ERIC ED501084: Meeting the Needs of Significantly Struggling Learners in High School: A Look at Approaches to Tiered Intervention

2007·0.19 MB·English

by  ERIC

Meeting the Needs of
Significantly Struggling
Learners in High School:
A Look at Approaches to Tiered Intervention
By Helen Duffy, American Institutes for Research®
T C
H E H A L L E N G E
When high school students are significantly lagging behind their peers,
schools have too often guided these students into special education services,
even if they do not actually have a disability (Countinho & Oswald, 2004).
Adopting more targeted, instructional strategies earlier within the general
education setting would, in many cases, be more appropriate and effective in
meeting the needs of many struggling learners.
Although some elementary schools are reorganizing to better implement tiered
interventions to provide more targeted and appropriate academic, social and
behavioral supports so that struggling students get the appropriate level of assis-
tance they need to succeed, few high schools have systematically implemented
tiered interventions. Schools often organize interventions into levels that repre-
sent an increase in support. These levels include universal interventions available
to all students, such as more classroom instruction on a particular subject; tar-
geted interventions, wherein students are provided more support than peers,
such as tutoring; and intensive interventions that involve more individualized
services tailored to the unique needs of the individual student.
Effective tiered intervention strategies depend on accurate diagnostic informa-
tion and data about what is or is not working for students and what new adjust-
ments need to be made, such as whether to move a student into or out of a
more intensive level of support. One increasingly popular approach to gathering
and adjusting to key diagnostic information is Response to Intervention (RTI),
which may utilize progress monitoring as one of its components.
When identifying students with learning disabilities (LD), the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004 (IDEA 2004) allows educators
to use a process, such as RTI, that is based on a child’s response to scientific,
research-based interventions. IDEA 2004 allows educators to use an approach
such as RTI instead of, or in addition to, the IQ-achievement discrepancy
approach.1To date, much attention has been focused on the promise RTI holds
as an alternative method to identify students with LD in the early grades.
In addition to being a method used in a those students who are at-risk and far behind
comprehensive evaluation for LD, RTI can for other reasons such as inadequate prior
be applied more broadly across schools as a instruction.
diagnostic approach that shapes instruction
RTI may also reduce the bias in the assessment
and informs decisions about intervention,
of students from culturally and linguistically
eligibility for special programs, design of
diverse backgrounds. Field research on the use
individualized education programs (IEPs)
of RTI in Minneapolis Public Schools, for
and effectiveness of special education pro-
instance, showed a reduction of the number of
grams (Batsche et al., 2005). More broadly
African-American students referred for special
applied, RTI is a data-based approach to
education evaluations and the number placed
decision-making that can influence the
in special education over a four-year period
nature of instruction, early intervention and
(Marston, Muyskens, Lau, & Canter, 2003).
LD determination (Strangeman et al., 2006).
Although RTI has largely been of central con-
The RTI approach means students are more
cern in the elementary grades, students who
regularly monitored to determine progress,
arrive in high school performing below grade
and scientifically based instruction and inter-
level in reading, writing or mathematics may
vention are more regularly customized to meet
benefit from the increased attention to
individual student needs. This data-driven
instructional interventions and progress
approach helps schools identify those students
monitoring offered by RTI constructs.
who are identified as having LD earlier and
Students who have LD that have gone unde-
more effectively, while appropriately serving
tected in elementary school stand a better
Response to Intervention: What Is It?
RTI involves a tiered approach to providing the most (1)Must not require the use of a severe discrep-
appropriate instruction, services and scientifically ancy between intellectual ability and achieve-
based interventions to struggling students — with ment for determining whether a child has a
increasing intensity at each tier (Cortiella, 2005). specific learning disability, as defined in
RTI is often used in conjunction with identifying stu- Sec. 300.8(c)(10);
dents as having a specific learning disability. The
(2)Must permit the use of a process based on
RTI approach holds promise for supporting all
the child’s response to scientific, research-
struggling learners.
based intervention; and
(3)May permit the use of other alternative
Specifically, the IDEA regulations cite the following
research-based procedures for determining
related to RTI:
whether a child has a specific learning dis-
Sec. 300.307 Specific learning disabilities. ability, as defined in Sec. 300.8(c)(10).
(a)General. A State must adopt, consistent with (b)Consistency with State criteria. A public agency
Sec. 300.309, criteria for determining whether must use the State criteria adopted pursuant to
a child has a specific learning disability as paragraph (a) of this section in determining
defined in Sec. 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the whether a child has a specific learning disability.
criteria adopted by the State —
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 1401(30); 1414(b)(6))
2
chance of being identified as in need of spe-
Implementing Response to Intervention
cial education. RTI takes the focus off indi-
vidual student deficits and refocuses attention
on the interaction between teaching and Those implementing RTI services typically
learning. employ a three-tiered approach.2
Because RTI has thus far been implemented 1. The first level of intervention begins with
primarily in early elementary grades, it is not evidence-based instruction, progress monitoring
clear precisely what RTI might look like at and support that is provided to all students.
the high school level. If, as some would argue, When students begin to falter academically,
RTI is viewed strictly as a model for identify- they receive more specialized prevention or
ing students with LD, the tiered interventions remediation within the general education
that accompany RTI may need to be acceler- setting.
ated or more flexibly applied at the high 2. In the second tier, students who have not
school level. This is in part due to a sense of been successful in tier one receive targeted
urgency that exists once a student arrives in interventions, and progress is monitored fre-
high school. Students who arrive in high quently to determine the intervention’s effec-
school with previously undiagnosed LD do tiveness. If one intervention is not successful,
not have much time to respond to the sort of another more intense intervention may be
interventions that might help them catch up tried. At this stage, general education teach-
to their peers. ers typically receive support as needed from
other educators in implementing interventions
This brief first defines the RTI model, draw-
and monitoring student progress.
ing from various examples established in K–8
settings (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Fuchs et al., 3. In the third tier, with parental consent, a
2003). The brief then explores implications comprehensive evaluation may be conduct-
of applying RTI to the high school level and ed by a team to determine eligibility for
provides resources appropriate for this appli- special education.
cation. In particular, this brief points to the
This multi-tiered approach is designed to deliv-
promise that RTI constructs hold for moni-
er research-based instruction informed by
toring instruction and learning for all stu-
data, including individualized instruction with
dents at the high school level and specifically
remedial opportunities made available in the
for monitoring the success of targeted inter-
general education setting. The regular monitor-
ventions focused on transitions and dropout
ing of the student’s response to instruction is
prevention. Implementing RTI requires that
particularly important as a means to determine
general education teachers focus on the
if a student should move from one stage of
instructional supports they provide all stu-
support to the next. Typically, those students
dents, rather than the identification of deficits
at risk of not meeting end-of-year goals are
in the students who are not achieving at the
identified for frequent progress monitoring and
level expected. The successful implementation
remedial instruction. If students in tier three
of RTI constructs will require the coordina-
make significant progress, they can move
tion and collaboration of educational profes-
back to tier two and receive less intensive
sionals across the system to identify the most
instructional interventions.
effective and developmentally appropriate
instructional interventions and progress continued on page 4
monitoring tools for high school students.
3
However, discrepancy models have been cri-
continued from page 3 tiqued for a number of reasons. For example,
in the early grades, students have to wait —
A hallmark of the RTI approach is that it focuses
and fall farther behind — until a large enough
on student outcomes that may help increase
discrepancy exists before receiving services. As
accountability for all learners within the general
outlined in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA,
education setting. It promotes collaboration
the discrepancy model of diagnosis cannot be
among not only general education teachers and
required for identifying students with learning
special education teachers, but also among
disabilities. Also problematic is the lack of
teachers of English language learners, Title I
alignment between evaluation measures and
teachers, administrators and parents. The close
instruction. Given the increased focus of
progress monitoring required of RTI has the
assessment and accountability provisions in
potential to reduce the number of students
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), it is especially
incorrectly identified as having LD when they
critical that appropriate and effective evalua-
may be struggling due to cultural differences or
tion measures and intervention practices be in
poor instruction (Cortiella, 2005).
place for underperforming groups of students
Regularly collecting, examining and adjusting to (Ernst, Miller, Robinson, & Tilly, 2005).
what is learned from student data is a process
that can be streamlined in the classroom in a T H E R O L E O F A L L
way that benefits all students and can be a pow-
E D U C AT I O N
erful tool to help make a teacher’s job more effi-
P R O F E S S I O N A L S
cient rather than more difficult. While additional
professional development might be necessary to
RTI requires the commitment and expertise of
help teachers learn to implement levels of more
all school professionals, not just a handful of
targeted instruction and other supportive inter-
special education teachers and school psycholo-
ventions in response to the data uncovered by
gists. RTI refocuses our attention from a deficit
RTI, the result can be tiers of students moving
framework and instead allows us to view the
through instructional materials, rather than
complexities of a student’s achievement and the
numerous individual students being frustrated in
link between achievement and instructional
their learning.
approaches. Successful implementation of RTI
centers on the coordination and collaboration
of district and school staff to ensure the most
effective instructional approaches are used to
B
A C K G R O U N D meet the needs of students.
For years, IQ discrepancy models have been If a school or district elects to utilize an RTI
criticized for being an insufficient means for approach to identify students with specific
the identification of LD. Typically under this LD as well as those who are struggling for
model, student scores on a nationally normed other reasons, many options are then available
achievement test are compared with their to states, districts and schools for the imple-
measured ability (IQ), and students are mentation of appropriate services and inter-
referred for special education services if there ventions designed to meet the needs of
is a large enough discrepancy between their struggling students.
achievement on the assessment and their
measured ability.
4
D E S C R I P T I O N O F T W O Unlike the standard protocol, the problem-
R T I A based approach is designed to focus on sub-
P P R O A C H E S
skills with specific, targeted interventions.
The two most commonly used RTI approach- Procedural problem analysis examples include
es are (1) standard treatment and (2) problem- the functional assessment of academic skills
solving protocol.While these two approaches (Daly et al., 1996; Daly et al., 1997; Daly et
to RTI are sometimes described as being very al., 1999) and curriculum-based evaluation
different from each other, they actually have (Heartland AEA 11, 2000; Howell & Nolet,
several common elements, and both fit within 2000; Upah & Tilly, 2002).
a problem-solving framework (Christ et al.,
The approach follows an inquiry process that
2005). In practice, many schools and districts
requires teams of educators to assess student
combine or blend aspects of the two
performance, identify potential
approaches to fit their needs. Regardless, to
problems, develop a plan to address
better understand them, these two approaches
the problem, implement the plan,
are described separately.
and assess the effectiveness of the
The standard treatment protocol utilizes a plan. Because the problem-solving
line of inquiry that follows a series of steps — approach involves teams of profes-
assess, identify problems, intervene, and sionals who select appropriate inter-
assess. However, rather than having a team ventions from a range of options,
select from among several options for inter- some believe that this model pro-
vention, the standard treatment protocol, as vides flexibility in tailoring the interventions to
its name would suggest, follows a standard the specific needs of the students (Canter,
research-based protocol to deliver the inter- 2004; Iverson, 2002). The problem-solving
vention. The idea is that the standard proto- approach, however, requires teams to be famil-
col ensures fidelity of treatment and the pro- iar with a broad array of interventions.
tocol utilizes only empirically supported
Both the standard treatment protocol and the
instructional approaches (Fuchs, Fuchs,
problem-solving approach draw on a tiered
Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; McMaster,
model of services. Both generally include
Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005).
three or four tiers of services. At the first tier
The problem-solving approach has been used is a research-based general curriculum: the
for years as a prereferral strategy by a number services that all students at every level receive.
of school districts. Like the standard treat- As students move up the tiers, the services
ment protocol, it follows a series of steps — provided become more intensive. So, for
assess, identify problems, intervene, and example, tier 2 would include targeted instruc-
assess. However, it differs from the standard tion and tier three would represent intensive
protocol in its level of individualization and instructional or behavioral intervention.
the depth of analysis prior to selection of
the intervention. As a result, some see the One High School Example
problem-solving approach as more flexible
In California, schools are not permitted to
than standard protocol (Tilly, Reschly, &
use IQ-Achievement testing as a criterion for
Grimes, 1999). Calling this model the problem-
determining eligibility for special education
solving model has created some confusion in the
services. The Long Beach Unified School
field, for both models utilize problem-solving
District in California employs regular assess-
as part of their processes.
ments and tiered interventions as part of both
5
the prereferral process and as best practice for While the Long Beach approach to instruc-
serving the needs of all students. The district tion and tiered intervention shares its key
has responded to their high school students’ characteristics with RTI, they do not call this
literacy needs using a multi-tiered approach practice RTI, but simply call it “best practice
that incorporates a battery of eighth-grade for all students.” They ask, “What do the
assessments that are used to determine the data say about how students are performing
needs of incoming ninth graders. In the and what instructional programs are necessary
spring, all eighth-grade students participate in to support student growth?” Another impor-
a screening series, which is an examination of tant aspect of the Long Beach system, accord-
multiple measures of student achievement ing to Office of Special Education Assistant
that includes the CA standards test, course Superintendent Judy Elliott, is that they do
grades and an assessment that is part of the not base their decisions on a single data point.
Language! curriculum the district has adopted. Multiple sources of data are examined to
All incoming ninth-grade students receive determine student needs. Long Beach views
core literacy instruction. Based on a review of its practice as a systems approach to good
assessment data, students entering high school instruction for all students rather than just a
half a year to two years behind process to diagnose students with learning
receive the core literacy instruc- disabilities. They had such success with the
tional program as well as an addi- practice at the high school level that they
tional literacy workshop course have recently applied it to their middle
that provides them with support schools. Roughly 7 percent of students in
materials that scaffold the core lit- Long Beach have IEPs as opposed to an aver-
eracy program. Entering high age of 12–14 percent nationally (Elliott, 2006).
school students who are more than
Many schools and districts across the country
two years below grade level are
have adopted a problem-based, tiered model.
enrolled in a double block of language arts that
States such as Iowa (see Ernst et al., 2005),
consists of an intensive English language arts
Illinois, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Michigan
program or an after-school reading program.
and Florida have also been recognized as lead-
For their language arts curriculum, Long ers in this area. Also, the Vermont Department
Beach has adopted the Language! and of Education adapted Colorado’s RTI self-
Lindamood-Bell curricula for intensive assessment tool for schools (see Resources sec-
instructional programs in literacy. tion). Many of these states have adopted RTI
Lindamood-Bell focuses on developing models, and some have passed legislation or
phonemic skills for students having serious education regulations on RTI as well as on
difficulties with text. Typically, students spend early intervening services designed to support
a semester in that intensive intervention and those students who have not been identified as
then transition into Language! Student needing special education or related services but
progress is monitored throughout the school who need additional academic and behavioral
year using “cluster tests” taken primarily from support to succeed in a general education envi-
the Lindamood-Bell and Language! curricula. ronment. The state of Oregon, in collaboration
In addition to the systematic supports for with the Tigard-Tualtin School District, has
students, the Long Beach model includes also partnered to provide other educators with
monthly support meetings for teachers, a number of resources and tools that will sup-
summer institutes, and coaches that provide port the implementation of an RTI model.
professional learning opportunities for teachers.
6
RTI at the High School Level schoolwide effort to refocus attention from
identifying deficiencies in students to identi-
Much of the RTI work has been conducted in
fying scientifically based instructional prac-
the elementary grades. However, RTI has
tices that support the learning of all students,
important implications for high schools.
it is essential that all professionals receive
First, the progress of students who arrive in ongoing professional development.
high school already receiving supplemental Implementing RTI requires changes in
services — or extra tutoring — designed to teacher roles as well as the culture of class-
increase academic achievement of struggling rooms and schools. Successful implementa-
students needs to be monitored. Second, while tion depends as much upon the degree to
a primary goal of RTI is early intervention and which staff members are amenable to those
identification, some academic and behavioral changes as it does upon new RTI technolo-
challenges may not surface until high school or gies (Mellard & Deshler, 2004).
may have gone unidentified. Third, high stu-
Additionally, outreach to families and com-
dent mobility between districts and states and
munities regarding the role RTI can play in
from other countries means that high schools
strengthening student learning will
around the nation must serve students new to
be key to its successful implementa-
their school system. Thus, screening students
tion. As students enter into more
in reading, writing and mathematics as they
intense levels of RTI that involve a
transition from middle to high school can be
comprehensive evaluation to deter-
an important step to appropriately tailoring
mine appropriateness of special
instructional approaches to students in ways
education services, parents are noti-
that can help them succeed.
fied. But community and family
RTI constructs hold great promise for high outreach needs to start sooner for
schools, particularly for programs and progress greater support for, and understanding of, the
monitoring of specific interventions that RTI approach overall. The resources section at
focus on high school-related issues like transi- the end of this brief lists a number of parent-
tions and dropout prevention. A number of oriented materials that might be useful in
those interventions — Check and Connect advancing awareness of RTI in schools.
(a dropout prevention intervention), Positive
The practices that schools and districts adopt
Behavioral Support, RENEW (Rehabilitation,
will require ongoing capacity-building and col-
Empowerment, Natural supports, Education
laboration (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). However,
and Work), and programs that develop cogni-
the approach can result in a more coherent
tive and metacognitive skills — can be further
educational experience for all students.
refined and enhanced through RTI activities.3
Specifically, there are a number of issues relat-
As a result, in districts where RTI has been
ed to RTI at the high school level. Some of
adopted, high school teachers and administra-
these are related to research and development,
tors need to be trained in this approach to
others are RTI practices in high school.
monitoring and intervention. The success of
RTI at the high school level rests on the 1. Identify screening and progress monitor-
capacity of educational professionals to collect ing tools for high school level students across
and interpret student achievement data and to subject areas: Although DIBELS (Dynamic
identify and implement interventions that Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills) is fre-
support student progress. Because RTI is a quently used as a universal screener in the
7
early elementary grades to identify students developed and tested for their effectiveness,
who are at-risk for reading difficulties and we need to be confident that those interven-
have not responded to tier one (universal tions are implemented with fidelity. With the
instruction) interventions, we know less about support of research, states and local education
measures that can capture the complexity of agencies must determine how interventions
reading tasks required in middle and high will be monitored for consistency and integri-
school. The Group Reading Assessment and ty. High schools can work to build capacity
Diagnostic Evaluation or GRADE (American for multi-tiered reading instruction using
Guidance Service, 2001) and the Woodcock RTI to benefit struggling adolescent readers.
Reading Mastery Tests-Revised or WRMT-R Drs. Don Deshler and Jean Schumaker have
(Woodcock, 1998) are two commonly conducted seminal research on multi-tiered
employed group and individually adminis- reading instruction designed to reach older
tered diagnostics for secondary students. RTI students using the Strategies Intervention
will require that high schools identify multi- Model developed at the University of Kansas.
ple, universally administered, standardized, However, schools and districts need to deter-
reliable and valid measures that can help iden- mine the intervention models that will best
tify students who are not keeping meet the needs of the students they serve.
pace with their peers across a num-
3. Consider implementation issues unique to
ber of subject areas.
high schools:When selecting an RTI approach,
Student progress must be carefully one must consider implementation issues relat-
monitored over time, using meas- ed to program structure, how students will
ures that are tied to local curricular move through the process (with careful atten-
and state content and achievement tion to the urgency for identifying real learning
standards. Not only is it important disabilities and the problem of inappropriate
that the assessments are tied to spe- identification, particularly of English learners),
cific standards, those measures need to be sen- sequencing of activities within tiers, timelines,
sitive enough to pick up benchmarks that will balancing flexibility with consistency and cut
lead to the ultimate instructional target within scores for moving between tiers that will work
each content area. These measures need to help best in a particular high school. It is also impor-
educators determine whether a student’s diffi- tant to consider the importance of incorporat-
culties are related to instruction, language or ing culturally responsive principles when con-
cognitive abilities at this developmental level. sidering the appropriate intervention for stu-
dents from diverse backgrounds.
2. Identify high school appropriate interven-
tion models that work across subjects: 4. Examine the changing roles for general
Identification of age- and developmentally and special education teachers: Because RTI
appropriate interventions that will work for focuses attention on the connections between
high school students across subject areas and instructional interventions and student
intervention levels will be key to RTI working achievement, the roles and responsibilities of
at the high school level. This is especially teachers will continue to need examination.
important because the students are assessed No longer will students receiving supplemen-
on their mastery of grade-level content, so tal services for special education be isolated in
instruction must therefore address grade-level self-contained special education classrooms.
content. Fidelity of intervention is another This has implications not only for general edu-
area that needs to be address within the range cation teachers, but for the special education
of interventions. As interventions are being teacher as well. For example, in addition to
8
monitoring student progress, general educa- R T I R E S E A R C H
tion teachers may need to be trained in tech- U W
N D E R A Y
niques that support more targeted instruction.
Special education teachers may find their roles To more clearly explore the implications
shifting to an even greater degree to be team that RTI will and can have on high
teachers in general education settings or to schools, more research is need-
“What RTI does is
provide professional development for their ed. The U.S. Department of
put everybody on the
general education colleagues. Education has recently
same playing field. It
given a $1.5 million doesn’t matter what your
5. Determine universal instruction across
research grant for a part- language structure is,
content areas: High schools need to deter-
nership between the whether or not you’re
mine what constitutes high-quality, universal
University of Kansas disabled, or whether or not
instruction across content areas. In addition, you’re poor. What matters is
and the Illinois
high school teachers need professional devel- what you need to progress at
Education Department
opment in, for example, differentiated a satisfactory pace in the
to develop systems for
instructional techniques that will help ensure general curriculum.”
implementing RTI. The
student access to instructional interventions
purpose of this grant is to Wayne Sailor, Associate Director
that are effectively implemented. Beach Center on Disability at
create a sustainable approach
University of Kansas
6. Ensure structural supports for professional to building school and district
collaboration: Because RTI models require a capacity to support students with
great deal of collaboration and coherence, complex needs. The focus of this part-
high schools present a unique challenge nership is blending academic and positive
because of their departmental structures. behavioral supports and the development of
Teams of educators need opportunities to decision rules for secondary and tertiary levels
meet to review student progress and discuss of support. One of the sites in the partnership
intervention strategies across departments. is a high school model demonstration. The
National High School Center will be follow-
7. Ensure ongoing professional development: ing the results of these demonstrations.
Because high-quality instruction is key to the
RTI model (students should not be identified T B L
H E O T T O M I N E
for tier two services because of ineffective
instruction in tier one), staff development is Although the adoption of RTI is clearly
critical to the model’s success. Professional becoming more widely used as a result of
development should include introductions to IDEA 2004 regulations, many practitioners
RTI, assessment processes, intervention strate- acknowledge that the widespread implemen-
gies, effective teaching strategies, best prac- tation of RTI will take a number of years and
tices for monitoring student progress, inter- will require ongoing professional development
preting a range of assessment data and using of school personnel at all levels if implemen-
the data to inform instructional interventions. tation of RTI is to widely serve the needs of
students (for information on professional
8. Expand parent communication: Effective
development, see Response to Intervention:
parent communications are another key to
Policy Considerations and Implementation,
the successful use of RTI. High schools using
Batsche et al., 2005, pp. 39–42).
RTI should consider refining parent outreach
that goes beyond what is required to include
community-building awareness and support
of RTI.
9
R E S O U R C E S National Association of State Directors of
Special Education, Inc (NASDSE).
Institute of Education Sciences, National (http://www.nasdse.org/)
Center for Special Education Research, RTI This site provides a wealth of resources includ-
Research Grants. (http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/ ing a link to NASDSE’s RTI initiatives and
funding/response/index.asp) NASDSE RTI documents. Other resource
links will be added to this page in the near
The National Center on Student Progress
future. In addition, there is a link to the
Monitoring (NCSPM).The Center’s mission
National State Policy Database (NSPD),
is to provide technical assistance to states and
which allows you to locate and download full
districts and disseminate information about
copies or specific sections of the federal and
progress monitoring practices proven to work
state special education laws.
in different academic content areas (K–5).
Their Web site includes articles, The National Center for Culturally
PowerPoint presentations and links Responsive Educational Systems (NCCRESt).
to resources about student progress (http://www.nccrest.org)
monitoring. A technical review NCCRESt, a project funded by the U.S.
committee reviews tools and has Department of Education’s Office of Special
created a chart of scientifically Education Programs, provides technical
based tools to measure K–5 stu- assistance and professional development to
dents’ progress. (http://www. close the achievement gap between students
studentprogress.org/) from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds and their peers, and reduce
The Center on Instruction has several
inappropriate referrals to special education.
resources available on their Web site
They have a position statement on Cultural
(http://www.centeroninstruction.org/).
Considerations and Challenges in RTI
Many of these resources, however, address
Models (http://www.nccrest.org/publications/
K–8 interventions.
position_statements.html) among other
The Access Center (http://www.k8access resources, including practitioner briefs such
center.org/) is a national technical assistance as the 2004 Preventing Disproportionate
center funded by the U.S. Department of Representation: Culturally and Linguistically
Education’s Office of Special Education Responsive Prereferral Interventions by
Programs, whose mission is to improve educa- Shernaz Garcia and Alba Ortiz (http://www.
tional outcomes for elementary and middle nccrest.org/Briefs/Pre-referral_Brief.pdf?v_
school students with disabilities. document_name=Pre-Referral%20Brief).
National Center for Learning Disabilities. National Research Center on Learning
Parent Advocacy Briefs on NCLB are helpful Disabilities (NRCLD). Responsiveness to
resources to understand how NCLB and Intervention Symposium (http://www.nrcld.
IDEA work together to support students with org/). The NRCLD conducts research on
disabilities. (http://www.ld.org/nclb) the identification of learning disabilities;
formulates implementation recommenda-
tions; disseminates findings; and provides
technical assistance to national, state, and
local constituencies.
10