This case study chronicles the efforts of a small high school over a 2-year period as it designed an implemented a response to intervention (RTI) program for students at the school. Their efforts were largely successful, with improved achievement, attendance, and grade point averages and a decrease in special education referrals. Major themes include the need to focus on quality core instruction as a means for preventing school failure, adopting a schoolwide approach, and developing curriculum-based assessments that make intervention meaningful.
ArdoinS. P.WittJ. C.ConnellJ. E.KoenigJ. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362–380.
2.
BarnettD. W.DalyE. J.IIIJonesK. M.LentzF. E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.
3.
BartonR.StepanekJ. (2009). Three tiers to success. Principal Leadership, 9, 16–20.
4.
BatemanD. (2008). Due process hearing case study. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41, 73–75.
5.
BreaultR. (2010). Finding meaning in PDS stories. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37, 177–194.
6.
BrozoW. G. (2009–2010). Response to intervention or responsive instruction? Challenges and possibilities of response to intervention for adolescent literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 277–281.
7.
BurnsM. K.AppletonJ. J.StehouwerJ. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.
8.
DalyE. J.IIIMartensB. K.BamettD.WittJ. C.OlsonS. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.
9.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
10.
DornL. J.SchubertB. (2008). A comprehensive intervention model for preventing reading failure: A response to intervention process. Journal of Reading Recovery, 7, 29–41.
11.
DuffyH. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. Washington, DC: National High School Center. Retrieved from http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/NHSC_RTIBrief_08-02-07.pdf
12.
EchevarriaJ.VogtM.ShortD. (2007). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
EhrenB.DeshlerD.GranerP. (2010). Using the content literacy continuum as a framework for implementing RTI in secondary schools. Theory Into Practice, 49, 315–322.
14.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1985). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
15.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39, 22–28.
GerberM. M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 516–524.
19.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J.MetheS. A. (2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45–56.
20.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
21.
JohnsonE. S.SmithL. A.HarrisM. L. (2009). How RTI works in secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22.
JohnstonP. (2010). An instructional frame for RTI. Reading Teacher, 63, 602–604.
23.
KhanC.MellardD. (2008). RTI in the language of a classroom teacher: Improving student success through collaboration. Lawrence, KS: National Center on Response to Intervention.
24.
KratochwillT. K.VolpianskyP.ClementsM.BallC. (2007). Professional development in implementing and sustaining multitier prevention models: Implications for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 618–631.
25.
KummererS. E.Lopez-ReynaN. A. (2009). Engaging Mexican immigrant families in language and literacy interventions: Three case studies. Remedial and Special Education, 30(6), 330–343.
26.
LeCompteM. D.PreissleJ. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525–531.
28.
NeumanW. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
O’ConnorR. E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 43–54.
30.
OroscoM. J.KlingnerJ. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners: “Referring into RTI.”Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 269–288.
31.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
32.
PearsonP. D.GallagherM. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
33.
PerelesD.OmdalS.BaldwinL. (2009). Response to intervention and twice-exceptional learners: A promising fit. Gifted Child Today, 32, 40–51.
34.
RyndakD. L.MorrisonA.SommersteinL. (1999). Literacy before and after inclusion: A case study. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 24, 5–22.
35.
SamuelsC. A. (2009). High schools try out RTI. Education Week, 28, 20–22.
36.
ShinnM. R. (2007). Identifying students at risk, monitoring performance, and determining eligibility within response to intervention: Research on educational need and benefit from academic intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 601–617.
37.
TaylorS. J. (1991). Toward individualized community living. In TaylorS. J.BogdanR.RacinoJ. A. (Eds.), Life in the community: Case studies of organizations supporting people with disabilities (pp. 105–112). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
38.
TorgesenJ. K. (2003, December). Operationalizing the response to intervention model to identify children with learning disabilities: Specific issues with older children. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
39.
TriolaM. F. (1989). Elementary statistics (4th ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
40.
VanDerHeydenA.WittJ.BarnettD. W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 339–361.
41.
VanDerHeydenA.WittJ.GilbertsonD. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
42.
VaughnS.CirinoP. T.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.FletcherJ. M.DentonC. A.. . . FrancisD. J. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3–21.
