RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION - Education Evolving

[Pages:24]RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

An alternative to traditional eligibility criteria for

e e students with disabilities

The latest in a series of reports on the changing face of public education July 2005

A joint venture of the Center for Policy Studies and Hamline University

ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF AN `OPEN SECTOR' IN EDUCATION

Much of the work being done by Education|Evolving is to help create and sustain an "Open Sector" in public education ? in Minnesota and elsewhere in the country. By "Open Sector," we mean a "space" in public education that is open to new entrants ? new schools that are started from scratch by teachers, parents, community organizations and multi-school networks. The "Open Sector" is also open to new authorizers or sponsors ? entities other than school districts that oversee schools. The "Open Sector" is open to new learning programs and to new ways of governing and managing schools. And, as part of a broadening definition of public education, the "Open Sector" is open to all students who choose to attend schools in that sector.

The "Open Sector" is based on the premise that we cannot get the degree of change and improvement we need in education by relying only on fixing the schools we now have. And, to get enough new schools that are fundamentally different, we need a combination of public policies and private actions that will allow new schools to emerge and that will create an environment in which they can succeed. This kind of positive environment for creating and sustaining new schools can be established on a state-level through actions led by state policy makers. It can also be done ? and is certainly needed ? in major urban communities all across America.

Though chartered schools may be the most visible part of the "Open Sector" today, this concept of a positive environment for creating and sustaining successful new schools is not limited to charters. The "Open Sector" can also include schools operating within a district or state on some kind of contract other than a charter ? as long as they are truly autonomous, accountable and open to all students who chose them.

There is also no prescribed or uniform learning program presumed by this vision for creating many more schools new. In fact, there's an urgent need to better understand, respect and address the individual differences in students. It's likely, however, that successful new schools in the "Open Sector" will be smaller and that they will make it possible for all students to take a more active role in their learning and to develop more direct and nurturing relationships with adults.

ABOUT THIS REPORT AND ITS AUTHOR

This publication is the latest E|E report on the changing face of public education, both nationally and in Minnesota. The report describes and provides a review of the research on an alternative learning model called Response to Intervention (RTI). This model may be used for any student experiencing difficulty in school, but has particular application in the Special Education environment.

Under this model, student performance data are gathered frequently and are immediately available to teachers, psychologists and others. The data are then available to help evaluate that effectiveness of the instruction strategies being used and, when warranted, spur modifications in teaching and learning models that can produce better results.

Research and writing for this publication was done by E|E associate Robert J. Wedl. Wedl, who directs E|E's sponsorship initiatives, is a former Minnesota Commissioner of Education and former senior executive in the Minneapolis Public Schools, including service as the district's director of special education. Final editing and production supervision was provided by E|E's coordinator, Jon Schroeder.

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Response to Intervention

An Alternative to Traditional Eligibility Criteria for Students with Disabilities

The latest in a series of reports on the changing face of public education

July 2005 _____

RTI MODEL IS BASED ON RESEARCH BY NATION'S LEADING EDUCATORS

Preface

Since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, states, local districts and the federal government have been focused on how to change our public schools to improve student performance. Numerous programs have been initiated and billions of dollars have been expended.

While many of these initiatives have focused on students considered to be "at risk," little change in state or federal policy has occurred regarding the identification and evaluation of children and youth with disabilities. The basic standards currently in place regarding the identification and evaluation of these students have remained relatively unchanged since the late 1970's.

Much has been learned the past 35 years regarding the assessment and evaluation of student performance and the use of scientifically based instructional practices. As educators, we must embrace this new work and move forward with its implementation because improved practices will be positive for children and youth. Fortunately both the research and emerging federal policy are providing the needed direction for this change especially with academic based disabilities such as the classification of learning disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ? 97) significantly changed the interaction of the regular classroom and special education into more of a single system. In

November 2004, IDEA was again re-authorized and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA).

The reauthorized law expands on the positive changes started with IDEA-97 in terms of the focus on bringing the regular classroom and the special education program together. IDEIA addressed what many education leaders have been recommending for some time...that being the reliance on I.Q. testing as a required component of the identification of children with learning disabilities needed to be removed.

IDEIA removes the requirements of the "significant discrepancy" formula for learning disabilities classification based on I.Q. tests and requires that states must permit districts to instead adopt alternative models including the "Response to Intervention (RTI)" model.

The RTI model is based on research conducted by some of this nation's leading educators and researchers. While the RTI model provides a valid means for identifying students, another benefit of RTI is that it merges special education into the overall policies of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) such as having clear standards, useful measurement and sound instructional practices. It clearly lays the groundwork for bringing a new focus on enhancing the performance of all students including those with disabilities through a common system in which

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION ______________________________________________________________________________________________

classroom teachers, special education teachers and other

schools. This paper provides a review of the research regarding

specialists can work together.

RTI and the practical implementation model suggested provides

The results of implementing an RTI model will not only a starting point for sites to change their current practices to this

be reduced paperwork and Individual Education Plans (IEP's)

exciting new model.

more focused on the attainment of learning standards, but it also

Robert J. Wedl

provides a new focus on improving student performance in

collaboration with all of those delivering educational services for

these children.

While procedural compliance must always be achieved,

in many districts, "being in compliance" has unfortunately

become special education's primary goal. The goal to improve

student learning has been the "forgotten goal." RTI helps to

make student learning the renewed focus.

Perhaps this is RTI's most powerful benefit. Students

can no longer just be referred out of the classroom. Sound

evidence that research-based instructional interventions have

been initiated and data verifying the impact of these

interventions are key components to the RTI evaluation and

decision-making model.

Student performance data are gathered frequently and

are immediately available to teachers, psychologists and others.

They provide information to those delivering instruction as to

the effectiveness of that instruction. Based on these data,

instruction must be modified or changed. Students do not

continue in programs that are not working for them.

The frequent collection of data, aligned to state, local

and IEP standards, tells the teachers whether the student is on

track to meet these standards. If the student is not progressing,

teachers must change what they are doing because the

instructional strategies being implemented are not working with

the student.

While educators suggest that "this is what we do," in

reality, instructional modification does not occur frequently and

typically is not done systematically or based on performance

data. At times we try to make students change when it is our

instruction that must change.

The use of the RTI model is not unique to special

education nor does this paper suggest that it is. It can and should

be used for any student that is experiencing difficulty in our

2

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION ______________________________________________________________________________________________

I. Introduction

This paper describes the Response to Intervention (RTI) model that gained credibility in recent years as an alternative to traditional special education criteria for students with highincidence disabilities.

RTI, however, is more than a part of an eligibility model for special education services. The model is a useful approach to providing data-based decision-making for any students who may be in need of extra interventions for improving their performance.

This paper addresses the following topics: history of learning disabilities, eligibility issues, the reauthorization of IDEA 97, the RTI model, RTI research, and model implementation.

II. History of How Public Policy has Defined Learning Disabilities

Public Law 94-142

Federal support for special education services in this country became a reality in 1976 with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142).

Hailed as one of the most influential federal laws affecting the delivery of education services to students with disabilities, this historic legislation contained several mandates, including: a free and appropriate public education for students with disabilities, an education in the least restrictive environment, due process rights for parents, access to technically adequate and nondiscriminatory evaluation procedures as well as other provisions.

This legislation was renewed with the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1990 (101-476, IDEA) and again reauthorized in 1997 (IDEA, 1997).

IDEA 97 identifies thirteen categories of disability. By far the largest category is Learning Disabilities, which includes almost 52% of the students served in special education in this country (Gresham, 2001). It is also the disability category that

has created the most controversy over the past thirty years. Much of the concern is related to definition and eligibility.

Definitional Issues

The definition of learning disabilities has changed very little since the 1960s. According to the Learning Disabilities Association of America's website (), Samuel Kirk initially used the term "learning disability" at a national conference in 1963 to describe students having difficulty learning. In his work, Kirk described learning disabilities as follows:

Children with specific learning disabilities means those children who have a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. Such disorders include such conditions as perceptual handicaps brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Such term does not include children who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (p. 65803).

The definition has changed very little since then (Ysseldyke and Marston, 1999). In Public Law 94-142, specific learning disability is defined as:

...a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations. [P.L. 94-142, 121a. 5b(9)]

IDEA 97

While continuing to reinforce important concepts outlined in previous special education legislation, the passage of IDEA 97 also recognized the significance of new issues, such as the importance of regular education interventions and the use of

3

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION ______________________________________________________________________________________________

problem solving models for serving students with disabilities

(vi) Mathematics calculation.

(Prasse, 2002). IDEA 97 states:

(vii) Mathematics reasoning.

Over 20 years of research and experience has demonstrated

(b) The team may not identify a child as having a specific

that the education of children with disabilities can be made

disability if the severe discrepancy between ability and

more effective...(F) providing incentives for whole-school

achievement is primarily the result of ?

approaches and pre-referral interventions to reduce the need

(1) A visual, hearing, or motor impairment;

to label children as disabled in order to address their learning

(2) Mental retardation;

needs; and (G) focusing resources on teaching and learning

(3) Emotional disturbance; or

while reducing paperwork and requirements that do not assist

(4) Environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.

in improving educational results (Section 601(c)(5), IDEA).

Because of this broad definition and lack of clarity

Prasse (2002) also observed that IDEA 97 contained

regarding what constitutes a learning disability, the category has

several provisions that reinforced the coordination of general

become a "catch-all" label. Gresham (2001) refers to a

and special education. He noted extensive research and

suggestion by G. Reid Lyon of the National Institute of Child

experience had, "demonstrated that the education of children

and Human Development that "learning disabilities have become

with disabilities can be made more effective by (a) having high

a sociological sponge to wipe up the spills of general education"

expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the

(p. 1).

general curriculum to the maximum extent possible; (b)

In part, this is due to inconsistent application of the

strengthening the role of parents and ensuring families have

definition. Gresham goes on to point out, "Findings over the

meaningful opportunities to participate...(p.72).

past 15 years have pointed out the lack of consistent definition in

Despite the emergence of these new concepts in IDEA policy or practice in the identification of LD students. Research

97, a traditional definition of learning disabilities remained. The findings indicate that substantial proportions of school-identified

final regulations of IDEA 97 ? 300.541 define the criteria for

LD students ? from 52 to 70 percent ? fail to meet state or

determining the existence of a specific learning disability in this federal eligibility criteria" (p. 1).

way:

Fletcher, et al. (1998) raise the issue that the current

(a) A team may determine that a child has a specific learning

model for identification is a "wait to fail" approach that does not

disability if ? (1) The child does not achieve commensurate with his or

get needed education services to students with disabilities until 3rd or 4th grade. Often the initial referral is made as early as first

her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed

grade when the teacher recognizes the student is having

in paragraph (a) (2) of this section, if provided with learning significant difficulty in learning to read.

experiences appropriate for the child's age and ability

However, the ability-achievement discrepancy model

levels; and

tends not to identify these students as needing the intensive

(2) The team finds that a child has a severe discrepancy

instruction found in special education. "For treatment, the use of

between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more the discrepancy models forces identification to an older age

of the following areas:

when interventions are demonstrably less effective" (Fletcher et

(i) Oral expression.

al., 1998, p. 201).

(ii) Listening comprehension.

(iii) Written expression.

(iv) Basic reading skill.

(v) Reading comprehension.

4

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION ______________________________________________________________________________________________

III. Eligibility Issues

There are many issues regarding the criteria for eligibility for learning disabilities which include both technical and conceptual problems. A critical problem is the lack of professional agreement on what constitutes a learning disability.

Naturally this results in significant inconsistencies for LD eligibility across the nation (Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Epps, 1983). Macmillan et al. (1998) found similar results. Reschly and Tilly (2000) report the prevalence figures for learning disabilities across fifty states range from 2.73% to 9.43%. They conclude, "these variations in prevalence are more likely to be related to unique state-by-state practices regarding how children and youth with mild disabilities are identified as disabled than to real differences in student populations."

Some of these inconsistencies may be attributed to technical issues related to the ability-achievement discrepancy score. Reschly and Ysseldyke (2002) note discrepancy scores may contain considerable measurement error. These authors stated, "the exact size of ability-achievement discrepancy is significantly less reliable than either of the tests used to determine the discrepancy" (p. 8).

Another difficulty is related to the use of IQ tests as a measure of ability (Siegal, 1989) and its potential for discrimination (Larry P. v. Riles, 1977, 1984; Galagan, 1985). If there is bias in these instruments for some populations of students, it raises the question as to whether they can be used in the eligibility process.

For disabilities, such as developmental cognitive disabilities, where the IQ score is an important element of the criteria, one might see "over-representation" of certain groups. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences concluded, "The balance that is struck between IQ and other measures is likely to have significant consequences for the proportion of minority children placed in educable mentally retarded (EMR) classes, since minority children consistently score lower on standardized tests of ability than do white children" (Heller, Holtzman, and Messick, 1982).

For the learning disabilities category, the abilityachievement discrepancy formula may contribute to underrepresentation. Since the "ability" part of this equation is measured by IQ, a student who performs poorly on the IQ test will have difficulty demonstrating a significant discrepancy between ability and achievement, and therefore not be found eligible for services to which they are entitled (Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999).

Just as problematic is the lack of research demonstrating a connection between assessment and instruction for students found eligible through the discrepancy process.

Gresham (2001) writes, "The most serious flaw in the current process is the absence of a direct link between assessment procedures used for identification and subsequent interventions that might be prescribed on the basis of these assessment procedures. What appears to be needed is an approach to defining LD that is based on how students respond to instructional interventions rather than on some arbitrarily defined discrepancy between ability and achievement" (page 3).

Finally, researchers have noted that differentiating between LD, MR, and low achieving has always been problematic. Gresham, MacMillan, and Bocian (1996), showed considerable overlap among these groups on a variety of educational variables.

The Algozzine, Ysseldyke and McGue (1995) research also revealed few differences between low achieving and learning disabled students. Vellutino et al. (2000) also addressed the problems of using a discrepancy formula to differentiate the needs of students who need help in reading.

IV. Most Recent Reauthorization of IDEA-97 -- to IDEIA

The reauthorization of the Individual Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 1997) occurred in November 2004. Both the House version (H.R. 1350) and the Senate version (S. 1248) acknowledged the difficulties with the traditional IQachievement discrepancy. The "House Committee on Education

5

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION ______________________________________________________________________________________________

and the Workforce" Report 108-077 quotes Dr. Robert

even with these services, are not able to be successful. The

Pasternack, former Assistant Secretary for Special Education

focus of RTI is on responding to the instructional challenges

and Rehabilitative Services:

caused by the disability not on giving tests to document the

"The convergence of scientific research about LD

failure of the student." (Testimony provided on March 13,

["Learning Disabled"], especially reading difficulties

2003)

associated with LD, has placed us on the edge of new

The reauthorized IDEIA recognized these problems and

knowledge that we did not have even a few short years ago. now includes the following provision at Section 614 (a) (6)

We now know, for example, that the way we have

Specific Learning Disabilities:

traditionally looked at assessment of learning disabilities

(A) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding section 607 (b), when

needs to be re-thought based on recent research in the use

determining whether a child has a specific learning

and role of IQ test in assessments for eligibility. We know

disability as defined in section 602, a local educational

that using IQ discrepancy between the test and performance

agency shall not be required to take into consideration

is not always an indicator of a learning disability. Indeed,

whether a child has a severe discrepancy between

some research indicates that if a child who reads slowly

achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression,

has IQ scores that are above average, that child might

listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading

receive services under IDEA based on the discrepancy

skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation or

between the IQ scores and the reading ability. On the other

mathematical reasoning.

hand, another child who also reads slowly but has IQ scores (B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY. In determining whether a

that are average may not receive any services because of

child has a specific learning disability, a local education

the lack of a significant discrepancy. Such approaches to

agency may use a process that determines if the child re-

assessment may clearly result in some children who need

sponds to scientific, research-based interventions as a part of

services not getting them wile other who do not need them

the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2) and

will receive them."

(3).

In response to these criticisms the Committee

The above language was supported by the President's

recommended that LEAs be permitted (not required) to utilize

Commission on Excellence in Special Education. The

Response to Intervention (RTI) procedures. Doug Carnine,

Commission recommended simplifying the identification

director of the National Center to Improve the Tools of

process and stated "that assessments that reflect learning and

Educators at the University of Oregon testified before the House behavior in the classroom be encouraged and that "a student's

Committee on Education and the Workplace, Subcommittee on response to scientifically based instruction become part of the

Education Reform as follows:

criteria for SLD identification."

"Given the converging evidence and agreement in the field

During the spring of 2004 both versions passed in their

that we must do something better for our children, the

legislative body, HR 1350 passed in April and S. 1248 passed in

following model is recommended as the basis to improve

May with Congress taking final action on November 19, 2004

how we provide early intervention and identification:

followed by the President's signing the bill into law. The

Response to Intervention Model (RTI). An RTI model would National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)

be designed to ensure that children who are indicating a

developed a side by side comparison that can be found at

likelihood of failing in the early grades receive scientifically

based instruction as soon as possible. The eligibility for

df. A summary of testimony for H. R. 1350 and S. 1248 can

special education services would focus on the children who, also be found at this site.

6

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download