ISSUES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION IN A NORTHWEST FLORIDA, TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: A QUALITATIVE STUDY

Transcription

1 ISSUES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION IN A NORTHWEST FLORIDA, TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: A QUALITATIVE STUDY by Steven Ronald Schubert Ed.S., University of West Florida, 1998 M.A., University of West Florida, 1996 B.S., Iowa State University, 1974 A dissertation submitted to the Department of Professional and Community Leadership College of Professional Studies The University of West Florida In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education 2009

2 2009 Steven Ronald Schubert

3 The dissertation of Steven Ronald Schubert is approved: Robin M. Largue, Ed.D., Committee Member Date Keith W. Whinnery, Ph.D., Committee Member Date Daniel J. Kaczynski, Ph.D., Committee Chair Date Accepted for the Department: Thomas J. Kramer, Ph.D., Chair Date Accepted for the University: Richard S. Podemski, Ph.D., Dean of Graduate Studies Date

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the incredible patience, support, and latitude that my committee members provided me in seeing this dissertation through to finality. Dr. Kaczynski s encouragement and accessibility to provide guidance and timely suggestions regarding the finer points of qualitative research and analysis was crucial in motivating me to continue, despite numerous outside challenges along the way. Dr. Whinnery s ESE expertise was also critical in providing insight into the newly legislated Response to Intervention process; and Dr. Largue, bless her heart, was faithful throughout the ordeal of a dissertation. Needless to say, my family is as pleased as I am to know the dissertation is finally finished and that we can move on with life. I want them to understand how grateful I am for their patience and understanding of how much this means to me professionally and personally. iv

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... iv LIST OF TABLES... vii ABSTRACT... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...1 A. Role of Researcher...7 B. Study Focus...10 C. Definition of Terms...10 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE...16 A. Low Achieving Students and Students with Disabilities...17 B. Response to Intervention...25 C. Summary...30 CHAPTER III. METHOD...35 A. Materials...41 B. Design and Procedure...41 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS...45 A. Analytic Method...46 B. Findings Relevant Themes Relevant Themes in the Focus Groups...47 a. Theme 1: A lack of trained parents and teachers impedes the IST...47 b. Theme 2: A lack of parental involvement is a significant impediment to the IST...48 c. Theme 3: A lack of resources is an impediment to the IST process...50 d. Theme 4: A lack of the implementation of various strategies can be impedimentary to the IST e. Theme 5: Insufficient time impedes the IST f. Theme 6: A lack of additional assistance impedes the IST Relevant Themes in the Interviews a. Theme 1: The lack of parental involvement presents the largest impediment to the IST v

6 b. Theme 2: The requirement of documentation impedes the IST c. Theme 3: Some characteristics of the system impede the IST Other Impediments Mentioned Similarities and Differences Between the Themes C. Summary...63 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS...66 A. Findings Relevant Themes in the Focus Groups Impediments with Regard to Training Impediments with Regard to Parental Involvement Impediments with Regard to Materials Impediments with Regard to Strategies to Implement Impediments with Regard to Additional Assistance Impediments with Regard to Insufficient Time in the Classroom Relevant Themes in the Interviews B. Potential Significance of the Study...73 C. Limitations and Delimitations...73 D. Conclusions...74 E. Recommendations for Future Study...76 F. Final Researcher Observations...76 REFERENCES...78 APPENDIXES A. Informed Consent for Proposed RTI Research B. Focus Group #1 Guiding Questions C. Focus Group #2 Guiding Questions D. Follow-Up Interviews Guiding Questions E. NVivo 7 Data Table vi

7 LIST OF TABLES 1. Summary of Focus Group Themes...54 vii

8 ABSTRACT ISSUES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF RESPONSE-TO-INTERVENTION IN A NORTHWEST FLORIDA, TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: A QUALITATIVE STUDY Steven Ronald Schubert This research, conducted in a Northwest Florida Title I elementary school, focused on implementation issues regarding the district s recently adopted Response to Intervention (RTI) process. The purpose of this study was to answer the question: What experiences do school-based professionals have with the newly implemented RTI process? This study further focused on RTI implementation issues as teachers endeavored to apply RTI in an effort to improve instructional delivery practices to lowachieving students. The determination of the implementation issues and the explanation of the teachers experiences were done through a qualitative content analysis of focus groups, document review, and follow up interviews. Relevant implementation themes include (a) training, (b) parental involvement, (c) materials, (d) strategies to implement, (e) additional assistance, (f) sufficient time in classroom, (g) RTI documentation, and (h) characteristics of RTI. The results of this study should be used to further determine the effectiveness of the process used to implement RTI. viii

9 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In 1983, the publication of A Nation At Risk: The Imperative For Educational Reform by the National Commission on Excellence in Education challenged states to establish standards-based reform. Then, in 1994, the passage of the Improving America s Schools Act (IASA) required states to establish demanding content and performance standards, implement accurate assessment of all students performance against those standards, and hold schools and districts accountable for student achievement. To that end, states and school districts developed assessments, standards, performance reporting, and some consequences of poor performance. Still, these efforts, during the mid and late 1990s, were disparate and often inconsistent with the intent of IASA (Goertz, 2005). Passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was intended, in part, to rectify some of these inconsistencies. Now, under No Child Left Behind, the federal government s role in the standardized testing process is greatly expanded. States are now required to test more, use more consistent and ambitious standards, and establish serious sanctions for schools that fail to meet these goals (Carson, 2002; Goertz; Goertz & Duffy, 2003). While the battle for and against No Child Left Behind is far from over (Berlak, 2005; Harris & Herrington, 2006; Hess, 2005; Mayers, 2006; National Education Association, 2006; Parkison, 2009), states appear to have supported No Child Left Behind (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009; Jennings & Rentner, 2006) and have developed 1

10 uniform accountability systems centered on content and performance standards and focusing attention on subgroup performance and achievement gaps (Goertz). Florida s response to IASA and No Child Left Behind (Carson) was the development of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The FCAT is uniquely designed to test Florida students mastery of the grade level expectations, which are based on Florida s Sunshine State Standards in reading, writing, math, and science (Florida Department of Education, 2005). At the elementary school level, the focus of this research, the FCAT is administered statewide to grades three through five every spring over a 2-week period. These same students also take the reading and math portions of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced standardized test (Harcourt Educational Measurement, 2000) as a comparison against nationally standardized norms in these areas. However, during the 2009 testing period, Florida will not administer the Stanford 9 because of a serious budget crisis. Whether this decision becomes permanent remains to be seen. Writing is tested at the fourth grade and science at the fifth grade level using Florida s FCAT Writes and FCAT Science tests. Kindergarten through third-grade students, and fourth- or fifth-grade students retained in their current grade level (Assessment and Accountability Act, 2006), take a Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills test three times yearly as a method of formative assessment of specific targeted skills. Finally, in fall of 2006, kindergarten students also began taking the Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener entry exam (in place of the School Readiness Uniform Screening System exam) to determine their existent proficiencies and identify emergent skills in need of focus. 2

11 The FCAT is considered a high-stakes test as performance results can have serious consequences for students and schools (Florida Department of Education, 2005). For third-grade students, failure to perform adequately or simply not taking the reading portion of the FCAT means automatic retention for up to 2 years (Assessment and Accountability Act, 2006). For schools, the A+ Plan, initiated in 1999 during Governor Jeb Bush s term, was, and remains, Florida s accountability plan. Each elementary, middle, and high school in the state earns a letter grade (A-F) based upon all their students performance on the FCAT (Florida Department of Education, 2006a; Olson, 2005). In addition to academic achievement data, high school graduation rates are factored into an overall grade for secondary schools. Of note, the amount of improvement made by the lower quartile stability subgroup, often termed the low-achievers, over the previous year carries significant weight in determining a school s grade. Decreasing by 10% the number of targeted students, including minority and lower quartile lowachieving students, not scoring at proficiency can even earn a school Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) through Safe Harbor status (Florida Department of Education, 2006b). Low performing and failing schools face economic sanctions and, at the very least, the careers and placements of administrators and teachers are subject to review. In 1998, Florida established the controversial School Recognition Award. This program financially rewards schools that improve significantly or demonstrate sustained high performance (Carson, 2002; Florida Department of Education, 2005). Also, parents of students at schools that do not make AYP may demand their children attend a different school that made AYP (DeBray, 2005) or remain at their district s school and receive state funded, private, Supplemental Education Services after 3

12 hours at their school or even at home (Assessment and Accountability, 2006; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). In October 2007, the teachers union in this Northwest Florida school district overwhelmingly approved a teacher performance and monetary incentive package. This merit-pay package provides participating teachers a potential financial incentive based in part on student performance. This merit pay may provide additional incentive for teachers to improve all student performance, even the low-achieving stability cohort. Children who are referred to as low achieving, with statistical incident rates between 23-33% of the student population (Francis et al., 2005; Gadeyne, Ghesquiere, & Onghena, 2004; Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008; Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, & Crowley, 2006), are generally characterized as students who struggle to maintain satisfactory academic progress in the general education classroom. In Northwest Florida, low-achieving students were historically referred to Child Study Teams (CST). At the elementary school level, these teams included the student s teacher, guidance counselor, possibly an administrator, an intervention specialist, and one or more parents or guardians. During these meetings, specific interventions, normally classroombased, were discussed and agreed upon. Effects of the interventions were documented and reviewed at subsequent CST meetings, nominally 4 to 6 weeks apart. If CST interventions failed to produce desired results, the referral process could then advance, contingent upon parental consent, to the next stage, eligibility testing for exceptional student education services. Based upon the often controversial results of these complex, lengthy (lasting several months or more, depending upon parental authorization, passing of eye and hearing exams, and child attendance) quantitative evaluations, some low- 4

13 achieving students eventually qualified for special education (ESE) services; most did not (Ysseldyke, 2005). However, effective fall 2006 in this Northwest Florida county, the Response to Intervention (RTI) model (termed Instructional Support Team [IST] by this Northwest Florida county) replaced the traditional CST process. RTI is, in essence, a form of dynamic, formative assessment that, according to its proponents, will assist educators in designing reading interventions early enough (Crockett & Gillespie, 2008; Kavale et al., 2008; O Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005) at the school-based setting, with the intention to intercede ESE placement in later years. According to RTI proponents, children responsive to the more intensive and early intervention instruction at the lower tiers are returned to their regular education classrooms where practitioners continue to monitor their progress (Barth et al., 2008; Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche, 2004). Students who are unresponsive may qualify for special education by virtue of their unresponsiveness or receive a comprehensive evaluation to determine ESE eligibility (National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, 2007; Schatschneider, Wagner, & Crawford, 2008; Vaughn, Linan- Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). As mentioned, low-achieving students struggle to achieve adequately in the classroom and generally comprise the lower quartile of students per grade level (Gadeyne et al., 2004; Roscigno et al., 2006). While most of the formally tested low-achieving students score with IQs in the low to borderline-low range (70-89), some score in the normal or average range (90-109). However, only a small percentage of the lowachieving students eventually qualify for ESE services under the Educable Mentally Handicapped (EMH) or Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) umbrella because of IQs 5

14 that score above 70 for the EMH program (Vanauker-Ergle, 2003) or below the IQ/achievement/processing discrepancy requirement for the SLD program(ysseldyke, 2005). Even though many researchers dispute using the IQ/discrepancy model to identify students with SLD (Forness, Keogh, MacMillan, Kavale, & Gresham, 1998; Francis et al., 2005; Kavale et al., 2008) it is the only model historically and currently authorized for use during the transition period between the current discrepancy-based model and RTI in this Northwest Florida school district (Zirkel & Krohn, 2008). Therefore, despite a documented need many low-achieving students fail to meet the discrepancy-based model s requirements. These students remain in their general education classrooms without ESE support. Even with the state s Class Size Reduction Requirements (2003) that provide greater teacher focus on fewer students, these low-achieving students continue to struggle or fail. Research has established a direct correlation between low-achieving students and incidents of school failures and dropouts, poor performance on standardized tests, violent offenders (Agnew, Matthews, Bucher, Welcher, & Keyes, 2008; Beyers, Loeber, Wikstrom, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2001; Keels, 2008; Milne & Plourde, 2006), gang and hate group members, substance abuse, incarceration, unemployment or underemployment, unwed teen mothers, and other systemic societal ills (Boon, 2008; Hill, Howell, Hawkins, & Pearson, 1999; Molina & Pelham, 2001; Robinson, Price, Thompson, & Schmalzried, 1998). In spite of the human and financial burden these behaviors place on our society, the amount of research specifically targeting these lowachieving students struggles in the classroom is limited. Instead, research tends to focus on low-achieving ESE children (Bear, Minke, Griffin, & Deemer, 1998; Molina & 6

15 Pelham; Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002; Ysseldyke, Nelson, Christenson, & Johnson, 2004) or specific minority groups (Fisher, 2005; Mickelson & Greene, 2006). Research specifically targeting other characteristics or impediments to success of this lowachieving group is lacking (Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, Yen, & Svenson, 2004; Roscigno et al., 2006; Vanauker-Ergle, 2003; Wu & Qi, 2006). Additionally, research as to the effectiveness of the only recently implemented RTI process in Florida is either nonexistent or, at best, ongoing (Barth et al., 2008; Deshler, Mellard, Tollefson, & Byrd, 2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005). As RTI is still in its first years of implementation in this school district, it is probably too early to establish a direct link between RTI and student performance on FCAT. Role of Researcher This researcher is currently an educational leader at the proposed school of research. Reasons supporting the decision to conduct research at this school were varied and involved philosophical and pragmatic issues regarding student performance and teacher acceptance of the RTI paradigm shift. Of note, as the educational leader at this elementary school and responsible for teacher evaluations, a keen awareness existed in order to prevent potential conflict between administrator duties, researcher objectives, and teacher perspectives in order to minimize conflict of interest and researcher bias. This researcher s career as an educator has its philosophical roots in special education teaching children with behavioral disabilities. Preparation for this challenge included specialized training in behavior modification. These skills proved useful during the daily struggle to provide step-by-step instruction, consequences, rewards, and shaping of desired social and academic skills to elementary and middle school-aged children with 7

16 emotional handicaps. This behaviorist approach provided the backbone for classroom management during the first decade or so of teaching ESE students while pursuing additional post-graduate degrees in educational administration. During that time, this researcher was assigned as Intervention Specialist (IS) in charge of an ESE department serving nearly 200 elementary children with a wide range of disabilities. As an IS serving the needs of a large number of teachers and their students widely varying needs, the realization that strict behaviorism, which considers all children to be highly malleable beings that can be molded into whatever type of person the school system desires (Bos & Vaughn, 1994; Evans, Evans, & Schmid, 1989; Kauffman, 1993; Vann, Schubert, & Rogers, 2000), was a methodology that was no longer singularly germane. Experience as an IS, then as Assistant Principal, and now as Educational Leader at an elementary school provided reflective opportunities to reconsider ascribing completely to the strict behavioralist s philosophical approach to educating children. According to Dewey, reflective thinking helps teachers to clarify their purposes, focus their methods, and ultimately improve the quality of their teaching (Tauer & Tate, 1998, p. 143). During this process, a closer aligning with Dewey s pragmatic philosophy of education emerged. Dewey felt that education is a necessity of life and needed for a civilized society to exist. Additionally, education must promote understanding and intelligent action (not just training or shaping). Dewey felt that individuals should be educated as social beings capable of participating in and directing their own social affairs. He also felt educators should be aware of the interests and motivations of children, as well as the environments from which they come. Education should provide for opportunities to live and learn by experience through reflective thinking. Equally important are opportunities 8

17 to develop character and social skills, understand consequences of actions, use a diversified curriculum with a solid core of subjects, provide limits for behavior, and understand that while not all children arrive at school with the same experiences and abilities, all children can learn (Ozmon & Craver, 1995). Based on this evolving philosophy on education, couched in Dewey s disequilibrium theory and its key concern as to how children face and overcome obstacles in their developmental path (Farmer, 2008; Mortola, 2001), the realization that RTI might significantly increase the success rate of low-achieving students in the school setting catalyzed an even greater desire to conduct this research. Therefore, an understanding of how the implementation process for RTI proceeded during its first years became critical. Was RTI living up to its potential, or are there issues negatively affecting implementation that simply added to the list of impediments facing schools serving low-achieving students and put additional stress on faculty and parents (Englund, Luckner, Whaley, & Egeland, 2004; Jeynes, 2005; Jones & Egley, 2006; Lebedina-Manzoni, 2004; Molfese, Modglin, & Molfese, 2003; Robicheau, Haar, & Palladino, 2008; Roscigno et al., 2006; Samuels, 2008)? This research is important as it is one of the first to address RTI implementation from teachers perspectives in a Title I school. In this era of high-stakes testing, academic achievement is the ultimate topic of concern for administrators, guidance counselors, teachers, parents, and especially the students themselves (Marshall, 2003). Failure to properly implement RTI may carry severe short- and long-term consequences for an entire school and, unfortunately, for students by failing to provide early, research-based intervention that could help them learn to read. 9

18 Study Focus For the purpose of this research the focus of the study was What experiences do school-based professionals have with the newly implemented RTI process? Specifically, this study explored RTI implementation issues and perceived impediments as teachers endeavored to apply RTI with fidelity in an effort to improve instructional delivery practices to low-achieving students. Terms used throughout this study are defined in the next section. Definition of Terms Adequate Yearly Progress. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires states to evaluate the performance of all students in all public schools in order to determine whether schools, school districts, and the state have made AYP. Florida s approved accountability plan uses the same FCAT test and definitions of grade level as does the A+ Plan and includes specific criteria for determining and reporting AYP for all schools. In brief, making AYP means that, in general, students are making a year s worth of academic growth in 1 year as measured against Florida s Sunshine State Standards. Not making adequate yearly progress does not mean that a school is failing. It means that the school has not met a certain standard for at least 1 group of students, specifically, the lower-quartile group or the minority group. These measures include the percentage of students scoring at or above proficiency on FCAT in reading, mathematics, and writing. Also, graduation rates and whether or not the school tested enough students in each subgroup are factored into the school s overall grade. School districts are responsible for identifying Title I schools that do not make AYP in two consecutive years as schools in need of improvement. Since 2003, requirements for school improvement apply to Title I 10

19 schools that received a performance grade of F during a school year and did not make AYP in the following year. Students attending these schools are eligible for public school choice options and a variety of supplemental education services for the next school year. A+ Plan for Education. Approved by the Florida Legislature in 1999, the A+ Plan for Education expanded Florida s statewide assessment program to include the assessment of reading and mathematics in grades 3-10, a science assessment (FCAT Science), and a system for calculating the academic growth of each student over time. It also required students to pass the Grade 10 FCAT Sunshine State Standards in reading and mathematics in order to graduate from high school (Florida Department of Education, 2005). Class Size Reduction Requirements. Section 1 of Article IX of the Florida State Constitution was amended in November 2002 establishing, by the beginning of the school year, the maximum number of students in core-curricula courses assigned to a teacher in each of the following three grade groupings: (a) Prekindergarten through grade 3, 18 students; (b) grades 4 through 8, 22 students; and (c) grades 9 through 12, 25 students. The Legislature enacted SB-30A specifically implementing the reduction of the average number of students in each classroom by at least two students per year beginning with the fiscal year until the maximum number of students per classroom does not exceed the maximum. Child Study Team. The CST is a team consisting of educational professionals from a variety of backgrounds. These teams generally consist of, but are not limited to, principals, teachers, ESE representatives, social workers, and school psychologists. Whenever a teacher identifies a student as struggling academically or behaviorally, a 11

20 referral is made to the CST. The team then meets and decides what action needs to be taken in order to help the child be more successful in the classroom. In Florida, the CST team has been replaced by the RTI process. Detailed CST recommended structure, timelines, and goals are the subject of the Florida Department of Education (2004) Rule Implementation Brief. Cohort. A cohort is a group of individuals having a statistical factor in common in a demographic study. For the purpose of this research, a cohort of students refers to the group of students enrolled in a school during the first and second FTE count and who take the FCAT tests at that school. Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. These are a set of standardized, individually administered measures of early literacy development. They are designed to be short (1 minute) fluency measures used to regularly monitor the development of prereading and early reading skills. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. The FCAT consists of two types of tests: norm-referenced tests in reading and math, which compare the achievement of Florida students with that of their peers nationwide; and criterion-referenced tests in reading, math, science, and writing, which measure student progress toward meeting the Sunshine State Standards benchmarks. The FCAT is administered to students in grades 3-11 (Florida Department of Education, 2005). FCAT Norm Referenced Test. The FCAT Norm Referenced Test provides information to help ensure that Florida students are keeping pace with their peers nationally. Comparing Florida students to those around the nation requires that the normreferenced test not be too closely aligned with the curriculum of any one state. Florida 12

21 currently uses the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition (Florida Department of Education, 2005). Florida s legislature voted to eliminate the norm-referenced test for the 2009 testing cycle because of budget constraints and may eventually eliminate this test entirely at all grade levels. No replacement test is under consideration for those grades where FCAT is not administered. Teachers will have to rely entirely on curriculum-based assessments to provide information on adequate student progression in the classroom. FCAT Science. The A+ Plan for Education passed by the Florida Legislature in 1999 required a science assessment for students in grades 5, 8, and 10. The first reporting of these scores took place in May of Then, beginning in March 2005, FCAT Science was administered in grade 11 instead of grade 10 to give educators an additional year to prepare the students (Florida Department of Education, 2005). FCAT Writing. FCAT Writing is administered to students in grades 4, 8, and 10 in February each year. This test provides students with an essay prompt that requires either a narrative or expository response (Florida Department of Education, 2005). Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener. In 2006, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills was first administered to assess the readiness of each child for kindergarten. The test includes a subset of the Early Childhood Observation System and the first two measures of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills for kindergarten (Letter Naming Fluency and Initial Sound Fluency) to gather information on a child s development in emergent literacy. Grade Level Expectations. Grade Level Expectations are specific benchmarks for each grade level based upon the Sunshine State Standards in each subject area. 13

22 Lower Quartile. In descriptive statistics, a quartile is any of the three values which divide the sorted data set (a cohort) into four equal parts so that each part represents one fourth of the sampled population. For this research, the lower quartile is comprised of students with academic performance placing them in the lower 25% of same grade-level students. Response to Intervention. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 refers to the use of a process that determines if (a) child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of... evaluation procedures for specific learning disabilities. This process is described in the professional literature as Response to Intervention. RTI is the practice of providing high quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs in general education and using learning rate over time and level of performance to make important educational decisions. Goals of RTI include early intervention and prevention to enhance outcomes for children by providing access to increasingly intense supports, eliminating a wait to fail system and linking instruction to progress monitoring. Safe Harbor. A school that has met the requirements for participation as well as other indicators (writing, graduation rate, and school grade) but has not met the reading or mathematics proficiency targets can still make AYP through a provision in No Child Left Behind called Safe Harbor. Safe Harbor applies only to those subgroups that did not meet the reading or mathematics targets. In Safe Harbor, the percentage of non-proficient students must be decreased by at least 10% from the prior year in the subject being evaluated. In addition, the subgroup must make progress in writing proficiency and graduation rate. 14

23 Stanford 9. Stanford 9 is a research-based, norm-referenced achievement test developed by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. It provides information on student performance based on its nationwide standardization program conducted in the spring and fall of While maintaining some facets of the original Stanford 9, Florida s Stanford 9 includes features designed to measure Florida s students progress in comparison to the progress of students nationwide (Florida Department of Education, 2005). Sunshine State Standards. The Florida State Board of Education approved the Sunshine State Standards in order to provide expectations for student achievement. The standards, approved in 1996, covered seven subject areas, each divided into four separate grade clusters (PreK-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12). Florida chose this format in order to provide flexibility to school districts in designing curriculum based on local needs. However, as Florida moves toward greater accountability for student achievement at each grade level, the Sunshine State Standards have been further defined. In the subject areas of language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, the Sunshine State Standards have been expanded to include Grade Level Expectations. These Grade Level Expectations will eventually become the basis for state assessments at each grade 3-10 in language arts and mathematics and may eventually be used in state assessments in science and social studies (Florida Department of Education, 2005). 15

24 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This review of literature addresses a variety of issues germane to low-achieving students and the paradigm shift that RTI, the focus of this research with its Federal and State legislation, has engendered. Most relevant to RTI is the heated low-achieving and SLD debate. This debate includes, from a historical perspective, research on individuals with brain damage that ultimately led to studies of reading difficulties in children and researchers attempts to establish techniques that could, with validity and reliability, distinguish SLD from low-achieving students. This review will provide an update on the current, heated debate at all levels concerning similarities and differences between lowachieving and SLD students. Finally, this researcher will address the implications of the RTI initiative and its potential to provide low-achieving students with an intense level of timely and judicious remediation services that are currently only available to students qualifying for ESE services. These discussions are important in order to reflect upon the ongoing debate as to whether or not low-achieving students should qualify for SLD services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or similar services (Gresham, Macmillan, & Bocian, 1996; Johnson, Mellard, & Byrd, 2005; Kavale et al., 2008; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002; Van den Broeck, 2002). 16

25 Some researchers feel low-achieving students would benefit from services such as early intervention, small class size, direct and intense instruction, or even additional support in the general education classroom (Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006). Unfortunately, the many shared, and perceived different, characteristics between low-achieving and SLD students, the expense involved in providing additional support services, and developing criteria as to who will, or will not, qualify for these services contribute to the discord (McDermott, Goldberg, Watkins, Stanley, & Glutting, 2006). Nevertheless, the individual gains of only a few targeted students, especially the low-achieving children, could have profound and positive effects on their performance on the FCAT, and, ultimately, on a school s overall grade (Marshall, 2003; Scanlon, Gelzheiser, Schatscheider, & Sweeney, 2008). Low Achieving Students and Students with Disabilities Children who are low-achieving generally tend to drift on the periphery of eligibility for several major ESE programs (Vanauker-Ergle, 2003). These programs include the SLD, EMH, and, to a lesser degree, emotionally handicapped (EH) and other health impaired (OHI) programs (Aaron, 1997; Fuchs, Deshler, & Reschly, 2004; Jones & Menchetti, 2001; Sabornie, Evans, & Cullinan, 2006; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000). The SLD and EMH classifications are controversial regarding the appropriateness, stability, and accuracy of classification guidelines (Bildt, Sytema, Kraijer, & Minderaa, 2005; Forness et al., 1998; Francis et al.; 2005; Jones & Menchetti; Kavale et al., 2008; Reschly & Hosp, 2004; Williamson, McLeskey, Hoppey, & Rentz, 2006). Because the guidelines and their inflexibilities vary from state to state, children who are lowachieving may or may not qualify for specific ESE programs, depending upon where they 17

26 live (Coutinho & Oswald, 2005; Reschly & Hosp, 2004; Roscigno et al., 2006). In addition, a child s gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and minority background impact the disproportionality of ESE placement (Agnew et al., 2008; Coutinho & Oswald, 2000; Coutinho, Oswald, & Best, 2002; Farkas, 2003; Hosp & Reschly, 2003, 2004; Maheady, Towne, Algozzine, Mercer, & Ysseldyke, 1983; O Connor & Fernandez, 2006; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999; Reid & Knight, 2006; Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002). Often, the difference between eligibility and ineligibility may be as subtle as a difference of only a few points on a psychometric test (Francis et al., 2005; MacMillan & Siperstein, 2002). Accordingly, many researchers have reported that low achieving and ESE children may have very similar needs, face analogous impediments, and would likely benefit from similar, already existing school-based services (Fletcher et al., 1994; Ryder, Burton, & Silberg, 2006). While some research has been conducted on low-achieving children, and their academic status in relationship to ESE classifications, the conclusions reached in the available research are variable and sometimes contradictory (Aaron, 1997; Gresham, VanDerHeyden, & Witt, 2005; Hallahan & Mercer, 2001; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Mather & Kauffman, 2006; Oswald, 2002; Schatschneider et al., 2008). There is a plethora of information regarding abilities, characteristics, needs, and other statistics on children who are SLD; however, there is little research about how children who are low achieving and do not qualify for SLD services perform in the classroom (Baxter, Woodward, & Olson, 2001). Even less research addresses low-achieving children and the effect the recent reauthorization of the IDEA 2004 and RTI might have in precluding their potential academic failure and possibly even negating their need for ESE referral 18

27 (Fiorello, Hale, & Snyder, 2006; Mather & Kauffman; 2006; Mellard et al., 2004; Ofiesh, 2006; Vaughn et al., 2003). In the United States, the number of students served by the federally supported program for students with SLD has steadily increased since 1976 when 796,000 students or 1.8% of total school enrollment ages 3-21, received services. Based on the U. S. Department of Education s 2008 report on the Condition of Education, the percentage of students served under the SLD program has risen to nearly 6%, or 2.9 million students ages Students identified as SLD comprise the largest proportion of students served in any single disability category. Prior to IDEA 2004, federal guidelines for SLD generally stipulated that children could be classified as SLD if they showed achievement levels below those of their peer groups and had a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability (IQ) (Steubing et al., 2002; U. S. Office of Education, 1977, p. G1082). Many researchers criticized the ways in which these guidelines were interpreted and operationalized by states, districts, and even individual schools (Aaron, 1997; Fletcher et al., 1994; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, Lipsey, & Roberts, 2001; Gresham et al., 1996; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Stuebing et al., 2002; Zirkel & Krohn, 2008). Some even disputed definitions of the term learning disabled (Hallahan & Mercer, 2001; Kavale & Forness, 2000; Kavale et al., 2008; Lloyd & Hallahan, 2005; MacMillan & Siperstein, 2002; Mercer, Jordan, Allsopp, & Mercer, 1996; Mercer, King- Sears, & Mercer, 1990). While these intense debates continued at all levels of the educational and political hierarchy, calls for assistance from elementary, middle, and secondary schools continued unabated in an often vain effort to gain funding to assist low-achieving students who did not qualify for SLD services and continued to struggle or 19

28 fail (Boon, 2008; Dombrowski et al., 2006). These calls for help and relentless paradigmatic debates finally gained federal policy-making officials attention and, ultimately, had a dramatic affect on the reauthorization of IDEA 2004 and its potential impact on the manner in which schools may serve low-achieving students (Boon, 2008; Kavale, 2005; Mather & Kauffman, 2006; Ofiesh, 2006). While most states adopted the federal government s severe discrepancy model, many still viewed it as insufficient and defined SLD in manners to meet their own specific needs (MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian, 1998; Mercer et al., 1990; Reschly & Hosp, 2004; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Richey, & Graden, 1982). In 1983, the federal government attempted to operationalize a more standard definition by convening the Workgroup on Measurement Issues in the Assessment of SLD (Fuchs et al., 2001). The Work Group confirmed that (a) states had adopted a variety of measurement formulas for identifying a severe discrepancy, and (b) while some of the formulas were excessively complex, others were outright flawed. Recommendations from the Work Group included a desire to see states and districts regress an aptitude measure to produce a predicted achievement score. Consequently, discrepancy should then be defined as the difference between actual and predicted achievement (Fuchs et al.). This proposal was criticized sharply by psychologists and reported by Wilson s study (as cited in Fuchs et al.) as an atheoretical, psychologically uninformed solution to the problem of SLD classification. While these debates over identifying SLD versus low achieving continued through the 1990s, two major events unfolded resulting in even more educators and politicians questioning the validity of the SLD construct. 20

29 The first, eluded to earlier, was the phenomenal increase in the number of students identified with disabilities. Between 1977 and 1994, the number of students with disabilities increased from 3.7 million to 5.3 million, despite relatively constant overall public school enrollment (Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner, 1994; U. S. Department of Education, 2008). These numbers represented an increase from 8.3% to 12.2% of the general student population and accounted for approximately 20% of the increase in per student spending during the 1980s. These numbers were cause for trepidation in many stakeholders in education, including politicians, school boards, and superintendents. Many began pressing for an immediate downsizing of special education (Fuchs et al., 2001). The Regular Education Initiative was the second event. Wang, Reynolds, and Walberg (1994) were openly critical of special education s empire building and extravagant spending. They also took a resolute stance against separating ESE children into separate classrooms and condemned this practice as racist since a disproportionate number of students at the margins are members of racial and ethnic minorities (p. 12). Wang et al. pushed to transform the general education classroom into a more instructionally responsive environment. This new classroom would be capable of educating large numbers of ESE children alongside their nondisabled peers. Wang et al. envisioned that money saved in this manner would be more effective if directed towards meeting the needs of children with more serious disabilities such as mental retardation. When SLD advocates questioned the willingness and ability of general education classrooms to meet the unique learning needs of many students with disabilities, an impassioned debate ensued. While the Regular Education Initiative was never adopted on 21

30 a wide-scale basis, the debate further contributed to the growing perception that SLD was an invalid category and indistinguishable from low achieving (Fuchs et al., 2001; Hallahan et al., 2007; Wang et al., 1994). During the same time frame, several lines of research addressed the SLD construct and the considerable variation in SLD definition and operationalization. These variations occurred not only from state to state, but also between school districts within a state (MacMillan et al., 1998; Mercer et al., 1990; Reschly & Hosp, 2004). Some of the significant variations included which IQ test, which achievement test, and which processing test combination to administer to students. States and districts also disagreed as to what constituted a significant discrepancy between a child s IQ, achievement test, and processing test results. Additionally, many individualized education plan committee members participating in staffing meetings deliberately disregarded definitional rules and regulations to ensure low-achieving, urban students qualified for SLD programs (Ysseldyke et al., 1982). These committee members acknowledged that much of the failure exhibited by urban children was more likely attributable to low SES rather than to SLD. However, the decision to place these students in ESE was the only way to provide remediation services unavailable in underfunded, urban, regular education classrooms (Fuchs et al., 2001; MacMillan et al.; Mercer et al.; Reschly & Hosp; Ysseldyke et al.). Finally, earlier research by Gresham et al. (1996) indicated that SLD and low-achieving students were more alike than they were different and suggested that both groups should be considered eligible for special education services. In the 1990s, a group funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) became a standout voice expressing dissatisfaction with current 22

31 SLD definitions and promoting fundamental change in perceptions about SLD. Differing from the Regular Education Initiative, the NICHD group recognized the legitimacy of the SLD construct but felt the definitions and operationalizations of the construct were invalid and needed reconceptualization. The NICHD groups concerns centered on using an IQ/achievement discrepancy as a definition or operationalization of SLD. However, the group s principal interest in the IQ discrepancy was to determine if indeed quantitative or qualitative differences exist between the two groups of SLD and lowachieving students. The group sought to ascertain if children whose poor reading is discrepant from their IQ are different from children whose poor reading is not discrepant from their IQ (Lyon, 2005; Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003; Stuebing et al., 2002). Four studies, each building upon the other, produced no evidence that low IQ and high IQ poor readers responded differently to educational intervention. The NICHD group contended that for educational purposes, the SLD and low-achieving groups were virtually indistinguishable (Fuchs et al., 2001; Shaywitz, Fletcher, Holahan, & Shaywitz, 1992; Stanovich, 2005). A second factor studied by the NICHD group was intended to identify domain specific factors, such as phonological deficits, as potentially valid SLD markers. According to the NICHD group, phonological processing figures prominently among the information processing operations that are believed to underlie severe problems in word recognition (Fuchs et al., 2001, p. 746). The NICHD group estimated that nearly 25% of the student population (correlating to the low-achieving group) exhibit phonological deficits and argued that all of these children should be treated as though they have a reading disability. The NICHD group felt that children who meet the criteria 23

32 for SLD and who receive ESE services and children who read below the 25th percentile but do not qualify for SLD services should be combined since the data indicate little difference between the two groups in the proximal causes of their reading difficulties (Fuchs et al., 2001, p. 746; Stanovich, 2005; Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). The group contends that the key to more effective instruction is early identification and intervention with systematic, explicit, and intensive instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (Fuchs et al., p. 747) in the general education classroom. This contention was also the conclusion of a major study in 1970, namely, The Isle of Wight. The Isle of Wight study had previously confirmed the lack of differences between SLD and low-achieving students, but was largely ignored. Lyon (2005) reintroduced this study during his testimony supporting the NICHD group s position before the U. S. House Subcommittee on Education and the Workforce on March 8, 2001 (Fuchs et al.). Lyon s contributions as well as the contributions of dozens of other researchers promoting RTI during the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities summits of 2001 and 2003 were evident during the last few years leading up to the reauthorization of IDEA This act was signed into law on December 3, 2004, by President George W. Bush. Then, in August 2006, the U. S. Department of Education (2007) released new regulations indicating generally that the state must follow the following guidelines: not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child has a disability, not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, permit the use of a process based on a child s response to scientific research-based intervention, and 24

33 permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a learning disability. Response to Intervention While RTI may prove effective in any academic subject, including behavioral intervention (Gresham, 2005), this research focused on implementation issues surrounding reading instruction and intervention, the core of existing research into RTI (Berkeley et al., 2009; Burns, Jacob, & Wagner, 2008; Fletcher et al., 2004; Kavale et al., 2008; Kavale & Spaulding, 2008; National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2005; National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, 2007). Throughout the RTI process, teachers must identify at-risk students as early as possible and monitor their academic progress through a data gathering process (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Kort, 2008). Prior to gathering data to determine if students are responsive to intervention, schools must identify a subgroup of at-risk, potential nonresponders (Foorman & Ciancio, 2005). For the stability cohort, this information may already be available during preservice from a variety of sources. These sources include the previous year s standardized test scores, end-of-year summative reading exams, or an appropriate norm- or criterion-referenced instrument (Compton, 2006). Ideally, entry level probes are administered to an entire grade level during the beginning few weeks of school as part of RTI s early identification and intervention strategy (Foorman & Ciancio; Speece, 2005). Subsequent to the identification process aimed at identifying at-risk students (lower quartile) for reading failure, student responsiveness to general education reading instruction is monitored (Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz, 2004). Here, the essence of RTI 25