Response to Intervention Instead of Special Education Screening - Research Paper Example

?RUNNING HEAD: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION INSTEAD OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SCREENING Response to Intervention instead of Special Education Screening A Research Paper Name University Professor Course Date Contents I. Introduction a. Description of RTI b. Purpose of RTI c. Inclusion of RTI in IDEA (2004) II. Benefits of RTI a. Universality of Application on Different Students and Groups b. Frequent Assessment of Abilities of Students c. Curriculum-based Implementation of RTI d. Evidence-based Implementation of RTI III. Disadvantages of RTI a. Lack of Consistent Measurement/Standards b. Lack of Training on Measurement Tools Associated with RTI c. Difficulty in Using RTI across Large Numbers d. Local vs. National Standards IV. Current Variations of RTI Use a. RTI to Replace Regular SPED Screening b. RTI in Conjunction with SPED screening c. No RTI V. Recommendations for Future Methodology a. More Standardized Criteria for RTI Results b. RTI Use for Entire Population c. Continue SPED Screening d. Implement a Shared Approach Using both Tools/Systems Response to Intervention instead of Special Education Screening I. Introduction Description of RTI Response to Intervention, commonly referred to RTI in the education discipline is a form of academic intervention and a multilayered approach that provides services to students by specifically providing the type of education that suit their level of academic need through the corresponding level of instruction. It is a new model in education used in the United States which specifically functions as a special education identification method (Harlacher, Nelson Walker & Sanford, 2010, p.30). RTI is composed of different levels of instructional supports within which the students are assigned on the basis of the results gathered from screening and progress monitoring data. There are variations to the structure of RTI model but the most common example is the three-tiered model. Tier 1 is composed of scientifically based curriculum with differentiation in terms of instructions to be able to prevent possible learning difficulties. The main subject matters within the said tier include essential skills or basic ideas in a particular academic area or discipline. This is undertaken between 90 and 120 minutes. Tier 2 is the next level in the said model is an addition course of instruction for the students who had been assessed to have learning deficit through the Tier 1. Between 20 and 45 minutes of standardized treatment protocol the students are given attention to be able to develop their learning needs specifically in terms of problem solving protocols. Tier 3 then is the most intensive level of support given to the students upon assessment through the earlier levels. Due to the confirmed need for learning support, the students are provided with intense and explicit instructions. The assessment of their learning capabilities are also undertaken by educators with background, training and experience in teaching students with severe learning difficulties (Harlacher, Nelson Walker & Sanford, 2010, p.30-31; Marston, 2005). Based on RTI model then, it can be considered that the main mechanism for the said method in learning and student capability assessment is the determination and resolution of the students’ capabilities to be able provide learning support through research-based instructions (Harlacher, Nelson Walker & Sanford, 2010, p. 31). Due to the different parameters, methods and guidelines within which RTI is implemented, it is continuously subjected to both supports and criticisms from different stakeholders, educational institutions, and the public. The research undertaken is aimed to present a view on the different components, policies, and issues that can help achieve a deeper understanding of the implementation of the Response to Intervention method. Purpose of RTI Response to Intervention has the main purpose of supporting student in the learning process which is specifically important for those who have learning difficulties and disabilities. Specific goals of RTI include different points that target the needs of the students. The first goal is the systematic application of scientific, research-based interventions in the general education settings. Another aim is the measurement of the response of the students to the different interventions employed for research, assessment, and further development. The third purpose of RTI is the use of data gathered from the implementation of the different methods and processes within the program to be able to inform instruction (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008, p.136). In relation to specific programs of application of RTI such as the specific learning disability (SLD), one of the main purposes is the development and update of the view and practice based on specific objectives. One of the said objectives is the identification of the students through the use of risk model rather then the use of deficit model. Another is objective is the early identification and instruction of the students with SLD. The reduction of the identification bias is another objective in the implementation of RTI specifically for SLD cases. This can be attributed to the higher probability and efficiency in the identification process which is advantageous for the students of greatest academic needs. Lastly, the integration the different processes such as the identification assessment and the instructional planning and progress monitoring (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008, p.137). The purpose of the establishment of RTI can have different meaning for different groups. For the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD), RTI is for the “assistance on issues in the area of identification and assessment of children with learning disabilities” as quoted by Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever (2008, p.137). Based other organizations such as the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE), the purpose of RTI is not solely focused on the SLD identification but for the benefit of the general education community for the provision of knowledge and technical assistance in the totality of educational activities for all children, including those with special leaning needs (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008, p.137). In general, the purpose of RTI is the employment of evidence-based interventions with the use of the responses of students as parameters for the determination of the variety of educational and learning needs (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008, p.137). Defining the purpose of RTI can serve as a guide in the research and study of the different components, guidelines and issues incorporated in the concept. Inclusion of RTI in IDEA (2004) RTI is considered as a new approach in the determination of the needs of students in terms of learning, for example, the cases of specific learning disabilities. In 2004, it had been incorporated to the Individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA), the special education law or Public Law 108-446. Upon the inclusion of RTI in the said law, it had brought about major changes specifically in terms of the increase in the emphasis of the process of identification toward the provision of support and intervention to students experiencing different levels and types of difficulties in the learning process. An example of which is the No Child Left Behind policy (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008, p. 280). RTI was initially targeting the SLD cases alone but due to the needed of the educational system, the inclusion of the method to IDEA in 2004 became a means of action for the different educational institutions to provide solutions and interventions prior to the formal identification of the learning disability (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008, p.137). Through the IDEA, the RTI was implemented on the basis of response to instruction of the individual students (Ofiesh, 2006, p.883). The integration of RTI to the IDEA accomplished two tasks. One is the improvement of the process of identifying students with specific learning disability (SLD). Another is the possibility, for each state to prevent the use of aptitude-achievement discrepancy model as a basis for learning capability of the students (Ofiesh, 2006, p. 883). RTI provides an easier method for the identification of SLD in student which can help the educators in the assessment of the students to answer the expectation of their capability to categorize the capability of the students to be able to help them individually (p.885). II. Benefits of RTI Due to the perceived need for the establishment of RTI method, there are numerous benefits that can be presented in relation to its application in the educational system. Universality of Application on Different Students and Groups One of the benefits of RTI is the universality of application on different types and groups of students. Although RTI was initially established for the sole identification of students with specific learning disability, the application of the said educational process to the general education community had been stressed by different groups and stakeholders in the education community. The function to help all students contributes to the different levels of the teaching process. From the identification and determination of the capabilities of the students, to the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and even to the assessment and analysis of empirical data gathered (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008, p.137). The universality of RTI is mainly focused on the different types of students across the country. This means that RTI can be utilized and applied to students of different levels, skills, capabilities, ages, nationalities, groups, and other parameters of stratification. As the RTI progressed through the years, the focus is moving towards general education rather that SLD alone. The application of RTI across all students and groups had been stressed by Hollenbeck in 2007 as quoted by Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever (2008) that the focus of RTI is contributing to the improvement of the general education for all learners. This is based on the importance of giving attention to the capability of students from different educational setting to positively work on their achievement in the process of learning (p.137). Frequent Assessment of Abilities of Students Another benefit of the RTI instruction, which is included in the research confirmed by the International Reading Association’s (IRA) Commission on RTI, is the provision of systematic assessment of student performance on a regular or periodic basis. As compared to other tools of assessment employed by certain states or educational institutions, frequent systematic assessment is one of the main purposes of RTI with specific focus on skills such as reading and other performances (Walker-Dalhouse et al., 2009, p.84). The frequent assessment of students is based on the needs for the data and information to serve as basis for evidence-based implementation of RTI. The assessment methods vary on the basis of the grade level. Monitoring of the progress of students is important, for example, for K-3 teacher’s focus on On-The-Mark Assessment Kit. On the other hand, for other levels inclusion of subjects such as reading comprehension, vocabulary, and analysis of texts are examples of the skills being assessed and developed. RTI is an assessment of both multidimensional and single skills depending on the goals of the program or the educational institution (Walker-Dalhouse et al., 2009, p.85). Curriculum-based Implementation of the RTI The curriculum-based implementation RTI is also considered as another benefit. This can be attributed to the systematic and organized application of RTI method which can ultimately benefit the stakeholders specifically the students. There are two perceived points of importance as related to the benefit of being curriculum-based. One is the provision of differentiated and appropriate instruction. The different tiers in RTI are incorporated to the lessons of the students, thus, it is curriculum-based. In addition to learning then, the assessment of the students’ capabilities can be undertaken. Another point is related to the provision of high-quality professional development. With the application of RTI in the curriculum, the traditional professional development techniques had been improved. This can be attributed to the process of assessment upon implementation (Walker-Dalhouse et al., 2009, p.85). Evidence-based Implementation of RTI One of the most significant features of RTI is being evidence-based. The different components of RTI are based on information gathered from observation and assessment. The evidences and empirical data then constitute an essential part of the process. In addition, RTI is implemented on the basis of standardized, systematic, and specifically focused on the needs of the students. These are the main prerequisites to evidence-based application, which can be considered to be statistically and empirically significant in research (Walker-Dalhouse et al., 2009, p.85). In addition, scientifically valid interventions are implemented within the RTI program. This is considered as one of the basic guidelines in RTI program, that the interventions need to be “scientifically valid, public, implemented with integrity, and systematically evaluated III. Disadvantages of RTI RTI needs continuous development and improvement on the basis of the changing needs of the students. The limitations and shortcomings of the program can be related to the disadvantages in the application of RTI methods. Lack of Consistent Measurement/Standards The different stages and components of RTI require careful study and assessment. In every part of the process, there is a strong need for the guidance standards and parameters. The assessment, stratification, and implementation of the different resolutions and interventions need consistency in terms of measurement and standardization. This is important to prevent discrepancies in the results of RTI (McKenzie, 2009, p. 203). The need for consistent measurement and standards is essential in RTI process prior to the assessment of the learning skills of the student. When the initial stages are compromised, the results can be considered insignificant. Thus, the need for improved system of measurement and established standards can be considered as one of the main priorities of RTI. The said problem is often overlooked due to the oversimplified view of the learning disabilities in RTI. One of the problems related to the said issue is the presence of substantial variability of the different RTI models as well as implementation methods (McKenzie, 2009, p. 203). The main problem with the lack of consistent measurements and standards is the occurrence of different types of errors and discrepancies such as mistakes in measurement, questions on the validity of the gathered data, inaccuracy in the identification, and probability of legal challenges (McKenzie, 2009, p. 203). The use of RTI in the assessment of the leaning abilities requires proper and uniform measurement. Being the main procedure used for the identification of SLD cases, it is important to have trustworthy measuring standard and measurement. Lack of Training on Measurement Tools Associated with RTI Although RTI can be considered as the main type of intervention and assessment method, representatives need to study and to train to be able to successfully impart the method. The lack of standardized systems in measurement and in the process contributes to the difficulty in learning the components and policies of RTI. Leaning RTI for teaching can often be overlooked and be oversimplified. In the study by Harlacher, Nelson Walker, & Sanford (2010) presented methods to intensity instruction. This can be undertaken in cases of lack of complete RTI instruction training. Improvement in the factors such as time allotted for instruction, instructional grouping, repetitions for success, amount of judicious review, interventionist facilitating the group, pacing, praise-to-corrective-feedback ratio, precorrection, and error correction. Another important method to improve the manner of teaching is through instructional planning (p.32). Additional factors which are related to effective instructional can also be considered important to answer the shortcomings in instructional training. These factors are the type of curriculum used, the fidelity of implementation, and the behavior management specifically for multitiered model of instruction (p.32). Difficulty in Using RTI across Large Numbers The application of RTI for large numbers of students is considered as another disadvantage and limitation. RTI was established and designed to focus on individual students within a small group. The different tiers in intervention are based on intimate attention given to the each student. This limits the application of RTI to small groups (Marston, 2005). The application of the program to large number of students can be considered as improbable due to the fact that it large number can compromise the efficiency and the effectiveness of the teaching process. On the other hand, another rate of data gathering, assessment and analysis of the performance of the students will slow down (Marston, 2005). The number of students for the program is one of the main limitations of RTI. Increasing the number of students, for example converting the classes to large numbers, can compromise the main objectives of the program which are attention to individual students and the regular, updated and frequent assessment of the performance of each students for evidence-based instruction and support. Local vs. National Standards Another limitation of RTI is the variation in implementation due to the effect of the local or district standards and the national standards. Based on the fact that RTI had been incorporated to the IDEA in 2004, the rule of implantation and application is greatly linked to the United States Constitution. Although it helps in the legalization and the implementation of policies, legal provisions in terms of local laws and standards are needed to be clearly established and integrated prior to its application. Local standards prioritize local needs of the students and educational institutions while national standards assess the common needs of the country in terms of education. Thus, differences and variations of RTI standards vary based on localities (Ofiesh, 2006). IV. Current Variations of RTI Use In relation to the variations in standards of RTI, it is also important to determine the different types of RTI use. RTI to Replace Regular SPED Screening RTI as a replacement to SPED screening is a significant view. One reason is the fact that the application of RTI had been mandated by law to determine and to identity the students with SLD. One technicality that can be considered through is the defining criteria between the SPED and the SLD students. Another justification of the complete replacement of RTI for SPED screening is the fact that it is mainly established for the determination of children with special cases and who need special attention (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008, p.138). Another important point that can be given attention is the fact that RTI is not limited to the identification of the SLD cases but its paradigm is to impose resolution specifically described through the different tiers of action within the program (Marston, 2005). RTI in Conjunction with SPED screening In terms of the cases wherein RTI functions to assist other forms of SPED screening method implemented by an educational institution, there are different reasons and positive aspects that can be viewed. One of the reasons is the fact that RTI alone cannot accomplish the screening for an educational institution of huge population, thus, a need for another form of screening system can still be needed. Basically, due to the capability of RTI to assist and support the students in need continuously, no other SPED screening method should be necessary. Due to the reality that schools have high percentage of SLD cases under the normal norm, integrated and synergistic implementation of assessment and solution can be considered as a smart and systematic plan. It can be perceived that due to the advanced capability of RTI to identify, assess, and help the SLD cases, it can revolutionize the SPED systems through the provision of support. This can be considered as a more pragmatic, practical, and firm approach (Shinn, 2007). No RTI The effectiveness and efficiency of RTI can be considered as case-specific. There are different limitations to the application of the program. For that matter, another scenario is that educational institution prevents the implementation of RTI on the basis of different reasons. Included in the reasons that can prevent the school to employ RTI are the financial and technical demands of the establishment of the program (Shinn, 2007, p. 614). The establishment of RTI requires upgrade of the systems, the training of personnel, and the addition of staffs that will assist in the different aspects of the program. For example, the educators are needed to be trained but they need additional staff that can update and keep records due to the intensive and periodic data gathering that can generate significant amount of data and information (Friedman, 2010, p. 210). V. Recommendations for Future Methodology Upon the determination and study of the different concepts related to the implementation and application of RTI in different educational institutions and settings, it is important to create a future perspective of the concept. This view includes future applications, possible limitations and challenges, and the topic for research and exploration. More Standardized Criteria for RTI Results The issues regarding the need for more standardized criteria and implementation for RTI results are based on the viewed limitation regarding the lack of consistent measurement and standards that can serve as guidelines for the implementation of RTI. Although the establishment of an organized set of guidelines regarding RTI processes which involve assessment, identification, data gathering, and analysis can be considered as a challenging task, it should be of utmost priority to be able to decrease discrepancies, doubts and criticisms (Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008, p. 287). RTI Use for Entire Population The future of RTI application should cover the entire population as a basis of growth. From being limited to SLD identification and assessment, RTI had grown to the application for assessment of the general population of students. For that matter, the expansion to help people indifferent settings such as the workplace and the home can be an important area for research to be able to have an early intervention to different learning and coping problems (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008, p.136). It is important to note that early assessment of the specific needs in learning should be given priority. RTI use and awareness for the entire population is essential for consciousness of the public if not for the application for themselves but for the people around them. For example, an aware parent can actively initiate the needs of his or her child by seeking assistance to the educational authorities or other institutions in the society (Heasley, 2011). Continue SPED Screening Even though the coverage of the role and function of RTI had expanded, the continued application in SPED screening had never been eliminated. It is important to continue the development and research on the best methods to be contributed to the said field since RTI can be considered as the most important process of assessment, identification, and intervention for SLD and SPED cases (Ofiesh, 2006). Implement a Shared Approach Using both Tools/Systems The implementation of shared approach with other method, models, and techniques covered by the educational system specifically of the SPED in important. For that matter, due to the significant role and contribution of RTI, continuous research on the possible cooperation and integration with other methods is needed to be given attention and priority. VI. Conclusion Based on the study undertaken, an important view on the concept of RTI had been achieved. The definition and meaning of the different components of RTI had been understood. In conclusion, RTI since its establishment had contributed to the process of resolving cases of SLD. It had also contributed greatly to the endeavors of SPED in providing assistance in terms of education to the students of such needs. In addition, RTI has developed its role which contributed to the totality of the educational system specifically in the United States. References Friedman, E.K. (2010). Secondary prevention in an RTI model: A step toward academic recovery. The Reading Teacher, 64(3), 207-210. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Harlacher, J.E., Nelson Walker, N.J., & Sanford, A.K. (2010). The “I” in RTI: Research-based factors for intensifying instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 30-38. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Heasley, S. (2011). Schools warned about delaying special education assessments. Retrieved from http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2011/02/01/schools-warned-sped-evals/12148/ Kavale, K.A., Kauffman, J.M., Bachmeier, R.J., & LeFever, G.B. (2008). Response-to-intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(Summer), 135-150. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 539-544. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. McKenzie, R.G. (2009). Obscuring vital distinctions: The oversimplification of learning disabilities within RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(Fall), 203-215. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Mesmer, E.M. & Mesmer, H.A.E. (2008). Response to intervention (RTI): What teachers of reading need to know. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 280-290. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 883-888. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Shinn, M.R. (2007). Identifying students at risk, monitoring performance, and determining eligibility within response to intervention: Research on educational needs and benefit from academic intervention. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 601-617. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Walker-Dalhouse, D., Risko, V.J., Esworthy, C., Grasley. E., Kaisler, G., McIlvain, D. & Stephan, M. (2009). Crossing boundaries and initiating conversations about RTI: Understanding and applying differentiated classroom instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63 (1), 84-87. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier. Read More