This article was downloaded by: [Erciyes University]

On: 14 January 2015, At: 14:55

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for

Children and Youth
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vpsf20

The ABCs of RTI: An Introduction to the Building Blocks

of Response to Intervention
a b
Kimberly Ann Turse & Susan Fread Albrecht
a
Gill St. Bernard's School, Gladstone, NJ, USA
b
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Published online: 13 Jan 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Kimberly Ann Turse & Susan Fread Albrecht (2015) The ABCs of RTI: An Introduction to the Building
Blocks of Response to Intervention, Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59:2, 83-89, DOI:
10.1080/1045988X.2013.837813

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.837813

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Preventing School Failure, 59(2), 83–89, 2015
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1045-988X print / 1940-4387 online

DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2013.837813

The ABCs of RTI: An Introduction to the Building Blocks

of Response to Intervention
KIMBERLY ANN TURSE1 and SUSAN FREAD ALBRECHT2
1
Gill St. Bernard’s School, Gladstone, NJ, USA
2
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 14:55 14 January 2015

The change in allowing school districts to use the more prevalent discrepancy model or the new addition of response to intervention
to determine whether a disability is present has sparked discussion among educators. As districts decide which method to use, it is
important to base decisions on factual and researched information. The authors hope to convey a clearer understanding of response
to intervention, issues that still need to be addressed, and how the model could work. This piece includes an overview of response-to-
intervention levels or tiers and what can occur for the student within each level. The advantages and current concerns are discussed
as well as the quality of instruction that is needed for this model to be implemented effectively.
Keywords: IDEA 2004, learning disabilities, response to intervention, RTI, tiers

A is for Addition B is for Broken

Response to intervention (RTI) was added to the Individu-
als With Disabilities Education Act in 2004 as an alternative
evaluation procedure. RTI is a “process designed to identify
struggling learners early, to provide access to needed interven-
tions, and to help identify children with disabilities” (Council
for Exceptional Children, 2008, p. 1). RTI has two main goals:
The first is to deliver evidence-based interventions and the
second is to use students’ response to those interventions
as a basis for determining instructional needs and intensity.
Special education eligibility decisions can be a product of
these efforts, but is not the primary goal (East, 2006, p. 1).
The data and information collected throughout the multi-
ple tiers can be reviewed and used in the last step, eligibility for
special education services. Defining characteristics of RTI in-
clude the use of research based instruction and interventions,
early screening, continual monitoring of progress by collecting
data on every child, tiered levels of increasingly more inten-
sive instruction, and a collaborative team approach. Fuchs
and Deshler (2007) observed, “We see RTI as potentially pro-
viding both strong early intervention and more valid means of
disability identification – not just one or the other” (p. 131).
Address correspondence to Kimberly Ann Turse, Department of
Learning, Gill St. Bernard’s School, St. Bernard’s Road, Glad-
stone, NJ 07853, USA. E-mail: kturse@comcast.net
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can
be found online at www.tandfonline.com/vpsf.
The wait-to-fail identification process can be faulted on several
counts. Struggling students require assistance earlier rather
than later. The wait-to-fail system is a byproduct of the IQ-
achievement discrepancy model, requiring a student to “ex-
hibit a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellec-
tual ability” (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2012, p. 140).
This prolongs the period of struggle and makes it “difficult
to identify students as having a learning disability until at
least the third grade” (National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities, 2005, p. 6). An added complication is that each
state creates an independent discrepancy formula. The lack of
consistency among states could have a significant effect on a
child’s education. “Discrepancy formulas differ from state to
state, making it possible for a student to lose special education
services following a family move” (Lyon et al., 2001, p. 266).
C is for Codes
For a clear understanding of certain terms in this article, the
following are definitions:
Collaboration: An approach in which specialists (e.g., general
education and special education teachers, related services
providers, administrators) work together sharing their ex-
pertise to teach the student.
Curriculum-Based Assessments: A formative evaluation
method designed to evaluate performance in the curricu-
lum to which students are instructed.
Disproportional: The extent to which membership in a given
(ethnic, socioeconomic linguistic, or gender) group affects
 84
the probability of a student being identified in a specific
disability category (Artiles, Kozleski, & Trent, 2010).
Evidence-Based: Empirical research has been conducted, and
the strategy, method or program was found to have a veri-
fiable positive effect on student learning.
Screening: The method used to decide whether a student
should receive additional assistance or more detailed as-
sessment.
D is for Disagreement
Frustration in implementing the RTI process can be partially
connected to the mixed messages sent to school districts. The
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and No Child
Left Behind statutes vary on their visions of how RTI should
be implemented and the reasoning behind the use of it. The In-
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 14:55 14 January 2015
dividuals With Disabilities Education Act entitles all students
with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate public ed-
ucation and favors a standard protocol approach. No Child
Left Behind is a federal legislation that establishes the need
for standards and accountability to improve student perfor-
mance, following a problem-solving approach. Fuchs, Fuchs,
and Stecker (2010) compare and contrast the two models as
indicated in Figure 1.
E is for Equal
Though there are variations in models of RTI, the Individuals
With Disabilities Education Act, and No Child Left Behind
agree on a few points. Both see the importance of early identi-
fication to identify and provide support to struggling learners.
Also, both use a tiered system, usually involving three tiers,
with each tier involving implementation of more intensive,
individualized intervention. Last, the two models agree that
there must be a monitoring of progress component to RTI.
F is for Findings
To identify the students who need access to additional assis-
tance, an initial screening process is completed for all students.
By locating students who are considered at-risk learners school
personnel can begin to provide these students with research-
based early intervention. This avoids the wait-to-fail mental-
ity that currently exists in many schools. Fuchs, Fuchs, and
Compton (2012) outline a two-stage screening process:
Stage I
Screening is conducted to omit students who without a doubt
are not at risk of failing in the general education curriculum.
This is accomplished by establishing a high benchmark for a
passing score.
Turse and Albrecht
IDEA standard protocol approach NCLB problem-solving approach
Special education plays an important role in Special education and general education need
RTI which occurs in Tier 3 with special to comingle to have full inclusion.
educators considered experts in an “The touchstone concept is that general
individualized curriculum. education is expandable; special education –
in lesser or greater degrees – is expendable”
(p. 308).
Reasoning for RTI: a) early intervention; Reasoning for RTI: a) “standards-driven
b) method to identify students with general education reform” (p. 303); b)
disabilities vs. low achieving students disappearance of special education labels
Tier I: Tier I:
a) A screening step in general education a) Teacher differentiates instruction to
b) All students should be screened to find personalize learning for all students.
at-risk pupils.
c) Teacher instructs all students with
evidence-based instruction.
Tier 2: Tier 2:
a) Students who do not progress in Tier I a) “A teacher with a difficult-to-teach
move to Tier 2 student meets with the building
assistance team, which helps select,
b) Small group instruction with standard
scripted protocols implement, and determine the
c) Focused on skill development effectiveness of an intervention” (p.
313).
b) Instruction continues to be personalized
Tier 3: (Special Education) Tier 3:
a) Curriculum is modified and a) Hone or revamp intervention by using
individualized problem solving approach from Tier II
b) Teach strategies and monitor progress b) Instruction continues to be personalized
c) Classification determined
Fig. 1. Comparison of RTI approaches.
Stage II
Students who failed the first screening are given a more com-
prehensive screening to distinguish at-risk students from stu-
dents initially screened as false-positives. A student identified
as a false-positive is one who has been identified as needing
services but really does not.
G is for Ground Level
RTI can be structured with as many tiers as a district warrants,
but most models currently involve three tiers. The National Re-
search Center on Learning Disabilities (2005) model provides
a fundamental description of what should occur within each
tier. Initially, all students are screened, and teachers are aware
of which students are considered at risk. The ground level tier
 The ABCs of Rti 85

(Tier 1) features the use of high-quality teaching in the gen-

eral education classroom using evidence-based instructional
strategies. Instruction is differentiated on the basis of data
the teacher has collected on each student. Data collection al-
lows a teacher to monitor and assess students frequently using
curriculum-based assessments. Data analysis enables educa-
tors to determine whether certain students need to transition
to Tier 2.

H is for Higher

The purpose of the second tier is to provide more focused

intervention or remediation while the child is in the general
education classroom or in small, pull-aside groups. The move
to Tier 2 is based on progress monitoring data that has been
collected by the teacher in Tier 1. The determination has been Fig. 2. Continuum of schoolwide instructional and positive be-
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 14:55 14 January 2015

made that the child is not progressing at a rate that enables the
student to catch up to the learning level of his peers. At this
point, a team of professionals work together to design a plan
for the student to target weaknesses with selected interven-
tions. In addition, parents are part of the planning and receive
feedback about their child’s progress or lack thereof. Special
education teachers provide support to the general education
classroom teachers on how to implement more specialized
interventions. The interventions that are put into place are as-
sessed to see whether they are working or need to be modified
to support student learning.
I is for Intensity
Tier 3 is the most intensive tier in terms of instruction focused
on an individual student. At this level, the instructor may
modify the adopted curriculum or use special curriculum-
based programming. A multidisciplinary team may determine
a child is eligible for special education services and support.
At Tier 3, the child is receiving the most concentrated eval-
uation of his learning strengths and weaknesses and the best
individualized approach to satisfy learning needs.
J is for Journey
Each of the three tiers has been explained, but it is crucial
that educators look at the process as a journey, represented
in the graphic design in Figure 2. This visual representation
illustrates the percentage of students that can be expected
to respond to a well-thought-out and implemented Tier 1
screening and programming and Tier 2 targeted support. This
will equate to fewer students reaching Tier 3 and possibly re-
ferred for a full psychoeducational evaluation. At any time,
however, a student may be referred for evaluation to deter-
mine a possible educational disability. In the long run RTI
may save resources for those students who would benefit the
most from an early, comprehensive program of instruction and
intervention.
havior support (U.S. Office of Special Education Programs Na-
tional and Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports, n.d.).
K is for Kids
RTI is implemented with kids in mind. Kids are unique indi-
viduals with different learning styles, abilities, and attributes.
Since kids are very different, it is beneficial to have a multidisci-
plinary team available to work together. Team members with
varied backgrounds, expertise, and disciplinary training can
assist in dealing with the whole child rather than one aspect
of the child’s development. At any point in the RTI process,
individuals such as the following could be involved:
• Administrator
• General classroom teacher
• Guidance counselor
• Nurse or physician
• Occupational therapist
• Paraprofessional
• Parent
• Physical therapist
• Reading specialist
• School psychologist
• Special education teacher
• Speech-language pathologist
• Social worker
• Student
L is for Listening
An important piece to RTI is listening to parents because this
dialogue can provide valuable information about the child.
A strong parent–school relationship can support the student
in both the home and school environments. This relation-
ship becomes imperative at the second and third tiers of the
RTI process. At Tier 2, “Parents are informed and included
in the planning and monitoring of their child’s progress in
Tier 2 specialized interventions” (National Joint Committee
 86
on Learning Disabilities, 2005, p. 4). If the child is trans-
ferred from the second to third tier and considered for special
education evaluation, the “parents are informed of their
due process rights and consent is obtained for the com-
prehensive evaluation needed to determine whether the stu-
dent has a disability and is eligible for special education”
(National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2005,
p. 4).
M is for Minimize
Identifying a child who needs educational support sooner than
later enable the teacher to address the student’s weaknesses at
a time when the most growth is possible. One positive outcome
of this early intervention is that the total number of students la-
beled falsely as students with disabilities should be minimized.
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 14:55 14 January 2015
Under the IQ-discrepancy method, “it is difficult to identify
students as having [learning disabilities] until at least the third
grade” (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities,
2005). As noted by Mercer and Pullen (2009), “longitudinal
studies show that if children with reading disabilities are not
identified until the third grade or beyond, about 74% will con-
tinue to manifest reading deficits throughout their school and
adult years” (p. 461).
N is for Not Failing
Receiving early intervention through the RTI process has of-
ten been associated with reading. By identifying and working
with students earlier reading problems during later periods
of development can be reduced. Children who have reading
difficulties may enter the earlier grades lacking certain skills
which have been found to be the keys to making good readers.
“Important evidence that explicit instruction in letter-sound
correspondences can prevent reading under achievement in
children at risk for reading failure because of poor phonologi-
cal awareness at school entry or a lack of literacy experiences in
the home environment” (Swanson, Harris, & Graham, 2003,
p. 276). A child’s reading that is frustration-provoking and
laborious not only impedes decoding and comprehension but
makes the child less likely to want to practice these skills to
address areas of weakness. “Both phonological awareness and
naming speed deficits impede reading acquisition at the lex-
ical level, and the existence of both deficits in combination
is known to constitute a risk factor for more severe forms of
reading disability” (Swanson et al., 2003, p. 279). Reading is
an important skill to enhance success in all academic domains
and to avoid unnecessary failure in school.
O is for Order
For students to be more successful, they must have early in-
struction and, if necessary, intervention in acquiring skills in
developmental order. Building up key reading skills can elim-
inate or reduce the number of students identified for special
Turse and Albrecht
education. “There is substantial evidence that early identi-
fication and intervention in kindergarten and Grade 1 may
substantially reduce the number of children that might oth-
erwise be eligible for special services” (Lyon et al., 2001, p.
276). Skill development in the foundational areas of reading
is critical for success, particularly for students with significant
developmental delays. Coupled with systematic data collec-
tion and analysis, progress in the attainment of early skills can
be achieved:
Focused and systematic intervention, measurable progress
in phonological reading skills can be achieved throughout
the elementary school years even with the most severely
disabled readers. (Swanson et al., 2003, p. 278).
P is for Proportion
Early intervention has a positive probability of reducing not
only the number of special education referrals but also the
mislabeling of students who are currently disproportionally
represented as meeting special education eligibility criteria. A
current issue in disproportionality is the overrepresentation
of certain ethnic groups identified with a learning disability.
In particular, Hallahan and Mock (2003) note that “African
American and Hispanic students are disproportionately iden-
tified as learning disabled” (p. 27). There may be possible
reasons for this overrepresentation in these populations of
students. These individuals may have had limited early expo-
sure to literacy activities and materials. Another possibility
is that English is not the student’s native language, and yet
another is potential cultural bias in current assessment pro-
cedures. Last, “recent findings suggest early and persistent
exposure to poverty has negative developmental outcomes”
(Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2002, p. 6) A disparity be-
tween affluent and poverty stricken areas exist. Disparities in
“funding practices result in inequalities in staffing, teacher
salaries, quality of teachers and principals, and conditions of
teaching” (p. 6) can negatively affect learning. Although any
of these factors can impede learning, “studies have found that
RTI has lowered the proportion of minority students identi-
fied as having learning disabilities” (National Joint Committee
on Learning Disabilities, 2005, p. 12).
Q is for Quality
Quality of instruction is an essential component involved
within each tier of the response-to-intervention structure. It is
necessary that educators use materials, methods and tools that
are validated by research to ensure that what they are using
with students is appropriate for that student’s issues. There is
and should be flexibility for an educator to choose the tools,
as long as they are evidence-based and best meet the needs of
the student.
At the initial level, Tier 1, screening tools are used to
identify students which may not have a certain skill set that
has been deemed important. The screening tools used “must
be reliable, valid, and demonstrate diagnostic accuracy for
 The ABCs of Rti
predicting which students will develop learning or behavioral
difficulties” (National Center on Response to Intervention,
2010, p. 5). If screening tools are not reliable, valid, and ac-
curate some students may be overlooked, whereas others may
simply not need the intervention that they are receiving.
As students progress to the next level, Tier 2, evidence-
based curriculum and interventions are used to pinpoint and
address student gaps. Once evidence-based materials are iden-
tified, it is crucial that implementation corresponds with how
the program or tool was designed to be used with students.
The interventions need to be “defined in terms of duration,
frequency, and length of sessions, and the intervention is con-
ducted as it was in the research studies” (National Center on
Response to Intervention, 2010, p. 6). If a student is still not
making adequate attainment of skills, he or she moves to Tier 3
for more intensive intervention. Evidence-based materials are
still used, but other modifications of how the interventions are
used take place. This can take the form of “longer sessions,
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 14:55 14 January 2015
smaller group size, more frequent sessions” (National Center
on Response to Intervention, 2010, p. 11). Quality instruction
and materials at each level help students work toward making
appropriate strides toward established standards.
R is for Responsibility
It is the responsibility of educators, with proper training and
support, to implement proven instructional strategies with fi-
delity so that students are not found eligible for special educa-
tion when their delays in educational development are due to
reasons other than disabilities such as lack of instruction using
evidence-based practices. Labeling a child as having a disabil-
ity can be “stigmatizing, but it can also deny individuals the
high-quality and life-enhancing education to which they are
entitled” (Artiles et al., 2002, p. 4). In addition, falsely iden-
tifying students as having disabilities when they do not have
learning issues takes away resources, instructional time, and
more intensive programming for those who do have identified
learning disabilities.
S is for Structured
To be successful, RTI needs to be structured and clear to all
stakeholders. Components of the RTI program should be well
outlined, so individuals know their roles and how to perform
them. Some of the components of the RTI model that must
be addressed and structured are as follows:
• Clear roles for personnel
• Comprehensive program for grades K–12
• Descriptions of each tier and what will take place within
that tier
• Established timelines
• Establishment of forms and materials that will be used for
instruction, screening, and monitoring
• Information for parents
• Toolboxes that support faculty in making decisions
87
T is for Trying
Schools searching for a set, required RTI model to try will not
be able to locate one. There are current schools and agencies
which have designed RTI models to meet their own district’s
needs. Districts needs to analyze what their current needs are
and determine whether their needs are better met with a stan-
dards protocol model or a problem-solving approach model.
Refer to earlier figure one.
A problem-solving approach model was used by the Heart-
land Area Educational Agency within the Iowa Public school
system. Their approach is outlined in Figure 3. An overarch-
ing characteristic of this approach is that decisions are student
driven. Each individual student’s current level and needs are
addressed, creating a very personalized learning experience.
Whereas, the standards based model uses:
a set of standard research-based interventions usually im-
plemented in two, three, or four tiers or levels. In contrast
to the problem-solving model, the interventions occur in
a natural progression from tier to tier, and are similar for
all students experiencing the same learning problems rather
than being specially designed for each individual student.
(Bender & Shores, 2007, p. 12)
U is for Unresolved
For RTI to be effectively implemented more direction is needed
to resolve the following issues:
• How does an educator determine whether a child moves up
or down the tiers? Time period? Cutoff established?
• Who will provide instruction, and what type of interven-
tions will be provided at each level?
• What is the funding source to support RTI?
• How do teachers, staff, and administrators obtain the train-
ing to implement RTI successfully?
• Who is responsible for examining and choosing research-
based interventions, and how are these decisions made?
Training? Time? Funding?
• How does RTI apply to upper grades and subject domains
besides reading?
• Is RTI effective?
Answers to these questions should be generated by the RTI
development team before the implementation of the model.
Only when anticipated questions have been answered and an
integrated model developed should an RTI program be insti-
tuted.
V is for Validity
In consideration of RTI, as a relatively new concept in
education, “research on large-scale implementation of RTI
will be necessary to determine the efficacy of RTI” (Na-
tional Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2005, p.
7). At present, more information needs to be gathered and
 88
Heartland (Iowa) educational agency
which employs doctoral/masters level
special education teachers and school
psychologists
4-level problem solving model with
goal to “provide educational assistance
in a timely manner.” (p.163)
Level 1: educator consults with parents
to solve behavior or academic issues
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 14:55 14 January 2015
Level 2: teacher and BAT (Building
Assistance Team) decide on what
interventions to use and how to monitor
Level 3: if child does not respond to
level 2 – Heartland personnel step help
to “use behavioral problem solving to
refine or redesign the intervention and
coordinate its implementation from that
point on” (p.163).
Level 4: eligible for special education
services, but will not be labeled
Each level consistently addresses the
problem, instills an intervention and
monitors responsiveness of the student
Fig. 3. Example of a problem-solving approach model.
analyzed to say definitively that RTI can improve student
learning:
The absence of such evidence weakens an important as-
sumption among RTI advocates, namely, that RTI provides
feasible, timely, and effective interventions. Only feasible,
timely, and effective interventions permit one to claim that
RTI is preventive for many, and that it distinguishes strug-
gling students with disabilities from others struggling be-
Turse and Albrecht
cause of inadequate prior instruction. (Fuchs, Mock, Mor-
gan, & Young, 2003, p. 166)
It can be anticipated that effective RTI programs will pro-
vide needed instruction to many students who are failing to
keep pace in academic achievement with their peers.
W is for Work in Progress
RTI is currently a work in progress. There are a few issues that
need to be contemplated regarding RTI so that wider imple-
mentation can take place within school districts. It is difficult
to research the effectiveness of RTI because there is no stan-
dard model currently being implemented and great variability
exists between models. Another concern deals with students
who are considered twice exceptional, having a learning dis-
ability and also considered gifted and talented in one or more
areas. Using the RTI method could prevent these students
from receiving services because “by compensating with their
intellectual strengths [they] often manage to achieve within the
normal range and . . . make academic progress consistent with
their abilities” (American Speech-Language-Hearing Associa-
tion, 2005, p. 7). Current financial struggles being experienced
by school districts could pose a problem to the implementa-
tion of RTI. Many of the current models incorporate small-
group instruction. Using this approach may require the hiring
of additional staff. Funds are needed to purchase evidence-
based materials, screening tools, and program supplies. An
additional issue is locating space within the school building
to conduct small-group instruction and to warehouse needed
materials. Districts may need to reallocate teachers, funding,
and space to accommodate the implementation of RTI.
X is for eXclude
Mindful consideration to these additional concerns needs to
be thought out, the first being time. Proper time is essential
for RTI to be accepted by the instructional staff. Many new
initiatives are heaped upon staff with little time to converse,
plan, and implement. Time is needed for staff to problem-
solve collaboratively. Planning time is needed during the initial
stages as well as when screening and monitoring of students
is started. Time will need to be set aside for staff to complete
paperwork regarding the recording and analyzing of student
data. Time is necessary to train staff adequately. The exclusion
of adequate time allotted for planning and implementing an
RTI program can compromise the effectiveness of the program
and the staff support for the model.
Y is for Year
Year after year, more reference materials will be pub-
lished about RTI. The reference list for this article includes
representative and current thinking about RTI. Studies of ef-
fectiveness of particular RTI models are needed to move this
concept forward and to determine its validity in remediating
the academic skills of struggling learners and thus reducing
the number of students identified with learning disabilities.
 The ABCs of Rti
For now, though, RTI appears to be a promising concept for
improving the educational outcomes of all students.
Z is for Zoom
For additional information, readers are encouraged to zoom
to these resources:
• http://www.rtinetwork.org
For definition of RTI, professional development & descrip-
tions of tiers
• http://www.interventioncentral.org
For RTI teacher resources
• http://nichcy.org/schools-administrators/rti
For elements and models of RTI, RTI and families, RTI
and state resources, and information about RTI in Spanish.
• http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=2
For RTI math intervention materials
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 14:55 14 January 2015
• http://reading.org/downloads/resources/rti0707
implications.pdf
For reading teachers and their role in RTI
• http://www.rti4success.org/progressMonitoringTools
For assistance in locating progress monitoring materials
Author notes
Kimberly Ann Turse, EdM, is a National Board Certified
Teacher and full-time learning specialist at Gill St. Bernard’s
School. Her interests include multiple intelligences and strate-
gies based instruction.
Susan Fread Albrecht, EdD, NCSP, is a part-time on-line lec-
turer at Rutgers University. Her research interests include spe-
cial education teacher retention and social skills training for
students with EBD.
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (June, 2005). Re-
sponsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. National
Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.ldanatl.org/pdf/rti2005.pdf
Artiles, A. J., Harry, B., Reschly, D. J, & Chinn, P. C. (2002). Over-
identification of students of color in special education: A critical
overview. Multicultural Perspectives, 4, 3–10.
89
Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B, & Trent, S. C. (2010). Justifying and explain-
ing disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of
culture. Exceptional Children, 76, 279–299.
Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. F. (2007). Response to interven-
tion: A practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2008). Policy manual: Section four,
part 3. Arlington, VA: Author.
East, B. (2006). Myths about response to intervention (RTI) implemen-
tation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of
Special Education. Retrieved from http://rtinetwork.org
Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. (2007). What we need to know about respon-
siveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-
generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children,
78, 263–279.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S, & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special
education in a new continuum of general education placements and
services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P., & Young, C. (2003). Responsiveness-to-
intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning
disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18,
157–171.
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2012). Exceptional
learners: An introduction to special education (12th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Hallahan, D. P., & Mock, D. P. (2003). A brief history of the field of
learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham
(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 16–27). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen,
J. K., Wood, F. B., . . . Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning dis-
abilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rohterham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.),
Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Wash-
ington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive
Policy Institute.
Mercer, C. D., & Pullen, P. C. (2009). Students with learning disabilities
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010, April). Essential
components of RTI: A closer look at response to intervention. Re-
trieved from http://www.rti4success.org
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Re-
sponsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities (technical
report). Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/
RTI%20Final%20August%202005.pdf.
Swanson, H. L., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2003). Handbook of learn-
ing disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs National and Technical As-
sistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.aea267.k12.ia.us/learning-
supports/pbis/