Page Editor:

 

Contributed Files & Links Key People  Snapshot - Response to Intervention Response to Intervention (RtI) LD policy and Procedures Implications of RtI for Special Education Evaluation Procedures MiBLSI - Michigan's Behavior and Learning Support Initiative

 

See the Oakland Schools Compliance Services site for this topic. 

---

Contributed Files & Links

 

MAASE Publication: Response to Intervention: Enhancing the Learning of All Children, 2006.  Sharon LaPointe and Diane Heinzelman, Lead editors.  Helpful resource for RtI implementation. Order form is avaialble at the MAASE Products page.

 

Files:

•  December MAASE PD on SLD evaluation with Sharon LaPointe and Laurie VanderPloeg -  http://www.maase.org/Files/MAASE_PD_Handout-12-08_LaPointe-et_al.pdf
• John McCook RtI presentation - MAASE, Oct, 2006
• RtI and PBS - Powerpoint and Handout presented by J. Sprague at 2007 National LRP.
• RtI Field Guide  - from Wayne RESA 

Links:

• CEC - web page RtI topic review
• ERIC Clearinghouse - keyword search for "RtI"
• NRCLD - topic review and resources on RtI from National Center for Research on LD
• NCLD - listing of web resources from National Center for Learning Disability
• Progressmonitoring.org - OSEP sponsored Research Insitute on Progress Monitoring
• RtI4success.org - OSEP sponsored National Center on Repsonse to Intervention  
• RtI Wire - Presented as: "your 'one-stop' directory of free, high-quality 'Response-to-Intervention' resources available on the Internet"
• Wrightslaw - page on RtI resources from the Wrightslaw special education law and advocacy site 

---

Key People 

 

Diane Heinzelman, Charlevoix-Emmet ISD

Laurie VanderPloeg, Kent Intermediate School District

 

MiBLSI Project Directors:

• Margaret McGlinchey - Kalamazoo RESA
• Steve Goodman - Ottawa ISD
• Kathryn Schallmo - Macomb ISD

 

Snapshot - Response to Intervention

 

Frequently cross references to:  Evaluation

 

Response to Intervention (RtI)

refers to the use of ongoing whole-population student performance data to provide a comparative basis to identify students in need of remedial, differentiated, or more intense instruction.  For students with a disability, provisions in the IDEA facilitate RtI as an alternative for the management of instruction and evaluation of exceptional students, as opposed for example, to the traditional "wait to fail" discrepancy model for LD. RtI data is typically arranged in three or more "tiers" of student performance to designate relative need for intervention, e.g.:

 

LD policy and Procedures

The IDEA regulations (300.307) require a state policy for determing LD which cannot require the discrepancy model.The regulations also [at 300.309(a)(2)(i)]include an RtI approach to evaluation based on the student's ongoing response to scientific, research-based intervention. As of this writing, state policy has not changed to reflect these provisions. Nonetheless, many districts are developing local RtI policy and procedure that follows the IDEA and answers demands from the No Child left behind Act (NCLB) for higher levels of student literacy. An excellent resource for RtI policy and procedure development is the MAASE publication: Response to Intervention: Enhancing the Learning of All Children, 2006, Sharon LaPointe and Diane Heinzelman, Lead editors. Available by using order form at the MAASE Products page.

 

Implications of RtI for Special Education Evaluation Procedures

(Also see Evaluation) RtI refers to use of ongoing, individualized student performance data to adjust instruction over long periods of time differs significantly from the single administrations of norm-referenced test instruments (e.g., for achievement, intellegence testing) or using one-time checklists, surveys, observational and service provider reports, etc.  From an administrative standpoint, RtI is a relatively untested concept in formal dispute resolution. Some practical issues are:

• Use of RtI in itself does not constitute a special education evaluation, although it may create that impression with parents
• The IDEA at 300.311 specifies requirements for notice to parents about the district use of RtI: data collection, general education services, strategies for student assistance, and the parent's right to request a special education evaluation 

• Longer-term RtI (months), in light of Michigan's 30 school day timeline for special education evaluations creates unclear legal complications
• The impact of RtI on procedures pertaining to requests for Independent Educational Evaluation (i.e., must be same standards as for the school) is unclear 
• If RtI in gneral education indicates a possible disability, the school must seek intiiate a referral and notify the parent. RtI data can be included in a subsequent evaluation, but cannot be the sole determining factor
• Implementing RtI equitably across a district may be challenging in light of the significant professional development needed
• While early literacy (K through elementary) enjoys a significant research base, RtI for higher grades and subjects is just emerging
• Effective use of whole-population RtI approaches in a district will likely require development of a more unified operational style between general education and special education. Such development would likely have favorable impacts beyond the particluar issue of RtI.

 

MiBLSI - Michigan's Behavior and Learning Support Initiative

Although state policy is not yet developed, the Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (OSE-EIS) supports local systemic development of RtI through approximately 240 MiBLSI pilot projects.  Support includes a significant amount of RtI support for: hosting for state and national level technical assistance; internet based data collection and connection to national research projects, state/regional networking, presentation iof demonstration projects, and limited funding to support conference participation (release time, travel, etc.). Two main focus areas are reading (DIEBLS) and behavior (SWIS).

---