Responsiveness to Intervention A JAodel for Implementing Responsiveness to Intervention Lynn S. Fuchs Douglas Fuchs For decades, the major procedure for identifying children with learning dis- abilities (LD) has involved documenting a discrepancy between a student's ]Q and achievement. With this approach, however, identification typically occurs at fifth grade, so children must "wait-to- fail" before intervention can occur. For this reason, along with technical diffi- culties associated with the IQ-achieve- ment discrepancy (see Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003 for a summary), the 2004 reautho- rization of the Individuals With Dis- abilities Education Improvement Act (P.L. 108-446) permits states to discon- tinue use of IQ-achievement discrepan- cy in favor of Response to Intervention (RTI) for LD identification. Advantages of RTI include earlier identification, a stronger focus on prevention, and assessment with clearer implications for academic programming (Vaughn & Fuchs). The premise behind RTI is that students are identified as LD when their response to validated intervention is dramatically inferior to that of peers. The inference is that these children who respond poorly to generally effective interventions have a disability that requires specialized treatment to pro- duce successful learning outcomes. In this way, a central assumption is that RTI can differentiate between two expla- nations for low achievement: inade- quate instruction versus disability. If the child responds poorly to instruction that benefits most students, then the assess- ment eliminates instructional quality as a viable explanation for poor academic growth and instead provides evidence of disability. Also, because most children respond nicely to validated interven- tion, RTI serves an important preven- tion function. Most RTI models of LD identification are embedded within a multi-tier preven- tion system (see Figure 1). General edu- cation constitutes primary prevention. Students who fail to respond to this "universal" core program enter the RTI LD identification process with second- ary prevention. In most research stud- ies, this involves one or more rounds of research-based smalt-group tutoring. Students who respond poorly to this more intensive form of prevention are considered to have demonstrated The premise behind RTI is that students are identified as LD when their response to validated intervention is dramatically inferior to that of peers. "unexpected failure" and become candi- dates for tertiary inlervention. They then untiergo au inslruclioEially focused multidiscipiinary evaluation, designed to answer questions ihat arose during primary and secondary prevention and to eliminate other forms of disability as 14 • CouNcii. FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Transcript
Responsiveness to Intervention
AJAodel for
ImplementingResponsivenessto Intervention
Lynn S. Fuchs
Douglas Fuchs
For decades, the major procedure foridentifying children with learning dis-abilities (LD) has involved documentinga discrepancy between a student's ]Qand achievement. With this approach,however, identification typically occursat fifth grade, so children must "wait-to-fail" before intervention can occur. Forthis reason, along with technical diffi-culties associated with the IQ-achieve-ment discrepancy (see Vaughn & Fuchs,2003 for a summary), the 2004 reautho-rization of the Individuals With Dis-abilities Education Improvement Act(P.L. 108-446) permits states to discon-tinue use of IQ-achievement discrepan-cy in favor of Response to Intervention(RTI) for LD identification. Advantagesof RTI include earlier identification, astronger focus on prevention, andassessment with clearer implications foracademic programming (Vaughn &Fuchs). The premise behind RTI is thatstudents are identified as LD when theirresponse to validated intervention isdramatically inferior to that of peers.
The inference is that these children whorespond poorly to generally effectiveinterventions have a disability thatrequires specialized treatment to pro-duce successful learning outcomes. Inthis way, a central assumption is thatRTI can differentiate between two expla-nations for low achievement: inade-quate instruction versus disability. If thechild responds poorly to instruction thatbenefits most students, then the assess-ment eliminates instructional quality asa viable explanation for poor academicgrowth and instead provides evidence ofdisability. Also, because most childrenrespond nicely to validated interven-tion, RTI serves an important preven-tion function.
Most RTI models of LD identification areembedded within a multi-tier preven-tion system (see Figure 1). General edu-cation constitutes primary prevention.Students who fail to respond to this"universal" core program enter the RTILD identification process with second-
ary prevention. In most research stud-ies, this involves one or more rounds ofresearch-based smalt-group tutoring.Students who respond poorly to thismore intensive form of prevention areconsidered to have demonstrated
The premise behind RTI is thatstudents are identified as LD
when their response to validatedintervention is dramatically
inferior to that of peers.
"unexpected failure" and become candi-dates for tertiary inlervention. Theythen untiergo au inslruclioEially focusedmultidiscipiinary evaluation, designedto answer questions ihat arose duringprimary and secondary prevention andto eliminate other forms of disability as
14 • CouNcii. FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
a cause for failure (if another disabilityis suspected). Tertiary prevenlion is themost intensive fortTi of itistruction,involving individualized progminmingin conjunction with progress monitor-ing. When adequate performance isachieved, the child exits to secondary orprimary prevention. In this way, RTI hastwo goals: (a) to identify risk early sothat students participate in preventionprior to the onset of severe deficits,which can be difficult to remediate, and(b) to identify students with LD whoprove unresponsive to validated, stan-dardized forms of instruction andinstead require an individualized formof instruction.
As schools consider implementingRTI, they must make decisions abouthow to operationalize six componentsconstituting the RTI process, fn this arti-cle, we describe options for each com-ponent. Then, we offer our best think-ing, in light of the research evidence todate, about how schools might proceed.Finally, we describe what an RTI systemmight look like at first grade in readingand in math when our recommenda-tions are adopted.
Six RTI ComponentsTo implement RTI for prevention andidentification, schools must make deci-sions about six components that consti-tute the process: how many tiers ofintervention to use, how to target stu-dents for preventative intervention, thenature of that preventative intervention,how to classify response, the nature ofthe multidisciplinary evaluation prior tospecial education, and the function anddesign of special education.
To implement RTI for prevention
and identification, schools mustmake decisions about six
components that constitutethe process.
Number of Prevenlion TiersThe first decision that schools face isdetermining the number of prevention
Flgur* 1 . Sample RTI Model
Tier 1Primary Prevention
General education; universal coreinstructional program.
Universal screening (CBM)of all students; short-temi
MiitUdiscipliriary evahialionprecedes placement and
identifies specificdisability
Tier 2Secondary Prevenlion
Small-group tutoringin reading and math.
15- to 2O'Week sessions:dual discrepancy
evatuation determinesresponsiveness
tiers that constitute their RTI system.General education is always consideredthe first tier, and students who are tar-geted for preventative intervention mustfirst show evidence of failing to respondto this universal core program. Beyondgeneral education, however, RTI sys-tems may include any number of tiersprior to special education. Some RTIsystems incorporate general educationalong with a second tier of prevention.This second tier is more intensive thangeneral education but less intensivethan special education, and studentsmust also show poor response to thissecond tier of prevention before specialeducation is initiated at a third tier.Other RTI systems incorporate addition-al tiers of prevention to separate gener-al and special education, with specialeducation used as the fourth, fifth, orsixth tier.
Our recommendation is that schoolsemploy three tiers, with only one tierseparating general and special educa-tion. We make this recommendationbecause of the difficulty of designingmore than one tier of preventative inter-vention that can be reliably distin-guished in format, nature, style, andintensity both from general and fromspecial education. Given this difficulty,extra tiers separating general and spe-
cial education begin to resemble theintensity of special education. So, ade-quate response to these extra tiers rep-resents a shaky basis for assuming thata child does not in fact require specialeducation. When considering respon-
Our recommendation is thatschools employ three tiers, withonly one tier separating general
and special education.
siveness for the purpose of deciding thatthe child requires special education,prevention should represent a research-validated form of instruction with a for-mat, nature, style, and intensity that canbe implemented by practitioners whoare more readily available than specialeducators, including well-trained andsupervised paraprofessionals.
Identifying Sfuilents forPrevention
Regardless of the number of tiersemployed, a second component of RTIwith which schools struggle is how stu-dents are targeted to receive prevention
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • MAY/JLINK 2007 a 15
beyond the universal core program.Some RTI systems employ 1-time uni-versal screening, whereby all children ina school are assessed on a brief measureat the begiiming of the school year.Students who score below a norm-refer-enced cut-point (e.g., <25th percentileon the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests- Word Identification) or below a per-formance benchmark associated withpoor long-term outcome {e.g., <15 oncurriculum-based measurement wordidentification tluency at the beginningof fhst grade) enter preventative inter-vention. In systems that rely on 1-timeuniversal screening to identify studentswho enter preventative intervention, theassumption is that low performance rel-ative to the cut-point or the perform-ance benchmark at the beginning of aschool year constitutes evidence thatthe child has failed to respond to theTier 1 universal core program duringprevious school years and thereforerequires preventative intervention.
In other versions of RTI, universalscreening is conducted to identily a sub-set of students who are "potentially" atrisk for poor outcomes and then the per-formance of these students is monitoredfor a relatively short time to (dis)con-firm the risk status suggested via uni-versal screening. Only the subset of stu-dents who (a) first meet the universalscreening cut-point and (b) then showpoor rales of improvement over 5 to 8weeks of Tier 1 general education aredeemed in need of a preventative inter-vention.
We recommend that schools use uni-versal screening in combination with atleast 5 weeks of weekly progress moni-toring in response to general educationto identify students who require preven-tative intervention. Our rationale is that1 time universal screening at the begin-ning of the year may over-identify stu-dents who require preventative inter-vention. In our research conducted inreading at first grade, for example, 50%of students identified on the basis of 1-time universal screening in fact madegood progress over the course of firstgrade without any preventative inter-vention. Identifying students for preven-tative intervention based on 1-tinie uni-versal screening means that schools are
pressed to deliver costly prevention tolarge numbers of students who do notneed those services. This means thatschools must water down the nature ofprevention. By contrast, our research[Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant,2006) shows that with 5 weeks of week-ly progress monitoring in reading, thenumber of students who are identifiedfor Tier 2, who do not actually need Tier2, is reduced substantially or even elim-inated. Hence, we recommend thatschools incorporate short-term progressmonitoring in response to general edu-cation for identifying which studentsrequire preventative intervention.
What Areventafive InterventionLooks LikeTXvo models of preventative interventionare prominent within RTI. The first,called "problem solving," relies on pre-ventative interventions that are individ-ually tailored to meet the student'slearning needs. As reflected in the liter-ature, these preventative interventionsoften conceptualize academic deficien-cies as motivation problems. Theseinterventions therefore attempt toincrease student performance on skillsthat are already acquired, rather thandesigning instruction to develop newskills. Typically, the school psychologistassimies major responsibility, in collab-oration with other professionals, fordesigning the individually-tailored pre-ventative interventions that vary inform and function across students.
A second approach to preventativeintervention is to rely on "standard pro-tocols" that have been shown via ran-domized controlled studies to improvemost students' academic achievement.In contrast to the problem-solvingapproach, the standard treatment proto-col typically is designed to promote theacquisition of new skills, while incorpo-rating standard methods for addressingbehavioral and attention deficits so thatinstruction may proceed smoothly. Thetypical standard treatment protocol ismore intensive than Tier 1 general edu-cation because it relies on small-grouptutoring by a professional teacher or atrained and supervised paraprofession-al, 3 to 4 times per week for anywherefrom 10 to 20 weeks; because it
attempts to ensure mastery for themajority of students; because it mini-mizes transitions and maintains goodpace, while attempting to ensure highlevels of on task behavior; and becauseit incorporates self-regulation strategiesto increase goal-oriented behavior. Inaddition, the tutoring protocols aresometimes scripted; in all cases, highlyprescriptive. Therefore, the tutoring ses-sions can be roughly standardizedacross tutors and provide the opportuni-ty to estimate the accuracy with whichthe tutoring protocol is implemented.Reliance on research-validated preven-tative interventions that have beenshown to be highly effective for themajority of students speaks to a funda-mental assumption within RTI: If thechild responds inadequately to instruc-tion that benefits most students, thenthe assessment eliminates instructionalquality as a viable explanation for pooracademic growth and, instead, providesevidence of a disability. This differsfrom a problem-solving approach wherethe preventative intervention does notrepresent "instruction that benefits moststudents," but instead is an individuallytailored program.
We recommend that schools rely ona combination of approaches with astandard treatment protocol used foracademic difficulties and a problem-solving approach used for obviousbehavioral problems. Our rationale isthat standard treatment protocols havebeen shown to be highly effective foracademic deficits; therefore, the qualityof preventative intervention does notdepend on local professionals who mayhave uneven training and backgroundin instructional design. In a related way,with a standard treatment protocol, thenature of the preventative interventionto which students do and do notrespond is public, clear, and represents"instruction that benefits most stu-dents." By contrast, when a problem-solving approach is applied to remedyreading or math difficulties, there isgreater responsibility on the RTI systemto maintain records about the nature ofa student's preventative intervention;there is more parental responsibility tojudge whether an individually-tailoredpreventative intervention is viable; and
16 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
there is a weaker basis for presumingthat inadequate response eliniinatespoor instruction as the cause for insuffi-cient learning. For these reasons, theproblem-solving approach may morphRTI into something that resembles pre-referral intervention, whereby schoolsin the past have relied on idiosyncraticand watered-down interventions, suchas moving seats or adding homework,to address serious academic difficulties.Nevertheless, when dramatic behaviordifficulties occur in combination withacademic deficits, a problem-solvingapproach shouid be used to resolve thebehavior problem. An academic difficul-ty that persists despite a well-designedand functional behavioral program thenrequires a standard treatment protocolto build new academic skills.
We recommend that schools rely ona combination of approaches with astandard treatment protocol used foracademic difficulties and a problem-solving approach used for obvious
behavioral problems.
Classifying ResfmnseTo classify response, research providesfour options. Two rely on the student'sstatus when the preventative interven-tion ends. Torgesen et al- (2001) sug-gested that at the end of intervention,any student whose performance isabove the 24th percentile be deemedresponsive. The idea is that the inter-vention has "normalized" the student'sperformance. A second option, whichalso relies on final status, employs a cri-terion-referenced benchmark for deter-mining whether the intervention hasmade a sufficient impact to ensure long-term success. Good, Simmons, andKame'enui (2001), for example, suggestadministering curriculum-based meas-urement at the end of intervention, anddesignating all students who achievethe benchmark as responsive. A thirdoption relies on slope of improvement
during preventative intervention, ratherthan the student's final status at the endof intervention. In this way, Vellutino etal. (1996) suggested rank ordering theslopes of improvement for students whoreceive preventative intervention. Thecut-point for distinguishing responsefrom nonresponse is the median ofthose rank-ordered slopes. Finally, L. S.Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) combine theuse of slope of improvement with finalstatus for classifying response in the foi-lowing way. To be deemed unrespon-sive, a student must demonstrate a"dual discrepancy," whereby slope ofimprovement and final level are both atleast 1 standard deviation below that ofpeers.
We recommend that a dual discrep-ancy be used to designate unrespon-siveness. Final status alone is problem-atic because it permits some students tobe classified as unresponsive despitestrong improvement. That is, they beginintervention far below the normalizedor benchmark final criterion, anddespite strong growth, they remainbelow the criterion at the end of inter-vention. Slope of improvement alone isproblematic because it permits some
students to be classified as unrespon-sive even though they complete inter-vention meeting the normalized orbenchmark performance criterion. Bycontrast, a dual discrepancy, whichsimultaneously considers slope ofimprovement and final status, permitsthe unresponsive designation onlywhen a student (a) fails to make ade-quate growth and (b) completes inter-vention below the normalized or bench-mark criterion. In a recent workingmeeting on RTl-LD classification (D.Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, & Davis, inpress), dual discrepancy emerged as atenable approach for designating unre-sponsiveness. It was adequately sensi-tive and specific with respect to futurelow reading performance, even as itidentified students with a severe form ofreading disability with realistic preva-lence rates. Additional work is requiredto examine how alternative methods forclassifying LD within an RTI system per-form, but in the meantime, dual dis-crepancy appears promising.
MuMdisciplinary EvaluationAnother issue that schools face in build-ing their RTI model is how to design themultidisciplinary evaluation that federal
law requires for special education place-ment. In some RTI systems, multidisci-plinary evaluations are comprehensive,with a standard battery of assessmentsadministered to all students. In otherRTI systems, multidisciplinary evalua-tions are specific to the questions thatarise as a function of the student's par-ticipation in Tiers 1 and 2, Anotherdimension along which multidiscipli-nary evaluations differ is whether theassessment is designed to distinguishamong LD, mild mental retardation,speech/language impairment, and emo-tional behavior disorders as the disabil-ity underlying the lack of responsive-ness. For this purpose, the followingtypes of assessments are typicallyincluded: (a) adaptive behavior andintelligence to distinguish between LDand mild mental retardation, (b) expres-sive and pragmatic language to helpinform distinctions between LD andlanguage impairment, and [c) teacherrating scales, classroom observations,and parent interviews. These distinc-tions are warranted, of course, only ifthey provide utility for designinginstruction and grouping students pro-ductively for instruction. Few, if any,strong studies have been conducted toassess the utility of these designations.
Pending such research findings, werecommend that the instructionallyfocused multidisciplinary evaluation bedesigned to answer specific questionsthat arise during general educationinstruction and previous rounds of pre-vention and that the special educationmultidisciplinary evaluation include aprocess for distinguishing among thehigh-incidence disabilities. Our recom-mendation is based on two assump-tions. First, a specifically tailored,instructionally focused multidiscipli-nary evaluation is more efficient than afull-blown evaluation, even as it ismore likely to provide useful informa-tion for designing special educationprograms. The second assumption isthat distinctions among the high-inci-dence disability categories may provehelpful to special educators in formu-lating sensible grouping structures.
EducationMost discussions about RTI focus onreforming general education, which isconceptualized as a research-based,multi-tiered system of preventativeintervention to prevent LD for studentswho are otherwise instructional casual-ties and to identify LD for students forwhom poor instruction is eliminated asan explanation for failure. In these dis-cussions, special education is rarelymentioned, except as the final outcometo be avoided. We believe that this isunfortunate because special educationis as much in need of reform as is gen-eral education. Moreover, students whoprove unresponsive to RTI's preventa-tive intervention deserve a revitalizedspecial education tier to address theirserious disability. A reformed specialeducation should rely on lower student-teacher ratios, more instructional time,and use of ongoing progress monitoring,such as curriculum-based measure-ment, for deductively building programsthat are shown empirically to addressindividual student needs, which haveproved unresponsive to a research-vali-dated standard treatment protocol.Without such reform, special educa-tion's large student caseloads andunfortunate emphasis on paperworkand procedural compliance precludeeffectiveness, and the responsibility forproducing strong outcomes, in effect,resides entirely on the general educationsystem. If attention on reforming gener-al education were similarly allocated toreforming special education, then spe-cial education would represent a valuedtier within RTI's multi-tiered interven-tion system, not a dreaded outcome of afailed general education system.
We tecommend that RTI incorporatespecial education as an important tierthat delivers the most intensive instruc-tional programs designed formatively toaddress individual needs. This reformedspecial education should be a flexibleservice, systematically permitting stu-dents to move in and out of this tier asthe student's needs change in relation tothe demands of the general educationcurriculum. This recommendation isbased on a hope that special educationcan provide a valuable resource foraddressing the needs of students with
LD—if special education is reformedand deliberately considered and incor-porated within RTI's multi-tiered servicedelivery system.
. . . Students who prove
unresponsive to RTI's preventative
intervention deserve a revitalized
special education tier to address
their serious disability.
An RTI System IncorporatingThese Recommendeii PracticesIn this section, we describe what an RTisystem, which incorporates our recom-mendations, might look like at firstgrade in reading and math. The RTI sys-tem we describe is based on researchconducted by the National ResearchCenter on Learning Disabilities, spon-sored by the Office of Special EducationPrograms in the U.S. Department ofEducation. For studies, see Compton, D.Fuchs et al. (2006), D. Fuchs {in press),L. S. Fuchs, et al. (2005), L. S. Fuchs etal. (2007), and Compton, Fuchs, andFuchs, (submitted).
"Our School" uses a 3-tier system.Tier 2 separates general education {Tier1) from special education (Tier 3). Tier1 general education is deemed "general-ly effective'" for two reasons. First, eachquarter, the lead reading teacher andthe lead math teacher observe eachfirst-grade teacher implementing theuniversal core instructional programand has documented strong implemen-tation. The second form of evidence forthe effectiveness of first-grade Tier Ireading and math general educationprogramming is based on the school'strack records. That is, the previousyear's first-grade cohort, on average,demonstrated a strong slope of improve-ment: in reading, an average increase of1.8 words per week on curriculum-based measurement word identificationfluency (WIF); in math, an averageincrease of 0.50 digits per week on cur-riculum-based measurement computa-tion (COMP; see box, "First-GradeCurriculum-Based Measures for RTI"].
18 • COUNCIL FOR ExcEPrroNAL CHILDREN
These figures are commensurate withthe weekly rate of improvement for typ-ically-developing students in first grade(1.75 words per week increase in read-ing; 0.50 digits per week increase inmath). Moreover, during the previousyear, only 3 of 60 (i,e., 5%) first gradersfailed to achieve the end-of-year WIFbenchmark of 60 words read correctlyin 1 niin. Only 2 (i.e., 3.3%) failed toachieve the end-of-year COMP bench-mark of 18 digits correct in 2 min.
To target students for prevention,"Our School" combines universalscreening with 5 weeks of short-termprogress monitoring. That is, childrenmove on to preventalive tutoring onlywhen their universal screening scoresare low and when they also demon-strate poor growth in response to theTier 1 universal program. For universalscreening, "Our School" assesses all stu-dents in September of first grade in thesame test session on two alternateforms of WIF (see box "First-GradeCurriculum-Based Measures for RTI").averaging performance across the twoforms, and assesses all students inSeptember of first grade on two alter-nate forms of COMP on two consecutiveweeks, averaging performance acrossthe two forms. In reading, studentswhose average WIF screening score isbelow 15 move on to weekly progressmonitoring for 5 weeks. Students whoserate of weekly WIF increase (computedas slope on a line of best fit) is below1.8 then move on to Tier 2 small-grouptutoring. In math, students whose aver-age COMP screening score is below 5move on to weekly progress monitoringfor 5 weeks. Students whose rate ofweekly COMP increase (computed asslope on a line of best fit) is below 0.50then move on to Tier 2 small-grouptutoring.
For students who move on to preven-tative tutoring (i.e.. Tier 2), "OurSchool" relies on standard treatmentprotocols, which are modeled after vali-dated tutoring programs at first grade.In reading, students receive 45 min ofinstruction four times each week ingroups of 3 students for 15 weeks. Inmath, students receive 30 min of tutor-ing plus 10 of computerized drill andpractice on math facts, three times each
Testing is conducted individually in a quiet location, and the examiner scores thetest at the completion of the session. Each alternate form presents the student witha single-page list of 50 words, randomly sampled from a pool of 100 high-fre-quency pre-primer, primer, and first-grade words. The student reads words aloudfor 1 min; if the student hesitates for 3 sec on a word, the tester directs the stu-dent to move on. The score is number of words read correctly. For universalscreening, each students reads from two alternate forms in the same session; thescreening score is the average of the two scores. For indexing response, the stu-dent reads from one alternate form each week (with weekly scores graphed), andat the time when responsiveness is indexed, the student reads again from twoalternate forms in the same testing session, with the two scores averaged.
Testing is conducted in whole-class or small-group arrangements and scored laterby the tester. Each alternate form is a single page displaying 25 items that sys-tematically represent the problems incorporated in the annual first-grade curricu-lum. Each alternate form includes different problems in random order, bul incor-porates the same type of problems in the same proportion. Students have 2 minto complete as many problems as they can. The score is number of digits writtencorrectly (within the answer, not the work). For universal screening, each studentcompletes two alternate forms on two consecutive weeks; the screening score isthe average of the two scores. For indexing response, the student completes onealternate form each week (weekly scores are graphed), and at the time whenresponsiveness is indexed, the student again completes two alternate forms on twoconsecutive weeks, with the two scores averaged.
week, also in groups of 3 students butfor 20 weeks. Across reading and math,tutors are trained paraprofessionals whoare observed once each week by thelead reading teacher and receive correc-tive feedback. Aiso, once each week,the lead reading teacher meets with alltutors for 1 hr to examine students'progress monitoring graphs (WIF inreading; COMP in math) and to problemsolve about difficulties the tutors areexperiencing in effecting growth, inmanaging student behavior, and inkeeping groups moving forward when asingle student is not keeping pace. Inreading, the tutoring sessions focus onphonological awareness, letter-soundrecognition, decoding, sight word recog-nition, and short-story reading, withhighly explicit instruction. In math, thetutoring sessions focus on number con-cepts, numeration, operations, basicfact strategies, story problems, andmissing addends. In reading and math,self-regulated learning strategies are
incorporated to increase motivation andgoal-directed learning.
To determine whether students haveresponded to small-group tutoring, WIFand COMP are again used, in readingand math, respectively. In reading, stu-dents whose WIF slope of improvementis less than 1.8 and whose projectedyear-end WIF score is less than 30 aredeemed unresponsive. In math, stu-dents whose COMP slope of improve-ment is less than 0,50 and whose pro-jected year-end WIF score is less than20 are deemed unresponsive. Studentswho meet these responsiveness criteriareturn to the Tier 1 universal program,but weekly progress monitoring contin-ues. That way, if the student fails tomaintain adequate growth rates (i.e., a1.8-word weekly increase on WIF;a 0,50-digit weekly increase on COMP),a Tier 2 program can be re-initiated.
For students who fail to meet the cri-teria in reading or math, however, aninstructionally focused evaluation is con-ducted in consonance with the special
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • MAY/JUNE 2007 • 19
Addlltional Resources
To oblain tutoring manuals based on studies conducted by the National ResearchCenter on Learning Disabilities, contact [email protected]
education multidisciplinary evaluation.Written parental consent for tbe multi-disciplinary evaluation is obtained. Theevaluation is tailored to answer ques-tions that arose during Tier 1 generaleducation and Tier 2 tutoring and to for-mulate distinctions among LD, mildmental retardation, language impair-ment, and emotional behavior disor-ders. For making these distinctions, rel-atively brief measures are used: the 2-subtest Wechsler Abbreviated Scale ofIntelligence and the Vineland AdaptiveRating Scale to identify mental retarda-tion; language tests to identify languageimpairment; and brief rating scales,classroom observations, and parentinterviews to identify emotional behav-ioral disorders.
At "Our School." special educationrepresents a valuable and vital tier inthe 3-tier prevention system. Specialeducators incorporate formative deci-sion making based on ongoing progressmonitoring (at first grade, WIF in read-ing; COMP in mathj to design individu-ally-tailored special education pro-grams. The goal is to use the progressmonitoring to deductively formulate aprogram that is effective for the studentwhose response to the standard treat-ment protocol (at Tier 2) was poor. Thekey distinctions between Tiers 2 and 3are: the special educators rely on lowerstudent-teacher ratios (typically 1:1 or1:2), provide more instructional time(up to 1.5 hr per day), and systemati-cally use ongoing progress monitoringto deductively formulate individuallytailored programs. We also note that"Our School's" Tier 3 special educationis a flexible service, permitting exit andreentry as the student's needs change inrelation to the demands of the generaleducation curriculum. At first grade,students exit special education whentheir WIF slope of improvement exceeds1.8 words increase per week and whentheir projected year-end performanceexceeds 50 and/or when their COMPslope of improvement exceeds 0.50 dig-
its increase per week and when theirprojected year-end performance exceeds20. When a student exits special educa-tion, they return to Tier 2 or Tier 1, asdeemed most appropriate by the schoolstaff, and weekly progress monitoringcontinues. That way, the school knowsif the student fails to maintain adequategrowth rates and formulates a data-based decision about whether the stu-dent needs to move to a more intensivetier within the multi-tier prevention sys-tem.
Before closing, we note that althoughresearch on the RTI process provides thebasis for many strong guidelines forimplementation, those guidelines aretentative, because additional promisinginvestigations are underway. As newfindings emerge, many of the guidelinesand recommendations we have offeredin this article will undoubtedly change,with corresponding improvements inthe prevention and identification oflearning disabilities.
ReferencesCompton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., &
Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk read-ers in first grade for early intervention: Atwo-year longitudinal study of decisionrules and procedures. Joiimal of Educa-tional Psychology, 98, 394-409.
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S.. & Fuchs. D.(submitted). The course of reading andmathematics development in first grade:Identifying latent trajectories and earlypredictors. Manuscript submitted for pub-lication.
Fuchs, D.. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., &Davis, G. C. (in press). Making "second-ary intervention" work in a three-tierresponsiveness-to-intervention model:Findings from the first-grade longitudinalstudy at the National Research Center onLearning Disabilities. Reading andWriting: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
Fuchs, L. S.. Compton. D. L.. Fuchs, D.,Paulsen, K.. Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L.(2005). The prevention, identification, andcognitive determinants of math difficulty.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97.493-513.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs. D. (1998). TYeatmentvalidity: A unifying concept for reconcep-tualizing the identification of learning dis-
FuchSp L. S., Fuchs. D., Compton, D. L.,Bryant, J. D.. Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P.M. (2007). Mathematics screening andprogress monitoring at first grade:Implications for responsiveness-to-inter-vention. Exceprionai ChzWren. 73. 311-330.
Good, R. H. HI, Simmons, D. C , &Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The Importanceand decision-making utility of a continu-um of fluency-based indicators of founda-tionai reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies ofReading. 5(3), 257-288.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W, Wagner, R.K.. Rashotte, C. A.. Voeller, K. K. S., &Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedialinstruction for children with severe read-ing disabilities: Immediate and long-termoutcomes from two instructionalapproaches. Journal of Learning Dis-abilities, 34(1), 33-58.
Vaughn. S. R.. & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefin-ing learning disabilities as inadequateresponse to treatment: Rationale andassumptions. Learning Di.sabilitiesResearch and Practice, /S(3), 137-146.
Vellutino, R. Scanlon, D. M.. Sipay, E. R..Small, S. G., Pratt, A.. Chen. R.. et al.(1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poorreaders: Early intervention as a vehicle fordistinguishing between cognitive andexperiential deficits as basic cause of spe-cific reading disability. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology. 88, 601-638.
Lynn S. Fuchs (CEC TN Federation).Nicholas Hobbs Professor of Special Educationand Human Development; and DouglasFuchs (CEC TN Federation). Nicholas HobbsProfessor of Special Education and HumanDevelopment, Department of SpecialEducation. Vanderbilt University, Nashville.Tennessee.
Address correspondence to Lynn S. Fuchs. 328Peabody, Vanderbilt University. Nashville. TN37203 (e-mail: lynn.fuchs® vanderbilt.edu).
This work was supported in part by GrantI/H324U010004 from the U.S. Department ofEducation. Office of Special EducationPrograms, and Core Grant «HD15OS2 from theNational Institute of Child Health andHuman Development to VanderbiltUniversity. Statements do not reflect the posi-tion or policy of these agencies, and no officialendorsement by them should be inferred.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 39,No. S, pp. 14-20.
