Response to Intervention (RTI)

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a promising new measure through which learning disabilities can be identified. Students with academic delays are identified through a process of universal screening, and research-based interventions are offered at different tiers of intensity. Ongoing monitoring allows for adjustments to be made to interventions. If a student fails to respond significantly at the last tier of service, that student may be referred for either a formal special education evaluation or for formal special education services. RTI offers benefits for English language learners (ELLs) and other groups who have traditionally been overrepresented in special education as it provides services to students but does not identify them with specific learning disabilities (SLDs).

Keywords At-risk Students; Curriculum Based Measures; Discrepancy Model; Early Identification; English Language Learners (ELL); Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 (IDEA); Intervention; Literacy; Local Education Agency; Psychoeducational Evaluation; Response to Intervention; Special Education; Specific Learning Disability (SLD)

Overview

In 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized as Public Law 108-466. Additionally, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004), was also legislated. It contained new provisions that allowed local education agencies (LEAs) two options to meet the needs of an increasing population of students with learning disabilities (Lose, 2007). One alternative allows LEAs to use up to 15% of their special education budget to provide learning support to students struggling with the general education curriculum and to support professional development and literacy instruction. This option is referred to as Early Intervening Strategies (EIS). The second choice is Response to Intervention (RTI), which allows LEAs to provide learning support to students at-risk for school failure without formally diagnosing a learning disability. RTI promotes the early identification of at-risk children. Intervention prior to referral for special education services allows agencies to assess if and how well a child responds to the intervening instruction (Lose, 2007). The goal of the new measure was to reduce the number of unnecessary referrals for formal special education services while providing academic and behavioral support to children at risk for failure. Students who may initially appear to be in need of special education services may in fact have limited English proficiency or inadequate instruction; RTI can help to limit the amount of unnecessary testing (Cortiella, 2006).

According to Linan-Thompson, Cirino and Vaugh (2007), there has been an historic concern about the representation of English language learners (ELLs), students from ethnic minority groups and other subgroups of lower-performing students in special education (as cited in Donovan & Cross, 2002). These students are diagnosed with specific learning disabilities due to inappropriate or inadequate assessment and instruction and other factors related to the discrepancy between their achievement and ability . (Linan-Thompson et al., 2007).

A Multi-Step Process

Response to Intervention (RTI), or Responsiveness to Intervention, is a research-based process implemented by schools to identify and support students experiencing difficulty with learning. RTI programs differ among schools in their design and delivery. Most involve a multi-step process that includes screening and is often followed by more targeted interventions. The final step is an intensive intervention and comprehensive evaluation. Progress at each stage is carefully monitored. Parents or teachers can move to have a child formally evaluated for special education services at any time during this process, and a child's inclusion in RTI programs cannot be used to delay or deny a formal evaluation if one is sought. To do this, the lowest performing children must be identified early so that appropriately intensive interventions and tiers of support can be provided within a comprehensive approach to literacy instruction at the first indication of the child's difficulty (Lose, 2007).

Hilton (2007) describes a three-tiered system where the initial interventions are the responsibility of the classroom teacher and include data-proven practices to identify children in need of intervention. At the next tier of intervention, students who continued to under-perform despite tier one intervention receive data-based, research-supported intervention from professionals other than their classroom teacher. Progress is measured frequently to determine whether the student demonstrates any significant improvement in academic skills. If there is a continued failure to achieve, this can be interpreted as an indication of a specific learning disability and the assessments involved with a formal special education evaluation can be initiated (Hilton, 2007).

Research-Based Intervention

Of significant note is the idea that successful RTI, regardless of the model implemented, relies upon well-researched and data-proven interventions rather than random or trivial ideas. Haager, Calhoon and Linan-Thompson (2007) found that two issues are at the forefront of the implementation of RTI. One critical component is the employment of interventions that are validated by research, while the other is that only valid and reliable assessments are used to identify students at risk. According to Willis and Dumont (2006), historical information about the student should be included in any review of efficacy. Data regarding both informal and semiformal first-tier interventions and their outcomes are essential to the planning of deliberate and individualized second tier strategies (Willis & Dumont, 2006).

Standardized testing of a student's ability and cognitive processing for the diagnosis of a specific learning disability and subsequent formal special education services remains important, though some states have developed tiered models of RTI that culminate in intensive problem-solving activities rather than assessment (Ofiesh, 2006). Accordingly, Ofiesh (2006) asserts "use of RTI without measures of ability or cognitive processing ultimately disregards the definition of SLD and distorts the construct in the same way aptitude-achievement discrepancy models did" (p. 3). In its simplest form, RTI only documents low achievement and not discrepancy. Ofiesh cautions that without formal pyschoeducational testing, any tiered model will only result in the identification of a varied group of students who are not academically successful and who failed to respond to intervention for any number of reasons, rather than the identification of those students with specific learning disabilities (Ofiesh, 2006).

At its best, RTI will serve to reduce the disproportionate number of minority students and English language learners in special education that has concerned those in the field (Haager, 2007). By identifying at risk students early in elementary school and providing intervening and support instruction, it is hoped that they will not continue to underachieve and will begin to perform at grade level (Linan-Thompson et al., 2007). According to Haager (2007), the reduction of the number of low-income ethnic minority students in special education programs would be to "improve the core elements of classroom instruction in the early grades" (p. 2).

Another issue that RTI is designed to combat is the "wait-to-fail" model, in which a student in the regular curriculum is identified as needing special education services only after prolonged failure. Among the reasons that students who might be in need of service are not evaluated or placed in a timely manner are "subjectivity in teachers' referral of students, inaccuracy in assessment practices, and lack of consistency in the nature and quality of...instruction" (Gresham, 2002; Vaughn & Klingner, 2007 as cited in Haager, 2007, p. 1).

Discrepancy Model of Defining SLD

The current definition of a specific learning disability (SLD) is based upon a discrepancy model that emerged in the 1960s (Ofiesh, 2006; Linan-Thompson, et al., 200;, Hilton, 2007; Haager, 2007; Willis & Dumont, 2006). For over 40 years, this definition was based upon a general assumption that a child with learning disabilities had at least average, if not above-average intelligence and that there existed a discrepancy between the child's intelligence and the child's academic achievement (Ofiesh, 2006). The current IDEA definition of a specific learning disability has remained unchanged and is based upon the one adopted by Congress in 1968 and adopted into federal law in 1969 in the Learning Disabilities Act (Bender, 2004 as cited in Ofiesh, 2006). Ofiesh (2006) states

The term 'specific learning disability' refers to a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include a learning problem which is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (p. 2).

In an attempt to clarify the definition, new regulations were published in the Federal Register in 1977. They supported the discrepancy model and stated that in order to apply a diagnosis of a specific learning disability, evaluators must find that a student does not achieve at appropriate age and ability level in at least one specific area despite adequate learning experiences and that the student has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation and mathematics reasoning (Ofiesh, 2006).

IDEA 2004 says that local educational agencies "shall not be required" to consider severe discrepancies and "may" use RTI as part of the evaluation procedures. Since there is nothing in the regulations that state that discrepancy is the sole criterion for eligibility for learning disability services, it leaves room for other considerations (Olfiesh, 2006). Thus, with the introduction of RTI in 2004, the process of moving from the discrepancy model to an RTI model that carefully documents student progress in relation to appropriate instructional interventions was initiated (Tulipana, 2007). The problems with the discrepancy model are myriad and well-documented, but RTI addresses many of them (Gresham, 2002; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003 as cited in Haager, 2007). The inability of the discrepancy model of diagnosis is unable to differentiate low-achieving students from those with learning disabilities (Fletcher et al., 1998 as cited in Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino & Lathrop, 2007). One issue of note is that of the application of discrepancy criteria to English language learners; factors such as the language of instruction, classroom practices and school need to be taken into consideration (Haager, 2007). Christ, Burns and Ysseldyke (2005) assert that "the RTI process, in contrast, incorporates low-inference and functional assessment procedures that can link directly to group and individual intervention planning" (as cited in Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino & Lathrop, 2007, p. 2).

The Question of Sufficient Discrepancy

According to Ofiesh (2006), the quantification of the discrepancy model posed a particularly difficult problem. Since the definition and diagnosis required a gap, or discrepancy, in ability and achievement, the question of what constituted a sufficient discrepancy arose. This had the "undesirable result of reducing the construct of an SLD into a statistically significant difference between ability and achievement" (Olfiesh, 2006, p. 3).

RTI should be a central part of the process through which LEAs identify students who have a specific learning disability. IDEA 2004 suggests that RTI data should be used as part of that process [§ 300.309 (a)(i)] and allows for the prohibition of the discrepancy model at the state level [§ 300.307(a)(i)] (Olfiesh, 2006).

Principles of RTI

Lose (2007) set forth several basic principles of RTI. The first among them is the issue of identifying all students who are struggling and responding with early intervention measures. LEAs must then define criteria through which children with specific learning disabilities will be identified. A central component of any RTI program is the assessment procedures related to the identification of candidates for various tiers of intervention and the monitoring of student progress toward set goals (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006 as cited in Haager, 2007). Screening is more likely to identify students who may be at-risk so those for whom intervention might help will not "slip through the cracks" (Haager, 2007, p. 3).

Another important principle in an RTI program, according to Lose (2007) is the provision of "effective, intensive, evidence-based early intervening services" (p.2). Student progress must be carefully monitored and data-based documentation must be kept. Progress must be reported on a timely basis. Teachers of low-achieving students must receive support and the highest quality of professional development so that interventions can be selected and delivered appropriately. Finally, the creation of a multi-tiered problem-solving team to support the RTI efforts is recommended (Lose, 2007).

There is variety among the approaches to RTI within states and individual LEAs. However, there are fundamental assumptions that any program addresses (Lose, 2007). Among them is the knowledge that children learn as individuals not as groups, so intervention strategies must be suited to the individual child. The only valid approach is one to which the child responds positively. Lose (2007) states "to be successful, the most struggling child requires the most expert teacher" (p. 4). Teacher expertise demands on-going, timely and high-quality professional development.

According to Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino and Lathrop (2007), a successful RTI program must include a variety of data-based services ranging from universal interventions available to all students to highly intensive, individualized interventions for students at the second and third tiers of service. RTI programs must also specify decision points to evaluate whether students are improving or continuing to perform significantly below their peers. Student progress needs to be monitored continually, and when students fail to improve, new intervention strategies should be employed. Finally, if students do not respond to intervention, they should be referred for formal special education evaluation and services in a timely manner (Fairbanks et al., 2007).

Further Insights

There is no formal process for the effective and systematic adoption and implementation of RTI, which creates a great deal of variance among programs and outcomes. While some flexibility in programming is necessary to accommodate the diversity within states, localities, districts, and schools, Hilton (2007) suggests that a mandate exists within IDEA 2004 and "the departments of curriculum and instruction, especially reading/language arts and specialized programs, special education. Title I and English learners, should be required to work together to develop common approaches, share resources and provide trainings and technical assistance throughout the state" (p. 17).

There are several potential outcomes of RTI that show promise for improving both special education and regular education programming. Early screening and intervention can help students in need of special education services to access them sooner, while students who are not succeeding for other reasons can benefit from interventions that will prevent them from lagging further behind their peers (Haager, 2007). The impact of the specific learning disability is lessened if it is identified early, and if intervention is successful, the gap between achievement and ability is kept small (Haager, 2007).

Overall, RTI models have had a positive impact on education as they have forced educators to attempt to define adequate instruction in terms of all learners. Ofiesh (2006) suggests that this is especially important for those groups at risk for over-representation in special education and those who are delayed for evaluation and placement into special education because of the wait-to-fail model. The definition of adequate instruction at each tier of the RTI model will serve as the basis from which interventions that result in empirically validated gains can be specified (Ofiesh, 2006).

Viewpoints

Debatable Success for Some Groups

Despite the generally positive response to the RTI initiative, some researchers have challenged the assertions of its success with English language learners and other low-achieving students without a specific learning disability (Linan-Thompson et al., 2007). Little research has been published to support effective strategies for specific groups and in what context these strategies might work. The data that have been collected have not been broken down by ethnicity for English language learners, or for students with specific learning disabilities, even when those students are part of the sample (Donovan & Cross, 2002, as cited in Linan-Thompson et al., 2007). "Though standards-based reading instruction and the use of reading programs that have a strong research foundation are quickly becoming the norm in today's elementary classrooms, research focusing on the reading development of ELLs has been lacking" (Snow, 2007; Vaughn et al., 2006 as cited in Haager, 2007, p. 5). Until such time as research into the effectiveness of RTI related to student ethnicity and English language proficiency is completed, some educators believe that the suggestion that RTI benefits English language learners is supposition.

No Universal Model

Another challenge to RTI is that there is no universal model that can be used nation-wide. Contextual problems arise when the vast diversity among schools and communities initiating RTI programs is considered. Haager (2007) notes that there is a dearth of research into the methods through which RTI models might be adapted to work within varying cultural, socioeconomic and contextual settings.

Challenges of Measurement

Measuring student responsiveness also poses challenges for educators, as valid tools and procedures that can be used with English language learners in the primary grades are scarce. While curriculum-based measures (CBMs) may offer a viable means to student progress, additional research is needed, as is a firmer position on the quantification of responsiveness and non-responsiveness, particularly with English language learners. Hence, it is important for RTI teams to base their decisions on a number of factors rather than assessment scores. Teacher observation, the daily performance of the student and parental input should also be considered (Haager, 2007).

Willis and Dumont (2006) caution that a plan must be in place to effectively manage situations wherein repeated interventions with increased intensity and refined interventions (services at the first, second and sometimes third tier) will not yield sufficient progress and the student will be deemed non-responsive to intervention. At other times, students may present with multiple complex and severe difficulties where the referral concerns may be beyond the scope of a RTI program. In situations such as these, a comprehensive pyschoeducational evaluation may be the best indicator of how to proceed toward intervention rather than trying multiple interventions at once or working one-by-one through a number of different strategies (Willis & Dumont, 2006).

Challenges for Postsecondary Success

RTI has implications for students with specific learning disabilities who are planning to engage in postsecondary study. IDEA 2004 requires that schools assist students with disabilities prepare for postsecondary employment or study. Because IDEA 2004 specifically allows for the identification and remediation of specific learning disabilities through the use of the RTI model, students may not have the current comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation that most postsecondary institutions require. This presents a dilemma for practitioners in both the K-12 and the postsecondary schools as the methods by which students are identified as having learning disabilities may impact a student's educational opportunities after high school (Ofiesh, 2006).

According to a recent article in Reading Today, RTI involves a number of factors, including early identification of the learning and behavioral requirements of at-risk students, collaboration among school practitioners and parents, close monitoring of student progress and an organized commitment to providing resources required to ensure student success in the general education curriculum. RTI is still in its early stages, but it shows a great deal of promise. It is expected to have a significant impact on regular education delivery as well as the special education identification process ("Groups Join to Spotlight," 2006).

RTI and Covid-19

In 2023, research quantifying the full effects of the Covid-19 pandemic continues to emerge. This includes information on the incidence of employment of RTI in the post-Covid period as compared to the years prior to the onset of the pandemic. What is apparent nonetheless are the significant impacts made on academic progress and to student sub-groups. One study suggests that progress declined in the first academic year of the pandemic (2020-2021) by 8-12 percentile points in math as well as 3-6 percentile points in reading. Children of color and those of lower economic resources were more apt to experience these negative impacts.

Terms & Concepts

Curriculum Based Measures (CBMs): Curriculum Based Measures (CBMs) are assessments, which measure specific skills that are being taught in the classroom (often in the areas of basic skills) rather than commercially-available standardized tests, which measure broad areas of the curriculum.

Early Identification: Early Identification (of students at-risk or in need of intervention) refers to the process through which students in K-12 settings are identified for intervention prior to experiencing failure or developing a significant gap between their achievement and that of their peers.

English Language Learners (ELLs): English language learners (ELLs) are the linguistically diverse group of students for whom English is not the primary language spoken in the home. The students are also known as students with Limited English Proficiency (LEPs), students for whom English is a Second Language (ESLs) or Second Language Learners (SLLs).

Intervention: Intervention(s) are the research-based strategies, methods and practices employed to assist students identified as at-risk for school failure to succeed.

Literacy: Literacy refers to the ability to use language effectively to read, write, speak and listen.

Local Education Agency (LEA): A local education agency is an educational agency at the local level that exists primarily to operate schools or to contract for educational services, including primary and secondary public and private schools. LEAs are most often school districts.

Pyschoeducational Evaluation: A Psychoeducational Evaluation is a comprehensive assessment of a student's functioning in three primary areas that impact learning and academic functioning: 1) learning aptitude (also known as IQ testing) 2) basic academic skill development; and 3) personality/adjustment factors. Psychoeducational evaluations are a traditional element of the formal evaluation for special education services.

Response to Intervention (RTI): Response to Intervention is a programmatic outcome of IDEA 2004, which allows local education agencies (LEAs) to identify and provide academic support to students who are at-risk of being diagnosed with a specific learning disability (SLD).

Specific Learning Disability (SLD): A specific learning disability (SLD) is a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, think, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.

Universal Screening: Universal screening refers to the process through which school staff conducts assessments of all students in academic areas and behavior to establish benchmarks against which student progress can be compared to that of the peer group or state standards.

Bibliography

Baum, R. (July 6, 2022). Learning disabilities and COVID-19: Where are we now? Contemporary Pediatrics. Retrieved June 5, 2023, from https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/learning-disabilities-covid19.

Cortiella, C. (2006). A parent's guide to response to intervention. Parent Advocacy Brief.Retrieved November 23, 2007 from National Center for Learning Disabilities http://www.ncld.org/images/stories/downloads/parent%5fcenter/rti%5ffinal.pdf

Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975. Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 733, 1975.

Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D. & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children. 73 , 288-310. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24235251&site=ehost-live

Greenwood, C. R., Bradfield, T., Kaminski, R., Linas, M., Carta, J. J., & Nylander, D. (2011). The response to intervention (RTI) approach in early childhood. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43, 1-22. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=62827199&site=ehost-live

Greenwood, C. R., & Kim, J. (2012). Response to intervention (RTI) services: An ecobehavioral perspective. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 22(1/2), 79-105. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=71959953&site=ehost-live

Groups join to spotlight response to intervention (RTI) issues. (2006/2007). Reading Today, 24 , 11. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23337282&site=ehost-live

Haager, D. (2007). Promises and cautions regarding using response to intervention with english language learners. Learning Disability Quarterly. 30 , 213-218. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26325620&site=ehost-live

Haager, D., Calhoon, M. & Linan-Thompson, S. (2007). English language learners and

response to intervention: introduction to a special issue. Learning Disability Quarterly. 30 , 151-152. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26325615&site=ehost-live

Hauerwas, L., Brown, R., & Scott, A. N. (2013). Specific learning disability and response to intervention: State-level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80, 101-120. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89856180&site=ehost-live

Hilton, I. (2007). Response to Intervention: Changing how we do business. Leadership. 36 , 16-19. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25151757&site=ehost-live

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004). [Amending 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.].

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 Proposed Rules (Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 118/ Tuesday, June 21, 2005/. Proposed Rules to be codified at 34 CFR pts. 300, 301, and 304).

Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. & Vaughn, S. (2007). Determining English language learners response to intervention: Questions and some answers. Learning Disability Quarterly. 30 , 185-195. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26325618&site=ehost-live

Lose, M. (2007). A child's response to intervention requires a responsive teacher of reading. Reading Teacher. 61 , 276-279. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27349102&site=ehost-live

Morin, A. What is response to invtervention (RTI)? Understood. Retrieved June 5, 2023, from https://www.understood.org/en/articles/understanding-response-to-intervention.

Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools. 43 , 883-888. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22524223&site=ehost-live

Procedures for evaluating specific learning disability. (1977). Federal Register. 42 , pp. 65082-65085.

(January 2022). Research Brief: Covid-19, Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), and Response to Intervention (RTI). Rutgers Center for Effective School Practices. Retrieved June 5, 2023, from https://cesp.rutgers.edu/products/research-brief-covid-19-social-emotional-learning-sel-and-response-intervention-rti.

Response to Invtervention (RTI). Reading Rockets. Retrieved June 5, 2023, from https://www.readingrockets.org/reading-topics/response-intervention-rti.

Tulipana, T. (2007). Understanding RTI through reflection and exploration. Principal. p. 73. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from http://www.naesp.org

Willis, J. & Dumont, R. (2006). And never the twain shall meet: Can response to intervention and cognitive assessment be reconciled? Pyschology in the Schools. 43 , 901-908. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22524221&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Bender, W. & Shores, C. (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L. & Doolittle, J. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997- Teaching Exceptional Children. 39 , 8-12. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25204848&site=ehost-live

Fuchs, D. & Deshler, D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 22, 129-136. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25017595&site=ehost-live

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (2001) Responsiveness to Intervention: A Blueprint for Practitioners, Policymakers, and Parents in Teaching Exceptional Children. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/resources/TEC%5fRtIblueprint.pdf

Haager, D., Klingner, J. & Vaughn, S. (2007). Evidence based reading practices for response to intervention. York, PA: Brookes Publishing Company.

Hollenbeck, A. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness to intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 22 , 137-146. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25017594&site=ehost-live

Wright, J. (2007). RTI: A practical guide for schools. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing.