Running head: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
Response to Intervention Amy Martinez EDU 422: Public Policy & Special Education Professor Sharon Haddy November 11, 2011
1
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
2
Response to Intervention For the purpose of this paper we will analyze whether or not pre-‐referral approaches, such as Response to Intervention, could deny students with disabilities a Free, Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). We will begin with a critical evaluation of this approach, as well as discuss the different principles of FAPE to determine the effectiveness of Response to Intervention. Response to Intervention (RTI) is often misunderstood by both parents and teachers alike who sometimes consider it to be a “stalling tactic” used to postpone formal eligibility proceedings that, in the end, hold no true value for students. However, that is not at all the purpose of RTI. RTI, by definition, is the practice of obtaining student outcome data in response to providing high-‐quality interventions to assist teams in making eligibility decisions (Bartlett, Etscheidt, & Weisenstein, 2007). Simply put, this is a scientific, research-‐based approach to solving academic and behavioral problems in the classroom that seeks to identify and resolve issues on the front end instead of waiting on the student to fail or be labeled as disabled to receive services. RTI is set up into three tiers by which students are categorized. Tier I begins by serving all students in the general education classroom by the general education teacher by which differentiated instruction is delivered using evidence based core curriculum. According to AtlasIntiative.org, students who received their instructional needs in this tier are about 80% to 85% (Atlasinitiatvie.org, 2008). For students who are behind or struggling in an area of instruction, they are placed in Tier II instruction where they will receive interventions to help them catch up in those
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
3
areas. It is important here to understand that students who receive Tier II instruction are also still receiving Tier I instruction with the rest of the class. Tier II is designed to build upon the differentiated instruction in Tier I. For instance, if a student were having difficulty in reading, they would continue to participate in regular classroom reading assignments, but also receive additional interventions at another time during the day to further work on reading. Around 15% (Atlasinitiatvie.org, 2008) of those students whose instructional needs are not met in Tier I fall into this Tier II category.
The third and final tier represents the few students whose needs are not met in
either Tier I or Tier II, and this makes up for about 5% of all classroom students (Atlasinitiatvie.org, 2008). In this tier, students receive the most intensive evidence based interventions to specifically target their academic and/or behavioral needs. These interventions can be given by either the general education teacher in the general classroom, or by a specialized or special education teacher in a resource environment.
Now, we need to understand the principles off FAPE to see how RTI affects a
student’s access to a free appropriate public education. These principles include IDEA defined concepts of Zero Reject, Nondiscriminatory Assessment, Appropriate Education and the IEP, Least Restrictive Environment, Due Process, Parent Participation, and the Right to Educational Achievement (Weishaar, 2007). A few of these principles are present in RTI as well, such as Appropriate Education, Least Restrictive Environment, and Parent Participation.
Once a child is determined to be eligible for special education services, an Individual
Education Program (IEP) is to be created specifically to address that students needs. The goals set forth in the IEP are required to be measurable and include research-‐based
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
4
instructional strategies (Bartlett, Etscheidt, & Weisenstein, 2007). This is the same in RTI where data about the students performance is collected and an intervention strategy that is evidence based is chosen to be monitored using measurable goals (Froiland, 2011). So it is a very real possibility that students receiving special education services might see some of the same or similar intervention approaches in their IEP as they underwent during pre-‐ referral interventions.
RTI also utilizes the concept of Least Restrictive Environment by allowing students
to receive intervention in the general education classroom unless otherwise determined by the pre-‐referral committee that they are better served these interventions in a specialized environment. It is important to note here that all of these pre-‐referral discussions and decisions are done alongside the student’s parents just as they would be in a formal eligibility proceeding (Bartlett, Etscheidt, & Weisenstein, 2007).
At this point, we can see that pre-‐referral interventions such as RTI are very
compatible with FAPE, showing no obvious conflict between the two that might hinder students from receiving FAPE in most circumstances. However, we have to acknowledge that there are those circumstances where there may be concerns by teachers and/or parents that RTI might impede a student’s access to special education services that they feel are desperately need. For instance, some teachers or parents may feel strongly that special education services are needed and may not understand why pre-‐referral intervention services are justified. They may feel that skipping ahead to formal evaluations is necessary for the student to receive services in a timely manner. This is an area that is best decided upon in each individual case based on data available, however, it is important for teachers and
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
5
parents to understand that much of what goes into the scientific approach of RTI must also take place in formal eligibility proceedings. Data about the student’s current performance must be evaluated, and the evaluation data obtained during pre-‐referral observations can be used to help determine eligibility for special education services (Bartlett, Etscheidt, & Weisenstein, 2007). Furthermore, there needs to be the understanding that just because a student is not formally determined to be eligible for special education services, that does not mean that their needs must go unmet until eligibility is determined. As mentioned earlier, the interventions used in RTI are evidence-‐based just like what is required in IEPs, so the student will still have access to high-‐quality instruction and intervention that may, in itself, resolve the academic and/or behavioral issues being experienced, thereby eliminating the need for more formal evaluations and eligibility proceedings (Froiland, 2011). Simply put, time and efforts are not being wasted in the pre-‐referral process. Let us go a step further to fully evaluate the relationship between RTI and FAPE by quickly discussing a scenario where a student does not respond to pre-‐referral intervention strategies. If this were to happen, the lack of response would obviously initiate the formal eligibility proceedings, however, as mentioned before, the data collected during pre-‐referral evaluations and interventions does not have to be duplicated, it can be used to determine eligibility, thereby, in some cases speeding up the process of determining eligibility. An example of this is the 2004 amendment to IDEA that no longer requires severe discrepancy to determine eligibility for Learning Disabilities, but can be determined by a lack of response to research-‐based interventions (Weishaar, 2007). So this could mean, in some cases, that the pre-‐referral intervention strategies can play a very significant role in determining eligibility.
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
6
In conclusion, when used appropriately and according to it’s defined purpose, RTI does not present a circumstance that would limit or impede a student’s access to a free, appropriate public education. In fact, the findings discussed in this paper lead to the opposite conclusion where students needs are evaluated and addressed using high-‐quality, research-‐based instructional intervention strategies based on a scientific approach.
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
7
References: Atlasinitiatvie.org. (2008, September 25). Response to Intervention: A Tiered Approach to Instructing All Students. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from AtlasInitiative for Public Education: atlasinitiative.org Bartlett, L. D., Etscheidt, S., & Weisenstein, G. R. (2007). Special Education Law and Practice
in Public Schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Froiland, J. M. (2011). Response to Intervention as a Vehicle for Powerful Mental Health
Interventions in the Schools. Contemporary School Psychology , 15, 35-‐42.
Weishaar, M. K. (2007). Case Studies in Special Education Law: No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.