Special Education in a 4–Year Response to Intervention (RtI) Environment: Characteristics of Students with Learning Disability and Grade of Identification
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2013
Special Education in a 4–Year Response to Intervention (RtI) Environment: Characteristics of Students with Learning Disability and Grade of Identification
This 4–year longitudinal research was designed to study special education determinations of students who participated in Tier 2 intervention in a Response to Intervention (RtI) model focused on reading across Grades 1–4. We compared identification rates for learning disabilities (LD) and student characteristics of 381 students the year prior to implementation with 377 students in the RtI environment. Across schools, 38–60 percent of students were English language learners (ELL). Key outcomes by Grade 4 for students with LD who had participated in a model of RtI were relatively greater reading impairment with effect sizes ranging from 0.64 to 0.82, and more equitable representation across ELL and native English speakers than in the cohort prior to RtI implementation. Notably, one–third of the students identified for special services as LD in these schools were not identified until 4th grade.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsM. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
ArtilesA. J., RuedaR., SalazarJ., & HigaredaI. (2005). Within group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.
3.
BlachmanB. A., TangelD. M., BallE. W., BlackR. S., & McGrawC. K. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and word recognition skills: A two–year intervention with low–income, inner–city children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 239–273.
CattsH. W., ComptonD., TomblinJ. B., & BridgesM. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late–emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 166–181.
6.
ChallJ. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw–Hill.
7.
CETP Core Evaluation. (2001). Classroom observation handbook. College of Education & Human Development, University of Minnesota. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
8.
ComptonD., FuchsD., FuchsL., & BryantJ. (2006). Selecting at–risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two–year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409.
9.
ComptonD. L., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., BoutonB., GilbertJ. K., BarqueroL. A., . (2010). Selecting at–risk readers in first grade for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two–stage screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340.
10.
Council for Exceptional Children, Division on Developmental Disabilities. (2007). Position on response to intervention (RtI): The unique role of special education and special educators. Retrieved February 22, 2013 from http://www.cec.sped.org.
11.
CoyneM. D., Kame'enuiE. J., SimmonsD. C., & HarnB. A. (2004). Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin: First–grade reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 90–104.
12.
CrossonA. C., & LesauxN. K. (2010). Revisiting assumptions about the relationship of fluent reading to comprehension: Spanish–speakers’ text–reading fluency in English. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 475–494.
13.
DentonC. A. (2012). Response to intervention for reading difficulties in the primary grades: Some answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 232–243.
14.
DentonC. A., KethleyC., NimonK., KurzT. B., MathesP. G., MinyiS., . (2010). Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools. Exceptional Children, 76, 394–416.
15.
DonovanM. S., & CrossC. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
16.
DunnL., & DunnL. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
17.
FrancisD. J., FletcherJ. M., CattsH. W., & TomblinJ. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In ParisS. G. & StahlS. A. (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369–394). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & ComptonD. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.
19.
FuchsL. S., & VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness–to–intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203.
20.
GoodR. H., & KaminskiR. A. (2003). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services.
21.
JeanM., & GevaE. (2009). The development of vocabulary in English as a second language and its role in predicting word recognition ability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 153–185.
22.
HospJ. L., HospM. A., & DoleJ. K. (2011). Potential bias in predictive validity of universal screening measures across disaggregated subgroups. School Psychology Review, 40, 108–131.
23.
KeenanJ. M., BetjemannR. S., & OlsonR. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.
24.
KiefferM. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, English proficiency, and late–emerging reading difficulties. Educational Researcher, 39, 484–486.
25.
KlingnerJ. K., ArtilesA. J., & BarlettaL. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or learning disabilities?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108–128.
26.
LeachJ. M., ScarboroughH. S., & RescorlaL. (2003). Late–emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211–224.
27.
LesauxN. K., CrossonA. C., KiefferM. J., & PierceM. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 475–483.
28.
Linan–ThompsonS., VaughnS., PraterK., & CirinoP. T. (2006). The response to intervention of English language learners: At–risk for reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 390–398.
29.
LipkaO., LesauxN., & SiegelL. (2006). Retrospective analyses of the reading development of Grade 4 students with reading disabilities: Risk status and profiles over 5 years. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 364–378.
30.
Mancilla–MartinezJ., & LesauxN. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82, 1544–1560.
31.
NewcomerP. L. & HammillD. D. (1997). Test of Language Development (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro–Ed, Inc.
32.
O'ConnorR. E., BocianK., BeachK. D., & SanchezV. (in press, 2012). Access to a Responsiveness to Intervention model: Does beginning intervention in kindergarten matter?Journal of Learning Disabilities, doi: 10.1177/0022219412459354.
33.
O'ConnorR. E., BocianK., Beebe–FrankenbergerM., & LinklaterD. (2010). Responsiveness of students with language difficulties to early intervention in reading. Journal of Special Education, 43, 220–235.
34.
O'ConnorR. E., FulmerD., HartyK., & BellK. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and child outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455.
35.
QuirkM., & BeemS. (2012). Examining the relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension for English language learners. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 539–553.
36.
RoehrigA. D., PetscherY., PetscherY., NettlesS., HudsonR. F., & TorgesenJ. K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency measure for predicting third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343–366.
37.
RuedaR., & WindmuellerM. P. (2006). English language learners, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple–level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 99–107.
38.
Semrud–ClikemanM., BiedermanJ., Sprich–BuckminsterS., & LehmanB. K. (1992). Comorbidity between ADDH and learning disability: A review and report in a clinically referred sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 439–448.
39.
SilvermanR. (2007). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary instruction during read–alouds in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 108, 97–314.
40.
SimmonsD. C., CoyneM. D., KwokO., McDonaghS., HarnB. A., & Kame'enuiE. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158–173.
41.
SpeeceD. L., SchatschneiderC., SilvermanR., CaseL. P., CooperD., & JacobsD. M. (2011). Identification of reading problems in first grade within a response–to–intervention framework. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 585–607.
42.
TorgesenJ. K. (2009). The response to intervention instructional model: Some outcomes from a large–scale implementation in Reading First schools. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 38–40.
43.
VadasyP. F., WayneS. K., O'ConnorR. E., JenkinsJ. R., PoolK., FirebaughM., et al. (2005). Sound partners: A tutoring program in phonics–based early reading. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
44.
VanDerHeydenA. M., WittJ. C., & GilbertsonD. (2007). A multi–year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on idenfication of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
45.
VaughnS., WanzekJ., MurrayC., ScammacaN., Linan–ThompsonS., & WoodruffT. L. (2009). High and low responders to early reading intervention: Response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 75, 165–183.
46.
VellutinoF. R., ScanlonD. M., SipayE. R., SmallS. G., PrattA., ChenR., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult–to–remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early identification as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
47.
VellutinoF. R., ScanlonD. M.ZhangH., & SchatschneiderC. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at–risk for long–term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 21, 437–480.
48.
WanzekJ., & VaughnS. (2011). Is a three–tier reading intervention model associated with reduced placement in special education? Remedial and Special Education, 32, 167–175.
