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)
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...