Making RTI a Reality at the State Level

By Lynn Boyer
West Virginia Department of Education

CEC’s RTI Blog has been contributing to the national dialogue about the components of the RTI process, use of it in the determination of a learning disability, legal questions that are emerging, challenges of its application in secondary schools, and the traits of leaders who “light the fire.”  During February we are going to talk about aspects of RTI implementation from the perspective of State Departments of Education, which are commonly referred to as State Education Agencies (SEA). 

Let me provide some background on what happens at the state level in the aftermath of any reauthorization of IDEA and the subsequent publication of regulations and how, this time, those processes have contributed to the variation in RTI implementation across states.   I hope this blog helps us recognize the many forces that affect a national effort and understand how an initiative can have common elements but look very different from one state -– or district -– to another.

Typically an SEA’s director of special education follows the national dialogue about potential changes to IDEA before it is reauthorized.  He or she is anticipating changes and, once IDEA is signed by the President, reviews the statute line by line to learn what possible changes are now law.  Then discussions about the potential impact on programs and services for students with disabilities in the state begin. 

Federal regulations that tell the SEA’s director of special education what rules the SEA must follow to implement the new IDEA come many months after the reauthorization.  As a result, there is a waiting period before any SEA begins the process of finalizing its own new rules because it wants to get them right the first time.  Some SEAs wait until the federal regulations are finalized before starting new initiatives like RTI.  Other SEAs, however, use a new reauthorization to move state initiatives forward before regulations are finalized.

In the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, three processes to identify a student as learning disabled were included.  Response to intervention (RTI) was one of those three and the only one that an SEA was required to permit.  Thousands of citizens across the nation took advantage of their opportunity to send comments or opinions to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) about the process called RTI, in hopes of affecting the final rules on its use.  Many persons saw RTI as a solution to the “wait to fail” syndrome and were highly supportive of it.   Some saw, and see, RTI as a catalyst for systems change for all students.  Families, however, were often concerned that it would delay services.  Evaluation specialists in schools were uncertain of the means by which a student would be identified.  Those in the special education teacher community wondered if their jobs were in jeopardy.  OSEP carefully responded to each of the comments, and the regulations were not published until 20 months after the reauthorization.  States also saw these varied opinions later as they made their own rules.

State departments of education have different processes for gaining approval or passage of their new rules.  Some states work through a State Board of Education process only.  Others must also work their way through a process that involves approval or passage by their legislatures.   Regardless of the process, the SEA’s proposed rules have to be considered by the public at large.  Lengthy comment periods ensure that many opinions about the proposed rules are submitted or provided in person at public hearings.  After the comment period ends, adjustments are made, and approval is gained through the SEA’s process.  Then the work of putting the new SEA rules in place begins.  Principals and teachers and parents and local district special education directors begin to plan for the changes at the local level. 

Because of these different processes to put rules in place, the substantial systemic changes necessary to implement RTI, and the diversity of stakeholder considerations, RTI’s implementation across states has varied considerably.  

In the January/February 2008 issue of TEACHING Exceptional Children,  Lehigh University’s Perry Zirkle and Nico Krohn summarized their SEA research in  “RTI after IDEA: A Survey of State Laws.”  They delineate IDEA’s three options for identifying students with learning disabilities:

1. Severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement (SEAs may prohibit or permit this approach).
2. Response to Intervention (SEAs must permit this approach).
3. Other alternative research-based procedures (SEAs may permit this approach).

They then note:

One year after the regulations went into effect [August 2006], most states are still grappling with this issue [of which options to use]. . . .  First, half of the states have not finalized their laws [rules] concerning the use of RTI to identify learning disabilities. However, most states are leaning toward a “permissive approach,” allowing districts to determine whether to use RTI or the severe discrepancy approach (A small group of the states include the research-based option). Only a small number of states require districts to use RTI and prohibit the severe discrepancy approach. Another small group of states form a transitional category. They are moving toward requiring districts to use RTI and eliminating the severe discrepancy approach.

The researchers’ article includes a chart of which SEAs are taking which approach. 

The differences reflected in the chart are expected not only for the reasons stated earlier but also because the rate of implementation of RTI in a state and its different forms are generally related to the following factors that manifest themselves in unique ways in each SEA:

1. The ease with which RTI can be incorporated into the design of the SEA’s instructional focus.
2. The extent of agreement by stakeholders that establishing an RTI process or framework is a fundamental systemic change that will incorporate all the elements of research on change processes.
3. The collaborative commitment of staff within the SEA whose work is essential to successful implementation, e.g., curriculum and instruction, assessment, professional development, school improvement, Title I, Reading First, student services, student data systems.
4. The source and amount of funding.
5. The extent to which stakeholders see current practices as no longer desirable and support change.
6. The credibility and relationships of the SEA staff member identified to be the spokesperson for the implementation.

This is a long first posting on this new topic.  I hope, however, that I’ve introduced the complexity of implementing RTI from an SEA perspective.  As we move through this short month of February, I will add postings about specific considerations within the six conditions above.  I look forward to reading about the diversity of implementation you are experiencing and if you see other dynamics in your state that are contributing to or impeding the implementation.

Comments

[Daryl Mellard]

Lynn,
You provided an informative description of issues that SEAs confront in moving from a USDE directive to state implementation in local districts. Too often we have many gaps to fill-in in that effort to ensure research-based, high quality local practices.