The purpose of this special issue is to help schools better understand how they might get started with implementing a strong Tier 2 system within the context of a multitiered service delivery model. The promise of multitiered service delivery models is that students who struggle can be identified early and receive interventions before their challenges become intractable. In this issue, a series of articles describe how one school implemented Tier 2 systems to address the needs of struggling students in reading, math, writing, and behavior. In addition, the systems that schools need to facilitate Tier 2 implementation are described.
DenoS. L. (1987). Curriculum-based measurement: An introduction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 20, 41–42.
2.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192.
3.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–192.
4.
GerstenR.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
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: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
6.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J.MetheS. A. (2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45–56.
7.
JenkinsJ.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for service delivery in an RTI framework: Candidate measures. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582–601.
8.
Keller-MargulisM. A. (2012). Fidelity of implementation framework: A critical need for response to intervention models. Psychology in the Schools, 49(4), 342–352. doi:10.1002/pits.21602
9.
MellardD. F.DeshlerD. D.BarthA. (2004). LD identification: It’s not simply a matter of building a better mousetrap. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 229–242.
10.
MellardD. F.JohnsonE. S. (2008). RTI: A practitioner’s guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
O’ConnorR. E.FulmerD.HartyK.BellK. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and child outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455.
12.
ShapiroE. S.ClemensN. H. (2009). A conceptual model for evaluating system effects of response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35(3), 3–16. doi:10.1177/1534508408330080
13.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
