Response to intervention (RTI) is a valuable framework for providing effective and equitable educational opportunities to all students; however, recent research indicates that RTI programs are not achieving their potential for promoting student learning. As schools develop, implement, and sustain RTI systems, they would benefit from the addition of collaborative support provided by professionals knowledgeable about the RTI framework, including specific elements of this model such as evidence-based practices and progress monitoring assessments. We describe the process and outcomes of a university–school partnership aimed at developing and implementing an RTI program for reading at the Tier 1 level.
AndersonD.AlonzoJ.TindalG.FarleyD.IrvinP. S.LaiC. F.SavenJ. L.WrayK. A. (2014). Technical manual: easyCBM (Report No. 1408). Behavioral Research and Teaching. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547422.pdf
3.
AndrewsD.LewisM. (2007). Transforming practice from within: The power of the professional learning community. In StollL.LouisK. S. (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 132–48). Open University Press.
4.
BerkeleyS.ScanlonD.BaileyT. R.SuttonJ. C.SaccoD. M. (2020). A snapshot of RTI implementation a decade later: New picture, same story. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 332–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420915867
5.
CartledgeG.KeaC. D.WatsonM.OifA. (2016). Special education disproportionality: A review of response to intervention and culturally relevant pedagogy. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 16(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.56829/2158-396X.16.1.29
6.
CavendishW.HarryB.MendaA. M.EspinosaA.MahotiereM. (2016). Implementing response to intervention: Challenges of diversity and system change in a high-stakes environment. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 118, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611800505
7.
CookB. G.OdomS. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900201
8.
CordinglyP.BellM.RundellB.EvansD. (2003). The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom teaching and learning. In Research evidence in library, version 1.1. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
9.
CramerE. D.GalloR. F.SalumC.MunozL. R.Pellegrini LafontC.BaptisteB. B. (2021). Challenges of urban educators in implementing state standards for students with disabilities. Education and Urban Society, 53(9), 1001–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211004564
10.
DuFourR.DuFourR.EakerR.MattosM.MuhammadA. (2021). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: Proven insights for sustained, substantive school improvement (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
11.
EnriqueJ. A.AdamsK. S.BrockmeierL. L.HilgertL. D. (2013). A preliminary study of disproportionate representation and response to intervention. Georgia Educational Researcher, 10(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.20429/ger.2013.100102
12.
FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–9. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
15.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response to intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 255–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917693580
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2011). Using CBMs for progress monitoring in reading. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.
17.
GartlandD.StrosniderR. (2020). The use of response to intervention to inform special education eligibility decisions for students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720949964
18.
GerstenR.JayanthiM.DiminoJ. (2017). Too much, too soon? Unanswered questions from national response to intervention evaluation. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 244–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917692847
19.
Gomez-NajarroJ. (2023). Identity-blind intervention: Examining teachers’ attention to social identity in the context of response to intervention. Urban Education, 58(4), 645–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919860561n
20.
GuoL. (2018). Modeling the relationship of metacognitive knowledge, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 30(2), 209–31.
21.
HaagerD.VaughnS. (2013). The common core state standards and reading: Interpretations and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12000
22.
HarnB.ParisiD.StoolmillerM. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools?Exceptional Children, 79(2), 181–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900204
23.
HordS. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
24.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBMs: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
25.
HunterD.BoneshefskiM.KovaleskiJ. F.RungeT. J. (2023). Examining the impact of federal specific learning disability inclusion criteria on multidisciplinary team decision making when using response to intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 46(3), 204–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221115172
KrashenS. (2002). Developing academic language: Early L1 reading and later L2 reading. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2002(155/156), 143–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2002.021
30.
LevyH. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(4), 161–4. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.81.4.161-164
31.
LittleJ. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00052-5
32.
LockwoodA. B.FarmerR. L.SealanderK.WinansS. (2022). Specific learning disability identification practices in the USA: A survey of special education administrators. Contemporary School Psychology, 26(4), 535–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-021-00375-4
33.
LouisK. S.MarksH. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/444197
MoatsL.SeditaJ. (2004). LETRS, language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling. Sopris West Educational Services.
36.
MundshcenkN. A.FuchsW. W. (2016). Professional learning communities: An effective mechanism for successful implementation and sustainability of response to intervention. SRATE Journal, 25(2), 55–64.
OroscoM. J.KlingnerJ. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners: “Referring into RTI”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355474
40.
OwenS. (2016). Professional learning communities: Building skills, reinvigorating the passion, and nurturing teacher wellbeing and “flourishing” within significantly innovative schooling contexts. Educational Review, 68(4), 403–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1119101
41.
PolikoffM. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the common core state standards in mathematics?American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185–211. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215584435
42.
PorterR. E.FusarelliL. D.FusarelliB. C. (2015). Implementing the common core: How educators interpret curriculum reform. Educational Policy, 29(1), 111–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814559248
43.
RobinsonG. G. (2016). Culturally responsive beliefs and practices of general and special education teachers within a response to intervention framework. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 16(2), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.56829/1547-1888.16.2.22
44.
SanettiL. M. H.CookB. G.CookL. (2021). Treatment fidelity: What it is and why it matters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12238
45.
SavitzR. S.AllingtonR. L.WilkinsJ. (2018). Response to intervention: A summary of the guidance state departments of education provide to schools and school districts. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 91(6), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2018.1536641
46.
ShenoyS.JohnsonC.NannemannA. (in press). School collaboration in a rural setting: Improving student reading outcomes by implementing a tiered model of instruction. School Community Journal.
47.
SteckerP. M.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2008). Progress monitoring as essential practice within response to intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 10–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050802700403
48.
StollL.BolamR.McMahonA.WallaceM.ThomasS. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
49.
StollL.Seashore LouisK. (Eds.). (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Open University Press.
50.
SugaiG.HornerR. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17(4), 223–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903235375
51.
VellutinoF. R. (2003). Individual differences as sources of variability in reading comprehension in elementary school children. Rethinking Reading Comprehension, 51–81.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
