file.pdf

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol. 33, No.4, 2019

894

A Review and Synthesis of the Response to Intervention (RtI) Literature: Teachers

Implementations and Perceptions

Adhwaa Alahmari

King Khalid University

Abha

Saudi Arabia

Abstract

The researcher briefly reviewed the Response to Intervention (RtI) framework and explained how

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) and No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) enhanced RtI implementation in general education classrooms. The main focus

of this paper is to identify general educators’ roles when implementing RtI components such as

evidence-based interventions and assessment. In addition, empirical studies that focused on

general educators’ perceptions of RtI reforms were presented. The reviewed of the RtI literature

show the need for more research on the impact of professional development, general educators’

perceptions and implementation of RtI.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol. 33, No.4, 2019

895

Introduction

Response to Intervention (RtI) has been an important subject for research in special and general

education disciplines (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). RtI involves early intervention services for

students who are struggling and identifies students for special education services who qualify for

learning disability and related disability categories (Fuchs, & Deshler, 2007). The response to

intervention (RtI) model utilizes high quality research-based interventions as well as a continuum

of multiple assessments to measure students’ progress toward tiered intervention (Richards,

Pavri, Golez, Canges, & Murphy, 2007). The Individuals with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) discontinued the use of Intellectual Quotient (IQ)-achievement

discrepancy formulas as the only tool for identifying students with learning disabilities (LD)

(Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2005; Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Gersten and Dimino,

(2006) explained that RtI does not only deliver interventions for students who are at risk for

school failure but also establishes a more valid assessment to identify students with LD. The

effectiveness of RtI implementation is related to the quality and consistency of instruction

students receive at each tier because continuous progress monitoring through each tier informs

instructional delivery, which can be altered as needed (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005).

Implementing RtI effectively requires a shift in how school administrators and teachers

collaborate with each other to support the RtI process, especially when it comes to the

collaboration between special and general education teachers (Richards, et al., 2007).

Historical Context of RtI

In 2004, U.S federal law changes, with the reauthorization of IDEIA and previously with the

2001 NCLB legislation, resulted in rapid RtI implementation in the American schools (Villarreal,

Rodriguez, & Moore, 2014). Fuchs, Fuchs and Stecker, (2010) explained that IDEIA of 2004 and

NCLB share a common goal in RtI initiative, which is using research-based interventions to

support students in general education settings. Stuart, Rinaldi, and Higgins- Averill (2011) stated

that RtI’s approaches are included in IDEIA regulation that suggests a systematic process of

monitoring, intervention, and screening to determine the response of a child to research,

scientific-based intervention. They added that in RtI, multiple tiers of intervention are more valid

to determine if a student has a disability (Stuart et al., 2011). One of the attempts of RtI from

IDEIA perspective was to address the problems of over identification as well as for the

disproportionate of minority students in special education (Cartledge, Kea, Waston, & Oif,

2016). RtI begins with universal screening for all students (Tier 1) and identifies students who

are at risk of academic failure. Progress monitoring continues to measure students’ responses to

research-based instruction. Students who do not respond adequately will receive supplemental

tier 2 instruction in to receive more intensive support in addition to tier 1 core instruction

(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Fuchs and Fuchs, (2006) points out that the IDEIA considers RtI

instruction as a test to determine students’ ability to respond to instruction. They also assert that

the RtI intervention must be valid, evidence based and implementation-based upon pervious

researchers’ suggestions, (2006).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol. 33, No.4, 2019

896

The NCLB views RtI as part of the general education system, asserts that students with

disabilities have the right to be educated in general education classroom and are involved in state

assessments, and mandates that states, districts, and schools are accountable for students’

performances (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). The NCLB requires high-quality teachers for this reason.

Additionally, the intent of hiring high quality teachers is to reduce the number of unnecessary

special education referrals of high incidence disabilities such as LD and emotional behavioral

disturbances (EBD) by providing effective instruction in hopes of preventing learning and

behavioral difficulties. The NCLB supports services for students with disabilities in general

education classrooms through tiered support (2006). The IDEIA established valid and reliable

way to prevent low achieving students from being labeled as having a disability by providing

universal screening and RtI.

RtI Alternative Method

Many researchers have discussed the instruments used to identify students with LD. Since 1975,

there has been a debate related to identifying and serving students with LD, and how to serve

those who are at risk of failure (Bradley, et al., 2005; Richards et al., 2007, Werts et al., 2009).

Prior to the IDEIA (2004), the diagnosis of specific learning disabilities (SLD) was

predominately demonstrated by the discrepancy model (Werts, et al., 2009). IDEIA, (2004)

defines SLD as a significant discrepancy between achievement and cognitive ability in oral

expression, reading, writing, listing, or math (Bradley et al., 2005).

Multiple researchers have critiqued the discrepancy model as only tool to identify students in

learning disability category. For instance, Aaron (1997) was concerned with how much

discrepancy was required to identify students with LD. Bradley and his colleagues (2005) found

that the eligibility criteria for diagnosing LD were not well operationalized. Policies related to

diagnosing LD vary from a state to another (Hosp & Reschly,2004), and discrepancy between

intellectual ability and achievement is difficult to decipher in early elementary grades

(MacMillan & Siperstein, 2002). The discrepancy model does not identify all students with SLD,

which often leaves them struggling academically well into the upper grades of elementary school

until the discrepancy becomes significant enough to require services (Bradley et al., 2005).

Further, students who are at risk of failure cannot receive services until they fall behind and

qualify for special education services (Richards et al., 2007). Moreover, the discrepancy model is

not helpful to provide information about how to deliver instruction to teach students; thus, it does

not benefit teachers when planning instruction (Bradley et al., 2005). Additionally, with IQ-

discrepancy tool, the prevalence of students classified as having LD has grown more than 200%

since 1977 (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). Historically, students who are from a

minority culture and are English language learners (ELL) have been over-represented in the

high-incidence disabilities such as SLD category (MacMillan & Reschly,1998) leading to these

students being placed in more segregated special education settings compared to White and

Native American students (MacMillan & Reschly, 1998).

In response to the variability and difficulties in the discrepancy model, the National Joint

Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) expressed their concern about the accuracy of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol. 33, No.4, 2019

897

discrepancy as the only tool to identify students with LD (2005). OSEP’s response to the NJCLD

was an LD intuitive, which proposed that an IQ-discrepancy test was not sufficient or necessary

to identify students with LD. Instead, OSEP suggested that teachers could evaluate their students

through their response to evidence-based interventions (Bradley et al., 2005). Policymakers and

professionals in the field of special education suggested RtI as a more effective method for

identifying students with LD (Bradley et al., 2005). This shift of LD identification also shifted

researchers’ focus from the inaccuracy of discrepancy model to the effectiveness of RtI

implementation (Bradley et al., 2005).

In 2004, the reauthorization of IDEIA changed the eligibility standards for LD (Richards et al.,

2007). Based on RtI model, students should receive effective instruction with progress

monitoring before being referred for special education services (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Speece, 2002)

School district encouraged by IDEIA (2004) to use 15% of special education fund to provide

early intervention support through the implementation of school –wide academic and behavior

assessment (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). RtI advocate groups believe that RtI is an effective tool for

making special education referral decisions based on scientific data, problem solving, and

progress monitoring through tiers of intervention (Bradley et al., 2005). A possible reason for the

wide acceptance of RtI is because it benefits all students through ongoing assessments that

identify students who need services early (Cortiella,2009). Subsequently, the IDEIA

reauthorization in 2004 suggested documenting the use and using evidence-based interventions

and instruction before referring a student to special education. In agreement with IDEIA (2004),

Swanson, Solis, Ciullo, and McKenna (2012) stated that this step would ensure that the quality of

instruction would never be a substantial reason for receiving special education services. As such,

IDEIA (2004) allows states to implement RtI as the model for providing evidence-based

instruction at the state level (Wiener & Soodak, 2008).

To summarize the benefits, RtI promotes early identification and prevention of school failure for

students who are at risk or have a disability, which leads to a decrease in the number of referrals

to special education. RtI has potential for reducing the overrepresentation of minority students in

special education and address the issue of disproportionality because it provides multiple tiers of

evidence-based interventions with increasing intensity (Harris-Murri, King, & Rostenberg,

2006). RtI system also focuses on student data and seeks to identify instructional strategies that

address student need in general education classroom (Hosp, 2008). Therefore, RtI model intends

to avoid an immediate or unnecessary referral for special education, and students get support

through tiered intervention. Thus, aforementioned are some of issues why RtI is considered as a

promising tool to address the underlying issue lighted by disproportionality perspectives.RtI also

serves students who may be suspected of having disability without first labeling them as having a

disability. For instance, students in Tier 3 may be eligible to receive long term intense

intervention/instruction, in which students may receive the intervention for months or even years

(Ringlaben, & Griffith, 2013). RtI also has the potential for enhancing the collaboration between

teachers and administrators in schools in to provide effective interventions (Fuchs &

Vaughn, 2012; Learning, 2009; Division of Learning Disabilities, 2012 As cited in Johns &

Lerner, 2015).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol. 33, No.4, 2019

898

However, the Council of Exceptional Children (CEC), and the Learning Disabilities Association

(LDA, 2006), point to concerns about RtI may be the potential cause of delays in comprehensive

evaluation for students with suspected disabilities, and requires therefore, partnership of all

school staff and families to identify and meet the needs of students (Mellard, Stern, & Woods,

2011). In addition, many schools lack the personnel and resources to implement RtI with fidelity

(Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Thus, the National Association of State directors of Special

Education (NASDES), 2006) and Hughes and Dexter (2011), stated that “the most successful

factors for RtI implementation are continuation of professional development, ongoing support

from administration, and extensive meeting time for coordination” (p.10).

RtI Tiers

There is no standard procedure of implementing RtI (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Werts et al., 2009).

RtI is a framework that ensures high-quality instruction and ongoing assessments in general

education classrooms (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009; Richards et al., 2007; Werts

et al., 2009). Barnes and Harlacher (2008) defined RtI as a multitier approach of teaching support

in which students receive appropriate levels of support based on their needs. Within RtI, schools

are responsible for providing a range of evidence-based instruction in tiers, and teachers place

students into these tiers based on the students’ data from screening and progress monitoring

(Cummings, Atkins, Allison, & Cole, 2008). Current research focuses on two critical principles

of RtI: implementation of evidence-based intervention and ongoing assessment to monitor

student response (Cummings et al., 2008). General education teachers deliver instruction based

on scientifically validated research and collect data on individual students’ performance.

Students who do not respond to general education instruction in Tier 1 receive supplemental Tier

2 interventions in addition to Tier 1 instruction, which providing these students with more

intensive instruction compared to Tier 1 instruction only. If students still do not show progress

with supplemental Tier 2 instructions based on assessment data, they receive even more intensive

Tier 3 intervention support (Werts et al., 2009).

Models of RtI

RtI mostly utilizes one of two models, which are the problem-solving and standard treatment

models. The problem-solving model utilizes interventions that a particular team selects, which

serves each student’s needs. Fuchs and Deshler, (2007) also identified problem solving in three

ways. Problem solving describes the process of how to identify differentiated instruction at Tiers

1 and 2 to indicate evidence-based interventions for teachers to use for the students with most

significant academic needs, and then how building – based teams collaborate to support general

educators to address the needs of students demonstrating increased academic difficulties.

“Problem solving evolved from the work of curriculum – based measurement (CBM) research

which sought to develop systematic decision- making processes that would promote effective use

of data collected through CBM and enhance outcomes for children” (VanDerHeyden , et al.,

2007, p. 226). Kovaleski and Pedersen, (2008) suggested that RtI teams could use problem-

solving techniques to analyze data from universal screening at the tier 1 level to support teachers

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol. 33, No.4, 2019

899

in designing and utilizing instructions that are different based on the level of students’ needs.

Problem solving teams should determine what tier intervention matches the students’ needs after

reviewing the benchmark assessment (Kovaleski & Pedersen, 2008). Therefore, team discussion

is a critical part of RtI implementation, especially when designing interventions and making

decision related to placement of students in tiered systems. Fuchs and Deshler (2007) called for

further research to measure the effectiveness of the problem solving RtI approach in designing

intervention that improves students’ outcomes.

The standard treatment model utilizes one consistent intervention that the school selects, which

addresses the needs of multiple students based on universal screening and continuous progress

monitoring through CBM. Standard treatments are those that have an evidence base as to their

effectiveness. For instance, general educators could use an evidence based standard treatment

intervention for students in Tier 2, which targets students who did not respond to an evidence

based intervention in Tier 1 (Barnes & Harlacher, 2008). So, both models utilize universal

screening to inform tiered instruction and to support all students.

There are at least three tiers of instruction/intervention in RtI (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Richards et

al., 2007; Werts, et al., 2009). In most situations, high-quality instruction in Tier 1 should meet

the needs of the majority of students in the classroom (Richards et al., 2007). Tier 1 can also be

labeled as a universal core program/curriculum/instruction (Council for Exceptional Children

[CEC], 2008). McKenzie (2009) considered the first tier as consistent with the whole- group

instruction and the administration of universal screening to identify students who perform lower

in basic skills. Students who perform higher in the basic skills are thought to not require more

intensive instruction/intervention.

Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) suggested that at risk students on Tier 1 should be monitored on their

progress to confirm non-responsiveness to core instruction before moving at risk students to

further intervention/instruction. Students who do not progress in Tier 1 will receive more

support in supplemental Tier 2 (McKenzie, 2009).

Tier 2 is targeted, and systemic interventions are designed for students through small groups with

progress monitoring (Vaughn & Roberts, 2007). In Tier 2, students may receive interventions for

20 minutes per day up to 20 weeks in addition to Tier 1 core instruction (Bradley et al., 2007).

Richards and his colleagues (2007) indicated that some students receiving Tier 2

instruction/intervention may not demonstrate any progress with not meeting the grade level

benchmark; therefore, students who do not respond to Tier 2 will receive Tier 3

instruction/intervention.

Students in Tier 3 are usually 2-5% of all students and receive instruction/intervention in smaller

groups than Tier 2. Instruction/intervention in Tier 3 are more intense and explicit, and they may

take 45-60 minutes (Vaughn, Wanzek, Woodruff, & Linan-Thompson, 2007). As with Tier 2

instruction/intervention, students receiving Tier 3 instruction should also receive Tier 1 core

instruction (Allsopp, Alvarez-McHatton, Ray, & Farmer, 2010). His colleagues (2007) point out

that the school district determines whether Tier 3 instruction/intervention is considered to be

special education services or not. Berkeley and his colleagues (2009) noted that within tiered

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol. 33, No.4, 2019

900

instruction, special education referral should be considered only after tiered

instruction/intervention within RtI has been delivered. However, Fuchs and Fuchs and Compton

(2007) point those students who do not respond to Tier 2 intervention/instruction are key for LD

identification. Overall, “There is no clear methodological definition of how or when a student

should be identified as non-responsive to intervention/instruction” (Hughes & Dexter, 2011, p.8).

According to Werts and his colleagues (2009), “Throughout the process, a team reviews data

collected on a systemic, ongoing basis to determine the best instructional options for a student”

(p. 246). In the general education classroom, all students are to receive high-quality instruction

with universal screening. Students who do not respond will receive intensive instruction in small

groups or individually (Werts, et al., 2009) in addition to Tier 1 core instruction. Progress

monitoring data is constructed in to define if the intervention that is implemented is

adequate or inadequate (VanderHyden et al., 2007, p.227). Some studies note that when RtI is

implemented effectively, there is potential to reduce the proportion of students who are referred

to special education (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Johns and Lerner, (2015) noted

that since the inception of RtI, the percentage of students identified with disabilities had

decreased from 4.4% to 4.0% by the year of 2006.

A major element of RtI is that all students receive research-based instruction in the general

education classroom. Incorporating evidence-based instruction into teachers’ methods can

increase students’ academic achievement (Harlacher, Walker, & Sanford, 2010). General

educators have to conduct screening to determine students’ progress (Werst, et al., 2009). For

instance, if students perform poorly in a particular area, teachers could use formative assessment

during or after the lesson to inform them about the efficiency of instruction and the skills that

students have acquired (Gersten & Dimino, 2006).

Moreover, teachers have to make sure that the intervention and instruction are implemented with

fidelity (Bradley et al., 2005). When students do not respond to research-based interventions,

special education referral will be considered (Barnes & Harlacher, 2008). Hence, teachers are

responsible for applying the intervention procedures with fidelity in to ensure the accuracy

of intervention implementation.

RtI Implementations

The implementation of RtI is different from the traditional methods used for special education

referral with the emphasis on utilizing of evidence-based assessment techniques, instructional

strategies, and regular progress monitoring to inform possible referral decisions (Villarreal et al.,

2014). Bradely et al., (2005) stated that implementing RtI can be challenging for general

education teachers. General education teachers are required to implement individual and small

group intervention/instruction within the substantial numbers of students’ complex needs

(Kratochwill et al., 2007). Fuchs and Deshler, (2007) asserted the importance of school

leadership in the implementation of RtI, which includes teachers’ understanding the conditions

and social factors that ensure the success of RtI. They claim that poor implementation of RtI can

be due to the lack of support provided to teachers by administrators.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol. 33, No.4, 2019

901

In Tier 1, general educators are required to screen all students in to identify students who

struggle or are at risk of failure (Bradley et al., 2005). General educators are also required to

conduct assessment to decide which students are in need for Tier 2 interventions (Richards et al.,

2007). Tier 2 instructions require teachers to select interventions that are evidence-based

instruction and to be able to administer assessments to determine students’ response to the

interventions and then making decision about students’ placement. Hagger and Mahdavi, (2007)

indicated that the roles of both general and special education teacher is not identified clearly in

the literature, so schools can decide which teacher is responsible to deliver Tier 2

intervention/instructions. Fuchs and Deshler, (2007) argued that one of the gaps in RtI literature

is which teacher is required to deliver the instructions of Tiers 2 and 3 intervention/instruction.

However, in reality many schools consider general educators to deliver Tier 2

interventions/instructions in small group of four to five students in classroom (Richards et al.,

2007). Thus, general educators are responsible for applying RtI components in general education

classroom through the tiers intervention/instruction. To ensure the effectiveness of RtI

implementation, teachers should be supported in to deliver evidence-based interventions.

Classroom teachers can be supported by many school members such as special education

teachers, reading specialists, and school psychology who can specifically interpret and analyze

students’ assessment in to design strategies that meet the students’ needs (Richards et al.,

2007). Therefore, general educators in RtI have the responsibility of offering different levels of

support, ensuring that all learners receive benchmark assessment, and delivering the core

curriculum with fidelity (Villarreal et al, 2014). The degree to which general educators can

implement RtI efficiently depends on the social and cultural context of their schools. It also

depends on whether critical features and systems are in place since they support teachers’ roles

in applying RtI effectively (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009). Students in Tier 3 may receive

intensive interventions/instruction that are delivered by special educators or reading specialists

and other content specialists (e.g., mathematics), which ultimately requires skillful teachers who

can effectively deliver individualized instruction and progress monitoring (Richards et al., 2007).

In addition, effective RtI implementation across any school is complicated and it requires

coordination, training, and support from a team. In RtI, many schools experience difficulties that

are associated with providing the necessary resources that address the academic needs of all

students. A variety of interventions, instructional practices, and assessments have various levels

of demonstrated effectiveness and school personnel can encounter challenges when choosing

which practices have the potential to be the most effective including meeting the needs of

students receiving special education services (Tilly, Harken, Robinson, & Kurns, 2008).

Subsequently, implementing RtI on a large scale (especially across all the grade levels in an

academic area) has been challenging for teachers with limited experience (Fuchs & Deshler,

2007). In essence, effective implementation of RtI has potential for improving students’ learning

outcomes regardless of their disabilities in the general education classroom. Fuchs and Deshler

(2007) point to very critical points in RtI implementation for this to come to fruition – RtI

implementation must be valid and effective because the aim for RtI is to identify students with

disabilities based on respond to evidence-based instruction in tiers. Implementing RtI

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol. 33, No.4, 2019

902

interventions with fidelity enables teachers to make valid decisions when referring a student to

special education services (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). If RtI is to improve upon IQ discrepancy as

a means to identify students with LD, the implementation of RtI should be applied with fidelity

and integrity. Further, Fuchs and Deschler (2007) asserted that effective implementation of RtI

requires a significant investment in professional development in to equip teachers with the

skills needed to implement effective RtI. They noted that there are many situational supports

inside and outside school that help teachers develop their skills, which ultimately lead to

effective implementation of RtI (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). Fletcher and Vaughn (2009) assert that

“the effective implementation of RtI requires ongoing and close collaboration and

implementation with classroom teachers, special education teacher, Title 1 and other entitlement

program” (p. 33).

Professional Development

To meet the RtI implementation standards, teachers should be supported by their schools and

school district through professional development. In to implement RtI efficiently, teachers

need to possess knowledge of evidence-based instruction, tiered instruction, multiple assessment

tools, progress monitoring, and fidelity of implementation (Danielson, Doolittle, & Bradley,

2007). In addition, ensuring the success of RtI implementation requires educators to possess

knowledge of and the ability to collaborate with other education professionals (Fuchs & Deshler,

2006) and families.

However, studies have indicated that teachers and other school personnel lack knowledge related

to evidence-based practices (EBPs) across tiers in RtI (Danielson et al., 2007; Harlacher et al.,

2010). A report published by The National Council on Teacher Quality (2006) revealed that the

majority of general education teacher preparation programs do not effectively train teachers to

use research-based reading instruction. Also, most graduate programs in school psychology are

not training their students to use evidence-based prevention and intervention programs (Shernoff,

Kratochwill, and .Stoiber, 2003).

In addition, previous studies have reflected on general education teachers’ ability to …