Given that the mathematics curriculum for the senior year course is content the students have already been exposed to, the team will employ the theoretical framework of Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI²). The California Department of Education (2010) defines RtI² as “a systematic, data-driven approach to instruction that benefits every student”ⁱ. Whereas RtI² is a newer term, the seminal research on the topic refers to it as Response to Intervention (RtI). The term RtI is used throughout the literature to describe both processes and models. To clarify this relationship, Fletcher & Vaughn (2009) explain that “there are many approaches to the implementation of RtI models, which are best considered as a set of processes and not a single model, with variation in how the processes are implemented” (p. 31). The variation also applies to the models themselves (mainly the quantity of interventions provided) and extends further to the types of interventions provided (tutoring, booster lessons, etc.). Despite the variations, RtI has common elements by which it can be defined. Vaughn & Fuchs (2003) contend that all RtI models (a) screen all children for academic and behavioral problems, (b) monitor the progress of children at risk for difficulties in these areas, and (c) provide increasingly intense interventions based on the response to progress monitoring assessmentsⁱⁱ.

An important note regarding the definition above is the reference in part (a) to behavioral problems. A unique feature of the RtI process is the attempt to differentiate whether the problem lies within a student’s ability to perform or lack of desire to perform. The implication of behavioral problems on student performance has the RtI literature spanning the domains of the social sciences and educationⁱⁱⁱ.

The “increasingly intense interventions” in part (c) above refers to the “tiered” aspect of RtI, as the models usually involve two to seven tiers (also called phases) of interventions. The only agreed upon tier is the first, which applies to all students in a regular classroom setting. The subsequent phases involve interventions that can apply to as many as all students, with each subsequent intervention involving fewer students. Pupils who don’t respond favorably to the entire RtI process are considered for referral for Special Education services^iv.

To further understand RtI, one must explore the historical events that led to its conception. A review of recent literature suggests that RtI evolved out of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004; however, RtI can be traced back to The Supreme Court's ruling Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in 1954 that denied the legal basis for segregation in Kansas and 20 other states

The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) ruling led to accusations that schools and districts were using special education as a means of segregation. Two decades later, the first lawsuit was filed, Larry P. et al. v. Wilson Riles et al. (1979), accusing the San Francisco Unified School District of discrimination in the case of five African American students placed in classes for students with Educable Mental Retardation (EMR). At the time students were identified for special education using the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test. The judge ruled that the IQ test was culturally biased and banned its use for designation of EMR for African American students in California. The ruling cast the first light on the limitations of the IQ test and the need for alternative methods for special education identification.

The criticism of the traditional use of the IQ test as a determination for special education services goes beyond the misplacement of minorities, males and poor children. The designation does not allow for early interventions that can address learning difficulties while students remain in the regular educational setting. The test also does not determine whether ineffective instruction is the factor leading to a low IQ score.

Three years after the San Francisco ruling, Heller, Holtzman, and Messick (1982) published a critique of the IQ-achievement discrepancy (IAD) model under the National Research Council’s Panel on Selection and Placement of Students in Programs for the Mentally Retarded. Over a decade later, RtI was conceptualized by Fuchs (1996) in a paper presented at the Workshop on Alternatives to IQ Testing^v. The model proposed by Fuchs (2006) is three-phased where each tier provides more intense empirically-based instruction and intervention. The conceptualization by Fuchs et al., led to the 2004 amendment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which states, ‘‘a local education agency (LEA) may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures’’ [614 (b)(6)(B), IDEA 2004]. Practitioners use the term “RtI” to describe these processes.

The College Bridge can help you turn your college dreams into reality through academic coaching, college counseling and test preparation services.

ⁱFletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to Intervention: Preventing and Remediating Academic Difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30-37.

ⁱⁱVaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining Learning Disabilities as Inadequate Response to Instruction: The Promise and Potential Problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.

ⁱⁱⁱGilbertson, D., Witt, J., Singletary, L., & VanDerHeyden, A. (2007). Supporting teacher use of interventions: effects of response dependent performance feedback on teacher implementation of a math intervention. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(4), 311-326.

^ivFuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, Why, and How Valid Is It? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.

^vArdoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 362-380.