May 2008 — Features
Print this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Together at Last
RTI: Taking Action
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI) is a fairly new approach to identifying
students who are eligible for special education services. It doesn't
rely on the traditional ability/achievement discrepancy model, which
requires that a student exhibit a severe discrepancy between his or her
IQ and academic achievement as measured by standardized tests.
The problem with the old model, RTI backers say, is that students must fail or fall behind for a substantial period of time before they are recognized as eligible for help. This requirement for an "accumulation of failure" effectively prevents early intervention.Worse, the further behind students fall, the more services they will need to catch up.
RTI makes forceful use of universal screening, frequent progress monitoring, and child response data to make instructional and diagnostic decisions. Districts using this approach provide services and interventions to struggling learners at increasing levels of intensity.
Members of Congress get some credit for the emergence of RTI. When they reauthorized the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2004, they changed the criteria for identifying children with learning disabilities. According to the bill, schools are no longer "required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability."
RTI has its own challenges, though, the central one being that it crosses some traditional boundaries. Because it aims to address the needs of all students through a continuum of services, it requires greater integration of general, compensatory, and special education. Also, athough there is consensus that RTI shifts the focus from a student's lack of success, there is no universally accepted RTI model.
The National Center for Learning Disabilities launched a national initiative last year to sort out these challenges. Using a $2 million grant from the Cisco Foundation, the NCLD established the RTI Action Network. The initiative aims to encourage collaboration among general education, special education, and families to achieve an integrated approach to responding to struggling learners.
"Keep in mind that when SISs were originally built, IEPs were much simpler," Benfield says. "And since then, they have gotten considerably more complex."
It may be true, as Benfield says, that at the end of the day, data is data, but forms-based data, which are typical of IEPs, add considerable complexity to the data management process. His company's customers, for example, normally run more than 450 rules per IEP to check for compliance.
"The rules aren't just data entry," he says, "they're between forms." Depending on which box is checked on which form, more forms-or worse, differing forms-can be required, Ben- field explains. Adding to that complexity: Different forms can drive future process dates.
"There are federally prescribed timelines that must be met in an IEP, and the system must manage to those timelines and help guarantee that things are done in the right way and in the right order. Not doing so deprives students of critically needed services and opens districts up to legal liability. Special education is one of the most litigious areas within education, so an IEP system must be robust enough to help a district ensure compliance with thousands of pages of federal and state regulations."
