Response to intervention: changing how we do business: when the RtI process is used to diagnose disabilities, schools can intervene early to offer students more beneficial instructional strategies.

Response to Intervention is a school-wide system of interventions that is generally a three-tiered system. Tier one interventions are data-proven practices used by the classroom teacher that identify children at risk.

In tier two, students who do not respond to proven practices receive targeted, data-based intervention from professionals other than the teacher. A student with academic delays is given one or more of the research-validated interventions.

In this model, students' academic progress is monitored frequently to see if the interventions are sufficient to help the student to catch up with his or her peers. If the student fails to show significantly improved academic skills despite several well-designed and implemented interventions, this failure to "respond to intervention" can be viewed as evidence of an underlying learning disability. Additional assessment may take place upon that determination.

One of the advantages of RtI in the diagnosis of disabilities is that it allows schools to intervene early to meet the needs of struggling learners. RtI also maps those specific instructional strategies found to benefit a particular student, which is helpful to teachers and parents.

Meeting the RtI challenge in California

It does not appear that California Local Education Agencies and their schools will be given the choice as to the use of RtI. Therefore, debate on the merits of RtI in shaping general education interventions and the special education identification process bear little merit. On the other hand, proactive planning for this change will lead to the smooth implementation and the ultimate sustainability of RtI as an effective force for students who are at risk of failure.

Recent research (Sindelar, et al., 2006) on the sustainability of inclusive school reform identified several areas that may be generalized to the implementation and sustainability of RtI as a school-wide reform movement. Three key categories that emerged include state and district policy, leadership and teaching.

State and district policy

The State Department of Education, with direction from the superintendent of public instruction, needs to step forward without delay and take a leadership role in ensuring effective and systematic implementation of RtI. Although the federal government has delayed promulgating regulations, the mandate to the state is clear in IDEA.

The departments of curriculum and instruction, especially reading/language arts and specialized programs, special education, Title I and English learners, should be required to work together to develop common approaches, share resources and provide trainings and technical assistance throughout the state.

One tool that is available is the California Services for Technical Assistance. CalSTAT, which already has a model for developing leadership sites and is funding a limited number of local trainings in RtI, should be expanded and given a broader statewide mission related to RtI.

LEAs at this point should not be overly eager to jump into all three levels of RtI, but should be focusing on changes in policies and strengthening approaches relating to general education interventions. Districts should support, through top-level leadership, the implementation policies that encourage portions of RtI implementation at local model sites.

To accomplish this, superintendents need a general knowledge of the concepts that RtI is based on, whereas building administrators need extensive training concerning implementation and support of RtI. This may be accomplished using a variety of approaches, but training should be scheduled to start as soon as possible.

Leadership: Providing direction

For RtI to be successfully implemented and sustained in California, leadership will be critical. The state, county and local superintendents will be critically important in providing direction, policies and guidelines to move forward.

Principals will be an essential component in both implementation and sustainability of RtI. Principals will need training, reinforcement and central office support to make this change successful.

Finally, the role of specific teachers who will lead their peers must not be overlooked. Like principals, teachers will require training and support in this endeavor.

Because of the nature of the RtI, significant collaboration will be necessary within LEAs, regions and counties. This change cannot be viewed as only for special education or it will be doomed for failure. Leaders must bring together others who are responsible for both general and special education. For example, representatives from the SELPA should take part in planning, with representatives from the county curriculum council, when looking at training issues.

Teaching and classroom sites

Ultimately, the success of RtI in changing how we currently serve at-risk and special education students in all classrooms will fall to the teachers. Beyond the initial training for implementation, teachers will need ongoing inservice--along with supportive policies and leadership--if they are to be successful. A climate of communication and support will be necessary at all school sites, along with a focus at the administrative level that encourages and supports the implementation and continuation of RtI.

Other considerations

Although the research on implementation and sustainability for school-wide change does not address other systems, there are two of note for California. These are the institutions of higher education and professional organizations.

Much of RtI involves instructionally sound approaches. It is hoped that universities in California will step forward to include RtI approaches in their training programs. However, in the past they have found it impractical to change general and/or special education programs of study without changes in either credentialing requirements or in program certification, which come from the state. RtI must be considered an essential component of not only general education and special education teacher training programs, but also programs that train our principals.

On the other hand, organizations such as ACSA need to take a proactive role in facilitating growth in knowledge and skills of educational leaders within California. Professional organizations need to hold conferences and other forums that allow school leaders statewide to gain the knowledge necessary to make this significant change in how we intervene with students at risk. Such organizations may be able to fill the void in the more immediate future than the other bureaucracies noted above.

Making RtI successful

There is little argument that RtI will have significant impact on both general education instructional responsibilities for students at risk and the special education identification process. One may ask if this is another fad that is being courted by the education community and will fade almost as quickly as it has emerged.

The answer is probably not, for a couple of reasons. First, this is a federal mandate for change, which in all probability will be embodied in both IDEA and NCLB. Second, other states have been successfully using RtI for a number of years and express few reservations about the approach.

The question then arises: how can we in leadership positions in California ensure RtI is effective and sustainable at an acceptable level? One place the answer may be found is in the lessons that were learned from the research on the implementation and sustainability of other educational reforms. Some examples of this type of research include Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes and Arguelles (1999); Gersten, Chard and Baker (2000); Furhey, Hasazi, Clark-Keefe and Hartnett (2003); and Vaughn, Klingner and Hughes (2000).

As noted above, Sindelar and his colleagues (2006) grouped the factors identified above into three categories, state and district policy, leadership, and teaching/classroom sites. These categories, with minor modification, warrant a brief discussion of the context of RtI within California. The following areas appear to be essential for district and school-wide change:

* District-level practices that encourage reform: Districts that have shown sustained results have district-level leaders who recognize schools for adopting identified practices and ensure that principals follow through.

* Strong school leadership: Schools at which principals devoted time to the change were successful in implementing and sustaining the change.

* Teacher buy-in: Implementation of change by a teacher was most likely to occur when the change fit in with the teacher's beliefs or teaching style, the approach helped the most difficult-to-teach students, and when teachers received supportive training.

* Key teacher leadership: Teachers who were viewed as leaders by other teachers play an important role in providing resources and encouragement to other teachers, and therefore facilitate the implementation and continuation of changes within a school.

* Shared vision, decision making and communication practices: Schools were more likely to sustain reforms if they had a shared vision, provided for decision making that included those who are involved, and developed a culture of shared communication.

* Complexity of change: Innovations that were smaller in scope and/or lower in demand for teachers or for a school are more successful than those with broader scope and higher complexity.

By taking the areas above into consideration during the implementation of RtI, district leaders will be better able to ensure success of this change.

Positive outcomes for students

Changing how we do business in the area of at-risk and special education identification is mandated. This change, it appears, will occur in the implementation of an RtI model statewide. Studies of other school reforms, especially inclusion, can provide direction so that implementation and continuation of the RtI model is successful.

Not only will teachers and schools have to work to achieve this change, but leadership will need to come from California Department of Education, local superintendents, principals and other building leaders, including teachers. With planning, training and leadership at each of these levels, RtI could be smoothly implemented in California, resulting in positive outcomes for those who need them--students at risk and those in need of special education services.

References

Furney, K.; Hasazi, S.; Clark-Keefe, K. and Hartnett, J. (2003). "A longitudinal analysis of shifting policy landscapes in special and general education reform." Exceptional Children, 70, 81-94.

Gersten, R.; Chard, D. and Baker, S. (2000). "Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based instructional practices." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 445-457.

Klingner, J.; Vaughn, S.; Hughes, M. and Arguelles, M. (1999). "Examining the school-wide 'spread' of research-based practices." Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 221-234.

Sindelar, P.; Shearer, D.; Yendol-Hoppey, D. and Liebert, T. (2006). "The sustainability of inclusive school reform." Exceptional Children, 72, 317-331.

Vaughn, S.; Klingner, J. and Hughes, M. (2000). Sustainability of research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 66, 163-171.

How it all started: Discrepancy model eliminated in law

The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act in 2004 contained a section that prohibited states from requiring school districts to use a discrepancy formula for identifying students with learning disabilities. In 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a conformity bill, which in essence eliminated the California requirement to use severe discrepancy to identify this group of students with disabilities.

The federal law and the accompanying regulations reinforce Response to Intervention as the alternative to severe discrepancy. The word to the field is that RtI will be a requirement contained in the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.

Closing the information gap

The change in the identification standard to an RtI model initially caught many special education professionals off guard and woefully uninformed. For the most part, RTI practices were not in use in special education within the majority of the state's districts prior to 2004. Since the end of 2004, many individual district and Special Education Local Plan Area administrators, along with individuals within districts who are responsible for curriculum, have made an effort to close the information gap that was present.

Individuals with RtI experience from other states, and those who have had model programs in California that provide the intervention piece of RtI, have moved to the forefront in this process. Although a complete RtI model that includes identification of students as having a learning disability has not existed in California, many quality pieces of RtI are in place in numerous schools throughout the state.--Alan Hilton

Alan Hilton is director of the San Luis Obispo County SELPA.