The Case for RTI: NCLD Recommends that No Child Left Behind include RTI-Specific Language

The Recommnedation: Infuse 'evidence-based intervention models' throughout NCLB to improve access to early intervention, early identification and improved academic outcomes for all students and ensure all available resources are appropriately targeted to serve all struggling learners as early as possible.

Rationale: NCLD's goal in presenting recommendations is to increase the opportunity for all students to meet challenging academic achievement standards through early identification of those students whose academic performance and behavior place them at great risk.

In 2002, the National Research Council issued a report to Congress, Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education which recommended that schools:

• Apply universal screening for reading and behavioral problems to help reduce reliance on teacher referral
• Integrate general and special education services and apply high quality instruction based on evidence-based practices.

Research and current practice show that schools and districts engaged in aligning resources, promoting greater collaboration and striving to serve students through rigorous Evidence-Based Intervention Models, frequently referred to as "Response to Intervention (RTI)," when they first struggle academically and behaviorally leads to:

• Gains in reading and math assessment scores;
• Decrease in inappropriate referrals to special education--particularly for minority students and boys;
• Improved collaboration between general and special education;
• Corresponding cost benefits.

Our recommended amendments seek to build on existing statutory language in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) Sec. 613(f) Early Intervening Services that allows Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to:

• Use up to 15% of IDEA Part B funds for Early Intervening Services
• Focus on students who need academic and behavior support to succeed in general education settings
• Fund professional development focused on early literacy and behavior
• Undertake efforts to minimize over-identification and unnecessary referrals to special education*

*Note: LEAs identified as having "significant" over-representation of minorities in special education are now required by IDEA to use Early Intervening Services funds for this purpose.

In an attempt to align IDEA with NCLB, a new provision was added in 2004 requiring that a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such determination is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction as defined in 20 U.S.C. section 6368 (3). Establishing instructional models in NCLB that ensure high quality instruction prior to referral to special education will provide additional support for this important new provision in IDEA.

As a result of these additions to IDEA, as well as the revisions made to IDEA's required procedures to identify students suspected of having a Specific Learning Disability by allowing the use of a process based on a student's response to scientific, research-based intervention (commonly known as Response to Intervention or RTI), there is tremendous momentum in states and districts to develop systemic intervention models for both behavior and academics targeting those students most at risk. It is important that Congress build on this momentum and make explicit in NCLB that the coordination of funds between Title I and IDEA is allowable and encouraged. Because research synthesis has shown us what the core elements are to developing and implementing models that work, it is essential to include a description of what such a model should have in place.

Through the provisions of NCLB, we seek to explicitly encourage states to incorporate an RTI process by:

• Allowing coordination of funds between Title I, Title II and Reading First with IDEA Early Intervening Services Sec. 613(f);
• Including a description of 'evidence-based intervention model' to ensure that any use of funds for this purpose incorporates the core principles of a multi-tiered model identified as essential through research, which are: high quality instruction, universal screening, progress monitoring, research-based interventions matched to student needs, and educational decision-making using learning rate over time and level of performance.*

*Note: These are critical elements to ensure the rigor and fidelity of an evidence-based intervention model as defined by recent research and in-depth reviews of successfully implemented programs.

• Requiring Title I schools that fall into 'needs improvement' status to implement such a model to incorporate school-wide, comprehensive reform that will better identify and serve all struggling students.

By further aligning IDEA and NCLB, resources are effectively targeted to the students most in need and those most at-risk academically and behaviorally.

Amendments Relating to Evidence-Based Intervention Models:

(a) Inclusion in Local Educational Agency Plans Under Section 1112."Subparagraph (C) of section 1112(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting before the semicolon," such as through an evidence-based intervention model described in section 1114(b)(1)(B)(v)."

(b) Inclusion in Schoolwide Reform Strategies of Schools Under Section 1114."Subparagraph (B) of section 1114(b)(1) of such Act is amended by striking "and" at the end of clause (iii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting a semicolon, and by adding at the end the following new clauses:

"(iv) coordinate with early intervening services under section 613(f) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;" and

"(v) provide evidence-based intervention models that include high-quality instruction, universal screening, progress monitoring, research-based interventions matched to student needs, and educational decision-making using learning rate over time and level of performance."

(c) Required Use of Evidence-Based Intervention Models in Schools in Need of Improvement."Clause (i) of section 1116(b)(3)(A) of such Act is amended by inserting "includes an evidence-based intervention model described in section 1114(b)(1)(B)(v) and’ after "school reform model that."

( ) Inclusion in Reading First Strategies."Clause (ii) of section 1202(c)(7)(A) of such Act is amended by striking "and" at the end of subclause (I), by striking the period at the end of subclause (II) and inserting "and," by adding at the end the following new subclause:

"(III) includes an evidence-based intervention model described in section 1114(b)(1)(B)(v) to support the activities required or permitted under this paragraph."

( ) Inclusion in Professional Development Funding."

(1) Paragraph (2) of section 2113(c) of such Act is amended by striking "and" at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting; "and" and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

"(C) enable teachers to provide services under an evidence-based intervention model described in section 1114(b)(1)(B)(v)."

(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 2123(a)(3) of such Act is amended by redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as clauses (v) and (vi), respectively, and by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:

"(iv) provide training to enable teachers to provide services under an evidence-based intervention model described in section 1114(b)(1)(B)(v)."

Read more about NCLD's recommendations to the U.S. Congress for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).