Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Shefelbine, John L. en
dc.contributor.author Bruce, Gail Inouye en
dc.date.accessioned 2010-06-15T15:32:26Z en
dc.date.available 2010-06-15T15:32:26Z en
dc.date.issued 2010-06-15T15:32:26Z en
dc.date.submitted 2009-12-15 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10211.9/192 en
dc.description Project (M.A., Education (Language and Literacy)) -- California State University, Sacramento, 2009. en
dc.description.abstract In 2004 when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) was reauthorized, Response to Intervention (RtI) was specified as an alternative or supplement to the traditional discrepancy approach, which until then had been the sole method of identifying students as learning disabled. This change was in response to the need for addressing the alarmingly high numbers of children categorized as having a specific learning disability (SLD) and the overrepresentation of minority and low-income students within this group. The positive attention to and interest in RtI has been increasing since it was published in August 2006, but without federal guidelines to accompany its release, states, districts, and schools were left on their own to interpret how best to implement and fund RtI. This lack of guidance has presented challenges for schools hoping to implement and can potentially lead to weak, uncoordinated implementation. The purpose of this project is to present a manual that describes a framework for implementing RtI in an elementary school and is specifically designed and appropriate for Title I Targeted Assistance funded sites, where services are provided for the academically neediest students first. One of the major goals of the manual is to help all school staff develop an in-depth understanding of RtI so that everyone can become active participants in the process of distinguishing between students who should be referred to special education and students who should not. The second major goal is to present a model that maximizes the opportunities for the success of below-benchmark students, by defining ways to provide the most appropriate intervention possible while using current Title I funds. The methodology used to create the framework aligned the requirements and features of RtI, Title I Targeted Assistance program compliance, and practices of compensatory programs that have been suggested as effective in the largest studies of support programs. Sources of Data The program structure outlined in the manual has been implemented in two different schools for a two year period. The schools were located in a mid-sized city in the Central Valley region of California. Although the schools were in the same school district, they were significantly different in their student populations and amount of professional development received by the teaching staff in prior years. The first school was a kindergarten through 6th grade v school in which 80% of the students were low-income students and 30% were English Learners (ELs), and where the staff had extensive and numerous years of professional development. The second school was a kindergarten through 8th grade school, formerly middle to upper-middle income, and now a Title I school with steadily growing low-income and EL student subgroups. Data collected to determine the impact of implementation of this RtI model were measured by the California Standards Test (CST) results using: (a) the Academic Performance Index (API), (b) Similar Schools Ranking, and (c) the percent of low-income students performing proficient or advanced. Also presented are the results of a questionnaire given to the special education teachers concerning the number of referrals and assessment plans signed. Conclusions Reached In both schools, results were similar after implementation of the RtI model for each of two years: CST scores showed positive gains in API, Similar Schools Ranking, and the percentage of low-income students performing proficient or advanced. In the first school after the first year, the number of students referred to special education decreased, and subsequently, the number of students on their caseload was reduced by 40%, but in the second school, special education numbers were unchanged and remained at the maximum level allowed. These results suggest that the implementation of the RtI model produce significant changes in student achievement and may reduce the need for referrals to and students served by special education. The structuring of RtI through a Title I Targeted Assistance program should, therefore, be a consideration for sites with federal Title I funds attempting to implement RtI. en
dc.description.sponsorship Education (Language and Literacy) en
dc.language.iso en_US en
dc.subject Compensatory education en
dc.subject Reading intervention models en
dc.subject Special education en
dc.title Implementation of response to intervention: a program model for Title I targeted assistance schools en
dc.type Project en

Files in this item


The following license files are associated with this item:

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace

My Account

RSS Feeds