Response To Intervention In Special Education

A fundamental aspect of a quality education involves data driven decision-making in regards to instructional practices. After analyzing information obtained throughout the years, the United States Department of Education recognized a need for a program that would help to alleviate the growing number of students being referred for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In the search for a solution, response to intervention was developed. Response to intervention (RTI) was designed as a framework for districts to adopt that would move students through tiers of interventions to increase student success while decreasing the number of students qualifying for special education services.

According to O’Connor

Hale (2008), in order to understand RTI one must “understand the legal definition of ‘Specific Learning Disability’ (SLD) and the legal term known as ‘Response to Intervention’” (p. 1). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) provides definitions for Specific Learning Disability and a discussion of the statute for Response to Intervention. In the Federal Disability Definitions (2017) Title 34 Sec. 300.8 Specific Learning Disability is defined as:

(i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

The Response to Intervention aspect of the new guidelines can be found in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (2017) Title 34 Sec.

When determining the most appropriate screening device to use, Fletcher and Vaughn (2011) suggest that “devices are used with entire grades… [and] that the tool can be quickly administered with adequate sensitivity and specificity” (p. 32). It is indispensable that schools use a device to which all students have access. This allows administrators to determine which students are falling behind. Gibbons and Casey (2012) realize that “screening needs to be universal, meaning that all students are screened. Screening tools are not intended to be diagnostic tools and need to be quick and easy to administer, otherwise the screening process would take too much time” (p. 90). Through screening educators can use data to meaningfully and intentionally target students in need of intervention. Mayer and Behar-Horenstein (2015) agrees with Buffum, et al. (2009) with the realization that “RTI is a radical departure from how most schools have functioned for decades” (p. 384). It is crucial for schools to realize that although RTI may be a radical change, it is a beneficial one for