VOLUME 43 NUMBER 9 MAY 2011
FOCUS G..
Exceptional
craldren
The Response to Intervention (RTI) Approach
in Early Childhood
Charles R. Greenwood, Tracy Bradfield, Ruth Kaminski, Maura Linas,
Judith J. Carta, and Donna Nylander
Seeking to achieve greater effectiveness in educating the nation's youth, the
Response to Intervention (RTI) approach is increasingly being implemented in US schools
(Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009; Walker & Shinn, 2010). The approach is a
paradigm shift in K-12 education that is affecting early education, early intervention, and
early childhood special education as well. The shift moves practice away from the tradi-
tional model of waiting for students to qualify for special education before serving them
to one of intervening immediately to prevent developmental delays and challenges from
becoming disabilities. Supporting implementation of RTI are favorable policies in the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) that have put the spotlight on improving students' results
through early and sustained use of evidence-based practice. While not specifically
addressed in early childhood special education policy, RTI is supported by federal and
state aceountability policies requiring annual reporting of individual child progress and an
expectation of improving results for children served (Head Start for School Readiness Act,
2007;
US Department of Education [USDE], 2006).
The policies and reports of professional organizations and advocacy groups like the
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National Association of
School Psyehologists, and the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) also sup-
port the RTI model. These organizations, among others, (e.g., National Association of
State Special Education Directors, 2008; Shinn & Walker, 2010; Thomas & Grimes, 2008)
embrace RTI as a science-based practice and have made RTI knowledge and practice part
of their professional expectations and advocacy. The Couneil for Exceptional Children has
a position statement on RTI (CEC, 2007), and the Division of Early Childhood (DEC), in
conjunction with the National Association of the Education of Young Childhood
(NAEYC) and the Head Start Association are currently working on
a
joint early childhood
posilion statement on RTI.
Dr. Greenwood is a professor of applied behavioral scienee at the University of Kansas. Dr. Bradfield is a
research associate with the Center for Early Education and Development at the University of Minnesota. Dr.
Kaminski is the director of research and development at the Dynamic Measurement Group. Eugene. OR. Dr.
Linas is an assistant research professor at the University of Kansas. Dr. Carta is a professor of special education
at the University of Kansas.
Copyright © Love Publishing Company. 2011
FOCUS ON EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
MAY 2011
RTI is a framework supporting differentiating instruc-
tional interventions for individual students based on their
demonstrated need (Gersten et al., 2008). RTI uses a unique
measurement approach that begins with universal screen-
ings of all children on multiple occasions during the school
year. These data are used by educators to identify children
who are not making expected rates of short-term progress
and who may benefit from more intensive intervention.
Identified children are provided additional intervention
along with more frequent monitoring of progress and fre-
quent intervention decision making (DEC, 2007; Fuchs &
Fuchs, 2007). Commonly described as Multi-Tier Systems
of Support (MTSS), interventions of increasing intensity are
used to provide an appropriate intensity of service, one
matching a child's demonstrated response to intervention
(Greenwood, Carta, et al., 2008; Greenwood, Kratchowill,
& Clements, 2008). The screenings are used to identify the
subset of children in a school, program, or classroom falling
below a benchmark standard given the general classroom
curriculum and instructional strategies. These children are
FOCUS on
Exceptional
cnildren
ISSN00i5-511X
FOCUS ON EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (USPS 203-360) is pub-
lished monthly except June, July, and August as a service to teachers,
special educators, curriculum specialists, administrators, and those eon-
cemed with the special education of exceptional children. This publica-
tion is annotated and indexed by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Handi-
capped and Gifted Children for publication in the monthly Current
Index to Journals in Education (CUE) and the quarterly index. Excep-
tional
Children Education Re.murces
(ECER). The full text of
Focus
on
Exceptional
Children
is also available in the electronic versions of the
Education Index. It is also available in microfilm from Serials Acquisi-
tions,
National Archive Publishing Company, PO. Box 998, Ann Arbor,
MI 48106-0998. Subscription rates: individual, $."50 per year; institu-
tions,
$68 per year. Copyright © 2011, Love Publishing Company. All
rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part without written pennis-
sion is prohibited. Printed in the tJnited States of America. Periodical
postage is paid at Denver, Colorado. POSTMASTER: Send address
changes to:
Love Publishing Company
Executive and Editorial Office
P.O.
Box 22353
Denver, Colorado 80222
Telephone (303) 221-7333
CONSULTING EDITORS
Steve Graham
Vanderbilt University
Ron Nelson
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Eva Horn
University of Kansas
Canie E. Watterson
Senior Editor
Stanley F. Love
Publisher
provided more intensive services (Tier 2) and their skill
growth monitored more frequently. If children continue to
demonstrate lack of progress, the decision is made to pro-
vide more intensive services (Tier 3). Alternately, if suffi-
cient progress is evident, the decision is made that the child
no longer needs the intensive intervention and is moved
back to less intensive services (Tier 1).
Compared to traditional special education models, MTSS
services in RTI are provided earlier. Children receiving
more intensive services may or may not have an Individual
Family Service Plan (IFSP) or Individual Education Plan
(IEP),
and movement between levels of service is dynamic,
based on demonstrated progress within a school year. Addi-
tionally, the locally collected progress data are used as basis
for making annual program improvements such as a change
in curriculum, more professional development in support of
the RTI approach, or both (Kratchowill, Clements, & Kaly-
mon, 2007).
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS?
A rising proportion of children enter early education pro-
grams with limited exposure to early literacy experiences at
home or in childcare, putting them at risk for not achieving
expected language, literacy, and social-emotional outcomes
in preschool (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Zill & Resnick,
2006).
A large proportion of these students become strug-
gling readers (Chard & Kameenui, 2000), on the way to
needing special education services for reading disabilities
(Marston, 2005). Yet, we know that special education ser-
vice rates are malleable to some extent. For example,
Belfield (2005) reported that attending preschool was asso-
ciated with a 12% fall in the rate of special education iden-
tification. Special education service rates for learning dis-
abilities were 38% lower for children attending preschool
(Conyers, Reynolds, & Ou, 2003). We also know that chil-
dren who have problems learning to read are at greater risk
for experiencing behavior problems in their elementary
years (Mclntosh, Horner, Chard, Boland, & Good, 2006).
The potential benefit of RTI in early childhood is the
ability to provide key social-emotional and early literacy
experiences for those children who lack these experiences
and the key skills to prevent the need for special education
services for language, literacy, and behavior disorders, par-
ticularly for this population of children with experiential
deficits. For children with disabilities, the benefit of RTI is
the potential for improved outcomes resulting from its abil-
ity to provide seamless interventions for individual children
that result in progress (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009) and less
regression and loss of function over time that might other-
wise be expected to occur without these early and intensive
services. The benefit of RTI in early childhood at the child
and program levels is as an approach to achieving overall
greater effectiveness (Greenwood, 2008).
The RTI approach in early childhood programs is emerg-
ing (Buysee & Peisner-Feinberg, 2009; Fox, Carta, Strain,
Dunlap, & Hemmeter, 2010; Linas, Greenwood, & Carta,
2009),
and its designers must take into account the unique
challenges present in the early childhood system, not the
least of which are the lack of
a
universal access to early edu-
cation and the lack of a unified early childhood education
system (Greenwood, 2009). The purpose of this article is to
survey the current status of RTI implementation in early
childhood settings serving children from birth to age 5 prior
to kindergarten. The goal is not an exhaustive review but
rather examination of implementation as reported by state-
level directors and coordinators. We also point to advances
in RTI models, research, practices, and program examples in
early childhood.
Because some readers may be unfamiliar with the unique
features of early childhood programs, we set the stage by
describing (a) the context for RTI in the early education sys-
tem and (b) the skills that research indicates early education
must help children master to be ready for kindergarten.
Afterwards, we examine aspects of early childhood that are
a fit to RTI along with challenges and myths that may be
barriers to be overcome in future research and practice. We
report current areas of accomplishment as well as ongoing
research and development, and we suggest policy needed in
support of early childhood RTI implementation. We con-
clude with implications for research, policy, and practices.
WHAT IS THE SYSTEM CONTEXT EOR EARLY
CHILDHOOD RTI?
Universal access to early education in the United States
is yet to be achieved, even though it is well known that the
early childhood years are the last untapped opportunity to
vastly improve the national education product (Heckman,
2006).
This said, the implication is that many children will
not receive formal educational experiences prior to kinder-
garten and will not be ready to succeed in elementary
school. Instead of a universal system of public early educa-
tion for all, as is the case with K-12 education, early child-
hood education in the US is a collection of programs with
some supported by federal policy, some by state policy, and
others by grassroots community activities (Bagnato, 2007).
As a result, programs available to families vary widely within
localities and across states. The most widespread and sys-
tematic are the federal programs serving children in poverty
(i.e.,
Farly Head Start, Head Start) and children at risk for
developmental delay and disabilities (i.e., eligible for early
intervention under IDEA, Part C, and early childhood spe-
cial education [IDEA, Part B-619 preschool] programs
funded by IDEA). Some states provide additional funds in
support of these programs so that more children may be
served. Additionally, federally supported Title
1
programs also
provide preschool services for children qualifying because
of low family income. State-funded preschool (Pre-K) pro-
grams linked to area K-12 schools are supported in many
states but not all (Barnett, Epstein, Friedman, Sansanelli, &
Hustedt, 2009). Remaining are community-based preschool
programs including parochial and private pay.
In all, each has separate policies, selection criterion, fund-
ing sources, goals,
staff,
and approaches to education. For
example, the time available for children to attend their
preschool program varies widely from half to whole day, and
often children attend fewer than 5 days per week. Because
RTI is an approach dedicated to serving all children in a sys-
tem, designers of RTI programs in early childhood have the
extra challenge of dealing with system cross-coordination/
collaboration issues to a much greater extent than K-12.
Unlike K—12 education, where consensus goals are to
teach academic content, much less agreement exists in early
childhood programs on both what to teach and how to teach.
At the level of
goals,
measures, and instruction, for example,
most preschool programs are places where children are pro-
vided opportunities to engage in play that is believed to sup-
port their growth and development in traditional develop-
mental domains of language, cognition, social-emotional,
and gross and fine motor. However, many continue to be
less willing to embrace the teaching and assessment of early
academic content, including early literacy skills. Of those
that do focus on early literacy and other academic content
domains (e.g., math, science), many use curricula that do not
have a clear evidence base (Mashburn, 2008). While the
NAEYC supports intentional teaching of young children as
a part of the most recent revision of the association's Devel-
opmental Appropriate Practices (NAEYC, 2011), some sec-
tors of early childhood continue to view explicit teaching of
skills as not developmentally appropriate (see Glossary).
Finally, the vast majority of early education programs are
just beginning to look at issues of aligning early learning
standards with those of K-12 schooling.
Collectively, these system issues present challenges to
RTI designers in terms of scope, services, time, and blend-
ing funding within and across programs providing services
to all children who need support (Lesko, Houle, & Tschantz,
2010).
These issues present challenges to adoption of the
RTI approach at the level of administration and staff who
may or may not embrace the RTI approach to services.
Given this context, designers of early childhood RTI pro-
grams will not simply be able to fit elementary RTI models
to early childhood settings (as discussed later in the article).
Rather, they will need to design RTI models that address the
challenges inherent to early childhood settings.
FOCUS ON EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
MAY 2011
What Outcomes Need to Be Taught
and Learned in Preschool?
For many children, preschool programs are their first for-
mal educational experiences. Children who have not had the
opportunity to learn from key early experiences prior to
kindergarten face significant challenges learning to read
(Torgesen, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998, 2001).
Whereas it used to held that reading instruction began when
children started school, findings from a wide body of empir-
ical evidence over the past few decades indicate that the pre-
cursors to the reading skills taught in the early school years
begin developing prior to formal schooling. The preliterate
skills needed to be successful in learning to read and that are
developmental precursors to conventional reading and writ-
ing skills have been reported to account for significant and
unique variance in the prediction of reading achievement
and are termed emergent literacy skills (Whitehurst & Loni-
gan, 2001).
A focus on emergent literacy in Pre-K, for example, does
not mean simply a downward extension of the skills for-
merly taught in kindergarten and first grade. The skills chil-
dren need to learn and that should be taught in preschool are
different from, albeit aligned with, those taught in K-12 and
supported by research evidence. These skills also must be
aligned with state standards. Thus, it is important that the
teaching of emergent literacy skills take place in preschool
in order that adequate early literacy experiences before
kindergarten are provided. These experiences enable chil-
dren to acquire knowledge of two interdependent domains
of information needed to learn to read. First, children need
sources of information that will directly support their under-
standing of the meaning of print in school. These include
vocabulary knowledge, oral language skills, language com-
prehension, and conceptual knowledge leading to reading
comprehension (Biemiller, 2006; Scarborough, 1998; Tun-
mer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). Children also need to be
able to translate print into sounds and sounds into print
(Treiman,
Tincoff,
& Richmond-Welty, 1997). Some of
these early skills supported by research include oral lan-
guage, phonemic awareness, familiarity with the alphabet,
and print awareness (Badián, 2000; Burgess & Lonigan,
1998;
Juel, 2006; Wagner et al., 1997).
In kindergarten and prior to third grade, children should
be learning phonological awareness, phonemic decoding
skills,
an increasing lexicon of words (vocabulary) identifi-
able at a single glance (fluency), and comprehension. Stu-
dents arriving in third grade with these skills will be able to
read third-grade text accurately and fiuently with variable
levels of understanding (Moats, 1999; National Reading
Panel, 2000). Reading skill components that differentiate
reading achievement after third grade include continued
growth in the lexicon of words, acquisition of the complex
vocabulary that appears primarily in written text, acquisition
of strategies for processing different types of text (e.g., nar-
rative, expository), growth in conceptual and background
knowledge, and growth in reasoning and inferential skills.
The most important outcome of elementary reading instruc-
tion is comprehension of written material (Block, Gambrell,
& Presley, 2002; Torgesen, 1998, 2002). Thus, learning lan-
guage and early literacy skills before kindergarten is a huge
advantage.
With respect to socio-cmotional skills, evidence indicates
that learning language and literacy skills in preschool is
moderated by personal or social competencies. These com-
petencies include regulation of attention, engagement, and
ability to follow classroom directions. Evidence indicates
that regulation of attention and engagement play key roles in
children's classroom learning and that there is an overlap
between attention and behavior problems and reading dis-
abilities (Lonigan, Anthony, Bloomfield, Dyer, & Samwel,
1999).
Young children with poor attention skills have less devel-
oped emergent literacy skills (i.e., print knowledge, oral lan-
guage, phonological memory). The ability to follow direc-
tions and sustain attention is necessary for young children to
remain actively engaged when learning (Kamps, Green-
wood, Arreaga-Mayer, Abbott, & Utley, 2002; Torgesen,
2002).
Research reports that child engagement in classroom
activities is one of the best single behavioral correlates of
developmental status of children (Ridley, McWilliam, &
Oates,
2000b) and that engagement is altered by specific
features of the classroom environment with particular sensi-
tivity to changes in activity structure, materials, teacher
behavior, and group size (Carta, Greenwood, & Robinson,
1987;
Ridley et al., 2000a). Increased engagement has been
reported to be related to decreased behavior problems and
improved phonological awareness skills (Lane, O'Shaugh-
nessy, Lambros, Gresham, & Bebbe-Frankenberger, 2001;
Torgesen et al., 1999).
Children further need to learn to function independently
in the classroom (Carta, Sainato, & Greenwood, 1988). When
surveyed, kindergarten teachers' expectations for the inde-
pendence skills most needed by children entering kinder-
garten were the ability to complete work independently;
participate in groups; and make timely, independent transi-
tions between activities. Carta et al. (1988) reported that
children taught these skills in preschool had better outcomes
in kindergarten and first grade with respect to cognitive out-
comes and need for special education services.
Social competencies also play key roles in children's
classroom learning (Sainato & Carta, 1992). Children's social
competencies and relationships with peers have an effect on
whether their transition to preschool and other schooling
experiences will be successful (Huffman, Mehlinger, &
Kerivan, 2000). Children's classroom friendships relate to
adjustment to sebool, need for mental health support, and
overall school performance (Ladd, Kochenderfer, & Cole-
man, 1996). Children with language and reading disabilities
are at high risk for impaired social interactional skills and
opportunities, social withdrawal, and peer rejection (Gert-
ner, Rice, & Hadley, 1994; Lonigan et al., 1999). Guralnick,
Connor, Hammond, Gottman, and Kinnish (1996) reported
that children with developmental disabilities in Head Start
were at risk because they receive fewer opportunities for
interactions with their peers, are less successful in their
social bids to peers, and develop fewer friendships. Social
and behavioral difficulties not only impede later school out-
comes but also negatively affect children's interactions with
their teachers and peers, leading to social withdrawal and
peer rejection (Gertner et al., 1994).
The domains of oral language, early literacy, and per-
sonal and social competencies compliment, support, con-
strain, and reflect one another. Children's emergent literacy
skills are advanced through their conversational interactions
with adults and social interactions with peers. When prob-
lems with these interactions arise, naturally supportive
processes instead become processes that impede or con-
strain one another. For example, the relationship between
delayed reading and behavior problems is well established,
and mechanisms by which falling behind in reading leads to
behavior problems and behavior problems lead to delays in
learning to read are widely accepted. Similarly, the lack of
social competency often leads to behavior problems that
interrupt attention and engagement in classroom learning
activities, leading to delays in learning to read. The inability
to communicate interrupts the learning of phonological
skills and new social competencies, thereby accelerating
behavior problems and delaying school readiness and learn-
ing to read (Webster-Stratton, 1997).
HOW WELL DOES RTI FIT INTO
EARLY CHILDHOOD?
Readers interested in RTI but less familiar with early
childhood will be glad to know that early childhood brings
unique strengths on which RTI can build. Early childhood
programs are already firmly behind the RTI ideas of pre-
vention and early intervention in concept, research, practice,
and policy. Early childhood as reflected in its professional
organizations and published literature is supported by
knowledge that learning begins before birth and that after
birth the child's family members are its most important
teachers. Quality early environments can protect against the
negative impact of depriving environments on social, lan-
guage, and cognitive outcomes (Sameroff & Fiese, 1990;
Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). "Recent research in psychology
and cognition demonstrates how vitally important the early
preschool years are for skill formation.... Early learning
begets later learning and early success breeds later success"
(Heckman, 2000, p. 3).
Some sectors of early childhood have embraced the idea
of monitoring the progress of individual children as part of
providing quality early intervention. This is particularly evi-
dent in the context of the IFSP for infants and toddlers and
the IEP for preschool children receiving special education
services. Service providers must report measurable progress
on children's intervention goals as is the case in K-12 spe-
cial education. Early childhood special education also rec-
ognizes that the purpose of assessment to identify children
who need additional support, determine what interventions
are needed, and monitor and report progress (Bagnato,
2007;
DEC, 2007; National Research Council, 2008).
The concept of individualization is embraced and has a
long history in the early intervention and early childhood
special education sectors of the early childhood system.
However, the concept is not yet universally accepted. Some
sectors of early childhood are firmly behind the idea of indi-
vidualizing instruction within the context of the general
classroom that is considered recommended practice and
supports provision of RTI. Inclusion of young children in
the least restrictive environment has a strong basis in early
childhood, supported by the major professional organiza-
tions,
such as NAEYC, DEC, and the National Head Start
Association. Individualizing instruction for children with
special needs is similarly valued and supported now where
it has not always been so (Carta, Schwartz, Atwater, &
McConnclI, 1991). Broad support for the concept of inten-
tional teaching, that is, teaching intended to directly teach
specific skills, of young children provides a basis for use of
MTSS to intensify the instructional experiences of identified
children. An additional area of fit between some early child-
hood sectors and RTI is data-based decision making, which
provides a strong basis for RTI. However, there is also vari-
ation in these fit concepts across sectors.
In this section, we discussed the early childhood education
system, what needs to be taught and the outcomes of early
childhood, and RTFs fit to the tenets and practices of early
childhood. We now examine implementation issues and the
challenges that may need to be addressed in early childhood.
PROGRESS DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING
RTI IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
Results of recent annual surveys of state Pre-K, Part B-
619,
and Head Start coordinators and directors conducted
by the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Child-
hood (CRTIEC) indicated that the field is at the beginning
of RTI implementation and is clearly engaged in exploring