Secondary school administrators are increasingly finding themselves in the position of implementing Response to Intervention (RTI). This system of providing progressively intensive levels of intervention for the purposes of preventing academic failure and identifying children with learning disability may be useful at the secondary level. However, many aspects of RTI are based on research conducted in elementary schools. The purpose of this article is to provide a basic description of RTI, to summarize research conducted at the secondary level, and to provide a set of considerations for secondary administrators regarding RTI implementation.
AlonzoJ.TindalG.UlmerK.GlasgowA. (2006). EasyCBM online progress monitoring assessment system. Eugene: University of Oregon, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
2.
BakerS. K.FienH.BakerD. L. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(9), 1-20.
3.
BatscheG. M.KavaleK. A.KovaleskiJ. F. (2006). Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 6-19.
4.
BerkeleyS.BenderW. N.PeasterL. G.SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 62, 85-95.
5.
BiancarosaC.SnowC. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
6.
BrozoW. G. (2009). 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.
BrozoW. G. (2010). The role of content literacy in an effective RTI program. The Reading Teacher, 64, 147-150.
8.
BurnsM. K.GibbonsK. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
10.
CarneyK. J.StiefelG. S. (2008). Long-term results of a problem-solving approach to response to intervention: Discussion and implications. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6(2), 61-75.
11.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English, language arts, and literacy in history/social studies, science and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
12.
DuffyH. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National High School Center.
13.
DufreneB. A.ReisenerC. D.OlmiD. J.Zoder-MartellK.McNuttM. R.HornD. R. (2010). Peer tutoring for reading fluency as a feasible and effective alternative in response to intervention systems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 239-256.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakebergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262-300.
16.
EhrenB. J.WhitmireK. (2009). Speech-language pathologists as primary contributors to Response to Intervention at the secondary level. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30, 90-104.
17.
EkwallE.ShankerJ. L. (1988). Diagnosis and remediation of the disabled reader (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
18.
Faggella-LubyM.WardwellM. (2011). RTI in a middle school: Findings and practical implications of a Tier 2 reading comprehension study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 35-49.
19.
FoormanB.Al OtaibaS. (2009). Reading remediation: State of the art. In McCardleP.PughK. (Eds.), How children learn to read: Current issues and new directions in the integration of cognition, neurobiology, and genetics of reading and dyslexia research and practice (pp. 257-274). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
20.
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.
21.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
22.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SteckerP. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Council for Exceptional Children, 76, 301-323.
23.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ThompsonA.SvensonE.YenL.Al OtaibaS. . . .SaenzL. (2001). Peer-assisted learning strategies in reading: Extensions for kindergarten, first grade, and high school. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 15-21.
24.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
25.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39, 22-28.
26.
GettingerM.StoiberK. (2007). Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 198-213.
27.
GravesA. W.BrandonR.DuesberyL.McIntoshA.PyleN. B. (2011). The effects of Tier 2 literacy instruction in sixth grade: Toward the development of a Response-to-Intervention model in middle school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 73-86.
28.
HellerR.GreenleafC. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
29.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). Public Law108-446.
30.
JenkinsE.QueenA.AlgozzineB. (2002). To block or not to block: That’s not the question. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 196-202.
31.
JohnsonE. S.SmithL.HarrisM. L. (2009). How RTI works in secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
32.
KamilM. L.BormanG.D.DoleJ.KralC. C.SalingerT.TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=8
33.
KavaleK. A.KauffmanJ. M.BachmeierR. J.LeFeverG. B. (2008). Response-to-intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135-150.
34.
LeeC. D.SpratleyA. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
35.
Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.PraterK.CirinoP. T. (2006). The response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 390-398.
36.
MarinoM. T.BeecherC. C. (2010). Conceptualizing RTI in 21st-century secondary science classrooms: Video games’ potential to provide tiered support and progress monitoring for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 33, 299-311.
37.
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.
38.
MathesP. G.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J.SchatschneiderC. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148-182.
39.
MellardD. F.McKnightM.WoodsK. (2009). Response to intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 186-195.
40.
MurrayC. S.WoodruffA. L.VaughnS. (2010). First-grade student retention within a 3-tier reading framework. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26, 26-50.
41.
National High School Center, National Center on Response to Intervention, & Center on Instruction. (2010). Tiered interventions in high schools: Using preliminary “lessons learned” to guide ongoing discussion. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
42.
O’ConnorR. E.HartyK. R.FulmerD. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532-538.
43.
PerieM.GriggW.DonahueP. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
44.
SansostiF. J.NoltemeyerA.GossS. (2010). Principals’ perceptions of the importance and availability of response to intervention practices within high school settings. School Psychology Review, 39, 286-295.
45.
SansostiF. J.TelzrowC.NoltemeyerA. (2010). Barriers and facilitators to implementing response to intervention in secondary schools: Qualitative perspectives of school psychologists. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 4, 1-21.
46.
ScanlonD. M.GelzheiserL. M.VellutinoF. R.SchatschneiderC.SweenyJ. M. (2008). Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional development for classroom teachers versus direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 346-359.
47.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2006). Response to competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 62-64.
48.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
49.
SomersM.CorrinW.SepanikS.SalingerT.LevinJ.ZmachC. . . .SilverbergM. (2010). The enhanced reading opportunities study final report: The impact of supplemental literacy courses for struggling ninth-grade readers (NCEE 2010-4021). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
50.
StaskowskiM.RiveraE. A. (2005). Speech-language pathologists’ involvement in responsiveness to intervention activities: A complement to curriculum-relevant practice. Top Language Disorders, 25, 132-147.
51.
SullivanA. L.LongL. (2010). Examining the changing landscape of school psychology practice: A survey of school-based practitioners regarding response to intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 1059-1070.
52.
TorgesonJ. K. (2009). The response to intervention instructional model: Some outcomes from a large-scale implementation in reading first schools. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 38-40.
53.
TroiaG. A. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Roles for speech-language pathologists in the prevention and identification of learning disabilities. Top Language Disorders, 25, 106-119.
54.
VaughnS.CirinoP. T.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.FletcherJ. M.DentonC. D. . . .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.
55.
VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2010). Thoughts on rethinking response to intervention with secondary students. School Psychology Review, 39, 296-299.
56.
VaughnS.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.DentonC. A.WanzekJ.WexlerJ. . . .RomainM. A. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 338-345.
57.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137-146.
58.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.MurrayC.ScammaccaN.Linan-ThompsonS.WoodruffA. L. (2009). Response to early reading intervention: Examining higher and lower responders. Exceptional Children, 75, 165-183.
VealW. R.FlindersD. J. (2001). How block scheduling reform effects classroom practice. The High School Journal, 84(4), 21-31.
61.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SmallS.FanueleD. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157-169.
62.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 126-142.
63.
ZirkelP. A.ThomasL. B. (2010). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 60-73.
