Response to Invervention — Success is Dependent on Working with General Education

By: Carol Massanari, Co-Director, MPRRC

Response to intervention (RTI) is the practice of providing effective instruction and interventions, regularly assessing student progress, and using progress assessment data to make decisions about instructional or intervention needs.  RTI has gained increased attention and focus as a tool for developing alternatives for identifying students with learning disabilities.  In fact, however, it is a process that begins in the general education arena and has numerous potential benefits.  By using RTI, students in need of intervention are identified earlier, effective classroom and supplemental intervention results in increases in all student achievement, and decisions based on student progress data lead to less biased decisions.  

Because RTI is a tool that can be used in helping to make decisions about the need for special education, and specifically in the identification of LD, special educators have found themselves in a position of taking the lead to support state-wide implementation of RTI statewide.  However, the success of implementation is dependent on acceptance and buy-in from general education, and in fact, leads to a blurring of the lines between general and special education.  Implementation can not be done without a partnership because RTI is so much more than a special education identification process.

The National Association of State Directors of Special Education recently posted a paper on their website at http://www.nasdse.org/projects.cfm to address some of the myths that emerged around RTI.   Two are especially relevant to the need for partnering with General Education.  

One myth has to do with a perception that the intention and outcome of RTI is identification of LD and as such begins only when interested in potential special education placement.  In fact, RTI is about effective instruction and intervention for all students and using data that documents students’ response to instruction or intervention strategies.  As such, it is all about what happens in general education, or within the entire school.  If data indicates that a student is not making progress despite the use of progressively more intense instruction/intervention, the data becomes part of the comprehensive evaluation that is used to make a determination of LD.  The initial premise for implementing RTI, however, remains improved instruction and intervention on a school-wide basis for all students.  Across the country many schools have been using RTI practices before it was called RTI, simply because they wanted to improve outcomes for all students.

A second myth that is important to this discussion is the myth that RTI is simply another name for pre-referral and if you have a pre-referral process in place (i.e., a school based assistance team) you are doing RTI.  While the school based assistance team and the process we have come to know as pre-referral may be included in the implementation of RTI at the school level, it is imperative to understand that RTI is bigger than pre-referral.  As the NASDSE document states, “RTI is more than preferral services; it is a comprehensive service delivery system that requires significant changes in how a school serves all students.”

While there are various ways of organizing information to describe RTI, there are several critical components that can be found across the various descriptions.  NRCLD, the RRFC network, and other OSEP funded TA projects recently identified the following as the critical components:

• High quality general education
• Universal screening of behavior and academics
• Progress monitoring
• Data based decision making
• Tiered organization of student services with special education included in the most intense level of organization
• Fidelity of implementation
• Parental Involvement 
• Protection of IDA procedural safe guards
  

This list illustrates that many of the components require implementation across the school within the general education curriculum and practices.  Only the last item on the list is specific to special education.  Items a and b are specifically general education responsibilities.  All other items in the list will require a partnership between general and special education.   

Over the past several years, the RRFC network has worked closely with NRCLD to identify schools that have put in place the above critical components and to develop materials for implementation.   As the effort progressed, others were added to the conversations.  Initially the OSEP funded Policy Partnership Project was invited to be a partner in the conversation; but it soon was obvious that other OSEP funded TA projects (i.e., the Student Progress Monitoring Center, Access Center, National Center on Culturally Responsive School Systems, Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, Regional Parent TA Centers, and the Instructional Comprehensive Center) were critical to the conversation as well..  Recently, conversations have begun with the Comprehensive Centers funded by the US Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; and there is an anticipation that this will be expanding even further to include the Department of Education Equity Centers.  As TA providers, we realize that supporting states to implement RTI state-wide and to sustain the implementation will take collaboration and shared resources across the system.  Perhaps RTI will be the key to breaking down the silos and the barriers that have kept us in our comfortable niches.