An e-mail survey of special education directors was conducted to ascertain practices related to implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) processes in North Carolina schools. The data indicate that special education directors have information about RTI as a method of identifying students with disabilities, but there is little consensus on the procedural steps for implementation of the RTI process. Multiple professionals were named as persons to be responsible for collecting data, interpreting graphs, and determining students' responsiveness or nonresponsiveness to instruction. Finally, no consensus was found on whether the discrepancy model should be retained or dropped.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronP. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula, Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.
2.
BarnesA. C.HarlacherJ. E. (2008). Clearing the confusion: Response-to-intervention as a set of principles. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 417–431.
3.
BatemanB. (1965). An educational view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorders. In HellmuthJ. (Ed.), Learning disorders: Vol. I (pp. 219–239). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications.
4.
BerkeleyS.BenderW. N.PeasterL. G.SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.
5.
BradleyR.DanielsonL.DoolittleJ. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 485–486.
6.
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.
7.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
8.
DillmanD. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children. (2007). Thinking about response to intervention and learning disabilities: A teacher's guide. Arlington, VA: Author.
10.
FoegenA.JibanC.DenoS. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 41, 121–139.
11.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about the responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129–136.
12.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.
13.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness to instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–228.
14.
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.
15.
HaagerD.KlingnerJ.VaughnS. (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore: Brookes.
16.
HealeyW. C. (2005). The learning disability phenomenon in pursuit of axioms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 115–118.
17.
HollenbeckA. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness-to intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 137–146.
18.
HooverJ. J.PattonJ. R. (2008). The role of special educators in a multitiered instructional system. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 195–202.
19.
HospJ. L. (2008). Curriculum-based measurement for mathematics: Assessment for effective intervention. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 196–197.
20.
Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act [IDEA] (2004). 20 U.S.C.A. 1400 et seq.
21.
KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (2005). Special education: What it is and why we need it. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
KavaleK. A.SpauldingL. S. (2008). Is Response to Intervention good policy for specific learning disability?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 169–179.
23.
KavaleK. A.SpauldingL. S.BeamA. P. (2009). A time to define: Making the specific learning disability definition prescribe specific learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 39–48.
24.
KirkS. A. (1962). Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
25.
KirkS. A.BatemanB. (1962). Diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 29, 73–78.
26.
MarstonD. (2005). Tiers of intervention in Responsiveness to Intervention: Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 539–544.
27.
McDonnellJ.O'NeillR. (2003). A perspective on single/within subject research methods and “scientifically based research.”Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 138–142.
28.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2008). Data tools: Search for public school districts, Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/datatools
29.
O'ConnorR. E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 43–54.
30.
ProctorB.PrevattF. (2003). Agreement among four models used for diagnosing learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 459–466.
31.
ReschlyD. J. (2005). LD identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, then what?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510–515.
32.
ReschlyD. J.HospJ. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–213.
33.
ReschlyD. J.YsseldykeJ. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 3–20). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
34.
ReynoldsC. R.ShaywitzS. E. (2009). Response to Intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait to fail to watch them fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145.
35.
SmithA. (2003). Scientifically based research and evidence-based education: A federal policy context. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 126–132.
36.
SteckerP. M. (2006). Using curriculum-based measurement to monitor reading progress in inclusive elementary settings. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 91–97.
37.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum- based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 128–134.
38.
SteckerP. M.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2008). Progress monitoring as essential practice within response to intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27, 10–17.
39.
TawneyJ. W.GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in education. New York: Merrill.
40.
TorgesenJ.AlexanderA.WagnerR.RashotteC.VoellerK.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities34, 33–58.
41.
VanDerHeydenA. M.WittJ. C.GilbertsonD. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
42.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
43.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.TanzmanM.S. (1998). The case for early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 367–397.
44.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS.ChenR.PrattA.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
WillsonV. L. (1987). Statistical and psychometric issues surrounding severe discrepancy. Learning Disabilities Research, 3(1), 24–28.
47.
ZigmondN. (1993). Learning disabilities from an educational perspective. In LyonG. R.GrayD. B.KavanaughJ. F.KrasnegorN. A. (Eds.), Better understanding learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 251–272). Baltimore: Brookes.
