EDF 593: RTI Class 2 History of RTI Rachel Brown-Chidsey, Ph.D

© Brown-Chidsey, History of RTI Formative elements related to reducing numbers of students in special education Successor to REI and Inclusion –Regular Education Initiative –Full Inclusion More comprehensive than REI and inclusion because it utilizes data-based problem-solving EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Origins of Special Education Federal mandate to provide education for all children was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1975 Public Law required that all children be given a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment It is up to the states to provide the education EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Target Population When Congress passed the primary goal was to give access to education to children with severe and profound disabilities Name of law was the Education of the Handicapped Act These were children who has been systematically excluded from public schools It was believed that the number of such children would be small and the economic impact of the law would be limited EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Since 1975… PL was fully implemented in 1978 and since that time the number of children served in special education has grown steadily The law was re-authorized in 1986, 1991, 1997, and 2004 Each reauthorization included attempts to address the growing numbers EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Outcomes from Special Education While the special education laws did gain children access to public schools, it did not always provide them with positive educational outcomes Reviews of the effects of special education programs showed limited improvements in skills for most of the children receiving services EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Outcomes, cont’d. Some children with severe disabilities did benefit from the services schools provided The majority of children receiving special education did not benefit and instead either tended to be exempt from certain learning Many students with mild to moderate disabilities dropped out of school EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Regular Education Initiative In the late 1980’s after data concerning the numbers and progress of children with disabilities were compiled the U.S. Department of Education initiated the Regular Education Initiative (REI). This was a program geared toward including children with disabilities in “regular” classes as much as possible EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, REI Outcomes REI was more of an ethos than a strict policy and limited data were required or collected When the special education law came up for re-authorization again in 1990, data showed still more children receiving services Largest category for services was Specific Learning Disability EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, IDEA 1991 When the law was re-authorized in 1991 it was re-titled the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) It included many new provisions including extending services downward for preschool and (optionally) for infants First inclusion of a prevention focus in special education service delivery EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Inclusion Starting in the 1990’s, another initiative related to special education began Advocates for children with severe and profound disabilities argued that too many of these children were placed in specialized classrooms and not in general or mainstream classrooms There was a call for inclusion of all children in general education EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Inclusion, cont’d. Inclusion was a grass-roots movement focused on the social importance of grouping all children together, regardless of ability When initiated, there was little data to support it, nonetheless, inclusion became a popular policy in many schools Data on inclusion has shown that it does foster social engagement among students of diverse abilities but it interferes with the specific learning goals and outcomes of all students EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Monitoring Educational Outcomes About the same time that inclusion was popular in the middle 1990’s a new movement to monitor and improve student learning outcomes was put in place. Based on a series of reports showing that U.S. students lagged behind other countries, the outcomes movement focused on enhancing student achievement EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Curriculum-Based Measurement At about the same time that PL was passed, a group of researchers in Minnesota began developing assessment measures that could be used to determine whether students in special education were making progress from instruction These measures were refined over time and are now known as curriculum-based measurement (CBM) EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Curriculum-Based Measurement, cont’d. CBM was explicitly designed to be: –Sensitive to student growth over short periods of time –Show skill fluency (thus they are timed) –Drawn from the curriculum and skills students were learning in school –Able to inform the next instructional steps Over time CBM contributed to the data showing the efficacy of RTI EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, School Reform Also during the era of special education growth, public education in general came under scrutiny A major criticism was the lack of evidence of student learning –Note: most students were learning, it just was not recorded formally Policies were developed that focused on measurement of school outcomes EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, No Child Left Behind The NCLB act of 2001 was the culmination of many initiatives and efforts to make public schools both more effective and accountable for the good of all students Like many previous efforts, NCLB set rules and standards but has not been funded in a way to support the expectations EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, IDEIA 2004 As required by Congress, the special education laws came up for renewal again in 2003 The revised law was passed in 2004 and the new regulations distributed in 2006 IDEIA stands for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, IDEIA 2004, cont’d. The term “improvement” was added to focus on key changes in the law, including: –Specific linkage with NCLB –Inclusion of RTI as one way that identification of Specific Learning Disability can occur –Focus on the requirement that scientifically- based instruction be used before a student is found eligible for special education EDF 593

© Brown-Chidsey, Summary Both NCLB and IDEIA 2004 specifically call for the use of RTI as a way to ensure the use of scientifically-based instruction in schools Both NCLB and IDEIA 2004 are the culmination of over 30 years of efforts to provide equitable educational access to all students EDF 593