Enhancing Student Outcomes

Response to Intervention
Investigating
the New Role
of Special
Educators
Kelli D. Cummings " lYent Atkins
Randy Allison Carl Cole

Special educators wear many different

hats in our current educational system.
Due to recent federal legislation, they
may be required to wear a couple ol
new ones. This article provides a
glimpse into past roles and begins to lay
some groundwork for the future role of
special educators in a Response to Intervention (RTI) context. This article (a)
highlights the congruence between legislative acts impacting education, (b)
explains how legislative acts can be
used to help schools be more proactive
in meeting the needs of struggling stu
dents, (c) describes key elements of an
RTI model, (d) explains the role of formative assessment, (e) explains the application of RTI with a school-based case
example, and (f) concludes with a discussion of how the current skills of special educators can support schools
beginning to adopt RTI.

Congruence Between
Legislative Acts Impacting
iduccrtion
The Individuals With Disabilities
Education Improvement Act of 2004
{IDEA. 2004J intersects with The No
24 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB),

and these two pieces of legislation set
the stage for an approach to special education eligibility and school improvement called RTI. Both IDEA 2004 and
NCLB call for improving the outcomes
for ail students by using scientifically
based instructional practices. RTI specifically requires documentation of appropriate use of scientifically based interventions betore a student is referred for
a traditional special education evaluation. Documentation of appropriate
instructional interventions is not a new
feature of eligibility determination.
IDEA 1997 states that:
In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a
child shall not be determined to
be a child with a disability if the
determinant factor for such determination is (A) lack of appropriate instruction in reading,
including the essential components of reading instruction (as is
defined in section 1208(3) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). (20 U.S.C.
1414(b)(5)(A))

IDEA builds on the requirements of

its predecessor by including specific language on the use of RTI procedures such
as "a process that determines if the child
responds to scientific research-based
intervention as a pan of the evaluation
procedures" (Public Law (P.L.) 108-446
614 [blf6][Al; 614 [b)[2 & 3]).
Clearly bolh NCLB and IDEA give
school districts the legal authority to put
an RTI system in place. Implementing
such a system simultaneously addresses
the needs of individual students who
are struggling as well as assists schools
in meeting adequate yearly progress
(AYP). Special education teachers, with
their knowledge of assessment, instruction, and individualized interventions,
are uniquely positioned to impact and
assist schools as they begin to fully
implement RTI procedures.

Legislative Acts: Helping

Special [ducators be Agents
fer Student Access te the
Curriculum
Even before the implementation of the
Education for All Handicapped Children
Act of 1975, special education teachers
differentiated instruction in order to
meet the needs of individuals witb disabilities. Over the course of the last few
decades special educators, and the stu-

dents they serve, have moved from a

system in which specialized instruction
was primarily provided in separate facilities to one in which students with and
without disabilities are served in public
school settings. However, the process of
integration has always been centered on
issues of accessand merely providing
access to the building does not result in
equity. Facilitating access to programs
and curricula are the key elements of
the ctirrent roles and responsibilities of
today's educator. RTI, with a focus on
collaboration between all school professionals and a commitment to effective
strategies that support integration and
student proficiency, provides an excellent opportunity for all students to have
meaningful access to the general education curriculum.
To respond to the recent legislation
and summarize the nearly 30 years of
extensive data from both research and
practice on the topic of RTI, the
National Association of State Directors
of Special Education (NASDSE, 2005)
convened a panel of professionals to
provide guidance to state and local education agencies fostering effective RTI
Implementation across general, remedial, and special education. Key principles
outlined in the NASDSE document are
that:
School systems must reorganize to
provide multiple tiers of generally
effective instructional practices with
a core curriculum thai meets the
needs of most (e.g., 80%) students.
Across the multiple tiers, all students
are provided with access to high
quality instruction matching students' needs.

Formative assessment data are gathered to document the match between

students" needs and tbeir instruction.
RTI is evaluated across tiers using a
problem-solving model of data-based
decision making.

The authors of the NASDSE document note that it is not the specific roles
of special education professionals that
need to change, but rather the skill sets
within those roles which need to broaden as schools coordinate service deliv-

Figure 1 . A Comparison and Contrast of Roles of the Special Educcrtor

in a Response to Intervention (RTI) Context
Domain

Historica) Context

RTI Context

Assessment

Starting point is typically when

a student is referred for special
education evaluation.

Starting point is before there are

serious learning problems [i.e.,
universal screening).

Tbstins
Instruments

Summative (single point}

assessment, typically using
giobai achievement tests.

Formative (multiple measures

using different hut equivalent
test forms) assessment of a
student's learning over time.

Intervention

Provide intensive instruction to

a relatively stable group of
students within a given school
year.

Provide differenUated
instruction to a variety of
students; grouping is flexible
and dynamic.

Service delivery is contingent

upon a student's eligibility status.

Service delivery is contingent

upon a student's need.

Somewhat isolated. Work with

general educators is relatively
infrequent.

Collaborative. Consultation with

educators and specialists within
a building is required.

Professional
Environment

ery within an RTI context. The repertoire of special educators will expand as
they assist all educators with identifying
student needs early, providing a differentiated core curriculum that meets students' needs, collecting formative
assessment data to evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of interventions,
and providing consultative services to
modify support when instruction is not
having the desired effect (see Figure 1
for a description of the evolution of special educators' roles).

RTI is rooted in speciai

education with the
historicai purpose of
addressing educafionai
needs of students.
Although the specifics of how each
of the steps of the RTI process will be
implemented vary from school to
school, there are certain critical elements that schools must have in place.
Already discussed in this article is the
requirement of a continuum of generally effective instructional supports (e.g.,
multi-tiered approach). Following is a
detailed description of the decision-

making model and the assessment tools

used to evaluate RTI across the continuum from general education to special
education.

Ky Elements off an RTI Model

RTI is rooted in special education with
the historical purpose of addressing
educational needs of students. For over
20 years, researchers and practitioners
have noted significant gains in both
student and school-level achievement
in academic and social-behavioral
domains when formative evaluation,
accompanied with a continuum of
effective instructional techniques, were
used (Heller, Holtzman, & Messick,
1982; Simmons et al., 2002). Recent
councils (e.g., National Research
Council, 2002; President's Council on
Special Education Excellence, 2002)
who have advised on the reauthorization of IDEA state that any efforts to
scale up RTI ought to be based on problem-solving models which have documented effectiveness in school settings
and through research (Pasternack,
2002). The challenge lies in integrating
systems of service delivery and implementing a decision-making mode!
across the continuum of general and
special education.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MAR/APK 2008 25

Figure 2 . Steps In the OutcomesDriven Model

Identify Need
for Support

1
Validate Need
for Support

Plan Support v
'
Evaluate
Effectiveness jf
of Support

Mmplement\
I Support I
\.
/

I
Review
Outcomes
Note. "Sicps 111 the Outcomes Driven
Model," 2007. Dynamic Measurement
Group, Eugene. Oregon. Reprinted with
permission.
Outcomes Drive the Decisions
Regardless of the specific method chosen to implement RTI, research and
practice have identified procedural
models with key decision-making steps
that promote school effectiveness and
collaboration. Successful models have
in common a core set of values regarding (he nature of assessment. In them,
assessment is linked to intervention, is
formative, and is relevant to the curriculum.
Steps in an Outtomes-Driven
Model
The Outcomes-Driven Model is one specific example of a useful framework for
RTI implementation. This model extends
previous work from problem-solving
models (Deno, 1989; Shinn, 1995; Tilly,
2008) and the initial application of the
problem-solving model to early literacy
skills (Kaminski & Good, 1998). Yet the
Outcomes-Driven Model is unique due
to its focus on early intervention and
universal screening. The generai questions addressed by a problem-solving
model include: (a) What is the problem?
26 CouNCii. FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILPREN

(h) Why is it happening? (c) What

should be done about it? and [d) Did it
work? (Tilly, 2008). The OutcomesDriven Model was developed to address
these questions, but within a prevention-oriented framework designed to
preempt eariy learning difficulties and
ensure step-by-step progress toward
important outcomes. The OutcomesDriven Model accomplishes these goals
through a set of four educational decisions: (a) identify a need for support; (b)
validate the need for support; Lc) plan,
implement, evaluate, and modify support; and (d) review outcomes.
Identifying the Need for Support. The
first step in the Outcomes-Driven Model
is identifying the need for support.
During this phase, universal screening
occurs which consists of brief assessments administered to students in an
entire school or classroom. This particular step identifies students early who
might need additional instruction in
order to achieve meaningful goals.
Students who demonstrate low levels of
performance on the screening task are
red flagged for further evaluation in
order to determine the level of support
required to address the need. Special
educators are vital members of the
assessment team that collects this
screening data (see Figure 2J.
Validating the Need for Support. The
next step is validating the need for the
support identified in step one. The purpose of this step is to rule out easy reasons for a child's poor performance
(i.e., child had a bad day or did not
understand the directions) and to
ensure that the educator is reasonably
confident that the child needs additional support. One way to validate a student's need for support is to compare a
student's performance on the screening
assessment with other information that
the teacher has about that child. If the
child is new to the school or if it is the
beginning of the year and no other data
are readily available, the teacher may
choose to assess the student across multiple days and examine the trend in performance. If the student continues to
display a pattern of poor performance
across at least three different assessment periods, it is presumed that the
student requires additional instructional

support (Kaminski, Cummings, Powell

Smith, & Good, 2008). It is important to
ulilize this step of the Ouicomes-Driven
Model so that no single piece of assessment data is used to make decisions
about a student's instructional plan.
Plan, Implement,
Evaluate, and
Modify Support. Once the level of support is planned and details are developed for where, when, and with whom
the instruction will be delivered, educators implement, evaluate, and modify
that support as needed. During this
phase, students' progress is monitored
along their path toward a particular
goal, with the frequency of the monitoring and the intensity of the intervention
designed to match the students" need.
For example, a student with severe
needs may be monitored weekly or even
twice weekly, and students with less
severe needs may only need to be monitored once per month.
There are specific decision rules associated with progress monitoring used to
evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. A general recommendation is the
3-point rule, where interventions are
continuously evaluated and if a student's performance falis below the goal
in more than 3 consecutive data points,
the intervention is changed based on the
specific pauern of student performance.
This recommended decision rule is
based on eariy work with curriculumbased measurement [CBM; Fuchs, 1988,
1989) and precision teaching {White &
Haring, 1980). As when validating a student's need for support, a pattern of performance is considered before making
individual student decisions. This iterative process continues until the student
makes sufficient progress and is back on
track to meet established goals. (See ihe
"Interventions and Strategies" section of
Figure 3 for references on specific intervention ideas across a variety of skill
areas.)
Outcome Evaluation.
Continued
refinement of educational programs continues through the outcome evaluation.
The premise of the Outcomes-Driven
Model is that failure is not an option
(Kaminski & Good, 1998). Students are
monitored and intervention is evaluated
until a student reaches the set goals. It is
important to remember ihat it is not just

the monitoring but the continued

responsive intervention that makes the
difference in a student's success.

Ihe Role off Fommtive

AssasMnent

Figure 3 . Free, Electronic Resources for lite Foundations of

Response to Intorvention (RTI)

Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring

National Center on Student Progress Monitoring
http://www.studentprogress.org/

The systematic and recursive feedback

loops (i.e., teach, assess, and modify
teaching as needed) of the OutcomesDriven Model, and more globally the
RTI process, require a new perspective
on assessment practices where the key
decision is not one of high-stakes eligibility or evaluation but one of instructional planning. Formative assessment
is the process by which data are used to
adapt teaching to students' needs
(Kaminski & Cummings, 2007).

This site provides information on the scientifically based practice of screening and
monitoring students' skills. A variety of articles and descriptions of different tools are
availahle.

One type of formative assessment

tool is general outcome measures
(GOMs). GOMs differ from other types
of formative assessments in that they
are standardized, establish psychometric properties, and provide different but
equivalent alternate forms for progress
monitoring. These key features are necessary to consider when determining
appropriate assessments within an RTI
model. These features of GOMs facilitate the necessary comparisons between
students, as in the case of universal
screening. Also, GOMs are ideally suited
lo repeated measurement over time,
thus providing a means to engage in
progress monitoring of individual students.

Florida Center on Reading Research

http://www.fcrr.org/Interventions/index.htm
This site provides multiple intervention ideas linked to Ihe five big ideas of early
reading. Interventions for individuals or small groups can be printed in their entirety.

CBM is one widely known type of

GOM that allows educators to quickly
and efficiently assess students' growth
in basic skill areas (Shinn. 2002]. More
recently, data have converged to suggest
that GOMs can be used to broadly support a wider range of educational decisions including screening in general
education and linking performance on
these brief measures to high-stakes tests
as required for NCLB. GOMs are widely
available for assessing early reading
skills (Good & Kaminski, 2002) as well
as infant and preschooler development
(Carta et al., 2002). See Figure 3 for
more information regarding formative
assessment technologies.
The aforementioned assessment
tools are a means by which educators
can determine that (a) students have an
appropriate intervention with which to

Core Cunicular and Supplemental Programs

Oregon Reading First Center
http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/curricu!um_review.php
This site provides a report of comprehensive core and supplemental reading
programs. Programs submitted for review were analyzed and scored using a rubric
developed by the Oregon Reading First Center.

Interventions and Strategies

Intervention Centtul
http://www.inlerventioncentral.org/
This site provides intervenUons and strategies for reading and other skills areas. The
site allows educational professionals to develop individual assessment instruments.

respond and (b) that the response is sufficient to result in meaningful changes
in outcomes for a student. A common
feature to each GOM is that they are
indicators of broader skill areas. GOMs
do not assess everything about a particular domain, but they assess important
things about that domain. Students' patterns of performance on these measures
directly relate to performance on important developmental tasks. For instance,
one of the most widely used and
researched
GOMs, Oral
Reading
Fluency, is a very powerful indicator of
the global domain of overall reading
skill and comprehension.
GOMs are also dynamic in that they
are sensitive to small but meaningful
gains in student improvement over
time. Because GOMs are designed to be
brief, educators can use them weekly if
needed in order to determine if the
intervention is working or if the interventions need to be modified. If interventions need to be changed, an educator has additional insight about what
specific skills to teach based on the student's performance during these brief
assessments. This aspect of GOMs rep-

resents the feature of being authenticassessments, wherein the skills that are
assessed match the instruction that is
delivered, and that instruction is continually evaluated. Student outcomes drive
the decisions in this process.

Application of flie RTI Model

Ghanging the focus of assessment and
the nature of intervention plays a criticai yet varied role in effective RTI implementation. In an RTI model, it is presupposed that referrals for higher levels
of intervention are based on data. As a
result, referrals for special education are
likely to include information that is
more relevant for eligibility decision
making and instructional planning than
in the past. Because all children are
screened for early skill deficits, children
are able to access curriculum in the
least restrictive environment. As general education teachers begin to teach to a
wider variety of students, speciai educators take on an expanded role in providing consultative assistance to their general education colleagues.
The Outcomes-Driven Model addresses prevention needs across the contin-

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL GHILDREN MAR/AI'R 2008 27

' n^Ure 4 . Case Study: One District's Expertenca

With Response to Intervention (RTI) Seal* Up
and Implementation

Tell us a little bit about your schooi

Our school district is located in a suburban town in the northwest pai:
of the United Slates. This particular area is experiencing rapid growili
with a number of transient hotels and subsidized low-income housing. Associated
with the economics of the community, 45% of the students qualify for
free/reduced lunch and there is a high mobility and student turnover rate. The dislrict historically has had a large number of students receiving special education
services, averaging 15% of the total population. The district has a high quality, special education staff with training in both current assessment practices and
research-based instructional programs.

How did you begin to scale up RTI?

The school district began moving several years ago to an RTi model as an outgrowth of a districtwide reading project utilizing research-based reading programs.
The project was initiated in response to the large number of students needing special education services to address reading deficiencies. Prior to implementing the
research-based reading project, a large number of students here were referred and
identified for special education who lacked exposure to effective instruction within the general education curriculum. Within this approach, speciai education
teachers participated in the identification of students who could best be described
as instructionally disabled, believing that only within the special education curriculum would they have access to programs appropriate to students' needs. We
thus began to scale up RTl by bringing special education resources, including special education teachers, to bear within our overall instructional environment.

uum. The intention of the OutcomesDriven Model is that a student's needs

are addressed before referrals to special
education for learning disabilities are
needed. This requires a component of
systems-level evaluation which increases accountability and ultimately helps
plan instructional support for all students. Research continues to demonstrate that progress monitoring (e.g.,
formative assessment] substantially
increases the effectiveness of intervention. Studies further document that the
effectiveness of progress monitoring
increases when graphing techniques
and decision rules are used (Fuchs &
Fuchs, 1986; Kavale, 2005). The practice
of progress monitoring may take place
in both general education and special
education; its frequency and intensity is
u'hat will change depending upon student need.

The Outcomes-Driven

What were the goals of the new program?

Model addresses

The goal of the program was to involve both general and special education teachers who work on school reading teams to select and implement high quality
research-based assessments and reading programs, General and special education
teachers worked as a team to select primary, secondary, and tertiary reading programs, and instruction was delivered on a continuum rather than categorically. By
utilizing special education teachers to help differentiate the core curriculum, we
were able to serve our students more effectively and efficiently. The district also
adopted the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS} and Test of
Oral Reading Fluency tTORF) as formative assessment tools to identify early reading discrepancies through universal screening and to monitor student progress.

prevention needs

What are some of the key outcomes of this project?

Through the early identification of struggling readers within the general education
population, it was possible to deliver targeted instruction within general education,
Title 1 services, or special education. Reading teams, composed of special arut general education teachers, were reluctant to refer students to special education without exploring every available research-based intervention and closely monitoring
the student's progress. This process of evaluating how students responded to interventions led the teams to no longer focus on the student's perceived discrepancy
but to make sure that the student had every opportunity to learn. The reading project had many outcomes both intended and unintended.

How did these changes support an RTI Framework?

The project resulted in a restructuring of the instructional program and the elimination of categorical barriers between special and general education. The stated
goal of the project was to provide quality, research*based instruction and reduce
the incidence for reading disabilities, which was achieved in a dramatic fashion.
With Ihe implementation of effective practices in reading, the elementary school
referral rates fell to single-digit percentages districtwide! The unintended result
was the district evolving to an RTI model as a result of practice rather than policy
shiftmost significantly the instructional melding between general and special
education. Students in our district now have the benefit of a wide array of instructional opportunities among general education. Title I services, and special education without having to cross categorical barriers.

28 COUNCIL Fot? EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

across the continuum.

Important changes in special education result from the general education
application of collecting formative
assessment data within an OutcomesDriven Model. By linking assessment
with interventions, educators document
what is special about special education.
The decisions accompanying each of
these steps in the Outcomes-Driven
Model are congruent with the argument
made by Ysseidyke and Marston (1998)
that our eligibility decisions ought to be
based on instructional efforts to help all
students achieve better outcomes.
Special education is therefore not a
place; rather, it is a set of interventions
designed to ensure individual student
success.
When problem solving across the
continuum is generalized, it is found
that the purpose of RTI is not a cheaper,
faster way of identifying students for
special education. Rather, it is a way of
ensuring that students are provided
with what they need to succeed in education. Special educators play a critical

role in evaluating the effectiveness of a

variety of interventions within their
classrooms and schools,
A Case Study

To illustrate how the role of the special

educator might change in an RTI
model, review the case study in Figure
4 describing one school district's path
toward RTI implementation. This description, provided by an administrator,
details how RTI was initiated nearly
5 years prior to the time of this publication. In this example, the district was
able to maximize student learning and
reduce the rates of referral to special
education.
Possible New Roles for Special
Educators

As RTI processes are considered and

tested across increasing numbers of
school systems, the role of teachers in
this process needs to be a significant
consideration, especially for special
education teachers. The success of core
instruction with all students in general
education becomes a critical determination. It is most likely the success or failure of this differentiated core instruction
that leads to potential referral for additional services, which in many cases
includes special education. How special
education teachers position themselves
to support and supplement core instruction or align themselves to provide
intensive intervention is critical to the
RTI process in general, and specifically
to the special education teachers' value
in the system. (See Figure 5 for a
description of key roles of the special
education teacher in an RTI model.) The
bottom line is that no matter how student problems are identified, unless
educators provide meaningful and effective instruction, student progress will
not change.
Special education teachers should be
able to help support RTI efforts across
varied problem areas and various programming options. To be assistive to the
RTI model, special education teachers
need to support efforts to implement a
problem-solving framework premised
on four basic questions:
What is the student's problem and
why is it happening?

Figure 5. List of Key Activities lor Special Educators in a Response

to Intervention (RTI) Model Linked to the Outcomes-Driven Model

Step in the OutcomesDriven Model

|

Key Activity
1. Evaluate a target student's concern in comparison
to an accepted standard of success. Assist and/or
train the school's universal screening team to
administer formative assessments (e.g.. Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and other
curriculum-based measurements) with fidelity.
2. Assist in the consideration of scientifically based
instructional strategies. Use knowledge of student
skill and error patterns for more advanced
educational diagnosis.-'

Identify Need
for Support

Plan & Implement

Support

3. Provide modeling, support, and feedback to other

professionals regarding intervention implementation. Use understanding of reading student graphs
to assist others in interpreting a student's rale of
progress.

Evaluate &
Modify Support

4. Participate in ongoing formative assessment and

summative evaluation of intervention effectiveness. Consuh with general education teachers and
other professionals to enhance teaching activities.

Outcomes
Evaluation

^We use the term educational diagnosis here in a manner similar to Howell & Nolet
(2000), by stating that it ought to be a teaching decision rather than an eiititlemen!
decision. An educational diagnosis according to this paradigm thus inciudes two key
elements: effectively identifying what to teach and how to teach il.

What is the best instructional plan

for the student given the analysis of
the concern?
How can the plan be implemented as
it was conceived and data collected
for analysis of performance?
Are the desired results being
achieved as expected or do changes
need to be made?
A further analysis of these foundational
concepts helps clarify a special education teacher's increasing role in creating
a successful learning experience for all
children.
An important role of the special education teacher is helping others understand how to evaluate a target student's
concern in comparison to an accepted
standard of success. This gap analysis is
fundamental In an RTI model and sets
the stage for an analysis of the problem
that is subsequently defined. Looking
for probable causes of the learning
problems defined in this way is a critical
step in the process. It allows special
TEACHING

education teachers to help olher educators look more deeply at why a student
may have problems in specific areas and
potentially successful interventions.
Helping define, validate, and analyze
probiems at an individual and group
level is a critical skill for special education teachers in a successful RTI model.
Special education teachers are often
seen as a wealth of information on
instructional strategies that are effective
with students with disabilities. Therefore, once a student's probiems are
defined and accurately analyzed, special educators help other educators with
consideration of scientifically based and
researched instructional strategies to be
used. By linking reliable instructional
strategies which match the analyzed
need of a student, the likelihood of
intervention
success is greatly
increased. Special education teachers
help establish meaningful goals for student attainment and meaningful methods of monitoring progress towards
those goals.
EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

MAR/APR

2008 29

After a weil conceived plan is developed, the special education teacher provides modeling, support, and feedback
on the implementation of the intervention. Some special education teachers
may even find themselves collaboratively working wilh general education
teachers with intervention groups or
teaching intervention groups of likeneed students. The knowledge of whal
and how to teach hard-to-reach students
is an important role of special education
teachers.

An important role of the

special education teacher Is
heiping others understand
how to evaluate a target
student's concern in
comparison to an accepted
standard of success.
Finally, special education teachers
become involved in ongoing, formative
assessments as well as summative evaluation. By virtue of their work with
individualized education programs, special educators help teachers less familiar
with data collection, data analysis, and
decision-making procedures. Assisting
less familiar teachers with these tasks
uses special education teachers' expertise on instructional and curricular needs
for students who are not making adequate progress or need additional
instructional considerations to enhance
the level of progress made. The idea of
formatively monitoring Ihe effects of
instruction and analyzing student performance results to make instructional
changes is a strength of many special
education teachers.
Too often, concerns are expressed
that ihe need for special education
teachers will be reduced through effective intervention practices. Looking
holistically at the needs within a
systemic response to intervention
approach, that concern does not seem
well grounded given the knowledge,
skills, and resources that special education teachers offer the overall system.
30 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Conclusion
The RTI process is about more than special education eligibility; it is ultimately
a focus on school improvement to build
effective systems of service delivery.
The special education teacher is in a
unique position to contribute to the way
in which such a service delivery model
plays out within a school. Throughout
the process of collaboration, the special
education teacher is viewed as a key
consultant assisting with planning,
implementation, and evaluation of
interventions across the continuum of
education. Special education teachers
also experience increased involvement
with general education and Title I staff
by way of early screening activities, collaborative instructional processes for
groups of students with similar skills,
and interpreting RTI data within the
context of the problem-solving process.
The special educator in an RTI model
plays a key role in enhancing instructional opportunity for all students.
The skills that special education
teachers bring to the table may ultimately result in fewer students qualifying for specialized services. However,
rather than seeing this outcome as
working oneself out of a job, it should
be viewed as an opportunity to focus
more intensely on the students with the
most severe needs and help provide
more effective instruction for all students.
References
Carta. J. J., Greenwood, C. R., Walker, D.,
Kaminski, R., Good. R., McConnell, S.. &
McEvoy, M. (2[)02). Individual growth and
development indicators (IGDls): Assessment that guides Intervention for young
children. In M. OstroskyS E. Horn (Eds.).
Assessment: Gathering meaningful information. The Young Exceptional Children
Monograph Series 4. Longmont, CO:
Sopris West. Retrieved Jatiuary 8. 2008,
from http://www.igdi.ku.edu/documents/
index.htm
Deno, S. L. [1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services:
A futidamental and direc! reialionship. ln
M. R. Shinn (Ed.). Curriculum-based
measurement: Assessing special children
(pp. !-17). New York: Guilford.
Dynamic Measurement Group. (2007). "Steps
in the outcomes-driven model." Eugene,
OR: Author.

Fuchs, L. S. (1988). Effects of computer-managed instruction on teachers' implemetiiation of systematic monitoring programs,
student achievement, and student awareness of learning. Journal of FAucationat
Research. 8J, 294-304.
Fuchs. L. S. (1989). Evaluating solulioiis:
Monitoring progress and revising intervention plans. In M. Shinn (Ed.).
Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 153-181). New
York: Guilford.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects ol
systematic formative evaluation: A metaanalysis. Exceptional Children, 5.i. 199208.
Good, R. H.. & Kaminski. R. A. (Eds.).
(2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early
literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene. OR:
Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved January 8.
2008, from http://diheis.uoregon.edu/
Heller, K. A., Holtzman. W.. & Messick. S.
(1982). Placement in special education:
Historical developments and current procedures. In K. A. Heller. W. H. Hollzmaii.
& S. Messick (Eds.). Placing children in
special education: A strategy for equity
(pp. 23-44). Washington, DC: Nalional
Academy Press.
Howetl. K. W & Nolet. V. (2000). Cunicalumbased evaluation: teaching and dt-cision
making {Md ed.). Canada: Wadsworth.
Individuals With Disahilities Act of 1997.
Reauthorization of P.L. JO.S-17.
Individuals With Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004. P. L. 108-466.
Kaminski. R. A.. & Cummings. K. D. (2007.
Winter). Assessment for learning: Using
general outcomes measures. Threshold.
26-28.
Kaminski. R. A.. Cummings. K. D.. PowellSmith. K. A.. & Good. R. H. (2008). Besl
practices in using dynamic indicators of
basic early literacy skills (DIBELS*) for
formative assessment and evaluation. In
A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 11811204). Belhesda, MD: National Association of Schooi Psychologists.
Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1998).
Assessing early literacy skills in a problem-solving model: Dynamic indicators of
basic early literacy skills. In M, R. Shinn
(Ed.). Advanced applications of CBM (pp.
113-142). New York: Guilford.
Kavale. K. (2005). Effective intervention for
students with specific learning disability:
Tbe nature of special education. Learning

Disabilities. liW, 127-138.

National Association of State Directors of
Special Education. (2005). Resfionse to
Intervention: Policy considerations and
implementation. Alexandria. VA: Author.
National Research Council. (2002). Executive
summary. Disproportionate representation
of minority students in special education.
Washington, DC: Author.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P. L. 107110.

Pasternack, R. H. (2002. March). The demise
oflQ testing for children with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the meeting of
the National Association of School
Psychologists 2002 Annual Convention,
Chicago, IL.
President's Council on Speciai Education
Excellence. (2002). A NEW ERA: Revitalizing special education for children and
their families. Washington. DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Shinn, M. R. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based measurement and its use in
a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas &
J. Crimes (Eds.). Best practices in school
psychology Ul {pp. 547-567). Washington,
DC; National Association of School
Psychologists.
Shinn, M. R. (2002). Best Practices in using
curriculum based measurement in a problem-solving model, ln A. Thomas & 3.
Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology !V (pp. 671-697). Bethesda. MD:
National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved January 8, 2008. from
http://www.nasponline.org/trainers/
BPIV/44-Shinn.pdf
Simmons, D. C , Kame'enui, E. J., Good. R.
H., Harn. B. A.. Cole. C . & Braun. D.
(2002). Building, implementing, and sus-

Ad Index
American Foundation for the
Blind, 39
American Printing House for the
Blind, 12

taining a beginning reading improvement

model: Lessons learned school by school.
In M. R. Shinn. H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner
(Eds.). Intementions for academic and
behauior problems U: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 537-570). Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Tilly, W. D. (2008). The evolution of school
psychology to science-based practice. In
A, Thomas & J. Crimes (Eds.). Best practices in sclwol psychology V (pp. 17-36).
Bethesda. MD: National Association of
School Psychologists.
White, 0. R., & Haring, N. C. (1980). Exceptional teaching (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Ysseldyke. J.. & Marston. D. (1998). Origins
of categorical special education services in
schools and a rationale for changing
them, ln D. J. Reschly. W. D. Tilly III, & J.
P Grimes (Eds.). Special education in
transition: Functional assessment and
noncategorical programming (pp. 1-18).
Longmont. CO: Sopris West.

Kelli D. Cummings (CEC OR Federation).

Senior Research Scientist, Dynamic Measurement Group, Eugene, Oregon. Ti-ent Atkins
(CEC MT Federation). Associate Professor of
Special Education. The University of Mon-

tana. Missoula. Randy Allison (CEC IA Federation), Director of Special Education,

Heartland Area Education Agency U, Johnston, Iowa. Carl Cole (CEC VI Federation).
Research Associate. RMC Research Corporation. St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands.
Address
correspondence
to Kelli D.
Cummings. Dynamic Measurement Group.
132 E. Broadway. Suite 636. Eugene. OR
97401 (e-mail: [email protected]}.
This manuscript was supported by the
Schools and Communities Coming Tbgether
Project at the Division of Educational
Research and Service, The University of
Montana and Federal Grants 2003CKWX0274
and 2004CKWX0S77 from the Community
Oriented Policing Services Office, U.S.
Department of Justice. However, no official
university or federal endorsement should be
inferred.
Portions of this work were completed while
the first author was a member of the faculty
at the University of Montana.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 40,
No. 4, pp. 24-31.
Copyright 2008 CEC.

Join internationally
recognized autism expert
Dr. Kathleen A. Quill,
author of bestselling
texts on educational
intervention, for a free
online Web Seminar.

AutismPro.com, 31
CEC. 1,49.64,65, 71, 72, 75,
cover 3
Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI),
cover 4
Curriculum Associates, cover 2
Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, 13
Making the Grade, 71
Nasco, 13
Pearson, 55

Discover how AutismPro

can help your school or
district provide services
for students with autism.
Dr. Kathleen Quill will be
responding to questions
from participants.
Sign up now:
www.AutismPro.com/seminars
or call 866-462-0991
Space is limited!

Penn State, 23

TEACHING ExcEPTiONAt. CHILDREN MAR/AI-R 2008 31