This article was downloaded by: [Vancouver Island University] On: 29 November 2012, At: 21:18 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Theory Into Practice

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/htip20

Special Education Eligibility Decision Making in Response to Intervention Models

John J. Hoover
a a

University of Colorado at Boulder Version of record first published: 09 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: John J. Hoover (2010): Special Education Eligibility Decision Making in Response to Intervention Models, Theory Into Practice, 49:4, 289-296 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2010.510752

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Theory Into Practice, 49:289296, 2010 Copyright The College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University ISSN: 0040-5841 print/1543-0421 online DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2010.510752

John J. Hoover

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:18 29 November 2012

Special Education Eligibility Decision Making in Response to Intervention Models

The response to intervention model (RTI) represents a promising framework for the early identication and prevention of learning and behavior problems for students struggling in school. If RTI is properly implemented, it should reduce unnecessary referrals and placements into special education, and increase the accuracy of special education eligibility decisions. This article examines the strengths of RTI practices, as compared to the previous prereferral practices and how special education eligibility decision-making best ts within response to intervention models.

schools, clarication of the role of special education in the model is necessary to best serve all learners. To address the topic of how special education best ts within RTI, I examine three main areas: (a) the big ideas associated with the special education process and core RTI principles; (b) transitioning from a prereferral intervention to the RTI model; and (c) the RTI special education nexus to meet contemporary discrepancy needs of struggling learners.

Clarifying the Role of Special Education in RTI

S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE R ESPONSE to Intervention (RTI) model increases in

John Hoover is a research associate in the School of Education at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. John Hoover, School of Education, 249 UCB, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309-0249. E-mail: john.hoover@colorado.edu

Consideration for special education services is a possible outcome for some learners who fail to make adequate progress within tiered instruction in most RTI models. For example, Klingner and Bianco (2006) suggested that an underlying premise within RTI models is that an intrinsic disorder is presumed, should a student continue to make inadequate progress. In discussing multitiers within RTI models, Mellard

289

Response to Intervention: Critical Issues

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:18 29 November 2012

and Johnson (2008) suggested that Tier 3 of a three-tiered model is synonymous with special education. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) stated in its position paper: The RTI process is designed to identify struggling learners early, to provide access to needed interventions, and to help identify children with disabilities (CEC, 2008, p. 74). These and similar assertions directly highlight the critical signicance of how that which occurs within RTI models is highly relevant to special education eligibility. Several core RTI principles, along with their signicance to special education decision-making, are presented in Table 1, developed from information in Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), Mahdavi and BeebeFrankenberger (2009), and Mellard and Johnson (2008). As shown, should special education be considered necessary to meet more signicant needs of students who demonstrate persistent lack of progress in tiers 1 and 2 instruction, all instructional and progress monitoring information becomes essential prereferral type documentation, including information pertaining to: 1. universal screening (i.e., Tier 1); 2. implementation of preventative evidencebased instruction (i.e., Tiers 1, 2); and, 3. implementation of intensive interventions and possibly a formal referral (Tier 3) (Hoover, 2009). When properly implemented, response to intervention is integral to making effective special education referral and eligibility decisions.

Potential Impact of RTI on Special Education Referrals and Placements The process for identifying and addressing learning needs of struggling students over the past several decades is typically seen in prereferral intervention models that included a threestep process of refertestplace (Gresham, 2007). However, much controversy exists over this

model due to the extended periods of time struggling learners are required to wait to receive needed supports, often resulting in problems becoming more signicant (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007). Prereferral models have also seen extensive criticism due, in part, to factors such as inconsistencies in: (a) terminology, (b) involvement of team members in implementing interventions, or (c) extent to which the prereferral process actually addresses learner needs (Kavale & Flanagan, 2007). Response to intervention is a contemporary alternative to what has been perceived as a awed prereferral intervention model. Kavale and Flanagan wrote that the real value of RTI lies in the prospect of providing a systematic and rigorous preferral process (p. 134). In addition, Bender and Shores (2008) found in their review of literature that the RTI model has been shown to reduce special education placements in grades K3. Tucker and Sornson (2007) found that use of instructional support teams to provide early intervening services reduced special education placements, especially for minority students, by 45%. Gresham (2007) wrote that perhaps the most compelling reason for adopting a RTI approach is that it provides the opportunity for providing assistance to struggling children immediately rather than waiting until these children have an entrenched pattern of academic and/or behavioral difculties (p. 16). Also, Ikeda and Gustafson (2002) reported a 25% decrease in the numbers of learners requiring special education consideration after tiered instruction was implemented. Although RTI shows promise, some research identies potential concerns regarding the role of RTI in the overall special education process. In the CEC (2008) position paper, for example, it is stated that RTI data does not provide sufcient data to rule out or identify a disability) (p. 74). In support, Kavale and Flanagan (2007) wrote that, currently, RTI lacks sufcient validity as a sole diagnostic system for identifying learning disabilities. Also, Kovelski (2007) discussed several RTI implementation challenges including ensuring the: (a) use of evidence-based instruction, (b) development of support structures necessary

290

Hoover

Special Education Eligibility and RTI

Table 1 Core Response-to-Intervention Components and Signicance to Special Education Decision Making
Component Use of research-based curriculum/ Evidence-based interventions Instructional delity Signicance in Decision Making Research-based instruction must be shown prior to consideration of a disability All instruction must be implemented in a manner consistent with its validated process Assessment (i.e., universal screening, progress-monitoring, diagnostic) is to include measures and practices used for their validated purposes similar to the researched population of learners Guidelines for: 1) interpreting assessment data, 2) evaluating effects of instructional adjustments / differentiations, and 3) determining special education eligibility are clearly dened and adhered to in making informed decisions Both rate of progress and level of prociency are to be used in determining special education eligibility Key Decision-Making Question Has the struggling learner been provided instruction using research-based curricula and evidence-based interventions? What evidence is gathered to corroborate delity of instruction for the struggling learner? What evidence is gathered to corroborate delity of assessment for the struggling learner?

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:18 29 November 2012

Assessment delity

Decision rules

What decision rules exist and are these guidelines followed to make decisions for the struggling learner being considered for special education?

Rate of progress/level of prociency

Did the decision-making team consider both the learners prociency level as well as rate of progress relative to age and grade level peers?

to assist all learners achieve to satisfactory levels, and (c) clarication of how special education is dened within RTI so needs of all learners with disabilities are met. Although these and similar concerns are expressed, if the number of students who are successful in the benchmark and targeted phases increases, fewer students will need special education (Kovaleski, 2007, p. 86). Therefore, presuming that key concerns are addressed, RTI models have the potential to reduce special education referrals and associated placements by affecting in a positive way the academic or social/emotional growth of struggling learners. To meet learner needs through RTI, educators need to make a signicant paradigm shift in how problems of struggling learners are perceived, identied, assessed, and addressed. This topic is discussed below.

Transitioning to RTI Models The practice of prereferral interventions grew out of response to law that educators must provide appropriate instruction to struggling learners and document the effects of that instruction on student progress (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007). The requirement to provide and demonstrate instructional efforts for struggling learners prior to a formal referral for special education is clearly articulated in IDEA (2004), referred to as early intervening services. However, although well-intended, several unintended consequences resulted from both the prereferral practices and terminology employed leading to much confusion about ways to meet needs of struggling learners (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Kavale & Flanagan, 2007).

291

Response to Intervention: Critical Issues

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:18 29 November 2012

As a result, the process and terminology associated with a prereferral intervention model inadvertently developed a situation in schools that limited educators and students in efforts to prevent problems from becoming more severe. If RTI, as Kavale and Flanagan (2007) suggested, has the potential to provide a more structured and rigorous prereferral process, then assisting educators to make a smooth transition to RTI may help alleviate concerns with the previous prereferral models (e.g., wait to fail, lack of data driven decisions, prereferral instruction that lacks delity or is not evidence-based). Given the signicant role the prereferral intervention model has assumed in guiding instruction and decision making for struggling learners for over 30 years, transition away from this model is at the very least highly challenging to most educators. However, in order for RTI to be of contemporary value to appropriate special education eligibility decision-making, all educators must engage in a systematic paradigm shift to ensure that RTI includes genuine educational change, rather than simply a reshufing of previous educational practices that reect changed terminology but not actual practice. This includes possessing knowledge of key differences between RTI and prereferral models such as:
RTI emphasizes: Prevention/early intervention rather than wait to fail, Limited or no use of the IQachievement discrepancy model, Greater reliance on actual achievement results, including rate of progress, Use of curriculum-based measurement rather than standardized achievement tests to determine progress, and Universal screening for early identication of at-risk or struggling learners.

to RTI (in both terminology and practice) is how special education eligibility decisions interconnect with response to intervention, particularly for students with learning disabilities.

The RTISpecial Education Nexus Multitiered instruction and special education eligibility decisions represent a nexus that highlights the signicance of implementing RTI from both prevention and eligibility perspectives. Although the most desirable outcome within RTI is to reduce referrals, a primary topic of this article is the examination of how the RTI process and special education interface, should a learner warrant a legitimate referral resulting from lack of progress after receiving Tiers 1 and 2 instruction. Consider the following example:
A second grader is identied through universal screening as showing signs of struggling in reading. The teacher immediately implements targeted differentiations within the core Tier 1 research-based curriculum to address the problem (e.g., vocabulary development). To document the effects of these differentiations the teacher implements a curriculum-based measurement (CBM) procedure in which several, quick two-minute probes are used to monitor the students progress over a 4-week period. The CBM data corroborate the universal screening scores, indicating that the student continues to struggle and is subsequently provided Tier 2 supplemental supports. The supports are evidence-based, implemented for a period of 8 weeks with CBM progress monitoring completed weekly. CBM data after the initial round of Tier 2 supports show that the learner continues to make inadequate reading progress. Instruction is adjusted and a second round of Tier 2 support is completed along with continued progress monitoring. Data are charted to illustrate progress, and teachers implementing Tiers 1 and 2 instruction record pertinent qualitative notes documenting observable behaviors exhibited by the student. After implementation of this Tier 1 and 2 process the learner continues to make inadequate progress and is referred for a special education comprehensive evaluation for a learning disability in reading.

These preferred RTI practices differ significantly from some of the key practices implemented in prereferral models. For additional discussion about this topic, the reader is referred to Hoover (in press) and Kavale and Flanagan (2007). Among the many reasons supporting the need for all educators to successfully transition

292

Hoover

Special Education Eligibility and RTI

Although the learner in this example is referred for special education, the process represents the strengths associated with response to intervention in several ways that make it a uniquely stronger framework than the previous prereferral model: Learner receives immediate academic assistance to meet needs, Emphasis is placed on classroom performance not intrinsic decits, Progress of learner is closely monitored, Decisions concerning effects of the instruction are based on progress monitoring data, Learner continues to receive assistance with instructional adjustments made as necessary, School teams are provided more accurate data and information about the student leading to a more accurate referral and informed eligibility decision, and All Tier 1 and 2 progress monitoring data and results from the ongoing interventions provide valuable information to the special education comprehensive evaluation team. In actual practice, more information would be included in consideration of the student in this example; however, the point to be made is that, within the RTI model, this student is provided early intervening preventative services prior to being considered for special education (i.e., learner does not wait to fail to receive needed supports). In this example, the student did not demonstrate adequate progress and much information was learned about the student through the RTI process. Once a referral is generated, all information acquired and documented within Tiers 1 and 2 instruction becomes highly important (Marston, Reschly, Lau, Muyskens, & Canter, 2007). To further illustrate the RTI and special education nexus, Table 2, developed from information in Howell, Patton, and Deiotte (2008) and Vaughn and Klingner (2007), provides several items that reect key RTI components. Although not all-inclusive, these items illustrate additional examples of the integrated nature of response to intervention and special education

Table 2 Critical Instructional Information at the Response to Intervention (RTI)-Special Education Decision-Making Nexus
Special Education Eligibility Decisions for all Struggling Learners Should be Based to a Signicant Degree on RTI Data Representing the Following Multitiered Instructional Components: Implementation of research-based curriculum Implementation of evidence-based interventions Corroboration of instructional and assessment delity Documented progress towards meeting established benchmarks Tier 1 instructional differentiations; Effects on progress Tier 2 supplemental instructional supports; Effects on progress Tier 3 intensive intervention; Effects on progress Major instructional adjustments implemented; Effects on progress Gap analysis results illustrating size of difference between expected and actual performance Rate of progress as compared to age and grade-level peers Level of prociency relative to age and grade-level peers All universal screening, progress monitoring and diagnostic results

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:18 29 November 2012

eligibility, especially as discrepancy data are used in the decision-making process.

Learning Disabilities and Discrepancy Data in RTI Models One focal point in the RTIspecial education nexus is use of discrepancy data to base instructional and eligibility decisions. Currently, three types of discrepancies may be included in RTI models regarding special education decision making as illustrated in Table 3. As shown, the three types of discrepancies apply a different set of criteria to consider learner needs and eligibility for special education. However, unlike the previous emphasis on the discrepancy that

293

Response to Intervention: Critical Issues

Table 3 Discrepancy Models Applied in Eligibility Decision-Making in Response to Intervention Models

Discrepancy Model Potential achievement Discrepancy Consideration Intellectual capacity (IQ) is compared to actual achievement levels Discrepancy Example Average or above IQ with signicantly below grade level achievement (e.g., third grade student with average intelligence who functions at a rst grade level in reading) Third grade student who functions at a rst grade reading level is signicantly below age/grade level peers in reading Third grade students reading rate of progress is signicantly below age/grade level peers and students actual reading achievement level is that of a mid-year rst grade student

Expectedactual achievement

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:18 29 November 2012

Dual discrepancy (Rate of progress; actual achievement)

Learners actual achievement levels are compared to expected achievement level based on age and/or grade Two-part discrepancy: (a) comparison of expected rate of progress based on age/grade; and (b) comparison of expected to actual achievement levels based on age/grade

reects intrinsic student learning or behavior disorders, contemporary emphasis is placed upon curriculum-based performance discrepancies reecting quality of instruction. Each of these is briey discussed below.

may be a preferred method until more research is completed on the efcacy of using RTI data as the primary means for identifying a learning disability (Bender & Shores, 2008; Kavale & Flanagan, 2007). This highlights the usage of the other two discrepancy models presented in Table 3.

PotentialAchievement Discrepancy Use of this formula has been under intense scrutiny for over two decades as its validity and reliability in accurately identifying a learning disability is questioned (Burns & Gibbons, 2008; Harry & Klingner, 2007). With the reauthorization of IDEA (2004), the practice of using the intellectual potentialachievement discrepancy formula for identifying a learning disability was made optional for states and school districts (Bradley et al., 2007). This provided a legal foundation for use of alternative methods for identifying a learning disability that has led to one or more of the following: (a) states mandating to their school districts the elimination of the IQachievement discrepancy; (b) states allowing districts to do away with this practice to use other authentic RTI progress data; and/or (c) states permitting use of both RTI progress data and the IQachievement discrepancy. Recent research suggests that employing use of item 3

ExpectedActual Achievement Discrepancy Mellard and Johnson (2008) wrote that through progress monitoring of achievement, learning disabilities is primarily regarded as low achievement relative to classroompeer functioning (p. 55). Within this type of discrepancy, actual student performance levels provide the basis for making instructional adjustments in each tier of intervention and, as a main component in subsequent special education eligibility decisions, should lack of growth persist. Emphasis on the expectedactual achievement discrepancy approach directly assesses learner progress tied to the individual districts curriculum (Appelbaum, 2009, p. 4). However, this approach takes into account only level of prociency and not rate of progress towards prociency.

294

Hoover

Special Education Eligibility and RTI

Dual Discrepancy Model Dual discrepancy considers both level of prociency and rate of progress (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998) in making instructional and eligibility decisions. Burns and Gibbons (2008) wrote that a dual discrepancy approach is superior to a single discrepancy approach (p. 44). Within this approach, both prociency levels and rates of progress need to be determined for accurate eligibility decisions to be made. That is, a learner may be functioning at a lower prociency level yet, compared to age and grade level peers, is making adequate rate of progress. This combination suggests that a learning disability may not exist since the student is able to progress commensurate with peers. Although more intensive instruction may be needed to assist the student to catch up to peers, diagnosis for a learning disability would be considered premature within the dual discrepancy model because the learner does not simultaneously exhibit low levels in both rate of progress and prociency. Therefore, as discussed earlier, three types of discrepancy approaches exist, with the potential achievement approach being the least preferred and the dual discrepancy model the most preferred in making special education eligibility decisions for learning disabilities.

education eligibility. Although strong support exists for transition to response to intervention models, a clearly articulated process for its development and implementation is warranted. I conclude with several suggested areas requiring additional research to further clarify how special education eligibility decision-making best ts within RTI models: Accuracy of RTI in identifying learning disabilities, Effective process for developing and implementing special education eligibility procedures within RTI on a school-wide basis, RTI and special education eligibility decisionmaking at the secondary and pre-K levels, RTI model used with culturally/linguistically diverse learners, Meeting the needs of learners with low incidence disabilities in RTI models, and Continued identication of research-based curriculum and evidence-based interventions for use in RTI models. As the development and implementation of RTI becomes more widespread and educators have gathered additional information about how RTI is best used in the overall special education process, clarity about how RTI helps to meet the needs of learners who eventually are considered for special education eligibility will become more evident.

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:18 29 November 2012

Future Challenges and Suggested Research How a disability is perceived within RTI models has far-reaching effects relative to special education eligibility decisions, especially when considering the following: Does continued failure to respond to instruction accurately reect a learning disability? Additionally, research conducted to date with few exceptions : : : has focused on the efcacy of (various) components within RTI and less on the efcacy of the RTI process as an integrated whole (VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007, p. 226). The application of a response to intervention model directly affects the integrated whole when considering special References
Appelbaum, M. (2009). The one-stop guide to implementing RTI: Academic and behavioral interventions, K12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(5), 812. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scienticbased practices. New York: Taylor & Francis.

295

Response to Intervention: Critical Issues Council for Exceptional Children. (2008). CECs position on response to intervention (RTI): Unique role of special education and special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 7475. Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldnt be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 129136. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 9599. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identication of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204219. Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the responseto-intervention concept: Empirical foundations and recent developments. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 1024). New York: Springer. Haager, D., & Mahdavi, J. (2007). Teacher roles in implementing intervention. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 245264). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2007). Discarding the decit model. Educational Leadeship, 64(5), 16 21. Hoover, J. J. (in press). Response to intervention models: Curricular implications and interventions. Columbus, OH: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Hoover, J. J. (2009). RTI assessment essentials for struggling learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Howell, R., Patton, S., & Deiotte, M. (2008). Understanding response to intervention: A practical guide to systemic implementation. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. IDEA. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004. Washington, DC. Ikeda, M. J., & Gustafson, J. K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11s problem solving process: Impact on issues related to special education (Research Report No. 2002-01). Johnston, IA: Heartland Area Education Agency 11. Kavale, K. A., & Flanagan, D. P. (2007). Ability achievement discrepancy, response to disability identication: Toward a contemporary operational denition. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 130147). New York: Springer. Klingner, J. K., & Bianco, M. (2006). What is special about special education for culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities? In B. Cook & B Schirmer (Eds.), What is special about special education? (pp. 3753). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Kovaleski, J. F. (2007). Potential pitfalls of response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 8089). New York: Springer. Mahdavi, J. N., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E. (2009). Pioneering RTI systems that work: Social validity, collaboration and context. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 6472. Marston, D., Reschly, A. L., Lau, M. Y., Muyskens, P., & Canter, A. (2007). Historical perspectives and current trends in problem solving: The Minnesota story. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 265285). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Mellard, D. F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A practitioners guide to implementing response to intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Tucker, J. A., & Sornson, R. O. (2007). One student at a time; One teacher at a time: Reections on the use of instructional support. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 269278). New York: Springer. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identication of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45(2), 225256. Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. (2007). Overview of the three-tiered model of reading intervention. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidencebased reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 310). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:18 29 November 2012

296