Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium

December 4-5, 2003 * Kansas City, Missouri

The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The speakers, discussants, and participants assembled represented the wide diversity of individuals with a vested interest in LD determination issues. Advocates, instructional staff, researchers, and state-level education officials brought their collective and considerable expertise to the discussions.

Michael M. Gerber of the University of California, Santa Barbara presented this invited paper during the symposium. For links to other papers and materials, visit the main Symposium 2003 page.


Teachers Are Still The Test:
Limitations of Response To Instruction Strategies
For Identifying Children With Learning Disabilities

Previous Page | Next Page
(Teacher Differences) | (Who is LD?)

The Economics of RTI at Scale

However attractive RTI may appear as a general scheme for improving classroom instruction and reducing some reading failure, its cost at scale is unknown. We may make some estimates based on available national data and elements represented in the research literature.

Requirements

Almost all proposals or larger scale research establishes the need for some substantial baseline of professional development for all classroom teachers. Across studies, approximately 15% to 30% of K-3 students receiving some level of effective instruction in reading will nevertheless fail to meet various criteria. For these students, most proposals envision some supplemental (i.e. strategic) intervention. For students who are not able to reach criteria under these circumstances, perhaps 2% to 6% of all students will require still more intensive intervention.

Cost Estimation

Using various sources of national data (e.g., NCES, NEA), there are about 255,709 teachers in K-3 practice. Average teacher salary is about $45,930, or $32 per hour for an 8 hour work day. Amount of time need for baseline professional development varies. Torgesen trained classroom teachers for forty hours (Torgesen, 2003) and this seems like a reasonable, but probably low, estimate of actual requirements. In constructing this model, I estimate only for students in kindergarten through third grade, an estimated 30,001,243 students, and 18% (5,400,224) selected for a first pass supplemental instruction for 30 minutes each week for 10 weeks (10 days) and 4% (1,200,050) for more intensive instruction for 60 additional minutes each week for a second 10 weeks (50 days). Although many research studies used individual tutoring or 1:3 teacher-student intervention ratios, I will assume both a 1:3 and 1:5 ratio. Some simplifying assumptions also permit estimates of costs of professional development using teachers' average pay rate and reasonable costs for administration, monitoring, evaluation, and materials.

Under the assumptions described above, national implementation of RTI will cost $2,033,228,291 and $2,288,405,530 at 1:5 and 1:3 ratios, respectively. To understand the size of these costs, they may be compared to the federal appropriation of $1,78 billion in 2003 for all of Part IIA for all professional development under the No Child Left Behind Act.


Table 1: Estimated Costs for RTI at National Scale

Estimated RTI Costs Variable Teacher Costs
Baseline classrooms (+teacher trainer/district) $326,737,240
1st Round Strategic Intervention
(Teaching groups x Teacher Cost x Hours)
$344,489,273
2nd Round Intensive Intervention (1:5)
(Teaching groups x Teacher Cost x Hours)
$382,765,859
2nd Round Intensive Intervention (1:3)
(Teaching groups x Teacher Cost x Hours)
$637,943,098
Total 1st Year RTI (1:5) $1,053,992,371
With overhead $2,033,228,291
Total 1st Year RTI (1:3) $1,309,169,610
With overhead $2,288,405,530

Previous Page | Next Page
(Teacher Differences) | (Who is LD?)

IDEAs that Work logo

The symposium was made possible by the support of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.