Microsoft Word - Issue_#5_LD_Report_Importance_of

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

1



NASET LD Report #5

TheImportanceofResponseto

Intervention(RTI)intheUnderstanding,

Assessment,Diagnosis,andTeachingof

StudentswithLearningDisabilities

OverviewofResponsetoIntervention(RTI)

The Response to Intervention (RTI) process is a multi-tiered approach to providing services and

interventions to struggling learners at increasing levels of intensity. RTI can be used for making

decisions about general, compensatory, and special education, creating a well-integrated and

seamless system of instruction and intervention guided by child outcome data. RTI calls for early

identification of learning and behavioral needs, close collaboration among teachers and special

education personnel and parents, and a systemic commitment to locating and employing the

necessary resources to ensure that students make progress in the general education curriculum.

RTI is an initiative that takes place in the general education environment.

The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD, 2006) defines RTI as: an

assessment and intervention process for systematically monitoring student progress and making

decisions about the need for instructional modifications or increasingly intensified services using

progress monitoring data.

RTI is an integrated approach to service delivery that encompasses general, remedial and special

education through a multi-tiered service delivery model. It utilizes a problem solving framework

to identify and address academic and behavioral difficulties for all students using scientific,

research-based instruction. Essentially, RTI is the practice of: (a) providing high-quality

instruction/intervention matched to all students needs and (b) using learning rate over time and

level of performance to (c) make important educational decisions to guide instruction (National

Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005). RTI practices are proactive,

incorporating both prevention and intervention and is effective at all levels from early childhood

through high school.

Purpose of RTI

RTI is intended to reduce the incidence of instructional casualties by ensuring that students are

provided high quality instruction with fidelity. By using RTI, districts can provide interventions

to students as soon as a need arises. This is very different, for example, from the methods

associated with the aptitude achievement discrepancy models traditionally utilized for SLD

identification which have been criticized as a wait to fail approach.

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

2



IDEA 2004 allows the use of a student s response to scientific, research-based intervention (20

U.S.C 1414 (B)(6)(A)) as part of an evaluation. Response to intervention (RTI) functions as an

alternative for learning disability (LD) evaluations within the general evaluation requirements of

IDEA 2004. The statute continues to include requirements that apply to all disability categories,

such as the use of validated, non biased methods, and evaluation in all suspected areas of

difficulty. IDEA 2004 adds a new concept in eligibility that prohibits children from being found

eligible for special education if they have not received instruction in reading that includes the

five essential components of reading instruction identified by the Reading First Program. These

requirements are those recognized by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics,

reading fluency (including oral reading skills), vocabulary development, and reading

comprehension strategies. RTI is included under this general umbrella. By using RTI, it is

possible to identify students early, reduce referral bias, and test various theories for why a child

is failing. It was included in the law specifically to offer an alternative to discrepancy models.

A key element of an RTI approach is the provision of early intervention when students first

experience academic difficulties, with the goal of improving the achievement of all students,

including those who may have LD. In addition to the preventive and remedial services this

approach may provide to at-risk students, it shows promise for contributing data useful for

identifying LD. Thus, a student exhibiting (1) significantly low achievement and (2) insufficient

RTI may be regarded as being at risk for LD and, in turn, as possibly in need of special education

and related services. The assumption behind this paradigm, which has been referred to as a dual

discrepancy (L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Speece, 2002), is that when provided with quality instruction

and remedial services, a student without disabilities will make satisfactory progress.

The concept of RTI has always been the focus of the teaching/learning process and a basic

component of accountability in general education: In other words, does instruction (i.e.,

strategies, methods, interventions, or curriculum) lead to increased learning and appropriate

progress? In the past few years, RTI has taken on a more specific connotation, especially in the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004),2 as an approach

to remedial intervention that also generates data to inform instruction and identify students who

may require special education and related services. Today, many educators, researchers, and

other professionals are exploring the usefulness of an RTI approach as an alternative that can

provide (1) data for more effective and earlier identification of students with LD and (2) a

systematic way to ensure that students experiencing educational difficulties receive more timely

and effective support (Gresham, 2002; Learning Disabilities Roundtable, 2002, 2005; National

Research Council, 2002; President s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002).

Importance of RTI

According to current early reading research, all except a very few children can become

competent readers by the end of the third grade. RTI is a process that provides immediate

intervention to struggling students at the first indication of failure to learn. Through systematic

screening of all students in the early grades, classroom teachers identify those who are not

mastering critical reading skills and provide differentiated intervention to small groups of

students. Continuous progress monitoring of students responses to those interventions allows

teachers to identify students in need of additional intervention and to adjust instruction

accordingly.

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

3



Response to Intervention is about building better readers in the early grades and consists of

multi-tiered reading instruction in the general education classroom. In an RTI model, ALL

students receive high quality reading instruct ion and struggling readers receive additional and

increasingly more intense intervention. Early intervention and prevention of reading difficulties

are fundamental to the process. However, if a student s learning history and classroom

performance warrant, a multidisciplinary team may determine the student has a disability and

needs special education services to ensure continued and appropriate academic progress.

Three major developments concerning the education of students with learning problems have

coalesced to establish RTI as a promising approach. First, long-standing concerns about the

inadequacies of the ability achievement discrepancy criterion which was a component of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 for identifying LD have accentuated the

need to develop alternative mechanisms for the identification of LD. At the LD Summit of

August 2001, sponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs, RTI was the alternative

proposed by several researchers (e.g., Gresham, 2002; Marston, 2001).

Second, special education has been used to serve struggling learners who do not have LD or

other disabilities. An RTI approach has been suggested as a way to reduce referrals to special

education by providing well-designed instruction and intensified interventions in general

education, thereby distinguishing between students who perform poorly in school due to factors

such as inadequate prior instruction from students with LD who need more intensive and

specialized instruction.

A third major reason for the increased interest in an RTI approach has been the abundance of

recent research on reading difficulties, in particular, the national network of research studies

coordinated by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). A

number of NICHD research studies have demonstrated that well-designed instructional programs

or approaches result in significant improvements for the majority of students with early reading.

IsRTIaNewApproach?

RTI is not a new approach. It is recognizable under other names such as dynamic assessment,

diagnostic teaching, and precision teaching. Those terms, however, have been applied to

approaches used to maximize student progress through sensitive measurement of the effects of

instruction. RTI applies similar methods to draw conclusions and make LD classification

decisions about students. The underlying assumption is that using RTI will identify children

whose intrinsic difficulties make them the most difficult to teach. Engaging a student in a

dynamic process like RTI provides an opportunity to assess various hypotheses about the causes

of a child s difficulties, such as motivation or constitutional factors like attention.

Core Principles of RTI

RTI is comprised of seven core principles that represent recommended RTI practices (Mellard,

2003). These principles represent systems that must be in place to ensure effective

implementation of RTI systems and establish a framework to guide and define the practice.

1. Use all available resources to teach all students. RTI practices are built on the belief that all

students can learn. One of the biggest changes associated with RTI is that it requires educators to

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

4



shift their thinking: from the student--- to the intervention. This means that the initial evaluation

no longer focuses on what is wrong with the student.

Instead, there is a shift to an examination of the curricular, instructional, and environmental

variables that change inadequate learning progress. Once the correct set of intervention variables

have been identified, schools must then provide the means and systems for delivering resources

so that effective teaching and learning can occur. In doing so, schools must provide resources in

a manner that is directly proportional to students needs. This will require districts and schools to

reconsider current resource allocation systems so that financial and other support structures for

RTI practices can be established and sustained.

2. Use scientific, research-based interventions/instruction. The critical element of RTI systems is

the delivery of scientific, research-based interventions with fidelity in general, remedial and

special education. This means that the curriculum and instructional approaches must have a high

probability of success for the majority of students. By using research-based practices schools

efficiently use time and resources and protect students from ineffective instructional and

evaluative practices. Since instructional practices vary in efficacy, ensuring that the practices and

curriculum have demonstrated validity is an important consideration in the selection of

interventions. With the absence of definitive research, schools should implement promising

practices, monitor the effectiveness and modify implementation based on the results.

3. Monitor classroom performance. General education teachers play a vital role in designing and

providing high quality instruction. Furthermore they are in the best position to assess students’

performance and progress against grade level standards in the general education curriculum. This

principle emphasizes the importance of general education teachers in monitoring student

progress rather than waiting to determine how students are learning in relation to their same-aged

peers based on results of state-wide or district-wide assessments.

4. Conduct universal screening/benchmarking. School staff conduct universal screening in all

core academic areas and behavior. Screening data on all students can provide an indication of an

individual student s performance and progress compared to the peer group s performance and

progress. These data form the basis for an initial examination of individual and group patterns on

specific academic skills (e.g., identifying letters of the alphabet or reading a list of high

frequency words) as well as behavior skills (e.g., attendance, cooperation, tardiness, truancy,

suspensions, and/or disciplinary actions). Universal screening is the least intensive level of

assessment completed within a RTI system and helps educators and parents identify students

early who might be at risk. Since screening data may not be as reliable as other assessments, it is

important to use multiple sources of evidence in reaching inferences regarding students at risk.

5. Use a multi-tier model of service delivery. A RTI approach incorporates a multitiered model

of service delivery in which each tier represents an increasingly intense level of services

associated with increasing levels of learner needs. The system described here reflects a three-

tiered design. All multi-tiered systems, regardless of the number of levels chosen, should yield

the same practical effects and outcomes.

In a RTI system, all students receive instruction in the core curriculum supported by strategic and

intensive interventions when needed. Therefore, all students, including those with disabilities,

are found in Tiers I, II, and III. Important features, such as universal screening, progress

monitoring, fidelity of implementation and problem solving occur within each tier. The basic

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

5



tiered model reflects what we know about students in school: their instructional needs will vary.

Thus, the nature of the academic or behavioral intervention changes at each tier, becoming more

rigorous as the student moves through the tiers.

Tier I represents the largest group of students, approximately 80-90%, who are performing

adequately within the core curriculum. Tier II comprises a smaller group of students, typically 5-

10% of the student population. These students will need strategic interventions to raise their

achievement to proficiency or above based on a lack of response to interventions at Tier I. Tier

III contains the fewest number of students, usually 1-5%. These students will need intensive

interventions if their learning is to be appropriately supported (Tilly, 2006).

6. Make data-based decisions. Decisions within a RTI system are made by teams using problem

solving and/or standard treatment protocol techniques. The purpose of these teams is to find the

best instructional approach for a student with an academic or behavioral problem. Problem

solving and standard treatment protocol decision making provide a structure for using data to

monitor student learning so that good decisions can be made at each tier with a high probability

of success. When using the problem solving method teams answer four interrelated questions: (1)

Is there a problem and what is it? (2) Why is it happening? (3) What are we going to do about it?

(4) Did our interventions work? (NASDSE, 2005) Problem solving and standard treatment

protocol techniques ensure that decisions about a student s needs are driven by the student s

response to high quality interventions.

7. Monitor progress frequently. In order to determine if the intervention is working for a student,

the decision making team must establish and implement progress monitoring. Progress

monitoring is the use of assessments that can be collected frequently and are sensitive to small

changes in student behavior. Data collected through progress monitoring will inform the decision

making team whether changes in the instruction or goals are needed. Informed decisions about

students needs require frequent data collection to provide reliable measures of progress. Various

curriculum-based measurements are useful tools for monitoring students progress.

EventsThatLedtoChangesinLDIdentificationinIDEA2004

Through decades of educational practice, it has become generally accepted that a severe

discrepancy is in fact a learning disability and/or a proxy for a learning disability and its

underlying processing disorders. It is now widely acknowledged that there is not a scientific

basis for the use of a measured IQ achievement discrepancy as either a defining characteristic of

or a marker for LD. Though numerous authorities (Fletcher et al., 1998; Lyon et al., 2001;

Stanovich, 2005) have identified problems with discrepancy models, it has persisted as the most

widely used diagnostic concept. In the 1997 reauthorization process, the concern with

discrepancy approaches reached a head and the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP) committed to a vigorous program of examining and summarizing evidence around LD

identification. That effort resulted in the Learning Disabilities Summit, as well as subsequent

roundtable meetings involving representatives of major professional organizations. While

preparing for the 2004 IDEA reauthorization, OSEP conducted the 2002 Learning Disabilities

Roundtable to generate a series of consensus statements about the field of learning disabilities.

With respect to the use of discrepancy formulas, the members stated: Roundtable participants

agree there is no evidence that ability-achievement discrepancy formulas can be applied in a

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

6



consistent and educationally meaningful (i.e., reliable and valid) manner. They believe SLD

eligibility should not be operationalized using ability-achievement discrepancy formulas.

Rationale for Replacing the Discrepancy Model with RTI

Response to Intervention offers the promise of building better readers through the provision of

differentiated instruction based on data from ongoing assessments for all students in the early

grades. That is, all students receive scientifically research based reading instruction and, most

importantly, struggling readers receive additional instructional time and research based reading

interventions within the structure and context of the general education classroom. In essence,

RTI replaces the practice of waiting to fail with deliberate early intervention and prevention.

Major Issues Related to the Use of the Concept of Achievement-

Ability Discrepancy

Issue #1: Discrepancy models fail to differentiate between children who have LD and those

who have academic achievement problems related to poor instruction, lack of experience, or

other problems.

It is generally agreed that the model of achievement-ability discrepancy that has been employed

was influenced by research conducted by Rutter and Yule (1975) (Reschly, 2003). This research

found two groups of low achieving readers, one with discrepancies and one without. It was this

finding that formed the basis for the idea that a discrepancy was meaningful for both

classification and treatment purposes. Later analyses of this research, and attempts to replicate it,

have failed to produce support for the two group model for either purpose. In fact, it is now

accepted that reading occurs in a normal distribution and that students with dyslexia or severe

reading problems represent the lower end of that distribution (Fletcher et al., 2002).

Issue #2: Discrepancy models discriminate against certain groups of students: students outside

of mainstream culture and students who are in the upper and lower ranges of IQ. Due to

psychometric problems, discrepancy approaches tend to under-identify children at the lower end

of the IQ range, and over-identify children at the upper end. This problem has been addressed by

various formulas that correct for the regression to the mean that occurs when two correlated

measures are used. However, using regression formulas does not address issues such as language

and cultural bias in IQ tests, nor does it improve the classification function of a discrepancy

model (Stuebing et al., 2002).

Issue #3: Discrepancy models do not effectively predict which students will benefit from or

respond differentially to instruction. The research around this issue has examined both progress

and absolute outcomes for children with and without discrepancy, and has not supported the

notion the two groups will respond differentially to instruction. (Stanovich, 2005) Poor readers

with discrepancies and poor readers without discrepancies perform similarly on skills considered

to be important to the development of reading skills (Gresham, 2002).

Issue #4: The use of discrepancy models requires children to fail for a substantial period of

time usually years before they are far enough behind to exhibit a discrepancy. In order for

children to exhibit a discrepancy, two tests need to be administered an IQ test, such as the

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

7



Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and an achievement test, such as a Woodcock Johnson

Tests of Achievement. Because of limitations of achievement and IQ testing, discrepancies often

do not appear until late second, third, or even fourth grade. Educators and parents have

experienced the frustration of knowing a child’s skills are not adequate and not typical of the

child s overall functioning, and being told to wait a year to re-refer the child. While waiting for a

discrepancy to appear, other persistent problems associated with school failure develop such as

poor self concept, compromised motivation, vocabulary deficits, and deficits associated with

limited access to written content.

WhyRTIwasConsideredintheProcessofSLDDetermination?

RTI is being strongly considered as part of the SLD identification process because it has the

potential to address areas of the SLD definition and construct that are not adequately assessed

with current approaches. If the features of RTI are implemented correctly:

• Thereissomeassurancethatstudentsarebeingexposedtohighqualityinstructioninthe

generaleducationclassroombystipulatingthatschoolsuseevidence‐basedinstructional

practicesandroutinelymonitortheprogressofallstudents.

• Thereisanemphasisonunderachievementthroughitsfocusondiscrepancymodelsthat

examinewhetherastudentisfailingtorespondtoinstructionthroughbothlowoverall

achievementandinabilitytomakeadequateprogress.

• Theyencourageaccesstoearlyinterventionbecause,withtheregularmonitoringofprogress,

at‐riskstudentsareidentifiedearly,andaninfrastructurefortheappropriatedeliveryof

servicesalreadyisestablished.

• Theyaredesignedtoaddressmanystudentswithachievementproblems,sothelabelof

learningdisabilityisappliedonlyforthosestudentswhofailtorespondtomultiplelevelsof

interventionefforts.

• Theyaremeanttobeappliedasmultiplemeasuresofchildperformanceratherthanlimiting

determinationtoa singlepointintime.

WhatRoleShouldRTIPlayintheIdentificationofChildrenwith

SpecificLearningDisabilities

When considering adopting a RTI approach for identifying students with specific learning

disabilities (SLD), school districts should keep in mind a number of provisions of IDEA 2004.

Under IDEA 2004 schools districts may, but are no longer required to consider whether a student

has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability. At the same time, IDEA

2004 gives school districts the flexibility to determine that a student has SLD using RTI data.

Proponents point out that identifying SLD through RTI shifts the focus of the evaluation process

from emphasizing the documentation of the student s disability to emphasizing the student s

instructional needs. RTI emphasizes this shift of focus through documentation of a student s

persistent failure to progress even after receiving intense and sound scientific-research based

interventions in the general education curriculum.

IDEA 2004 is silent about the exact criteria school districts may use in establishing a SLD. It is

expected that when final federal regulations are published, specific criteria will be established

and states will be provided clarifying guidance regarding these procedures. Until that time,

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

8



district s implementing RTI are strongly encouraged to use established approaches for using RTI

data to identify SLD. The following is recommended:

After appropriate CBM probes have been applied, and after attempts have been made to

implement at least two Tier III interventions with fidelity, a student should be considered non-

responsive when the student s level of academic achievement has: (a) been determined to be

significantly lower than that of his or her peers and (b) the gap between the student s

achievement and that of his or her peers increases (or does not significantly decrease). Absent

other information to explain the lack of achievement, students who are non-responsive at Tier III

should be suspected of having a disability.

Once a referral for 504 or special education is initiated the school district must determine

whether or not an initial comprehensive evaluation is required to determine the presence of a

disability. Unless mitigating information exists to explain why the student was nonresponsive at

Tier III, it is anticipated that an initial evaluation will be completed.

Before conducting an initial evaluation, the school district must obtain written consent from a

parent or guardian. A comprehensive evaluation may or may not require additional testing. A

comprehensive evaluation should include a formal observation of the student by a team member

unless a recent observation was completed by a team member prior to the evaluation. If the

student s evaluation team is able to determine that the existing data developed through the RTI

process is sufficient to complete the evaluation report in all suspected areas of disability,

additional information does not need to be obtained. If the existing data does not establish the

need for special education services, further assessment may be needed to rule out the possibility

of a qualifying disability, including a disability in a category other than SLD.

CanRTIBeUsedastheSoleDeterminantforSLDClassification?

While RTI addresses some significant shortcomings in current approaches to SLD identification

and other concerns about early identification of students at risk for reading problems, RTI should

be considered as merely one important element within the larger context of the SLD

determination process. Implementing RTI allows schools to have more confidence that they are

providing appropriate learning experiences to all students while identifying and targeting early

those students who may be at risk for reading or math problems but who do not necessarily have

a learning disability. Although IDEA 2004 provides flexibility to LEAs in determining SLD

identification procedures, the following recommendations by the National Joint Committee on

Learning Disabilities should help guide the development of these procedures (NJCLD, 2005):

• Decisionsregardingeligibilityforspecialeducationservicesmustdrawfrominformation

collectedfromacomprehensiveindividualevaluationusingmultiplemethodsincluding clinical

judgmentandothersourcesofrelevantinformation.

• Studentsmus tbeevaluatedonanindividualbasisandassessedforintra‐individualdifferences

inthesevendomainsthatcomprisethedefinitionofSLDinthelawlistening,thinking,speaking,

reading,writing,spelling,andmathematicalcalculation.

• Eligibilitydecisionsmustbemadethroughaninterdisciplinaryteam,mustbestuden t‐centered

andinformedbyappropriatedata,andmustbebasedonstudentneedsandstrengths.

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

9



As schools begin to execute a process of decision- making that is more clinical than statistical in

nature, ensuring through regulations that this team of qualified professionals represents all

competencies necessary for accurate review of comprehensive assessment data will be critical.

One of the advantages of RTI is the timely identification of children who struggle with learning.

While RTI is not intended as a stand-alone approach to determining specific learning disabilities,

it can be a key component of a comprehensive approach to disability determination. In an RTI

model, if a student does not respond to robust high-quality instruction and intervention that is

progress monitored over time, he or she may indeed be determined to have a learning disability.

The benefit of RTI for these at-risk students is that it provides a wealth of meaningful

instructional data that can be used in creating well-targeted individualized instructional programs

and evidence-based instructional interventions. In addition RTI sets in place a student progress

monitoring process that facilitates communication and promotes ongoing meaningful dialogue

between home and school.

In the Big Picture, How Does RTI Fit Into the Determination of LD Process?

Although RTI addresses some significant shortcomings in current approaches to SLD

identification and other concerns about early identification of students at risk for reading

problems, RTI should be considered to be one important element within the larger context of the

SLD determination process. RTI as one component of SLD determination is insufficient as a sole

criterion for accurately determining SLD. RTI provides the following information about a

student:

1. Indication of the student s skill level relative to peers or a criterion benchmark

2. Success or lack of success of particular interventions

3. Sense of the intensity of instructional supports that will be necessary for the student to achieve

Incorporating this information into SLD determination procedures has the potential to make

important contributions to identifying students with SLD in schools. In addition to an RTI

process that helps ensure appropriate learning experiences and early intervention, identification

of SLD should include a student-centered, comprehensive evaluation that ensures students who

have a learning disability are accurately identified.

Although IDEA 2004 provides flexibility to LEAs in determining SLD identification procedures,

the following recommendations by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities

(NJCLD) should help guide the development of these procedures (NJCLD, 2005):

• Decisionsregardingeligibilityforspecialeducationservicesmustdrawfrominformation

collectedfromacomprehensiveindividualevaluationusingmultiplemethods,includingclinical

judgmentandothersourcesofrelevantinformation.

• Studentsmus tbeevaluatedonanindividualbasisandassessedforintraindividualdifferencesin

thesevendomainsthatcomprisethedefinitionofSLDinthelaw:listening,thinking,speaking,

reading,writing,spelling,andmathematicalcalculation.

• Eligibilitydecisionsmustbemadethroughaninterdisciplinaryteam,mustbestuden tcentered

andinformedbyappropriatedata,andmustbebasedonstudentneedsandstrengths.

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

10



As schools begin to execute a process of decision making that is more clinical than statistical in

nature, ensuring through regulations that this team of qualified professionals represents all

competencies necessary for accurate review of comprehensive assessment data will be critical.

Processes for SLD identification have changed and will continue to do so. Within that context,

remembering that RTI is but one resource for use in the SLD determination process is important.

More broadly speaking, RTI procedures have the distinction that when implemented with

fidelity, they can identify and intervene for students early in the educational process, thereby

reducing academic failure among students.



MultitieredServiceDeliveryModel

Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is a multitiered service-delivery model. An RTI approach

incorporates a multitiered model of educational service delivery in which each tier represents

increasingly intense services that are associated with increasing levels of learner needs. The

various tier interventions are designed to provide a set of curricular/instructional processes aimed

at improving student response to instruction and student outcomes.

Much discussion continues surrounding the issues of how many tiers constitute an adequate

intervention (O'Connor, Tilly, Vaughn & Marston, 2003). Most frequently, RTI is viewed as a

three-tiered model, similar to those used for other service delivery practices, such as positive

behavioral support. The three-tiered model is the structure we will discuss here.

Figure 1 depicts a three-tiered model as conceived in an RTI framework. Like other models, RTI

is meant to be applied on a school-wide basis, in which the majority of students receive

instruction in Tier One (the general classroom), students who are at risk for reading and other

learning disabilities are identified (such as through school-wide screening) for more intense

support in Tier Two, and students who fail to respond to the interventions provided in Tier Two

may then be considered for specialized instruction in Tier Three.

ContinuumofInterventionSupportforAtRiskStudents

The application of RTI is typically understood within the context of a multitiered model or

framework that delineates a continuum of programs and services for students with academic

difficulties. Although no universally accepted model or approach currently exists, the many

possible variations can be conceptualized as elaborations on or modifications of the following

three-tiered model:

1.) Tier 1: High quality instructional and behavioral supports are provided for all students

in general education.

• Schoolpersonnelconductuniversalscreeningofliteracyskills,academics,andbehavior.

• Teachersimplementavarietyofresearch‐supportedteachingstrategiesandapproaches.

• Ongoing,curriculum‐based assessmentandcontinuousprogressmonitoringareusedtoguide

high‐qualityinstruction.

• Studentsreceivedifferentiatedinstructionbasedondatafromongoingassessments.

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

11



2.) Tier 2: Students whose performance and rate of progress lag behind those of peers in their

classroom, school, or district receive more specialized prevention or remediation within general

education.

• Curriculum‐basedmeasuresareusedtoidentifywhichstudentscontinuetoneedassistance,

andwithwhatspecifickindsofskills.

• Collaborativeproblemsolvingisusedtodesignandimplementinstructionalsu pportfor

studentsthatmayconsistofastandardprotocolormoreindividualizedstrategiesand

interventions.

• Identifiedstudentsreceivemoreintensivescientific,research‐basedinstructiontargetedtotheir

individualneeds.

• Studentprogressismonitoredfrequentlytodetermineinterventioneffectivenessandneeded

modifications.

• Systematicassessmentisconductedtodeterminethefidelityorintegritywithwhichinstruction

andinterventionsareimplemented.

• Parentsareinformedandincludedintheplanningandmonitoringoftheirchildsprogressin

Tier2specializedinterventions.

• Generaleducationteachersreceivesupport(e.g.,training,consultation,directservicesfor

students),asneeded,fromotherqualifiede ducatorsinimplementinginterventions

andmonitoringstudentprogress.

3.) Tier 3: Comprehensive evaluation is conducted by a multidisciplinary team to determine

eligibility for special education and related services.

• Parentsareinformedoftheirdueprocessrightsandconsentisobtainedforthecomprehensive

evaluationneededtodeterminewhetherthestudenthasadisabilityandiseligibleforspecial

educationandrelatedservices.

• Evaluationusesmultiplesourcesofassessmentdata,whichmayincludedatafromstandardized

andnorm‐referencedmeasures;observationsmadebyparents,students,andteachers;and

datacollectedinTiers1and2.

• Intensive,systematic,specializedinstructionisprovidedandadditionalRTIdataarecollected,as

needed,inaccordancewithspecialeducationtimelinesandothermandates.

• Proceduralsafeguardsconcerningevaluationsandeligibilitydeterminationsapply,asrequired

byIDEA2004mandates.

D. Fuchs et al. (2003) used the term standard protocol to refer to an approach in which students

with similar difficulties (e.g., problems with reading fluency) are given a research-based

intervention that has been standardized and shown to be effective for students with similar

difficulties and uses a standard protocol to ensure implementation integrity. The term is used in

this sense in this report.

Variations on this basic framework may be illustrated by options often found within Tier 2.

For example, Tier 2 might consist of two hierarchical steps, or sub-tiers (e.g., a teacher first

collaborates with a single colleague, then, if needed, problem-solves with a multidisciplinary

team, creating in effect a four-tiered model). Alternatively, more than one type of intervention

might be provided within Tier 2 (e.g., both a standard protocol and individualized planning,

based on the student s apparent needs).

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

12



RTI is a critical component of a multitiered service delivery system. The goal of such a system is

to ensure that quality instruction, good teaching practices, differentiated instruction, and remedial

opportunities are available in general education, and that special education is provided for

students with disabilities who require more specialized services than what can be provided in

general education. The continuous monitoring of the adequacy of student response to instruction

is particularly relevant to an RTI approach as a means of determining whether a student should

move from one tier to the next by documenting that existing instruction and support is not

sufficient. For example, in moving from Tier 2 to Tier 3, insufficient responsiveness to high

quality, scientific, research-based intervention may be cause to suspect that a student has a

disability and should be referred for a special education evaluation. In addition, however, the

right of a parent, state education agency, or a local education agency to initiate a request for an

evaluation at any time is maintained in IDEA 2004.

Focus of Tier 1

Tier 1 is designed to meet the needs of a majority of the school population and has three critical

elements:

(1) a research-based core curriculum

(2) short-cycle assessments for all students at least three times a year to determine their

instructional needs

(3) sustained professional development to equip teachers with tools necessary for teaching

content area effectively. In Tier 1, the goal is to prevent failure and optimize learning by offering

the most effective instruction possible to the greatest number of students. Instruction takes place

in a regular education setting and is, for the most part, whole class (scientifically-based)

instruction that produces good results for most students.

Based on data, classroom teachers monitor student progress and differentiate instruction for

students who do not meet grade-level expectations.

Focus of Tier II

Tier II is for students who are falling behind same-age peers and need additional, targeted

interventions to meet grade-level expectations. In Tier II, the goal is to accelerate learning for

students who need more intensive support. In Tier II, the interventions typically take place in a

regular setting and may include instruction to small groups of students, targeted interventions,

and frequent progress monitoring.

Focus of Tier III

Tier III is designed for students who still have considerable difficulty in mastering necessary

academic and/or behavioral skills, even after Tier I and Tier II instruction and interventions. Tier

III addresses students' needs through intensive individualized services.

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

13



In Tier III, students receive intensive and highly focused, intentional, research-based instruction,

possibly over a long period of time. Tier III involves students who did not respond to Tier II

intervention. These students undergo more a formal diagnostic evaluation.

Parent Involvement and Important Component for Successful RTI Programs

Involving parents at all phases is a key aspect of a successful RTI program. As members of the

decision making team, parents can provide a critical perspective on students thus, increasing the

likelihood that RTI interventions will be effective. For this reason, schools must make a

concerted effort to involve parents as early as possible, beginning with instruction in the core

curriculum. This can be done through traditional methods such as parent-teacher conferences,

regularly scheduled meetings, or by other methods. This must be done by notifying parents of

student progress within the RTI system on a regular basis.

Districts and schools should provide parents with written information about its RTI program and

be prepared to answer questions about RTI processes. The written information should explain

how the system is different from a traditional education system and about the vital and

collaborative role that parents play within a RTI system. The more parents are involved as

players, the greater the opportunity for successful RTI outcomes.

Because RTI is a method of delivering the general education curriculum for all students, written

consent is not required before administering universal screenings, CBMs, and targeted

assessments within a multi-tiered RTI system when these tools are used to determine

instructional need. However, when a student fails to respond to interventions and the decision is

made to evaluate a student for special education eligibility, written consent must be obtained in

accordance with special education procedures. When developing screening measures districts

should also consider the parallel measures that may be used for evaluation.

Failure to communicate and reach out to parents will lead to confusion, especially among parents

who believe their children have a learning disability. Schools may also want to provide other

means for keeping parents engaged and informed, such as:

• InvolvingtheminstateandlocalplanningforRTIadoption

• Providingthemwrittenmaterialinformingparentsof theirrighttorefertheirchildatanytime

forspecialeducationevaluationasstipulatedinIDEA2004

• ProvidingwrittenmaterialthatoutlinesthecriteriafordeterminingeligibilityunderIDEA2004

andtheroleofRTIdatainmakingLDdeterminations

• Takingmeasurestobuildstrongproductiverelationshipswithparentscanonlyincreasethe

likelihoodthatstudentswillbenefitgreatlyfromaRTImodel.

Fidelity

Fidelity refers to the degree to which RTI components are implemented as designed, intended,

and planned. Fidelity is achieved through sufficient time allocation, adequate intervention

intensity, qualified and trained staff, and sufficient materials and resources. Fidelity is vital in

universal screening, instructional delivery and progress monitoring.

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

14



TheRTIProcessforTeachers

An RTI outcome vital to the effectiveness of a school system, is that all teachers, both general

and special educators, will feel an increased accountability for student learning as well as

strengthened confidence in their own skills and knowledge related to teaching reading. The goal

of all students learning to read will be a unifying force that includes all staff and all students. All

teachers will see themselves as part of a system that delivers high quality instruction that

continually assesses student progress and that provides extra help and extra time to meet the

needs of students. If we are to close the achievement gap in schools, roles of school personnel

will change.

Collaboration among teachers will increase in order to determine students needs, designate

resources and maximize student learning. Genuine access to and participation in the general

curriculum for students with disabilities may require a shift in the way we think about and

ultimately provide special education and related services. Building better readers must become

the collective responsibility of all teachers so that all students achieve.

Although RTI presents a promising way of addressing many issues associated with SLD

identification, unanswered implementation questions remain. We must ask how many issues

relevant to SLD determination are due to the specific assessment components as well as the

limited fidelity with which those components were implemented (e.g., appropriate learning

experiences, pre-referral intervention, application of exclusion clause, and aptitude- achievement

discrepancy). Further, we must consider how well states/districts/schools could implement an

assessment process that incorporates significant changes in staff roles and responsibilities (i.e.,

most dramatically for general education staff), while lengthening the duration of disability

determination assessment and possibly lengthening service time.

Another significant consideration is that current research literature provides scant scientific

evidence on how RTI applies in curricular areas other than reading and beyond primary or

elementary school age children. In conjunction with the standards that have been developed

(NCSESA, 1996 and NCTM, 2000), science-based research needs to be conducted using the RTI

construct in the areas of science and mathematics. Utilizing a RTI framework across educational

disciplines as well as grade levels is synergistic with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and

promotes the idea that schools have an obligation to ensure that all students participate in strong

instructional programs that support multi-faceted learning.

Although RTI represents a promising way of addressing many issues associated with SLD

identification, unanswered implementation questions remain. We must ask how many issues

relevant to SLD determination are due to the specific assessment components as well as the

limited fidelity with which those components have been implemented. Further, we must consider

how well schools could implement an assessment process that incorporates significant changes in

staff roles and responsibilities while lengthening the duration of disability determination

assessment.

Another significant consideration is that current research literature provides scant scientific

evidence for how RTI applies in curricular areas other than early reading and beyond primary or

elementary school-age children. In conjunction with the standards that have been developed

(National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment [NCSESA], 1996, and

NationalAssociationofSpecialEducationTeachers

NASET|Importance of RTI in Understating, Assessment, Diagnosis, and Teaching Students

with Learning Disabilities

15



National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000), science-based research needs to

be conducted using the RTI construct in the areas of later reading (e.g., reading comprehension)

as well as science and mathematics. Using an RTI framework across educational disciplines as

well as grade levels is consonant with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110)

(NCLB 2001) and promotes the values that schools have an obligation to ensure that all students

participate in strong instructional programs that support multifaceted learning.

WhatTeachersNeedinTermsofProfessionalDevelopmentand

RTI

Teachers of students with learning disabilities will need to acquire specialized knowledge to

individualize instruction, to build skills and recommend modifications and accommodations

needed for students with Learning Disabilities to be successful in the general curriculum.

Within the RTI framework, professional development will be needed to prepare these teachers to

be able to (Division for Learning Disabilities, 2006) understand and apply pedagogy related to

cognition, learning theory, language development, behavior management and applied behavioral

analysis, possess a substantial base of knowledge about criteria for identifying scientific

research-based methodology, instructional programs/methodology available for use with students

with Learning Disabilities and individualization of instruction, be proficient in providing direct

skill instruction in reading, writing, spelling, math, listening and learning strategies, be able to

adjust instruction and learning supports based on student progress, observation and clinical

judgment, conduct comprehensive evaluations that include standardized assessment measures,

informal assessment and behavioral observations as well as translate the data into meaningful

educational recommendations, explain test results to help parents and teachers understand the

student's needs and the recommendations generated during the assessment process, possess

strong communication skills to function as collaborative partners and members of problem

solving teams, be knowledgeable about the legal requirements of IDEA 2004, Federal and state

regulations, and the history of learning disabilities.

