This article describes how a purposeful sample of 62 elementary schools from 17 states implemented a Response to Intervention (RtI) framework for reading. School informants answered surveys and were interviewed about differentiated instruction in Tier 1, screening/benchmarking, where Tier 2 interventions were located, typical group size and the minutes/day of intervention in Tiers 2 and 3 groups, and how students with individualized educational programs (IEPs) in reading were served in the school’s RtI model. Schools reported using differentiated instruction in Tier 1, favored curriculum-based measures for screening/benchmarking and progress monitoring, reported more intensive interventions and more progress monitoring in Tier 3, and used a wide variety of models for serving students with IEPs within the schools’ RtI models.
BoormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.
2.
BradleyM. C.DaleyT.LevinM.O’ReillyR.ParsadA.RobertsonA.WernerA. (2011). IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study (NCEE 2011-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
3.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
4.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SteckerP. M. (2010). The “blurring of special education” in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323.
5.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). 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/publications/practiceguides/
6.
HaagerD.KlingnerJ.VaughnS. (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
7.
HsuT. C.FeldtL. S. (1969). The effect of limitations on the number of criterion score values on the significance of the F test. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 515–527.
8.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for service delivery in an RTI framework: Candidate measures. School Psychology Review, 36, 560–582.
9.
JohnsonE.MellardD. F.FuchsD.McKnightM. A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RtI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
10.
MahdaviJ. N.Beebe-FrankenbergerM. (2009). Pioneering RTI systems that work: Social validity, collaboration, and context. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 64–72.
11.
MellardD.McknightM.JordanJ. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 217–225.
12.
MellardD.McKnightM.WoodsK. (2009). Response to Intervention screening and progress monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 185–195.
13.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2008–2009). Common Core of Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences.
14.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RtI: A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/index.php
15.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroup. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
16.
O’ConnorR. E.KlingnerJ. K. (2010). Poor responders in responsiveness to intervention models. Theory Into Practice, 49, 297–304.
17.
OroscoM. J.KlingnerJ. (2010). One school’s implementation of RtI with English language learners: “Referring into RtI.”Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 269–288.
TackettK. K.RobertsG.BakerS.ScammaccaN. (2009). Implementing response to intervention: Practices and perspectives from five schools. Frequently asked questions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
20.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.
21.
WarrenS. F.FeyM. E.YoderP. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–71.
