RTI: Response to Intervention, Essay Example

The purpose of education is to enlighten a human being about the facts of life and enrich the young mind with the gist of knowledge gained over the period since human civilization existed on this planet. The knowledge base is so vast that it is impossible for a single individual to understand and learn everything. Societies all over the world and those responsible for developing the course curricula for the young learners have standardized norms of basic education which are necessary as well the right of every citizen.

Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is a concept based on the evaluation of the processes incorporated in teaching and the degree of their success (Gartland & Strosnider, 2005). The aim of RTI is to make the process of education accountable and investigate whether the means employed in the form of instruction and its components such as strategies, methods, interventions, etc. are actually delivering the results or not (Gartland & Strosnider, 2005). Another vital area of focus is the confounding factor in the delivery of education due to the existence of learning disabilities in certain pupils which are being encountered with alarming intensity and frequency in the present society. The existence of learning disabilities in certain individuals calls for remedial interventions which are aimed at curtailing the drawbacks encountered by such students.

The ‘Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’ (IDEA) of 2004 aims at facilitating education in a more appropriate and special manner for such people (James, 2004). The regulations for IDEA have become effective from October 13, 2006 with the incorporation of RTI as a tool for determining learning disabilities in students (Q & A). According to the new regulations, in order to identify children with specific learning disabilities (SLD), a local educational agency (LEA) shall be responsible for the SLD determination by considering a child’s response to scientific and researched based interventions (Q&A). In addition, States will be allowed to use alternative research based procedures to identify children with SLD and participating public agency will assist the state in doing so (Q&A). IDEA does not envisage anything against imparting instruction using RTI strategies to children who are already receiving special educational services under IDEA, provided that the RTI strategy used does not infringe upon or are inconsistent with a student’s individualized educational program (IEP).

RTI is now increasingly being recognized as an approach to identify students with learning difficulties at an early stage so that systematic approaches could be employed to provide timely help and support (Gartland & Strosnider, 2005). RTI interventions are tools designed to assist the educators in designing instructional interventions to a child’s specific need as soon as such a need becomes apparent (Q&A). RTI basically has two principal applications, reading prevention and LD (learning disability) identification (Mellard et al, 2004). For reading prevention RTI provides an organizational framework for the prevention of students’ reading problems. For LD identification RTI incorporates a framework for evaluating underachievement (learning rate & achievement discrepancy from peers) in students (Mellard et al, 2004). To handle both, RTI provides for a multi tiered intervention model to be adopted just as in case of a community related program such as public health or occupational therapy (Mellard et al, 2004). Generally a three tier approach is used with the first tier being a gross intervention aimed at the general population which is more like a preventive program akin to inoculation. The ecology of the persons affected is studied and changes made to their immediate environment which ensures proper functioning within the population. Such changes usually incorporate high quality, developmentally appropriate instruction in the general educational setting (Mellard et al, 2004). The second and the third tiers of RTI are used for those persons who are non responsive to the interventions used in the first tier. When a student does not show positive response or performance at par with his or her peers even after a population directed ecological intervention has been tried, they are subjected to further screening and more intensive interventions, both in terms of frequency as well as length are developed.  Initially such persons are separated into groups for strategic interventions and those who still do not respond are taken as individual cases for whom yet another level of interventions are used. The individualized students who have not responded to the first and the second tier interventions are labeled as the tertiary group and the interventions designed for them are no longer considered preventive but curative (Mellard et al, 2004). The important aspect at tertiary level interventions is that such students are no longer part of a group but individuals who require powerful interventions depending upon the severity of disability and such interventions are administered by appropriately qualified instructors.

The most critical changes which affect children with disabilities as well as their families under IDEA 2004 concentrate on the IEP process, due process and discipline provisions (FAPE). The IEP process no longer involves the identification of short term objectives for meeting each child’s measurable annual IEP goals as the percentage of such children is almost negligible at < 1%. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act provides for grade level and alternative achievement standards which have to be followed by authorities as well as the parents. Each child’s academic goals should be aligned with state controlled standards. IEP annual progress reports are prepared to evaluate whether the goals for a particular child have been achieved or not.

Both NCLB and IDEA 2004 incorporate federal laws which are directed to enhance the learning process in children and problems if encountered at an early stage so that there is no need for special educational services at a later stage (Klotz, 2006). Both laws stress upon the importance of providing high quality scientific interventions at the right stage and the educational institutions to be held accountable for an at par progress amongst all students (Klotz, 2006).

RTI is therefore an array of procedures designed to evaluate the response of students to specific changes in instruction (Klotz, 2006). It involves ‘universal screening’ in the initial years to identify students’ at risk of falling behind, ‘student progress monitoring’ to repeatedly assess the students’ progress and evaluate the effectiveness of the instruction mode being used, and ‘scientific research based instruction’ to design specific curriculum and educational interventions for the needy students (Klotz, 2006).

Works Cited

FAPE, “IDEA 2004 Summary”, online pdf document assessed online October 17, 2009 at: http://www.fape.org/idea/2004/summary.htm

Gartland D. & Strosnider D., “Responsiveness to Intervention and Learning Disabilities”, Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005), pp. 249-260

James F., “Response to Intervention in the Individuals With Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA), 2004″, 2004, online article viewed on October 20, 2009 at: http://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/IDEA_RTI_report.pdf

Klotz M.B., “Response to Intervention (RTI): A Primer for Parents”, 2006, online article viewed on October 18, 2009 at: http://www.nasponline.org/resources/factsheets/rtiprimer.aspx

Mellard D.F., Byrd S.E., Johnson E. et al, “Foundations and Research on Identifying Model Responsiveness-to-Intervention Sites”, Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 243-256

Q&A, “Questions and Answers On Response to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervening Services (EIS)”, online article viewed on October 18, 2009 at: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C