New Role in Response-to-Intervention: The Speech-Language Pathologist’s Perspective

Melissa Bunch, Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Montana

What is Response-to-Intervention?

• Provides support when children fail to respond to high quality evidence- based instruction (Troia, 2005) • Intervention for those who do not meet expected goals without lengthy special education eligibility assessment (Ehren, Montgomery, Rudebusch, & Whitmire, 2006) • Extra support given within framework of universal instruction (Ehren & Whitmire, 2009) Response to Intervention Framework

Tier 1: Universal Instruction

Provides high quality instruction to all students of all abilities. Continuous progress monitoring for overall success and achievement.

Implemented by Classroom teachers

Why is this change important for SLPs?

• Earlier identification of at risk students (Ehren & Whitmire, 2009) • Opportunity to change learning environment for students (Justice, 2006) • Greater involvement with implementation of evidence based interventions (Jackson, Pretti-Frontczak, Harjusola Webb, Grisham-Brown, & Romani, 2009) • Increased collaboration with other professionals (Justice, 2006; Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Staskowski & Rivera, 2005) • Change from caseload to workload approach (ASHA, 2002)

What are the perceived advantages?

Small amounts of paperwork Research Based Fewer referrals Proactive interventions Faster student improvement

What are the perceived disadvantages?

20%

Tier 2: Targeted interventions

Evidence based interventions with frequent progress monitoring. Often implemented by specialists and SLPs.

Tier 3: Specialized treatments

Addresses individual needs and deficits May be referred for further assessment Often implemented by special education resources

Survey Research Questions

What are the perceived advantages under the RTI model?

What are the perceived disadvantages under the RTI model?

Inadequate training High workload RTI as substitution for IEPs

What are the implications?

40% 40%

What is the traditional model?

• Students scheduled for individual therapy sessions and pulled out of their core classes and miss valuable content class time (Ehren & Whitmire, 2009) • SLPs are limited in collaboration and consultation with classroom teachers (Elksnin & Capilouto, 1994) • Therapy approach limits the carryover from intervention sessions to application in social and academic contexts (Elksnin & Capilouto, 1994) Traditional Intervention Framework SPED services Classroom Instruction based on grade level curriculum

Student Identified not meeting expected goals

Refer for testing Served by SPED for special teachers, education Resource services

Student eligible for services

Teachers, and SLPs

Student not eligible for services References

American Speech Language Hearing Association. (2002). A workload analysis approach for establishing speech- language caseload standards in the school: position statement [Position Statement]: Available from asha.org

i Ehren, B., Montgomery, J., Rudebusch, J., & Whitmire, K. (2006). Responsiveness to Intervention: New Roles for Speech- Language Pathologists: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.

Ehren, B. J., & Whitmire, K. (2009). Speech-Language Pathologists as Primary Contributors to Response to Intervention at the Secondary Level. Semin Speech Lang, 30(02), 090-104. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1215717 Elksnin, L. K., & Capilouto, G. J. (1994). Speech-Language Pathologists' Perceptions of Integrated Service Delivery in School Settings. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25(4), 258-267. Jackson, S., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Harjusola-Webb, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Romani, J. M. (2009). Response to Intervention: Implications for Early Childhood Professionals. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(4), 424-434. Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(4), 284-297. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/033 Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to Intervention, Collaboration, and Co-Teaching: A Logical Combination for Successful Systemic Change. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 267-277. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.53.4.267-277 Staskowski, M., & Rivera, E. A. (2005). Speech--Language Pathologists' Involvement in Responsiveness to Intervention Activities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2), 132-147. Troia, G. A. (2005). Responsiveness to Intervention Roles for Speech-Language Pathologists in the Prevention and Identification of Learning Disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2), 106-119.

• Many SLPs see advantages to using the RTI model.

• SLPs will be better able to address prevention and early intervention, possibly benefiting more students in the long run. • However, high workload and inadequate training are being reported as difficulties they experience in implementing it. • Ongoing education and training about RTI and various service delivery models could lessen SLPs’ negative perceptions of RTI. • Change from the traditional service delivery model could make better use of the SLP’s time, thus minimizing the “high workload.”

Acknowledgements

Ginger Collins, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Faculty Advisor, Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Montana Montana Speech-Language-Hearing Association