How is RTI used in Oregon?

What is RTI?

LDA Supports the National Children's Study

Oregon's Response to Intervention Initiative (Or- RTI)

Tigard-Tualatin School District has developed a "Response to Intervention" (RTI) training program for ODE (Oregon Dept. of Ed.). Tigard-Tualatin has implemented the key components of the RTI approach for nearly five years and as a result has valuable experience that will aid the Department in disseminating their nationally recognized resources and knowledge statewide.

Five school districts have been selected to participate in Or-RTI. The five districts chosen demonstrated commitment to the RTI process, long- term goals for their district, and the resources needed to carry through a major systems change. They are: Sheridan School District, Ontario School District, Roseburg School District, Corvallis School District, and Pendleton School District.

The purpose of this project is to provide training, technical assistance, and guidance to school districts that would like to implement the RTI system of prevention and eligibility determination district-wide. The project will focus on training and technical assistance to establish school and district capacity to implement and sustain RTI systems in Oregon.

Nine districts that applied for the OrRTI grant but did not receive it are now receiving grant money to bring their districts to a higher level of readiness for RTI. These schools districts had many of the components in place that create an appropriate environment for RTI implementation, but needed some extra assistance to be ready for initial training. The grant monies will be used to fund various projects in the districts, from teaming between general education and special education teachers and administrators to purchasing supplementary curricula. The nine districts receiving grants are: Banks, Bethel, Hood River, Ione, Lebanon, Medford, North Clackamas, Nyssa, and Woodburn.

On January 27th, ODE and the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (COSA) teamed up to create a day of "Action Planning for RTI Readiness." Presenters from the University of Oregon and ODE spoke about topics such as school-wide screening and progress monitoring and tying assessment to core and supplementary curricula. ODE and COSA will be holding another RTI conference on May 19th in Eugene. Please look for information on the COSA Web site: www.cosa.k12.or.us

LDA of Oregon has elected new officers!

President: Kristina Breaux, Ph.D.

Vice-President: Larry Bruseau

Secretary: Linda Stenberg, LPC

Treasurer: Kim Barton

National LDA Conference in Jacksonville:

"Response to intervention" and the determination of a specific learning disability was a hot topic at this year's national LDA conference. Among all the controvery and confusion, we want to keep you informed. Keep in mind, the federal definition of "specific learning disability" remains unchanged; however, states and school districts may differ considerably in the criteria used to identify learning disabilities and determine eligibility for services.

In recent years, a problem-solving approach referred to as responsiveness to intervention (RTI) has received increased attention as a process of remedial interventions that can help generate data to guide instruction and identify students with learning disabilities (LD) who may require special education and related services. Core concepts include the systematic (1) application of scientific, research- based interventions in general education; (2) measurement of student responses to the interventions; and (3) use of the response data to change the intensity or type of subsequent intervention.

Historically, RTI refines earlier initiatives such as prereferral intervention and teacher assistance teams. Recent interest in RTI has emerged from concern about the inadequacies of the ability- achievement discrepancy criterion for identifying LD, the need to reduce referrals to special education by using well-designed instruction and intensified interventions in general education, and the recent NICHD-coordinated research on early reading difficulties indicating that early intervention could significantly reduce reading problems in students. IDEA 2004 now includes language permitting the use of data from a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures as an alternative criterion to the ability-achievement discrepancy. In addition, up to 15% of Part B funds can be used for "early intervening services...[for those needing] additional academic and behavioral support..."

Although there is no universal RTI model, it is generally understood to include multiple tiers that provide a sequence of programs and services for students showing academic difficulties. Briefly, Tier 1 provides high-quality instruction and behavioral supports in general education, Tier 2 provides more specialized instruction for students whose performance and rate of progress lag behind classroom peers, and Tier 3 provides comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary team to determine if the student has a disability and is eligible for special education and related services.

Although parent participation is widely recognized as essential to improving educational outcomes for students, many parents express concern about whether ongoing, meaningful involvement will occur in an RTI model. How will they be included in state and local planning? Involved in all phases of an RTI process? Informed of their referral rights? Will their child's education depend more on their own knowledge and initiative than on school efforts? Certainly, positive parent-school partnerships will depend on commitment by both home and education professionals.

Potential benefits cited by RTI proponents include (1) earlier identification of students with LD using a problem-solving approach rather than an ability- achievement discrepancy formula with the expectation of minimizing "wait to fail," (2) reduction in the number of students referred for special education, (3) reduction in the overidentification of minority students, (4) data that are maximally relevant to instruction, (5) focus on student outcomes with increased accountability, and (6) promotion of shared responsibility and collaboration. While RTI seems to encourage addressing the needs of students at risk, the use of RTI for eligibility purposes has raised questions about whether RTI is prone to systemic errors in identifying students with LD. For example, some high-ability students with intellectual strengths and support may achieve in the normal range and be denied the individualized instruction enabling them to make academic progress consistent with their ability.

Although it is generally agreed that RTI can identify a pool of at-risk students, it does not appear to be sufficient to identify a specific learning disability. It may, however, serve as an important component of an evaluation for special education eligibility. Research data from large-scale implementation of RTI are needed to determine the efficacy of RTI for differentiating a specific learning disability from other disabilities and students without disabilities. Before implementation of an RTI approach, many issues about the structure and components to be used, as well as how students will move through the process, must be addressed and efficacy research conducted. In selecting the number of tiers and instructional options, and timelines to be used, models will vary along a flexibility-rigidity continuum. The result will affect such factors as degree of individualization, cost of staff resources, and likelihood of replication. Factors that affect movement within and between tiers, such as cut scores, timelines for team decision-making, and where interventions are provided must also be resolved so that access to services is maximized and delay of services, including special education, is avoided.

Ensuring availability of needed resources is also an important step prior to implementation. What space and materials will be required? How will student and teacher schedules be affected? What time must be allowed for phase-in and professional development? How will the impact of increased documentation requirements be minimized? Especially unclear is the answer to the question of whether costs will increase or decrease and by how much. Although NJCLD has long been concerned about professional preparation, RTI approaches will require new or changed roles for administrators, general education and special education teachers, and related services personnel. Questions arise about how needed professional development will be determined, provided, and followed-up. What are the specific competencies required to provide high quality scientific, research-based interventions, continuous progress monitoring, and timely recognition of nonresponsiveness in general education? What types of field experience and mentoring are most helpful to novice and practicing teachers? How will collaborative skills be fostered within the culture of the school?

Once vital competencies are determined, the question of what documentation can ensure that those competencies are actually in the repertoire of professionals must be asked. Does state licensure address the needed competencies or are alternate certification, Board certification, or other formal documentation of competence useful? A related, and growing, personnel problem is the difficulty recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers, especially when career ladders have not proved effective and advanced certification often results in teachers moving out of the classroom. It is not yet known whether the new responsibilities of RTI will motivate teachers to stay in classrooms.

Research on RTI has primarily focused on intervention studies that investigate the delivery and efficacy of instructional methods and materials or on field studies that explore the instructional components that might be incorporated into an RTI approach. Intervention studies, many of which have been conducted by the NICHD, formed the basis for the provision in IDEA 2004 that permits "use of a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures" for identifying LD. Focusing on early skills in decoding, these studies have shown that many evidence-based early reading programs are equally effective, if instruction is focused, uses small groups, ensures high response rates, includes immediate feedback, and follows a sequential mastery of topics. Field studies of RTI have explored the actual practices applied in problem-solving approaches using either standard protocols or individualized interventions. Although existing studies have found changes in the way support services were used and identified a lower proportion of minority students as having LD, many key questions have not yet been addressed. These include student success rates over time and the numbers of children beyond third grade receiving continued interventions or returning to general education, as well as the effects of various criteria for adequate response to intervention and achievement norms or benchmarks based on classroom, local, or state criteria on eligibility for tiers or for special education and related services.

Of special interest is the work of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, which is seeking to identify and study medium- and large- scale RTI sites that use best practice and meet criteria enabling replication. Using these as pilot sites, the goal is to recognize RTI models that demonstrate improved achievement in students with and without disabilities beyond the primary years and assist others in adopting such proven models. While the need for such research and evaluation is pressing, it is also an enormously complex undertaking. Large-scale implementation of RTI will vary widely depending on factors such as the selection and fidelity of interventions, tiers, resources, timelines, and professional development. Careful reporting of such variables and adherence to established research standards will be critical to shaping RTI models that successfully inform and enhance instruction.

The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities intends that this paper will encourage study and consideration of the information, issues, and research related to RTI in order to guide its thoughtful implementation, advance the field of special education, and enhance the academic outcomes and life success of all students, including students with learning disabilities. NOTE: This document was approved by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) as an official paper of the NJCLD.

The Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) strongly supports the work of the National Children's Study and considers the data associated with the Study to be of the utmost importance in further understanding the nature and causes of specific learning disabilities, and especially the impact of environmental neurotoxins on fetal and child brain development. Much thought and care have gone into the planning of this unique and timely study, and the time has come to fulfill the promise of full funding for the implementation phase of National Children's Study.

The President's budget for the fiscal year 2007 cuts funding for this important national, longitudinal study. If you want to support the National Children's Study, please write to your Congressman.