Collaboration, Comfort Level and College Faculty: RTI Involvement in Higher

Education

Valerie Robnolt, Virginia Commonwealth University

Jennifer Jones, Radford University

Jodi Welsch, Frostburg State University

Katherine Doughtery-Stahl, New York University

Latisha Hayes, University of Virginia

Kevin Flanigan, West Chester University

Sharon Green, Independent Consultant

Significance of the Problem With the reauthorization of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2004), Response to Intervention (RTI) became an alternative method of identifying children with disabilities.

Many stakeholders, such as state departments of education, districts, schools, and colleges/universities, in the U.S. are working to address the changes to IDEA.

Historical Context

Historically, learning disabilities were diagnosed through the IQ-achievement discrepancy.

Through a series of intervention studies by Vellutino and his colleagues (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000; Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, & Denckla, 1996; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006), the IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria were called into question.

Response to Intervention (RTI)

RTI was motivated by research that indicates that the number of students diagnosed as having reading disabilities can be dramatically reduced by identifying students at risk early and by providing additional literacy instruction to meet such students’ specific literacy needs (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1999; Scanlon, Vellutino, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney, 2005; Torgesen, 2000).

Responders and Non-Responders

Students who respond to such additional instruction and intervention are assumed to simply have lacked the opportunity to learn; students who do not respond to the additional instruction may have reading disabilities.

Existing research suggests the latter group is significantly smaller than is indicated by current levels of learning disability designations in public elementary schools (Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000)

Key Components of RTI

Universal Screening

Multitiered Instruction: Tier 1: Core Instruction Tier 2: Strategic Instruction Tier 3: Intensive Instruction

Progress Monitoring

CASE STUDIES OF DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION STAKEHOLDERS

THREE STATES IN EASTERN U.S. Interviews were conducted with State

Department of Education personnel to answer the following questions: What are the roles that personnel in the state

Department of Education play with regard to RTI? What are the similarities and differences in how

RTI is being implemented by personnel in state Departments of Education?

Personnel were contacted and asked a series of questions related to: Their position and experience Aspects of RTI as part of the special education

identification process Dissemination of information to stakeholders Perceptions of RTI and overall implementation in

state

FIRST QUESTION: ROLE OF PERSONNEL

State #1: Assistant State Superintendent for Instruction

State #2: Former Director, Office of Special Education

State #3: Response to Intervention Specialist

SECOND QUESTION: SIMILARITIES

Each state uses RTI as one method to determine special education identification. It isn’t required or recommended, but one option.

States #1 and #2 incorporated RTI as part of the Reading First initiative.

States #1 and #3 created frameworks/guidance documents : State #1: Served as technical assistance for

school teams. State #3: Laid RTI out as a process.

States #1 and #3 held sessions to disseminate information to stakeholders.

STATE #3: OTHER RTI INITIATIVES

Pilot Schools: Started in 2008, now in 3rd year Elementary schools in 15 school divisions Realignment of resources to implement RTI Most success in schools where there is strong

leadership in central office The number of referrals to special education has

gone down Next Step: Cohort Schools:

Training central office RTI leadership team Expanding to middle and high schools

STATE #3: QUOTE THAT SUMS IT UP

“… it’s not that RTI fixes special ed kids, but we’re finding that going through this process, using this RTI framework, children are going to get the help they need immediately, are going to get the interventions they need immediately, so you never get to the point where they’re failing going to child study.”

COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FACULTY COLLABORATION

QUESTIONS

What is the general knowledge about RTI among college/university faculty from various disciplines?

What are the levels and types of preparation being implemented in regard to RTI at the college/university level?

What are the collaboration efforts with regards to RTI among college/university faculty?

What are the levels of direct involvement of college/university faculty and students with RTI in the school districts?

PARTICIPANTS Approximately 266 faculty responded. The following states were represented:

Pennsylvania (48.87%) New York (20.68%) Virginia (13.53%) Maryland (9.4%) New Jersey (7.52%)

Participants were asked the program(s) in which they teach: Special Education (23.53%) Reading Education (14.55%) Elementary Education (19.51%) Secondary Education (9.6%) Educational Psychology (3.41%) School Psychology (5.0%) Counselor Education (3.72%) Other (20.74%)

For example, General, Clinical, and Child Psychology, Educational Leadership, Educational Policy, Educational Technology, TESOL, Early Childhood

PARTICIPANTS (CONTINUED)

Title: Full Professor (19.01%) Associate Professor (30.42%) Assistant Professor (33.84%) Non-Tenure Track (11.03%) Other (5.7%)

Public (52.2%%) and private (47.8%) higher education institutions Research 1 (34.3%) Teaching Institution (65.7%)

ELECTRONIC SURVEY

Administered through Inquisite Close-ended and open-ended questions

General knowledge Inclusion in coursework Collaboration with other faculty Collaboration with schools

RESULTS

Choose the statement that best describes your overall understanding of Response to Intervention (RTI):

I have heard the term. (16.94%) I have heard the term and can briefly define it.

(13.22%) I can define the term by describing the main

components. (22.31%) I can describe the RTI process (including

components and stakeholders) in detail. (47.52%)

Inclusion in the Curriculum

During the 09-10 school year, was RTI a part of the curriculum at your institution?

Yes (54.55%) No (18.18) Not Sure (27.27%)

During the 09-10 school year, was RTI part of your course curriculum?

Yes (52.63%) No (47.37%)

COURSE 1: 113 RESPONDENTS

Type of class: Special Education (45.13%) Reading Education

(16.81%) Elementary Education

(15.93%) Educational Psychology

(1.77%) School Psychology (8.85%) Counselor Education

(2.66%) Other (8.85%)

% of time spent on RTI:

1-10 (48.21%) 11-20 (25.00%) 21-30 (13.39%)

Elements Taught: Tier Framework

(92.92%) Progress Monitoring

(74.34%) Universal Screening

(67.26%) Intervention Options

(76.11%) Special Education

Eligibility (64.60%) Working with

Interdisciplinary Teams (63.83%)

School-wide Improvement (43.36%)

COURSE 2: 57 RESPONDENTS

Type of class: Special Education (45.61%) Reading Education (19.30%) Elementary Education

(17.54%) Educational Psychology

(1.75%) School Psychology (10.53%) Counselor Education (1.75%) Other (3.51%)

% of time spent on RTI:

1-10 (35.09%) 11-20 (24.56%) 21-30 (15.79%) 31-40 (12.28%)

Elements Taught: Tier Framework

(84.21%) Progress Monitoring

(89.47%) Universal Screening

(66.67%) Intervention Options

(80.70%) Special Education

Eligibility (70.18%) Working with

Interdisciplinary Teams (71.93%)

School-wide Improvement (50.88%)

Dissemination of Information During the 09-10 school year, have you

attended any RTI-related events? Yes (29.44%) No (70.56%)

If yes, what institution sponsored the event? University/College (34.92%) School System (23.81%) State Dept. of Education (36.51%) US Dept. of Education (4.76%) Other (33.33%)

How did you find out about this RTI event(s)? Personal exploration (25.4%) Mass invitation (52.38%) Direct communication (52.38%)

Information to Faculty

Within your university, college, or department, was information about RTI disseminated to faculty during the 09-10 school year? Yes (24.88%) No (75.12%)

Within your university, college, or department, how has information been disseminated? Presentations or trainings at the

university/college/department level (54.72%) Professional Literature (58.49%) Travel provided for RTI conferences (32.08%) State Dept. of Education events (32.08%)

COLLABORATION Are you involved in any RTI planning or

collaboration effort(s) with other faculty? Yes (17.29%) No (82.71%)

Please indicate the type of collaboration taking place across programs: Scheduled program meetings (51.35%) Literature/discussion groups (18.92%) Email exchanges (32.43%) Presentations at faculty meetings (35.14%)

Almost half (48.65%) indicated that five or more collaborative efforts took place in the last year.

KEY RTI PLAYERS

Within your university, college, or department, what program area(s) serve as “key players” and/or participants in collaboration efforts? Reading Education (29.33%) Special Education (47.60%) Elementary Education (26.44%) Educational Psychology (5.77%) School Psychology (13.94%) Counselor Education (2.89%) Not Sure (40.87%)

SHARING INFORMATION WITH SCHOOLS

Have you had the opportunity to share information with local school personnel? Yes (25.55%) No (74.45%)

Choose the statement that best describes how you explain the RTI process to local school personnel. I have a limited understanding and am not very

comfortable answering basic questions. (0.00%) I have some knowledge, can briefly describe the

components and answer basic questions. (20.69%) I am able to answer specific questions with regard to

the process and components. (22.41%) I am well versed in the process and am able to

give specific examples from working with schools. (56.90%)

WORKING WITH SCHOOLS

With whom at the local school level did you share information? Teachers (87.93%) School Administrators (65.52%) Central office staff (44.83%) Superintendent (31.04%)

What was the purpose of RTI in the schools you worked with? District mandate (36.21%) School-wide Improvement (70.69%) Eligibility for Special Education (36.21%)

COLLABORATION WITH SCHOOLS Are you involved in any RTI collaboration

effort(s) with the public schools? Yes (18.48%) No (81.52%)

Types of collaborative efforts taking place with public schools: Presentations on teacher workdays (63.16%) After school presentations (18.42%) Consultation about progress monitoring (52.63%) Consultation about interventions (55.26%) Consultation about eligibility (23.68%) Partnership with school(s) to provide university-led

intervention efforts (34.21%) Literature groups (2.63%)

Over half (51.28%) indicated that five or more efforts took place in the last year.

DISCUSSION

Comfort level Compared to previous survey results, faculty

describe their comfort level as greater than before

Incorporation of information into courses needs improvement

Collaboration among faculty in higher education low

Involvement with school divisions low

References

O’ Connor R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159-197.

Scanlon, D.M., Vellutino, F.R., Small, S.G., & Fanuele, D.P., & Sweeny, J.M. (2005). Severe reading difficulties—Can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13, 4, 209-227.

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55-64.

U.S. Department of Education (2004). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http://idea.ed.gov/

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223 – 238.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate, and readily remediated poor readers: Toward distinguishing between constitutionally and experientially based causes of reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601-638.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157 – 169.