Response to intervention (RTI) encompasses a process for evaluating whether students react to evidence-based instruction as expected. Typically considered a multitiered, prevention-intervention system, successive levels of instructional support are provided when a student's response to the academic program is sufficiendy poor, particularly as compared to his or her peers' responses. In 2004, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; P. L. 108-446) allowed for a student's response to research-based intervention to be part of the process for identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Rather than requiring the traditional aptitude-achievement discrepancy approach to identification, which sometimes necessitated years of poor academic achievement before a student might qualify for special education services (i.e., a wait-to-fail model), IDEIA allows for continued poor response to validated instruction as a means for documenting that a student's disability may require specialized services to produce appropriate learning outcomes. In other words, if a student continues to perform poorly despite the implementation of scientifically validated instruction, then inadequate instruction is eliminated as a cause for the student's insufficient learning. Instead, the student's lack of appropriate response to otherwise generally effective instruction is, in part, evidence for the presence of a disability. Within a multitiered RTI system, students are likely to receive help at earlier stages in their learning with perhaps some disabilities even being prevented from developing or their overall impact lessened. This preventive aspect has prompted many schools to adopt an RTI framework as a means for reforming their educational practices (e.g., see Tilly, 2006). As potential LD identification is embedded within this preventive framework, however, schools are faced with questions about how best to operationalize this process. Professional concerns expressed about using RTI as a part of SLD identification typically revolve around issues related to instruction and assessment. Although sound instruction is paramount to successful implementation of RTI, assessment data should drive decision making. Therefore, we argue that progress monitoring comprises one of the most critical features of successful RTI implementation. Careful progress monitoring aids teachers and student support teams in making instructional decisions throughout all levels of the RTI system and provides data to corroborate SLD identification. We propose a sample framework for RTI implementation within the context of elementary-level instruction in reading that is based on available research. We identify critical aspects of both instruction and assessment that must be addressed by schools as they operationalize RTI. Also within this multitiered framework, we describe how progress monitoring data can be used to provide salient information regarding the presence of a learning disability. Last, we discuss additional challenges rural schools may face when carrying out RTL Instruction and Assessment Within an RTI Framework Tier 1: Primary Prevention Instruction. Most models of RTI involve multiple tiers, or levels, of instruction aimed at preventing (a) inadequate instruction from being implemented over sustained periods of time and (b) disabilities from developing or becoming more severe. The first tier of such a framework occurs as general education instruction. Because data used from an RTI process for potentially identifying students with SLD must show lack of adequate response to scientifically validated instruction, Tier 1 must necessarily involve implementation of instructional practices that have been tested empirically. Schools must be able to defend that the core programs and instructional procedures used by their teachers have been generally effective in promoting student achievement or that specific instructional components within diese programs have empirical validation for improved achievement. …
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 129 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.