The Many Faces of Special Education Within RTI Frameworks in the United States and Finland

• Published in: Learning disability quarterly Vol. 39; no. 1; pp. 58 - 66
• Main Authors: Björn, Piia M., Aro, Mikko T., Koponen, Tuire K., Fuchs, Lynn S., Fuchs, Douglas H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA Hammill Institute on Disabilities and SAGE Publications 01.02.2016; SAGE Publications; SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Achievement Tests; Collaborative learning; Comparative Analysis; Disabilities; Disability Identification; Education for All Handicapped Children Act; Education policy; Educational Legislation; Educational Quality; Educational services; Elementary Secondary Education; Elementary Secondary Education Act; Equal Education; Federal Legislation; Finland; Finnish language; Foreign Countries; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; International Assessment; International comparisons; Intervention; Learning; Learning Disabilities; No Child Left Behind Act 2001; Program for International Student Assessment; Regular and Special Education Relationship; Response to Intervention; School Administration; School age children; Self contained classrooms; Special Education; Special Education Teachers; Student Evaluation; Student Placement; Teacher education; Teacher Role; Teachers; United States; United States; Finland; United States > US; response to intervention; special education; policy paper; Finnish framework of support in learning
• ISSN: 0731-9487; 2168-376X
• DOI: 10.1177/0731948715594787

Response to intervention (RTI) can be considered an everyday practice in many parts of the United States, whereas, in Finland, only recently has a new framework for support in learning taken shape. Choosing Finland as the comparative partner for this policy paper is justified as its educational system has been widely referenced on the basis of good Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results. The results of the present comparative article showed first, that the U.S. RTI was primarily intended for diagnosing and preventing learning disabilities whereas the Finnish RTI is mainly an administrative structure for support. Second, the U.S. RTI includes clear definitions regarding the intensity, duration, and content of support provided within each tier whereas the Finnish version contains no explicit guidelines for support. Third, the U.S. RTI assumes no special educational services in the first two tiers, but the Finnish framework includes special educational services from the onset of support. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.