Best Practices for the Inclusive Classroom

Scientifically Based Strategies for Success

Richard T. Boon, Vicky G. Spencer

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000490671
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Written by expert teachers and researchers, Best Practices for the Inclusive Classroom: Scientifically Based Strategies for Success looks at field-tested strategies that teachers of inclusive classrooms need to implement to successfully teach all of the learners in their classroom.The purpose of the book is to provide both general and special education teachers with a practical guide of scientifically validated, evidence-based instructional strategies in a variety of content areas, including reading, writing and spelling, mathematics, science, and social studies. An overview of the Response to Intervention process provides a foundation for implementing research-based strategies in the core content areas.In addition, the book offers tested tips for implementing assistive technology, culturally responsive teaching practices, and fair assessment in the classroom, along with information on managing problem behaviors and adapting curriculum for various special needs. The book also includes a chapter on how teachers, parents, and school professionals can work together to ensure success for all students.

Chapter 1
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

Leslie C. Novosel & Donald D. Deshler

DOI: 10.4324/9781003233237-1

INTRODUCTION

As a teacher in a general education setting, it is likely that you will be responsible for students who are struggling learners or identified with learning disabilities (LD). Given that 94% of students with disabilities spend an average of 4.8 hours per day (an equivalent of five class periods) in a general education setting, the success of Response to Intervention (RTI) lies primarily in the hands of general education teachers (Wagner & Blackorby, 2002). In 2007, 59% of students with LD spent 80% or more of their in-school time in general education classrooms. In 2000, that figure was just 40% (Cortiella, 2009). As such, general educators need to know how to identify and address the needs of these learners. RTI is a process that helps educators identify students who may be at educational risk and in need of additional instructional or behavioral support. Generally speaking, RTI is a preventative approach to promoting early identification and early intervention to ensure all students are provided with high-quality instruction and equal opportunities to learn.

This chapter provides an overview of the RTI process including: the evolution of RTI, educational policy initiatives and RTI, an overview of the construct of LD, issues with identification of LD, operationalizing RTI in schools, and what elementary and secondary general education practitioners need to know about RTI. For further reference, a list of national- and state-level RTI resources, websites, and professional organizations are included (see Appendix).

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

The term response to intervention is currently used to describe both (a) a method for increasing the capacity of schools to respond effectively to the diverse learning and behavioral support needs of their students and (b) a new way of determining eligibility for special education services. (Torgesen, 2009, p. 38)

What Is Response to Intervention?

Response to Intervention is a multi-tier instructional approach that includes general and special education systems. The process also promotes the implementation of evidence-based educational practices so every student, including those who are struggling, has access to high-quality instruction that optimizes learning success. Schoolwide implementation of RTI serves two main functions: (1) early intervention for students with learning and behavioral needs and (2) disability determination. RTI is based on the principle of whether a student is responsive or nonresponsive to "an evidence-based intervention that is implemented with integrity" (Gresham, 2007, p. 10). The RTI process, its subcomponents, and various ways that RTI is conceptualized within schools will be discussed later in this chapter.

The Evolution of RTI

The RTI process was put into practice long before it was integrated into an educational model. For example, in the field of medicine, physicians use RTI to treat disease. RTI was conceptualized using a public health prevention model that refers to three levels of risk: (1) primary, (2) secondary, and (3) tertiary (Caplan, 1964). Primary prevention efforts aim to prevent harm, and secondary prevention efforts aim to reverse harm. Tertiary prevention efforts target the most severe cases and attempt to reduce harm (Sugai, Homer, & Gresham, 2002). Using the RTI model, prior to administering treatment, a physician considers weight, blood pressure, and heart rate because these three factors are scientifically validated to be indicative of general health. Thereafter, every time a patient visits the doctor these factors are measured and compared to baseline scores or benchmarks. If weight or blood pressure exceeds the established benchmarks, the physician may recommend a diet or exercise plan. During the next visit, if the patient has not responded to the treatment, the doctor may recommend an alternative treatment protocol that is more intense, such as medication. As a general rule, surgery is considered as a last resort, and as a general rule, only if the physician believes it will eliminate the disease or cure the patient. It is important to note that the medical model of RTI uses a process of examining data taken before and during all stages of treatment. The intensity of the intervention is increased only if the data demonstrate the patient did not respond to the treatment. Similar to a public health model, the RTI process can be used in schools when making critical decisions about a student's education (Gresham, 2007; Mellard & Johnson, 2008).

In education, the RTI process was first introduced in 1975 in an experimental research study designed to develop a process for determining eligibility for LD. Budoff (1975) was credited for creating a learning potential model that, similar to the RTI process, was used to identify students who would and would not benefit from specific, intense instruction, The model also provided a means for educational decision makers to qualify the difference between low achievement and underachievement. Underachievement applies to a subgroup of students who do not respond to appropriate instruction and demonstrate low achievement that cannot be attributed to a disability or environmental factors (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). In other words, the term underachievement means that despite appropriate instruction, the student failed to make progress.

Another document that had a substantial influence on promoting the RTI process was the National Research Council (NRC) report (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). This report recommended that disability determination decisions should be based on a student's response, or nonresponse, to adequate instruction. Additionally, the NRC report proposed that all special education determination decisions be based on the following three criteria: (1) that mainstream education was generally effective; (2) that special education improved student outcomes, thus justifying disability classification; and (3) that the assessment process used for identification was valid. All three criteria had to be present for a student to be determined eligible for special education services. In further support of the RTI process, Mellard and his colleagues (2004) found a convergence of evidence signifying that a student's responsiveness to intervention was essential for the recognition of characteristic low achievers and learners who were not achieving according to their potential.

RTI is designed to provide a systematic process of identification and intervention that is guided by student outcome data. Similar to the medical model, RTI within a school setting includes an integrated system of screening and monitoring rates of academic growth for all students within a given class and identifying those students who perform significantly below their peers (Mellard & Johnson, 2008). Struggling learners are provided with interventions at increasing levels of intensity according to their individual needs. Student progress is consistently monitored to assist educators in making decisions about the intensity and duration of the interventions. More recently, federal and state education policies were designed to increase accountability and improve student achievement outcomes. The RTI process enables schools to implement a systematic process of prevention that is aligned with these federal and state initiatives.

The No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act

It is essential for educational professionals to be aware of current educational policies to ensure they are in compliance with federal and state regulations. Existing educational policies impact both general and special education systems and center on increasing opportunities for all students to be included within the general education setting. Federal policy initiatives that are aligned with the RTI process include the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), which mandates schoolwide accountability practices and the use of scientific-based curricula, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), which governs special education and requires every student with a disability be provided with free and appropriate public education (FAPE; Mellard & Johnson, 2008). The key provisions of NCLB and IDEA 2004 that support the RTI process include:

• 
  scientifically based research (SBR): improvement of academic and behavioral results for all students, including those with disabilities, through the use of scientifically validated instruction, curriculum, and interventions;
• 
  prevention: early identification of learning and behavior problems when they occur in the classroom and the school;
• 
  assessment: ongoing student progress monitoring to determine the impact of curriculum and instruction; and
• 
  accountability: all students are included within a standards-based accountability system, including district and statewide assessments' annual documentation of student outcomes through Academic Yearly Progress (AYP).

In the next section, we will examine each one of the key provisions included in NCLB and IDEA 2004 legislation: SBR, prevention, assessment, and accountability

Scientifically Based Research

In the year 2000, the National Reading Panel (NRP) published a report that changed the face of American education. The term scientifically based instruction appeared frequently throughout the report. As a result, a new bar was set within the field of educational research. The NRP report recommended that high-quality, rigorous research serve as the foundation for curriculum, instruction, and assessment, principally in the area of reading (Kowalski, 2009). The report also stated that SBR instruction be considered and included in all future educational policy and legislation. Consequently, the terms SBR and evidence-based practices were included in NCLB and IDEA 2004 legislation:

. . . the IDEA regulations (§300.35) expressly incorporate the NCLB definition of "scientifically based research" which is "research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs" which includes experimental and quasi-experimental studies that are peer reviewed. (Zirkel, 2007, p. 66)

The RTI process is consistent with NCLB and IDEA 2004 regulations because it depends on the implementation of SBR and evidence-based practice at all levels or tiers of support. The rationale for requiring that in...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER 1 RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
• CHAPTER 2 HIGH-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES
• CHAPTER 3 LOW-INCIDENCE DISABILITIES
• CHAPTER 4 COLLABORATION
• CHAPTER 5 CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
• CHAPTER 6 READING INSTRUCTION
• CHAPTER 7 READING COMPREHENSION
• CHAPTER 8 WRITTEN EXPRESSION
• CHAPTER 9 MATHEMATICS
• CHAPTER 10 SOCIAL STUDIES
• CHAPTER 11 SCIENCE
• CHAPTER 12 ASSESSMENT
• CHAPTER 13 ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
• CHAPTER 14 CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE TEACHING PRACTICES
• CONCLUSION: NOTES FROM THE EDITORS
• ABOUT THE EDITORS
• ABOUT THE AUTHORS