Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

Promoting the success of students is the primary focus of educational professionals. Systematically identifying individual needs and subsequently providing appropriate interventions is central to the task of enhancing student outcomes. With the reauthorization of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; signed into law in December 2004), the process of identifying students with learning disabilities (LDs) is at the forefront of education issues in the United States. Regulations accompanying the reauthorized IDEIA permit the use of data ( response ) obtained when scientifically based intervention is implemented with a student ( to intervention ) to make eligibility decisions under LDs. The regulatory provision reflects a fundamental paradigm shift that closes the gap between instruction and assessment.

Traditionally, schools address students’ academic and behavioral difficulties in terms of a predictable three-stage process that can be described as a “refertest- place” approach. That is, students presenting academic and/or behavior problems are referred to a child study team that offers recommendations for an intervention to resolve the problem. Very often, however, these interventions are not evidence based and are often ineffective in solving the referral concern. These ineffective interventions then are followed by an official referral to a school psychologist or an assessment team to determine whether the student meets eligibility requirements for special education under a designated disability category (typically specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance (ED), or mild mental retardation). Finally, if a team believes that the student is eligible for special education and related services, he or she is placed into special education and an individualized educational plan (IEP) is written (see Bocian, Beebe, MacMillan, and Gresham, 1999).

Response to intervention (RTI) has been referred to as the practice of using evidence-based instruction/ intervention to address student needs while monitoring student progress over time in learning and/or behavioral domains (National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), 2005). Although there are emerging variations in the definition of RTI, essentially the approach involves using outcome data to make decisions about the effectiveness of an intervention structured within a multi-tiered system that could include, among other options, eligibility determination for special education (Kratochwill, 2006).

The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) opens the door for the general education system to revisit how it assesses and provides service for students who are experiencing academic and behavioral difficulties. As opposed to the current regular education practice of relying upon a refer-test-place approach to support students with special academic or behavioral needs, this alternative approach places an emphasis on both assessment and, importantly, intervention in regular education settings. Response to intervention (RTI) offers regular education teachers assessment options and intervention tools that encourages them to accept instructional responsibility for a broader range of students than the prior model.

The response-to-intervention (RTI) model is a treatment-based approach to determining special education eligibility based on the student’s responsiveness to evidence-based interventions (Batsche et al., 2005; Fuchs, 2003; Kratochwill, Clements, and Kalymon, 2007). This model is increasingly becoming recommended as the preferred approach to assessment and intervention for addressing a wide range of problems and disabilities among students, including learning disabilities, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders (Batsche et al., 2005; Fuchs and Fuchs, 1998; Gresham, 2005; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). The RTI framework has much appeal because it brings renewed focus on intervening early with students, identifying students’ needs based on risk, potentially reducing bias in the identification process, and improving student outcomes (Gresham,Vanderheyden, and Witt, in press). Furthermore, the move away from an exclusive use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy model of identification to a problem-solving approach used in the RTI model gives it a distinct advantage over current approaches to serving students who are experiencing difficulties in school (Fuchs and Fuchs, 1998; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan and Young, 2003; Kratochwill et al., 2007).

The inclusion in the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) of the option for local education agencies (LEAs) to use an assessment of a student’s response to intervention (RTI) as an alternative to the evaluation of a student’s ability-achievement discrepancy in determining whether the student can be classified as having a learning disability (LD) has spawned much controversy and much hope. Because RTI is embedded in the nation’s special education law, and is particularly connected with procedures for determining LD, much of the public discussion about RTI has focused on whether the assessment ofRTI is psychometrically defendable and sufficiently comprehensive to verify the existence of LD (Batsche, Kavale, and Kovaleski, 2006). In addressing potential pitfalls of RTI, then, there is a temptation to conceptualize elements of this controversy as the critical issues facing the field in implementing RTI and the multi-tier model that has been inextricably tied to RTI (Batsche et al., 2005).

As a part of eligibility determination, responseto-intervention (RTI) models use both the level and rate of skill acquisition to evaluate student response to both core instructional and supplemental interventions (Case, Speece, and Molloy, 2003; Fuchs, 2003; Fuchs and Fuchs, 1998; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, and Young, 2003). As such, the level of student performance in targeted domains is compared with benchmark expectations and local peer performances (i.e., local norms). A substantial discrepancy in level is often an indication that an instructional change or intervention is necessary. The rate of student performance is also to standard expectations and local peer performances. Persistent and ongoing discrepancies in both level and rate are indicators that more intensive services are necessary, which might include those associated with special education (NASDE, 2005).

Validity can be defined as the “approximate truth of an inference” (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002, p. 33). Decision-making validity can be viewed as the process of marshaling and weighing evidence to support actions (Messick, 1995). At first glance, these definitions alone do not sound too bad as criteria for professional decisions, but in considering response to intervention (RTI) we would need to include the validity of prevention efforts, measures and approaches to student selection, interventions in appropriate intensity sequences, and outcomes, among other variables, since we make inferences (i.e., conclusions) about all of these. Perhaps not surprisingly, there is a vast amount of literature that applies to the discussion of decision-making and validity that communicates both the strengths and weaknesses of human choice, the challenges of intervention evaluation, and, therefore, the many possible vulnerabilities of professional roles.

Seen by many as a significant educational innovation with far-ranging implications for how school districts respond to the needs of their students, the notion of “Response to Intervention” (RTI, upper case) has taken on immense proportions; justifiably so, in our view. RTI will directly affect the educational experience of millions of students nationwide. School districts are revamping their processes for classifying students with learning disabilities. Educators are now investing significant time, effort, and resources in screening processes to identify students’ risk status. School personnel are combing the intervention literature to find strategies that can be implemented locally. Administrators are stuttering like David Bowie when considering the “ ch-ch-chchanges ” that need to take place in their schools to live up to this new mandate.

The category of specific learning disability (SLD) remains the largest and most contentious area of special education. A primary problem is overidentification of students with SLD as evidenced by the SLD category representing approximately5%of the school population and 50% of the special education population. Partially responsible for this problem is the overreliance on the ability-achievement discrepancy criterion as the sole indicator of SLD, a practice that remains widespread. Recently, new ways to conceptualize and define SLD have been proposed in an attempt to remedy the overidentification problem (e.g., Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, and Vaughn, 2004). Most popular is a model that conceptualizes SLD in terms of a failure to respond to intervention (RTI) (Berninger and Abbott, 1994).