Response to Intervention: A Model
for Dynamic, Differentiated Teaching
The Dynamics of Dynamic Teaching
Effective teachers plan meaningful, engaging lessons that maintain a fine balance
between teaching content and teaching the processes for learning and thinking. As
a lesson unfolds, good teachers act diagnostically, assessing students‘ response at
each step. Based on measured responsiveness, instructors mediate learning
(remove misunderstandings) by differentiating instruction, materials, and or group
size, ensuring that all learners succeed (O‘Connor & Simic, 2002). Such seamless
coordination of ongoing assessment and differentiation creates dynamic,
synergistic teaching (Rubin, 2002; Walker, 2004). It‘s the initial step in a
Response to Intervention (RTI) Process where responsiveness indicates the extent
of the learner‘s achievement as a result of re-teaching (intervention) specifically
designed to address problems.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Key Concepts
Teaching diagnostically: teaching with continuous assessment of the learners’
level of understanding, areas of confusion, and other factors that affect
success followed by appropriate instructional adjustments.
Dynamic teaching: involves the analysis of changes in students’ performance
during instruction as well as probes of learners’ responses as a foundation
for successive instructional steps.
A Description of RTI
RTI is an instructional model that supports success for all students through
prevention, intervention, and identification. RTI models offer multiple levels
(tiers) of interventions based on children‘s responsiveness to student-centered
instruction and assessment. Fuchs and Fuchs (2009) suggest that the major goal of
RTI is ―to prevent long-term, debilitating academic failure‖ (p. 41).
RTI strives to guarantee universal access to achievement. Initial high quality
instruction from well-trained teachers prevents most problems. Continuous
dynamic teaching with ongoing assessment directs appropriate and timely
differentiation before difficulties escalate. When some children still fail to
© Taylor and Francis 2012
achieve, systematically planned interventions adjust intensity, duration, group
size, materials, and instructional strategies as the teacher mindfully mediates
learning (eliminates misunderstanding). Individual responses to instruction at
each point are carefully documented (Torgeson, 2009) in an RTI process.
Continued and persistent lack of success leads to identification for special
services. It‘s concluded that the child‘s lack of progress, despite systematic
interventions provided by well-trained teachers, is caused by a disability; he needs
specialized services that support learning (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Fundamental
components in a school‘s RTI framework are designed to create an effective
system for meeting all students‘ educational needs.
The RTI Process
RTI begins with universal screening (assessment) of all students‘ strengths and
needs (social, emotional, and academic). Results from multiple formal and
informal assessments are synthesized to determine students‘ baseline status.
Effective classroom teaching, using research-based instructional approaches, is
planned with knowledge gained from the screening. Ongoing progress monitoring
and data analysis across intervention levels (NRCLD, 2007) allow teachers to
note small changes and adjust instruction accordingly.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Most RTI models have three tiers of intervention (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, &
Saunders, 2009). Others differ in the number of levels, the person(s) responsible
for intervention delivery at specific levels, and whether the process precedes
identification for special education or becomes the eligibility screening for special
services (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003).
Key Concepts
Universal screening: a type of quick and economical assessment that allows
repeated testing of all children on age appropriate skills.
Research-based instructional approaches: include methodology that can
trace a connection to research as justification of usefulness.
Levels of Intervention
Fuchs & Fuchs (2009) advocate for a consistent RTI model with three levels—
primary (tier 1), secondary (tier 2), and tertiary (tier 3). Some states have four
tiers; the fourth tier becomes identification of eligibility for special education
(Berkeley et al., 2009). A few states have additional levels with increasingly more
specialized conditions for treatment, size of group, and time requirements. Fuchs
et al. (2003) caution that instruction at higher tiers typically becomes increasingly
© Taylor and Francis 2012
more disconnected from the classroom, making sustainable achievement difficult.
Too many levels lessen intervention potency because of a ―well-known inverse
relationship between instructional complexity and fidelity of implementation, the
greater the number of levels, the less practical RTI becomes‖ (p. 168). Regardless
of the number, assessment is ongoing across tiers of intervention and incorporates
multiple measures.
Tier 3 - 5% of
population. Intensive
intervention in very
small group or
individualized.
Tier 2 - 15% of population.
Targeted group intervention
Tier 1 - 80% of population. Core
Instructional Interventions in the
Classroom
Figure 1 Three-tiered model for RTI
Source Bender & Shores, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007; NASDSE, 2006; Vaughn
Wanzek, Woodruff, & Linan-Thompson, 2006
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Standardized and Standard Measures
As noted, students potentially at-risk are identified with universal screening
(school-wide) measures (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007) early in a school
year (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). In some schools, the previous year‘s standardized
test data on a school-wide level is used to target students below a certain
percentile. Standardized tests are generally regarded as formal (rigidly objective)
measures, although their claims of objectivity have been challenged (Johnston,
1992). Lyman (1998) describes a standardized test as one that ―has set content,
the directions are prescribed, and the scoring procedure is completely specified.
And there are norms against which we can compare the scores [convert actual
score to standard scores—e.g. percentiles, stanines] of our examinees‖ (p. 27).
Locally determined assessments are often used to support or refute the strength of
standardized test results.
In addition to or in place of standardized tests, schools also consider whether
established benchmark levels on a standard measure have been reached. An
assessment is standard when it is consistently administered and scored according
to specific directions (Shea, 2006).
I call these formalized informal measures because the administration procedure is
consistent (formalized), but the results are not reported in standard scores
(informal). Using a range of standard measures, data on learning is gathered
© Taylor and Francis 2012
during lessons as well as at the end of them; it‘s done throughout a unit of study
as well as at the culmination point.
Formative and Summative Assessment in RTI
Criteria defining responsiveness should be clear and universally applied It‘s also
critically important that teachers are well trained in multiple forms of formative
(ongoing, during lessons) and summative (used at conclusion of lesson, unit, or
grade) assessments and can administer them with fidelity (consistency in
administration and scoring) (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004).
Formative assessment occurs ―in the moment, within the lesson‖ (Shea, Murray,
& Harlin, 2005, p. 142). Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, and Wiliam, (2004) state
―assessment becomes ‗formative‘ when the evidence is actually used to adapt the
teaching work to meet learning needs‖ (p. 10). That‘s the same as dynamic
teaching. Formative assessment—on the way to summative ones—identifies
learning gaps in time to ameliorate them. Ongoing assessment with a variety of
sources has long been considered good teaching practice (Black et al, 2004). It
increases equity and efficacy in any decision making process.
Summative assessments are ―collected at the end or after the fact‖ (Shea et al.,
2005, p. xvi; Wiggins, 1998) identifying who didn‘t fully learn the concepts or
skills in the lesson, unit, or larger block of content. These students didn‘t reach
© Taylor and Francis 2012
the benchmark. Benchmarks constitute an established point of reference against
which a learner can be measured (Shea et al., 2005). Assessment on a benchmark
point becomes criterion-referenced. In other words, the child‘s performance
during and following the intervention is compared to anchor responses that
represent ―known standards of credible development‖ (Wiggins, 1998, p. 246).
Children deemed to be nonresponsive to (not benefiting from) instruction at any
level receive interventions that become increasingly individualized or geared
toward their specific need (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Thus, ―data about a student‘s
responsiveness to [each] intervention becomes the driving force‖ (Grimes, 2002,
p. 4) for planning further instruction. But, when only summative measures are
used, learning difficulties are not identified with timeliness—in time to nip them
in the bud. The educational and human consequences of that are huge and
unacceptable. A combination of assessment types increases overall student
achievement and leads to more accurate identification of nonresponders.
Multiple Measures for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities
(SLDs)
In line with the requirement of multiple criteria for determining learning
disabilities, the Learning Disabilities Summit concluded that the following
inclusionary criteria should be in place for SLD identification (Bradley,
Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002). The learner‘s:
© Taylor and Francis 2012
1. response to instruction, assessed through ongoing progress monitoring with
appropriate measures, is inappropriate and/or insufficient.
2. low achievement on state-approved grade level academic standards has also
been corroborated by state and/or national standardized measures.
3. low achievement is not caused by environmental, language differences, or
intrinsic factors that have been excluded (NRCLD, 2005, p. 3).
Compatible with the conclusions of this Summit, IDEA (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act) 2004 allows funds to be used for RTI services since
interventions at successive tiers offer additional data for sound decision making
on the eligibility (for special education) question. Beyond funding interventions,
the law explicitly states that children can only be identified for special education
services with documented evidence that low achievement is not the result of
inadequate instruction (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
Noting that current models for RTI are not especially sensitive to culturally and
linguistically different students, Klinger and Edwards (2006) propose a model that
integrates culturally sensitive instruction, differentiation, and assessment
throughout all tiers of intervention.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
The Trigger for Intervention
When the child is nonresponsive to instruction—as determined by documented
observation and valid assessment measures—interventions in successive tiers are
initiated (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Interventions include increased time, smaller
group size, different instructional strategies, or individualization when deemed
necessary (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
Children‘s responsiveness to these adjustments (i.e. their measured learning) is
examined. Fuchs & Fuchs (2006) emphasize that it‘s the student‘s ―classroom
performance [on curricular objectives], rather than test performance, that
determines responsiveness and eventual special education eligibility‖(p. 95) as
children move through degrees of intervention.
Determining Eligibility for Special Education
Typically, placement in special education is considered only after all interventions
have been exhausted. How long that takes varies; more tiers and longer intervals
within each increase time for intervention and postpone eligibility decisions.
Delayed transitioning through tiers brings the efficacy of any local RTI model
into question.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
In a review of state models, Berkeley et al. (2009) confirm that most states delay
decisions on special education eligibility until the child‘s responsiveness to tier 3
interventions has been fully evaluated. This makes any fourth tier a special
education placement.
Other states allow initiation of special education referrals in tier 2, making it
possible that tier 3 is an initiation of special education services. In the latter case,
tier 3 (tertiary) interventions are done with the resources and expertise of special
education professionals (Fuchs, Stecker, & Fuchs, 2008).
A few states allow special education referrals at any step in the RTI process
(Berkeley et al., 2009). Although criticized for inconsistency, RTI models are
conceptualized to improve on discrepancy models for SLD identification.
Significant Discrepancy Model
When SLDs were initially added as a category of disability in 1977, the U.S.
Office of Education indicated that a significant discrepancy (large enough
difference) between measured IQ and expected achievement would determine
eligibility for identification (Mercer, Jordan, Allsop, & Mercer, 1996). In essence,
the discrepancy model historically compared measured IQ with academic
achievement to determine if a large enough gap existed between the two for a
particular learner (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Often, this left children languishing; it took time within the educational system to
create the significant gap. In the meantime, children struggled, fell farther behind,
became frustrated, and lost self-confidence (Drame & Xu, 2008; Fletcher, Lyon,
Barnes, Stuebing, Francis, & Olson, 2002). This perpetuated a longstanding and
widespread ―wait to fail‖ policy (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003, p. 139) .
Other concerns with the discrepancy model were the overrepresentation of
minorities in special education, over- and under-identification of disabilities, and
biased referral and/or assessment protocols for special education (Donovan &
Cross, 2002; Drame, 2002). Thus, the discrepancy formula discriminated equally.
Too often, children in need struggled for a long time before they were identified
or help never came. On the other hand, labels were attached to children who were
more instructionally deprived than learning disabled (Fuchs et al., 2003).
Finally, the discrepancy model lacked immediate utility; it offered little
information for planning initial interventions. Further complicating matters, states
were allowed to decide on measures and standards of achievement in determining
the discrepancy, leading to considerable variability in the processes used and
numbers of children identified (Reschly & Hosp, 2004).
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Inflated Numbers: Misdiagnosis
Although there was some under-identification, typically the opposite was true
using the discrepancy mandate. It‘s estimated that between 1977 and 1994 the
number of students identified with disabilities rose from 8.3 to 12.2 percent of the
student population. SLDs increased from 22 to 46 percent of identifications for
special needs students while enrollment in public schools remained constant
during that period (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2001).
Since 1977, identification of students with SLDs has increased 200 percent
causing many to suspect misdiagnosis with false positives (over-identification of
students with high IQ and low achievement) and false negatives (underidentification of those with low IQ and below-average achievement) (Vaughn,
Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). Many began to question the efficacy of
SLD criteria.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
False negatives
False positives
True positives
Description
Relationship to Relationship to
Problem-solving Standard
Model
Protocol Model
Children do
well in higher
levels of
intervention,
but fail to
thrive when in
classroom.
Children who
appear
nonresponsive
and disabled
demonstrate
they are
neither with
effective
instruction.
Children who
really need
services are
identified.
Model less
Model likely to
likely to identify identify false
false negatives
negatives
Model more
likely to identify
false positives
Model likely to
identify true
positives
Figure 2 False Negatives versus False Positives
Continued and sometimes contentious debate of the discrepancy model led to
research, resulting in critical analyses related to definitions of and identification
processes for SLDs (Johnson, Mellard, & Byrd, 2005). With diligence, the chance
of error can be greatly reduced, but some is unavoidable. Educators continued to
© Taylor and Francis 2012
seek greater accuracy in distinguishing disability from lack of achievement due to
environmental and/or instructional factors (NRCLD, 2005). Although some still
have concerns about it, RTI emerged as a solution to over and under-identification
of SLDs (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).
A Paradigm Shift: Origins of RTI
While RTI is considered a relatively new approach by most, the concept is rooted
in research that dates back to the 1960s (Bender & Shores, 2007). RTI appears to
have been influenced by informal pre-referral models established by schools
seeking ways to lessen over-identification.
By the mid-1980s, pre-referral procedures gained momentum; they were widely
viewed as a solution to over-identification. Pre-referral amounted to teacher
modifications in the classroom (with instruction or environment) aimed at
meeting the needs of specific learners. The teacher or a team of educators from
various fields determined the nature of modifications. This process appeared to
lessen inappropriate referrals and validate the legitimacy of alternatives (Fuchs et
al., 2003); it may have influenced later legislation.
Before IDEA, 2004 was re-authorized, the President‘s (President Bush)
Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) was given the charge of
evaluating the current status of special education at all levels in the country. A
© Taylor and Francis 2012
conclusion of that group was that effectively delivered early interventions could
lessen learning disability (LD) identification—the largest population of students
identified for special education services (Drame & Xu, 2008).
When passed, IDEA 2004 incorporated a recommendation for intervention before
special education eligibility decisions are made. IDEA 2004 allows, but doesn‘t
mandate, schools to implement RTI as they move away from discrepancy models
for identifying children with SLDs.
Replacing the Discrepancy Model
Although RTI models are not nationally mandated, states are required—under the
re-authorization of the IDEA of 2004—to decide whether there‘s something more
reliable than historically used discrepancy formulas for identifying SLDs. The
new requirement led to swift implementation of some form of RTI in school
districts across the country (Berkeley et al., 2009; Bradley et al., 2005).
Berkeley et al. (2009) report that fifteen states have adopted an RTI model and are
in the process of implementation, twenty-two are developing a statewide model,
ten are providing guidance to districts working toward a local model, and three
have yet to adopt any RTI process. A few states have timetables for when the
discrepancy model for identification of SLDs will be phased out and/or
eliminated.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Regardless of whether or not the state has a specific RTI model in place,
88 percent of them are providing staff development on the concept, using
university and/or state resource centers. California has created a video, Response
to Intervention Training for California Educators; it‘s available via Webcast and
DVD (Berkeley et al., 2009).
RTI constitutes a significant policy shift in determining eligibility for special
education services (Drame & Xu, 2008). Drafts for language in the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left
Behind (2007) noted that RTI was required in state plans as a possible
intervention model or approach for low performing schools (Council for
Exceptional Children, 2007). Two distinct models and numerous variations of
RTI have emerged.
Common Threads in RTI Models
Whether a model is used in its purest form or created as a hybrid (blended
version), RTI implementations have similar components. Common steps include:
1. well-trained teachers providing all students with effective, appropriately
differentiated in-the-classroom instruction.
2. continuous, detailed progress monitoring during and after instruction to
determine those still at risk.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
3. multi-leveled interventions that systematically incorporate more intense
interventions in smaller groups for more time (Coleman, Buysse,& Neitzel,
2006). Struggling students get something else or something more from their
teacher or someone else. Students who need more challenging work also have
needs met.
4. Continuous, detailed progress monitoring of children receiving an intervention.
5. Review of eligibility for special services for those who remain nonresponsive
to instruction (Fuchs et al., 2003).
The first step in any RTI model is teacher effectiveness; it‘s the teacher that
makes the difference (Cole, 2003). That factor can significantly lessen the number
of children who need further interventions.
An assessment of teacher effectiveness at tier 1 is essential. This is accomplished
by comparing the overall rate of student achievement in a teacher‘s classroom to
that of similar classrooms in the building and/or district (Drame & Xu, 2008).
Achievement should also be evaluated for students in particular subgroups (e.g.
gender, linguistic background) within and across grades and schools to determine
if there are differences in patterns of progress (Drame & Xu, 2008).
Marston (2005) emphasizes the importance of tier 1 for RTI success stating that
―general education teachers must assume active responsibility for delivery of high
quality instruction, research based interventions, and prompt identification of
© Taylor and Francis 2012
individuals at risk while collaborating with special education and related service
personnel‖ (p. 541).
Children who continue to demonstrate nonresponsiveness (i.e. don‘t improve) on
benchmarks for progress are identified for more intensive intervention in small
groups of three to five students for 20–40 minutes a day. This is tier 2—
secondary intervention in all models. Children who continue to show
nonresponsiveness on tier 2 intervention are selected for more intensive
instruction in smaller groups or individualized for increased time periods (45–60
minutes daily) with a specially trained professional (e.g. literacy specialist, special
education teacher, speech teacher). This comprises tier 3—tertiary intervention.
Some schools allow tier 3 interventions to be delivered in very small groups;
others provide intensive individualized instruction by a specialist at that point
(Berkeley et al., 2009).
Two Models and Numerous Hybrids
There is no singular mandated model or process for RTI. Schools adopt and adapt
tenets of RTI when designing implementation for their site. For success, RTI
delivery must be a collaborative, integrated effort by general education, special
education, Title I and other support services (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009).
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Currently used RTI models have roots in two approaches that represent efforts to
ameliorate or prevent academic difficulties (Division for Learning Disabilities,
2007). Berkeley et al. (2009) report that two-thirds of the fifteen states using RTI
have implemented a hybrid version with elements from both approaches. They
note that practitioners favor a hybrid or problem-solving model while researchers
favor the standard protocol model.
In each model, classroom teachers are the first line of defense in a war against a
learner‘s failure to thrive. Walker-Dalhouse, Risko, Esworthy, Grasley, Kaisler,
McIIvain, and Stephan, (2010) suggest that ―teachers assuming responsibility for
adjusting instruction according to students‘ specific needs rather than following a
predetermined skill sequence … provide timely mediation of problems when they
occur‖ (p. 85). However, the shift in practice is not easy to achieve.
RTI requires new ways of thinking and collaborating as a continuum for
prevention and intervention is implemented in the school. All models emphasize
high quality teaching and differentiation; they also link with special education,
ensuring that students who remain at-risk despite levels of intervention are
screened for special needs.
A universal screening, using local or state standardized achievement test and/or
standard benchmark assessment, identifies children who are potentially at-risk.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Problem-Solving Model
Tier 1
Well-trained teachers provide effective differentiated instruction for all children during
initial instruction and carefully evaluate and document children‘s success on curricular
objectives. A student‘s responsiveness to instruction is referenced to the performance of
the larger population of students on local and/or state standards for the grade.
Tier 2
Intervention in small group incorporating valid, instructional practices deemed
appropriate for the individuals in the group with careful evaluation and documentation
of children‘s responsiveness. Team designed plan for intervention can be completed by
the classroom teacher, teaching assistant under supervision, or a resource teacher (e.g.
literacy specialist).
Tier 3
Fuchs, Stecker, & Fuchs (2008) suggest that this level is conducted with the resources
and expertise of special education professionals.
Hybrid Model: A blended model that incorporates elements from the problemsolving and standard protocol model.
Standard Protocol Model
Tier 1
Well-trained teachers provide effective differentiated instruction for all children during
initial instruction and carefully evaluate and document children‘s success on curricular
objectives. A student‘s responsiveness to instruction is referenced to the performance of
the larger population of students on local and/or state standards for the grade.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Tier 2
Intervention in small group incorporating research-tested, instructional treatment that
educators have been trained to use with fidelity. The same instructional treatment is use
for all children identified with a specific problem; it‘s usually implemented outside of
the classroom (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Detailed documentation of their responsiveness is
evaluated.
Tier 3
Fuchs, Stecker, & Fuchs (2008) suggest that this level is conducted with the resources
and expertise of special education professionals.
Figure 3 Two distinct models for RTI … and hybrids that blend elements of each
Problem-Solving Model
One model involves a problem-solving process (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Reschly
& Tilly, 1999). Fuchs et al. (2003) claim that a key feature of the problem-solving
model is that it is inductive—involving a search for explanations. No specific
category (gender, race, suspected disability, socio-economic status (SES),
demographic, or other variability) dictates the intervention no matter how
exclusive the group may appear to be. Possible solutions for a child‘s
nonresponsiveness to instruction are collaboratively induced (reasoned from an
analysis of pieces to a conclusion—from particulars to general) after a thorough
examination of progress monitoring data. The problem-solving model or a hybrid
model of it is more often selected by states and school districts; it traces its
© Taylor and Francis 2012
foundation to earlier pre-referral models previously discussed (Burns,
Vanderwood, & Ruby, 2005).
In the problem-solving model a child study team, comprised of school
professionals from various disciplines and areas of expertise, examine the case of
a student experiencing behavioral and/or academic difficulty. Collectively, they
propose an intervention strategy intended to solve the problem; the team proposes
how, when, and where the strategies will be applied. Ongoing data as well as
teacher observations, reflections, and conclusions are collected during the
intervention. The team analyzes this collection of information when it reconvenes
to consider the status of the problem and possible next steps from that point.
Across this shared decision making process, effective communication and
collaboration are essential (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007).
The problem-solving model is cyclical; steps are repeated. It‘s also triatic. It
includes the classroom teacher, consultant(s) (e.g. literacy specialist, special
education teachers) (Allington, 2009), and the student throughout the following
stages:
1. a definition of the problem expressed in observable, measurable terms;
2. collection of baseline data focused on the identified problem using a variety of
useful, reliable assessments to determine the severity, context, and frequency
of the problem;
© Taylor and Francis 2012
3. design of an intervention plan after a thorough analysis of data collected;
4. implementation of the plan;
5. ongoing monitoring and documenting of progress during implementation to
determine the child‘s responsiveness; and
6. revision of the plan, including re-definition of the problem (back to #1) based
on the child‘s progress (Fuchs et al., 2003; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
Standard Protocol Model
As in sites using a problem-solving or hybrid model of RTI, classroom teachers in
schools with a standard protocol model receive staff development on research
validated practices. They apply these techniques for differentiating instruction
when delivering tier 1—primary or preventive intervention in their classroom.
Classroom teachers include primary targeted interventions as part of their core
instruction (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). When learners are nonresponsive to primary
interventions, the standard protocol model calls for the use of a standardized,
research validated treatments (manner of instruction and/or resources used) in
tiers 2 and 3 of intervention.
Specific to the standard protocol model is that the intervention at levels beyond
tier 1 involves ―the use of the same empirically validated treatment for all
children with similar problems in a given domain‖ (Fuchs et al., 2003, p. 166)
© Taylor and Francis 2012
offered by educators trained to implement the specific treatment with fidelity.
Fuchs et al. (2003) suggest advantages for this model; everyone knows what to
implement, a large number of children receive an effective intervention, and those
doing the instruction are trained to deliver it with fidelity. However, there‘s also
criticism of standardizing treatments.
Allington (2009) states that ―there is no reason to expect that any single
intervention focus will be appropriate‖ (p. 33) for all students in a category.
Rather than relying on a specific commercial program, effective teachers use
multi-leveled, multi-genre resources in activities geared toward individual needs
(Allington & Johnston, 2002). They understand that the most potent interventions
begin with a good match between the student, the task, and the learning outcome
(Allington, 2009).
Across all RTI models there‘s a continuous pull between prevention and
identification of SLDs; the key is balancing resources for effectiveness in both
realms.
Making RTI Work
Regardless of whether a site chooses to use the problem-solving, standard
protocol, or a hybrid model, considerable effort and finances must be extended to
make it work seamlessly and effectively. All teachers need to be trained in
© Taylor and Francis 2012
collaboration, problem identification, problem-solving, differentiated instruction,
specific assessment tools, instructional practices, and progress monitoring. Staff
development should particularly emphasize instruction, materials, and assessment
sensitive to cultural and linguistic diversity (Drame & Xu, 2008).
It‘s no surprise that students, particularly those at-risk, are less likely to learn in
classrooms that lack high quality instruction, strong organization, effective
management, and respect for diversity (Donovan & Cross, 2002). The National
Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) (2006) states that
competent professionals with noted expertise in particular areas of training should
be hired by schools to conduct staff development (SD); they should be invited to
return for follow-up sessions and consultation. Schools can‘t expect teachers to be
fully competent after one-shot staff development presentations.
Many schools have begun implementing RTI—even with limited resources—
(Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009) while others have been experimenting with various
forms of intervention over the past twenty years (Jimerson, Burns, &
VanDerHeyden, 2007). Examples of successful district-wide RTI implementation
can be found across the U.S. (Jimerson, et al, 2007; NASDSE, 2006). The number
of states using RTI increases as educators realize the possibility of providing all
children with whatever they need to reach their full potential.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Document Progress with Curriculum-Based Measures (CBMs)
Along with universal screening, the RTI process begins with teacher observation
during day-to-day instruction in the general education classroom. Although they
often consult with colleagues, share ideas, and elicit suggestions, classroom
teachers are responsible for delivering high quality, differentiated instruction to
all students in their classroom (Drame & Xu, 2008).
Once potential at-risk students are identified, a system for continuous monitoring
is initiated. Such monitoring may be brief (1–3 minutes per student) or slightly
longer to determine a student‘s responsiveness to instruction. It involves a
reliable, valid CBM—one associated with desired academic outcomes identified
by the school for students at that level (Stecker, Fuschs, & Fuchs, 2005).
Although there‘s concern about the quality of particular instruments (Francis,
Santi, Barr, Fletcher, Varisco, & Foorman, 2008), teachers understand that
appropriate assessments pinpoint sources of confusion when administered
effectively and accurately interpreted in a timely manner. Targeted instructional
adjustments that follow have the potential to resolve most problems (Fuchs, Deno,
& Mirkin, 1984). Reducing the number of children experiencing extended
difficulties allows schools to direct resources and personnel toward those who
continue to need additional help (VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007).
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Running Records: Formative and Summative Curriculum-Based
Measures
Running Records (RRs), discussed in the text associated with this website, meet
the requirements for a valid, useful assessment tool when used effectively. They
provide a reliable CBM of literacy acquisition. There isn‘t another assessment that
provides as much information on a child‘s literacy development as a running
record. It‘s efficient, timely, and reliable data that‘s immediately available and
highly useful for planning targeted instruction (Shea, 2000).
As previously mentioned, Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) recommend that in-theclassroom performances on curriculum-based objectives be the measure of
responsiveness to instruction. RRs indicate a reader‘s fluency of decoding and
depth of comprehension on a leveled text selection. Successful reading
performance involves an integration of these multiple skills for text and meaning
processing.
The information gleaned from a running record of the child‘s oral reading and
retelling has direct instructional utility. It‘s used to plan the next teaching step.
Formative RRs provide information ―on-the-spot, increasing the likelihood that
materials, objectives, instruction, and learning activities are on target‖ (Shea,
2006, p. 16).
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Sometimes RRs are administered as a benchmark measure, determining the
learner‘s level of performance at a given point in time and comparing that to an
expected target score. When RRs are taken for this purpose, Shea (2006) suggests
the following protocol.
 The reading passage is new. It hasn‘t been previously heard or read by the
student.
 Standard procedures for administering and scoring the record are followed.
 The reader works independently throughout the assessment
Running records assess multiple aspects of a child‘s literacy development (e.g.
decoding skills, fluency, vocabulary knowledge, comprehension, and expressive
language skills) in a reasonably short period of time. Accumulated RRs present
evidence of growth or lack thereof in each component as well as the child‘s ability
to fluidly integrate skills.
The text associated with this website introduces the marking codes for each kind
of miscue that readers make. It also further suggests when and why teachers use
RRs for formative and benchmark data.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Extending the Discussion
• Review the following article to examine where your state falls in the RTI
national initiative. An online version of the article can be found at:
http://ldx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/1/85. Published by
Hammill Institute on Disabilities and Sage. Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N.,
Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of Response to
Intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1),
85–95.
• Discuss local RTI practices in a faculty meeting. What‘s working well? Where
could changes be made?
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Bibliography
Allington, R. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention. New York,
NY: Pearson.
Allington, R. & Johnston, P. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from exemplary
4th grade classrooms. New York, NY: Guilford.
Bender, W. N. & Shores, C. (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide
for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009).
Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 42 (1), 85–95.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working
inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86, 9–21.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (6), 485–486.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L. & Hallahan, D. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of
learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M. L., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of
pre-referral intervention teams for use in a problem-solving model. School
Psychology Quarterly, 20 (1), 89–105.
Cole, A. (2003). It‘s the teacher, not the program. Education Week. March 12,
p. 3.
Coleman, M. R., Buysse, V., & Neitzel, J. (2006). Recognition and response: An
early intervening system for young children at risk for learning disabilities. Full
report. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG
Child Development Institute.
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (9/5/2007). Untitled letter to Chairman
Miller and Ranking Member McKeon. Retrieved 9/25/2007, from
www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Content_Folders&TEMPLATE
=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8905.
Division for Learning Disabilities. (2007). Thinking about response to
intervention and learning disabilities: A teacher’s guide. Arlington, VA: Author.
Donovan, M. S. & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted
education. National Research Council Committee on Minority Representation in
Special Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Drame, E. (2002). Sociocultural context effects on teachers‘ readiness to refer for
learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69 (1), 41–53.
Drame, E. & Xu, Y. (2008). Examining sociocultural factors in response to
intervention models. Childhood Education, 85 (1), 26–32.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., & Olson,
K. R. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based
evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.). Identification of
learning disabilities: Research to practice, pp. 185–250. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning
disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.
Fletcher, J. M. & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and
remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3 (1), 30–37.
Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco, A., & Foorman, B.
R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students‘ oral reading fluency using
DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 315–342.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What,
why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 93–99.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disability
by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-tointervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities
construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18 (3), 157–171.
Fuchs, D., Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Tier 3: Why special education
must be the most intensive tier in a standards-driven, No Child Left Behind world.
In D. Fuchs, L.S. Fuchs, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), (2009). Response to intervention: A
framework for reading educators, pp. 71–104. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to
intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 14–20.
Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2009). On the importance of a unified model of
responsiveness to intervention. Child Development Perspectives, 3 (1), 41–43.
Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., &. Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent
curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on student achievement,
pedagogy, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research
Journal, 21, 449–460.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Grimes, J. (2002). Responsiveness to interventions: The next step in special
education identification, service, and existing decision-making. Paper presented at
Office of Special Education Programs LD Summit Conference, Washington, DC.
Haager, D. & Mahdavi, J. (2007). Teacher roles in implementing interventions. In
D. Haager, J. Klinger, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for
response to intervention, pp. 245–264. Baltimore MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Inferring program effects for
specialized populations: Does special education raise achievement for students
with disabilities? Unpublished manuscript.
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden. A. M. (2007). Handbook of
response to intervention. Springfield, IL: Charles E. Springer.
Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Alternative models of learning
disabilities identification: Considerations and initial conclusions. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38, 569–572.
Johnston, P. (1992). Constructive evaluation of literate activity. New York, NY:
Longman.
Klinger, J. K. & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to
intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (1), 108–117.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Lyman, H. (1998). Test scores and what they mean (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention:
Prevention outcomes and learning disabilities identification patterns. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice. 38, 539–544.
Mercer, C., Jordan, L., Allsop, D. & Mercer, A. (1996). Learning disabilities and
criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 19,
217–232.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). (2006).
Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria,
VA: Author.
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD). (2005).
Responsiveness to intervention in the SLD determination process [Brochure].
Lawrence, KS: Author.
O‘Connor, E. A. & Simic, O. (2002). The effect of reading recovery on special
education referrals and placements. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (6), 635–646.
Reschly, D. J. & Hosp, J. L. (2004). State SLD policies and practices. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–213.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
Reschly, D. J. & Tilly, W. D. (1999). Reform trends and system design
alternatives. In D. Reschly, W. Tilly, and J. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in
transition, pp. 19–48. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Rubin, D. (2002). Diagnosis and correction in reading instruction. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Shea, M. (2000). Taking running records, New York, NY: Scholastic.
Shea, M. (2006). Where’s the glitch?: How to use running records with older
readers, grades 5–8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Shea, M., Murray, R., & Harlin, R. (2005). Drowning in data?: How to collect,
organize, and document student performance. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based
measurement to increase student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in
the School. 42, 795–819.
Torgesen, J. (2009). The response to intervention instructional model: Some
outcomes from a large-scale implementation in reading first schools. Child
Development Perspectives, 3 (1), 38–40.
© Taylor and Francis 2012
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation
of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on the identification of
children for special education. Journal of School Psychology. 45, 225–256.
Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate
response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137–146.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., &. Hickman, P. (2003). Response to treatment
as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 69, 391–409.
Walker, B. (2004). Diagnostic teaching of reading (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Walker-Dalhouse, D., Risko, V. J., Esworthy, C., Grasley, E., Kaisler, G.,
McIIvain, D., & Stephan, M. (2010). Crossing boundaries and initiating
conversations about RTI: Understanding and applying differentiated classroom
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63 (1), 84–87.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and
improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
© Taylor and Francis 2012