Response to Intervention - Teaching Children with Mild Disabilities - Research Paper Example

Teaching Children With Mild Disabilities Abstract This research paper presents an overall view of Response to Intervention, which is commonly abbreviated as RTI. Response to Intervention’ is a way to identify a child’s disability with learning first, and then to help the child recover from the disability, and to improve in such a way that the achievement in the desired way could be possible. RTI is a way to guide and instruct the students for this purpose. RTI is a positive, state-of-the-art substitute for the traditional IQ tests. RTI recognizes the signs of a learning difficulty at a much earlier stage than the stage at which the IQ tests usually do. RTI is a problem solving approach that has a ‘Tier Three Model, which is very common to RTI practitioners. This model considers three stages of intervention according to the severity of the learning disability, and the need of the force of efforts required to cope with it. Involvement of the parents in the process of improvement of the child with learning disability is also significant. RTI is an effective approach to help the children with learning disabilities to improve up to the desired standards of achievement. Key words: response, intervention, learning, disabilities, problem, assumptions, fidelity, implementation Response to Intervention Simply described, ‘Response to Intervention’, RTI, is a way to recognize a child’s disability with learning first, and then to help the child improve it in a certain guided way. More specifically, it is referred to as an approach that is used to increase the opportunity for all students to meet the academic standards of achievement. It is to help the students with learning disabilities, affecting their learning in such a scientific way that they could learn as other, healthy children, so achieving the required standard of success in life positively. These learning disabilities are usually behavioral, but some times, difficulties, other than behavioral, can also affect the learning of a student, and an RTI approach can help that as well. In the context of teaching-learning process, intervention, means, to change the way of teaching a student with some learning or behavior difficulty in a manner that the student could improve to respond like other students to achieve the desired standards of success. This method can be used at the group and individual level. In December 2004, US Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), which allowed the local educational institutes and organizations to use a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) approach for identifying children with possible learning disabilities for special education, to help them to cope with their disabilities. The RTI process brings more clarity to the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) category of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004), which has been referred to as a residual category for children with moderate learning problems. (Haager, D. et al, 2007). RTI facilitates the teachers of general and special education to share the responsibility and make particular guided efforts in cooperation with the administration, other teachers, the parents of such students, and the students with learning disabilities themselves, to cope with the student’s learning and behavior problems to let them achieve the desired standards of success. RTI seeks to prevent academic failure through early intervention, frequent progress measurement, and increasingly intensive research-based instructional interventions for children who continue to have difficulty. Students, who do not show a response to effective interventions, are likely (or, more likely than students who respond) to have biologically based learning disabilities and to be in need of special education. (Cortiella, 2006) The learning disabilities of students had been measured through IQ tests since long but this kind of tests were repeatedly criticized. “This model represents a "wait-to-fail" approach, which results in students not being provided with the appropriately intense general and/or special education interventions in a timely manner.”(Fletcher et al., 2002; Gresham, 2002; Torgeson et al., 2001) The IQ test trend changed later. At first, Reschly & Tilly (1999), and then Marston (2002) noted that rather than relying primarily on test scores (e.g., from an IQ or math test), the student’s response to general education interventions becomes the primary determinant of his or her need for special education evaluation and services. Now the data analysis teams should use specific forms, prepared for this purpose, to analyze the level of disability in a student. These forms are called ‘SIRF’. “A document that should be used for DAT meetings is the Screening and Information Recording Form.” (Kovaleski & Pedersen, 2008) The primary requirement of RTI is an effective problem solving method. “One common problem-solving model is the three-tiered model. In this model, tier one includes problem-solving strategies directed by the teacher within the general education classrooms. Tier two includes problem-solving efforts at a team level in which grade-level staff members or a team of various school personnel collaborate to develop an intervention plan that is still within the general education curriculum. Tier three involves referral to a special education team for additional problem solving and, potentially, a special education assessment.” (Office of Special Education Programs, 2002) As the problem becomes more serious, it requires more attention and support to be coped with. “Hence, the intensity of intervention increases as the severity of the problem increases.” (Gresham, F.M., 2004) National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005) has found that RTI follows the following core assumptions: that the educational system can effectively teach all children; that early intervention is critical to preventing problems from getting out of control; that the implementation of a multi-tiered service delivery model is necessary; that a problem solving model should be used to make decisions between tiers; that research based interventions should be implemented to the extent possible; that progress monitoring must be implemented to inform instruction; and that data should drive decision making. Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M.A. (2006) noted that “Factors that reduce fidelity of implementation are: complexity, the more complex the intervention, the lower the fidelity because of the level of difficulty. (This factor includes time needed for instruction in the intervention); materials and resources required, if new or substantial resources are required, they need to be readily accessible; perceived and actual effectiveness (credibility), even with a solid research base, if teachers believe the approach will not be effective, or if it is inconsistent with their teaching style, they will not implement it well; and interventionists, the number, expertise, and motivation of individuals who deliver the intervention are factors in the level of fidelity of implementation.” RTI Action Network (2008) found that “In order for RTI implementation to work well, the following essential components must be in place: 1. High quality, scientifically based classroom instrution. All students receive high quality, research-based instruction in the general education classroom. 2. On-going student assessment. Universal screening and progress monitoring provide information about a student's learning rate and level of achievement, both individually and in comparison with the peer group. 3. Tiered instructions. A multi-tier approach is used to efficiently differentiate instruction for all students.  The model incorporates increasing intensities of instruction, offering specific, research-based interventions matched to student needs. 4. Parent involvement. Schools implementing RTI provide parents information about their child's progress, the instructions and interventions used, the staff who are delivering the instruction and the academic or behavioral goals for the child. Concluding the above, ‘Response to Intervention’ is a particular way of teaching and giving instructions to the children with learning disabilities, identifying them at the very initial stage. This process provides such students with help and support to cope with their learning disabilities to achieve the desired standards of success. Work Cited Cortiella, C. Response-to-Intervention: An Emerging Method for LD Identification. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from Schwab Learning. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gresham, F.M. (2004). Current status and future directions of school-based behavioral interventions. School Psychology Review (pp.33, 326-343). Haager, D. et al. Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention, Brooks Publishing, 2007. Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Kovaleski, J. F., & Pedersen, J. (2008). Best practices in data analysis teaming. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 115–130). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Kovaleski, J. F., Roble, M., & Agne, M. (2008). The RTI Data Analysis Teaming Process.RTI Action Network. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA Marston, D. (2002). A functional and intervention-based assessment approach to establishing discrepancy for students with learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Donaldson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 437–447). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: NASDSE, Inc. Office of Special Education Programs. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground (Report of the Learning Disabilities Round Table). Washington, DC. Reschly, D., & Tilly, W. D. III (1999). Reform trends and system design alternatives. In D. Reschly, W. D. Tilly III, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 19–48). Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Torgeson, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C .A., Voeller, K. K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities (pp. 34, 33-58). Read More