Response‐to‐intervention in high‐risk preschools: Critical issues for implementation

Abstract

This article summarizes the current knowledge of response-to-intervention (RTI) models in preschool settings, with an emphasis on evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of our current research base. Particular attention is given to the unique challenges of high-risk preschool settings. Presently, sufficient empirical support exists to begin establishing tiered intervention systems and building teacher capacity. Lacking, however, are valid and reliable assessment tools and insufficiently trained personnel to support a data-based decision-model within high-risk preschools. We conclude that organizational development should focus on building teacher capacity, establishing high-quality classroom instruction, and planning for sustainable programs, with adoption of a full RTI service delivery model serving as a long-range aspirational goal. C 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Over the past decade, rapid changes have occurred in general educational practice to increase the focus on early identification of and intervention for students considered at risk. The aptly named response-to-intervention (RTI) model of service delivery is generally described as a multitiered model whereby students receive interventions of increasing intensity, with movement from one level to another based on demonstrated performance and rate of progress (Gresham, 2007). This sizable paradigm shift has been influenced in part by recent special education legislation, which permits the use of RTI as an alternative to the traditional "IQ-achievement discrepancy" model of learning disability identification and allows up to 15% of federal special education funding to be allocated toward early intervening services (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). Moreover, RTI has gained favor in light of mounting evidence suggesting that intensive intervention during the primary grades is effective for remediating academic difficulties (e.g., Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006;. Practitioners may also intuitively gravitate toward an RTI model of practice, which has more ideological appeal than traditional models in the sense that it emphasizes identifying and solving problems as soon as possible rather than waiting for students to fall far behind their peers before providing additional services (e.g., Vaughn & Fuchs, 2006).Currently, much of the published literature on full-scale RTI implementation is focused on conceptual and logistical issues related to RTI. Furthermore, a majority of the empirical studies relevant to RTI is focused either on case studies of RTI implementation in particular schools or on intensive intervention with students in the early elementary grades. Dozens of studies have documented the effectiveness of specific interventions for remediating skill deficits in reading (e.g., Case et al

Should We Use Sentence- or Text-Level Tasks to Measure Oral Language Proficiency in Year-One Students following Whole-Class Intervention?

“…Without early identification and support, at-risk students are likely to fall further behind their same-aged peers [5]. This poses unique challenges for educators resulting in many schools, both nationally and internationally, adopting a response to intervention (RtI) framework [6].…”

“…High-quality data collection informs decision making within an RtI framework and is achieved through universal progress monitoring [5]. It is widely accepted within the literature that a range of valid, reliable, and sensitive tools, with normative data are needed in order to assess early oral language skills [9, 34, 35].…”

“…The RtI framework relies on data-driven, evidence-based practice which necessitates valid, reliable tasks that are administered by adequately skilled professionals [5]. The interpretation of these tasks guides the selection of intervention approaches [13].…”

“…As a group, students from low socioeconomic areas are at increased risk of academic failure [5, 25-28]. The Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) is a population measure conducted on commencement of the first year of formal schooling and collects information on individual students across 5 domains of childhood development [29].…”

Using Technology to Support Progress Monitoring and Data-Based Intervention Decision Making in Early Childhood: Is There an App for That?

“…Although there are a number of RTI variations (e.g.. Coleman, Buysse, & Neitzel, 2006;VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2010), implementation is predicated on the availability of (a) technically sound progress-monitoring assessments that are curriculum based and sensitive to growth, (b) universal evidence-based practices available for all children, (c) evideiieebased strategies for children not responding to universal practices, (d) decision-making criteria and benclimarks to itiform when to move a child into or out of more intensive intervention, and (e) tools to support progress monitoring and the use of data to inform intervention decision making (Ball & Trammell, 2011;Burns, Scholin, Kosciolek & Livingston, 2010;Gresham, 2007; National Assoeiation of State Directors of Special Education, 2005). There is strong evidenee to support the use of RTI and other decision-making models that utilize progress monitoring for school-aged children.…”