One Elementary School's Implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI)

One Elementary School’s Implementationof Response to Intervention (RTI)

ERICA S. LEMBKEUniversity of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA

CAROL GARMANColumbia Public Schools, Columbia, Missouri, USA

STANLEY L. DENOUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

PAMELA M. STECKERClemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA

We provide a description of how a culturally and linguisticallydiverse elementary school in the Midwest implemented core fea-tures of a response-to-intervention (RTI) framework for improvingschool-wide reading instruction and decision making. Amulti-year timeline illustrates how this school implementedadditional elements of the RTI framework over time. Thismulti-tiered system relied on formative evaluation as a corecomponent, including screening several times per year and pro-gress monitoring for students receiving instructional interventions.The principal and staff made decisions collectively aboutimplementation. We summarize student achievement results anddiscuss implications for the implementation of RTI models in otherelementary schools.

School faculty, administrators, researchers, parents, and politicians oftendebate the merits of implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of2001 (NCLB; U.S. Department of Education, 2001) and whether changesbrought about by this law have had a positive effect on student outcomes.In some instances, administrators and teachers feel punished by mandates

Address correspondence to Erica S. Lembke, Department of Special Education, Universityof Missouri, 311J Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26:361–373, 2010Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1057-3569 print=1521-0693 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10573569.2010.500266

361

that are put into place after achievement goals are not met. In most cases,NCLB has prompted schools to become more attentive to data fordetermining which practices are most effective for students. Whether it is per-ceived positively or negatively, NCLB has encouraged schools to reexaminewhether their instructional practices are evidence based, whether data arebeing collected that support these practices, and how these data are beingused to support or to change current practice.

In addition, with the authorization of the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Improvement Act of 2004 (Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct Regulations, 2004), schools are no longer required to use the traditionaldiscrepancy model to identify students with specific learning disabilities(SLD) and may use student response to scientifically based instruction, fre-quently referred to as response to intervention (RTI), as a basis for SLD eligi-bility. Interestingly, RTI mirrors NCLB in many ways, including schoolsimplementing evidence-based programs or interventions, collecting data tosupport student progress or lack thereof, and making changes in instructionin response to data. RTI goes one step further, in that students can also bedetermined eligible for special education services in the category of SLD ifthey do not respond to otherwise effective intervention over a period of time.These laws and their implications for students are what led one elementaryschool to use formative assessment to change the way it was conductingbusiness. By implementing two effective teaching components—the adop-tion or refinement of evidence-based teaching practices and the collectionof data to screen and monitor student progress—this school put into practiceone model of RTI.

CORE ELEMENTS OF AN RTI MODEL

In general, districts have been using RTI for two primary reasons: (a) as amethod for SLD identification and (b) as a model of instruction for effectivelymeeting the needs of all students in a school. In a state report on RTIimplementation, Hoover, Baca, Wexler-Love, and Saenz (2008) commentedthat all states have indicated some degree of RTI implementation, eitheralready in practice or in development, with more than one third of statesindicating that they planned to use RTI within their eligibility model for learn-ing disabilities. Although RTI can be used both to identify students with SLDand instruct all students in a school, in either method several key elementsneed to be in place in order to ensure that the model is implemented effec-tively. In the school we describe here, the RTI model was used to more effec-tively meet the needs of all students by adopting the key elements listed inTable 1. These elements are supported by research and commentary onRTI, including a meta-analysis of RTI studies (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer,2005) and an article on conceptual and technical issues of responsiveness

362 E. S. Lembke et al.

(L. S. Fuchs, 2003), and were upheld in a recent practice guide on RTI issuedby the Institute of Education Sciences (2009). Chief among these elements isthe incorporation of a formative assessment system, and the use of a Curricu-lum-Based Measurement system (CBM; Deno, 1985) for screening and pro-gress monitoring. A more thorough discussion of these key RTI elementsfollows.

School Support

First and foremost, administrators and staff must support the use of the RTImodel. Support occurs as a result of increased knowledge and dialogueabout RTI. As administrators and staff participate in professional develop-ment on core elements of RTI and then implement components withfollow-up discussion of the process, progress is made toward identifying aworking model. The principal of the elementary school we describe hereworked with the staff to make decisions about implementation at all stepsalong the way. She first stated that some elements were ‘‘nonnegotiables,’’such as the need for a core reading program supported by research that con-tained effective reading components and the collection of screening data forall students three times per year. However, other elements of the RTI processwere decided by the administrator and staff collectively, such as the parti-cular reading program and interventions to be used.

Problem-Solving Teams

Another core element of the RTI model is the organization of effectiveproblem-solving teams that meet on a frequent basis to discuss school-wide,grade, class, and individual student data. Members of this team may includegeneral and special education teachers, administrators, specialists, and par-ents. These teams organize their meetings around a structured routine that

TABLE 1 Core Elements of an Effective Response-to-Intervention Model

1. Administrative and staff support2. Establishment of school-based problem-solving teams3. Selection of an evidence-based, formative assessment system that includes screening and

progress monitoring4. Examination of the core academic program currently in place to make sure it is meeting the

needs of the majority of students5. Team analysis of school-wide data and placement of students in tiered instructional groups6. Identification of interventions for Tiers 2 and 3 and a schedule for implementation of the

tiered interventions7. Determination of how fidelity of treatment for Tiers 1–3 will be assessed8. Determination of professionals who will monitor the progress of students in Tiers 2 and 3

on a frequent basis, including by setting goals, collecting data, implementing data-decisionrules, and making changes in instruction

One Elementary School’s Implementation of RTI 363

allows them to accomplish their goals in the time allotted. In this elementaryschool, grade-level teams met on a weekly basis with interventionists to dis-cuss student progress, and they used data to guide these discussions.

Formative Evaluation

The next core element in an RTI model is the selection of an evidence-basedmethod for evaluating student response to instruction. Screening and pro-gress monitoring measures are given in academic subjects. Screening typi-cally occurs three times per year using common measures that areadministered to all students at each grade level. Following screening, stu-dents are placed into tiered intervention groups based on their screeningscores and follow-up confirmation from additional data-based measures.Through this tiered instructional system, students receive increasingly inten-sive intervention materials and support that are commensurate with theirlevel of need. Progress monitoring is conducted to track the progress of stu-dents in these intervention groups on a frequent basis. Scores from these pro-gress monitoring measures are graphed and used to make decisions aboutinstructional effectiveness for an individual or for groups of students. Theelementary school we describe here chose to use CBM as its model forscreening and progress monitoring. CBM is supported by more than 25 yearsof research, and many commercially based systems are available that facili-tate efficient data collection and reporting (see Deno, 2003; L. S. Fuchs,2004, for examples).

Tiered Instruction

Tiered intervention is very important in the RTI process and is another coreelement that schools must consider. Instruction and curricular materials inthe core program in general education must be effective for the majority ofstudents in the school. If the core program is not based on evidence-basedpractices or is not implemented with fidelity, students may not experiencesuccess. Based on screening data, schools can determine how many studentsare on track to meet end-of-year goals, and, if this number is low, schools canexamine their core instructional program to determine whether the programitself or the way in which it is being implemented might be at fault. Evenwhen a generally effective program is implemented well, more intensiveinstruction may be needed for some students. This instruction might involveadditional teaching time in general education with supplemental materials, orit might involve the use of a supplemental instruction program outside of thegeneral education classroom. In the elementary school described here, allstudents received the core reading program, followed by intervention timein which smaller groups of students were taught by either general educationclassroom teachers or interventionists (see Table 2 for a sample intervention


schedule). These interventionists included the literacy coach, the speech–language pathologist, and the Title I teacher. The school examined theresources it had available to find certified staff who could work with inter-vention groups at certain times throughout the day. This ‘‘pooling of teachingresources’’ allowed the school to deliver services to the greatest number ofstudents possible.

These core elements are extremely important to the success of the RTImodel and should be carefully considered and discussed as districts andschools begin implementation. Although RTI models are fairly new, theiruse has already resulted in significant positive changes in student outcomesfor many schools and districts (Burns et al., 2005; Hughes & Dexter, 2008).The next section chronicles the journey of one elementary school (ForrestElementary) through the RTI process.

CHRONICLE OF FORREST ELEMENTARY’SIMPLEMENTATION OF RTI

Background Information

Forrest Elementary is a diverse school in a mid-size district in the Midwestand had 290 students (Pre-K through fifth grade) enrolled in the 2006–2007school year. Each grade level contains two or three classrooms. A total of79% of the school’s students receive free or reduced lunch, 50% come fromminority backgrounds, 13% receive special education services, and 20%receive services as English language learners. One of the most striking demo-graphic details about this school is its high mobility, with 58% of studentschanging schools for reasons other than grade promotion during theschool year. Implementing an RTI model does not happen overnight, andsuch is the case at Forrest, where full implementation in both reading andmathematics will be realized at least 4 years following inception (seeTable 3 for a timeline).

Forrest is a school familiar with three-tiered models of instruction in beha-vior. Since 2003, it had been implementing a system of school-wide positive

TABLE 2 Forrest Elementary’s Intervention Schedule

GradeCore readingprogram

Interventiongroups

Kindergarten 9:00–10:30 9:15–10:001 9:00–10:30 11:30–12:152 10:00–11:30 9:15–10:003 11:00–12:30 10:15–11:004 1:45–3:15 1:00–1:455 1:00–2:30 2:15–3:00


TABLE3

Forrest

Elementary

School’s

Tim

elineforIm

plementingtheResponse-to-InterventionModel

2004–2005

2005–2006

2006–2007

2007–2008

2008–?

First

winteran

dspring

screeningin

read

ing.

Fall=winter=springscreening

inread

ingim

plemented.

New

core

read

ingprogram

adopted.

Three-tieredintervention

modelin

read

ing

implemented.

Fall=winter=spring

screeningin

mathematics

implemented.

Three-tieredinter-vention

inmathematics

planned.

366

behavior support (see Horner, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005). Similar toRTI, this system incorporates screening, progress monitoring, and interventionat each of three tiered levels. Discipline referrals are monitored as one way tojudge the effectiveness of the behavioral interventions that are in place.

Forrest entered into the RTI process with the intent to improve the per-formance of all students in the school by using data and data-based decisionmaking to improve intervention implementation.

Initial Screening

In the fall of 2004–2005, administrators and staff at Forrest began to examinecritically the literacy instruction that was in place to determine whether thecore reading program was meeting the needs of the majority of Forrest stu-dents. For the previous 5 years, scores on high-stakes assessments had fallenbelow state and district averages. The administrators and staff at the schoolwanted to maximize instruction for all students and also wanted to assessthe impact of the district-mandated core reading program on school-wideassessment scores. The school began screening all students in Grades 1through 5 three times per year using a form of CBM, oral reading of passages,and a prereading skills assessment (Good & Kaminski, 2003). Students wereseparated into three tiers based on their scores on the fall screening and howthese scores corresponded to the benchmarks recommended by the develo-pers of the assessment system for that time of year.

Ideally, in a three-tiered model of intervention, about 80% of studentsshould fall in Tier 1 (core program), 15% in Tier 2 (supplemental inter-vention), and 5% in Tier 3 (intensive intervention). These percentages arebased upon norms developed by publishers of commercially available sys-tems of CBM, and millions of students are included in these databases. Thesepercentages are predictors of current and future risk (see https:==dibels.uor-egon.edu or http://aimsweb.com for examples of benchmarks). In the areaof behavior, Forrest’s data indicated that students were on target: 77% of stu-dents were at Tier 1, 17% were at Tier 2, and 6% were at Tier 3. However, forliteracy, initial screening results indicated that only 30% of students were inTier 1, 26% were in Tier 2, and 44% were in Tier 3. These results were unset-tling for school staff, but they were consistent with the school’s scores onhigh-stakes assessments. When this trend in the data continued for the springscreening, the administrators and staff recognized that a plan would need tobe put into place to continue to address the literacy concerns of the studentsusing a comprehensive and intensive method.

Tier 1: Core Reading Program

Forrest’s first step, and the piece that had the potential to positively affectthe greatest number of students, was to adopt a new core reading program.


Forrest administrators concluded that their student population needed acurriculum that wasmore systematic and explicit, with enough information pro-vided to help teachers scaffold instruction to sequentially build students’ basicreading skills. The school was allowed to choose a new core reading program,and it used research evidence regarding what is effective for readers to guideits decisionmaking (see Kame’enui & Simmons, 2000). After previewing severalcurricula, narrowing them down to two, and then having company representa-tivespresent to the staff, Forrest teachers choseHoughtonMifflin 2005 (Cooper&Pikulski, 2005) as their core reading program. Along with being research based,the curriculum was also structured to include time for guided reading withleveled readers, which was an important part of instruction that the teacherswanted to retain. This curriculum was implemented in the fall of 2005, and theadministrators conducted fidelity of implementation checks on a frequent basisto be certain that the curriculum was being implemented as intended.

Tiers 2 and 3: Intervention

At Forrest, each teacher has his or her typical classroom of students for corereading instruction but also takes a smaller group of students for additionalreading instruction each day. For example, one of the fourth-grade teachersworks with Tier 1 students during the intervention time, and one works withTier 2 students. This gives the Tier 2 teacher a smaller group of students withwhom to implement the additional reading instruction with efficacy. With thenew core program in place for all students, Forrest continues to screen allstudents three times per year using a regimen of measures at each grade.Grade-level teams then meet to discuss the results of screening and to assignstudents to tiers based on the recommendations from their web-based CBMsystem. In addition to the core program, Tier 1 students receive 45min ofenrichment reading, Tier 2 students receive 45min of strategic readinginstruction with fewer students, and Tier 3 students receive 45min of inten-sive reading instruction in small groups. All of the staff work together tomake the schedule fit the needs of the students (refer to Table 2). Specialists,such as the literacy coach, Title I teacher, and speech–language pathologist,take Tier 3 small groups throughout the day as their schedules allow. Eachweek, one of the Tier 3 specialists who works with students from a particulargrade level meets with the team of general education teachers at that grade todiscuss curriculum, look at formative assessment data, and discuss inter-vention implementation for particular students.

The tiers are flexible, in that, as the data indicate, students are movedfrom one tier or small group to another. In order to be data-based aboutthese decisions, administrators apply decision-making rules, with the primaryrule being the four-point rule. According to this rule, if the four most recentconsecutive data points are all below the goal line after 6 to 8 weeks of datacollection, a teaching change is made. If the data points are all above the goal


line, the goal is raised. If the data points are both above and below the goalline, the current intervention is continued.

Forrest uses both a standard treatment protocol and individual problemsolving for intervention (see D. Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003, for adiscussion of standard treatment and problem-solving approaches to RTI).Effective programs that are based on research evidence are used at Tiers 2and 3 within a standard treatment protocol approach on 4 days of the week.The leveled readers that accompany the reading series are used to work onspecific skills with students in Tier 2. At Tier 3, students in Grades 1 and 2 usethe Reading Mastery series (Englemann & Bruner, 1995). Students in Grades3 through 5 use the Wilson Reading Program (Wilson, 1996). Individualproblem-solving is also used to design individualized follow-up instructionfor students who have specific needs. This individualized instruction is deliv-ered on the fifth day of each week. Forrest uses data collected as part ofscreening and progress monitoring to contribute to its comprehensive evalu-ation system for identification of SLD.

Problem-Solving Process

A core element of the RTI process is the problem-solving process that takesplace when staff are discussing student programming and data. Forrest hadpreviously implemented a program for their staff to heighten decision mak-ing and discussion, and this helped them as they refined theirproblem-solving process. The goal for their problem-solving teams was totrain members to be able to use the screening and progress monitoring datafor decision making. Team members were trained on the application ofdecision-making rules to data and also met one on one with classroom tea-chers who were bringing students to the team to help refine problem state-ments, creating goals that were observable and measurable.

School Outcomes

For Forrest Elementary, this RTI process of using progress monitoring data isongoing. Teachers have just completed their third year engaged in the pro-cess and look forward to implementing a three-tiered model in mathematicsthat includes formative assessment using CBM for screening and progressmonitoring. Data from 2006–2007 indicate that students are making progress.In the 2 years since implementation of the new core reading program andtiered intervention groups, along with screening and progress monitoringthroughout the year, the percentage of students at Tier 1 has increased from30% to 44%, the percentage at Tier 2 has remained about the same (anincrease from 26% to 27%), and a much smaller percentage of students havemoved to Tier 3 (a decrease from 44% to 31%). Basically, the percentage ofstudents at Tiers 1 and 3 has reversed, a cause for celebration at Forrest.


In addition, Forrest found that the short-duration CBM passage readingmeasures used for screening were highly related to other measures of studentperformance at their school, with a correlation of .96 for third grade on oneof the district reading tests, the Developmental Reading Assessment (Beaver,1997). Predictive validity coefficients from fall oral reading of passages pre-dicting to spring Developmental Reading Assessment reading level forfifth-grade students and to standard scores from the Scholastic ReadingInventory (Scholastic, 2003) for third-grade students were .80 and .87,respectively. Moreover, concurrent criterion validity between oral readingof passages for students in the spring and standard scores on the communi-cation arts subtest of the high-stakes tests administered in the state, the Mis-souri Assessment Profile (MAP; Missouri Department of Elementary andSecondary Education, 2007), was .75. The predictive validity coefficientbetween spring oral passage reading scores and scores on the MAP 1 yearlater was .74, indicating that about 55% of the variance in MAP scores couldbe explained by scores on a 1-min oral reading fluency test given a yearprior. This finding was especially important information for the administra-tors and staff at Forrest, because they want to be able to predict early onwho might be at risk for failure and want to be able to provide interventionto those students as early as possible. In addition, because the relationshipbetween the CBM passage reading measures and standardized tests givenin the district and state was so strong, teachers have more confidence thatthe short duration reading measures are good indicators of the same skillsthat are being tapped through the more lengthy standardized assessments.

There are other qualitative and quantitative indicators that the RTI sys-tem is working for the students at Forrest. This past fall, the school had100% attendance at fall parent–teacher conferences, at which many teachersshared graphed CBM screening and=or progress monitoring data with par-ents. Since the school implemented RTI and honed the problem-solving pro-cess, the number of referred students qualifying for special education hasjumped from 50% to 80%. This increase in the accuracy of student referralcan be attributed in part to the ongoing progress monitoring data that are col-lected from Day 1 on students that might be at risk, along with less subjectivedecision making by the problem-solving team when data enhance discussionon student performance. This increased accuracy of referral has also resultedin a reduction of needless testing time, and more time left for consulting, forthe school psychologist.

DISCUSSION

Forrest continues to look for ways to improve its existing model as it workstoward a goal of having 80% of students at Tier 1. The students at Forrest aremuch more aware of their individual and class performance, and progress


data are shared with parents on a frequent basis. Teachers challenge theirstudents and grade-level partners to increase the number of students who fallat or above the benchmark level at each screening period. Administrators ofother schools in the district are inquiring about the model that Forrest hasimplemented and are trying to determine whether the model might be agood fit for their schools. Teams from other school districts frequently visitForrest to observe how progress monitoring data are used in an RTI model.

To summarize, Forrest Elementary has some crucial elements in placethat make up its ‘‘keys to success’’:

. Administrator and staff commitment,

. The use of CBM for school-wide screening and progress monitoring,

. Attentiveness to an evidence-based core program and interventions, and

. Collaboration among staff.

These foundational elements have helped Forrest to move from being aschool at risk to being a model for other schools that want to make changesin the way they are serving their students.

Considerations for Potential Adopters

Schools inevitably differ in terms of the communities in which they are situ-ated, the demographics of the students who attend, the resources available,and the strengths of both the instructional staff and administrators. For thatreason, no one-size-fits-all approach is likely to work when developingand implementing an RTI model. The elements of the Forrest model are seenas vital to that school’s success, and they also provide a framework for poten-tial adopters considering the move to an RTI model.

As with any innovation, the commitment of a school’s administratorsand teachers is essential for successful adoption. Successful innovation islikely to follow when a process is organized that focuses on the needs andconcerns of the staff and the parents. Support for model development thatis both bottom up and top down likely will derive from ample opportunitiesfor administrators and teachers to see and hear about other models and toengage in substantive discussions around what they have learned. At Forrest,staff buy-in was crucial. This will certainly be true for any school consideringadopting an RTI model.

Universal screening is a first and essential element in all RTI models. TheForrest model relied on the use of CBM-type measures and the benchmarkcut scores recommended by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early LiteracySkills (Good & Kaminski, 2003) developers for screening. Although thosemeasures and benchmark scores for classifying students satisfied the needsof the Forrest staff, potential adopters need to address several questionsas they make decisions about their own screening measures. The most


important consideration in screening is, of course, accuracy. No screeningdevice is perfectly accurate. Any time a cut score is established for screeningstudents, two types of errors need to be minimized. The first is failing toidentify students who need a more intensive level of intervention (a moveto Tier 2 or Tier 3 at Forrest). The second is classifying students as needingmore intensive intervention who do not need that intervention. The first typeof error results in failure to provide necessary services to a student whoneeds them. The second type of error not only results in an unnecessaryintrusion into a student’s program but also increases the demand on schoolresources that are used to create more intensive interventions. As schoolsconsider adopting a particular approach to screening and classification, theyshould seek information about the accuracy of any approach they are con-sidering. In addition, they should consider which kinds of classificationerrors they are most concerned about and set their classification benchmarksaccordingly. For a more extended discussion of these issues, see the websiteof the RTI Action Network (http://www.rtinetwork.org/).

Just as accuracy is essential to effective screening and classification, sotoo must accuracy be the goal for the decision rule system used in theongoing reclassification of students. Multiple approaches exist for decidingwhether an intervention is effective for an individual student. To operateeffectively, RTI models must be dynamic and open to changes in procedureswhen the goals for the model are not being achieved. At Forrest, the goal isthat 80% of the students be effectively served in the core program. Movementin that direction has occurred, but achieving that goal requires makingchanges in the model. Although it was important that Forrest staff consideredvarious ‘‘evidence-based’’ programs, it has become necessary for them todevelop their own evidence base in making judgments about their RTImodel. It is to the credit of the school staff that they are not satisfied withtheir early success but are continuing to explore alternatives that producethe data outcomes that they seek for establishing their own evidence-basedRTI model.

REFERENCES

Beaver, J. (1997). Developmental reading assessment. Glenville, IL: CelebrationPress.

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. A., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review ofresponsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based andresearch-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23,381–394.

Cooper, J. D., & Pikulski, J. J. (2005). Houghton Mifflin reading: Rewards. Boston,MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative.Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.


Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal ofSpecial Education, 37, 184–192.

Englemann, S., & Bruner, E. (1995). Reading mastery I. Chicago, IL: SRA=McGraw-Hill.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilitiesconstruct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157–171.

Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technicalissues. Learning Disabilities: Research Practice, 18, 172–186.

Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurementresearch. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2003). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacyskills (6th ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Hoover, J. J., Baca, L. M., Wexler-Love, E., & Saenz, L. (2008). National implemen-tation of response to intervention (RTI): Research summary. Boulder: Universityof Colorado, Boulder–BUENO Center. Retrieved from http://www.nasdse.org

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005). School-wide posi-tive behavior support. In L. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supportsfor students with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior plans (pp. 359–390). New York, NY: Guilford.

Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2008). Field studies of RTI programs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.rtinetwork.org/Learn/Research/ar/FieldStudies

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. x 300.1 et seq.(2004).

Institute of Education Sciences. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading:Response to intervention (RtI) and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades.Available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee and http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publica-tions/practiceguides/

Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. (2000). Consumer’s guide to evaluating a core read-ing program: A critical elements analysis. Eugene: University of Oregon, Insti-tute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved from http://reading.uoregon.edu/resources.php

Missouri Department of Elementary, & Secondary Education. (2007). Missouri assess-ment program. Retrieved from http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/assess/

Scholastic. (2003). Scholastic reading inventory. New York, NY: Author.U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/Wilson, B. (1996). Wilson reading system. Millsbury, MA: Wilson Language Training.


Documents

One Elementary School's Implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI)