Reading and Response to Intervention (RTI): How Students Benefit from Multi-Tiered Instruction and Intervention
26 April 2007, 1:00 PM EDT
Read more about Jeanne Wanzek, Ph.D.
Read more about Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D.
*Questions will be answered during the live online chat.*
The education community is facing a number of significant challenges (and opportunities!) with the recent reauthorization of the IDEA and a renewed focus (through NCLB) on accountability for student progress. Response to Intervention (RTI) holds enormous promise as a way to promote school reform that engages and revitalizes partnerships between general and special education personnel and that helps to bridge the gaps between research and instructional practice. This is especially true in the area of reading where we can safely say "we know a lot about what works" and where we can, and should, be doing much more to ensure that all students, especially those at-risk for learning difficulties and learning disabilities, are identified early and provided evidence-based services and supports.
Drs. Sharon Vaughn and Jeanne Wanzek are this month's featured LD Talk experts, and they will be answering questions and reflecting about features of evidence-based reading instruction, the delivery of effective supplemental services, the importance of collecting and using data to inform instruction and more.
Let's begin todays LD Talk with the first question.
Question from Betty Arnold, Literacy Consultant, Educational Consultant:
A question many of us have: What is special about special education? What special instruction is provided by eligibility vs. Tier III instruction provided in general education?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
I think you have asked a very important question and one that has actually been asked in the field of learning disabilities since inception. Much of my response to this question is taken from a paper that my colleague, Sylvia Linan-Thompson and I wrote for a book that is also cited at the end of this response.
For many students with disabilities, the initial goal of special education was to assure that they were provided an opportunity to attend school and profit from education. Students with moderate and severe disabilities had frequently been excluded from public schools and P.L. 94-142 (reauthorized as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment, 1997) provided the legislation that assured that all individuals would receive a free and appropriate public education. It was not until 1977 that students with LD were guaranteed special education services. For students with LD, most of whom were already provided education within the general education system, their special needs would now be identified and they would be provided with a special education.
Initially defining and providing a special education for students with LD was a challenge for educators. Little was known about what an effective educational program for students with LD should look like. As a result, the special education of students with LD has traveled a somewhat rocky road of false starts, misconceptions, and misinformed ideas.
Recently, research syntheses have provided considerable guidance for research-based practices for teaching students with LD (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000).
Early thinking about educational interventions for students with LD was based on models of neurological disorders in which identification and treatment of learning problems were linked to the underlying processes that interfered with effective learning for students with LD. Although it may be accurate that many students with LD have underlying neurological or information processing disorders, we have been singularly unsuccessful at reliably identifying these difficulties and designing specific treatments to remediate them (see for review, Lyon, 1985; Mann, 1979).
There are instructional approaches that have yielded significant outcomes for students with LD. Research-based practices that are effective for the special education of students with LD are well-specified, explicit, carefully designed, and relate closely to the area of instructional need (e.g., reading, spelling, math). Torgesen (1996) specified that how special education differs from general education for students with LD is that it is more (a) explicit, (b) intensive, and (c) supportive.
So what should be special about special education for students with LD? In most cases, it will not be the content. We want students with disabilities to have access to the same curriculum including higher-order processing skills and problem solving as their non-disabled peers. What should be special is the delivery of instruction since their needs are rarely met through general education instruction alone. We know that students benefit from explicit and systematic instruction that is closely related to their area of instructional need.
But how much additional instruction do students need and in what format? We know less about the effect of variables such as group size, duration, and intensity although recent research in this area is promising.
As we begin to gather evidence of how these variables interact, we may have to think about not only how we deliver instruction and who delivers instruction to students at-risk for and with LD, but also about the extent to which schools will be able to implement and sustain a new way of doing special education.
So how should special education differ from Tier III? The answer to this question depends on how Tier III is conceptualized in the educational system in which you are working. In some educational systems, Tier III and special education are the same. In some educational systems Tier III is another opportunity for more intensive intervention before students are referred for special education. There are many other frameworks for conceptualizing increasingly intensive interventions and at this time no one preferred framework or model.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2006). Special Education for Students with Learning Disabilities: What Makes it so Special?
B.G. Cook & B. R. Schirmer (Eds.)(2006)., What is Special About Special Education? Austin, TX: PRO-ED. B.G. Cook & B. R. Schirmer.
A question many of us have: What is special about special education? What special instruction is provided by eligibility vs. Tier III instruction provided in general education?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
I think you have asked a very important question and one that has actually been asked in the field of learning disabilities since inception. Much of my response to this question is taken from a paper that my colleague, Sylvia Linan-Thompson and I wrote for a book that is also cited at the end of this response.
For many students with disabilities, the initial goal of special education was to assure that they were provided an opportunity to attend school and profit from education. Students with moderate and severe disabilities had frequently been excluded from public schools and P.L. 94-142 (reauthorized as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment, 1997) provided the legislation that assured that all individuals would receive a free and appropriate public education. It was not until 1977 that students with LD were guaranteed special education services. For students with LD, most of whom were already provided education within the general education system, their special needs would now be identified and they would be provided with a special education.
Initially defining and providing a special education for students with LD was a challenge for educators. Little was known about what an effective educational program for students with LD should look like. As a result, the special education of students with LD has traveled a somewhat rocky road of false starts, misconceptions, and misinformed ideas.
Recently, research syntheses have provided considerable guidance for research-based practices for teaching students with LD (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000).
Early thinking about educational interventions for students with LD was based on models of neurological disorders in which identification and treatment of learning problems were linked to the underlying processes that interfered with effective learning for students with LD. Although it may be accurate that many students with LD have underlying neurological or information processing disorders, we have been singularly unsuccessful at reliably identifying these difficulties and designing specific treatments to remediate them (see for review, Lyon, 1985; Mann, 1979).
There are instructional approaches that have yielded significant outcomes for students with LD. Research-based practices that are effective for the special education of students with LD are well-specified, explicit, carefully designed, and relate closely to the area of instructional need (e.g., reading, spelling, math). Torgesen (1996) specified that how special education differs from general education for students with LD is that it is more (a) explicit, (b) intensive, and (c) supportive.
So what should be special about special education for students with LD? In most cases, it will not be the content. We want students with disabilities to have access to the same curriculum including higher-order processing skills and problem solving as their non-disabled peers. What should be special is the delivery of instruction since their needs are rarely met through general education instruction alone. We know that students benefit from explicit and systematic instruction that is closely related to their area of instructional need.
But how much additional instruction do students need and in what format? We know less about the effect of variables such as group size, duration, and intensity although recent research in this area is promising.
As we begin to gather evidence of how these variables interact, we may have to think about not only how we deliver instruction and who delivers instruction to students at-risk for and with LD, but also about the extent to which schools will be able to implement and sustain a new way of doing special education.
So how should special education differ from Tier III? The answer to this question depends on how Tier III is conceptualized in the educational system in which you are working. In some educational systems, Tier III and special education are the same. In some educational systems Tier III is another opportunity for more intensive intervention before students are referred for special education. There are many other frameworks for conceptualizing increasingly intensive interventions and at this time no one preferred framework or model.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2006). Special Education for Students with Learning Disabilities: What Makes it so Special?
B.G. Cook & B. R. Schirmer (Eds.)(2006)., What is Special About Special Education? Austin, TX: PRO-ED. B.G. Cook & B. R. Schirmer.
Question from L Goodwin, Special Education Teacher, Gwinnett County Public Schools:
How will RTI affect those students who have undergone a complete educational evaluation and are considered to be slow learners- that is academic testing indicates these students are functioning at their potential?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
RTI provides no guidelines or policies for how to address students whose academic testing indicates that they are progressing at the expected level. However, we know that students benefit from systematically provided and research-based interventions in reading and math. RTI frameworks and models do provide for intervention to meet these students’ needs. Perhaps it would be useful to consider these students not as "slow learners" but as students whose acceleration academically will require greater time and resources.
There is considerable research that demonstrates that the vast majority of students respond positively to systematic interventions and while it does not close the gap between low achievers and average achievers in all cases - it does close the gap in a surprisingly high number of cases with almost all students progressing. A couple of books that summarize this research are provided:
McCardle, P. & Chhabra, V. (2004). The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research
. Paul H. Brookes: Baltimore.Foorman, B.R. (2003). Preventing and Remediating Reading Difficulties: Bringing Science to Scale
. York Timonium, Maryland.Gunning, R.G. (2006). Closing the Literacy Gap
. Pearson, Allyn & Bacon: Boston. Question from Peggy Johnson, Coach, Aragon Elementary:
I am having difficulty understanding the Three Tier Model. It seems every organization has a little different understanding of how that works, looks and feels. Our school implemented DIBELS about 6 years ago and I thought I had a grasp on Tiers of Instruction. However, now are implementing an RTI model and my understanding seems "muddy."
Can you give us any words of wisdom that may help us as a school clarify the Three Tiers and how that might work. I don't want the system to go back to a referral system. We screen children and then give the Intensive and Strategic students more support.
If a student cannot access our Core Curriculum would you say they may possibly be a Tier 2 or Tier 3 student? Tier 3 does not mean necessarily that the child is special ed.
Also, we need guide lines on how long do we alter the elements: (time, grouping, and programing)? I want the process to be a preventative and not wait-to fail system.
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
You are absolutely correct that the Three Tier Model can look and feel slightly different depending on the organization. This is true because the Three Tier Model is not a program for implementation, but rather a framework for thinking about RTI. The 3-tier framework is descriptive - not prescriptive. That is, it describes a general process but is not designed as a prescription for what to do in a specific situation. It is intended as a way to organize the critical components of RTI.
The 3-tier framework can be adjusted for any research-based program and any grouping practice. For example, students can be provided interventions in a range of group sizes including whole class, small group, pairs, and one-on-one. Students can be grouped within class, within grade or across grade as is appropriate. Any grouping practices associated with the efficacy of a research-based program are appropriate.
Interventions delivered within the 3-tier framework may also vary in the amount of time they are delivered per day based on students' needs and students' responses to intervention. More detailed information on the Three Tiers is available at http://www.texasreading.org
You make an extremely important point that the process should be not be set-up as a wait to fail model. A critical feature of RTI is the early implementation of appropriate interventions for students demonstrating learning difficulties or risk for learning difficulties. Interventions provided throughout the RTI process should be designed to accelerate student learning using progress monitoring and possibly diagnostic assessments to determine the instructional needs of the student and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions. The students' response to these interventions is carefully monitored with assessments and provides information as to whether current interventions are effective, more intensive interventions are needed, and whether the student may be have a learning disability.
Question from Zoeann Lee, home educator:
1.) What mandates will there be to notify parents of their child receiving response to intervention services?
2.) When will notification to parents regarding their childs educational concerns (that reflect the need for response to intervention services) happen? Before services begin? During services? After? Why?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
Parental notification regarding interventions is recommended practice. Also, parental safeguards and rights throughout the referral, identification, IEP, and placement process are assured by law. It is reasonable that parents would want to know if their child is identified as at risk for reading or math difficulties and what types of interventions are being implemented to accelerate their progress.
NCLD has developed a guide to parents which is an excellent resource about RTI and the types of questions parents might want to ask school level personnel. This resource is available free on line.
NCLD has written a Parent's Guide to Response to Intervention to provide an overview of the RTI process, describe how it is implemented in schools and offer questions that parents can ask.
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
Parental notification regarding interventions is recommended practice. Also, parental safeguards and rights throughout the referral, identification, IEP, and placement process are assured by law. It is reasonable that parents would want to know if their child is identified as at risk for reading or math difficulties and what types of interventions are being implemented to accelerate their progress.
NCLD has developed a guide to parents which is an excellent resource about RTI and the types of questions parents might want to ask school level personnel. This resource is available free on line.
NCLD has written a Parent's Guide to Response to Intervention to provide an overview of the RTI process, describe how it is implemented in schools and offer questions that parents can ask.
Question from Lynne Kenny, Reading Specialist, Osgood Elementary School:
What assessments would you recommend for Tier I and II students (K-3) that would help to identify student needs (and progress) in the areas of vocabulary and comprehension?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
You are asking an important and well informed question. My guess is that you have examined the progress monitoring measures typically used for Tiers I and II for students in K-3rd grade and concluded that they don’t seem to directly assess vocabulary and comprehension.
Since oral reading fluency is highly related to reading comprehension, many school personnel use reading fluency as an indicator of comprehension. However, I think your question resembles the question I hear from many other educators who would like more direct measures of comprehension.
At this time, I am not aware of a progress monitoring measure that is a highly reliable and valid measure that very quickly addresses reading comprehension. Of course, there are standardized measures of reading comprehension that take considerable time to administer, but not that can be administered quickly, easily and frequently.
This issue is further complicated when we consider measures for vocabulary growth. Again, there are standardized measures of vocabulary that provide us with relative norms. For determining vocabulary growth your best resource is locally developed curriculum-based measures that directly address the vocabulary you are teaching.
Excellent resources on assessment and progress monitoring include:
www.StudentProgress.org
McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Assessment for Reading Instruction. Guilford: New York.
Rathvon, N. (2004). Early Reading Assessment: A Practitioner's Handbook. Guilford: New York.
What assessments would you recommend for Tier I and II students (K-3) that would help to identify student needs (and progress) in the areas of vocabulary and comprehension?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
You are asking an important and well informed question. My guess is that you have examined the progress monitoring measures typically used for Tiers I and II for students in K-3rd grade and concluded that they don’t seem to directly assess vocabulary and comprehension.
Since oral reading fluency is highly related to reading comprehension, many school personnel use reading fluency as an indicator of comprehension. However, I think your question resembles the question I hear from many other educators who would like more direct measures of comprehension.
At this time, I am not aware of a progress monitoring measure that is a highly reliable and valid measure that very quickly addresses reading comprehension. Of course, there are standardized measures of reading comprehension that take considerable time to administer, but not that can be administered quickly, easily and frequently.
This issue is further complicated when we consider measures for vocabulary growth. Again, there are standardized measures of vocabulary that provide us with relative norms. For determining vocabulary growth your best resource is locally developed curriculum-based measures that directly address the vocabulary you are teaching.
Excellent resources on assessment and progress monitoring include:
www.StudentProgress.org
McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Assessment for Reading Instruction
. Guilford: New York.Rathvon, N. (2004). Early Reading Assessment: A Practitioner's Handbook
. Guilford: New York. Question from Alecia Rahn-Blakeslee, Research, Heartland AEA:
Could you talk about recent research from you and other colleagues on the length, intensity, and duration of interventions needed for students at Tier III to make progress? Thank you!
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
Several questions have requested further information on the research and instruction for students who are provided Tier III instruction. This is the area of reading and math instruction where the research base is least well developed. We know the most about interventions for students with reading difficulties and considerably less about students with persistent reading disabilities whose response to research based interventions has been minimal.
For this reason, several research teams are currently addressing issues related to Tier III instruction and I am confident that we will be much better informed in the next few years. In the meantime, I suggest that you consider the following:
(a) Assure that the target student has received research based instruction for Tiers I and II;
(b) Assure that the intervention for Tier II was provided with sufficient intensity and for a long enough time - specifically, was the group size for the intervention ever reduced to 1:1, 1:2, or 1:3 to determine students' response?; was the intervention ever provided for more than 20 minutes a day, 4-5 days per week, for more than 15 weeks?;
(c) Was the progress monitored carefully and was there a time where student progress was accelerated - what were the treatment or contextual factors associated with this improvement?, and
(d) Have contextual factors such as school, home, cultural and social factors been considered?
Question from Donna Curtin, parent advocate:
Is there a cap-limit with RTI if it is evident that the Intervention is not working for the child? I am under the impression, a child just keeps getting recycled. Please educate me so that I can understand. Thank you.
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
You raise an important point regarding implementation of RTI. A key feature of RTI is providing high-quality intervention to students who may be struggling or at-risk for struggling in an academic area.
Student progress is continually monitored in the intervention with appropriate instructional changes implemented to meet student needs. There is no cap-limit on interventions. Instead, student progress dictates the intervention needed and the referral process. If a student does not respond adequately to a high-quality intervention, more intensive intervention and possibly special education is warranted.
All aspects of the referral process are still in place in an RTI model. Teachers, as well as parents, may refer a student for special education if there is concern that the student is not making adequate progress in the intervention. In addition, all procedural safeguards are still in place as per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. A parent or public agency may request an impartial due process hearing regarding any matter related to identification, evaluation, or educational placement.
The National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities provides materials that have been reviewed by the Office of Special Education Programs to assure their consistency with the IDEA 2004 statute. Module 11 deals specifically with RTI and identification of students with learning disabilities.
Question from Nancy Zimmerman, School Psychologist, RISE Special Services:
What have you found to be the critical factors involved in development of an effective RTI model?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
Your question is essential to planning for schoolwide implementation of RTI. It is important to consider the critical factors at each level of an RTI model; first, the critical factors related to the general education provided to all students and second, the critical factors related to interventions for students who experience difficulties in an academic area or may be at-risk for experiencing difficulties in these areas.
Within the general education critical factors include:
What have you found to be the critical factors involved in development of an effective RTI model?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
Your question is essential to planning for schoolwide implementation of RTI. It is important to consider the critical factors at each level of an RTI model; first, the critical factors related to the general education provided to all students and second, the critical factors related to interventions for students who experience difficulties in an academic area or may be at-risk for experiencing difficulties in these areas.
Within the general education critical factors include:
- Instruction focused on grade-specific essential components and using evidence-based practices
- High-quality professional development selected and designed based on assessment of school, teacher, and student needs
- Screening of all students to inform instruction and identify students in need of interventionWithin intervention critical factors include:
- Targeted instruction designed to accelerate learning for students demonstrating learning difficulties
- Frequent progress monitoring of student learning
- Use of assessment data to inform instruction, including the possible need for more intensive interventions or special education
You may find the following resources helpful:
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007), The Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention
Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Evidence-Based Reading Practices for Response to Intervention
Question from SL, Learning Consultant, NJ:
I have been struggling with the RTI approach when finding students eligible for special education in the area of math (weak academic area vs. true disability) When conducting an evaluation, I review the student's cumulative file to look for a significant history of math weakness, observe the student in class, and ask them to complete some problems from previous chapters in their math text. Often the district curriculum is more challenging and does not correspond with the WJIII math sections. When their reading skills are average, I often have a hard time determining whether the student is just a weaker math student or really needs special education.
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
There is no question that a large focus of RTI implementation has focused on the area of reading, since reading is the area of need for the large majority of students with learning difficulties. Your question regarding RTI implementation in the area of math is an important one. When implementing an RTI model it is the students’ response to effective instruction and intervention that informs future instruction and possible identification of a learning disability.
First, it is critical that effective instruction is provided as part of the general education curriculum as well as in interventions that are provided to students who demonstrate learning needs.
In the area of math, you find the following resources valuable in examining effective instructional practices:
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). "A Synthesis of Empirical Research on Teaching Mathematics to Low-Achieving Students." Elementary School Journal, 103, 51-73.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2004). "Responsiveness to Mathematical Problem-Solving Instruction: Comparing Students at Risk of Mathematics with and Without Risk of Reading Disability." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 293-306.
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). "The Prevention, Identification, and Cognitive Determinants of Math Difficulty." Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493-513.
For students with learning needs, progress monitoring measures should be administered frequently to inform instruction both in general education and intervention. As effective instruction is implemented, assessment data can provide information about student progress as a result of this instruction. Students whose response to this instruction is minimal may have a disability.
Students who demonstrate progress with the instruction and eventually are able to get on level in their area of need are likely students who had a weakness in academic area and needed the additional support to accelerate their learning.
Question from Jodi Harris, Instructional Support Teacher, Nazareth Area Middle School:
What are some effective interventions for students at the middle level? Can you recommend any valuable resources for middle level educators that focus on RTI?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
As you know there are many students with learning difficulties that go beyond the elementary years. Most challenging, is that the range of abilities seen by students with learning difficulties broadens considerably in the middle grades with some students just one or two grades behind, some students more than two grades behind, and some students still in need of basic skill instruction in an area of need.
Planning effective intervention to meet these various student needs is not an easy task. Fortunately, there is research on effective instructional practices in academic areas including reading, math, and other content areas to guide our practice.
Below are a couple resources providing practical tools related specifically to intervention for adolescents that are based on this research:
The University of Kansans Center for Research on Learning Web site
Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E. S., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: Strategies and Methods
. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.In terms of your question related to resources on RTI in the middle grades, this is an area that is currently being researched. There are several LD Research Centers focusing projects on examining aspects of RTI in the middle grades. The results and practical implications of this research will be ongoing through the next few years.
Additionally, the Web site for the Texas LD Center will be updated frequently with research results and resources related to adolescent literacy and RTI.
Question from Peggy McCardle, federal research administrator:
Can you talk a little about the current three-tier study you are engaged in and whether it includes ELL students? Sharon, are you optimistic that using an RTI model will facilitate being able to distinguish between LD in ELL students and issues of language proficiency?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
Hello Peggy! Thank you for sending in a question. My first response is that I'm not going to answer any question that Dr. McCardle can't answer. Well, I suppose I can't get away with that and will have to give my best shot at an answer.
There are two studies funded by NICHD that I'm involved in with my colleagues at the University of Houston (Fletcher, Francis) as well as University of Texas (Denton, Wanzek). One study addresses issues related to assessment, development, and effective interventions for older students (grades 6-8) many of whom are ELL. I think that there are approximately 50% of our sample who are ELL. I'm optimistic that RTI (implemented well) will be able to assist schools and parents in determining the extent to which reading and math difficulties are a function of insufficient or inadequate instruction or other issues such as oralcy development with ELLs. We are optimistic that the findings from the first wave of data related to this study will be available Fall, 2007.
What I really like about this question isn't that there is a simple answer, but more than this question reminds us of the importance of determining both contextual and student factors that may contribute to response to intervention. In the case of ELLs, we need to assure that we are capturing enough information related to students' language development. Furthermore, assuring that interventions provided are adjusted to adequately respond to the language needs of students. We would not want to assume that interventions that are effective for monolingual English students would be effective with ELLs without consideration of the instructional adjustments necessary to consider language needs and promote oralcy development.
Question from Barbara Parry, PhD Private Practise, Academic and Psychological Testing Services, Las Vegas, NV:
Has RTI/RTP been validated for high school, university/college and graduate students?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
To my knowledge, the use of RTI practices for identifying a learning disability at the high school level or for adults has not been researched. The research currently being conducted at the middle school level will likely inform practices at the high school level, but further research is needed. Post-secondary schools are not required to identify students with LD. However, students with identified disabilities can choose to make their needs known and receive appropriate accommodations.
Question from Susan Myers, Reading Teacher, Rio Bravo Elementary and Jamie,Elem. Resource Shawnee Mission School District:
What are researched based materials and where can I obtain a list of these materials for my instruction? What types or programs have you found the most effective when working with kindergarten students? (We are working now with groups of 3-4 students using "Road to the Code."
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
You have identified a term in our field that is frequently used and yet not always accurately defined. At a minimum, "research-based materials" are materials that have been developed based on instructional techniques that have demonstrated positive outcomes for students through previous research studies. Although the materials themselves have not been tested or researched, the instructional techniques supported by the materials have been researched, usually in multiple studies, and in the research student outcomes were positive after receiving the instruction. These materials are sometimes referred to as "evidence-based."
Research-based materials may also include instructional materials that have been specifically tested in a research study with the actual instructional materials being implemented and data demonstrating that the use of the materials significantly increased student outcomes, particularly when compared to students not receiving instruction with the materials. In education, we do not have an organization that tests and approves instructional materials. As a result, there is no "list" of research-based materials. Rather, it is important that educators receive professional development in instructional techniques that have demonstrated positive outcomes for students and use this information to evaluate appropriate materials for the needs of the students being served.
There is a document available free titled "Identifying and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence: A User Friendly Guide" that you may find valuable.
The What Works Clearinghouse also provides reports of systematic reviews of existing research to assist educators in identifying what works to improve student outcomes. These reports are available free of charge.
Question from Fran Sorin, MD State Department of Education:
Can you please explain the differences between initial school wide screening and monitoring of student progress? Can the tools used be the same and/or when should they be different measurement/data collection tools?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
The two types of assessments you mention are used to inform instruction throughout RTI. Screening assessments are administered to all students to determine the need for intervention and inform instruction at the class or school level. Progress-monitoring assessments are administered to students identified as at-risk or already struggling to track their progress. Screening assessments aid in early identification of students at-risk. For those who are not making adequate progress, teachers combine core classroom instruction with an intervention matched to students’ needs and use ongoing progress-monitoring data to adjust instruction and ensure students’ academic growth. Screening data can be entered into a database so that student performance can be analyzed at the individual, classroom, grade, and school levels.
Reports can then be issued to teachers and administrators to:
(a) Identify students who will benefit from intervention;
(b) Customize instruction based on students' needs, and
(c) Help school personnel determine the effectiveness of the classroom instruction and decide the professional development needs of the teachers.
Students identified as at-risk or struggling receive frequent and ongoing progress monitoring. Teachers’ instruction improves when they use progress monitoring to:
(a) Track student learning;
(b) Plan instruction, and
(c) Provide feedback to students.
When identifying assessments it is important to note the validated use of the assessment (usually noted in the technical manual). In addition, for progress monitoring it is necessary to have several forms of the assessment available for the frequent administration.
Question from Dee Alpert, Publisher, The SpecialEducationMuckraker.com:
How many schools of education are thoroughly training students in the research-validated methodologies or programs of reading remediation which are necessary for Tier III RTI interventions? And how many districts do you know of which have staff thoroughly trained in these methodologies or programs?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
Well, to say that this is both a difficult but important question is to say the least. I'm sure you don't really mean "how many" because that number would be unknown to any of us. However, I'm guessing you are also wondering if there are very many at all and how this will influence the success of implementing RTI.
In my judgment, the greatest barrier to the successful implementation of RTI will be in developing a well-informed and knowledgeable work force who is able to successfully implement all elements of RTI including assessment, screening, intervention, progress monitoring, data-based decision making, problem solving, and the myriad of other tasks involved in a highly effective RTI implementation.
One of the many positive potential outcomes from RTI is that it will "stir" the field to provide the type of research-validated methodologies to which you refer. This will also encourage other training sources like schools of education to improve their training of teachers. As you can imagine, this will not happen quickly or readily in all places.
As for Tier III RTI interventions, I think that this is the area where the knowledge base may be less well developed - especially for students whose response to typically effective standard protocols has been low. We have an inadequate research base about alternative interventions for students who have not responded to those interventions in reading and math that are effective for the vast majority of struggling students. I am optimistic that there are a number of researchers engaged in addressing this issue and future knowledge will be forthcoming.
Question from Diane Gormley, parent and future teacher,student at Holy Family University:
For students who have been referred for evaluation for learning disabilities/difficulties and waiting for evaluation, what can I do as a future teacher do to help these students during this lag time?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
I am always impressed with the number of teachers who express concern about assuring that the students in their class make as much progress as possible. Your question implies that you are one of the many caring teachers who are very concerned about the students in your class with learning disabilities or learning difficulties. One way to think about it is to consider that there is no such thing as "lag time." Consider that we are always trying to accelerate students' progress with as much intensity and support as we possibly can.
Accepting this perspective means that while you may be interested in procuring appropriate additional needed services for the student as quickly as possible, you are doing all that you can in the meantime.
Now, how do you determine that you are doing all that you can? One way is to consider the academic needs of the student and identify the area(s) of highest need. Next determine through progress monitoring measures or diagnostic measures the instructional needs of the student. These measures can be readily and easily administered by the teacher and are described on the Web site: www.progressmonitoring.org
Using the information you obtain from these measures will allow you to determine the students' area of highest need so that you can both adapt the instruction you are providing to the class as a whole and also identify specific interventions you can provide to the student. If possible, it may be useful to group the student with others in your class who have similar instructional needs. Even if the group met with you for 10-15 minutes a day on highly defined instructional goals, the likelihood for progress implementing research-based interventions is high. Perhaps the most important thing to remember is to consider that you want to teach relentlessly and persistently the entire time the student is in your class.
A book that may be useful to you:
Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Fuchs, L.S., & Barnes, M.A. (2007). Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Intervention
Question from Susie Long, Read/English Language Arts, Instructional Specialists, Prince George's County Public Schools:
Although guidance is provided on RTI and the three tiers, are there national standards and/or procedures, or even a consistent process for implementation that school districts may follow?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
There are not currently national standards and/or procedures for a consistent process for implementing RTI for school districts to follow. In fact, there are many models and frameworks for implementing RTI and at this time we have no "one way" or "preferred model." I think that the most important things for school districts to consider as they implement RTI is:
(a) Any guidelines and suggestions offered by the SEA;
(b) Any guidelines and suggestions offered by the LEA;
(c) examine models and frameworks in schools and districts that closely resemble yours and determine what aspects of their implementation would be valuable to replicate;
(d) Do not try to do all aspects of RTI immediately--identify several of the most critical elements and implement them effectively adding on other elements and growing the model and framework over time;
(e) Assure that all school level administrators are well informed, and
(f) Assure that there are key individuals in each school who are the "go to" folks for implementation and procedural questions.
Currently, the Center on Instruction, Special Education strand is in the process of identifying examples of RTI implementation across the United States so that other schools may examine their practices and procedures to determine what they might want to replicate.
A few good resources include:
Center On Instruction
The Iris Center-Star Legacy RTI model
K8accesscenter
Question from Kim Reading teacher Boston Public Schools:
What is the best way to teach older children who are below grade level in decoding? Should we use interesting books that have high vocabulary and scaffold them through them or should we use instructional level texts that are less interesting but are at their instructional level for decoding?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
The problem of older students with reading difficulties who struggle with decoding skills is significant for several reasons. Students who read slowly and laboriously read fewer words overall and often become reluctant readers who struggle to learn from text and do not read for pleasure. Furthermore, fluent readers can devote more attention during reading to the mental processes involved in understanding text.
For students with reading disabilities, continued instruction in decoding and word recognition skills may be particularly important given that a major cause of reading disabilities is a weakness in phonological processing even in adults with dyslexia. There are several research studies that provide evidence that students receiving interventions with a focus on phonological activities have demonstrated increased reading outcomes not only on word recognition but also comprehension.
The interventions applied in the following studies may provide guidance for you in planning instruction:
Archer, A. L., Gleason, M. M., Vachon, V. L. (2003). "Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling readers." Learning Disability Quarterly. 26, 89-101.
Bhattacharya, A., & Ehri, L. C. (2004). "Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 331-348. Rashotte, C.A.
MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J.K. (2001). "The effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades." Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 119-134.
Torgesen, J., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & 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, 34, 33-58.
In order to teach these basic skills you may need access to easier text that allows the student to practice the strategies you are teaching without significant frustration. However, as you mention, it may also be necessary to provide the student with higher level text for application of these strategies in ways that can be generalized better to text students will encounter in the content areas. In addition, it is critical that students continue to have opportunities to advance vocabulary and comprehension skills in higher level text.
Question from Susan Skok, Parent:
If a child is failing to make gains after two years of multi-tiered reading instruction, is it fair to conclude that the dyslexic child may in fact need a multi-sensory structured language education program?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
There are relatively few students with reading difficulties who have participated in research-based instruction as well as intervention for two years who are not making progress. My interpretation of your question is more that the student isn’t making adequate progress and is still considerably behind in reading.
Perhaps the area of research for which we have the least knowledge at this time is research that addresses the instructional needs of students who are minimal responders to typically effective interventions. We are currently conducting research in which we are manipulating interventions to determine if selected interventions are effective for students who were previously minimal responders.
I encourage you to provide an alternative intervention such as the one you specified and monitor student progress to determine whether acceleration in progress results.
Question from Norman J. Geller, Ass't Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University:
RTI has traditionally targetted the LD population but appears to have greater implications for the other disability areas. My question is 2-part
1) RTI is intended to provide intervention to those students who need intervention to prevent potential problems later on. We can predict the same type of implications for DD students, ED/behavioral diffficutly students that are not IDEA mandated. How can we apply the RTI standards to this population? This then leads to part 2...
2) If we know a child may need more intensive services thatn the average student, then how can a special education mandate impose this regualtion on a non-special education student? Seems we actually need to traverse boundaries between special ed and general ed.
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
You raise two very important questions. I will address each separately:
In reference to question 1 regarding application of RTI to other populations besides LD. I agree that the principles and components of RTI can be applied to many populations. In fact, the concept of multiple levels or tiers of instruction really comes from the public health model and was first applied to education to prevent difficulties and intervene with students in the area of emotional disturbance and behavior disorders.
Many schools currently use schoolwide RTI models with this population. In terms of identifying students for special education, IDEA 2004 provides provision for the use of an RTI process to identify a specific learning disability only. However, the information gained from an RTI process that is in place for the prevention and intervention for students at risk for other disabilities can certainly be used as evidence of the student’s performance prior to referral for evaluation for a disability other than LD.
In reference to your second question regarding special education mandating regulations on non-special education students, there is no mandate for an RTI process in the law. Rather, the law permits the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention as a means for identifying a specific learning disability. There is a requirement in the current and previous law authorizations of the law, that data are provided to document that the student has been provided appropriate regular education indicating the student’s difficulties are not the result of lack of instruction.
Your idea that general education and special education may be closer linked in an RTI model is probably correct. For years, educators and policy makers have highlighted the importance of general and special education working together. An RTI process requires this partnership particularly with the critical component of ensuring high-quality general education and monitoring of student response prior to referral for special education. An RTI process, however, is not mandated in the law and the referral process for a specific learning disabilty remains the same whether RTI is implemented or not.
Question from Charles Ruggles, SSDC-LD K/5 teacher, CA:
Many of the CELDT 1 children have broken the code above grade level but comprehension continues to lag by 3 to 4 years. What suggestion do you have for 10 year olds that have been in SDC-LD for 4 years but remain at CELDT 1? How should this modify mainstreaming?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
I am unfamiliar with the California coding terms such as CELDT 1 and how they are applied within the California system. However, my interpretation of your question relates to progress in reading comprehension as it relates to language competence.
I think you are wondering how we might provide an appropriate special education to students in the academic area of reading who have English language challenges.
As you know, oralcy and literacy development are related and students' foundation skills in reading (word reading) are more readily acquired when students have limited English than are higher level skills such as understanding and learning from complex text. For this reason, instructional goals that provide opportunities for integrating and expanding both oralcy and literacy outcomes are essential.
Question from Victoria Weinberg, Program Director LDA of Minnesota:
What are we learning about ELL students within RTI's tiered interventions? In our pilot study we are finding many of the students are ELL. Are their interventions that are effective in moving struggling ELL students from Native Literacy instruction to reading in Egnlish?
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
This is an important question. Understanding how ELL students will transition effectively from native language instruction to reading in English is related to effective implementation of RTI for many students. Unfortunately, there is no brief answer to this question.
An excellent resource to assist you follows:
Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth
by Diane August (ed.) and Timothy Shanahan (ed.) ISBN: 0-8058-6077-0 | ISBN13: 978-0-8058-6077-1 | Year: 2006 Price: $65.00 Erlbaum Question from Dysa Kafoury, School Psychologist, Federal Way, Washington:
Why RTI, instead of the "status quo?" Reason for question: We will be presenting the concepts behind RTI to the district and our assigned schools. We would like a clear, concise rationale for RTI.
Dr. Sharon Vaughn and and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek:
One of the issues in prevention and early identification of reading problems is the timing of referral for special education services. Under identification procedures in most states, students typically do not qualify for services within the category of learning disabilities until their academic failure is severe. This is due in large part to the use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy method for identifying students with learning disabilities. This method inherently requires that students fall behind to a significant degree in areas such as reading before they can be considered eligible for special services.
Although this model has been questioned for years on many grounds, including whether it accurately discriminates poor from normal readers or between subgroups of low-performing readers, it remains the primary procedure for identifying students with learning disabilities in the majority of states. Alternatives to the IQ-achievement discrepancy model have been proposed that focus on how students respond to an initial intervention as a means for determining special education. A response to intervention (RTI) approach is based on monitoring students’ progress over the course of their participation in appropriate interventions. Students who make minimal or no gains can be provided a more intensive and specific intervention to determine their response over time. Students who fail to profit adequately from this more intensive intervention are those who may be identified as having a learning disability.
Essential to the effective implementation of a response-to-intervention model are:
(a) Reliable and valid measures that are sensitive to intervention and can be administered multiple times;
(b) Validated intervention protocols for targeted outcomes such as reading decoding and comprehension, and
(c) School-level models delineating a coordinated system of screening, intervention, and placement.
The primary thrust for using identification models that incorporate RTI is to provide early intervention and/or pre-referral services early to students who exhibit academic difficulties. The goal is to reduce inappropriate referral and identification and to establish a prevention model for students - to eliminate the wait-to-fail model in place in many schools.
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Rourke, B. P., Shaywitz, B., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1992). "The validity of the discrepancy-based definitions of learning disabilities." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 555-561, 573.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). "Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities." Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204-219.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. N., & Al Otaiba, S. (2003). "Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and the dual-discrepancy approach." In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities
(pp. 431-449). New York: Guilford Press. Gresham, F. M. (2002). "Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities." In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice
(pp. 467-547). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dr. Sheldon Horowitz (Moderator):
That concludes our discussion for today. Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful questions and thanks to our experts, Dr. Sharon Vaughn and Dr. Jeanne Wanzek, for their time today. A transcript of the LD Talk will be made available shortly.