Federal legislation allows local education agencies to use a student's response to scientific research-based interventions as a method of identifying specific learning disabilities. As a result, educational leadership is challenged to implement response to intervention (RTI). Despite increased literature addressing RTI, no consensus on implementation has been reached. This national study was conducted to capture and report general education and special education professionals’ perceptions and implementation practices of RTI. Study participants were randomly selected to include general and special education administrative, instructional, or support personnel on elementary and high school campuses. The wide variances, misunderstandings, and lack of training reported in this nationwide study could explain the mixed results of recent research on RTI. Implications for school leadership are deduced from the data and highlight the need for pre-service and continuing professional development concerning all aspects of RTI.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArtilesA. J. (2003). Special education's changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73(2), 164–202.
2.
BrownK. M. (2006). A transformative andragogy for principal preparation programs. University Council for Education Administration Review, 45, 1–5.
3.
BurnsM., JacobS., & WagnerA. (2008). Ethical and legal issues associated with using response-to-intervention to assess learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 263–279.
4.
DentonC., FletcherJ., AnthonyJ., & FrancisD. (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 447–466.
5.
DexterD. D., HughesC. A., & FarmerT. W. (2008). Response to intervention: A review of field studies and implications for rural special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 3–9.
6.
Dudley-MarlingC. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 482–489.
7.
EverardK. B., & MorrisG. (1996). Effective school management.London: Chapman.
8.
FletcherJ. M., & VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediation academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37.
9.
FuchsD., & DeshlerD. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129–136.
10.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. (2008). Professional opinion: Implementing RTI. District Administration, 9, 73–76.
11.
FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(4), 204–219.
12.
GerstenR., VaughnS., DeshlerD., & SchillerE. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 466–476.
13.
GettingerM., & StoiberK. (2008). Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 198–213.
GreshamF. (2007a). Evolution of the response-to-intervention concept: Empirical foundations and recent developments. In JimersonS. R., BurnsM. K., & VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention (pp. 10–24). New York: Springer.
16.
GreshamF. (2007b). Response to intervention and emotional and behavioral disorders: Best practices in assessment for intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(4), 214–222.
17.
HamiltonM. B. (2009). On line survey response rates and times.Bethesda, MD: Itpath.
18.
Harris-MurriN., KingK., & RostenbergD. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority representation in special education programs for students with emotional disturbances: Toward a culturally responsive response to intervention model. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(4), 779–799.
19.
HellerK., HoltzmanW., & MessickS. (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.
HubermanA. M., & MilesM. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works.New York: Premium Press.
21.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
KashiT. L. (2008). Response to intervention as a suggested generalized approach to improving minority AYP scores. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 37–44.
24.
KavaleK. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553–562.
25.
KratochwillT., ClementsM., & KalyomnK. (2007). Response to intervention: Conceptual and methodological issues in implementation. Handbook of response to intervention.New York: Springer.
26.
Linan-ThompsonS., CirinoP. T., & VaughnS. (2007). Determining English language learners’ response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 185–195.
27.
MarstonD., MuyskensP., LauM., & CanterA. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18(3), 187–200.
OliverP. (1996). The concept of change management. In OliverP. (Ed.), The management of educational change: A case-study approach (pp. 1–9). Brookfield, VT: Arena.
32.
OrtizA. A., WilkinsonC. Y., Robertson-CourtneyP., & KushnerM. I. (2006). Considerations in implementing intervention assistance teams to support English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 53–63.
33.
ReynoldsC., & ShaywitzS. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130–145.
34.
RinaldiC., & SamsonJ. (2008). English language learners and response to intervention: Referral considerations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 6–14.
35.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
36.
SamuelsC. A. (2010). Boom in learning-disabled enrollments ends. Education Week, 30(3), 14–15.
37.
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(2), 286–295.
38.
ScruggsT., & MastropieriM. (2006). Response to “Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention.”Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 62–64.
39.
TorgesenJ. K. (2009). The response to intervention instructional model: Some outcomes from a large-scale implementation in Reading First schools. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 38–40.
40.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Table 5: Cumulative estimates of the components of resident population change by race and Hispanic origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov. (NC-EST2009-05)
41.
VaughnS., & FuchsL. (2006). A response to “Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention”: Why response to intervention is necessary but not sufficient for identifying students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 58–61.
42.
WertsM., LambertM., & CarpenterE. (2009). What special education directors say about RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 245–254.
43.
WhitakerP. (1993). Managing change in schools.Buckingham: Open University Press.
44.
WitskenD., StoeckelA., & D'AmatoR. C. (2008). Leading educational change using a neuropsychological response-to-intervention approach: Linking our past, present, and future. Psychology in the Schools, 45(9), 781–798.
