Also, the discrepancy between intellectually ability and achievement is difficult to discern in early elementary grades (MacMillan & Siperstein, 2002). Discrepancy model also keeps students with SLD unidentified and often floundering academically well into the upper grades of elementary school until the discrepancy becomes significant enough to warrant services (Bradley et al., 2005). Further, students who are at risk of failure do not receive the required services until their achievement gap becomes wider and they qualify for special education services (Richards et al., 2007).

The discrepancy model doesn’t provide information about how to deliver instruction to teach students. Thus, it is not helpful for teachers in planning instruction (Bradley et al., 2005). Additionally, the number of students identified as having learning disabilities has increased more than 200% since 1977 (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). Students from a minority culture and who are English learners have been over-identified as having SLD, as tested through the discrepancy model. Further, they were placed in more segregated special education settings than White and Native students (MacMillan & Reschly, 1998).

In response to the variability and difficulties in the discrepancy model, policy makers and professionals in the field of special education proposed an alternative method. RTI is considered a better method of identifying students with learning disabilities (Bradley et al., 2005; Fuchs, 2002; Gresham, 2002; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Response to intervention is a “Change in behavior or performance as a function of intervention” (Richards et al., 2007; Gresham, 1991, Gresham, 2002). The 2004 reauthorization changed how students are eligible for SLD (Richards et al., 2007). The message behind RTI is that students should receive effective instruction with progress monitoring before being referred to a special education setting (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Speece, 2002). In that regard, students receive appropriate interventions depending on their levels of response before considering a referral to a special education service.

RTI Tiers

There is no universal agreement on a specific procedure of implementing RTI. The law states that RTI is a process with the delivery of high-quality instruction in a typical classroom (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009; Richards et al., 2007; Werts et al., 2009). Research on RTI involves two critical components. Namely, those components are the Implementation of evidence-based intervention and ongoing assessment to monitor student response (Gresham, 2002; National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, 2006). General education teachers deliver instruction based on scientific validation, and they collect data on individual students’ performance (Werts et al., 2009, p. 246). Generally, the literature thoroughly discussed the three tiers (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Richards et al., 2007; Werts et al., 2009). In most situations, high-quality instruction in Tier 1 should meet the needs of the majority of students in the classroom (Richards et al., 2007). Tier 1 can also be labeled as the universal core program (Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2008). McKenzie (2009) considered the first Tier as consistent with the whole-group instruction and the administration of universal screening to identify students who perform lower in basic skills. Students who perform higher in the basic skills continue to receive instruction in the general education classroom.

Students who do not progress in Tier 1 will receive more support in Tier 2 (McKenzie, 2009). Tier 2 is targeted, and systemic intervention is designed for students through small groups with progress monitoring (Vaughn & Roberts, 2007). In Tier 2, students may receive intervention for 20 minutes per day for up to 20 weeks (Bradley et al., 2007). Richards and his colleagues (2007) indicated that some students in Tier 2 may still not be progressing with instruction and do not meet the grade level benchmark; thus, tier three instruction may be appropriate for students who did not respond to Tier 2 instructions.

Tier 3 presents the variability among RTI models, and some researchers consider it as the path to the special education setting (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; Reschly, 2005). The intervention in the third Tier may or may not be included in the special education service depending on the district or school policy and decision making (Richards et al., 2007). Berkeley and his colleagues (2009) noted that in all three- Tiers, the special education setting is considered a separate operation that occurs after RTI intervention has been exhausted. Response to intervention should be applied in three Tiers in the general education setting so that students can have many opportunities in the general education setting.

Tier 3 is considered to be individualized (Werts et al., 2009). According to Werts and his colleagues (2009), “Throughout the process, a team reviews data collected on a systemic, ongoing basis to determine the best instructional options for a student” (p. 246). In the general education classroom, all students are to receive high-quality instruction with universal screening. Students who do not respond will review intensive instruction in small groups or individually (Werts et al., 2009). Some studies noted that when RTI is implemented effectively, there is potential to reduce the proportion of students who are referred to special education (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Response to intervention allows general education teachers to determine which students qualify for special education instructions or any type of support in the general education classroom (Gersten & Dimino, 2015).

RTI Limitations

There are unresolved issues related to RTI (Hollenbeck, 2007; Kavale & Spaulding, 2008). Response to intervention is implemented in various ways, and Werts and his colleagues (2009) critiqued the use of personnel and the time required for implementation of instruction. Classroom teachers may be responsible for implementing effective instruction in Tier 1, but the question of who will provide instruction in the later Tiers is unanswered and could be different from school to school. Additionally, there are less investigation on literature on providing details on intensity of instruction in Tier 2 and 3 instruction. Further, the duration of intervention, and students’ group size are not clear in literature. A large-scale implementation of RTI will impact the roles of special education educators, psychologists, and related service personnel (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Hoover & Patton, 2008).

In addition to the issue, Fuchs and Deshler (2007) wondered that if classroom teachers implement instruction in Tier 1, who will implement Tier 2 instruction? Who will conduct evaluations of students’ responses? They also noted that RTI focuses primarily on reading, and there are fewer considerations on writing, math, science, and social science.

There were several issues addressed from the literature that should be considered in providing a clear understanding of the RTI process in specific tiers. Furthermore, the role of the general and special education teachers in Tier 2 is not clear in the literature, and it varies from school or district (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007). Therefore, schools must identify a specific role for both teachers (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007).

In the literature, there is a concern for the quality of general classroom teachers, on delivering the intervention to diverse students. Studies from Meister and Melnick (2003) and Levine (2006) found that the majority of general educators did not pay attention to or consider the diversity of needs among students, were reluctant to make instructional adaption, and were not able to improve the academic achievement for students with disabilities. In addition, “researchers recognize that general education teachers cannot focus intensively on particular students to the extent that different instructional activities for different students are being implemented at the same time” (Zigmond, 2003, p.197). Furthermore, studies of general education teachers demonstrated that they are unprepared to cope with the diverse needs of students and are unable to differentiate instruction for students with disabilities or others at risk of failure (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010).

Further difficulty remains regarding how to use the data to plan interventions for different cases (e.g., student is slow to respond) and in which cases teachers should disengage Tiers 2 and 3 instructions before referring the students to a special education setting (Greenfield et al., 2010). A major issue in the implementation of RTI is the limited resource base to support the various practices that are recommended (Kratochwill, Volpiansky, Clements & Ball, 2007). Kratochwill and his colleagues (2007) concluded that the issue is the need to measure responsiveness. For instance, “Ongoing assessment is limited by (a) a lack of student outcome measures with strong psychometric features, (b) limited screening measures, (c) lack of standardization in assessment, and (d) lack of clear-cut criteria for determining responsiveness to an intervention” (Kratochwill et al., 2007, p. 619).

Furthermore, only a few studies have been published that demonstrating the effectiveness of interventions that might be used in Tier 2 or Tier 3 to support children who need more intense or individualized interventions to demonstrate growth toward school-readiness outcomes (Greenwood, Bradfield, Kaminski, Linas, Carta, & Nylander , 2011).

School personnel may lack sufficient knowledge about evidence-based practices (Harlacher, Walker & Sanford (2010). The National Council on Teacher Quality (2006) found that the majority of general education teacher-preparation programs failed to train teachers in research-based reading instruction. In addition, most graduate programs in school psychology are not training their students in evidence-based prevention and intervention programs (Shernoff, Kratochwill, & Stoiber, 2003).

There are limitations on the implementation of RTI in terms of delivering intervention. How can RTI be successful and meet the policy standard of providing appropriate interventions to students and identify those who fall behind in the classroom? How do RTI policies handle general education teachers who seem less prepared to work with students who have difficulties finding appropriate scientific resources? Teachers and school personnel lack knowledge on evidence-based intervention. When IDEIA (2004) required schools to use RTI as a method to identify students and provide research-based intervention, there should have been clarity regarding identifying the roles of teachers in delivering tiers and providing teachers with evidence-based intervention. The questions that should be addressed are as follows: Are students receiving instruction based on scientific validation? Are general education teachers receiving guidelines on which intervention should be used to improve students’ outcomes? Thus, the ambiguity about RTI is considered problematic and may limit the success of RTI.

Recommendations

In the literature, there is an assumption that many students’ needs can be met by general education teachers who are prepared to provide instruction to accommodate diverse learners (Stayton & McCollum, 2002). Furthermore, general education teachers are responsible for teaching the core curriculum, and special education teachers are responsible for serving students with identified disabilities (Richards et al., 2007). In the current context, inclusion has encouraged both general and special education teachers to collaborate in order to meet individual needs in the general education classroom (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007). In RTI, general education teachers may not be familiar with analyzing and interpreting assessment data, whereas special education teachers are likely to have skill, knowledge, and experience in interpreting student assessments (Richards et al., 2007). However, the “RTI model requires schools to evaluate the roles of teachers in serving students who exhibit learning difficulties before referral for special education eligibility” (Richards et al., 2007, p. 58). Burns and his colleagues (2013) indicated that teachers should be knowledgeable of multiple evidence-based interventions that will allow them to make informed decisions for struggling learners in order for them to receive intensive interventions in appropriate groups. In addition, the literature supports the preparation of both general education teachers to work together with special education teachers of all students. Brownell and her colleagues suggested having collaboration between both general and special education teachers during their preparation and throughout the RTI process. Collaboration between teachers has the potential to provide high-quality instruction to all students. In the literature, as mentioned earlier, there was a question of who provides Tier 2 intervention and Tier 3 interventions (Werts et al, 2009). This is an issue that has still not been solved. There are no assigned teachers for Tier 2 or 3 interventions. Thus, collaboration between both teachers may organize the RTI process and lead both teachers to make good decisions about students’ needs. Special education teachers should be able to offer support to general education teachers regarding intensifying instruction factors within all tiers of instruction, but particularly in Tiers 2 and 3 (Harlacher, Nelson, & Sanford, 2010) Collaboration between general and special education teachers can provide an opportunity to both teachers to benefit from each other. Special education teachers may have knowledge or background on which intervention may work for a particular group that meets students’ needs. Through my real life experience, I interviewed two general education teachers. From their respond, I found that both teachers perceived collaboration as one of their positive experience on RTI model. They can assist each other on providing resources as well as discussing students’ progress. General and special education teachers collaborate on discussing students’ needs, problem solving, demonstrating instructional techniques, leading or participating in professional development, sharing resources, and networking with other professionals and outside agencies (Dettmer, Dyck, & Thurston, 2005).

In conclusion, RTI becomes the alternative method to identify students with SLD as well as provide intervention for students who have difficulty in learning. There were some issues and variations in the process of RTI such as whose will provide tier two and tier three instructions. There is no universal agreement on the implementation of the RTI model. General education teachers are sponsored to provide high-quality instruction in tier one. However, general education teachers may not be able to work with students who require further instruction. Also, teachers lack to sufficient skills in implementing intervention, and to differentiate instruction for students who are at risk of failure. Recommendation suggests that Collaboration between special and general education teachers may have the potential to improve the quality of teaching in the classroom, and special education teachers should be side-by-side with general education teachers in RTI to ensure that all students’ needs are met.

References

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.

Brownell, M., Sindelar, P., Kiely, M., & Danielson, L. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Council for Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357–377.

Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (2013). The handbook of response to intervention: The Science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 25–52). New York: Springer.

Dettmer, P., Thurston, L. P., & Dyck, N. J. (2005). Consultation, Collaboration, and

Teamwork for Students with Special Needs.

Fuchs, L. (2002). Three conceptualizations of treatment in responsiveness to treatment model. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 521–529). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness to intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,18, 157–171.

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about the responsiveness to intervention (and should not be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129–136.

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

Gresham, F. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2015). RTI (Response to intervention). Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (Yet again). International

Reading Association. 41, 1, 99-10

Greenfield, R., Rinaldi, C., Proctor, P., & Cardarell, A. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of response to intervention (RTI) reform effort in an Urban Elementary School: A consensual qualitative analysis. Journal of Disability Policy studies. 21(1) 47-63.

Greenwood, C. R., Bradfield, T., Kaminski, R., Linas, M., Carta, J. J., & Nylander. D.(2011). The response to intervention (RTI) approach in early childhood. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(9), 1-22

Haager, D., & Madhavi, J. N. (2007). What can we reasonably expect of teachers in a three- tiered intervention model? In D. Haager, S. Vaughn, & J. K. Klingner (Eds.), Validated practices in three-tiered reading intervention models. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Hollenbeck, A. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness-to-intervention research. LearningDisabilities Research and Practice, 22, 137–146.

Hoover, J. J., & Patton, J. R. (2008). The role of special educators in a multitiered instructional system. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 195–202.

James, C. M., Lopez, L., Wilkins, R., & Fergus, E. (2014). Cultural adaptations when implementing RTI in urban setting. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/diversity/cultural-adaptations-when-implementing-rti-in-urban-settings#.VCTQQCUGAZs.email

Kavale, K. A., & Spaulding, L. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 169–179.

Klingner, J. K, & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, (41), 108–117.

Kratochwill, T. R., Volpiansky, P., Clements, M., & Ball, C. (2007). Professional development in implementing and sustaining multitier prevention models: Implications for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 618-631. Retrieved from search.proquest.com/docview/219656515

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Retrieved October 7, 2007, from

http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf

McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms: You do not bother me and I won’t bother you. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261.

MacMillan, D. L., & Reschly, D. J. (1998). Overrepresentation of minority students: The case for greater specifically or reconsideration of the variables examined. TheJournalof Special Education, 32, 15–24.

MacMillan, D., & Siperstein, G. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by school. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287–333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Meister, D., & Melnick, S. (2003). National new teacher study: Beginning teachers’ concerns. Action in Teacher Education, 24(4), 87-94.

McKenzie, R. (2009). Obscuring vital distinctions: The oversimplification of learning disabilities within RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 203–215.

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. (2006) Core concepts of RTI [Website]. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org/reserch/rti/concepts.shtml

Reschly, D. J., & Hosp, J. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–213.

Reschly, D. R. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510–515.

Richards, C., Pavri, S., Golez, F., & Murphy, J. (2007). Response to intervention: Building the capacity of teachers to serve students with learning difficulties. Issue in Teacher Education, 16, 55–64.

Stayton, V., & McCollum, J. (2002). Unifying general and special education: What does the research tell us? Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 211–218.

Shernoff, E. S., Kratochwill, T. R., & Staiber, K.C. (2003). Training in evidence – based interventions. (EBIS): what are school psychology programs teaching? Journal of School Psychology, 41(6), 467-403.

Sanford, A. K., Harlacher, J. E., & Nelson Walker, N.J (2010). The “I” in RTI Research -Based Factors for intensifying Instruction.

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

Vaughn, S. Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.

Vaughn, S., & Roberts, G. (2007). Secondary interventions in reading: Providing additional instruction for students at-risk. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 40–46.

Werts, M., Lambert, M., & Carpenter, E. (2009). What special education directors say about RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 245–254.

Werts, M., Lambert, M., & Carpenter, E. (2009). What special education directors say about RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 245–254

Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education services? Is one place better than another? The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 193–199.

About the Author

Adhwaa Alahmari is a Ph.D. student in the department of special education at the University of South Florida. She earned her Masters degree in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in mild disability at Cleveland State University in 2014. Her focus now is on Response to Intervention particularly looking for teachers’ perceptions who implement RTI and would like to address their neglected voices in a research. Teachers can receive additional support when their voices heard.

Download this Issue

To Download a PDF file version of this Issue of the NASETLD Report –CLICK HERE

To top

Limitations on Response to Intervention with Emphasis on General Education Teachers