1. Responsiveness-To-Intervention: A New Method of Identifying Students with Disabilities
Douglas Fuchs, Lynn Fuchs,
Donald Compton and Joan Bryant
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
and
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities

2. Criticisms of Current Learning Disabilities Definition
Too many children are inappropriately identified
Many children are classified as LD without participating in effective reading instruction in the regular classroom
Too costly

3. Criticisms of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
IQ tests do not necessarily measure intelligence
IQ and academic achievement are not independent of each other
In the case of word reading skill deficits, IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers are more alike than different from IQ-achievement consistent poor readers
Children must fail before they can be identified with a learning disability

4. OSEP LD Initiative Workgroup Commissioned papers LD Summit
Researcher Roundtable
Finding Common Ground Roundtable
Funding the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD)
Work with RRCs
Prior to the reauthorization of IDEA the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities presented OSEP with a series of concerns regarding the effectiveness of the current ID procedures for Learning Disabilities.
Judith Heumann, who was the OSERS assistant secretary at the time promised to address these concerns following reauthorization. This led to the OSEP LD initiative which was supported by part D of IDEA
In May 2000, OSEP convened a work group of stakeholders including parents, practitioners at the state and local levels, representatives from policy organizations and researchers.
The plan was to (1) commission a set of (white) papers on critical issues in the identification of LD and organize formal response to these papers
(2) Hold an issues conference to present and facilitate discussion
(3) Organize roundtable discussions with key organizations and stakeholders
(4) Disseminate the proceedings and results of the process.
C. In August 2001, OSEP sponsored an invitation-only learning disabilities summit.
Later that Fall, various round table discussions were held
In 2002, the Finding Common ground Rountable convened and they released the finding common ground round table Document.
In addition, OSEP has funded the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities which is a joint project of researchers at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas. This Center addresses the identification of Learning Disabilities issue and other complex issues facing the learning disabilities field.
Over the next few years, the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities will work with the nation’s six Regional Resource Centers to implement plans for identifying, evaluating, and scaling up LD identification models.
I will describe these work groups and products in more depth--- beginning with the commissioned papers.
This work was supported by part D of IDEA

5. Researcher Roundtable
Response To Intervention:
There should be alternate ways to identify individuals with SLD in addition to achievement testing, history, and observations of the child. Response to quality intervention is the most promising method of alternate identification and can both promote effective practices in schools and help to close the gap between identification and treatment. Any effort to scale up response to intervention should be based on problem solving models that use progress monitoring to gauge the intensity of intervention in relation to the student’s response to intervention. Problem solving models have been shown to be effective in public school settings and in research.
The third conclusion supported the response to intervention model. The group concluded that there should be alternate ways to identify individuals with SLD in addition to achievement testing, history, and observations of the child. Response to quality intervention is the most promising method of alternate identification and can both promote effective practices in schools and help to close the gap between identification and treatment. Any effort to scale up response to intervention should be based on problem solving models that use progress monitoring to gauge the intensity of intervention in relation to the student’s response to intervention. Problem solving models have been shown to be effective in public school settings and in research.

6. What is the Responsiveness To Intervention Approach to Identification?
Many (all?) children in a class, school, or district are tested by one-point-in-time test administration or by repeated measurement in a circumscribed period.
“At-risk” students are identified for intervention on the basis of their performance level or growth rate or both.
Intervention is implemented and students are tested following, or throughout, the intervention period.
Those who do not respond (“treatment resisters”) are identified as requiring:
─ Multi-disciplinary team evaluation for possible disability certification and special education placement, OR
─ More intensive intervention(s).

7. Systems for Students with Intensive Needs CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students with Intensive Needs
CONTINUUM OF
SCHOOL-WIDE
SUPPORT
~5%
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior
~15%
Primary Prevention:
School-/Classroom-
Wide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
~80% of Students

8. Advantages of Responsiveness-To-Intervention Approach
Provides assistance to needy children in timely fashion. It is NOT a wait-to-fail model.
Helps ensure that the student’s poor academic performance is not due to poor instruction.
Assessment data are collected to inform the teacher and improve instruction. Assessments and interventions are closely linked.
In some responsiveness-to-intervention models (e.g., Heartland, IA; Minneapolis, MN; Horry Co., SC), nonresponders are not given labels, which are presumed to stigmatize and to represent disability categories (e.g., LD, BD, MR) that have little instructional validity.

9. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
State of states
Identification methods
Technical Assistance
RRC Work

10. A Work in Progress Operationalizing the Standard Treatment Protocol Approach To Responsiveness-To-Intervention

11. Four Step Process
Step 1: Screening (Responsibility: General Education and Special Education)
Step 2a: Implementing General Education (Tier 1; Responsibility: General Education)
Step 2b: Monitoring Responsiveness to General Education (Responsibility: General Education and Special Education)

12. Four Step Process (continued)
Step 3a: Implementing a Supplementary, Diagnostic Instructional Trial (Tier 2; (Responsibility: General Education and Special Education)
Step 3b: Monitoring Responsiveness to a Supplementary, Diagnostic Instructional Trial (Tier 2; Responsibility: General Education and Special Education)
Step 4: Designation of Disability, Classification of Disability, and Special Education Placement (Responsibility: Special Education)

13. What does this look like? Case Studies

17. Frequently Asked Questions
Will this process delay identification?
Does each child have to go through RTI or can a child have a traditional assessment?
What will be required for professional development?
Who is responsibility for the various activities required to implement RTI as a method of LD identification?

18. Frequently Asked Questions (continued)
How long will the Step 4 evaluation be and what professional is likely to give the Step 4 assessment?
What proportion of students is likely to be identified as at risk (for Tier 1 monitoring) and for the Tier 2 diagnostic trial?
Are there schools currently implementing RTI as a method of LD identification and, if so, how can I find learn more about their methods?

19. Questions

20. Special-ed-like instruction MacMaster/Fuchs
Immediate corrective feedback
Mastery of content before moving on
More time on difficult activities
More opportunities to respond
Fewer transitions
Setting goals and self monitoring
Special relationship with tutor