See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267940366

A Review of RtI (Response to Intervention) Process and How It Is Implemented

in Our Public School System

Article

CITATIONS READS

2 729

1 author:

Volkan Cicek
Zirve University
31 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Volkan Cicek on 14 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN 1539-8072
January 2012, Vol. 9, No. 1, 846-855
D DAVID PUBLISHING

A Review of RtI (Response to Intervention) Process and How It Is

Implemented in Our Public School System

Volkan Cicek
Ishik University, Irbil, Iraq

RtI (Response to Intervention) process is implemented in each and every U.S. kindergarten thru 12 public schools
and it is the major intervention program before the students are identified as students eligible for special education
services, English as a Second Language services, Bilingual Education services, services provided under Section
504, and services for Gifted and Talented students, which are all major educational programs that are subject to
direct or indirect extra funding. In this review, legal aspects of RtI Program currently implemented in kindergarten
thru 12 U.S. Public School System that may be applicable to educational systems of other regions and countries are
discussed within the context of legal basis as well as instructional basis, program objectives, 3-tier RtI Model,
assessments, progress monitoring, curriculum based measurement, using an RtI model to address behavioral
concerns, personnel legally accountable for RtI process, and referral.

Keywords: intervention, tier, paraprofessional, screening

Basis
Legal Basis
NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and 2004 IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) both focus on
prevention, fund intervention for at-risk students, use assessment to drive instruction, provide instruction for K-3
students, including K-12 special education, and provide professional development for teachers.
Although no state or federal funds are specifically appropriated for RtI (Response to Intervention)
implementation, several funding sources such as academic funds, which related to drop-outs and special
education services may appropriately be accessed by districts to support this initiative. Examples for academic
funds are ARI/AMI (Accelerated Reading Instruction/Accelerated Math Instruction), and Reading First;
examples for funds related to drop-outs are Compensatory Education Funds, High School Allotment; and
examples for funds related to special education services are up to 15% of funds allotted by IDEA-B Early
Intervening Services, and Title I, Part A funds.
Legal requirements for RtI are usually translated by states roughly into following procedures: (1)
monitoring a student’s progress in the general curriculum using appropriate screenings or tests (assessments); (2)
choosing and implementing scientifically proven interventions to address a student’s learning problems; (3)
following formal guidelines to decide which students are not making sufficient progress or responding to the

Volkan Cicek, Dr., lecturer at Faculty of Education, Ishik University.

 A REVIEW OF RTI (RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION) PROCESS 847

intervention; (4) monitoring how the student responds to the intervention by using assessments (at least once a
week or once every two weeks); (5) making sure the interventions are provided accurately and consistently; (6)
determining the level of support that a student needs in order to be successful; and (7) giving parents notice of a
referral and a request to conduct a formal evaluation if a disability is suspected as required by IDEA.
Instructional Basis
Students need and benefit from a close match of their current skills and abilities with the instructional and
curricular choices provided in the classroom. When a mismatch occurs, student learning and outcomes are
negatively affected. For some students, typical classroom instruction is appropriate and meets their needs. For
some, however, such instruction does not lead to success; the sooner that struggling students are identified and
taught appropriately, the higher the likelihood that they can be successful. Statistically, 40% of students
identified as SLD (specific learning disabled) do not need special education services. The effect size for SLD
(specific learning disability) programs is only 0.29. Once children are two years behind in reading, there is small
chance they will ever catch up.
At its essence, RtI is about progress monitoring and data-driven decision making. While frequently
monitoring student progress and differentiating instruction as needed, educators are able to more easily identify
students at risk for failure or struggling with regular education.
RtI models frequently measure the extent to which students are responding to instruction, and provide a
continuum of interventions that become increasingly intensive and individualized as needed. RtI could provide
critical information about the instructional needs of the student, which can be used to create effective educational
interventions, particularly in reading, prior to placement in special education. Use of RtI could limit the amount
of unnecessary testing that has little or no instructional relevance.
Information and data gathered via RtI model with an emphasis on differentiating learning for and meeting
the needs of all students can lead to earlier identification of children who have true disabilities and are in need of
special education services, thus reduce the time a student waits before receiving additional instructional
assistance. RtI process can also reduce the overall number of students referred for special education services who
are mistakenly identified as having learning disabilities for instance when their learning problems are actually
due to cultural differences or lack of adequate instruction.
On the other hand, use of RtI process could increase the number of students who succeed within general
education. RtI can be used in any content area and in any grade level from kindergarten thru 12th level. However,
it is most commonly used for reading and mathematics and in elementary schools. To summarize; RtI (1)
validates the effectiveness of teaching, (2) determines deficit areas immediately, (3) allows teachers to set
individual goals and determine progress at any time, (4) evidences student growth with data, and (5) gives
teachers the ability to track progress over time

Objectives
Objectives of RtI process are: (1) to provide high-quality assessment driven differentiated instruction and
research-based and peer-reviewed interventions matched to student needs; (2) to document the rate of learning
over time and level of performance, progress monitoring; and (3) to make important educational decisions via a
problem-solving team.
848 A REVIEW OF RTI (RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION) PROCESS

Program solving team does (1) identify and analyze the problem (collect baseline data); (2) generate
hypothesis and possible intervention strategies; (3) design an Intervention Plan that clearly delineates procedures
to be used during an intervention; (4) implement the intervention plan with data collection; and (5)
analyze/evaluate the data, inform parents via frequent reports about progress and review/revise plan as needed.
RtI is not, as stated in U.S. Department of Education regulations, (1) a way to blame or evaluate teachers for
poor results with students; (2) a two-tier system (general education and special education) retrofitted as a three-tier
system (general education, title one, special education); (3) a “prereferral system”—bide your time, fill out a form,
talk about data—then get the referral into special education; (4) a box to check in the “met” form: “the student has
been given opportunities to learn; (5) waiting longer for special education to get involved; (6) just a process to
determine special education eligibility, but is about responsive instruction to all students; (7) using the same old
tools that are not aligned with instruction; and (8) just taking more data and putting it in the student’s file.

Tier RtI Model

The RtI process is a multi-step approach to providing services and interventions to students who struggle
with learning at increasing levels of intensity. 3-Tier Model is based on prevention models from the health field.
First of all, universal screening is done by school personnel early in the school year to determine which students
are “at risk” for not meeting grade level standards. Universal screening can be accomplished by reviewing a
student’s recent performance on state or district tests or by administering an academic screening to all students in
a given grade. Students whose scores on the screening fall below a certain cutoff point are identified as needing
continued progress monitoring and possibly more intensive interventions.
Tier I: Core Classroom Instruction or Screening and Group Interventions
This level represents general classroom instruction in which highly qualified educators apply scientifically
based programs, interventions, and strategies. Student progress is monitored regularly to track progress and
differentiate instruction. This is the universal level and about 80% of students will be well served at this level.
Students who are “at-risk” are identified using universal screenings and/or results on state or district-wide tests
and could include weekly progress monitoring of all students for a brief period. Identified students receive
supplemental instruction or interventions, generally delivered in small groups during the student’s regular school
day in the regular classroom. The length of time for this step can vary, but it generally should not exceed eight
weeks. During that time, student progress is closely monitored using a validated screening system such as
curriculum based measurement (see below). At the end of this period, students showing significant progress are
generally returned to the regular classroom program. Students not showing adequate progress are moved to Tier II.
Tier II: Supplemental Instruction or Targeted Interventions
This is the targeted level and about 15% of the students in any school experience significant difficulty in the
general education setting. Results from assessments taken in Tier I may suggest these students are at risk for
academic difficulties. If so, more intensive services and targeted Tier II interventions are applied within the
general education classroom to help these students catch up to their peers. Progress is monitored frequently to
gauge how well students are responding to the interventions, and to aid in decision making about each student’s
educational path. These interventions are provided in small group settings. In the early grades (K-3) interventions
 A REVIEW OF RTI (RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION) PROCESS 849

are usually in the areas of reading and math. A longer period of time may be required for this tier, but it should
generally not exceed a grading period. Students who continue to show too little progress at this level of
intervention are then considered for more intensive interventions as part of Tier III. Depending on a school’s
particular model of RtI, parents may or may not be involved in Tier II. Ideally, schools involve parents at the
earliest stages of RtI by explaining the process in face-to-face meetings, providing written intervention plans, and
requesting parental consent.
Tier III: Instruction for Intensive Intervention and Comprehensive Evaluation
If students do not respond well to Tier II interventions applied within the general education classroom, they
may be referred for intensive, one-on-one interventions or special education services at Tier III. About 5% of a
school’s population is included at this level. Students receive individualized and intensive interventions that
target the student’s skill deficits. Students who do not respond to these targeted interventions are then considered
for eligibility as required by the IDEA. The data collected during Tiers I, II, and III are included and used to make
the eligibility decision.
Assessments
A 3-Tier Model uses assessments in different ways; In Tier I, assessments given three times per year are
used to guide instructional decision-making (e.g., to determine whether students are making adequate progress
toward grade-level benchmarks or objectives) and to identify students who need intervention. Classroom teachers
provide Tier I core classroom content area instruction for all students. A variety of student grouping formats (e.g.,
individual, pairs, small groups, and whole group) are recommended for Tier I stage.
In Tiers II and III, frequent progress monitoring (e.g., every two weeks) is used to track student progress and
inform instruction that usually takes up to 10 to 14 weeks as a total. Each school determines who teaches students in
Tier II (e.g., classroom teacher, specialized teacher) and Tier III intervention (e.g., specialized teacher, special
education teacher). Same-ability small groups (e.g., three to five students) are recommended for Tier II and same
ability small groups of three or fewer students depending on the student needs are recommended for Tier III stages.
Progress Monitoring
Progress monitoring is a scientifically based practice used to assess students’ academic performance and
evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. Progress monitoring can be implemented with individual students or an
entire class. The student’s academic performance is measured on a regular basis (weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly).
Progress toward meeting the student’s goals is measured by comparing expected and actual rates of learning.
Based on these measurements, teaching is adjusted as needed. Whatever method of progress monitoring a school
decides to use, it is most important that it is a scientifically based practice that is supported by significant research.
Progress Monitoring provides (1) accelerated learning due to appropriate instruction, (2) informed instructional
decisions, (3) effective communication with families and other professionals about students’ progress, (4) high
expectations for students by teachers, (5) appropriate special education referrals, and (6) documentation of
student progress for accountability purposes.
Curriculum Based Measurement
Curriculum based measurement is one way of tracking and recording a child’s progress in specific learning
areas such as pre-reading, reading, spelling, mathematics, and written expression especially in lower grades.
850 A REVIEW OF RTI (RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION) PROCESS

Using curriculum based measurement teachers regularly assess students’ performance (e.g., each week) using
very brief and simple tests. The results help teachers determine whether students are learning well from their
instructional program. Curriculum based measurement results also provide the teacher with the information
needed to tailor instruction for a particular student.
Don’ts of RtI Intervention Plan
As in many other instructional programs, RtI program also has the risk of being ignored and swept under the
carpet by teachers, administrators, and so on. Evidences of such a negative approach displays itself from the way
that the program is handled. Bad administration of RtI program would mean that the program is not taken
seriously and seen only as some numbers to fill out in the respective forms. Examples of such bad
implementations of the program are: (1) special or re-assigned seating in the classroom, (2) shortened
assignments, (3) communications with the parent about the child at regular parent-teacher conferences or other
informal communications, (4) classroom observations, (5) suspension, (6) retention, and (7) more of the
same/general classroom instruction and/or assignments.
Sample RtI Plan
In the light of aforementioned criteria, a general RtI plan that is not tailored for specific needs of the student
shall look like as the following.
Tier I. Focus. High quality instructional and behavioral supports are provided to all students.
Program. Curriculum of the region focused on Essential Knowledge and Skills.
Grouping. Various grouping formats and differentiated instruction are utilized to meet individual student needs.
Time. Tier I interenvetion is implemented during regular core curriculum classroom period that is ongoing
throughout the academic year.
Assessment. Benchmark assessments during the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of the academic
year, three times yearly, are appropriate assessments for Tier I interventions.
Interventionist. Qualified personnel determined by the campus, typically the general education teacher is
the interventionist.
Setting. Tier I interventions take place in the general education classroom setting.
Decision point. Student consistently falls below performance levels of peers in one or more skill areas (or
behavioral expectations). Tier II will be initiated.
Tier II. Focus. Targeted strategic intervention services are provided to students with striking difficulties,
and who have not responded to Tier I strategies and differentiated instruction in a successful manner.
Program. Systematic and specific activities, programs, and procedures are utilized to support, supplement,
and enhance Tier I activities. All are scientifically-based and peer-reviewed.
Grouping. Typically uniform small group instruction in groups of 3, 4, or 5 is appropriate.
Time. Thirty minutes per day and 2-5 times per week small group interventions are appropriate that is in
addition to core instruction during 6 weeks to 8 weeks of Tier II intervention timeframe.
Assessment. Weekly progress monitoring, or at a minimum of twice monthly progress monitoring on target
skill(s) is appropriate.
Interventionist. Qualified personnel determined by the campus.
 A REVIEW OF RTI (RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION) PROCESS 851

Setting. Intervention may occur in or out of the classroom.

Decision point. The goal for this tier is to progress towards aim line that represents the expected rate of
academic growth for a student.
Tier III. Focus. Targeted intensive intervention services are provided to students who have not responded
to interventions in Tier II and whose behavior or performance and rate of progress exhibits difficulty to a
striking degree.
Program. Specific and sustained interventions. Tier III interventions differ in their increased intensity,
frequency, and length.
Grouping. Typically uniform small group instruction in groups of 1, 2, or 3 is appropriate.
Time. Interventions for 45-60 minutes, 5 days weekly in small groups or individually in addition to core
classroom instruction during the 8 to 12 weeks Tier III intervention timeframe are appropriate.
Assessment. Twice weekly progress monitoring, or at a minimum of weekly progress monitoring on target
skill(s) is appropriate.
Interventionist. Qualified personnel for Tier III category shall be determined by the campus.
Setting. Intervention may occur in or out of the classroom.
Decision point. The goal for this tier is to progress towards aim line that represents the expected rate of
academic growth for a student.

Using an RtI Model to Address Behavioral Concerns

Behavioral issues can negatively impact learning as learning difficulties can negatively impact behavior. As
students’ academic success improves in school, their social and behavioral success tends to improve as well.
Nevertheless, an RtI model specifically designed to address behavioral difficulties can (1) improve the pace of
that improvement; (2) support academic growth; and (3) help improve the climate of the school.
Both academic and behavioral interventions contain the same components: (1) The needs of most students
are met through high-quality and research-based universal instructional and behavioral practices; (2) Students
needing additional intervention are identified and served through Tier II interventions. Tier II interventions are
chosen through a campus-designed standard protocol or problem-based model. Student progress is carefully
monitored, and interventions are modified as necessary; (3) Custom-designed Tier III interventions are
implemented with the small percentage of students who are not successful with Tier II interventions; (4) Fidelity
of implementation is crucial to success at all three tiers; and (5) As with academic models, the focus of the entire
school using RtI to address behavioral concerns can shift from identifying negative behavior to teaching and
promoting positive behavior.

Personnel Legally Accountable for RtI Process

Since RtI is a whole-school instructional framework intended to improve instruction and learning for all
students, all faculty and staff members share responsibility for RtI.
Principal is the instructional leader of the school and so must be the leader in developing and
implementing an RtI model.
Counselors and diagnosticians play important roles in designing the RtI model to be used that may include
852 A REVIEW OF RTI (RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION) PROCESS

making scheduling decisions, identifying student needs and monitoring progress, and helping to make decisions
on appropriate interventions.
Teachers are the most important component of an RtI team and need to understand all aspects of RtI. Since
teachers provide the bulk of the instruction and have the most opportunity to observe student progress, their
support of RtI is crucial to success. Teachers should be included in every stage of developing an RtI model. The
activities that comprise RtI typically occur in the general education setting as schools use a variety of strategies to
assist struggling students. General and special education staff coordinate and collaborate to develop a process for
RtI implementation, and such collaboration may lead to a shift in roles played by teachers from both areas.
General education teachers may need training in many practices currently used primarily by special education
teachers. The expertise of special education teachers can strengthen general education instruction as they provide
that training, help to customize Tier III services, provide Tiers II and III services, and, in general, team more
closely with general education faculty.
Paraprofessionals may implement small-group interventions, assess progress, and maintain crucial
databases showing that progress.

Referral
Once the three tiers have been carried out without significant response from the student, a committee of
qualified professionals such as ARD (Admission, Review, and Dismissal) committee members shall conduct a
review of existing evaluation data to determine scope of full and individual evaluation with the purpose of (1)
conducting a comprehensive and integrated evaluation (discrepancy, response to intervention, and
presence/absence of a processing deficit; and (2) assisting in planning individual and specially-designed
instruction that is explicit, systematic, and intensive.
A written report for an individual evaluation of a student shall be completed not later than 60 calendar days
following the date from which the school district receives written consent for the evaluation signed by the
student’s parent or legal guardian. In the case of eligibility for special education services, ARD committee shall
make its decisions within 30 calendar days from the date of the completion of a written initial evaluation report.
An ARD committee is convened to consider: (1) whether the student has had sufficient opportunity to respond to
scientific research-based interventions (including consideration of level difference and rate of learning
difference); and (2) eligibility for special education services.

Conclusions and Recommendations

U.S. kindergarten thru 12 Public School System is among the largest public school systems in the world with
the most number of foreign students incorporated into the system each year. U.S. public school system is a very
dynamic system that is updated regularly with the latest findings in research done in many Colleges of Education
throughout the country. Postgraduate research done in Educational Sciences in US is amongst the leaders of the
world in terms of quality and quantity. Thus, it would be very reasonable to evaluate and try to adapt parts of this
system as needed. Unlike systems of other sciences, which would need the appropriate infrastructure to adapt,
educational systems are relatively easier to adapt due to little physical infrastructure involved. However, one
cannot underestimate the human factor that is the readiness of the society, thus it would be a safe bet to say that
 A REVIEW OF RTI (RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION) PROCESS 853

adapting portions of such a system would be easier for smaller school systems.

References
A student’s guide to the IEP by the national dissemination center for children with disabilities. (2005). Retrieved from
http://nichcy.org/pubs/stuguide/st1book.htm
Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., Reschly, D. J., …, & Tilly, W. D. (2006). Response to
intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, V.A.: National Association of State Directors of Special
Education.
Bender, W. N., Ulmer, L., Baskette, M. R., & Shores, C. (2007). Will RtI work? Ongoing questions. In W. N. Bender & C. Shores
(Eds.), Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Council for Exceptional Children
and Corwin Press.
Best evidence encyclopedia. (2010). The best evidence encyclopedia center for data-driven reform in education. Johns Hopkins
University. Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org/
Bickel, W., Zigmond, N., & McCall, R. (1998). Documentation and impact of Pennsylvania’s instructional support team process:
Final report. Pittsburgh, P.A.: Pennsylvania Bureau of Special Education and the University of Pittsburgh.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L. C., & Hallahan, D. P. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Washington,
D.C.: Erlbaum.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997-2007. Teaching Exceptional Children,
39(5), 8-12.
Burns, M. K., & Van Der Heyden, A. M. (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and
intervention (pp. 396-407). New York: Springer.
Council for exceptional children. (2007). CEC’s position on Response to Intervention (RtI): The unique role of special education
and special educators. Retrieved from www.cec.sped.org/Policy&Advocacy/CECProfessionalPolicies
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 1-7.
Dillman, D., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken,
N.J.: Wiley & Sons.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. National research council. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Dunn, M. W., & Mabry, L. (2008). Voices from the field: Response-to-intervention practitioners-perspectives about implementation
(lecture presented to the Council for Exceptional Children, Boston, M.A.).
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Dynda, A. M. (2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced
tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the tower of babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 807-825.
Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities:
Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 545-552.
Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R., Boudousquie, A., Barnes, M. A., Schatschneider, C., & Francis, D. J. (2002). Assessment of reading
and learning disabilities a researchbased intervention-oriented approach. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 27-63.
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of learning disabilities in children
and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(3), 506-522.
Florida center for reading research. (2004). Tallahassee, F.L. Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/reportslist.htm
Frankenberger, W., & Franzaglio, K. (1991). A review of states’ criteria for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 24, 495-500.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P., & Young, C. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for
the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 18, 157-171.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5),
14-20.
Good, R. H., III, Simmons, D. C., & Kame‘enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of
fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(3),
257-288.
854 A REVIEW OF RTI (RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION) PROCESS

Gravetter, F. J. (2007). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Australia: Thomson & Wadsworth.
Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E., & Yalof, J. (2010). Critical issues in
response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An
expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223-236.
Hartman, W. T., & Fay, T. A. (1996). Cost-effectiveness of instructional support teams in Pennsylvania. Journal of Educational
Finance, 21, 555-580.
Individuals with disabilities education improvement act. (2004a). (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(6)(A) and (2004b). (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(6)(B))
and (2004c). (20 U.S.C. 300.305(a)(1)). Retrieved from www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl108-446.pdf
Intervention central. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.interventioncentral.org/
Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 284-297.
Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning
disability: a critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(1), 113-127.
Kovaleski, J. F., & Glew, M. C. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania experience.
Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 16-25.
McCook, J. E. (2006, May). The RTI guide: Developing and implementing a model in your schools. Palm Beach Gardens, F.L.: LRP
Publications.
Mellard, D. F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI a practitioner’s guide to implementing response to intervention. California: Corwin Press.
Moore-Brown, B. J., Montgomery, J. K., Bielinski, J., & Shubin, J. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Teaching before testing
helps avoid labeling. Top Language Disorders, 25(2), 148-167.
National center on student progress monitoring. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.studentprogress.org/
National research center on learning disabilities. (2006). RTI manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education Programs.
No child left behind act of 2001. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02
Peterson, K. M. H., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Severe discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for
learning disabilities?. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 459-477.
Rock, M. L., & Zigmond, N. (2001). Intervention assistance: Is it substance or symbolism?. Preventing School Failure, 45(4),
153-162.
Scheiber, B., & Talpers, J. (1985). Campus access for learning disabled students: A comprehensive guide. Pittsburgh: Association
for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropiere, M. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 25(3), 155-168.
Speece, D. L., & Shekitka, L. (2002). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of experts. Learning Disabilities
Practice, 17(20), 118-123.
STEEP (System to Enhance Educational Performance). (2006). Retrieved from
http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/CorePrinciplesAndEssentialComponentsOfRtI.pdf
Sugai, G. (2007, December). RTI: Reasons, practices, systems, & considerations (paper presented at the RtI Summit, Washington,
D.C.).
Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000). Fidelity of problem-solving implementation and relationship to student
performance. School Psychology Review, 29(3), 443-462.
Texas Education Code, Texas Constitution and Statues, # 34 CFR §300.7; # 34 CFR §300.534, # 34 CFR § 300.535, 19 TAC
§89.1040. Retrieved from http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=ED
Texas RTI guidance document. (2008). Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/RtI/RtIGuidanceDocument.pdf
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial
instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33-58.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Lindamood, P., Rose, E., & Conway, T. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young
children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual response to intervention. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(4), 579-593.
U.S. department of education, institute of education sciences: What works clearing house. (2007). Beginning reading [Review of
accelerated reader]. Washington, D.C.: What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Publications.
 A REVIEW OF RTI (RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION) PROCESS 855

U.S. department of education, national center on student progress monitoring. (2007). Review of progress monitoring tools.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.studentprogress.org/chart/chart.asp
U.S. office of education. (1977). Assistance to states for education for handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific
learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42, G1082-G1085.
U.S. office of education. (2006). Analysis of comments and changes. Federal Register, 71, 46647-46648.
Vaughn gross center for reading and language arts. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential
problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. (2007). Overview of the three-tier model of reading intervention. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn
(Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 3-9). Baltimore, M.D.: Paul H Brookes.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. 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 Education Psychology, 88(4), 601-638.
Wiener, R. M., & Soodak, L. C. (2008). Special education administrators’ perspectives on response to intervention. Journal of
Special Education Leadership, 21(1), 39-45.
Yeh, S. S. (2007). The cost-effectiveness of five policies for improving student achievement. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4),
416-436.
Ysseldyke, J. (2005). Assessment and decision making for students with learning disabilities: What if this is as good as it gets?.
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28, 125-128.
Ysseldyke, J., & McLeod, S. (2007). Using technology tools to monitor response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson (Ed.), RTI and
the classroom teacher: A guide for fostering teacher buy-in and supporting the intervention process. West Palm Beach, F.L.:
LRP Publications.

View publication stats