RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTION

Response to Instruction

Education of Disabled Students

Purpose

As stated, the primary research focus guiding this study will be to determine at what level a training program should begin in order to provide substantive support for building level principals. A second research focus will be to identify and clarify the expectations held by building level administrators and special education directors regarding the inclusion. Thus, this study provides a brief history of response of instruction and the continued differing opinions as to the effectiveness of including students with special needs in the general education setting.

Search method

In order to achieve an overview of health promotion offered for those with physical mobility impairments, a literature review was conducted. The literature was systematically reviewed using keywords and Response to intervention/information RtI criteria. The range of published literature searched included research journals, health promotion texts, health and disability policy documents, as well as web sites offered on the internet.

Description and evaluation

Response to Intervention or response to information (RTI) is the latest approach that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 (IDEA) have mandated to reduce the numbers of children who have reading difficulties and who are referred for special education. Indeed, 80% of learning disability referrals are for children needing support with reading and language. Most of these readers do not have cognitive impairments but rather need extra, specialized support. In the RtI instructional model, this support takes the form of differentiated instruction with frequent progress monitoring (classroom-based assessments) provided by a collaborative team of teachers including the speech, regular classroom, special education, and English language learning teachers. Ultimately, the goal of effective assessment should be to inform instructional decisions and design, in which case classroom-based, teacher-directed formative and summative assessments provide the most direct, efficient, and individualized data to use in making prompt instructional modifications (Allington, 2001).

In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) was signed into law, guaranteeing a free, appropriate public education for all children, including those with disabilities. Prior to the passage of this law mandating that schools serve all children, the traditional placement for a student with physical or mental disabilities was a self-contained program run by an agency such as the Easter Seals Foundation, with minimal involvement in educational opportunities. (Banerji and Dailey, 2005)

Public Law 94-142 resulted in children with disabilities being allowed to come to school, but how and where they were educated was not specified. In the late 1970s and early 1980s most students with special needs were often served in separate classrooms along with other students with disabilities. Several movements and initiatives were created, mostly by parents who were unhappy with this separation (Skrtic et. Al, 2005). One was the campaign for mainstreaming, including the students with disabilities in the general education classrooms for meaningful interactions and education. While this was initiated in several school systems, mainstreaming was generally based on the students' ability to do the work in the classroom; if not, they were mainstreamed only for “specials”—art, music, physical education, ...