Toad-ally Exceptional Learners

As a special education teacher, one of the most impactful roles I’ve come to embrace is supporting the system that identifies and helps struggling learners—not just providing direct instruction. Frameworks like Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) are designed to ensure students receive early, equitable support, and to help schools distinguish between students with disabilities and those who simply need better instruction or intervention. Done right, these systems reduce bias, promote data-driven decisions, and lead to accurate special education identification. to do it right, we must also understand what the law requires—and how special educators can support both the spirit and letter of those laws.

But to do it right, we must also understand what the law requires—and how special educators can support both the spirit and letter of those laws.

Understanding RTI and MTSS Through a Legal Lens

RTI is a prevention-oriented framework that provides increasingly intensive levels of instructional support. It’s most commonly used in identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004), states may use a “process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention” as part of an SLD evaluation (34 CFR §300.307(a)(2)).

MTSS is a broader framework that includes not only academic intervention but also behavioral and social-emotional supports. It incorporates RTI but emphasizes a whole-child approach. While not explicitly mentioned in federal special education law, MTSS is supported by multiple federal initiatives, including the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which encourages the use of evidence-based, multi-tiered systems to improve outcomes for all learners.

Special Education Teachers: Our Legal and Instructional Role in RTI/MTSS

1. Ensuring Fidelity of Interventions

Under IDEA, evaluations must be based on valid data (34 CFR §300.304). That’s only possible when interventions are implemented with fidelity. Special educators can:

Model evidence-based strategies
Observe and coach general education staff
Help ensure interventions follow duration, frequency, and instructional protocols

When interventions are inconsistent or poorly implemented, we risk collecting invalid data—leading to misidentification or delayed services.

2. Collaborating on Progress Monitoring

IDEA requires that eligibility decisions draw from “a variety of sources,” including “technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors” (34 CFR §300.304(b)). That’s where progress monitoring comes in.

Special education teachers can:

Help select reliable tools aligned with academic or behavioral goals

Train staff in their use:

Support data collection and analysis
Join problem-solving teams to interpret whether lack of progress signals a potential disability
Well-maintained data helps distinguish between a student who is underperforming and one who has a learning disability—and helps teams make timely, legally sound decisions.

3. Preventing Bias and Over-Referral

IDEA explicitly prohibits discrimination in evaluations: assessments must not be “discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis” and must be administered in the child’s native language or other mode of communication (34 CFR §300.304(c)(1)).

As special educators, we:

Guide teams to examine instruction, attendance, behavior, and English language proficiency before referral
Advocate for culturally responsive interventions
Help ensure that referrals are based on need—not implicit bias, language differences, or socioeconomic factors

RTI/MTSS frameworks were developed in part to address the historical over-identification of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. That mission continues today—and we have a responsibility to honor it.

Supporting the Evaluation and Identification Process

When students don’t respond to Tier 3 interventions, and there’s documented evidence of ongoing difficulties, a special education evaluation may be warranted. At that point, IDEA regulations guide our work:

Evaluations must be comprehensive and assess all areas of suspected disability (34 CFR §300.304(c)(4))

Teams must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies—not a single test or score (34 CFR §300.304(b))

Evaluation procedures must be non-discriminatory, administered by trained personnel, and used for their intended purposes

Special education teachers:

Collaborate with school psychologists, speech therapists, and other professionals during evaluation
Interpret RTI/MTSS data as part of the eligibility decision
Ensure all pre-referral documentation is complete and consistent
Keep timelines, parental consent, and procedural safeguards on track
We are also often the bridge between school and family—making sure parents understand the process and their rights, and ensuring their voice is heard.

Know Your State Laws and Policies

While IDEA sets the federal standard, each state adds its own guidelines for using RTI/MTSS in the evaluation process. For example:

Illinois requires an RTI process be part of identifying a specific learning disability (ISBE, 23 Illinois Admin. Code 226.130).

California allows school districts to choose between RTI, the discrepancy model, or a combination (California Education Code §56337).

As educators, we must stay informed about our state's expectations so we can advocate for students while ensuring compliance.

RTI vs. Discrepancy Model Under IDEA (2004)

IDEA 2004 allows (but does not mandate) RTI as a method for identifying students with learning disabilities.

According to 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(6)(B):

“In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability...”

This means:

Schools are no longer required to use the IQ-achievement discrepancy model.
Schools are permitted to use a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention (RTI).
States can allow or require RTI, or offer flexibility for schools/districts to choose.

What Is the Discrepancy Model?

Historically, the discrepancy model identified a learning disability based on a gap between a student’s IQ and their academic performance. Critics argue it often delays intervention until a student is significantly behind—also known as the “wait to fail” model.

Walking the Line: Early Help vs. Over-Identification

RTI and MTSS aim to strike a balance: provide early help, but don’t over-identify. Special education teachers walk that tightrope daily.

Sometimes students are referred for evaluation too quickly—before interventions have been tried with fidelity. Other times, students with clear signs of disability are kept in Tier 2 or Tier 3 too long, delaying appropriate support.

Our expertise in both disabilities and instruction allows us to ask the right questions:

Has the student received appropriate, research-based instruction?
Are the interventions matched to the student’s specific needs?
Are cultural, linguistic, and environmental factors being considered?

When we ask these questions and follow the data, we can ensure that students aren’t overlooked—or over-identified.

RTI and MTSS are more than educational frameworks—they’re part of a legal and ethical system that ensures all students get the support they need. And yes a general education process BUT special education teachers are essential to that system.

By supporting the fidelity of interventions, guiding data collection, preventing bias, and leading the evaluation process, we help schools fulfill their obligations under IDEA and ESSA—and, more importantly, we help students get what they need to thrive.

Chat Soon-