For nearly 10 years, the response-to-intervention (RTI) policy initiative has engendered enthusiasm at federal, state, and local levels and among various stakeholders. Nevertheless, there are basic and important disagreements about its nature and purpose. The authors describe two groups with contrasting perspectives on RTI in an effort to examine its multiple meanings, to argue that neither group has a credible plan to educate children and youth with severe learning needs, and to encourage all interested parties to think productively about what they want to accomplish in the name of RTI.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2005, September 6). APA letter to Assistant Secretary Hager regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), P.L. 108–446. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ppo/disability/ltr905.html.
3.
BakerJ.ZigmondN. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities?Exceptional Children, 56, 515–526.
4.
BatscheG.ElliottJ.GradenJ. L.GrimesJ.KovaleskiJ. F.PrasseD.TillyW. D. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
5.
BerganJ. R. (1970). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
6.
BerkeleyS.BenderW. N.PeasterL. G.SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.
7.
BiklenD.ZollersN. (1986). The focus on advocacy in the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 579–586.
8.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
BulgrenJ.DeshlerD. D.LenzB. K. (2007). Engaging adolescents with LD in higher order thinking about history concepts using integrated content enhancement routines. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 121–133.
10.
CarnineD. W.SilbertJ.Kame'enuiE. J.TarverS. G. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
11.
ChalfantJ. C.PyshM. V.MoultrieR. (1979). Teacher Assistance Teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 85–96.
12.
ColesG. (1987). The learning mystique: A critical look at “learning disabilities.”New York, NY: Pantheon.
13.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BryantJ. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409.
14.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1992, March). Special education and school restructuring. Concerns, 34, 1–7.
CoxK. (2008, August 21). Legal question. [Electronic mailing list message.] Retrieved from http://ilispa.orglistserv.
17.
De La PazS.GrahamS. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction for middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 687–698.
18.
DenoE. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229–237.
19.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
20.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1977) Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
21.
DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B.LenzB. K.BulgrenJ. A.HockM. F.KnightJ.EhrenB. J. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 96–108.
22.
DillonS. (2009, April 14). Education standards likely to see toughening. New York Times, A12.
23.
DunnL. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded—Is much of it justifiable?Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22.
FiorelloC. A.HaleJ. B.SnyderL. E. (2006). Cognitive hypothesis testing and response to intervention for children with reading problems. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 835–853.
27.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O.AlfonsoV. C.MascoloJ. T. (2002). The achievement test desk reference (ATDR): Comprehensive assessment and learning disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
28.
FletcherJ. M.CoulterW. A.ReschlyD. J.VaughnS. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304–331.
29.
FlugumK. R.ReschlyD. J. (1994). Prereferral interventions: Quality indices and outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(94)90025-6.
30.
FontanaJ.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2007). Mnemonic strategy instruction in inclusive secondary social studies classes. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 345–355.
31.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BahrM. W.FernstromP.SteckerP. M. (1990). Prereferral intervention: A prescriptive approach. Exceptional Children, 56, 493–513.
32.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.FernstromP. J. (1993). A conservative approach to special education reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and curriculum-based measurement. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 149–177.
33.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.MathesP. G.SimmonsD. C. (1997). Peer assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
34.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (Eds.). (2008). Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
35.
FuchsD.YoungC.L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8–30.
36.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PaulsenK.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513.
37.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L.MirkinP. (1984). Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
38.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1984). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
39.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.PhillipsN. B.KarnsK.DutkaS. (1997). Enhanced students' helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. Elementary School Journal, 97, 223–250.
40.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SpeeceD. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–46.
41.
GartnerA.LipskyD. K. (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and Economy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 792).
42.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyD. W. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
43.
GiangrecoM. F.DennisR.CloningerC.EdelmanS.SchattmanR. (1993). “I've counted Jon.” Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359–372.
44.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ.HallR. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383.
45.
GrigorenkoE. (2009). Dynamic assessment and Response to Intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111–132.
46.
GrimesJ. (2002). Responsiveness to interventions: The next step in special education identification, service and exiting decision making. Paper presented at the Office of Special Education Programs LD Summit conference, Washington, DC.
47.
GroveK. A.FisherD. (1999). Entrepreneurs of meaning: Parents and the process of inclusive education. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 208–215.
48.
GutkinT. B. (2009). Ecological school psychology: A personal opinion and a plea for change. In GutkinT. B.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed.; pp. 463–496). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
49.
HaleJ. B.KaufmanA.NaglieriJ. A.KavaleK. A. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 753–770.
50.
HardmanM. L. (2007, March). Redesigning the preparation of general and special education teachers: Collaboration within a school-wide system of support. Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, Committee on Education and Labor. Washington, DC.
51.
HarrisK. R.GrahamS.BrindleM.SandmelK. (in press). Metacognition and children's writing. In HackerD.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
IkedaM.GustafsonJ. K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11′s problem solving process: Impact on issues related to special education (Research Rep. No. 2002–01). Johnston, IA: Heartland Area Education Agency 11.
54.
IkedaM. J.Rahn-BlakesleeA. R.AllisonR. (2005). Effects of response-to-intervention on special education placement and student achievement. (Research Rep. No. 2005–01). Johnston, IA: Heartland Area Education Agency 11.
55.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2008).
56.
JenkinsJ. R.JenkinsL. M. (1981). Cross-age and peer tutoring: Help for children with learning problems. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
57.
JenkinsJ. R.PiousC.PetersonD. (1988). Categorical programs for remedial and handicapped students: Issues of validity. Exceptional Children, 55, 147–158.
58.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1994). Leading the cooperative school (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
59.
JohnsonE.MellardD. F.FuchsD.McKnightM. A. (2006, August). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Nashville, TN: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org/rti_manual/.
60.
KapusnickR.HausleinC. M. (2001). The silver cup of differentiated instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 37, 156–159.
61.
KavaleK. A.SpauldingL. S. (2009). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability?Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23, 169–179.
62.
KovaleskiJ. F. (2002). Best practices in operating prereferral intervention teams in Pennsylvania. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 645–655). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
63.
Learning Disabilities Association/Division for Learning Disabilities. (2007, February). Learning disabilities: Basic principles of the concept, its identification, and service needs. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
64.
Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2002, July 25). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/SLD_OSEP.pdf.
65.
Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2005, February). Comments and recommendations on regulatory issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108–446. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/2004LDRoundtableRecsTransmittal.pdf.
66.
LloydJ. W. (1984). How should we individualize instruction—or should we?Remedial and Special Education, 5, 7–15.
67.
MarshakL.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2009, April). Peer tutoring with strategic mnemonic instruction in inclusive history classes: Effects for middle school students with and without disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
68.
MarstonD. (1987–1988). The effectiveness of special education: A time-series analysis of reading performance in regular and special education settings. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 13–26.
69.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525–531.
70.
McLaughlinM. J. (2006). Closing the achievement gap and students with disabilities: The new meaning of a “free and appropriate public education.” Paper presented at the “NCLB and Its Alternatives: Examining America's Commitment to Closing Achievement Gaps” symposium, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
71.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.
72.
MonroeM. M. (1932). Children who cannot read: The analysis of reading disabilities and the use of diagnostic tests in the instruction of retarded readers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
73.
NaglieriJ. A. (2003). Current advances in assessment and intervention for children with learning disabilities. In ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Identification and assessment (Vol. 16; pp. 163–190). New York, NY: JAI.
74.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2007). NASP position statement on identification of students with specific learning disabilities. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://www.caspsurveys.org/new/pdfs/nasp12.pdf3.
75.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992, October). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Washington, DC: Author.
76.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2006, May). Myths about response to intervention (RTI) implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.
77.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education & Council of Administrators of Special Education. (2006, May). Response to intervention: NASDSE and CASE white paper on RTI. Alexandria, VA: Author.
O'ConnorR. (2000). Increasing the intensity of interventions in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 43–54.
80.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
81.
PressleyM.AllingtonR. L.Wharton-McDonaldR.BlockC. C.MorrowL. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first-grade classrooms. New York, NY: Guilford.
82.
PugachM.LilyS. M. (1984). Reconceptualizing support services for classroom teachers: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 48–55.
83.
ReschlyD. J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510–515.
84.
ReschlyD. J.BergstromM.K. (2009). Response to intervention. In GutkinT. B.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed.; pp. 434–460). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
85.
ReynoldsM. C. (1989). An historical perspective: The delivery of special education to mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 7–11.
86.
SailorW.McCartA.ChoiH. (2008, December). Response to intervention for ALL students. Paper presented at the TASH Social Justice in the 21st Century Conference, Nashville, TN.
87.
ShapiroJ. P.LoebP.BowermasterD.WrightA.HeaddenS.TochT. (1993, December 13). Separate and unequal: How special education programs are cheating our children and costing taxpayers billions each year. U.S. News and World Report, 115 (23), 46–60.
88.
SheridanS. M.WelchM.OrmeS. F. (1996). Is consultation effective? A review of outcome research. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 341–354.
89.
SkrticT. M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver, CO: Love.
90.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN. A. (2000). Research on achievement outcomes of Success for All: A summary and response to critics, Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (1), 38–40, 59–66.
91.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN. A.KarweitN. L.DolanL.WasikB. A.ShawA.HaxbyB. (1991). Neverstreaming: Prevention and early intervention as an alternative to special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 373–378.
92.
SleeterC. E. (1998). Yes, learning disabilities is political: what isn't?Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 289–296.
93.
StainbackW.StainbackS. (1991). Rationale for integration and restructuring: A synopsis. In LloydJ. W.ReppA. C.SinghN. N. (Eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 225–239). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
94.
TaylorS. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 41–53.
95.
TaylorS. J. (1995). On rhetoric: A response to Fuchs and Fuchs. Exceptional Children, 61, 301–302.
96.
TelzrowC. F.McNamaraK.HollingerC. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443–461.
97.
TharpR. G.WetzelR. J. (1969). Behavior modification in the natural environment. New York, NY: Academic Press.
98.
TillyD. W. (2003, December). How many tiers are needed for successful prevention and early intervention? Heartland Area Education Agency's evolution from four to three tiers. Paper presented at the Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, sponsored by the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, Kansas City, MO.
U.S. secretary of education calls on state officials and researchers to deliver honest answers about reforms. (2009, June 8). [Press release]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/06/06082009.html.
101.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. A.JenkinsJ. R. (2002). Timing and intensity of tutoring: A closer look at the conditions for effective early literacy tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 227–241.
102.
VanDerHeydenA. M.JimersonS. R. (2005). Using response-to-intervention to enhance outcomes for children. The California School Psychologist, 10, 21–32.
103.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
104.
WangM. C.BirchJ.W. (1984). Comparison of a full-time mainstreaming program and a resource room approach. Exceptional Children, 51, 33–40.
105.
WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C.WalbergH. J. (1986). Rethinking special education. Educational Leadership, 44, 26–31.
106.
WangM. C.WalbergH. J. (1988). Four fallacies of segregation. Exceptional Children, 55, 128–137.
107.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students demonstrating insufficient RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 126–142.
108.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low response to reading intervention: Three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 151–163.
109.
WillM. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411–415.
110.
YsseldykeJ. E.AlgozzineB.EppsS. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practices in classifying students as learning disabled. Exceptional Children, 50, 160–166.
