Addressing Response to Intervention Implementation: Questions from fhe Field

Response to Intervention (RtI) has been described as a tiered, integrated system of assessment and instruction (O'Connor, [5]). The most common framework includes universal screening three or four times per year to identify students who are performing below expectations. Tiered interventions of increasing intensity are then provided to at‐risk students, with movement from one tier to another driven by frequent progress monitoring data (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, [4]). Available research suggests that successful implementation of RtI as a comprehensive, preventive service delivery model depends on a shared system of scientifically based assessment and intervention, as well as a plan for intervening with students who do not respond (Daly, Martens, Barnett, Witt, & Olson, [1]).

RtI gained increasing attention from both researchers and practitioners after two notable changes in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004). First, IDEIA allows for the use of RtI or similar problem‐solving models as potential alternatives to traditional methods of identifying students with specific learning disabilities. Second, IDEIA permits school districts to devote up to 15% of federal special education funding to support "early intervening services" for at‐risk learners prior to initiating an educational evaluation, particularly in the area of learning disabilities. Together, these provisions help to "ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction" (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, [3], p. 46787).

Due to the burgeoning interest in RtI implementation across diverse schools and districts, literature is also emerging rapidly with regard to assessment tools, specific interventions, and application of RtI to an increasing number of settings. Despite the increase in available research, however, the nature of RtI as a comprehensive model for service delivery frequently precludes empirical study of the entire RtI system. Rather, the vast majority of literature focuses only on one aspect or component of the system. Although this practice allows for tighter control and more focused investigation, it also results in a body of RtI literature that appears to practitioners to be disjointed, scattered, and difficult to access for the purposes of informing high‐quality implementation. Many states have begun to implement RtI models of student service and have found that, although current research is promising, more study is needed if RtI is to be used as a framework to direct general education school reform efforts (Harr‐Robins, Shambaugh & Parrish, 2009).

The impetus for this special issue was our ongoing work with schools and districts in which we repeatedly address this widening research–practice gap. As new literature continues to emerge and a science of assessment and intervention begins to take shape, it becomes increasingly difficult to provide clear and concise resources to practitioners who seek answers to conceptual, procedural, and logistical questions related to RtI implementation. Our hope is that this issue will provide practitioners and consultants with a resource that serves to narrow the research–practice gap by offering a relevant and timely summary of current research and trends in the RtI literature. By addressing some of the most pressing questions about assessment, intervention, and systems‐level implementation, we aim to provide those on the front lines with information that will help to base their implementation efforts on research‐based practice.

This special issue of Psychology in the Schoolsincludes current and proposed practices designed to assist practitioners and guide future research. The authors address a variety of RtI concepts, including the application of interventions at all levels, appropriate use of data, decision‐making within tiers, scaling up services in math, enhancing problem‐solving team practices, and extending services to include students at all grade levels and those with more diversity. Finally, this issue suggests district‐level considerations that may be appropriate as school administrators seek to support staff and more fully meet all students' needs.

Jones, Yssel, and Grant suggest that strengthening core instruction is an area for research in RtI. They propose that students in Tier 1 may benefit from wider application of interventions originally designed for use in upper tiers. They present a rationale for nesting proven Tier 2 interventions into core (Tier 1) instruction to increase specific skill sets for all students. A framework for implementation and organization of this differentiated instruction model is provided.

The concept of modifying instruction within tiers is presented by Daly, Kupzik, Ihlo, and Young. They describe strategies for evaluating and modifying students' current interventions prior to adjusting instruction to include a more restrictive level of services. Areas suggested for consideration include examining the targeted skill(s), evaluating the configuration of the instruction (along with associated practice opportunities), and assessing the fidelity of program implementation. In addition, checks for student motivation and engagement are described, and modifications in all areas are suggested.

Ball and Christ discuss a practical framework for understanding current literature regarding curriculum‐based measurement. Recommendations are provided to support valid decision‐making for the purposes of problem identification, problem analysis, progress monitoring, and program evaluation. Strengths and shortcomings of available measures are discussed, accompanied by suggestions for current practice.

The use of problem‐solving teams in the RtI model is examined by Nellis. The author discusses the history, evolution, and current framework for teaming in schools that have culminated in the problem‐solving model. Barriers to effective implementation of team processes are identified and clarified. Finally, specific suggestions are generated for thoughtful integration of comprehensive policy, evidence‐based practices, and strategies to promote meaningful systems‐level change.

The area of reading has historically been the focus of RtI implementation. In an effort to address the next steps for services in additional subject areas, Lembke, Hampton, and Beyers discuss key elements and critical considerations for successful implementation of RtI in mathematics. Screening measures, progress monitoring practices, and diagnostic tools specific to mathematics are identified and defined within an RtI context. The authors then describe tiered services designed to improve the mathematics achievement of low‐performing students, as well as resources to guide the selection of evidence‐based math interventions.

Pyle and Vaughn consider current research related to RtI with secondary students. An overview of findings from a 3‐year longitudinal study is provided. In this research, reading interventions of increasing intensity were made available to low‐performing middle‐school students, with services based on yearly documented responsiveness. Informal and more standardized state assessments are suggested for monitoring student eligibility and response. Analysis of data indicated that secondary students need interventions not only for remediation, but also to prevent significant decline in skills, thus differentiating the goals and scope of RtI in secondary compared with elementary settings.

The impact of RtI with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students is examined by Hernández‐Finch. Recent research findings are reviewed, with particular attention to adolescents with CLD. Policies and practices are noted with regard to cultural responsiveness of RtI. The author concludes that additional research and improved reporting are needed in several areas, including appropriately disaggregating data, more specifically studying CLD students, and examining areas other than reading.

O'Connor and Freeman explore system‐level considerations for effective RtI implementation, starting with foundational issues, such as defining RtI and its relationship to continuous school improvement. They then discuss key structural issues that are consistently present in effective schools, including knowledgeable and supportive leadership, efficient and effective use of data, purposeful staff recruitment, and strategic allocation of resources. The authors provide evidence and conclusions supporting the importance of ongoing commitment to RtI at the district level.

This special issue, "Addressing Response to Intervention Implementation: Questions From the Field," has sought to narrow the research–practice gap by purposefully summarizing the current state of the literature with regard to pertinent assessment, intervention, and systems factors that merit consideration throughout the RtI implementation process. It is our hope that this discussion will advance the efforts of all stakeholders in understanding and addressing the challenges that remain.